01-15-92 Agenda and Packet AGENDA
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 15, 1992 , 7 : 30 P.M.
CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE
CALL TO ORDER
1. Election of Chair and Vice Chair for 1992 .
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2 . Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Interim Use Permit for Screened
Outside Storage on property zoned BF, Fringe Business District
for Progress Valley Storage, located at 1900 Stoughton Avenue,
Gary Brown and Gary Dungey.
OLD BUSINESS
3 . Zoning Ordinance Amendment concerning Non-conforming
Recreational Beachlots and to receive a non-conforming use
permit.
4 . Zoning Ordinance Amendment Concerning PUD Residential
Standards.
NEW BUSINESS
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
ONGOING ITEMS
ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS
OPEN DISCUSSION
5. 1992 Goals .
6. Discussion of Sign Ordinance Issues.
ADJOURNMENT
CITY of
0CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director
DATE: January 9 , 1992
SUBJ: Organizational Items
a. Election of Chair and Vice Chair
The Planning Commission should make nominations and select a
Chair and Vice Chair for 1992 .
b. Adoption of Planning Commission By-laws
The By-laws should be reviewed and adopted every year by the
Planning Commission. The Commission should discuss any
comments or changes they feel necessary at this time.
c. Liaison Attendance at City Council Meetings
In the past, a schedule has been formulated where all the
Planning Commissioners would rotate attending the City Council
meetings. However, in 1991, Steve Emmings elected to attend
all City Council meetings. The Commission should discuss
whether or not to elect one person to attend or to schedule
all commissioners on a rotating basis during the year.
d. Liaison Attendance at Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Meetings
The Planning Commission has not had a person attending the HRA
meetings since the resignation of Jim Wildermuth. The
Commission should discuss whether they wish to have a person
attend these meetings.
OW
r, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
BYLAWS
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
The following bylaws are adopted by the City Planning Commission
to facilitate the performance of its duties and the exercising of
its functions as a commission established by the City Council
pursuant to the provision of Subdivision 1 , Section 462 .354
Minnesota State Statutes anotated.
SECTION 1 - Duties and Responsibilities - Planning Commission:
1 . 1
The Planning Commission shall serve as an advisory body to the
City Council through carrying out reviews of planning matters .
All final decisions are to be made by the City Council.
1 . 2
The Planning Commission shall prepare a Comprehensive Plan for
the future development of the City and recommend on amendments to
the plan as they arise.
1 . 3
The Planning Commission shall initiate, direct, and review the
provisions and standards of the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision
Regulations and report its recommendations to the City Council .
1 . 4-
The Planning Commission shall review applications and proposals
for zoning ordinance amendments , subdivisions , street vacations ,
conditional use permits and site plan reviews and make their
recommendations to the City Council in accordance with the Zoning
Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance.
1 . 5
The Planning Commission shall hold public hearings on development
proposals as prescribed by the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances .
1 . 6 - Establishment of Subcommittees
The Planning Commission may, as they deem appropriate, establish
special subcommittees comprised solely of their own members .
SECTION 2 - Meetings:
2 . 1 - Time
Regular meetings of the Commission shall be held on the first and
third weeks of each month at 7 : 30 p.m. at the City Council
Chambers , 690 Coulter Drive , unless otherwise directed by the
Chairman , in which case at least 24 hours notice will be given to
all members. Regular meetings shall have a curfew of 11: 00 p.m.
which may be waived at the discretion of the Chairman . All
unfinished business will be carried over to the next regular
Planning Commission meeting.
When the regular meeting day falls on a legal holiday, there
shall be no Planning Commission meeting .
2 . 2 - Special Meetings
Special meetings shall be held upon call by the Chairman, or in
his absence, by the Vice-Chairman or any other member with the
concurrence of four other members of the commission, and with at
least 48 hours of notice to all members . Notice of all special
meetings shall also be posted on the official City Bulletin
Board.
2 . 3 - Attendance
Planning Commission members shall attend not less than seventy-
five ( 75% ) percent of all regular and special meetings held
during a given ( calendar ) year , and shall not be absent from
three ( 3 ) consecutive meetings without prior approval of the
Chairman. Failure to meet this minimum attendance requirement
shall be cause for removal from the Commission by action of the
City Council .
SECTION 3 - Commission Composition, Terms and Vacancies:
3 . 1 - Composition
The Commission shall consist of 7 voting members . Seven members
shall be appointed by the Council and may be removed by the
Council .
3 . 2 - Terms and Vacancies
The Council shall appoint seven members to the Commission for
terms of three years . Vacancies during the term shall be filled
by the Council for the unexpired portion of the term. Every
appointed member shall before entering upon the charge of his
duties take an oath that he will faithfully discharge the duties
of his office. All members shall serve without compensation .
3 . 3 - Quorum
Four Planning Commission members shall constitute a quorum for
the transaction of business . Whenever a quorum is not present,
no final or official action shall be taken at such meeting.
-2-
SECTION 4 - Organization:
4 .1 - Election of Officers
At the first meeting in January of each year, the Planning
Commission shall hold an organization meeting. At this meeting ,
the Comission shall elect from its membership a Chairman and
Vice-Chairman. This shall be done by secret ballot. Each member
shall cast its ballot for the member he wishes to be chosed for
Chairman. If no one receives a majority, balloting shall con-
tinue until one member receives the majority support.
Vice-Chairman shall be elected from the remaining numbers of the
same proceeding .
If the Chairman retires from the Planning Commission before the
next regular organizational meeting , the Vice-Chairman shall be
Chairman. If both Chairman and Vice-Chairman retire, new offi-
cers shall be elected at the next regular meeting. If both
Chairman and Vice-Chairman are absent from a meeting, the
Commission shall elect a temporary Chairman by voice vote .
4 . 2 - Duties of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman
The Chairman or in his absence, the Vice-Chairman, shall preside
at meetings , appoint committees from its own membership, and per-
form other such duties as ordered by the Commission .
The Chairman shall conduct the meeting so as to keep it moving
rapidly and efficiently as possible and shall remind members ,
witnesses and petitioners to preserve order and decorum and to
keep comments to the subject at hand.
The Chairman shall not move for action but may second motions .
SECTION 5 - Procedure:
5 . 1 - Parlimentary Procedure
Parlimentary Procedure governed by Roberts Rules of Order Revised
shall be followed at all regular meetings . At special work
session meetings , and when appropriate, the Commission may hold
group discussions not following any set parlimentary procedures
except when motions are before the Commission.
SECTION 6 - Public Hearings:
6 . 1 - Purpose of Hearings
The purpose of a hearing is to collect information and facts in
order for the Commission to develop a rational planning recommen-
dation for the City Council .
6 . 2 - Hearing Procedure
At hearings the following procedure shall be followed in each
case:
•
-3-
a . The Chairman shall state the case to be heard.
b . The Chairman shall call upon the staff to present the staff
report. Required reports from each City Department shall be
submitted to the Planning Commission before each case is
heard.
c . The Chairman shall ask the applicant to present his case .
d . Interested persons may address the Commission, giving infor-
mation regarding the particular proposal .
e . Petitioners and the public are to address the Chairman only,
not staff or other commissioners .
f . There shall be no dialogue among the Commissioners , giving
information regarding the particular proposal .
( The Planning Commission members may ask questions of persons
addressing the Commission in order to clarify a fact, but any
statement by a member for any other purpose than to question
may be ruled out of order. )
g . After all new facts and information have been brought forth ,
the hearing shall be closed and interested persons shall not
be heard again . Upon completion of the hearing on each case,
the Planning Commission shall discuss the item at hand and
render a decision . The Planning Commission if it so desires ,
may leave the public record open for written comments for a
specified period of time .
h . The Chairman shall have the responsibility to inform all the
parties of their rights of appeal on any decision or recom-
mendation of the Planning Commission .
6 . 3 - Schedule
At meetings where more than one hearing is scheduled, every
effort shall be made to begin each case at the time set in the
agenda , but in no case may an item be called for hearing prior to
the advertised time listed on the agenda.
SECTION 7 - Miscellaneous:
7 .1 - Planning Commission Discussion
Matters for discussion which do not appear on the agenda may be
considered and discussed by the Commission only when initiated
and presented by the staff and shall be placed at the end of the
agenda .
7 . 2 - Suspension of Rules
The Commission may suspend any of these rules by a unanimous vote
of the members present.
-4-
7 . 3 - Amendments
Amendment of these bylaws may be made at any regular or special
meeting of the Planning Commission but only if scheduled on the
meeting agenda in advance of the meeting.
7 . 4 - Review
At the first meeting in January of each year , these bylaws shall
be read and adopted by the Planning Commission.
Adopted: Date:
Chairman
-5-
CITY OF
PC DATE: 1/15/92k' •
CHA1HASE CC DATE: 2/10/92
�y .r CASE #: 87-2 CUP,
92-1 ZOA, 92-1 IUP
• lsen•v
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: 1. Conditional Use Permit to Allow Rental of Trucks
and Trailers.
2. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Allow Screened
Outdoor Storage as an Interim Use Permit in the BF,
Z Fringe Business District.
Q3 . Interim Use Permit to Allow Screened Outdoor
VStorage.
LOCATION: Northwest corner of County Road 10 and Hwy. 212
a
APPLICANT: Gary Brown Gary Dungey
1831 Koehnen Circle 1910 Stoughton Avenue
Excelsior, MN 55331 Chaska, MN 55318
PRESENT ZONING: BF, Business Fringe District
ACREAGE: 14 acres
DENSITY:
ADJACENT ZONING AND
LAND USE: N - A2 ; vacant
S - A2 ; single family
E - A2 ; single family
W - A2 & BF; single family and Gedney Pickle
WATER AND SEWER: Not available to the site.
PHYSICAL CHARACTER. : The site was farmed and slopes toward the
northwest.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Agriculture
Brown/Dungey CUP
January 15, 1992
Page 2
BACKGROUND
On May 4, 1987, the City Council approved a conditional use permit
for a mini-storage facility (Attachment #1) . The conditional use
permit was approved with the following conditions:
1. One tree for every 40 feet be provided along the berm
between the vehicular area and right-of-way and the berm
must be two feet high.
2 . A description of the plantings proposed meeting the
minimum standards of six feet high (evergreens) and two
and one-half inch caliper (deciduous) .
3 . The landscaped areas must be sod or seeded.
4 . A detention basin should be included in the
site drainage plan and be designed to limit
the on-site runoff to the pre-development rate
for a 100 year storm event.
5. If possible, align Stoughton Avenue site access with
driveway access on the south side of Stoughton Avenue.
6. Parking areas and access drives shall be paved with a
dust free, all weather surface built to a 4-7 ton
capacity.
7 . Concrete curb and gutter will be required only along the
outer edge of the perimeter drive around the site.
8 . No outdoor storage is permitted.
9 . Submission of an emergency access easement agreement.
10. Installation of a 1,500-2, 000 holding tank, plus
installation of a one gallon toilet, a spring loaded
faucet, a float alarm, and a man hole over the system if
located underneath a driveway.
11. Permit chain link fence of 6 feet in height around
perimeter.
The applicant has completed one of three phases of the mini-storage
facility, and is in the process of constructing phase 2. In
September of 1991, staff visited the site to determine if the site
was in compliance with the conditions of approval. Upon inspection
of the site, staff found that there was outdoor storage of boats,
U-haul vehicles, etc. , which is in violation of condition #8.
Brown/Dungey CUP
January 15, 1992
Page 3
Condition #7 also has not been met. All of the other conditions of
approval have been met.
Staff sent the applicant a letter stating the outdoor storage was
in violation of the conditional use permit and the rental of trucks
was a separate conditional use in the BF district. The letter
further stated that the applicant must apply for an amendment to
the original conditional use permit for the outdoor storage and
must apply for a new conditional use permit for the rental of
trucks.
On November 6, 1991, the Planning Commission reviewed the
conditional use permit amendment to allow outdoor storage and a
conditional use permit to allow rental of trucks and trailers in
the BF District. The Commission recommended tabling action on the
item until the City Attorney could review whether or not the zoning
ordinance had to be amended to allow outdoor storage in the BF
District. During the discussion by the Planning Commission, it was
stated that if outdoor storage was to be permitted in the BF, it
should be permitted as an interim use permit.
Staff contacted the City Attorney, who agreed that the best way to
address this issue would be to amend the ordinance to specifically
allow outdoor storage as an interim use permit in the BF District.
Staff advertised the zoning ordinance amendment to add screened
outdoor storage as an interim use in the BF District.
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
Gary Brown and Gary Dungey, the owners of Progress Valley Storage,
have made application to receive a conditional permit to permit
rental of trucks and have applied for an interim use permit for
outdoor storage in the BF District. The site is located south of
Hwy. 212 in the BF district. Currently, uses in the BF District
are only allowed by conditional use permits and those are limited
to the following:
Motor fuel stations without car washes.
Truck/Trailer rental.
Utility services.
Cold storage and warehousing.
Brown/Dungey CUP
January 15, 1992
Page 4
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW TRUCK AND TRAILER RENTAL
The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit
for the existing rental of U-haul trucks and trailers. The trucks
and trailers will be stored where the outdoor storage is proposed.
The Zoning Ordinance permits truck/trailer rental in the BF
District as a conditional use permit. There are no specific
conditions for truck/trailer rental, but there are the following
general conditions:
1. Will not be detrimental to or enhance the public health,
safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the
neighborhood or the city.
1. The site currently is a commercial use and the addition
of an accessory commercial use will not be detrimental to
the neighborhood and city.
2 . Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's
comprehensive plan and this chapter.
2 . The site is designated as commercial and the proposed use
is consistent with the designation.
3 . Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to
be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended
character of the general vicinity and will not change the
essential character of that area.
3 . The site is currently being used as a mini-storage
facility, which is a commercial use. The addition of
truck rental does not change the character of the site
nor will it change the essential character of the area.
4 . Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned
neighboring uses.
4. The use will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing
or planned neighboring uses.
5. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and
services, including streets, police and fire protection,
drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems
and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities
and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible
for the establishment of the proposed use.
Brown/Dungey CUP
January 15, 1992
Page 5
5. The use will be served adequately by essential public
facilities and services.
6. Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities
and services and will not be detrimental to the economic
welfare of the community.
6. The use will not create excessive requirements for public
facilities and services.
7. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials,
equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental
to any persons, property or the general welfare because of
excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare,
odors, rodents, or trash.
7 . The use will not be detrimental to any persons or
properties.
8 . Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not
create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or
surrounding public thoroughfares.
8 . The site has existing access which has not caused any
problems. The addition of truck rental should not create
any traffic conflicts.
9 . Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar
access, natural, scenic or historic features of major
significance.
9 . The use will not result in the destruction or loss of
features of major significance.
10. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area.
10. The use is not proposed to be screened from surrounding
properties. The site is surrounded on three sides by
residences. The use is aesthetically compatible with the
site, but not necessarily with the area.
11. Will not depreciate surrounding property values.
11. The addition of a visual impact on surrounding properties
could depreciate surrounding property values. The fact
that the use is within an existing commercial site should
reduce the impact on surrounding properties.
12 . Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in
this article.
Brown/Dungey CUP
January 15, 1992
Page 6
12 . There are no specific standards for truck/trailer rental .
The truck and trailer rental will also be partially visible from
surrounding properties. If this were an original application,
staff would be recommending approval with the condition that the
storage of trucks and trailers be screened. The existing condition
of the site makes complete screening of the trucks and trailers
difficult to impose. Staff is recommending screening in the form
of landscaping between the truck and trailer storage area and
surrounding homes to the south, east, and west. The truck and
trailer storage will continue to be partially visible from Highway
212 .
With the addition of landscaped screening, staff feels the rental
of trucks and trailers at this site could be permitted since it is
currently allowed as a conditional use in this district and since
it fits with the existing use of the site.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following
motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use
Permit #87-2 for the rental of trucks and trailers with the
following conditions:
1. The applicant shall provide a landscaped screen with six
foot high minimum evergreens along the fence line at the
southwest corner of the site.
2 . The storage of the trucks and trailers shall be confined
to the area as shown on the site plan and the area shall
have a gravel surface.
3 . The applicant shall provide a landscaping plan acceptable
to the Planning Commission and a letter of credit shall
be submitted to cover the cost of material installation
and one year warranty. "
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ADD SCREENED OUTDOOR STORAGE AS AN
INTERIM USE PERMIT IN THE BF DISTRICT
Currently, the Zoning Ordinance does not permit screened outdoor
storage within the BF district. Screened outdoor storage is
permitted in other business districts within the city as a
conditional use permit (BH, CBD, and IOP districts) . There is one
other mini-storage facility located in the BF district which was
permitted outdoor storage as part of the conditional use permit.
Brown/Dungey CUP
January 15, 1992
Page 7
In this case outdoor storage can only be provided to persons who
are renting a storage bay. Each storage bay was allowed 1,200
square feet of outdoor storage for a total of 9, 600 square feet.
The outdoor storage was only permitted within the parking area
where it was screened by existing vegetation and topography and
excluded junk vehicles, construction debris, appliances, and any
items determined by staff to be unsightly and warrant indoor
storage. The outdoor storage was to be reviewed annually at which
time the city could require additional screening or removal of
certain items.
Since screened outdoor storage is permitted in other
business/commercial districts within the city, staff feels it could
also be an appropriate use in the BF district, but only if it is
totally screened as required in all other districts. The BF
district is not serviced by city sewer and water and uses permitted
in the BF district should be ones that do not require sewer and
water. Screened outdoor storage does not require sewer and water.
Allowing screened outdoor storage as an interim use permit allows
the city to establish an expiration date for when the use would no
longer be appropriate at that location.
tECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends approval of Zoning Ordinance
Amendment #92-1 to add Article XX, BF, Fringe Business District,
the following to Section 20-775, Interim Uses:
(3) Screened outdoor storage.
Amend Division 4 , Standards for Business, Office, Institutional and
Industrial Districts by adding the following:
Section 20-294. Screened outdoor storage.
The following applies to screened outdoor storage:
(1) All outdoor storage must be completely screened with
100% opaque fence or landscaped screen. "
INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR SCREENED OUTDOOR STORAGE
The applicant is requesting an interim use permit for outdoor
storage at the mini-storage facility. When the original
application was reviewed by the Planning Commission and City
Council, staff recommended a 100% opaque fence, as is required by
the zoning ordinance for commercial uses adjacent to residential
uses. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the
conditional use permit with staff's condition for screening of the
site. The City Council permitted the conditional use permit with
Brown/Dungey CUP
January 15, 1992 •
Page 8
a chain link fence. The applicant wished to have the chain link
fence for visibility from the street for police and fire
protection. Therefore, the site is not screened from adjacent
property.
The outdoor storage is proposed to be confined to where phase 3 of
the mini-storage facility is proposed and will be removed when
phase 3 is developed (Attachment #2) . The outdoor storage is on an
unimproved surface. The area for outdoor storage should be
improved with a gravel surface to define the area of storage and
allow maintenance of the site. There is no proposed screening for
the outdoor storage. Since the site is fenced with chain link
fence it will be difficult to now provide screening for the outdoor
storage. The outdoor storage is partially visible from Hwy. 212
and Stoughton Avenue.
A condition of the interim use permit to allow screened outdoor
storage is that the outdoor storage be totally screened by a 100%
opaque fence or landscaped screen. Although the site is in the BF
district and has had requirements for commercial sites waived in
the past, staff still feels those requirements should be upheld.
The city is in the process of reviewing the BF district and how the
area can be improved. Allowing unscreened outdoor storage does not
improve the current status of the area. Therefore, staff is
recommending that outdoor storage not be permitted unless it can be
completely screened as required in other commercial districts.
RECOMMENDATION
Planning staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt
the following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Interim Use Permit
#92-1 to permit outdoor storage with the following conditions:
1. The outdoor storage shall be completely screened by a 100%
opaque fence or landscaped screen.
2 . The area for screened outdoor storage shall be improved with
a gravel surface.
3 . The outdoor storage will be removed from the site upon
completion of phase 3 of the mini-storage facility.
4 . The applicant shall provide a landscaping plan acceptable to
the Planning Commission and a letter of credit shall be
submitted to cover the cost of material installation and one
year warranty. "
Brown/Dungey CUP
January 15, 1992
Page 9
ATTACHMENTS
1. City Council minutes dated May 4, 1987.
2. Planning Commission minutes dated November 6, 1991.
3 . Site plan.
271
City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987
really feel bad about that. It's an unfortunate thing that happened but I
certainly hope it doesn't happen again.
Councilman Johnson: When you say the engineer, I would like to comment that
the soil borings given by his consultant that he hired showed it to be good.
I do work with soil borings and it's hard for me to believe that we missed a 4
to 5 foot deep seam of peat with two soil borings in it.
Larry Brown: If I may make one other comment. The preliminary plat that was
given to McCombs-Knutson, there had been an error in it at the time the soil
borings were taken and that might account for a portion of that bad soil.
Being that the cul-de-sac mentioned Stellar Court was 10 feet off-line. It
was shifted 10 feet.
Councilman Geving: I still don't think that's a good excuse. This damm thing
is 30 feet wide.
Resolution *87-36: Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to
approve the Change Order Request for Lake Lucy Road. All voted in favor and
motion carried.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR MINI-STORAGE FACILITIES ON PROPERTY ZONED
B-F, FRINGE BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF TH 212 AND
STOUGHTON AVENUE, GARY BROWN.
Jo Ann Olsen: Just today we received these letters. One is from the LCR
Corporation and the other one is from the City of Chaska. The letter from
. . Chaska states that they feel that the mini-storage should provide sewer and
water to the site and that they are not in total agreement that that is an
acceptable use for that area. The letter from LCR is commenting that the
reduced requirement for Gary Brown's mini-storage proposal versus what they
were required to provide for mini-storage in the Business Park.
Councilman Geving: How do they propose us getting sewer and water to that
site? It doesn't make much sense does it.
Mayor Hamilton: Maybe they would like to pay for it.
Councilman Geving: We're only about 10 miles from the nearest connection.
Don Ashworth: I think they have water and sewer that's relatively close. I
don't know if they are proposing. •
Councilman Geving: I didn't see an offer in here.
Councilman Johnson: Do you remember a previous, was it last Council meeting
the City of Chaska had a letter in our Administrative Section saying that they
couldn't extend it out to Merle Volk's property for sewer and water to that
point according to the Metropolitan Waste Control 'Commission. It should be
pretty much the same here if they say they can't go past the boundaries there.
17
N • r
City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987
Jo Ann Olsen: The Planning Commission approved the Conditional Use Permit
with Staff's conditions and then they also added three conditions which is the
applicant shall provide fire protection for each building and the site plan
shall be reviewed by someone knowledgable in fire protection. The applicant
shall provide four soil borings for City approval to determine if two
treatment sites are available and third, that everything stored on the site
must be stored within the buildings. Since the Planning Commission meeting,
Staff has met with the applicants twice and we have also had the plan
reviewed by our fire expert. As far as the septic system, the applicant has
suggested providing a holding tank and we've consulted our consultant, Roger
Na_hmeier, and he has stated that for a small use, a holding tank would be
permissible on the site. Another issue was also the fencing and the fire
person we talked with stated that a chainlinked fence would be preferable for
safety protection. Steve Madding, who we spoke with about fire, also stated
that they wanted turn arounds on the site provided for the fire trucks. They
also wanted the walls of the buildings to be completed up to the ceiling so
there would be no attic area. They also recommended that the heat protector
be provided within the building. Finally, a second means of access is going
to be provided by one of the applicants who lives adjacent to the property.
So essentially all the concerns have been met. The applicant has provided us
with a new plan. He has provided a turn around area for the fire trucks.
This is where the easement will be provided for the secondary emergency
access. We will be working for the detailed landscaping plan. Other than
that, the plan now meets what the Planning Commission's hesitation on the
conditional use permit. Staff is recommending that the City Council approve
the conditional use permit with the addition of submission of an emergency
access agreement and the installation of a 1,500 to 2,000 holding tank plus
installation of a one gallon toilet, a spring loaded faucet, a float alarm and
a man hole over the system if located underneath a driveway.
Mayor Hamilton: Gary, do you have any comments you would like to make?
Gary Brown: No. We've met everything that we've been asked to do. We would
like to pick up a permit tomorrow and build this thing.
Councilman Johnson: Cr the prints here they have two signs noted. Right at
Stoughton and Th 212 there is the word sign and over by the storm water
detention area a big word sign. I see no mention of what is intended here.
Are you putting up signs here or is that just the County sign that's sitting
there?
Gary Brown: There is one by the berm area up front. There will be a sign
yes.
Councilman Johnson: And that's an off-site sign?
• Gary Brown: Right. According to the way I understand it, we can put a sign
also on TH 212. We can have one on each highway.
Councilman Johnson: Does the sign have to be on your property?
Barbara Racy: Yes.
18 •
273.
City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987
Councilman Johnson: Is this on your property? The one up at the point of TH
212 and Stoughton? The one that's not supposed to be there. There is one by
your entrance and it says sign here and sign here. There is on sign down
here. That's a guy's frontyard.
Gary Brown: That's not ours. Our sign would be down by the entrance and be
on our property.
Jo Ann Olsen: The signs will have to go through the sign permit process.
Councilman Johnson: I went down and looked at the site. I do agree with
Chaska, this is the entrance to their City and I have nothing on here showing
me what you want to propose as far as an elevation. Give me an idea of what
we're looking at here. All I see is roofs. I can go from the worse to the
best and I have no idea what I'm going to see here.
Gary Brown: Grading will stay approximatey where it is. There is very little
grading.
Councilman Johnson: I mean construction of the building.
Gary Brown: One story.
Councilman Johnson: I would like to see an architectural .design of it to see
what this is going to look like.
Gary Brown: You have that here.
Councilman Johnson: We have that?
Mayor Hamilton: Did you want Gary to explain how high it is or are you going
to keep him from answering?
Gary Brown: There are 7 foot poles so that means you have about 15 feet to
the peak of the ceiling. 29 gauge metal. The same thing that pole barns and
machinery sheds and that stuff.
Councilman Johnson: I'm very concerning on painting, the looks and whatever
of this.
Gary Brown: So are we and that's why we're going with colored metal. Black
buildings always bleed through and you are forever painting it. If you get
colorclad metal, it's on there and it stays on there.
Mayor Hamilton: Do you have a copy of the elevations there Jo Arm?
Jo Ann Olsen: Yes.
Councilman Johnson: It's more a structural drawning than anything else.
Councilman Horn: What Jay's asking for, isn't that something we typically
require. It seems like we review this type of a drawing.
19
273,
City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987
Councilman Johnson: Is this on your property? The one up at the point of TH
212 and Stoughton? The one that's not supposed to be there. There is one by
your entrance and it says sign here and sign here. There is on sign down
here. That's a guy's frontyard.
Gary Brown: That's not ours. Our sign would be down by the entrance and be
on our property.
Jo Ann Olsen: The signs will have to go through the sign permit process.
Councilman Johnson: I went down and looked at the site. I do agree with
Chaska, this is the entrance to their City and I have nothing on here showing
me what you want to propose as far as an elevation. Give me an idea of what
we're looking at here. All I see is roofs. I can go from the worse to the
best and I have no idea what I'm going to see here.
Gary Brown: Grading will stay approximatey where it is. There is very little
grading.
Councilman Johnson: I mean construction of the building.
Gary Brown: One story.
Councilman Johnson: I would like to see an architectural .design of it to see
what this is going to look like.
Gary Brown: You have that here.
Councilman Johnson: We have that?
Mayor Hamilton: Did you want Gary to explain how high it is or are you going
to keep him from answering?
Gary Brown: There are 7 foot poles so that means you have about 15 feet to
the peak of the ceiling. 29 gauge metal. The same thing that pole barns and
machinery sheds and that stuff.
Councilman Johnson: I'm very concerning on painting, the looks and whatever
of this.
Gary Brown: So are we and that's why we're going with colored metal. Black
buildings always bleed through and you are forever painting it. If you get
colorclad metal, it's on there and it stays on there.
Mayor Hamilton: Do you have a copy of the elevations there Jo Ann?
Jo Ann Olsen: Yes.
Councilman Johnson: It's more a structural drawning than anything else.
Councilman Horn: What Jay's asking for, isn't that something we typically
require. It seems like we review this type of a drawing.
19
274
City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987
Councilman Johnson: Generally. Last year they went to great expense for rock
face and everything else that the downtown wanted. I just went over to Eden
Prairie and looked at one over at Eden Prairie today and it's the same. Nice
looking brick and everything. I'm concerned. . .
Gary Brown: You've got to remember we're building between Gedney Pickles and
the dui.
Mayor Hamilton: Yes, just keep in mind where they are proposing this site to
be. The one that was proposed for the Industrial Park was a totally different
ballgame. It was in a different area culpletely.
Councilman Johnson: The City of Chaska seems to be concerned about it too.
Mayor Hamilton: Maybe Chaska ought to tend to their own business.
Councilman Johnson: Just because the City of Chaska on the other side of the
railroad tracks is dumpy is no reason for us to—.I don't think Gary is
putting anything up dumpy, I just don't know what he's putting up yet. What's
your color scheme?
Gary Brown: Earth tones. We went through the color schemes and everything
with Staff.
Councilman Johnson: Staff, did you have any comments on color scheme,
whatever?
Jo Ann Olsen: Earth tones.
Councilman Johnson: Why concrete curb and gutter? I saw some of the folks on
the Planning Commission had trouble with this. I think Gary was saying that
they want concrete curb and gutter in here on some areas. I'm not totally
sure where you.are looking for it and how many feet you're talking about. Why
are we asking for this?
Gary Brown: Since that time we have come to the agreement that it's going to
be rolled asphalt around the outside. It's going to be field all the way
around this thing.
Barbara Dacy: If I can clarify. We had agreed that you would construct a 4
. to 7 ton paved surface but our recommendation still stands as to the perimeter
of the site which is going to be concrete curb.
Councilman Johnson: What perimeter are you taking about?
Gary Warren: The exterior perimeter of the parking. Not internal curbs
around buildings. Outside the parking area.
Councilman Johnson: That looks like a whole lot of linear feet of curb and
gutter.
Gary Brown: You're right.
20
275
•
City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987
Gary Warren: To be consistent with the- Ordinance and also trying to control
drainage off the site somewhat that the curbing is ...
Councilman Johnson: It certainly will last longer. There is one storage area
up in Roseville where the back of the storage areas people operate businesses
out of. I want to make sure that we are not going to allow that here. That
has happened in the past in other locations.
Gary Brown: There's not even electricity inside the buildings.
Barbara Dacy: It's not allowed by the Ordinance.
Councilman Johnson: Have any neighbors had any comments since this?
Mayor Hamilton: The neighbors are Gary bungee and one other person.
Councilman Johnson: I went out and looked at it, like I said, and most of the
neighbors have their own shielding as far as the opaging of the fences. It
would just be the traffic out on TH 212 driving by that would have the view.
I guess I don't have a lot of problems with the opaqing since the neighbors in
the area are pretty well sheilded by their own shurbery and fences. You said
your partner in on this is one of the neighbors?
Gary Brown: Yes. He lives right next door.
Councilman Geving: I think one item we should have included here on page 6 is
item 11. We talked about the chainlinked fence all the way through this but
didn't include it as one of the conditions so I would like to include that as
number 11. Tb add the chainlinked fence of 6 feet that wraps around the
entire storage facility. I'm very much in favor of this project and I'll tell
you w::>, When we did .the zoning designation for this particular area of TH
212, we designed it for business fringe and businesses such as yours was
really what we had in mind. Open storage areas, I really wish we could have
put Roman Roos' building down there. It would have made it a lot easier but
this is what I had in mind when we put this together. I had a couple
questions on this detention basin. It's listed as item 4 in there. I didn't
see any plans of that going to be done. Could you explain that Barb where
that detention basin is going to be placed?
Jo Ann Olsen: It shows on the plan. The huge area on the north here.
Councilman Geving: It's kind of natural low area there anyway.
Gary Brown: It's a natural swale down in there now which we are doing a study
on it through the engineers.
Councilman Geving: 4ihere is this landscaped area that's going to be sodded?
Gary Brown: The front berm area. Right along Stoughton Avenue there and then
the berm along the other side there will be seeded.
Councilman Geving: I have no comments. I'm very much in favor of the
21
City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987
project. It's an improvement to the area and I really don't case what Chaska
- has to say about the sewer and water and other comments.
•
Councilman Horn: I don't have any comments.
Mayor Hamilton: I don't either. I think it's a good project. It's the type
of project we wanted in that area as Dale has said. I'm not sure why there
has been so much trouble with this project. I feel bad about that. I really
do because it's a very straight forward project and an awful lot of screwing
around for a cold storage facility but I'm glad to see we're to the point
where it can be approved and get on with building it and get some storage
accomplished. Any other questions?
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the Conditional Use
Permit #87-2 subject to the site plan stamped "Received April 30, 1987" and
the following conditions:
1. One tree for every 40 feet be provided along the berm between the
vehicular area and right-of-way and the berm must be two feet high.
2. A description of the plantings proposed meet the minimum standards of
six feet high (evergreens) and two inch caliper (deciduous) .
3. The landscaped areas rust be sod or seeded.
4. A detention basin should be included in the site drainage plan and be
designed to limit the on-site run-off to the pre-development rate for
a 100 year storm event.
5. If possible, align Stoughton Avenue site access with driveway access
on the south side of Stoughton Avenue.
6. Parking areas and access drives shall be paved with a dust free, all
weather surface built to a 4 to 7 ton capacity.
7. Concrete curb and gutter will be required only along the outer edge
of the perimeter drive around the site.
8. No outside storage is permitted.
9. Submission of an emergency access easement agreement.
10. Installation of a 1,500 to 2,000 holding tank, plus installation of a
one gallon toilet, a spring loaded faucet, a float alarm, and a man
hole over the system if located underneath a driveway.
11. Chainlinked fencing at .6 feet high be around the perimeter of the
storage area.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
22
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 6, 1991
Chairman Emmings called the meeting to order at 7:30 p .m . .
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad , Steve Emmings , Brian Batzli , Jeff Farmakes
and Joan Ahrens
MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Erhart and Annette Ellson
STAFF PRESENT: Jo Ann Olsen , Senior Planner and Kate Aanenson , Planner II
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR PROGRESS VALLEY STORAGE ON PROPERTY
TONED BF . FRINGE BUSINESS AND LOCATED AT 1900 STOUGHTON AVENUE, GARY BROWN
AND GARY DUNGEY.
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report . Chairman Emmings called the
public hearing to order .
Gary Brown : I 'm Gary Brown . I represent Progress Valley. To address the
U-Haul situation . That 's what we rent is U-Haul trucks down there
primarily . Once in a while there 's -a couple trailers come in , stragglers
and we try to get rid of those right away because we have gross down there
and we don 't like hooking them up so that 's pretty incidental . But I
think , I know as far as that goes , that 's a lot better place to that those
U-Haul trucks I believe sitting down there with very minimal visibility
than they are sitting over here in the middle of town I think . And as far
as , I read through the staff report and stuff on this and they 're
recommending that we put in some evergreens along the southwest corner and
we don 't have any problem with that . It will make it look a lot prettier .
- And as far as a gravel base goes underneath where we 're going to park these
things , we don 't have any problem with that . We can handle that . And
people do need a place to park their big boats and motorhomes and such like
that because I think it looks better parking them down there in the field
than it does parking them all over the city .
Emmings: Can I ask you , what kind of stuff is being stored outside? I 'm
not talking about the trucks right now but just what kind of outside
storage was there?
Gary Brown: There 's I believe 2 or 3 motorhomes there and a couple of
boats and I believe one construction trailer .
Emmings: Okay . And if on the map that we 've got here of your .
Gary Brown: If we put it in that back corner over there , the only person
that 's reallygoing to have to see it is a person who lives right next to
the storage center who happens to be my partner who 's here , Gary Dungey .
Emmings : Okay , so the outside storage you 're proposing is the area that 's
in the box on that?
Gary Brown: Correct .
Planning Commission Meeting
November 6 , 1991 - Page 2
Emmings: Then as far as where you keep the trucks and other things that
you rent out , where are those kept?
Gary Brown: We 've been keeping them so to speak in the backyard right now .
Behind the building .
Emmings: Well , where on the map though?
Gary Brown: Right about over in this area over in here . Where this open
land is right in here . So that is visible by 212. If we put them back
over in this corner , that would be .
Emmings : Be less so .
Gary Brown: That would be less visible if that 's what you want to see .
Emmings : Now I noticed that the original approval required trees every 40
feet and a berm . Was that done?
Olsen : They do have the landscaping in .
Emmings : That was required by the original , okay .
Olsen: They just don 't have the concrete curb .
Emmings : Okay . Is there anything else you 'd like us to take into
consideration here?
Gary Brown: No . I think you guys are doing a great job .
Conrad: Oh sure Gary .
Gary Brown : You don 't believe that Ladd?
Emmings: At least we 're doing okay so far .
Gary Brown: So far tonight we 're doing great .
Emmings: Okay , thanks . Anybody else that would like to say anything about
this application? If not , is there a motion to close the public hearing?
Batzli moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Emmings: Let me understand . I have some trouble understanding the
conditions listed on page 5. Are you proposing that we adopt?
Olsen: No . What happened is you didn 't get the , those are .
Emmings: They don 't look like conditions .
Olsen: Right . Those are the 12 , those aren 't conditions .
Emmings: These are criteria?
Planning Commission Meeting
November 6 , 1991 - Page 3
Olsen: Those are the 12 criteria that, those are the answers to each one .
It looks like the criteria itself did not get in . Vicki did not get those
in .
Batzli : These are the answers to the questions .
Olsen: Those are the answers to the criteria .
Conrad: Ah , now you come up with the questions .
Emmings : Okay . So we read the answers and make up the questions .
Batzli : We 'll play Jeopardy .
Olsen: They 're in the ordinance . I apologize . I didn 't notice that .
Emmings: Okay , so the recommendations are over here . Now in the
recommendations you 're talking about evergreens in the southwest corner .
Where 's the southwest corner? Which way is north on our map?
Olsen: This is north .
Emmings: So you want screening where?
Olsen: In this area . It is close to the residents . I know that 's the
applicants that live there but when you drive down Stoughton Avenue , it 's
very visible in here to where the storage is and there are residents all
along here . So it 's an area to try and screen.
Emmings: So are you figuring , you 're putting the screening there because
you assume he 'll be parking the trucks in that corner? Where that box is?
Olsen: Right . That 's where they 're proposing to keep the outside storage
and the U-Hauls .
Emmings: Oh okay . I see condition 2 you 've got , okay . Let 's see what
comments we 've got up here . Ladd .
Conrad: Outside storage we require . We require all outdoor storage to be
screened?
Olsen: Yes .
Conrad: Are there any exceptions?
Olsen: Not recently . The way it 's stated in the ordinance , it 's screened
outside storage .
•
Conrad: And it is screened not necessarily. You said we could adopt some
conditions of landscaping but right now our standards for screening is ,
would these meet our current requirements for outside screening?
Olsen: No . It wouldn 't be totally screened . Plus when you have
commercial adjacent to residential , there 's' supposed to be a 6 foot high
Planning Commission Meeting
November 6 , 1991 - Page 4
opaque fence and that 's not there either .
Conrad: And so under what rationale could we not set a precedent by
allowing this? In fact there 's no residential , well .
Olsen: There is residential .
Conrad: Well , I don 't want to put words . There are residential houses
there .
Olsen: What 's been used in the past is the fact that it 's been on 212 and
it 's in the BF district but that doesn 't , I feel that it should still be
upheld .
Conrad: Truck and trailer rental . By screening this Jo Ann , are these
buildings there right now?
Olsen: No .
Conrad: They 're not there so really we 're right out in the open . So we 'd
be putting up a fence in that area?
Olsen: No .
Emmings: No , that 's fence isn 't it?
Olsen: Yeah , this already .
Conrad : I 'm talking about where we store .
Olsen: There won 't be any fencing .
Gary Brown: Maybe I can help explain this . The whole project now is
fenced all the way around .
Olsen : With a chainlink fence .
Gary Brown: There 's 7 acres here all completely fenced in. And we have
trees .
Conrad: That 's within it?
Gary Brown: This is within it , correct . This will remain. We 've got 4
buildings up and full . The fifth slab is poured and we 're waiting to put
the building up now . The snow kind of slowed things up a little so what
we 're really asking to do is until we get the next three buildings up ,
which will be hopefully in the next 2 to 3 years , that will eliminate this
problem because then we won 't have any room for outside storage.
Everything will be confined . So what 'we 're trying to do is we 're trying to
supplement , we 're trying to get some income in there to use that area to
help defray all the costs . We kind of got surprised with that new
watershed thing and some things like that that got very expensive on us .
So by renting out some U-Haul trucks and things like that , we can defray
some of the costs . So I think what Jo Ann 's proposed and correct me if I 'm
Planning Commission Meeting
November 6 , 1991 - Page 5
wrong is to put some more evergreens along here to screen that from the
residential area . Correct?
Olsen: Yeah .
Gary Brown: I don 't want to throw a monkey wrench into this deal but the
one thing is , when we first planted all the trees down there , we put some 6
and 7 foot evergreens in . Like about a dozen of them and we lost every
one . We put 50-3 footers in and we 've never lost one . We had the nursery
come down and it 's such sandy soil down there that those big ones , they
can 't get going in that soil . The guy told us we were kind of wasting our
money by putting those big ones in but now those other ones have been in
there 2 years and they 're about this tall right now . I realize what we 're
trying to do is screen it and I don 't want to goof that thing up but I
think it 's kind of futile to put in 6 and 7 foot evergreen trees when
they 're not going to last . Like I say , I don't want to goof it up . I
agree whole heartedly with what staff recommends here . But I also want the
thing to look nice and I don 't want to spend a lot of money on something
that isn 't going to work . We bought a lot of trees from Conky Bros . and we
had so much trouble they came down and tested the soil and little ones will
grow wonderful in this . Big ones , they won 't . They won't grasp because of
their size and because of the soil conditions . We have taken sand as far
down as you can dig . Does that answer the question on that?
Conrad: Yeah it does . So the outside screening doesn 't count as
screening? The outside chainlink doesn 't count as screening of this area?
Olsen: I wouldn 't consider a chainlink screening .
Emmings : My recollection there Ladd is the Planning Commission said you
had to use , recommended opaque fencing around the entire site and then when
it went to City Council , that was changed from opaque to chainlink . Am
I right?
Olsen: Yes .
Gary Brown: It was changed for the reason of security and fire . If it 's
all screened in , I mean people could be in there breaking into the units
and nobody would ever see it . And another thing is fire . A fire could be
going in there and until it got higher than the fence , nobody would know
what 's going on . So everybody , the Fire Department , the Police Department
and everybody agreed that it was a lot better idea to do it this way . To
screen it at that time .
Conrad: Okay . In terms of the trailer truck rental . It is a permitted
use .
Olsen: It 's a conditional use .
Conrad : It is a conditional use . And right now Gary you've got those , are
you dependent on TH 212 for visibility to promote it?
Gary Brown: It sure helps .
Planning Commission Meeting
November 6 , 1991 - Page 6
Conrad: Yeah . You know drive by 's your best .
Gary Brown: Yeah . It 's great advertising having a U-Haul truck sitting
along there where they can see it .
Conrad: That 's what you want . Staff 's position is no . Try to give me a
synopsis . No because?
Olsen: We say no for the outside storage just because number one with the
use , the rental of the trailers were kind of on the fence with that one .
But that 's where we added the conditions where we feel more comfortable
with it .
Conrad: A couple of things . Detrimental to the neighborhood . Will not be
hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighborhood uses . Will not
be detriment to . . . I 'm not sure where I 'm at on this one . If you think
about it in Chanhassen , Gary brought up an interesting point in downtown
where we have trailer rental . It 's not my favorite site for it . It 's got
to be someplace . It should be someplace and I don't know how it works
here . But this should be a place where we can rent trailers in Chanhassen
so I have a tendency to want to make it work someplace , I just don 't know
how it works down there and if we 've got the right standards . It seems
like a logical place to put it but I don 't know that I 'm real comfortable
yet that we 've got the right standards for that . Maybe we do . I guess I 'd
like to hear somebody else talk about that from that perspective . It's not
that we shouldn 't have trailer rental . Truck and trailer rental in Chan .
There are better places for it than on our main street . And is this a good
location and do we have , trailer rental should be visible . If you want to
compare to a business person , that 's a great way to promote it and we
don't need to not let that person promote it so the question is , is this
the right place and do we have the right standards to guard the
neighborhood? Maybe someone can persuade me one way or another . Right now
I don 't know .
Gary Brown: We basically have two neighbors . We have Al Cohen who lives
right on the corner of 212 and Stoughton there and then Gary Dungey on the
other side .
Emmings: You haven 't been asked yet . If he asks you a question that 's one
thing . Otherwise .
Gary Brown: I thought he was asking a question. I 'm sorry.
Conrad : Yeah , I was sort of addressing the Planning Commission .
Emmings: He 's musing . Ladd 's in one of his musing. He 's posing questions
for us to answer .
Conrad: I 'm trying to let them persuade me Gary but yeah , I know what you
have for residents . Or very close . I guess my concern is I 'd want to have
you visible there . I 'd want it to be presented in the best possible way
and I 'm concerned with 212 traffic . I 'd want it to look good . As much as a
truck trailer place could look and what I don't know is that we 've got , I
Planning Commission Meeting
November 6 , 1991 - Page 7
•
don 't know that we 've set the standards to make that look good and maybe we
have . That 's why I 'm sort of saying to these folks . . .
Emmings : Jo Ann , we 've got a mini-storage place up here on TH 5 . Did we
make it a condition of their approval that they not do outside storage?
That 's the only other one we 've got in Chanhassen isn 't it?
Olsen: Right . That one 's totally screened . Totally opaque .
Emmings: Opaque fencing?
Olsen: Right . You can 't see inside .
Emmings : Okay but there we said no outside storage that would protrude
above the opaque fencing?
Olsen: Correct .
Emmings: But did we say no outside storage?
Olsen: That I can 't .
Emmings: I seem to remember there was not outside storage that you could
see above but the idea that we didn 't want to see outside storage .
Olsen: Right .
Emmings: Okay . And now wait , there 's another one down at the end of TH 101
. there and TH 212 . Isn 't there some kind of storage in there too?
Olsen: Mike Sorenson 's?
Emmings: It 's very small .
Olsen: Yes .
Emmings: Is that screened? There 's not outside storage there?
Olsen: No . It used to be screened by trees . Now it 's not screened .
Emmings: But is there outside storage allowed there?
Olsen: I believe there was not . I think that 's been a pretty much
standard condition .
Emmings : Okay . Alright , Brian?
Batzli : Yes .
Emmings: Okay Jeff? It 's your turn Brian .
Batzli : Well , I was trying to figure out here whether this wouldn 't be
better handled as an interim use . Since we don 't allow this under the
Planning Commission Meeting
November 6 , 1991 - Page 8
conditional use , what 's the difference between us approving this as an
interim or conditional use? If we decide to approve the outside storage .
Olsen: What 's the difference with the outside storage?
Batzli : Yes . Would it make any difference to you or the City if we
approved it one way or another since it 's not a permitted use under either
one of those categories .
Olsen: Well I think you 'd have to amend the ordinance to make outside
storage an interim use .
Batzli : And not as a conditional use?
Olsen: You could do it either way that you 'd want .
Batzli : I 'm just trying to ask . Would we have to amend the ordinance to
approve this as a conditional use?
Olsen: Outside storage , yes .
Batzli : But you said in our thing here that if we decide to approve it ,
we 're just supposed to do it with certain conditions .
Olsen: As an amendment to the conditional use permit . You 'd be removing
the condition that outside storage would not be permitted .
Batzli : But in addition to that we 'd have to amend the ordinance to do it
as a conditional use?
Olsen : No .
Batzli : Why not?
Olsen: I talked that over with Roger and no we don't because we can do it
as part of the conditional use . The original conditional use .
Batzli : I 'm not tracking . It 's not one of the uses 'allowed by the
ordinance under the conditional use . It 's not allowed under interim use .
Olsen: Right .
Batzli : Why can we do it under the conditional use?
Olsen: As a part of the mini-storage . As an accessory part of the
conditional use .
Batzli : It 's not an allowed permitted accessory use .
Olsen : No it 's not .
Batzli : What I would like to do , if we 're going to look at this , is decide
whether or not we want to allow these outside storage as it applies to
anybody and not just this particular applicant if we 're going to do this .
Planning Commission Meeting
November 6 , 1991 - Page 9
And so I would , I don 't know . I don 't have enough information about
whether we want to allow other people to do that down in the BF district .
As far as the truck trailer rental , I think that 's fine .
Emmings : Okay . And so I 'm clear on what you just said . You 're agreeing
basically with what the staff report said? It said no outside storage but
the truck rental you think . . .
Batzli : Right but if we 're going to allow outdoor storage , I may allow
that but then I want to change the ordinance to allow everybody to do it .
Emmings: Yeah , okay .
Conrad: Wait , wait . We don 't allow outdoor storage period .
Batzli : Well it 's defined in here but I don 't know where it 's used .
Conrad: I thought we did when it was screened but we don't .
Emmings : We do allow outside storage . That 's not accurate because I can
think of lots of examples where we do .
Conrad : But now I 'm starting to question .
Emmings: But it 's always been screened . We have the dock place over here
and they had to put up opaque fencing . We had the mini-storage . They had
to do opaque screening in order to have outside storage . Those are the
only two that come right to mind .
Olsen: All of the other business districts .
Emmings : Oh , right here off of the end of this street there was outside
storage of something . The little street that ends in a cul-de-sac right
off the end of Kerber .
Conrad: So is this particular to the BF district? Is this just particular
to the BF district?
Olsen: Yes . The only business district that doesn't have it is the BF
district .
Conrad: Okay .
Olsen: And I think the reason for that was when we did the BF district we
essentially took what was down there and there was an outside storage so .
Conrad: Yeah , yeah .
Emmings : Jeff .
Farmakes: On the completion of Phase 3 . When you talked about the
completion of Phase 3 where you remove outside storage . Do you have a time
frame?
Planning Commission Meeting
November 6 , 1991 - Page 10
Gary Brown: When we fill them all up Jeff .
Farmakes : Okay , so this is a progressive schedule . It 's not a building
schedule but it 's a progressive situation?
Gary Brown: Yeah .
Farmakes : So for instance the completion of Phase 3 may not occur for 10
years?
Gary Brown: Let 's hope not but you 're right .
Batzli : If I could interrupt . My proposal would be to look at allowing it
as an interim use and then saying you can do it for 2 or 3 years but then ,
that 's right .
Farmakes : If at that point when you complete Phase 3 , where would these
trucks go?
Gary Brown: We either have to find a different area for them or come back
in or we have to give them up . One or the other .
Farmakes : I would be somewhat concerned about this . I don't think that
makes sense that you 'd want to store that I guess as a temporary use . What
concerns me is that 's sort of an open ended time frame . If there was a
limit on there , give you a limit I could see that as being a sensible
compromise to the problem . The problem 's not addressed though . I 'm also
concerned , in seeing literature from Ryder and U-Haul , part of the
franchise suggestion in location of the signage that is on the trailers
themselves is to billboard it in such a way that it 's seen from the highway
obviously and U-Haul 's very large on the trailers purposedly so if you line
them all up , they create a signage effect . Versus having one sign up there
that says U-Haul here , you 've got 40 or 50 lined up in a row say
potentially . And in some cases the trucks are quite tall . Big large
trailers . So you get outside of the storage issue and it actually becomes
potentially a signage situation . I think as a separate issue , maybe that 's
something to deal with in a signage ordinance that we 're looking at . Also
on these issues of what do we do with these outside trailer situations .
Suggestion anyway .
Gary Brown: If you let us put them back there where we want to , then you
wouldn 't have this billboard effect . It would be nice if you 'd let us put
one out there along 212 . If you don 't want us to put one along 212 , that 's
you guy 's business . That 's your priviledge but all we 're asking is to keep
them and keep them back there in that corner where it isn't in anybody 's
way .
Farmakes: And I 'm not listing that as what you 're proposing . I 'm just
saying potentially if you make a precedent for that , that somebody else may
not be trucks and trailers . It may be something else . But in an outside
storage situation , what is painted on the side of it or whatever the intent
there is , I guess you still get sort of a visual . . . So I agree here that
that maybe a separate issue to look at and if there 's a fixed time , maybe
Planning Commission Meeting
November 6 , 1991 - Page 11
that 'd be the best way to go . That you would eliminate the trailers out of
there . . .temporary .
Emmings: Joan . Well how about , sorry to interrupt you but you addressed
the truck thing . What about the outside storage?
Farmakes: I grouped that in there .
Emmings : Oh okay . So you wouldn 't be opposed to allowing outside storage
either if it was under those same conditions?
Farmakes: On a temporary situation . I think based on what 's already been
approved in here . That would be a reasonable sort of thing .
Emmings : Okay . Joan , go ahead .
Ahrens : As to the truck and trailer rental , the zoning ordinance
permits . . .I 'm not familiar with the site .
Gary Brown: It 's just east of Gednes Picles half a mile if you 're
familiar .
Ahrens: Right but I can 't picture where that storage is or anything like
that . . .
Gary Brown: You know where Assumption Seminary is?
Ahrens : Yes .
. Gary Brown : It 's about -3/4 of a mile west of that .
Ahrens: I know the general area but I can't picture it .
Gary Brown: It 's right on the corner there .
Ahrens : I think that we should be allowing truck and trailer rental . . .in
our ordinance to allow it . I 'm not sure this is the place it should be but ,
correct me if I 'm wrong but truck and trailer rental was not part of this
original conditional use permit .
Olsen: Correct .
Ahrens: Was or was not?
Olsen: Was not .
Ahrens: So this is kind of , you started the rental business. •
Gary Brown: Correct . We were naive in that we didn 't know we needed a
special permit for that because of the fact that it 's okay in that district
to do . You know it comes underneath your Statute .
Ahrens: Has there been any complaints from any residents?
Planning Commission Meeting
November 6 , 1991 - Page 12
Olsen: No . No complaints .
Ahrens: Okay . I 'm not opposed to the truck and trailer rental there . I
think that we have to be careful about screening . . . However , how many
houses are around . . .
Olsen: It 's about 3 homes on the other side of Stoughton .
Gary Brown: How many houses are around the mini-storage?
Olsen: There 's one on either side and then it 's like 3 or 2 across the
street .
Ahrens: How many trucks and trailers do you have available for rental?
Gary Brown: At the high point I think we 've had 15 trucks haven 't we?
Gary Dungey: Average is probably 7 .
Gary Brown: Average 7 . Trailers , 1 or 2 . Is there any there now?
Gary Dungey: No .
Ahrens: And they 're all just mixed in with your other outside storage?
The boats and the construction trailer . It 's all mixed in together?
Gary Brown : We try to keep it confined to one end . But you 're right . No ,
no , not really . The outside storage is over to one side and the U-Haul we
keep on the other side because the U-Haul area we keep plowed out in the
winter . So they are pretty much segregated right now .
Ahrens: But you can see both the outside storage and the rental trucks
from the residential area?
Olsen: Yes .
Ahrens: And the outside storage , it was there when the City Council
approved just a chainlink fence around it?
Olsen: No it was not .
Ahrens: But they knew that was .
Olsen: No . It was a specific condition that there be no outside storage .
Ahrens : What was the purpose of Planning Commission asking for an opaque
fencing if there wasn 't going to be any outside storage or anything out?
Olsen: Well the ordinance requires 6 foot high fences between residential
and commercial . And then just to screen the buildings .
Batzli : It has residential on 3 sides .
Planning Commission Meeting
November 6 , 1991 - Page 13
Emmings: I think we thought the fence looked better than a collection of
buildings . Basically . It was kind of a hot item as I recall and I think
it kind of came down to aesthetics as I remember but that was a long time
ago . •
Ahrens: It 's hard for me to believe that even evergreens there are
actually going to do anything to screen the outside storage . . .really want
to try and screen it .
Batzli : In 20 years it will .
Ahrens: And I can understand that the purpose of your storage facility is
to store . . . I understand that and I don 't have any problem with that but I
would like to see if we approve this that there be a limit , a time limit OT
how long this outside storage can go on . I think that you may want to
forget about the landscaping , at least the 6 foot sized trees . I
understand his point there too . He wants to plant a smaller type of tree ,
I 'd go along with that . But I don 't think that if we do recommend approva:
of the outdoor storage , that we put a time limit of like 2 to 3 years . Anc
then you 've got . . .
Emmings: I guess my feeling about this is that there shouldn't be outside
storage at that site . I don 't think there should be outside storage at any
of these mini-storage facilities unless they 're completely screened . But
as far as the kinds of things you 're storing outside right now , I don 't
really think , there 's not that much of a difference between what you 're
storing outside and the U-Haul trucks . I have no problem at all with the
truck rental thing . I think it fits in with what you 're doing hand in
. glove and I don 't have any problem with that at all . But I guess the
reason that I don 't want to just , I don't want to step over that threshold
of outside storage even though storing a few boats and a few motorhomes
seems pretty much the same thing as having trucks sitting there , I don 't
know what it 's going to be next week . I don 't know if it 's going to be a
pile of tires or what the hell it 's going to be but I think the whole idea
behind the mini-storage is , we 're building spaces for people to store
things in in a neat fashion and I don't want to see stuff outside . So I 'm
absolutely opposed to any outside storage . Like I say .
Batzli : Unscreened .
Emmings: Unscreened. If he wants to put up opaque fencing around that
corner so it can 't be seen from anywhere , then as long as it doesn 't stick .
up above the fencing , I don't have a problem with it . Since we 've done
that other places in town , I would say we could do it down there . Right
now I don 't think our ordinance would allow him to have outside storage
period . So I think we 'd have to change the ordinance first . ' I 'd want to
know better why we don't have to change the ordinance before we allow it .
The only other thing that would concern me about the truck rental I guess
would be the scale . I want to know something about , you know 15 trucks anc
2 trailers doesn 't bother me at all . In fact I wouldn 't care if it was
more than that but if it 's 150 or if they suddenly get to be real big
trucks , that 's a totally different thing . And so I don 't know how we could
set any limit on scale but can you give me some idea how big an operation
you see? How many vehicles maximum you 'll be parking?
Planning Commission Meeting
November 6 , 1991 - Page 14 4
Gary Brown: It 's a type of business that you 've never going to get very
many of them there because they always have to be rented . They have to be
going somewhere .
Emmings: Yeah . If they 're all sitting there you 're in trouble .
Gary Brown : That 's right . If they 're all sitting there , we 're not going
to be renting any longer because U-Haul isn't going to want us as a dealer .
I can see where you 're coming from . Why don 't you put a cap on it of 20
trucks and 4 trailers . I can live with that .
Emmings : Okay .
Gary Brown: And put a cap on it of , I 'd like to ask for 4 years but
somebody said 3 years on a conditional use permit . That 'd be great too .
Emmings: What 's the biggest truck you rent?
Gary Brown : 26 foot .
Emmings : Okay . I guess if I was going to put caps on it I 'd want to say
no trucks bigger than 26 feet and at any one time there wouldn 't be more
than 20 trucks and 4 trailers . Timewise I don 't see any reason to put a
limit . I don 't have any interest in limiting the U-Haul . Because again I
think the business fits together . If you decide not to do it later , that 's
fine . That 's up to you . I don 't see any reason on limiting that . I think
what they were talking about limiting was the outside storage and maybe to
limit because you 're saying that once all the buildings are built you won 't
be doing it anymore anyway . But since I 'm opposed to outside storage
that 's not an issue for me .
Conrad: But you 're not opposed to outside storage that 's screened?
Emmings : I 'm not opposed to outside storage if it 's screened .
Conrad: Are you opposed to outside storage in the BF district?
Emmings : Yeah , we 'd have to consider that . See that 's why I think we 've
got to look at the ordinance . We 've got to look at the BF section of the
ordinance and decide if we 're going to do that and I think we 've got to do
that before we act on this if we want to approve it . If the majority of
people here want to do that , I think we 've got to look at the ordinance
first .
Conrad: That makes a lot of sense .
Emmings : So I guess , I don 't know .
Conrad: It sure makes sense to me that this is the area where we do some
of these things . I just don 't know that we have everything in place . I
don 't want to set a precedent for bad stuff . I 'm concerned a little bit .
This is , where Gary has his place . I like that area but it 's , for this .
However , if he was to the east by the bluffs in our BF district , I don 't
want it there so I 've got a problem with this . It 's great where you are I
Planning Commission Meeting
November 6 , 1991 - Page 15
think from our standpoint . I hope from Chaska 's standpoint . Maybe not but
it 's still some real logical things for these multi uses . But I just don 't
know that we have everything in place to set the right direction for a
recommendation right now . I guess I 'd kind of like to table it until we
can have staff do some , a little bit more backgrounding now that they know
where we 're coming from and maybe bring you back again Gary . It 's probably
dealing more with the ordinance than with you . Just so we 're not setting
precedent for other folks . That 's the wrong way to go .
Emmings: Well , do you want to make a motion?
Conrad: I move that we table this .
'Batzli : Second.
Emmings: It 's been moved and seconded to table this . Is there any
discussion?
Ahrens : We 're going to table both?
Emmings: That 's the motion .
Conrad: Yeah . I think a lot of interrelated things . Gary 's in operation
right now doing .
Emmings: Well we recognize that he 's doing both of these things right now
but there 's not , nobody 's going to go chase him around while we decide
this .
Gary Brown: Right now it 's pretty well hidden because . . .snow .
Farmakes : How does that affect what your plans are currently? The two
different issues .
Gary Brown : To do what?
Farmakes: Outside storage and the truck proposal that you have . The
delay .
Gary Brown: It doesn 't make any difference .
Emmings: He 's doing them both .
Ahrens: What are we going to ask the staff to do concerning the trucks
there?
Conrad: I don 't know . I just want us to review the use of outside storage
in the BF district period and how can we make it , how can we find outside
storage but screened .
Ahrens : I understand that part . I 'm talking about the truck trailer
rental . . .an approved activity .
Emmings: Well isn 't that outside , well yeaF1 I see .
Planning Commission Meeting
November 6 , 1991 - Page 16
Conrad: That 's not outside storage . That 's a retail service and I don 't
know how it works Gary . I don 't understand it . Gary 's got to put the
stuff inside the screen .
Batzli : It actually fits within the definition of outside storage though
too . Having your trucks parked there .
Ahrens: But our ordinance permits it .
Batzli : I know , which is interesting .
Ahrens: So why do we have to table that part?
Emmings : Because I think what , at least what I think Ladd is saying is
that storing , you 're putting these trucks out . Yes it 's permitted , it 's
like a retail use . It 's a conditional use that 's allowed in this area but
really what you 're doing is storing a bunch of trucks outside and I think
Ladd wants to make sure that we 've got proper conditions for this
conditional use before we just say okay , go ahead and we don't have any
conditions in place right now . We may want to screen somehow however , or
we may not .
Conrad: Cr we may not .
Emmings: Yeah , exactly .
Conrad: And what staff wrote down here , there are no specific standards
for truck trailer rental . General ones and it sort of seems strange that
we 're going to put a fence around truck trailer rental . Well it 's there . I
don 't know .
Farmakes : There are other uses . . .of that elsewhere . Not in this area but
there are some other areas but basically it 's used as a form of advertising
up front by the road in town here . In parking lot . Retail parking lot so
it is , that kind of bothers me that there isn 't anything at all on there
regarding . . .
Batzli : Well I think we can look at that under the general 12 conditions .
Whether that 's proper to allow them to park right next to the road and take
a 'look at that .
Farmakes: I didn 't say it was improper . It 's just where , it's sort of an
open ended thing . It 's a retail parking lot or out by the highway in a
developed area . What is the proper area . . .
Emmings : Well I guess basically , it sounds like we need more time to get
our act together .
Gary Brown: One comment I would like to make is what Joan brought up here .
Exactly what my feeling is is that we shouldn 't be here even addressing the
U-Haul thing because that 's permitted in this district .
Emmings: No , it 's a conditional use and what that means , right now you 're
only allowed to do that once we say go ahead and do that , the truck rental
Planning Commission Meeting
November 6 , 1991 - Page 17
and you will have to do it under these conditions . It 's not a permitted
use . It 's allowed as a conditional use . That 's different . Is that right?
Olsen: Yes .
Emmings: Okay . Okay there are permitted uses . That means if something ,
if it 's just a permitted use in the district , it 's something that you can
do . Alright? Now that doesn 't mean you don 't have to get approvals on
aspects of it but still it 's something that you can do without asking any
permission from the City . On a conditional use , you have to say I want to
do this and then the City says , yes you can do it but only if you do it
under these conditions . And that 's the difference between a permitted ana
conditional use and this is a conditional , allowed conditional use .
Gary Brown: Well why don 't you write us and let us know. Alright , thanks
a lot .
Emmings: We 've got a motion pending here . The motion is to table the
entire thing and take a look at the ordinance . Let 's take a look at the
ordinance and this proposal together and get something decided at our next
meeting . It 's not that big a deal I think .
Conrad moved, Batzli seconded to table amending Conditional Use permit
#87-2 and directing staff to review the ordinance regarding outside storage
in the BF district . All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Ahrens: I 'd be interested in Roger 's explanation allowing that .
Olsen : We 've done that before where we 've had certain uses as part of the
conditional use that we 've allowed . So we 've done it before but I 'll get
something in writing .
Emmings: Yeah , it seems real arbitrary because what 's the sense of listing
what can be a conditional use . We might as well write down anything we
want .
Olsen : Right . I agree .
Emmings: I don 't get that .
Farmakes: I don 't understand the issue of outside storage . We 've got the
rental thing up here in the parking lot across from the mall .
Batzli : Merlyn 's?
Farmakes : Across from Merylyn 's . Outside . There are motorcycles . There
are trailers out there and so on .
Conrad: It 's illegal .
Farmakes: That 's what I 'm saying . That 's a retail parking lot so it seems
like an item that really needs to be .
Conrad: Nobody has enforced that issue right there.
Planning Commission Meeting
November 6 , 1991 - Page 18
.
Farmakes . But if somebody came in here and wanted to put in 100 . I think
in Savage they have a huge U-Haul situation by the freeway and they 've got
100 maybe trucks lined up along the highway and it has a visual , not only
retail impact but a real environmental visual impact .
Ahrens: What 's wrong with Merlyn's though, It 's a hardware store .
Farmakes : They have different rental items . Log splitters . Motorcycles .
Conrad: It 's just terrible .
Ahrens : See I don 't see any problem with that .
Farmakes : I didn 't say there was a problem with it . It 's just that it 's
parked out in a retail parking lot and parking space . It seems kind of an
inconsistent use . What if they park a billboard sign?
Conrad: They could keep an RV out there . They could keep a boat out
there . It just could be a collage of stuff . That 's not what you want on
your main street . It 's just not right . I don 't think anybody 's playing .
Ahrens : I don 't think we know what we want .
Batzli : I think if you asked most of the residents , they all go there and
use the stuff and they like it there . Whether visually you like it is
secondary to the question to most of the people that frequent downtown
Chanhassen .
Conrad: They like to see cement mixers on main street?
•Batzli : I don 't think they care .
Ahrens: I don 't think it bothers anybody . I 've heard anybody outside of
the Planning Commission say that offends them .
Conrad : Ah , I have . My neighbors have said that .
Farmakes: I think the other problem of what is permitted use . If I come
in here and you refuse me one thing and I can point that out across the
street , what is the .
Conrad : Well I 'd kind of like the Dinner Theatre to store their props out
on West 78th Street too . You know it 's not just a few things . A few
things don 't bother me and I think that 's why nobody has really pushed
that . But I think if everybody did that , then we 've got a problem .
Emmings : Are there regulations on outside storage in the downtown business
district?
Batzli : It 's not allowed .
Emmings: It 's absolutely not allowed?
Olsen: The CBD . Yeah.
Planning Commission Meeting
November 6 , 1991 - Page 19
Aanenson: And the industrial areas . Because people would have trailers ,
construction trailers that 's supposed to be screened too .
Emmings: Okay . That 's a sensible rule too . Let 's go onto agenda item 2 .
We can take this up again when we look at outside storage for Gary Brown .
PUBLIC HEARING:
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONCERNING MOORING OF WATERCRAFT .
Public Present:
Name Address
Bernie Schneider 7501 West 77th Street
Emmings: I think this is pretty self explanatory . It is a public hearing .
Olsen : Yeah , they 're here for that .
Emmings: Okay . Did you want to be heard on this item?
Olsen : Maybe I should explain what it is .
Emmings: Yeah , go ahead Jo Ann .
Olsen: I think he 's somewhat familiar with this but what you 'll be doing
is amending the recreational beachlot ordinance to add the following: No
watercraft shall be moored , docked or stored in the dock setback zone in
. such a way that the watercraft or any part thereof extends across the
extended side lot lines of any lakeshore site . This is to prevent boats
from being docked in front of somebody else 's lakeshore property .
Emmings : Well there 's a little more to this isn 't there Jo Ann?
Olsen : That amends a different chapter that you don't deal with . That 's
amending Chapter 6 .
Emmings: Well who 's going to be looking at that?
Olsen: The City Council will be doing that one .
Emmings: Okay . So we 're only looking at .
Olsen: You 're only looking at the zoning chapter .
Emmings: And this other part will go in front of the', has that already
been passed by the City Council?
Olsen: No . It has not .
Emmings : When will that be heard by them?
Olsen: In the next meeting in November . Or December .
. I••••• •. 1
1.,....- '" I o
I g I !
=_ ,z0.../ k.• ii ..., „
• ,
Yi ii!
s
\ / 0 sr ‘ \ • ti!, '
L.Z
i
4 thargMleillk , i,\ •
..m..... s ,: veix., si\
N "
V 1
404:iv "Ali " '-\ \\\\\\ '' \'• -, 4 1. -
7A. 4
//, - r 4. A • t%w_,4 ‘ .,A,,O\ vek.\\ .. ki . ik -..-
-
,,,, ,,
. \, — 407 1$ Fs' wa. ;<';.--'-f.:;:‘\-e-;; ,' ‘k,., ;•ii : I.,.- i 'i i
V 4 . ° .•
/ -
‘7:' ‘\ S.• -.6% 1 ' 0 k -
. A .;ik, , \ /0 /. •• 1 0
-\. _;,,v_--\ .• - • _
,\- _ - i(:t\t(„.-.\-...._-_,:\,, • \ ' \ :•... 1\r$
/1 \
)
\\\I _ il11
0\la00
• a
--
,
. . - -\ / \ _ ° .' f•
• 0
.!
', , (...\ ---_._ • '
\ i
r
.\6
CO .\\ \ J
. t Frj •
X
•X • ._.=. i \
1
Ef '' ,.. .. -........._
......_ 1
...s.1. .•
La
_ti ,,\
°
t.
-7- 7-11\ ..— --:...---- t.-1
:1
- \ --
• \\
i' • \ -- ; G 7; X ( i/
.7;
I
-. .. ,ii
CITY OF
..* CHANHASSEN'
,,. . ,,,‘,,
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Kate Aanenson, Planner II K
DATE: January 10, 1992
SUBJ: Recreational Beachlots
BACKGROUND
At the December 4, 1991, Planning Commission meeting, a public
hearing was held on the proposed ordinance amendment for non-
conforming beachlots. At the hearing, several questions were
raised that staff was asked to address. These concerns about the
proposed ordinance included, what was the intent of the ordinance,
is there an appeal process, and is there a violation or enforcement
section.
Staff has met with the City Attorney, Roger Knutson and made
modifications to the proposed ordinance. In addition to discussing
the proposed implementation with the City Attorney, an alternate
ordinance was proposed.
ANALYSIS
The original intent of the non-conforming beachlot ordinance was to
establish a baseline documenting the allowed use of each legal
nonconforming recreational beachlot. This process would require
that each recreational beachlot provide satisfactory proof
concerning the nature and extent of the legal nonconforming use as
it existed on or before January 18, 1982 . This process would
involve holding a hearing on each recreational beachlot and, a
finding of the baseline use would have to be made by the Planning
Commission and the City Council.
An alternative ordinance amendment has been prepared by the City
Attorney. The intent of this ordinance is to prevent the expansion
of non-conforming recreational beachlots by establishing a baseline
documenting the allowed use of each legal non-conforming
recreational beachlot. Staff has undertaken several inventories of
beachlot use over the years and would use this data, along with
information supplied by the Beachlot Association, to make a
•
to, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Planning Commission
January 10, 1992
Page 2
recommendation. However, we have some question about the accuracy
of information from both these sources and question our ability to
develop decisions that would be both fair and stand up to any legal
tests that may arise. Due to these concerns, we have proposed an
alternate ordinance that would establish 1991 rather than 1982 as
the baseline year.
The Planning staff did a field check and documented all
recreational beachlots in the summer of 1991, and we feel that this
provides the city with reliable information as to the extent and
use of each recreational beachlot. Although this would probably
have the effect of approving some lots with increased, and
theoretically illegal use, we believe it is more equitable and
easier to implement.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the ordinance
using the baseline document of the size and extent of the
recreational beachlots existing in the summer of 1991.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF
THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE CONCERNING
NON-CONFORMING BEACHLOTS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS:
Section 1. Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code is
amended by adding Section 20-79 to read:
Sec. 20-79. Non-Conforming Recreational Beachlots.
(a) Intent. The intent of this section is to prevent the
expansion of non-conforming recreational beachlots by estab-
lishing a baseline documenting the allowed use of each legal
non-conforming recreational beachlot. Because the City has
inadequate documentation concerning the size and extent of
recreational beachlots existing on the date the recreational
beachlot ordinance was passed in 1982 , non-conforming rights
shall be based upon the size and extent of said beachlots in the
summer of 1991.
(b) Within one year after the adoption of this ordinance
all non-conforming recreational beachlots must receive a non-
conforming use permit or the use must cease and desist. The
permit shall be issued following receipt of satisfactory proof
concerning the nature and extent of the legal non-conforming use
as it existed during the summer of 1991. The permit shall
describe the nature and extent of the allowed use. The use may
not be expanded or intensified over what is described in the
permit.
(c) Applications for a non-conforming use permit shall be
filed with the Zoning Administrator on prescribed forms. A fee,
as established by the City Council, shall be paid upon filing the
application. The Zoning Administrator shall set a time and place
for a hearing before the Planning Commission. At the hearing the
Commission shall hear such persons as wish to be heard. Notice of
the hearing date shall be mailed not less than ten (10) days
before the date of the hearing to all owners of property on the
lake where the beachlot is located. Published notice shall also
be made once at least ten (10) days before the hearing. Failure
to give notice, however, shall not invalidate the proceedings.
At the close of the hearing the Planning Commission
shall make a recommendation to the City Council. Upon consider-
ation of the Planning Commission recommendation the City Council,
shall then make the final decision and the non-conforming
r01 /07/92
( ' 91 Baseline)
beachlot permit, establishing the nature and extent of the use
shall then be issued.
Section 2 . Violation. The violation of any provision of
this ordinance shall be a misdemeanor punishable to the maximum
extent authorized in Minnesota Statutes Section 412 . 231. Each day
any violation continues is a separate offense.
Section 3 . This ordinance shall be effective immediately
upon its passage and publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this
day of , 1992 .
ATTEST:
Don Ashworth, Clerk/Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor
(Published in the Chanhassen Villager on , 1992 . )
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF
THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE CONCERNING
NON-CONFORMING BEACHLOTS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS:
Section 1. Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code is
amended by adding Section 20-79 to read:
Sec. 20-79. Non-Conforming Recreational Beachlots.
(a) Intent. The intent of this section is to prevent the
expansion of non-conforming recreational beachlots by estab-
lishing a baseline documenting the allowed use of each legal
non-conforming recreational beachlot.
(b) Within one year after the adoption of this ordinance
all non-conforming recreational beachlots must receive a non-
conforming use permit or the use must cease and desist. The
permit shall be issued following receipt of satisfactory proof
concerning the nature and extent of the legal non-conforming use
as it existed on or before January 18 , 1982 . The permit shall
describe the nature and extent of the allowed use. The use may
not be expanded or intensified over what is described in the
permit.
(c) Applications for a non-conforming use permit shall be
filed with the Zoning Administrator on prescribed forms. A fee,
as established by the City Council, shall be paid upon filing the
application. The Zoning Administrator shall set a time and place
for a hearing before the Planning Commission. At the hearing the
Commission shall hear such persons as wish to be heard. Notice of
the hearing date shall be mailed not less than ten (10) days
before the date of the hearing to all owners of property on the
lake where the beachlot is located. Published notice shall also
be made once at least ten (10) days before the hearing. Failure
to give notice, however, shall not invalidate the proceedings.
At the close of the hearing the Planning Commission
shall make a recommendation to the City Council. Upon consider-
ation of the Planning Commission recommendation the City Council,
shall then make the final decision and the non-conforming
beachlot permit, establishing the nature and extent of the use
shall then be issued.
Section 2 . Violation. The violation of any provision of
this ordinance shall be a misdemeanor punishable to the maximum
r01 /07/92
( ' 82 Baseline )
extent authorized in Minnesota Statutes Section 412 .231. Each day
any violation continues is a separate offense.
Section 3. This ordinance shall be effective immediately
upon its passage and publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this
day of , 1992 .
ATTEST:
Don Ashworth, Clerk/Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor
(Published in the Chanhassen Villager on , 1992. )
CITY OF
690 COULT11111 - ER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
i (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director
DATE: September 5, 1991
SUBJ: Recreational Beachlots
From time to time, problems have surfaced regarding enforcement of
ordinance requirements on recreational beachlots. The issues that
have arisen have not been serious with beachlots approved under the
current ordinance, since both the city and the users of the
beachlot have a full understanding of exactly what is allowed and
what is not. The bulk of the problems that have occurred have
stemmed from beachlots which pre-date the ordinance and are
grandfathered.
According to the ordinance, the grandfathered beachlots are
intended to be restricted to uses which pre-existed the ordinance,
which dates back to 1982 . An inspection was made of properties at
that time and several years later, but unfortunately the
information is less than perfect. For example, if we believe that
there were three boats using a dock, we may not have been aware
that one was out for repair or even on the lake at the time the
count was made. In addition, these non-conforming beachlots may
have increased in intensity at some point since the adoption of the
ordinance and staff was not made aware of this and was not in a
position to respond.
To resolve this matter once and for all, we have worked with the
Planning Commission to develop the following approach. The
approach is principally one of having the city adopt a new
ordinance that requires that non-conforming recreational beachlots
obtain a permit from the city within one year of the adoption of
the ordinance or all activity must cease. The purpose of the
permitting requirement is to document once and for all exactly what
is allowed on this beachlot and have it established in a legally
recordable document. In addition, staff would intend to try to
turn back the clock were feasible, and limit the permitted uses to
those which are legally grandfathered. The Planning Commission has
supported this approach, but we wanted to bounce it off of the City
Mayor and City Council
September 5, 1991
Page 2
Council prior to undertaking it since it is likely to cause a good
deal of discussion amongst those beachlot users. What I would
propose to do is hold a series of informational meetings with the
beachlot representatives so that the potential ordinance could be
described and we could hold discussions on what we believe to be
the legal non-conformity. In addition, any information they may
have to document legal non-conforming uses could be considered.
After these meetings were held later in the fall, we would propose
to bring the ordinance which is attached to this memo in for review
and adoption and thereafter embark on the permitting process for
the non-conforming beachlots. We are asking that the City Council
review and comment on the desirability of proceeding with this
effort. The Planning Commission strongly favors this course of
action, but before proceeding we did want to give the City Council
an opportunity to provide direction.
In a related matter, there is an on-going dispute concerning the
Trolls Glen Homeowners Association beachlot and adjoining property
owners. There was a claim that activity on this beachlot exceeds
the grandfathered non-conformity and the city is being asked to
intervene and take action to cause the non-conformity to cease. In
light of the pending proposal to undertake revisions to the
ordinance, we have informed the participants that we will not
proceed with the taking of any legal action until the process is
completed. This position does not satisfy one of the participants
in this dispute, and we have been informed that they will likely
request the City Council to order staff to take action immediately.
In light of the proposed ordinance amendments, we would recommend
that the City Council defer action on this item, but if you direct
staff otherwise, we will proceed under current ordinances.
Councilman Wing has also raised some questions regarding the
beachlot ordinance and water surface usage codes. He has indicated
that a review of the entire policy might be appropriate, but in
particular is concerned with the docking of boats in an area
contained with the extended property line of riparian lots. At the
present time we do not regulate or establish a boat mooring
setback, but Councilman Wing has requested that the imposition of
such a standard be investigated.
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 35
PUBLIC HEARING:
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO REQUIRE AN INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR
RECREATIONAL BEACHLOTS .
Public Present:
Name Address
Mark Rogers 3851 Leslee Curve
Ivan Underdahl 7502 77th Street
Bill Finlayson 6320 Fir Tree
Bernie Schneider 7501 77th Street
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item . Vice Chairman
Erhart called the public hearing to order .
Mark Rogers : My name is Mark Rogers . I 'm with the Pleasant Acres
Homeowners Association on Minnewashta . Just had a couple of small things .
First a question . It 's my understanding that this ordinance grew out of a
request from the City Council . Is that true? To develop such an
ordinance .
Aanenson: Recreation beachiot ordinance in general?
Mark Rogers : The one we 're talking about , yeah .
Erhart : Change it to a temporary .
Krauss: No . This pertains to the , in all the new beachlots are required
to get a conditional use permit, and they have done that . You 're correct .
This orginally came from concerns that were raised , well problems that we
had to deal with but concerns that were raised by the City Council that the
older beachlots are much tougher to regulate . There isn 't a good set of
information or guidelines to know exactly what is allowed on these things .
What we 've heard and what we 've seen and what the Council 's told us is that
over the years more and more boats start showing up and it 's not clear
who 's entitled to what out there . So the idea came down to permit these
things . Figure out once and for all exactly what folks are entitled to .
Give them a permit for that and then it 's a fairly easy matter to regulate
it from that point on .
Mark Rogers: Okay . I 've got several points . He just touched on one that
I guess I ' ll leave until last . It 's the greatest . With paragraph 8 , I
would say that the notification should not only go to the property owners
on the lake but also all affected property owners in the individual
associations . Which should be an easy thing to do .
Krauss : Is it? I mean are all these people listed as owners of beachlots?
Aanenson: We 've been sending them to the homeowners associations .
Krauss : I 'm not so sure it 's always so easy to find out exactly who 's
involved in each one .
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 36
Mark Rogers: No , but your notice here actually doesn 't even mention
anybody from the beachiot . It just says the property owners and the public
notice . In our case our association has a Quit Claim Deed to the property
and the individuals in the association are not listed on that .
Krauss : Oh , what this is referring to though is your beachlot will be
making an application and this tells us how we have to notify all the other
property owners around there of your request .
Mark Rogers: But we would certainly want to know about what 's happening
with the other beachlots that might be on our lake and so forth . So I
guess that 's what I 'm driving at . It would take some work to talk to the
associations to find out the addresses and so forth but the names of the
people would not , would vary but the addresses of those homes would not .
Erhart : Okay , so when you use the terms owners of property on the lake ,
that does not , it may not necessarily mean that the owner is of other
beachlots . It 's not clear . So you just want that clarified that that
would include other beachiot owners?
Mark Rogers: Right .
Aanenson: So for every beachlot that 's going for review , you want every
other beachiot notified of that review?
Mark Rogers: I think so .
Erhart : On that lake .
Conrad: That 's not what you 're saying . Ah , then I misunderstood . I
thought you wanted everybody notified in the homeowners association .
Mark Rogers: You are correct . I guess maybe we 're describing it
differently .
Conrad: You 're not concerned about a different beachiot?
Mark Rogers: Well that I am too .
Aanenson: So everyone would be notified of everybody else 's hearings too .
So it 'd be every month . . .
Conrad: What would that?
Mark Rogers: The purpose , it would affect us just as much as the other
property owners on the lake . If they 're being notified of some changes or
conditions of some permit , why wouldn 't we , as a matter of fact , it might
even affect us more than the other property owners on the lake .
Conrad: Now my understanding was this was a one time deal . To get the
permit .
Aanenson: Right . To give them an understanding of what they can build in .
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 37
Conrad: Right . So this is not a forever type deal . This is a one time
deal to get notification to everybody in that homeowners association that
this is what is permitted . Or to review what is permitted and get
consensus so that the city has an idea of what is permitted in that
beachlot . So to inform other beachlots about your particular situation , I
don 't know that that 's .
Mark Rogers: Well you can 't do them all at once . I 'm anticipating , I
don 't know how many there are .
Aanenson: 13 .
Mark Rogers : Okay , 13 . You can't do 13 in one night . At least I wouldn 't
think so . And I would like to know when the other ones are up . They might
be similar to ours . They might be different from ours . I 'd like to know
when those meetings are .
Conrad: But for us to call and find out , or are we going to have to call
and find out everybody anyway? If we send notice to everybody in the
association .
Aanenson: We 've been doing . . .the homeowners association president . That 's
the way we 've been doing it .
Conrad: Yeah . It 's going to be that person 's job . The homeowner 's
association to deliver a list and so what you 're saying is everytime one of
these 13 comes in and send out a notice of public hearing to everybody in
every homeowners association , which we 're talking about a 1 ,000 or you
know , it 's a big number of how many people are in the homeowners
associations with beachlots . You 're talking about mailing out 1 ,500
letters everytime somebody is doing something . It probably makes more
sense to send it out to the president of the homeowners association .
Mark Rogers: Well , it 's just like , for instance the mailing for this
meeting came to me and not to the president . At the last meeting I had
requested that at least I get a copy and I checked with the president and
he did not get one for this . And had I not you know happened to talk to
him , he would have been unaware of this meeting . If it 's important enough
for all of the property owners on the lake to be notified about it , why
isn 't it important enough for all of the homeowners in the homeowners
association to be notified about?
Erhart : Do you have a point on this specific subject?
Ivan Underdahl : Yeah I guess I had a question . We 've been here . . .but when
it was first brought up here now , I guess I almost question what was the
purpose of having this item on the agenda tonight?
Erhart : Okay , and your name is?
Ivan Underdahl : Ivan Underdahl .
Erhart: Let 's step back a moment because it 's not clear in my mind what
the history is here again .
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 38
Aanenson: Okay , when the recreational beachlot was adopted .
Ivan Underdahl : You asked for public comment so I thought that was the
right time .
Conrad: He didn 't mean you literally step back . I think he figuratively .
Erhart : No , no , no . Steve , stay up there . I 'm really asking your first
question myself because it wasn 't clear in my mind so .
Aanenson : There were existing beachlots that were in place that were
grandfathered in . What has happened over time is there was no one when
those were adopted , those that were grandfathered in , there was not
inventory of what they had in place . Over time there 's been complaints
that those have expanded beyond what was grandfathered in . What we 're
trying to do is come up with a mechanism to establish what they were
grandfathered in with .
Erhart : Okay , and we have not done that before?
Aanenson: No . The other ones have been given conditional use and we
established what they can have . We can go out and cite them for expanding .
These 13 that we 're talking about , we need to establish what they can as
far as grandfathered .
Erhart : The primary objective is to get .
Batzli : This is establishing a baseline .
Aanenson : Exactly .
Conrad: And so the point of tonight 's meeting was to develop the process
to do that but not we 're not reviewing those 13 at all tonight . We 're just
saying , what has to happen to get those 13 beachlots . And inventory of
those 13 beachlots . How do we do it? Do we mail everybody a notice 10
days prior to public hearing? So that 's what we 're here tonight to do .
Not to review .
Ivan Underdahl : . . .policies besides this and I guess if somebody hadn 't
stood up , it sounds like that 's all there is to it . It sounds like you
were ready to , there was going to be nothing more about it .
Erhart : I guess we were hoping that somebody would stand up . That 's the
purpose of this procedure .
Ivan Underdahl : And as far as notice for this evening , our association
didn 't receive any notice as far as I know . We saw it in the paper and
we 're only here to . . .
Erhart : Could you comment?
Mark Rogers : How many lakes are we talking about?
Conrad: 7 lakes .
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 39
Mark Rogers : So it 's not just Minnewashta?
Conrad: Right , everyone .
Aanenson: Lotus . Riley .
Ivan Underdahl : When you think of grandfathering now , does this . . .permit
that 's required , is the implication now that if they 're trying to be
accepting the granfathering or reconsideration of the total situation
without . . .?
Krauss: We do have some , there was some sporatic inventories done a couple
of times and we have information as to what we think was there then . We 're
asking you to also provide information on what you think was there at the
time this became grandfathered in as a non-conformity . I guess the way we
envision it is there 's something of a negotiation process there . I mean
ultimately they may accept what 's there today if that 's reasonable based on
what we think was there back then or we may ask that it go back to
something .
Ivan Underdahl : I guess that was my point . If this permit that is going
to have to be obtained is simply going to be adoption or the only thing you
can apply for is what existed as far as the grandfathering is concerned?
Krauss: Well , to be honest our information isn 't exactly enough to come in
and say you had 3 boats back there in 1980 , what was it 2 . And that 's
definitely what it is .
Aanenson: We gave them that information following that so we gave them the
inventory that we thought . . .
( There was a tape change at this point in the discussion . )
Ivan Underdahl : I guess my point was the permit that can be applied for
now . Is that going to stipulate that you can only have what was there at
the time of the ordinance or is it open to new conditions or situations?
Or is it just going to be . . .
Olsen: You ' ll get an opportunity to make a case in front of the Planning
Commission and the Council .
Mark Rogers: I thought that 's what we 're doing tonight .
Bernie Schneider : I think that 's probably the toughest part of that
process as I see it because the ordinance itself is worded very loosely in
regards to that so that 's going to be a very tense process to try and get
that down to just what we . . .
Bill Finlayson: I see the Minnewashta Association 's beachlot as a lot on
the beach that is not much different than either one of my neighbors who
have lots on their beach . Nobody 's regulating the amount of boats that any
homeowner on Lake Minnewashta can own . I mean if in 1982 they had one boat
and in 1989 that had 2 boats , I don 't understand why it makes a difference
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 40
whether Minneswashta beach association had 15 boats and then in 1992 has 16
boats . It 's not clear to me why this all came about . The history of what .
Erhart : Let me clarify one thing for procedure here . The informal
discussion here is fine . Are we messing up the Minutes by not getting
people 's names? Okay , your name was that just spoke .
Bill Finlayson: I 'm Bill Finlayson from the Minnewashta Beach Association .
I 'm the chairman .
Erhart : Okay procedure , would you like to get back to formal where we have
one speaker at a time or is it okay to keep it informal?
Krauss: I think it would help on the Minutes if we could .
Erhart : Yeah if you could stand back up again and then we 'll . Again your
name .
Mark Rogers: Mark Rogers . Pleasant Acres on Minnewashta . And again I 'd
just like to reiterate that what 's contained in the first paragraph , the
quote being permits shall be issued following receipt of satisfactory proof
concerning the nature and extent of the legal non-conforming use . I 'm real
nervous about what that means as far as the process and what goes into
setting those limits . That is the whole meat of the ordinance really . I
agree with the intent of it . I can certainly see yours and others needs to
want to know what 's there and regulate what 's there but I just don 't know
how we can improve this or if we should improve it in the ordinance but I
feel like there 's great potention that we could get stuck with something
that would be very difficult to live with .
Erhart : What 's the key , one of the beachlots organization to stuff all
kinds of uses in there just before they come in for the hearing and saying
they 've been doing that forever?
Krauss: Well I think it 's clear that that 's why we 're not going to accept
the status quo as of whatever date they come in . I mean some of the
beachlots are perfectly fine and frankly we don 't know very well if they
had 3 boats or 5 boats back there in 1982 . And if they had fairly good
rationale to support it , I mean it 's a negotiating process I suppose and
it 's going to be negotiated in front of you and the City Council . But you
know we would have some information . They would have some information .
We ' ll have to work out what 's fair with that . But if you 've got a beachlot
that in 1982 had 2 boats and now it has 15 , something is seriously remiss
and the clock 's going to probably have to be turned back to some extent .
Erhart : Do we have any way to know that in 1982 it had 2 boats?
Aanenson : We 've done 3 inventories . And when we met with the homeowners
associations , we presented them with what we had as our best information
and we asked them to go back and check their records , photographs and
provide us with what they have as their best information . Some of the
homeowners associations have lotteries so they have receipts of fees so
they can actually document .
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 41
Erhart : So your idea is essentially negotiate as much of this prior , in
advance prior to bringing this to the Planning Commission .
Aanenson: We 've met with them once and provided that .
Mark Rogers: That 's right and I have that in front of me here . Even in
the 1991 there were several errors so I can 't speak for the earlier
assessments . But part of this is in 1982 which was when I believe they had
the initial assessment of how many homes . Say you had written down like
53 . There 's 80 now and one more subdivision going in and property for
several others . Sothere 's obviously pressure that would be very intense
should we cut back to what 's recorded for the 1981 levels . So that 's why
people are going to get excited about this .
Ahrens : Isn 't what Mark 's talking about , what is going to be discussed
when their permit application comes before the Planning Commission?
Mark Rogers : Sort of .
Ahrens: We 're not discussing .
Batzli : No , but he 's talking about the fairness of the process and he
really I think , he 's questioning our surveys but I think even more than
that he 's saying that probably there 's more houses and the uses have
intensified and people are going to be angry if we turn back the clock .
Ivan Underdahl : I 'd just like to point out another situation too where
it 's not necessarily an intensification for people who are there now but
the fact that at the time this ordinance went into effect , there were just
a very limited number of people that would even have chosen to use it . Or
that lived there so there really weren 't as many boats there at the time
because of the relatively new development . And on our situation there
were only 2 people that had chosen to have boats there . Most of the lots
were vacant . Several of those members lived directly on the lake . Had
their own docks and private locations . So now when there are more
residences there , they would like to have boats there too . But there were
only 3 parties that could have had an interest in having boats there at the
time the ordinance was developed . . .our grandfathering would say limited to
2 . But it 's not clear because the reason there weren 't any more boats
there at the time was there weren 't people there to have them .
Conrad: Then the current ordinance should apply to you . That 's real
clear . That just doesn 't make sense . If people didn 't have them there ,
that would give you rights if you used it then but then the ordinance , the
current ordinance that 's good for everybody else should apply to you right
now .
Ivan Underdahl : The current ordinance would limit it to 2 boats .
Conrad: Well the current ordinance should apply to everything that 's not
grandfathered . And you can 't say well if we had built up and had 75 houses
before , that we could have put more boats down . That doesn 't make sense at
all .
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 42
Ivan Underdahl : The current ordinance , in our particular subdivision , the
current ordinance limits us to 2 I guess as we understand it , or staff 's
interpretation . However any private property owner is entitled to 3 . So
this is unfair right off the bat . In addition to that , all of our property
owners have the boating/docking rights in their covenants and restrictions .
Erhart : Okay we 're not here tonight to talk about the beachlot ordinance .
We 're here to talk about .
Ivan Underdahl : . . .the application for this use permit or whatever was
primarily then going to be based upon what existed at the time the
ordinance went into effect .
Krauss: I think it 's going to be based on probably 3 things . The
information that we have , which is all that we have right now . Information
that the beachlot owners can provide to us , which we may decide is more
accurate . And in some cases , I 'm not sure but we may have a beachlot that
under the current ordinance is entitled to more than was there in 1980 .
Maybe it 's got enough space and met the requirements , then they could be
increased that way .
Batzli : So in other words they may be grandfathered in but if the
ordinance allowed them more , you 'd ignore the grandfathering . Is that what
you just said?
Krauss : I think that that 's fair .
Erhart : Maybe what we need here is a good , well written intent statement
before we really take this to the next level because I think that 's what
we 're , that 's the issue we 're dealing with . What are we intending to do
here?
Bernie Schneider : I have a question . In establishing the number of boats
that we will be allowed at a recreational beachlot , once the ordinance is
passed , who makes that decision? Is that up to the Planning Commission or
what body will listen to our pleas?
Krauss : It will ultimately be the City Council . We 'll make recommendation
to the Planning Commission and they 'll recommend to the City Council and
it 's the City Council 's call .
Bernie Schneider : So the City Council will take each request separately?
Krauss : Right .
Bernie Schneider : . . .reasonable? Not necessarily what 's grandfathered in .
Krauss: Well again , I mean I can 't prejudice them doing that . I think the
Commissioner 's statement about a . . .is a real valid one . I can tell you how
I think the process is going to go and I see there being some room to
discuss some of these things . But I guess the mere fact that there 's more
homes now than there was before , that does not persuade me . When something
is grandfathered in , it 's locked in at that point in time . The uncertainty
for us is we 're not really certain in all these cases what exactly all that
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 43
was . We have some information . We 're willing to accept your information
and we want to figure out what it was . It doesn 't entitle you to double or
triple in size . Now if , again if your beachlot under the current ordinance
would be entitled to more anyway , we 're not going to artificially hold it
down .
Bill Finlayson: There 's so many hypotheticals here . If the beachlot was
established in 1982 and they were gathering funds to buy a dock and so
forth and there were no boats down there and then the beach association got
enough money together to install a dock and then they installed x amount of
boats , if you go back to 1982 , it doesn 't make any sense . Obviously they
developed the property over a number of years . I know at Minnewashta Beach
Association we 've been developing that piece of property for a number of
years . There are many improvements made over the years . Who inventoried
this thing? Who did this investigation of the 13 associations as to what
they were back in 1982? Somebody 's been researching this?
Krauss : Yeah . Jo Ann , do you want to give a little bit of the history?
Olsen: I 'm not sure who did it in 1982 . One of the other planners . Scott
Martin . .but the planning department had done a survey .
Erhart : This is something we 're doing now or you say you found .
Olsen: . . .we found .
Erhart : Okay and you found some old surveys and you 're pulling those
together , okay .
Aanenson: We compiled them together . We met with the homeowners
associations and presented that information to them and explained the
process . We met with each association and explained the process so .
Erhart : You met with every homeowners association about this ordinance
already?
Aanenson: Yes .
Mark Rogers: It was passed out right about at that time and we were told
that the chance for comments and so forth was here for changes and I guess
that 's why I 'm here . I 'm surprised there aren't more like me . I guess I
just want to summarize my concern with this paragraph A . Setting the
number and all this kind of stuff is if it 's , this is really the crux of
how hard we 're either going to fight or support this amendment , or this
ordinance because if it looks like we 're going to be cut back to 1982 and
let 's face it . Chanhassen is certainly not the city it was in 1982 . All
the business developments that you 've seen and other housing developments
that you talk about . I mean to go back to 1982 just can 't happen on the
city as a whole . That 's a big part of my concern in looking at this issue .
So enough said about that . I think that 's the big sticking point for us .
And to clarify one other thing , I think remember Richard Wing at this same
meeting saying that an individual homeowner could have 5 boats at his
house , not 3 .
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 44
Ivan Underdahl : . . .someone else at that meeting said the same thing .
Somebody on the committee there . . .
Mark Rogers : I don 't think anybody from the Planning Commission was here .
Olsen : The ONR regulates that .
Mark Rogers : Yeah , and so that would certainly be something to be
considered .
Ivan Underdahl : But I thought the City did that in it 's own ordinance . . .
Conrad: We limit it to 3 .
Ivan Underdahl : Minnetonka I believe limits it to 5 .
Mark Rogers : I think Wing said it was 5 . Well .
Erhart : We 're getting off into the beachlot again .
Mark Rogers : Okay , and point 2 is something that you brought up Ladd about
this is permanent . This is a one time deal .
Conrad : To establish what was grandfathered .
Mark Rogers: Okay . I wanted to ask .
Conrad : Just two real clear things . There is a beachlot ordinance that
everybody should have to live under because it 's there and a lot of time
was spent developing that ordinance .
Mark Rogers: Well that 's not my question though .
Conrad: But it is there and so the point of this process that we 're
looking at right now is to make sure that if something exceeded that
because it occurred , there should be fairness to allow that use that
occurred prior to 1982 if it makes sense . And that 's the process right now
that I think staff 's trying to undertake .
Mark Rogers : But the ordinance did not pertain to the non-conforming uses
that were in effect at that time .
Conrad: Right .
Batzli : But the fact that the ordinance was passed means that all you 're
legally entitled to is the use that you had on the lot in 1982 . And if you
expanded it , that doesn 't mean that you 're legally entitled to it at this
point .
Mark Rogers : Well I 'll tell you , if that 's what 's going to go into the
ordinance , that you 're going to try and strictly stick to the 1981 survey ,
I think you 're going to have a big fight trying to pass this ordinance .
Well I guess that 's all I can say .
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 45
Conrad: Give us some examples of what would be a problem . I 'm not aware
to tell you the truth that there are major . Obviously some , there have
been some problems with certain beachlots . With most of them are run
pretty well but there 's something that you don 't feel that you have that 's
not acceptable that has happened since 1982?
Mark Rogers : According to this survey , which lists 1981 , not 1982 . We had
according to this survey , we had 4 boats with room for 6 docked . In 1991
the survey said we had 17 , I believe that 's an error but the number should
have been at most 16 .
Conrad : 16?
Mark Rogers : Boats docked . Room for 16 . As you can see , there 's a wide
difference between 4 , room for 6 and 16 .
Batzli : So do you think that there was room for 16 back in 1981 or 1982 or
that 's been the expansion of your beachlot since then?
Mark Rogers: I was not there in those years . I believe that is probably
more than what we have now . 16 boats is probably more than there was there
in 1982 . I did not personally get a boat until 1989 . And I first moved
into the neighborhood in 1986 .
Conrad: Well yeah , in that situation there 's going to be some problems . I
think that 's the point of the process .
Mark Rogers : That 's what makes us nervous because if we say yeah , this is
a good amendment and we get into , or good ordinance and we get into
supporting it and the Council passes it and then I come back in front of
the Council and now we sit down and talk about the numbers , I 'm getting
this distinct feeling from you anyway that we 're going to walk away very
mad .
Erhart : Let me say , I don 't think this ordinance , was one of the driving
reasons to create this ordinance because we 're having a problem?
Aanenson: Yes .
Conrad : Very definitely .
Mark Rogers: The planning staff at that time indicated there had been some
problems in our own at the meeting . In our own case they said it was not
with our association but with , I don 't know if it was Minnewashta Heights
or somewhere on the north shore of the lake that there had been some
difficulties . But what essentially would wind up .
Erhart : I think is it fair to say that if you 're not causing problems , I
mean we 're not going to try to , I guess are you saying is the Council going
to be reasonable? I guess I expect that they 're going to be reasonable .
Is the .intent to make all non-conforming grandfathered beachlots conform to
our new ordinance? That 's not the intent is it?
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 46
Aanenson: No . The intent is to establish a baseline . . .of what they were
grandfathered in with .
Erhart : Establish a baseline so I don 't think .
Batzli : Yeah but that last part of your sentence , what they were
grandfathered in with and in this case that 's a problem .
Aanenson : A few of them have that problem . It expanded . The subdivision
has grown .
Batzli : But the City Council , their intent was to actually go back to what
was grandfathered in?
Krauss : Well no , and I think you 're hitting on the crux of the issue here .
Their intent was to establish a means of regulating these things . I
guess my own personal interpretation of it is somewhat more of an open
ended negotiation . I find it tough to believe that it 's going to be
difficult to justify tripling in size of something beyond what was
grandfathered but there may be some sort of a middle ground that 's found to
be reasonable . There is not an intent section here . You didn't discuss
intent when we brought this to you in terms of how that process would begin
nor did the City Council . It may be a useful question to ask yourselves . I
mean what would your intent be and possibly we can ask the same question of
the City Council .
Bernie Schneider : I 'd like to ask a question . When the survey was taken
in 1982 , if that 's when they were taken , were the homeowners associations
notified that the survey was going to be taken and that would determine the
number of boats that would be allowed in the future? If the association
was not notified .
Krauss: We have no way of knowing . This is 10 years ago .
Conrad: Again , the point is a beachlot can only take so much traffic . 100
feet can only have so many boats on it . Maybe that 's the same amount of
boats that a neighbor has or whatever but there 's an ordinance out there .
I think the intent of this process is to make sure that all the beachlots
have some kind of guideline that 's reasonable . And that 's the point right
now .
Bernie Schneider : In 1975 when the City Council approved our subdivision ,
they also approved the Declarations of Covenants and Conditions which
stated that every property owner had the right to moor a boat at the dock .
That 's right in the Covenants . We had a lawsuit going back 10 years ago
over a second , third and fourth addition expected to get the lakeshore
rights and they were denied that in Court . Because of the fact that they
were denied the lakeshore rights and the boat docking priviledges , the
highest property owner was awarded $15 ,000 .00 in damages for . . . There were
different property owners that were paid off because they lost their
lakeshore rights . Now if the City Council authorized this back in 1975 ,
how can the City Council in 1991 take away the rights that were
grandfathered into us? Everybody says the grandfathering only applies to
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 47
the two boats that were there back in 1982 . That should have no bearing on
this .
Conrad: Well legally there may be a case .
Bernie Schneider : I kind of think so because .
Erhart : I don 't think that 's what I heard . I didn 't hear that we 're
trying to grandfather in what was there in 1982 . I think we 're trying to
determine what the intent , what the deal was when it was put in . If the
deal was that 15 homes each get a boat , then that may be what has to be
dealt with .
Ivan Underdahl : That was the point I was trying to make but I think the
answer I think came . . .what was grandfathered is what you 'll be going by .
Conrad: But we probably won 't find out what was really intended .
Ivan Underdahl : This problem perhaps originated with our homeowners
associations because one of the members also owns that adjoining property
and for some reason he became upset that there were 4 boats at the dock
although there were no problems in having 4 boats at this dock . But he
initiated a lawsuit .
Conrad: I don 't think you 're the only one . There are others .
Ivan Underdahl : He 's tried to prevent us or get an injunction from having
any boats docking there at all . Well that 's what 's going on . . . .he 's been
pressuring the city now to enforce this grandfathered ordinance which would
limit the number of boats .
Erhart : Well I think the comments are appreciated . I think we 're starting
to get a handle on the complexity of the issue here . So Mark , do you have
any other comments?
Mark Rogers: Yeah . Just one other one is again , I was starting to get at
the , if we were to go through this process and get the permit . There
doesn 't seem to be any mechanism for amending or changing this permit
should it be required for whatever reason . I don 't know if that 's intended
or covered under something else but realistically it would seem that that
should be allowed for . And the last thing was should we get this permit ,
would we need any other permits in the future? I mean does the permit
cover toilets , picnic tables , whatever so that we would not need any other
conditional use permits or I don 't know , what else there might be in the
future short of reasonable beachlot kinds of things .
Olsen: . .conditional use permit .
Mark Rogers : For?
Jo Ann Olsen 's comment could not be heard on tape .
Mark Rogers : Okay , that wasn 't clear from our first meeting because if it
was listed on the survey and so forth.
Planning Commission Meeting •
December 4 , 1991 - Page 48
Olsen : . . . I thought you were asking .
Mark Rogers: I guess I 'm asking because other beachlots have to have a
conditional use permit for toilets , I think you 're saying so , would that be
another permit that we would have to then go get?
Krauss : You 've got an existing one now?
Mark Rogers: Yes we do .
Krauss: That would be in the package of , assuming it 's approved, that
would be in the package approved under this one permit application . You
wouldn 't have to come in twice for the same thing .
Batzli : But if they didn 't have the toilet , it was grandfathered in , they
may have to apply for it under the new ordinance and maybe that would be
under an amendment section is what he 's talking about .
Mark Rogers: Okay . I guess that was about it .
Erhart : Okay thanks Mark . Is there anything else we haven 't covered?
Bernie Schneider : Just on procedure now . This is going to be submitted ,
if the Planning Commission here approves this resolution tonight , it will
be submitted to the City Council and then the City Council , will the City
Council hold a public hearing on this also? Or is it all . . .
Krauss: Well the official public hearing , the one that 's mandated by law
is held at the Planning Commission but every City Council meeting is wide
open and the Mayor always asks if anybody has anything to say . So if they
do pass it tonight , there will be more opportunity to speak at the Council .
Bernie Schneider : So this is the final meeting as far as the Planning
Commission?
Krauss: Well I don 't know . They may continue this or ask for changes to
the ordinance and not approve it tonight . That 's their call .
Ivan Underdahl : We just happened to see it in the paper but I don 't know
what was on the letter .
Erhart : Kathy , did you meet with their homeowners association? Okay , and
were you at that meeting?
Ivan Underdahl : Well that was a long time ago.
Erhart : How long ago was it?
Ivan Underdahl : I don 't know how long ago it was .
Olsen: We did send out letters to all the homeowners .
Mark Rogers: About this meeting tonight?
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 49
Aanenson : The president .
( There was talking back and forth about the notification letter of this
evening 's meeting . )
Olsen: I don 't know with the storm and stuff , the mail might have .
Erhart : Well when was it mailed out Jo Ann?
Olsen: Beginning of last week . But with the holidays . . .
Ivan Underdahl : I was wondering , when does an association get the
opportunity to plead it 's case .
Conrad: You would come in front of this group first to plead the case . So
tonight we 're just saying , tonight we 're making a decision maybe , should we
have a permit process . That 's really what we 're doing and then some of the
questions are , well how do we notify those groups of when that takes place .
But tonight is just should we do it . Then we have the next step where
individual , where it would be up to you when your homeowners association
wants to come in and see us . You 'd have one year to do it . Then you plead
your case and if you can say based on legal conditions that we 've had we
think grandfathered 4 boats or whatever , then we listen to that and make
our recommendation to the City Council .
Bill Finlayson : I don 't know what number you 're going to give me . I heard
a rumor of about 14 boats on Minnewashta Heights Beach Association . Now
what number are we talking about so we know whether we have to plead a case
at all? Because I know that I mean I can pretty much establish 16 boats
and .I can go back to maybe . . .
( There was a tape change at this point in the discussion . )
Olsen : . . .conditional use permit for your recreational beachlot so you 're
legal non-conforming . You 're automatically in the process . You 'd have to
get the permit .
Bill Finlayson: Now is the permit a one time thing forever? Is there a
cost involved in this permit?
Olsen: That 's something that we haven 't established yet but there would be
a fee .
Bill Finlayson: A dollar?
Olsen: I think we were discussing $75 .00 .
Bill Finlayson: $75 .00? Forever right?
Olsen : Right . That is established by the City Council .
Erhart : Okay , anything else and again I think we all really appreciate you
coming . I think we got a good feel for what the issues are here . If
not , I 'd entertain a motion to close the public hearing .
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 50
Batzli moved , Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed.
Erhart : Why don 't we just have an open discussion on this . Go ahead .
Ahrens : I think there needs to be an intent statement in here because
there 's obviously a lot of questions people have concerning why we 're doing
this . I think that the ordinance should address any changes people may
have in the future concerning . I don 't know what it is . Maybe reapply for
another permit is it . But that needs to be clear in here . Who 's the
Zoning Administrator? Is that you Paul?
Krauss : Yeah .
Ahrens : Is that really a title you have or is that just something you
assume?
Krauss: Actually it was officially transferred . It used to be Don
Ashworth and he didn 't know it . Or I guess he forgot .
Ahrens : Does this make any sense to have that in there?
Batzli : I think it 's a term that 's defined in our Zoning Ordinance .
Erhart : Yeah , we 've used it quite frequently .
Ahrens : Okay . I don 't have any more comments . I think this has been ,
discussion has been pretty adequate .
Batzli : So you 'd want to table it and draft a new?
Ahrens: Yes .
Erhart : Jeff , do you have a comment?
Farmakes: I would agree to table this . Get an intent statement . It seems
like there 's some confusion out there coupled with the fact that a lot of
people currently didn 't get a notice on it .
Erhart : Ladd .
Conrad : I don 't know , obviously there 's confusion . So I think the work , I
don 't know that the work has to be done in this document . Putting the
intent there is fine I guess . I think the real key is to make sure that
the associations who have to go through this process understand what 's
going on and typically the intent , 10 words or 10 sentences may not do it
in something like this . I think reference by the people who are here
tonight , it has to be real clear what the process is and even some of the
guidelines . I think realistically when you come back in , I hold the
current ordinance to be something that we really do guide development by .
The current ordinance makes a lot of sense so I would be dishonest if I
said that that wasn 't a guidelines that we 're going to use as we review
things but I think again as we talk to the homeowners , I think the
associations , there has to be some , and I can 't , I don 't know what 's gone
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 51
on with staff . They 've met with everybody but I think it 's got to be real
clear what those homeowners associations , what the process is and what they
have to do and what the City 's posture , what the City 's role is in this
whole thing . And I don 't know that that gets done in an intent statement
here . It may be a letter that says Dear Homeowners Association . Here 's
what we 're doing and if you want to send somebody else in and review the
process with us to get a better understanding , you should do that .
Erhart: Okay was there something handed out at the meetings of the
homeowners associations?
Aanenson : A copy of this ordinance and then we gave them a copy of the
inventory . Mark has a copy .
Erhart : Okay so there wasn 't any intent or general description of the
purpose or anything at that?
Aanenson: Yeah , we stood up and gave a presentation . Then somewhat we
kind of broke and met with them individually to answer specific questions .
Erhart : Yeah but it wasn 't written , was it written out? Your
presentation , is it written out? So some of this might be around that we
could use .
Conrad: So how many showed up for that? Most?
Olsen : Quite a few but . . .
Batzli : So that may be why some of them aren 't here tonight ..
Bill Finlayson : When was that meeting held?
Olsen: October?
Aanenson : Yeah , I think that 's when it was .
Bill Finlayson: There was one before this I know . Is that the meeting
you 're talking about?
Olsen: Yeah , 4 : 30 .
Erhart : Here?
Aanenson: I think we set up like 4 : 30 to 6:00 because we figure people
could trickle in and we could meet with them one on one .
Conrad: I can see how this is confusing to some folks .
Erhart : Okay , Brian did you have anything else?
Conrad: Yeah , I 'm pretty much done but again that 's the intent statement
is here but I think it 's the process that we have to follow . Even some
that are here right now are still a little bit concerned what 's going to
happen and how it works . I think that 's really communication .
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 52
Batzli : I like the idea of an intent statement I think . And potentially
adding at least a sentence regarding amendment . That if they want to amend
it , then they go through the process again or something . Reapply for
another one . Because that may , you may want to handle , it seems to me that
in , if they want to expand for example by adding a toilet , it 's not clear
to me whether they would go through this process again or whether they
would go through our normal beachlot stuff about adding a toilet on a
beachlot .
Aanenson: Or go through the variance procedure , expansion of a
non-conforming .
Krauss : At that point it 's not a non-conforming use anymore . It 's a
permitted use so . The only options we would have is either come back
through or establish a separate amendment procedure .
Batzli : Yeah , but handle that so it 's clear what they 're going to do . And
I had a question about enforcement of this . On a conditional use permit , a
hearing is held before us and then it goes to City Council or what have
you . How do you envision if a problem arises under their permit , how would
it be handled?
Krauss: It 's the same as a conditional use permit . We inspect them
annually . If we find a violation , we write to them about that . If they 're
in violation of their permit and we can 't achieve some accommodation , we
take it before the City Council and ask them to consider revocation .
Batzli : How would you revoke a permit?
Aanenson: Do you think we should put something into that?
Batzli : I don 't know . I 'd like you to at least look at that and see how
you would have to enforce this .
Aanenson : A violation section?
Batzli : A violation section . Or if you 're going to do it according to the
conditional use permit , you can maybe again add a sentence.
Conrad: You know just the bottom line of this thing is real threatening to
a homeowners association . We 've got to be real sensitive to that . There 's
a feeling that we 're taking away rights and on some basis we may but we 've
got to be real sensitive to the fact that what this is doing and it makes
people nervous .
Erhart : Okay , what are we talking? Are we talking an intent statement , a
violation . Are we talking about putting that into the ordinance itself?
Or are we talking about when we hand this something out to people that it
sort of sells .
Aanenson: Put it right in the ordinance .
Bill Finlayson: I think the Minnewashta Beach Association can argue
numbers but we 'd like to have something to argue with.
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 53
Erhart : What the basis , okay and that 's what we 're trying .
Bill Finlayson: We want to be able to , we have documentation you know . We
want that reviewed obviously .
Conrad: But I guess I 'm still looking , I 'm going to plead my case here .
I 'm still looking for some kind of document that says Chanhassen is trying
to get a handle on beachlots period . We have an ordinance that regulates
most of them and some of them the ordinance didn 't apply to and right now
we 're trying to update what those beachlots can do . Here 's the process
that we have to follow and maybe you did that in person so excuse me for
when I am naive about what 's happened but here 's what it appears that your
legal for at this point in time and here 's the process to bring it in front
of the Planning Commission to get a permit . I 'm looking for that kind of a
play script type of communication to let people know .
Erhart: I 'm not , while I think we should put an intent and perhaps
violations in the ordinance I still , I think we need an additional document
that gets handed out . Mailed out when you mail out the ordinance or
perhaps mailed out with the public , next if we table this . Mail out that
describes how we 're going to , what is the method for determining what is
grandfathered or the preferred method . What are the guidelines going to
be?
Krauss : Well , I think we can indicate something along those lines but if
this gets into the sphere or trying to negotiate an equitable settlement ,
if that 's what it is based upon information that we had . Based upon
information that they had . Based upon some legal documentation about what
was committed , I don 't think we can tell you ahead of time what the
result 's going to be .
Erhart : No , I 'm not trying to do that . I 'm just saying , as Ladd said ,
some comfort as to we 're not trying to take things away from people .
Aanenson: That 's why we tried to have the informal meeting ahead of time
before this . We thought we had tried to mitigate all those questions
before they came in but obviously we didn 't do a good enough job .
Erhart : Well I don 't know . It could be you did a great job and that 's why
there 's only 4 people here . It 's hard to determine but I think if I can
summarize , I think what we 're saying here is , I think we should add an
intent statement . Something with violations and amendments . I guess the
other issue Mark had was on notification . You may want to look at that .
Batzli : Clearly you at least want to mail the revised copy to these five
members in addition to the homeowners presidents because it sounds like the
homeowners presidents didn 't receive the notice or they didn't pass it
along .
Erhart : I think my experience in trying to deal with the homeowners is
that they don 't communicate very well among themselves . Mailing to one is ,
what have you got , 17? Chances are 2 of those are going to be on vacation
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 54
or gone for a week , particularly at Thanksgiving . You 're going to , it 's
just not going to work with a weeks notice .
Mark Rogers: I agree with that . Especially with something like this . You
know here 's a case where . . .believe that they have a legal right to have a
boat and there are people within my association who . . .that same sort of
thing and if they perceive that I somehow was negligent in informing them
of this process , I don 't want to get involved with that . I want to do the
best I can to represent the association but they need their own
responsibilty .
Krauss : Well we were talking about . We thought we would write a letter to
the homeowners presidents to give us a mailing list of who 's in their
associations . We have no idea of who they sold rights to . There 's just no
recorded documentation that we have .
Bill Finlayson : We pretty much regulate ourselves . We have a certain
amount of spaces available and we stick within those guidelines . We 've
never had a waiting list . For the first time next year we 're going to have
a waiting list of one . It 's the only time this has ever happened and that
person 's certainly on a waiting list and he won 't be able to get in until
someone else moves out . We 've been regulating ourselves for some time .
Erhart : Okay , let 's move along . Let 's get a motion . Can we get a motion
here?
Conrad: Before there 's a motion , is there any other comments about what
staff had down here? Any changes to what they had so they don 't come back
with something that we want to change or are those words okay? I 'm
comfortable with what 's down here .
Batzli : I actually , in reading this where it says the permit shall be
issued following receipt of satisfactory proof , that actually doesn 't
really need to be in there because it should be down in the hearing
section . I personally didn 't understand that whole sentence . Why it was
where it was . It 's not going to be issued following satisfactory proof .
It 's going to be issued following the hearing and the City Council review
based on something else which is what we 've been talking about tonight .
It 's not going to be issued following them coming in with a bunch of
documents . Setting it down on Paul 's desk and he goes here 's your permit .
Erhart : Kathy? Anything else? Is there a motion?
Conrad: I move that we table action on this item until staff drafts an
intent statement and a violation fee?
Olsen: A violation section .
Conrad: A violation section .
Aanenson: And amendments .
Erhart : And something to do with amendments , yeah . I think it 's clear to
staff what our intent here is . Is there a second?
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 55
i Batzli : Second .
Conrad moved, Batzli seconded to table the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to
require interim use permits for recreational beachlots until staff can come
back with a draft of an intent statement, violation section and a section
regarding amendments . All voted in favor of tabling and the motion
carried.
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONCERNING BUS SHELTERS AND PARK RIDE LOTS.
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item .
Erhart : Okay , is there any reason to open a public hearing on this? Okay .
Any comments from the commissioners?
Conrad: The only thing that I didn 't see in there was anything about
landscaping so I might assume that the landscaping of the section , what
landscaping will apply to this? Jo Ann .
Olsen: The landscape ordinance for site plans .
Krauss: Is it mandated that this get site plan approval?
Olsen: . . .conditional use permit which . . .
Krauss: Well if we add to the ordinance just a one sentence line that says
it 's also required to get site plan approval , have the full landscaping
requirements .
Conrad: My only point is , what we 're doing is creating a giant parking lot
and if anybody cares about how we screen a giant parking lot . If we 're all
comfortable that the landscaping ordinance does that , which it probably
does .
Erhart : Are you comfortable with the landscaping ordinance that applies to
this parking lot?
Olsen: Yeah , it 's . . .
Conrad: It probably makes sense .
Krauss: Keep in mind we 're the bus company too .
Erhart : That 's what scares us .
Conrad: Yeah , Paul that 's not the right thing to say .
Erhart : Are you satisfied Ladd?
Conrad: Yeah , I think the ordinance , as long as the ordinance applies to
this , then we 're okay .
Erhart: Okay anything else?
CITY OF
Y
. _;_,.,,,.- i10-
, CHANHASSEN
.c .
ilk
3
..„ '
690 COULTER DRIVE• P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
lit,.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission VV
FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director h--
DATE: December 31, 1991
SUBJ: Draft Ordinance Changes/Residential Components of the PUD
Ordinance
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
r
At a series of meetings over .the past year, staff has brought
proposed changes to the PUD ordinance before the Planning
Commission. As you will probably recall, the bulk of the PUD
ordinance which pertains to non-residential development in the
community was adopted last fall and is now in use. The ordinance
is in use as evidenced by Ryan's Chanhassen Business Center PUD.
In fact, we even used the ordinance in a residential context for
Lundgren's Lake Lucy Road project. However, this did not involve
any lots smaller than the 15, 000 square foot RSF standard. At that
time, however, because a consensus could not be reached on
standards pertaining to residential PUDs, this section of the
ordinance was not adopted. Staff has been attempting to resolve
outstanding issues for the Planning Commission since that time.
The Planning Commission's primary concerns stem from the use of the
PUD ordinance to allow lots smaller than 15, 000 square feet. We
have attempted to present evidence that we believe allows one to
conclude that lots smaller than 15, 000 square feet are:
1. Highly buildable. -
2 . Represent the potentia'.- dor high quality residential
neighborhoods. Local evidence is Lundgren's Near Mountain
project.
3 . Are cost effective. Economic result from lower land cost and
reduced costs for roads and utilities.
4 . Can be used to require higher quality, more sensitive
development. In exchange for PUD flexibility and cost
savings, the city can expect more from the developer.
5. Can be handled in such a manner as to avoid the problems that
have occurred in the past with some small lot developments in
A
Ca PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Residential PUD Ordinance
December 31, 1991
Page 2
the city. Past problems include lots poorly designed to
accommodate homes, expansions and decks within setback areas.
Staff believes this can be addressed by establishing
comprehensive development standards.
Last summer, we believed that we had reached agreement on allowing
lots down to 9, 000 square feet under certain circumstances, as long
as there was a mix of lot sizes in the balance of the development.
When this last came before you in September, it was clear that our
belief that a consensus had been reached for 9, 000 square foot lots
was in error. This memo and the materials attached herein
represent our most recent attempts to clarify this matter so that
we may move on to other issues. We firmly believe that the PUD
ordinance offers significant advantages to the city as well as the
developer and should be used more often in the future.
We are presenting two variations of the ordinance for your review
and comment. The first is the ordinance that you reviewed at the
September meeting. It is unchanged except that the minimum lot
size has been increased from 9, 000 . square feet to 10, 000 square
feet. We made this change for two reasons. It seemed more
consistent with the Planning Commission's intent. Secondly, we
recently reviewed a preliminary development concept that used the
same sized lot quite effectively. Staff supported this ordinance
in the past and we continue to do so believing that this sort of
development can be handled in an effective and sensitive manner.
The second alternative is to allow lots down to the same 10, 000
square foot minimum but require that average lot size meet or
exceed the 15, 000 square foot minimum provided in the RSF District.
We believe that this approach adds some flexibility, although not
as much as the first option. However, it does result in average
project densities that are consistent with development elsewhere in
the community. Staff has recently spoken to a potential developer
on land located near the intersection of Galpin and Lyman
Boulevard. On this project, the potential developer, Hans Hagen
Homes, would like to utilize reduced sized lots in the open field
area closest to the public boulevards. They would like to balance
this by using larger sized lots in a forested area located to the
north and west. In these areas, the larger sized lots could
receive a better price on the market and allow for a lot more
sensitivity in tree preservation and to minimize grading. We think
this concept has a tremendous amount of merit even though the
average lot size is still being maintained at better than 15, 000
square feet.
Staff is at a loss as to how to pursue this matter further if a
consensus is not reached on one or the other alternatives at the
next meeting. If further analysis is desired, your direction is
requested so that we may further clarify the issue. Staff is
recommending that the Planning Commission select one of the
alternatives for adoption by the City Council.
* Denotes second alternative *
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE
The City Council of the City of Chanhassen ordains:
Section 1. Article VIII, Planned Unit Development District of
the Chanhassen City Code is amended as follows:
Section 20-506. Standards and Guidelines for Single Family
Detached Residential PUD's.
a) Minimum Lot Size - The single family residential PUD allows
lot sizes down to a minimum of 10,000 square feet. The
applicant must demonstrate that there are a mix of lot sizes
consistent with local terrain conditions, preservation of
natural features and open space and that lot sizes are
consistent with average building footprints that will be
concurrently approved with the PUD. * Average lot sizes for
the project must meet or exceed 15,000 square feet.* The
applicant must demonstrate that each lot is able to
accommodate a 60' x 40 ' building pad and 12 ' x 12 ' deck
without intruding into any required setback area or protective
easement. Each home must also have a minimum rear yard of 30
feet deep. This area may not be encumbered by the required
home/deck pads or by wetland/drainage easements.
b) Minimum Lot Width at Building Setback - 90 feet.
c) Minimum Lot Depth - 100 feet.
d) Minimum Setbacks:
PUD Exterior - 30 feet.
Front Yard - 20 feet.
Rear Yard - 30 feet
Side Yard - 10 feet.
Accessory Buildings and Structures - located adjacent to or
behind principal structure a minimum of 10 feet from property
line.
e) The applicant must demonstrate that the flexibility provided
by the PUD is used to protect and preserve natural features
such as tree stands, wetlands, ponds, and scenic views. These
1
{
areas are to be permanently protected as public or private
tracts or protected by permanently recorded easements.
f) An overall landscaping plan is required. The plan shall
contain the following:
1) Boulevard Plantings - Located in front yard areas these
shall require a mix of over-story trees and other
plantings consistent with the site. Well designed
entrance monument is required. In place of mass grading
for building pads and roads, stone or decorative block
retaining walls shall be employed as required to preserve
mature trees and the site 's natural topography.
2) Exterior Landscaping and Double Fronted Lots - Landscaped
berms shall be provided to buffer the site and lots from
major roadways, railroads, and more intensive uses.
Similar measures shall be provided for double fronted
lots. Where necessary to accommodate this landscaping,
additional lot depth may be required.
3) Foundation Plantings - A minimum budget for foundation
plants shall be established and approved by the city. As
each parcel is developed in the PUD, the builder shall be
required to install plant materials meeting or exceeding
the required budget prior to issuance of certificate of
occupancy or provide financial guarantees acceptable to
the city.
4) Rear Yard - The rear yard shall contain at least two
over-story trees. Preservation of existing trees having
a diameter of at least 6 inches at 4 feet in height can
be used to satisfy this requirement of the PUD and the
plans should be developed to maximize tree preservation.
g) Architectural Standards - The applicant should demonstrate
that the PUD will provide for a high level of architectural
design and building materials. While this requirement is not
intended to minimize design flexibility, a set of
architectural standards should be prepared for city approval.
The primary purpose of this section is to assure the city that
high quality design will be employed and that home
construction can take place without variances or impact to
adjoining lots. The PUD Agreement should include the
following:
1) Standards for exterior architectural treatments.
2) Prohibition against free standing garages may be required
by the city when it is felt that unattached garages will
be difficult to accommodate due to small lot sizes. If
an attached garage is to be converted to living space at
2
some time in the future, the applicant will have to
demonstrate that there is sufficient room to accommodate
a two car garage without variances to obtain a permit.
3) Guidelines regulating the placement of air conditioners,
dog kennels, storage buildings, and other accessory uses
that could potentially impact adjoining parcels due to
small lot sizes.
Section 20-507 . Standards and Guidelines for Single Family
Attached or Cluster-Home PUD's.
a) Single family attached, cluster, zero lot line, and similar
dwelling types shall only be allowed on sites designed for
medium or high density residential uses by the City of
Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan.
b) Minimum lot sizes. Minimum lot sizes down to 5, 000 square
feet may be allowed. However, in no case will gross density
exceed guidelines established by the City of Chanhassen
Comprehensive Plan.
c) Setback Standards/Structures and Parking:
PUD Exterior - 50 feet
Interior Public Right-of-way - 20 feet
Other setbacks - Established by PUD
Agreement
d) The applicant must demonstrate that the flexibility provided
by the PUD is used to protect and preserve natural features
such as, tree stands, wetlands, ponds, and scenic views. These
areas are to be permanently protected as public or private
tracts or protected by permanently recorded easements.
e) An overall landscaping plan is required. The plan shall
contain the following:
1) Boulevard Plantings - Located in front yard areas these
shall require a mix of over-story trees and other
plantings consistent with the site. Landscaped berms
shall be provided to screen the site from major roadways,
railroads and more intensive land uses. Well designed
entrance monument is required. In place of mass grading
for building pads and roads, stone or decorative block
retaining walls shall be employed as required to preserve
mature trees and the site's natural topography.
2) Exterior Landscaping and Double Fronted Lots - Landscaped
berms shall be provided to buffer the site and lots from
major roadways, railroads, and more intensive uses.
Similar measures shall be provided for double fronted
3
lots. Where necessary to accommodate this landscaping,
additional lot depth may be required.
3) Foundation and Yard Plantings - A minimum budget for
foundation plants shall be established and approved by
the city. As each parcel is developed in the PUD, the
builder shall be required to install plant materials
meeting or exceeding the required budget prior to
issuance of certificate of occupancy or provide financial
guarantees acceptable to the city.
4) Tree preservation is a primary goal of the PUD. A
detailed tree survey should be prepared during the design
of the PUD and the plans should be developed to maximize
tree preservation.
f) Architectural Standards - The applicant should demonstrate
that the PUD will provide for a high level of architectural
design and building materials. While this requirement is not
intended to minimize design flexibility, a set of
architectural standards should be prepared for city approval .
The primary purpose of this section is to assure the city that
high quality design will be employed and that home
construction can take place without variances or impact to
adjoining lots. The PUD Agreement should include the
following:
1) Standards for exterior architectural treatments.
2) Prohibition against free standing garages may be required
by the city when it is felt that unattached garages will
be difficult to accommodate due to small lot sizes. If
an attached garage is to be converted to living space at
some time in the future, the applicant will have to
demonstrate that there is sufficient room to accommodate
a two car garage without variances to obtain a permit.
3) Guidelines regulating the placement of air conditioners,
dog kennels, storage buildings, and other accessory uses
that could potentially impact adjoining parcels due to
small lot sizes.
Section 2 . Amend Section 20-505, Required General Standards,
by adding the following:
(m) Buffer yards. The City Comprehensive Plan establishes a
requirement for buffer yards. Buffer yards are to be established
in areas indicated on the Plan where higher intensity uses
interface with low density uses. In these areas, a fifty (50) foot
buffer yard is to be provided where the interface occurs along a
public street, a one hundred (100) foot buffer yard is required
where the interface occurs on internal lot lines.
4
The buffer yard is an additional setback requirement. It is to be
cumulatively calculated with the required setbacks outlined above.
The full obligation to provide the buffer yard shall be placed on
the parcel containing the higher intensity use.
The buffer yard is intended to provide additional physical
separation and screening for the higher intensity use. As such,
they will be required to be provided with a combination of berming,
landscaping and/or tree preservation to maximize the buffering
potential . To the extent deemed feasible by the city, new
plantings shall be designed to require the minimum of maintenance,
however, such maintenance as may be required to maintain
consistency with the approved plan, shall be the obligation of the
property owner.
Buffer yards shall be covered by a permanently recorded
conservation easement running favor of the city.
In instances where existing topography and/or vegetation provide
buffering satisfactory to the city, or where quality site planning
is achieved, the city may reduce buffer yard requirements by up to
50% . The applicant shall have the full burden of demonstrating
compliance with the standards herein.
5
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 20
Emmings : Ladd .
Conrad: No .
Emmings: Annette .
Ellson: No way .
Emmings: Brian .
Batzli : It should go somewhere way down the list .
Emmings : Okay , Jeff .
Farmakes : Somewhere down the list .
Emmings : Okay , and I 'd say no . Why don 't you run that straw vote by the
City Council and see if they want us to spend time or if they want you to
spend time on it . Then we 'll go from there .
Willard Johnson: Some gentleman mentioned 2 1/2 acres .
Erhart : That was no gentleman . That was me .
Willard Johnson: . . .when we were granting variances to the southern part
of the city there for building . . .we pushed them to one side of the lot .
Erhart : Not anymore . It used to be that way .
Willard Johnson: We encouraged them to push to one side of the lot becaus_
some day you 're going to develop and can 't afford to keep the property .
• Well this guy can decide to put another place behind him and then he sells
off the other and it could perpetuate a number of homes . Just a small
development on 2 1/2 acres . . .so I just thought I 'd throw that at you
people . I 've seen so much . Thank you .
Emmings: Yeah , thank you .
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONCERNING PUD RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS.
Paul Krauss presented the staff report .
Ellson: I have a question . What 's an over story tree?
Krauss : It 's a deciduous tree with a crown on it .
Ellson: Oh! I thought it was big enough to reach the top story of the
house or something .
Krauss : Hopefully it will be .
Erhart : Just throw these terms in once in a while to keep us jumping .
Emmings: Yeah . What did we call those trees in our landscape ordinance?
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 21
Krauss: Trees .
Batzli : Trees from Catagory A?
Erhart : Canopy trees . It used to be canopy trees .
Emmings: I wondered about that .
Krauss: You can call them deciduous . I think we did call them deciduous .
Although there are deciduous trees that are , I mean a birch tree is a
deciduous tree .
Ellson: Those little poplars that are narrow and tall and skinny and stuff
wouldn 't be considered an over story one .
Emmings: Alright . I 'd like to ask you , in your Section 1 in A and also
again in another place . On page 3 at the bottom there and then in
paragraph D . It says in no instance shall project density exceed
comprehensive plan guidelines . I know the answer to this but I just want
to see if you do . What does that incorporate here? It incorporates
obviously the comprehensive plan guidelines for density but what are we
saying when we say that here?
Krauss: For example the comprehensive plan designates the low density
designation as 0 to 4 units per acre . Maximum 4 units an acre . If you
used 9 ,000 square foot lots , and let me see if my math is 18 , you can
theoretically get more homes on a site than , you could have more than 4
units per acre .
Emmings: Right , but you 're not going to let them do that is what it 's
• saying here .
Krauss: Right .
Ellson: Is that the answer you wanted to hear?
Emmings : Yeah .
Ellson: You passed .
Conrad: I don 't know . So the plan says 0 to 4 units .
Emmings: Is low density .
Conrad: I guess my problem with A , as soon as you say 9 ,000 square feet ,
that 's your standard .
Emmings: No. Down to a minimum of .
Conrad: I know .
Ellson: You say we 're just going to get a bunch of 9 ,000 's .
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 22
Conrad: Well and they can 't do it but it says to a developer that 's the
potential . That 's our standard . Whereas there 's a difference . Really ou
standard is bigger than that . So my problem , our standard is typically loL
sizes in a subdivision or whatever are coming in at 17 ,000-18 ,000 square
feet . That 's really what we 're comfortable with in Chanhassen based on
history .
Batzli : You mean in a regular subdivision?
Conrad: Yeah . .
Emmings : In our subdivision ordinance .
Conrad: Yeah . But even a PUD . You 're coming in at , and I don 't know that
for sure but most of them are above the 15 ,000 on an average . My problem
is the way this is worded . It says our standard is 9 ,000 . It says a
minimum and I understand that but I see no reason , you know I feel real
comfortable allowing . I feel not real comfortable . I feel comfortable
allowing us •to go down to 9 ,000..square foot lot sizes but that is not our
standard .
Batzli : Whereas I would agree with everything you said except I 'm not
comfortable with 9 ,000 .
Conrad: Yeah , you don 't like the 9 because that seems pretty small . See
and again it becomes a mix and I want to give developers the opportunity t
build down to that 9,000 and have some open space but still the way , you
know you leave in with PUD and maybe you say minimum lot size 9 ,000 and
that becomes what they 'll come in at 10 or 11 , although Paul is saying
comprehensive plan guidelines says 0 to 4 . I guess I 'm still a little
uncomfortable with that one .
Ellson: I think that thing is what 's going to make sure we don 't get too
many of those .
Conrad: But 0 to 4 , we 're getting what , 1 .8 units per acre?
Krauss: 1 .7 gross .
Emmings: That 's gross?
Conrad: That 's kind of what we like and I don 't see changing that .
Ellson : Unless you know you could leave that huge area of wooded and push
a little more over here .
Conrad: Right . So that 's where I 'm still comfortable with in that mix anu
if somebody wants to free up open space with that gross density , then I 'm
comfortable going down to that 9 ,000 .
Emmings : Well is that part of what 's being incorporated by the saying
comprehensive plan guidelines?
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 23
Krauss: Well it is but I don 't think it 's achieving what Ladd wants it to
achieve . The comprehensive plan theoretically allows up to 4 units an
acre . What Ladd is saying is right . Our average single family project is
1 .7 . We 're giving them additional latitude here to increase density .
That 's true . It could . On the other hand, the penalty or what you need to
do to achieve it increases with the increase in density in terms of the
amount of open space you have to reserve and our expectations of what kind
of a project we 're going to get out of it . PUD 's also incorporate slightly
greater setbacks around the perimeter of the PUD to help buffer it from
adjoining properties .
Conrad: Well I don 't understand that Paul . I guess I don't mind where
we 're going but I don 't know how we 're going to get there with this . So
the penalty for being in a PUD, and you come in with the 15 ,000 square foot
lot size , you 've got to dedicate 1 ,500 feet to open space . So in other
words , if this is the same as having a 16 ,500 square foot lot , which .we
already have bigger lot sizes in our PUD 's and subdivisions already . So
there 's not much of a , what we 're doing , instead of having a 16,500 square
foot lot coming in , we 're going to say no . 15 ,000 over here and then let 's
start a little kitty over here of 1 ,500 .
Emmings : Where 'd you get the 1 ,500?
Conrad: 10% of 15 ,000 square feet .
Emmings: That 's 15 ,000 though . That 's not the 9 ,000 .
Erhart : Right . But that 's my question too .
Conrad: 1 ,500 . 10% of 15 ,000 is 1 ,500 .
Erhart : But ask the same question of the bottom one . Why isn 't it , if
it 's 9 ,000 square feet average , why isn 't for every lot , why isn 't there .
6 ,000 feet set aside for open space?
Conrad: Yeah , that 's where .
Erhart : I mean that 's the big discrepancy . Why isn't it 40% which would
be 6 ,000? Actually it 's not the 15 ,000 . It 's the bottom one . 25% . Why
isn 't it 40%? So if you take , you 've got a 15,000 square foot .
Krauss: You want to carry the same ratio throughout .
Erhart : No , no , no . I 'm just saying what are we trying to accomplish? If
it 's 9 ,000 square foot average . Isn 't there a goal if we have 15 ,000
square foot lots . The guy wants to make a 9,000 square foot lot . Then
doesn 't 6 ,000 go to some kind of open space? .
Conrad: See that rationale works for me .
Emmings: Everybody here kind of likes the idea of clustering but every
time something comes in that will allow to do it , everybody gets scared.
Conrad: Because we 're trying to make sure we know .
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 24
Emmings: Because it 's scarey .
Conrad: Well yeah but you 've got to know how this looks .
Ellson: But don 't forget , we always get to approve these things . You 're
thinking once it 's written .
Conrad: Well you can change it but boy . But you kind of have a sense for;
what this is going to feel like or look like once it comes in . And on the
other hand , do you want to encourage developers to do this? That 's what
our last PUD ordinance didn 't do . It was not encouraging . You 've got toy
give them something to get something that we want , yet most people here ins
town really aren 't crazy about smaller lot sizes . If you went out and
polled , you 're going to find very few that want to go down smaller . Very
few . You 're talking .
Batzli : Then raise our minimum lot size to a half acre . Keep the PUD
15 ,000 and you 're set . You want them to use PUD , everybody will use PUD .
Erhart : Average net lot size , is that net of the open space?
Krauss : Excluding designated wetland .
Erhart : And open space?
Krauss: No .
Erhart : It includes the open space?
Krauss : Yes . Keep in mind what qualifies as open space here is listed
in E I think . -• The idea with the PUD , I mean I went through what was it ,
the Saddlebrook subdivision today . We had people from Moody 's Investors
Service here today .
Erhart : The guy 's got to have 25% open space . How can he possibly get to
9 ,000 square feet?
Krauss: It 's not the lot that has it . It 's the project .
Erhart : I know but if you 've got 100% and 25% of it 's open space , you 've
got 75% less . If your minimum lot size is 9 ,000 and you 've got to add
another 25% , you can 't possibly get to an average net lot size of 9 ,000 .
Krauss: Yeah you could. You 're assuming that everything's going to be
split up as it is in Saddlebrook in individual lots and there is no public
or private open space in outlot designations or some other non-residential
lot .
Erhart : No , I 'm saying you can 't get down to 9 ,000 .
Krauss : Sure you could . If you have 100 acres , you can have 49 ,000 square
foot lots and the rest of it open space .
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 25
Erhart : But I thought you said that open space was included in the
acreage , included in the net . That 's net of the open space?
Krauss: No . The open space percentage , maybe we could clarify that . The
average net lot size is , after we exclude wetlands , what is the average lot
size they 're giving us .
Erhart : Oh okay . That 's average lot size . Okay . Alright . I was
thinking that was the density figure . Okay .
Krauss: And the open space percentage applies on the entire project area .
Erhart : So then you have 9 ,000 . Why aren 't we just taking 6 ,000 and
putting that in open space which would be 40%?
Krauss: Well , I approached it differently I guess .
Erhart : You 're saying to go to a PUD there 's going to be an inefficiency .
That inefficiency is that 15% . So in fact what we 're getting is 9 ,000
times 1 .3 so we 're really getting 12 ,000 . If you took then all 9 ,000
square foot lots , you add the 33% which yeilds 25% open space , then your
average lot size , including the open space , is 12 ,000 square feet . That 's
what you 've got .
Krauss: That 's if you , so you 're going back and you 're aggregating the
entire area?
Erhart : Yeah , I 'm just trying to see what our average lot size is .
Krauss : I think another way to get at this same issue and I think the one
that maybe Ladd was leading to , was when you go back into A where we say
the cap on this thing is the comp plan . What I 'm hearing you say is that
the comp plan cap which , you know the comp plan just talks about density . I
mean if you have a 100 acre tract , you can build Cedar Riverside on there
and still have the same density . Density that 's consistent with that .
Maybe you want to look at lowering the allowable densities in single family
residential PUD 's .
Erhart: No , but do you understand what I came up with? Brian?
Batzli : No .
Erhart : I 'm just trying to rationalize the 25% . If you take 9,000 square
feet and have a whole development and your average lot size was 9 ,000
square feet, you 'd be required to set aside 25% of the good space . Now
that 's 25% of the whole development though isn 't it?
Conrad: No .
Erhart : It 's 25% of the net .
Conrad: Of the average lot size .
Emmings: No . 25% of the whole development .
- i
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 26
Erhart : Of the whole or net? Net ofwetlands?
Krauss: Of the whole .
Erhart: That 25% can mean a lot from one parcel to the next because one
parcel might be 50% wetland yet he has to provide , he gets a few lots and
still has to provide 25% of the whole parcel where the next guy may have
100% developable land and he has to provide 25% .
Emmings: Well wait . It says wetlands and other water bodies protected by
city .ordinance and permanent easement . It can also be used to satisfy up ,
to 25% of the standard . 25% of the 25% if we 're looking at the 9 ,000 line
Erhart : It gets very complicated .
Krauss: The idea is to crank out additional open space out of this thing .
Emmings : So we should be winding up with more than the 25% .
Krauss: Well I think
you did in the Lundgren/Lake Lucy when you went with
41% .
Erhart : Yeah but some of that , anyway .
Conrad: But how do you administer that Paul? You know the PUD comes in
and it 's got some 9 ,000 . Some 11 ,000 . Some 12 ,000. Some 15 ,000 and how
do you end up with an overall project open space amount? You've got to
apply a percentage times each parcel .
Ellson: No , the average .
Krauss: You come in with 100 acres . You 've got 33 lots . The average lot
size is 10 ,000 square feet . You owe us 22 .5 acres of open space .
Batzli : So if he doesn 't have that built into his lot already when he
comes in . He may have to reduce lots and then that number changes again .
Erhart : I think maybe I can explain what I was trying to get to . Take the
ideal situation where 100% of the land is developable .
Emmings: No wetlands .
Erhart: No wetlands . The guy just comes in with a- bunch of 9 ,000 square
foot lots .
Emmings: Only 9 ,000 square foot lots?
Erhart : Only 9 ,000 .
Krauss: The ordinance says you can 't .
Erhart : We can 't . Then how can you get to the average? How can you get
the average net lot size to 9 ,000?
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 27
Krauss : I supposed it could be thereotically .
Ellson: It could be one . You never know .
Emmings : It can 't because on an acre we can only have , what is the comp
plan going to limit it to?
Krauss: Well the comp plan limits you to 4 so on an acre , that 's 36 .
Emmings : Thousand out of 45 ,000 square feet .
Erhart: You could be a medium density area which allows what , 6 per acre?
Emmings : Let 's talk about .
Erhart : Now you bring up a good point . Can 't you get to the average of
9 ,000?
Krauss: I don 't know . I don't know that you theoretically can.
Erhart: Then why even have this in the table?
Ellson: We had that thing with the church over here and they wanted to put
something in there and it was just one . It 's a possibility .
Erhart : Where does it say you can 't get to 9 ,000 . What 's the role I 'm
missing here?
Krauss: P. requires that you give us a mix of lot sizes so even if you come
in with 9 ,000 , they 're going to have to come in with something else .
Emmings: They can 't just come in with 9 ,000 .
Ellson: It says right there . There are a mix of lot sizes .
Erhart : Which line?
Ellson: R . The third line down .
Erhart: Okay , but we don 't really define mix so if they came in with one
9 ,500 then .
Krauss: But you can throw it out . You can do whatever you want to in a
PUD .
Erhart: Okay , let 's assume they are all 9 ,000 100% developable. Then what
you get is on an average over that 100% developable area a 12 ,000 square
foot average lot size when you add back in the 25% open space . Then the
question is , does that seem right? That goes back to our old ordinance . I
guess maybe the number where we got that number was the old ordinance
allowed us to go to 12 ,000 square foot minimum lot size right?
Krauss: I could lie and say that . . .
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 28
Erhart : That you figured that all out right?
Krauss: That 's a lucky one there .
Erhart : Well that 's a . . .does that seem right to us? I don 't know .
Emmings: That doesn 't talk about roads or anything else . That doesn 't
seem like you 're accomplishing any one thing to me . But I don 't think
that 's what 's going on here either .
•
Erhart : Well what 's
going on here is you 're not going to have 9 ,000 and
maybe you 're going to have 11 ,000 average but then you 're only going to
yeild 20% . So when you take 11 ,000 times 1 .25 and your average lot size
now is 13 ,750 when you add that back in .
Krauss: But I think one point we keep overlooking is the one that you
touched on about the advantages of clustering . In a straight subdivision
that 's all roped off and fenced off into people 's backyards . There 's no
public good . There was no ability to preserve stands of trees . There 's no
ability to preserve promontory . . This gives you flexibilty to rope off 22%)
of the site or whatever ratio it is and do good things with it . And still,
keep the densities relatively low .
Conrad: But higher overall than what we 've been used to .
Ellson: And that 's the carrot that you get them to use . We talked about
it before .
Conrad: So you don 't mind Annette , instead of coming in at .2 units per
acre , which has been our standard . You don 't mind coming in at 2 1/2 unit
or 3 units per acre?
Ellson: Well number one I 'll be able to see it . Although probably not me,
but the idea behind a PUD is they don 't tell you I 've met everything . You
have to take it no matter what we choose which is the problem with .
Conrad: They 're going to come in and say I met your standards .
Ellson: But at the PUD , we 're the ones who decide if we like it or not .
We don 't have that choice in some other things .
Batzli : But then they 'll say fine . We'll do it under your regular
ordinance and tough luck .
Emmings: Then we say fine .
Ellson: Then we 'll say fine.. Then we 'll get what we wanted possibly
instead but we have a chance to deny it if we think they 're trying to rape
the system or use it in a way we don't like it . We get that shot .
Conrad: I tell you Annette . I 'll play the record . They ' ll look at the
ordinance and say the ordinance allows it and you 're within the guidelines
of the ordinance and we 'll say go ahead .
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 29
Ellson: But Paul will be looking at it and he 'll say , this isn 't what we
want out PUD 's . We wanted that nice wetland and that nice view . Why don 't
you clear up that space and do whatever . He 'll see it first and make that
recommendation .
Batzli : Let me make a general point here as a person who lives in a PUD .
We 're talking about very lofty , fine goals here .
Conrad: It doesn 't give you any more credibility .
Batzli : It doesn 't but just let me express :
Conrad: You 're an outcast in that group anyway . I 've talked to your
neighbors .
Emmings: I don 't even want to sit next to him .
Batzli : Lct me just express , we have very lofty goals here and we think
we 're doing public good but I think if you wandered into a PUD and asked
the people in the PUD what do you want . They 'd look at you and say , I want
bigger lots so I can do the regular stuff that everybody else in the whole ,
pardon my french , damn city can do on their lot .
Erhart : What don 't you buy a different lot then?
Batzli : Well but they don 't know .
Ellson: Whct aboutthe people who say I want a 5 minute front lawn?
Batzli : They don 't know . People moving in to these lots are typically ,
and I 'll gross over generalization and simplification. These lots are
typically cheaper . Maybe Lundgren Bros . builds high priced lots but the
other people can come in here and they build starter homes on some of these
things . In a lot of cases . They don 't know any better . Even somebody
such SE r-ye,elf who probably should have known better didn 't know any
better . I didn 't realize what the difference between a PUD and a regular
lot size was . They don 't recognize the fact . You know you 're looking at a
9 ,000 square foot lot and if that 's a corner lot , you 've got about 2 ,000
square feet to do something on and that includes putting your house and
driveway and everything else on there which leaves barely any room on it at
all . And before you start talking about global good and wonderful open
spaces and everything else , consider that the people that move in don 't
give a rip if there 's a park there because they expect a park there whether
they 've got a regular lot size or a small lot size . They don 't care . They
don 't want to hear that well we 've got a park for you . They 're going to
say yeah , and you gave me this dinky lot that I can 't do anything on and
you should have given me a park anyway . If we keep on saying Chanhassen is
supposed to be good and wonderful , make them put in normal sized lots and
get the park in addition . That 's my final and only comment on this . I
can 't believe we 're thinking of going down to any 9 ,000 square foot lots .
Erhart : Do you have 9 ,000 square foot lots in your PUD Brian?
Batzli : I don 't know how big they are .
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 30
Emmings: Just his .
Batzli : Just mine . I got the corner lot . I got the corner lot and I 'm
stuck with it . No but seriously . I do think that if we do this , and you
know something 's going to happen and I can see it coming down the tracks
like a train just about to run me over here . But I would like to propose
that at least we require the developers that are putting these into tell
people what they 're getting . They have to tell them what the square
footage of the lot is and what the setbacks are on the sides of the homes .1
Give them a sheet . I don 't care . Informed consent . I think we should do
that much for some of these people .
Erhart: Let me ask you . Let me clarify what you said. Are you saying w4,
should never allow 9 ,000 square foot lots or an average of 9 ,000 square
foot lots?
Batzli : I wouldn 't allow any .
Erhart : Any at all .
Conrad: What 's your minimum? What lot size would you go down to?
Ellson : He just said the half acre .
Batzli : Whatever the smallest lot size is in the city now , there 's a
reason for that .
Emmings: Yeah , there 's a reason .
Batzli : Whatever the reason is that we 've chosen that .
Erhart : Throw a dart at a board .
Batzli : Okay , then we should throw the same dart at the board for the PUD
My recommendation is , if you want control over developments , you increase
the minimum lot size and you put the minimum on that you would otherwise
have expected as the minimum in the PUD. Don't be compromising your
standards to get a little bit of clustering and a park that you should have
gotten anyway . That irritates me .
Emmings: If we did what Brian is proposing and raised this to our
subdivision standards of 15 ,000 square feet , would we ever see a PUD?
Krauss: You just did .
Emmings: Right . That 's right . Lundgren Bros . Well maybe Brian 's . I was
kind of liking this until Brian .
Erhart : We were sold on the 9 ,000 square foot lots because we got a few of
them up there in Near Mountain and I:don 't know . I guess I haven 't
personally gone and looked at them'. You 've got a few slides and you can 't
tell much from that but staff seemed to think they were okay .
Ellson: And I really believe that the market is going to. . .
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 31
Erhart : There 's a big difference between having a few 9 ,000 square foot
lots and having a development where the average lot size is 11 ,000 square
foot in my mind .
Emmings: But if you say I 've got 100 acres and I 'm going to put 10 lots ,
ten 9 ,000 square foot lots and leave the rest empty , I take if you have no
objection to that .
Erhart : No , but that 's not what you 're saying .
Emmings: No , I know it 's not but it isn 't the lot size . It 's the ratio to
open space per lot size . I can see , we all like clustering . At least we
all talk about it . We don 't really know what it is but .
Erhart : I 'm not sure if you get 100 9 ,000 square foot lots all together
and then you 've got another 25 acres sitting or 50 acres sitting someplace
off to the side .
Emmings: We 'd never approve that though . Now you 're painting a picture .
Elison: A worst case scenario .
Emmings: No , not even a worst case scenario . It can't happen because it
would run afoul of our comprehensive plan and it would run afoul of the
intent that we have in having a PUD ordinance .
Batzli : Okay , so make them all 11 ,000 square feet .
Erhart : I just wonder if we shouldn 't delete some of those lines down
there like 9 and 10 and maybe even 11 and give us another , raise our
basement line a little .bit here . In other words , yeah you can have some
9 ,000 square foot lots but don 't even think about coming in here with a
9 ,000 average . Maybe we set a 12 ,000 average . See what I 'm saying? We 're
kind of inviting a lot of 9 ,000 square foot lots the way we have this table
here .
Conrad: I 'd sure try to do .
Emmings: You 'd never have an 'average 9 ,000 though . We keep coming back
around to that . It can 't happen . Only if they came in with only 9 ,000
square footlots could you ever have that .
Conrad: So let 's take that worst case scenario because we will see it .
Emmings: It isn 't possible .
Conrad: Why not? Okay , let 's take it . Let 's take the 10 ,000 .
Emmings: Do you agree?
Krauss: I agree that it 's not possible .
Conrad: Then we shouldn 't have it there .
Planning Commission Meeting •
October 2 , 1991 - Page 32
Krauss: But you know I keep going back to the fact that we had an
ordinance on the books for years that said there 's an average lot size of ,
12 ,500 square feet . Nobody used it because .
Conrad: That was a minimum . That was a minimum lot size .
Krauss: No it was an average wasn't it?
Conrad: No , minimum .
Emmings: That was a minimum .
Conrad: We 're talking here now . I get real concerned when we talk average
versus minimum . I am real comfortable allowing some smaller lot sizes but,
boy that 's not the average . That 's the average , I really don 't want to
compromise the average .
Emmings: But again , maybe we 're getting too specific here . Shouldn 't we
be saying to people look . Here 's our subdivision ordinance . Here 's what ,
you can do . An option you 've got is the PUD ordinance . Under the PUD
ordinance you 've can do a whole bunch of things . One of the things you ca.
do is have lots that are smaller than what is required under the
subdivision ordinance but if you come in under that , expect to have open
space requirements that are going to go up as fast as your lot sizes go
down and don 't really expect to have a smaller or a greater gross density .
Batzli : Well you wouldn 't be able to have a larger gross density because
of the comp plan right?
Emmings: Right . Well tell them right up front . Don 't expect to get a
larger gross density . And if you 're going to come in below what our
subdivision ordinance allows for lot sizes , then as that goes down , the
open space requirement 's going to go up . And don 't put the numbers in
there . Then let them figure out how they 're going to cluster and bring us
a plan to look at .
Krauss: So now put in new criteria?
Emmings: Yeah . Then if they want to go with zero lot line or if they want
to go with a small lots with detached houses or whatever they want to do ,
let them figure that out .
Batzli : We 're going' to be arbitrary and capricious .
Emmings: Yeah but within the PUD I think you can.
Erhart: It sure helps the process to have some guidelines.
Elison: Yeah , I like Paul 's thing . Plus people come and go reading this .
Emmings: You don 't really like it because you want to erase a lot of
things .
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 33
Erhart: I just don 't think we should.think about less than 12 . I don 't
know why I 'm picking 12 . I guess because it 's the old number . I would
never think about having average lot size of less than 12 ,000 .
Emmings: But this really stiffles . These charts to me kind of stiffle the
creativity that you might allow somebody to have . Why not let them figure
it out?
Conrad: Let 's just remember . I 'm speaking out of both sides of my mouth
but that 12 ,500 minimum didn 't encourage anything in our old PUD ordinance .
It did not motivate anybody so I think Paul 's putting out a carrot here to
say hey , let 's motivate them to do this . I 'm just wanting to make sure
that we motivate them but we 're not giving away the integrity of the
community . And I can 't understand what we are getting . I guess what I 'd
like to see is some sketches of what this does . I 'd like to see somebody
lay out how this would be applied and that doesn 't mean we hire a designer
but I need to see what this might look like if somebody came in . And we
haven 't , you know Tim 's point is still on the table . It 's still valid .
He 's saying to go down to 9 ,000. square feet , we 're giving up 6 ,000 square
feet below a standard that we 've set for a subdivision but we 're only
getting 2 ,250 feet out of it in open space . Is that the lure? Is that
3 ,500 foot , the developer has a net gain on that one of 3 ,500 square feet .
Is that what it takes to get a PUD? And then the question is have we
gained anything with that PUD? What have we really gotten . I 'm throwing
those things out but I guess I still have a tough time visualizing what
this formula does for us . I don 't want to kick it out yet . I 'd rather
have it in there because it might be a good guideline but on the other hand
I want to know what it does before I approve it . I want to know how it ,
I 've got to see it and feel it and I can 't right here .
Krauss: Well we can sure take a crack at doing that . I guess a couple
things have happened too . I think we 're talking about a couple different
goals for the use of the PUD . I think in the Lundgren proposal we saw that
there was a rationale and a benefit to coming to using the PUD ordinance
for a subdivision whose lots averaged 31 ,000 square feet .
Erhart : Hold it there . 31 ,000 square feet included a lot of water .
Krauss : Yeah . Well and that 's why I threw in the language here excluding
designated wetlands because there was an issue with that in the average lot
size .
Erhart: Average real lot size is dinky .
Krauss: But that 's normal . You look at subdivisions around Chanhassen ,
they 're all like that .
Bat11i : Yeah, I know . That 's what I was saying earlier . I don't like it .
Krauss: I think one of the things I 've been tossing over is maybe we need
a minimum net buildable standard for all lots, in the city . I mean you
could have a 100 ,000 square foot lot if you can 't accommodate a 5 ,000 foot
square foot building area , it 's no good . We might want to consider that as
an ordinance amendment in the bigger picture . I think it 's certainly
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 34
warranted . That 's why we started giving you tables and we can 't do
anything about it except give it to you but giving you tables now where we
say here , it 's a 18 ,000 square foot lot. 5 ,000 square foot of it is
wetlands . In fact it was one of the things you requested in Lundgren but '
we 're starting to do that in everything .
Farmakes: If you did that though , wouldn 't you eliminate about 3 of those
lots that they were proposing there?
Krauss : Well again , against what standards Jeff because the lots that are;
in there are bigger than we normally get and everywhere you go in
Chanhassen we have wetlands . That 's a very common situation .
Farmakes: But what Tim said though , a majority of those lots , at least
some of those lots were wetland . Standing water and he made a point when
he was here arguing that you had to look at the lot all the way out to they
lot point in the middle of the skunk pond which I didn 't understand . Why?;
Krauss: Because you 've done it in every other subdivision in the city .
•
Batzli : So Paul says develop a new one that says you need at least a
certain minimum area where you can put some building on it or something .
Krauss : And not come back , doesn 't say it needs variances because you
can 't put a house on it . Now we 've tried to do that . We 've gone through
in the last couple years and we 've tried to figure out what we think a
buildable size is and tell the builder that that 's not legitimate but we
have no guidelines to do it . If it doesn 't look right , we try to make them
fix it . But I think it 's appropriate to , I mean we can do some research if
you like and come back to you but I think an ordinance amendment and it
would apply to any lots created in the RSF , RR or A-2 and PUD have to
contain a minimum buildable area regardless of how big they are .
Farmakes: I think you would avoid what a person is designing that out .
There would always be 2 or 3 lots and that many homes that you 're going to
have to force just as a matter of economics that you 're going to try to gea
in there on whatever 's left over . When I look at that Lundgren , you can
almost pick them out with looking at it for 10 minutes as to which ones
were , what they had left over and what they were going to try to make a lot
out of .
Krauss: Yeah I know what you 're speaking to but every lot in there has a
legitimate building site to the extent that we know what legitimate
building sites are and we don 't have a criteria. I know that the building
sites that are on those lots , even though some of them have quite extensive
wetlands , are bigger than we find on a lot of other lots in regular RSF
subdivisions .
Farmakes: Most of them did . There were a few that seemed to me as far as
useable space were on the bottom end of this list here .
Krauss: They were tighter and will probably require designed home to fit .
So as far as this , I mean I have now become a believer that there 's some
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 35
ti
use for PUD 's , residential PUD's that don 't lower our average lot size at
all . •
Erhart : That was the question I had . Why , if a guy has a 15 ,000 square
foot average , why are we making him set aside any open space? The only
reason would be if , yeah I mean why?
Conrad: That 's true . A subdivision we 're penalizing so anything 15 ,000
and under however I think we should be getting something in return. That 's
where we 're bending our standards .
Erhart : Yeah , I always thought that we were taking 15 ,000 square foot
let 's say , this idealized lot and if a guy wanted to make it 9 , the city
gets 6 for open space and there 's no inefficiency . Right now we 've got a
lot of inefficiency .
Batzli : What 's the developer 's advantage to doing that rather than they
might have shorter stubs?
Conrad: Clustering utilities .
Erhart : Clustering . Make them more creative . You might want to get rid
of , like up here we let them use less than the standard setbacks . That was
a major thing for that . I remember that presentation . That was a big deal
that he wanted those houses 20 feet from the street . And so he got that .
Emmings : Another flexibility .
Krauss: Well and we 're working with Lundgren now on that Johnson-Delache
piece between TH 41 and Galpin . There you 're talking 90 or 100 acres . I
don 't know what it is and if we look .to that .
Emmings : Would you do it as a PUD?
Krauss: Yeah . Now maybe as a PUD in there , it's big enough that Lundgren
will probably try to market to different prices of homes . Maybe they will
have a bunch of 11 ,000 square foot lots . Further on where the land gets a
little nicer and more rolling , they may have a bunch of 30 ,000 square foot
lots . And your average lot size will probably still come out to be better
than 15 ,000 . At that point you don 't look at varying your standard at all .
You maintain your average lot size .
Emmings : So then you don 't get any .
Erhart : So that 's why you 're saying at 15 we should still take 10 because
there 's going to be bigger lots that 's going to offset smaller . Okay , now
I understand that .
•
Batzli : Would all the open space may be on the larger sized lot end of the
development too and then you 've clustered , for the sake of clustering the
smaller homes .
Emmings: Yeah , do we want to do that? Should they have to have open . If
they 're going to have 11 ,000 square foot lots , even though they 've got a
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 36
bunch of 30 ,000 to offset it , bring the average to 16 or 17 . If they 're
going to have those 11 's , do you want to have to create open space that
isn 't owned by another lot .
Krauss: Well we said they were willing to accept . Keep in mind when we 're
saying open space , the way this ordinance is structured , that 's not soccer!
fields . I mean if the city wants a park , a percentage of that area can bel
used to qualify .
Emmings: What are we talking about when we say open space?
Krauss: You may be talking about .
Emmings: Places where there aren 't houses .
Krauss: Yeah hut it could be portions of somebody 's lot . On the Lundgren
deal that 's going to Council in 2 weeks , the tree preservation areas where
we 've said there 's no cutting and we 're going to take a conservation
easement , that 's all on what will be private property but it 's protected br
a permanent easement . We said that qualifies .
Emmings: Yeah , and you 're going to have that same opportunity on the new
one because that all butts up against a wetland too on the south side .
Batzli : I just think it 's small comfort for a person on an 11 ,000 square
foot lot to know that a quarter of a mile away they preserved a stand of
trees on somebody elses private property . Now that person may walk into
that knowing full well what they 're purchasing . Maybe they do , maybe they
don 't . Maybe as a city we don 't care . I '.d like to take a little bit more
paternalistic attitude .
Krauss: I don 't know where you want to draw the line. I mean somebody
walks into a Chevy dealer , they don 't expect to walk out with an Oldsmobile
you know . Someplace people have to understand what the limitations are .
Clearly in the past .
Batzli : We 're looking at the ordinance and we don 't understand it . Do yo
expect somebody to come into the city buying a lot and say well , I 'm
purchasing a PUD . Explain to me all the rules and regs . Would you have
the time and effort to explain it .
Emmings: No , but I think Paul is saying if you 're buying a lot you ought
to know the size of it .
Batzli : I understand that but .
Krauss: Also in the past I think there 's been almost total , I mean these
things haven 't been done . Nobody 's done a residential PUD here in 5 years .
We still have one building built out but you have a very comprehensive
PUD ordinance now where a lot of things have to be demonstrated and filed
with property and made clear and we 're going the extra step like in the
Lundgren thing where we 're requiring monumentation of the wetland setback
areas and things like that . We can do a lot that puts the owner on notice
Now if the owner chooses not to read anything or not to call , then we have
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 37
a concern . Now I know the issue Brian that you gave us the letter on the
deck . Under the ordinance now as this is written , that wouldn 't have
happened .
Batzli : Yeah, I understand that . I still have a problem with corner lots ,
their ability to be 9 ,000 square feet and then you 're looking at , like I
said , you 're looking at 2 ,000 square feet potentially of space on the lot
other than the setback . I guess I understand buyer beware but after having
lived in the community now of 100 homes in my little PUD and talking to
most of them and it 's their fault . They don 't read the local paper . They
don 't care . They don 't know . They don't want to know but the minute they
want to do something with their property , then suddenly they get into it
and the question is , do you want to protect these people or not . Is the
City getting something and is what the City 's getting worth raising the
erre of a lot of people moving into the community . Maybe they should have
known better but I guarantee you less than 1% will find out that they 're
living on a substandard lot that the City things they got a tree preserved
a quarter of a mile away in exchange for their substandard lot . That 's my
point .
Conrad: Those people are happy to move into a 10 ,000 square foot lot .
Ellson: Who are we to tell them?
Erhart : I think if they don 't like it they can always sell it and move to
a bigger lot .
Ellson: They 've got the choice going in .
Erhart : It 's not like they don 't have options and I realize it 's
inefficient .
Ellson: If something has to be marked off for them or some sort of
notification that a lot of people don 't realize they 're within the setback
of the wetland and all these other kinds of things and too many come forth
and say oh , I didn 't know . That 's why I filled it all in . That kind of
thing . They 'll ignore that anyway even though they 'll still say they never
heard about it . If they want to do it , they 're going to do it . And you
having easements on those protected things is mightly strong now versus a
convenant in the past which were worthless in protecting .
Krauss : That happens on 2 acre lots too . I think you 're going to have to
answer the fundamental question , because I 'm not sure . Do you want , I mean
I think we 've demonstrated that the PUD has some validity beyond allowing
undersized lots . Now you may well want to allow some freedome for
undersized lots instead of minimum but require that the average is
consistent with other city neighborhoods . Is there a desire to grant
flexibility below the 15 ,000 square foot average or should we structure
this so that doesn 't happen?
Conrad: When you say average , the 15 ,000 square foot average . That 's the
minimum so I 'm not sure what you 're saying Paul .
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 38
Krauss: What I 'm saying is you could-change this around so that you might
have a 9 ,000 or a 10 ,000 or 11 ,000 . Whatever you want to set as the
minimum lot area that you allow in a PUD . That will give a developer
flexibility to put in some smaller lots where those are appropriate . But
require that the average lot size meet or exceed 15 ,000 square feet . 7
Erhart : That 's our old ordinance .
Krauss: Yeah and before we had the Lundgren thing come down , I wasn 't top
sure that anybody , nobody had used the old ordinance . . Now the old
ordinance was a bad deal for everybody. It was a bad deal for the buyers .
It was a bad deal for the city and the city never got what the developers '
promised which was more affordable housing . There were no guidelines and
no standards . But in an area like this Johnson-Delache piece the
flexibility that the PUD may give a developer to take like the open
cornfield area and do the smaller lots and preserve the larger wooded
hilltops for the larger lots and average it out , maybe that 's a worthwhile
exchange . I don 't know .
Conrad: Let me interrupt you . I know
you 've got a thought maybe .
Batzli : Which is new .
Conrad: But it 's real easy to agree with Tim 's comment . I can understand
what Tim is saying because it makes real good mathematical sense . If we
have a 15 ,000 square foot subdivision minimum , now we 're going to break
that rule for a PUD . You can go underneath that down to a minimum lot size
of what we ever agree . Whatever Brian feels comfortable with but then you
take the difference between the 15 ,000 minimum and what they just went doi4
to and you plop that into open space .
Emmings: Not on somebody else 's lot .
Conrad: No . See all of a sudden , now I 've solved my density . My concern
about increased density for the overall deal because I 've allocated that
same 15 ,000 . It 's either going to be there in a subdivision or a PUD but ;
I 've allowed the developer to go down and cluster some utilities and..save 1
some money but the difference is I 've taken what he's saved landwise and
I 've put it in our little bank over to the side called open space . Now
that one I can visualize and feel comfortable with. But I can 't , I still ;
have a tough time with our formula that we 've got because I can 't tell
what 's going to happen . I don 't know if it 's , I just don't know. Now
Paul 's comment could be , hey that 's not going to motivate the developer to
do it and that 's a valid . That would be a real valid.
Erhart : Yeah , because I think the incentive is still there because he get'
to put some 9 ,000 square foot lots .
Conrad: See I would too but I don 't know that .
Erhart : I think it 's very hard to get the average down below 14 ,000 or
13 ,000 . I think it 's more likely you 're going to see the averages above
15 ,000 , even despite the fact that you may have some 9 's and 12 's in there
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 39
Conrad: See the word average bothers me . Again I 'm talking about minimum
and going below a minimum . We 're not- talking about , well .
Emmings : That is a problem because if your average gets over 15 ,000, now
there 's no requirement to set aside any open space .
Erhart: Well that 's the question I 've got . Now hang on . That 's not the
way I read this . I read this as any time you go in a PUD you 've got to put
10% open space period . Is that what I 'm reading?
Krauss: Well , we just changed that to 15 ,000 square feet or above .
Erhart: So then anytime you have a PUD you have to put aside 10% open
space . Is that what you 're saying? Is that what we want?
Ellson: No . I want a lot more than that .
Erhart: I mean if a guy comes in at 16 ,000 or 17 ,000 square foot , should
we require them to set aside 10%?
Krauss: What are you requiring of the individual who does a straight
subdivision?
Ellson: You 're getting at least .
Krauss: No , unless the city wants a park there which is the 10% , they give
nothing .
Erhart.: You don 't have to have park fees or parks with the PUD?
• Krauss: Yes you do .
Erhart : Maybe I misunderstand your question . If a guy comes in with a PUD
because he wants to have some setbacks , special setbacks for something . Who
knows what but yet his average lot size is 20 ,000 square feet , we 're still
going to make him provide 10% open space? Is that what we want?
Krauss: I think that 's the theory that we 're getting to here but you 've
got to ask yourselves , what if Orrin Thompson wants to do a 1950
subdivision here and the city doesn't want a park on the property? He 's
not giving you a square inch .
Batzli : Giving you pretty good fees but you 're right , no square inch of
open space .
Erhart: Do a 1950 's what?
Ellson: Cracker box , cracker box .
Krauss: Yeah , your usual suburban subdivision . Straight subdivision .
Straight platting . Unless the park board says they need park space there ,
you don 't have a single foot of open space .
Erhart : No , but they 've got to pay a fee .
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 40
h
Krauss: Right . Well so these people are paying fees too . They 're paying
identical fees .
Batzli : You know how these problems are solved? We just move the minimum
lot size in R5F to 20 ,000 square feet . Done deal . Everybody just smirks
when I say that . I don 't understand why it 's such a sacred cow.
Emmings: Well , it isn 't .
•
Conrad: It costs a lot of money .
Batzli : People will come in and do PUD 's then . If you want PUD 's , that 's
the way to get them to do PUD's . But we can't even decide what we want th
PUD to be .
Conrad: This is not easy .
Ellson: Where do we go from here?
Erhart : I 'm still trying to understand why , if a guy comes in with an
18 ,000 foot average . The big question is , why might he want a PUD?
Krauss: For the reason we found on the Lundgren proposal is that if you
throw 30 foot front yards and 75 foot rear yards and 50 foot or 60 foot
rights-of-way at them , you have a very difficult time making a legitimate
development out of that thing . He got the flexibility .
Erhart : The price you pay then for that is a 10% of it goes to open space .
Krauss: And in his case it 's 40% of open space .
Batzli : Not under the new formula .
Krauss : No , I haven 't applied the formula . Of the 12 . something acres ofi
open space , 8 of it 's wetland . So you would give them 2 acres of that .
Batzli : Get 2 acres , yeah .
Emmings: I tell you , well . You guys are always arguing for specifics in
ordinances and I 'm always arguing to keep them vague but all the problems
are created by trying to come up with a formula and I don 't know why we
can 't just avoid it . I don 't know why you would want to.
Ellson: You 're saying spell the intent out clear enough.
Batzli : But if we can 't decide on what 's fair now , how are we ever going
to decide the minute a developer walks in unless you have at least an
"acceptable range" . You will be expected to provide within this range for'
open space . 10% to 20% .
Emmings : I could go along with that .
Batzli : Yeah , I could go along with that .
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 41
Emmings : A statement in a range I could live with very easily .
Batzli : The developer will be expected to provide between 10% and 20% open
space . End of it .
Emmings: Another statement . If you go below 15,000 feet , expect to have a
greater requirement . To the extent you have lots below 15 ,000 square feet ,
expect to have greater requirements for open space .
Krauss: For individual lots or average density below that?
Emmings: See I tend to go to the individual lots .
Conrad: Individual lots .
Emmings: Because otherwise I don 't want to see , you know he 's got prime
land over here and he 's got 1 acre lots and he 's got a whole bunch of
little houses down here where Brian lives . Those are 10 ,000 square feet .
Those people are getting screwed . To me . I agree with Brian . It 's no
comfort . There may be a certain market for people who want to live in
those houses .
Krauss: Well but face it . These people probably paid $30 ,000 .00 for the
lot when the guy up on the hill paid $80 ,000 .00 . I mean you 're getting
something different for a difference in price .
Emmings : Yeah , I don 't know . I guess I don 't find comfort in that but
I guess I could be persuaded if there 's a market . Maybe there are empty
nesters who want a small place and don 't want to spend their time taking
care of a yard . We have people starting out who want to get into a house
like that .
Batzli : See but most people , and I 'll say this and you don 't have to give
me sympathy but this is the reason . Most people move in and they expect
the community to have minimum standards . Most people don 't understand what
PUD is . They don 't understand that what they 're getting is below the
minimum community standards in other parts of the city . They don 't
understand that .
Conrad: But they know what they 're getting .
Emmings: They know what they 're getting .
Batzli : No they don 't . Okay they know they 're getting a 12 ,000 square
foot lot . They don 't know that the minimum throughout the rest of the
entire city is 15 ,000 .
Emmings: Why do they care?
•
Batzli : Well the question is , why should the city relax the standard?
Emmings: To provide that person with something that he wants and can
afford .
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 42
Batzli : I don 't buy that that house is any cheaper than the 15 ,000 square!
foot lot . I don 't buy that the PUD is necessarily providing that but
that 's just me .
Emmings: I think that 's the reason the person bought it . I mean they 're
dissatisfied with their house because they moved into a 12 ,000 square foot
lot and find out most other people in regular subdivisions have 15 ,000
square foot lots?
Batzli : No , they are . Well . I don 't know how to say this but they move
in . It 's a substandard size lot . It 's not necessarily , and under this nel
subdivision things are changed a little bit but they still have setbacks
and things applied against them and they don 't understand the nuances of
the PUD . That 's my only point that they 're getting a smaller sized lot an'
they 're not necessarily gaining any benefits from it and I 'm not convinced
necessarily that the city got anything so I 'm looking at it from a lose
lose perspective . The people that are moving in . They don 't understand
that they 're going to have a strike against them the minute they try to do
something on the lot . The City 's really not gaining anything . My question
is , who 's getting something other than the developer who had relaxed the
standards to do the development . Now if you can convince me that we 're
providing a different housing market and people are getting cheaper houses
and that 's why we 're doing that , then that 's a good enough rationale but I
don 't know that that 's why we 're doing it here tonight .
Emmings: Now presumably a builder won 't build a house unless he can sell
it . There 's got to be a market or he 's not going to sell the house .
Batzli : Right , but the question is , who 's winning with this ordinance?
. the City winning? Are the people moving into the city winning , which is ,
you know when we 're looking at it I think we have to look at it from two
points of view . Is the City getting something like open space or a park of
helping to preserve additional wetlands other than what our ordinance
already does . : It does comfort me at all that Lundgren preserved wetlands
that were already preserved . I mean that just really irritated me . That
yeah , we get to count the whole wetlands here as open space . Well you had
to do that anyway . I don 't give a rip . You know , so the City doesn 't
really win under that scenario . The people if it 's a , and again don 't feel
sympathy but people moving in I don 't think feel they win . So you 've got I
the people moving in . They 're unhappy usually with the city because they
go to the city . The city says you can 't do anything with your lot so
they 're unhappy . The city didn 't get anything . Who won? The developer .
My question is , let 's build an ordinance . Make sure we have an ordinance
where the people moving in win. The City wins and the developer gets a
fair shake and I don 't think that 's happening under this one .
Emmings: You know one way maybe to avoid this problem of a developer
putting up , having a bunch of big lots in one area and a bunch of little
ones in another area which scares me about this . Would be to put somethinL
in here that they 're going to have to mix their lots to some extent . And
what are you going to do , set up a formula for that? I don 't even know ho
you do it .
Ii
•
Ii
i
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 43
Conrad: I go back to the overall . Just real simply , - I don 't have a
problem . Let 's take a 100 acre parcel . Based on today 's development
pattern , on a 100 acres . Somebody could probably put in 200 units on 100
acres . I don 't have any problem taking those 200 units and putting on half
of the property and leaving the other half open . Taking the minimum lot
size down to 4 units , you know putting it up to 4 units per acre . That 's
fine because what I 've done there is we 've got open space and we 've kept
the standard that we 've been kind of floating along with . 2 units per
acre , even though comprehensive plan says 0 to 4 , practicality has dictated
we 're coming in around 2 .
Emmings: Or 1 .7 .
Conrad: Or 1 .7 so that 's why I want to be able to get .
Emmings : I think everybody here would agree with that .
Conrad: But I 'm not sure I know how to get there .
Emmingz : Paul won 't . He flexed his eyebrows .
Krauss: No , I see . . .45 minutes ago .
Conrad: Well we 're missing things .
Emmings : But what 's the difference between what Ladd 's saying and what
we 're doing here?
Krauss: Because what we 're doing here would allow densities in excess of
what we normally experience .
Emmings: Does anybody want that?
•
Ellson: I think I could be won over if I looked at it .
Erhart : In excess of what? •
Emmings : In excess of the 1 .7 . What we 've historically done with
subdivisions . That's why I asked right off the bat , it says in no instance
shall the project density exceed comprehensive plan guidelines . I wonder
if we were incorporating that 1 .7 right there .
Krauss : No .
Emmings: Well I wonder if we want to .
Krauss : Well you might .
Conrad: That would make me feel comfortable . That one , and Paul mentioned
it before , average consistent with other subdivisions . That 'one .statement
gives me the leverage to talk to a developer and then I can throw
everything else out . But that one statement gives me something to say , hey
I don 't like it because it 's not meeting what we 've seen in 'the past in the
overall design of the subdivision .
Planning Commission Meeting •
October 2 , 1991 - Page 44
Emmings : And then could you throw out this open space table? Couldn 't yq
get rid of all that?
Krauss: You could , well .
Conrad: I 'd like to give them a way to .
Emmings: To what?
Conrad: I 'd like to force the open space .
Emmings: But if you 've got your gross density set . If he wants to
cluster , you 're going to wind up with open space . You've set the gross
density for the whole project .
Conrad: Yeah . It could still end up looking like a PUD . Or like a
subdivision . End up looking like a subdivision though .
Emmings: But then if it is a subdivision , he goes under the subdivision
ordinance . We don 't care if he. does because we think we have one that 's
okay .
Erhart : You can cluster . You can still cluster and use the 9 ,000 square
foot lots . Overall density is .
Emmings: Is 1 .7 .
Erhart : For the low density is one number . Medium density is another
number and high density is another number .
Emmings: Right . Here 's the framework . You 're stuck with .
Erhart : That would really serve the same purpose as this .
Emmings: Do what you want . Bring it in and we 'll take a look at it .
Batzli : But they wouldn 't have to necessarily provide open space . They
could just make bigger lots .
Emmings: But if they want that approach Brian , why wouldn 't they do a
subdivision?
Batzli : No , if they could put a couple 9 ,000 square foot lots in there and
just put 37 ,000 and end up with the right density . They wouldn 't have
provided any open space that isn 't privately owned . i
Emmings : Okay , would that bother anybody?
Erhart : That 's what you 've got here too. I mean this open space is based
on average .
Batzli : That 's right .
Erhart : So you can do the same thing with this .
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 45
Batzli : Right . I understand that . Well I don 't like that aspect of this
either . I mean that 's why I 'm viewing this as the developer wins . The
city loses . The people that move in lose except for the people on the
37 ,000 square foot lots and they didn 't have to move into a PUD anyway if
they didn 't want to .
Conrad: I don 't perceive it that way .
Ellson: I don 't either .
Batzli : I know but I 'm just , somebody 's got to argue against it because
otherwise this whole commission . . .
Ellson: Were you here the night they gave that presentation of all the
different ones? There were a lot of win situations there .
Batzli : I gave you Tootsie Pops to soften you up but it didn 't work .
Emmings: Order in the court . Jeff , you haven 't said anything .
Farmakes: I think it should be 1 .7 and I think that that point was made
quite a while ago .
Conrad: The rest of us missed it .
Farmakes: It 's still going to become quite cloudy whether or not it 's in ,
it seems to me that the advantage of a PUD is financial anyway . One way or
the other for the developer . Why would a developer develop a piece of
property if it wasn 't in their financial interest?
Emrriings : They wouldn 't unless they 're stupid .
Farmakes : Going on that basis , I think if 1 .7 is the average size , if
that 's what it works out to , I think that still gives them the leverage .
That still gives them the leverage to utilize pieces of property . Because
of the terrain , will develop otherwise .
Emmings: What would be the gross density on the Lundgren one that we just
went through here?
Krauss: 1 .4 units an acre .
Erhart : Why don 't we just ask them to go back and look at that . We 've
spent a lot of time discussing this . We 're obviously not going to pass
anything tonight . Look at that approach versus this approach .
Krauss : Would you like me to get , you only heard from one developer .
There 's a lot of them out there who have worked in this community . Should
we get a panel of them together? I mean we can get real assenteric and dig
this thing real deep and come up with an ordinance that makes absolutely no
sense to somebody working out in the field . If they 're not going to do it ,
we ought to know about it and just drop it .
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 46
Emmings: But wouldn 't they want , you know if I 'm a developer and I come t_
you and I say , how can I develop and you show me a subdivision ordinance .
I say okay , I don 't like it . What alternatives do I have? You say okay
well you can develop it the same density but we can give you lotsof
flexibility in your road construction and your setbacks and your ability to
cluster , you can develop your property any way you want to as long as you ,
don 't exceed this number and as long as we like your plan . It makes sense
for the property and we can protect some trees and things like that .
Wouldn 't a developer be interested in that?
Elison: How 's that different than our own?
Emmings: If it was that vague?
Krauss : A developer like Lundgren that 's fairly perceptive and understands
that and is design oriented , yeah they will . But you 've got to realize ,
when you 're going through a PUD you 're asking a guy to go through a
rezoning which they really wouldn 't have to do . It exposes them to any
3/5ths . They need a super majority to approve the rezoning . They only
need a simple majority to approve a plat . It 's a lot more work for them
come up with all this stuff . I* don 't know if it 's worth it for them .
I honestly don 't .
Emmings: Why don 't you ask? Rather than getting a panel of them together
why don 't you just run the ideas past them some and tell us what they say .
I think . I don 't know , what do you think? You 're talking about another
presentation here otherwise?
Krauss: No . You 've had the presentation . I think come up with a version
of this ordinance or leave it the way it is. and tell them what other thing
you 're thinking about and say the Planning Commission would like to hear
from ypu . Your reaction to this . I mean clearly if the idea is just to
motivate , is the motivation that we had with the earlier PUD 's which was ,
crank out more lots . People get less building space . The City gets
absolutely nothing out of it and with a vague promise that it 's going to '
lower the price of housing when obviously it didn 't , who cares . We don 't
need to do anything . But I found going through that one with the Lake Luc!
Road one , a rather unique experience because it really proved where the P4
was completely valid when it didn 't in any way encourage undersized lots .
Emmings: Okay . We 're going to table this .
Erhart : There 's some other things here though . I 've got a question here
moving right along here . Your computer printed out some double sentences
Did you notice that? Bottom of the page . ( e) , bottom of page 1 . You 've '
got some repeats of sentences and lines . Okay , then on ( f ) . We go to 1 ,
boulevard plantings . Is this on top of our new ordinance for landscaping.
I mean all of a sudden I 'm reading this and all of a sudden we 're require
Krauss: No , it 's not on top of it . Your new ordinance for landscaping
applies in subdivisions . It doesn 't apply in PUD 's.
Erhart : It doesn 't apply in PUD 's . So we 're requiring.
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 47
Krauss : Well I guess maybe it is redundant because you have to come
through with a plat with the PUD .
Emmings: Well shouldn 't it apply?
Krauss: Well definitely it should . I put it in here to make sure , I
wasn't double hitting . It was to make sure it applied .
Erhart : You 've got a lot of requirements here . Your rear yard shall
contain at least 2 over story trees . That 's not even in our landscaping .
Emmings : Foundation plantings . I don 't remember there being requirements
for foundation plantings . •
Erhart : Where 's this landscaping?
Krauts: That 's new .
Batzli : We talked about this .
Ellson: We talked about this though . I remember .
Batzli : Us PUD dwellers talked about it at , well it was meetings and
meetings ago now but it seems like yesterday . -
Ellson: I remember too a budget or something was going to come out but
yeah , we wanted it to apply to that sort of thing .
Batzli : These were some of the things that we were going to get from
having a FUD in there . It wasn 't going to be a one to one transference of
open space to 15 ,000 square feet . The kind of a deal like you were saying .
We were talking about amenities in the PUD .
Emmings : Maybe this section Paul , the overall landscaping plan . Maybe you
ought to incorporate our other landscaping plan and then add anything we 're
going to add like foundation plantings .
Krauss: Yeah, keep in mind too that this was originally drafted in the
spring and we 've since gone on and the landscaping stuff has jumped ahead
of this and we 've finally got that figured out so there 's a lack of
consistency for that .
Erhart : I guess the whole thing hits me here is that the whole idea of the
PUD was to allow creativity and now all of a sudden , bam . We 're going to
have 2 over story trees in the rear yard and we 're going to have boom .
We 're going to have foundation plantings . We 're going to have boulevard
plantings . All of a sudden we 're getting real specific .
Batzli : But we didn 't get any creativity . We haven 't got any .
Erhart : Well we haven 't done any . I don 't know .
Batzli : Yeah but nobody wants to do them .
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 48
Erhart : I 'm just surprised . I was surprised when I read this .
Batzli : I agree . I think it should be creative . I mean I think this •
should be win for people who move in . Win for the city . The developer . I
should be attractive to them and I don 't see that. we 're doing that yet .
Erhart : And then beyond that .
Batzli : The only people that ever do them are Lundgren . I mean you know
and they do it for a different reason .
Erhart : Maybe I missed the meeting on this . I was just really surprised .
Gee we get the architectural standards . I don 't remember talking about . I
must have missed that meeting . Is that what we said at a meeting we want
architectural standards , and again we don 't even , we 're talking about lots;
here . We 're not talking about site plans .
Ellson: These are the things that . . .remember this exactly . For this
reason they could have the street signs could be a tad different and all
these . . .They were going to get bushes when they moved in . Just a bare
minimum .
Erhart : Let me go on here for a minute . Again , if this goes as a PUD
we 're going to put guidelines on placement of air conditioners? Do you se
the contrast of how it jumps from what concept of creativity to all of a
sudden man we 're dictating specifics . The whole thing just hit me like
what are we doing?
Krauss: Yeah , tut are we talking about 9 ,000 square foot lots or are we
talking about 30 ,000 square foot lots?
Emmings: Right . And we 're also talking about maybe some zero lot lines a.
some , or even 'some 5 ,000 square foot lots .
Erhart : But that 's in another section which that also confused me . Now
all of a sudden we go to Section 20-507 . Now we 're back to the minimum 25%
gross area . Am I reading this right? Plus those two pages don 't , page 3 ,
doesn 't go to page , let 's see . Bottom of page 2 does not fit with the top! •
of page 3 . There 's something . There 's at least 6 inches at 4 feet in '
height can of the PUD , the plan should be developed. There 's something
wrong here . A typo . Am I the only guy who saw this?
Conrad: Yeah , you 're the only one . I read it and it sounded right .
Erhart : Well anyway , it 's confusing to me .
Ellson : Brian 's usually the one that finds those .
Batzli : I didn 't get past A .
Erhart : In Section 20-507 relates to these zero lot line things? Is that!
it?
Krauss : Yes .
i..
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 49
Erhart : Okay . And those you 're suggesting that we maintain just this 25%
gross area of the PUD to be set aside in these protected areas . Am I
reading that?
Krauss: Yes . We 're talking about fairly intensive . . .
Erhart : Oh , I understand . Well because the pages didn 't meet , maybe I
thought there was an extra page in there . I 'm just checking . Okay , I 'll
stop .
Emmings: Are we kind of worn out on this for tonight?
Conrad: Yeah .
Emmings: What can we do?
Ellson: I like his idea . Ask some of the developers .
Emmings: Do you think you can make anything out of the pages and pages of
comments you 're going to have in the Minutes?
Krauss: I can make a lot out of it . The question is , will that bring it
to resolution the next time . I still don 't understand if there 's a desire
to allow individually or collectively lots below 15 ,000 square feet .
Emmings : Yeah .
Conrad: Yes .
Emmings : I have no problem with that .
Krauss: Brian you still do?
Batzli : I don 't if that 's average .
Erhc,rt : If 15 's average?
Batzli : Yeah .
Emmings : Alright , if I have 100 acres and I 'm putting on four 9 ,000 square
. foot lots , you 're against that?
Batzli : That 's it? That 's all you 're doing on 100 acres? What else , the
rest an outlot?
Emming: My average lot size is 9 ,000 square feet so I don 't think you mean
what you say is what I 'm saying .
Batzli : Well that 'd be wonderful I suppose if they did that .
Emmings : It 's silly obviously but I don 't think you mean that you 're
against an average of 9 ,000 . Under certain circumstances it could be
alright . It 's not what we want . It 's not what 's going to happen but it 's
f
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 50
not , we shouldn 't just throw it out I :don 't think . I think we should leave
it up to the developer . I really do .
Ellson: Yep , I do too . Let us see it . We know what we like when we see
it .
Batzli : But under this current one .
Conrad: But that 's unfair to the developer .
Emmings: No it 's not .
Conrad: Yeah it is . If we say we like an average 9 ,000 square foot lot
size .
Batzli : He 'll bring it in .
Conrad: Nobody here would really like to see that .
Emmings : Don 't say it .
Batzli : If for example they did a single road in . They had a little
cul-de-sac in the middle , which would probably be against our rules becaus
it 'd be over 1 ,500 feet or something , but they have a little cul-de-sac .
They 've got four 9 ,000 square foot lots and the rest of it is an outlot all
the way around it , would any of us really be that against it?
Emmings : No .
Ellzon: Nice secluded little thing .
Emmings : That 's clustering .
Batzli : That 'd be great . But who in the world is going to do that? Well
Lundgren could because each one of those 9 ,000 square foot lots would be
worth about $100K and they 'd just say , well it 's all fair .
Ellson: The deer farm that 's behind here .
Farmakes: Centex did that in Eden Prairie . They call them Village Homes .
Emmings: How did it work out?
Farmakes: lust what you described. They offered a variation in price of
about 25% from the smaller lot single family homes . Basically they 're a
retirement house . You wouldn 't have to mow more than about 5 feet around !
the house .
Ellson: Yeah , and I think that 's a viable option . . .Brian that there are
people that don 't want the bigger lot .
Emmings: Sounds great to me . Alright , now you asked a question.
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 51
Krauss: I think you 're saying that you are willing to consider lots below
15 ,000 .
Emmings : We 'll consider anything . We 'll consider zero lot lines . We 'll
consider 5 ,000 . 9 ,000 .
Krauss: But do you still want to put a ceiling in what you could see?
Emmings : Yeah .
Erhart: In terms of density?
Krauss: Yeah .
Emmings: That 's what I want to do .
Conrad: Yeah .
Patzli : I would say , if you put density limitations on there , I would also
like to see open space that isn 't privately owned . I would like to see
that which I don 't think is part of your density scenario .
Emmings : Who owns it? If it 's not privately owned , who owns it?
Batzli : Outlot .
Krauss: But who 's going to take care of . . .?
Emmings: Who 's going to take care of it? Who 's responsible for it?
' Batzli : Well that 's never bothered us before . Why are you going to start
now? Do you really think these people in the Lundgren lots are going to be
out there fixing their monuments? Get real . Grow up . Come on .
Emmings: Brian , I want you to put both feet back on the floor . You jumped
from outlot to monuments somehow and that was quite a leap .
Batzli : That 's what they used to do. I mean basically my development has
an outlot with a monument on it that 's owned by some guy that lives in Cuba
or something . It 's not going to be taken care of . So Lundgren comes in
and says we 'll fix that . We 'll make it part of this guy 's lot and he 's got
a covenant to fix the monument . Come on. We 've done it in the past . Why
are we worried about it all of a sudden right now?
•
Emmings: Let 's please not talk about monuments . That 's a different
problem .
•
Batzli : It 's part of their open space .
Krauss: But if there 's a need for public open space , shouldn 't that have
been . . .
Emmings: That 's park . That 's got nothing to do with what we 're talking
about here . That 's separate .
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 52
i
Batzli : Okay , then make all the open space park . Then I 'd be happy with `
that .
Emmings: And now it 's the citizens responsibility to take care of it . The..
we 're not going to like that .
Batzli : Why?
Ellson: What about that same . . .that was behind the people?
Batzli : Well all they do is , then don 't grow any grass . Put some trees du
it and let it grow .
Krauss : That 's not the way it works .
Batzli : Why?
Krauss : You get demands for totlots . You get demands to cut the weeds .
You get demands to pick up the garbage .
Emmings : Right . No , I don 't think we want . If it 's not parkland and it '.
not privately owned in part of the lots , what then?
Conrad: I think it 's the Emmings Foundation .
Batzli : Then make it a requirement that there 's a neighborhood associatio^
and it 's owned to all the units in the lots . Commonly owned . Let them
take care of it . But give them a vehicle to take care of it by requiring '
the association .
Erhart : I think the problem is when you 've got this privately owned woode ..
area that you 're preserving , if it 's privately owned the guy can post
things and nobody can walk in it .
Batzli : That 's right . I mean what 's the good of , well open space is good
visually . Preserve it but it would be better I think if it was useable
because they 're basically and again you guys don 't like this but they 're
giving up lot size to get it .
Emmings: They 're not .
Batzli : Well I view it differently because I live in one . You view it as
a detached commissioner not living in one of them . I 'm saying this is what
the people in them view it as , and you can accept it or reject it . You
guys all clearly reject it but that 's how they view it .
Emmings: It sounds like a detached retina .
Conrad: I like the detached chairman .
Ellson: I think another night with the Planning .
Batzli : I 'd simmer down by then .
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 53
Emmings : Yeah , can we talk about this another night when Brian 's not here?
Ellson : Yeah , special meeting . Don 't let him know .
Emmings : Well . I don 't know .
Conrad: They 're really good comments .
Emmings : No , I think we 're talking about a lot of important stuff but I
think we 've worn ourselves out for tonight .
Batzli : Thanks for making me feel good .
Emmings : Brian , you 're responsible for bringing up all of the most
important things that we talked about . Not let 's see . Minutes . Oh , we 're
going to table this and you 're going to figure out .
Krauss: Exactly what you said .
Emmings : Do it . Just do it .
Erhart : This is your commission .
Krauss : Well Steve , isn ' t this one of the places where you jump in and
volunteer?
Emmings : I ' ll rewrite the ordinance tomorrow afternoon .
Conrad : You could make it pretty vague I have a feeling . But I think this
would be a case where the Planning Director and the Chairman of the
Planning Commission might just get together .
Emmings: You never did .
Conrad: I know .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated
September 4 , 1991 were so noted as presented .
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE:
Emmings : Let 's see now . Lundgren they put off deciding it . Surface Water
Management . Is there any of these anybody wants to talk about? I 'm glad
they 're going on the grandfathered recreational beachlots . And you see ,
Comrade Farmakes has been appointed to the sign ordinance task force . That
actually exists at this point in time?
Krauss: It will , yes . It does .
Emmings: They will be starting to meet . That 's going to be tough .
Farmakes : New signs are going up I noticed .
Krauss: Oh , on the building? Yeah , they are .
HCITY F
O
1111101111r
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director Q/
DATE: September 26, 1991
SUBJ: Draft Ordinance Changes/Residential Components for the
PUD Ordinance
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
On numerous occasions over the past year, we have discussed the PUD
ordinance. It has resulted in the approval of a PUD ordinance,
which is currently on the books, that represents a dramatic
departure from an improvement to the original ordinance.
One of the main topics of discussion during the ordinance was
concerning PUDs for single family residential dwellings. Over the
course of several meetings and presentations, the Planning
Commission had generally agreed that a minimum lot size of 9, 000
square feet would probably be acceptable and general terms were
discussed. In the interest of expediting approval of the bulk of
the PUD Ordinance, the Planning Commission agreed to leave the
issue of single family residential PUDs unresolved and recommended
approval of the balance of the ordinance which ultimately was the
action taken by the City Council. Our purpose in coming before you
today is to resolve remaining concerns regarding the residential
PUD and hopefully gain the recommendation of approval so that this
too can become part of the City Code.
As before, staff continues to recommend a 9 , 000 square foot minimum
lot size. Modifications have; however, been incorporated into the
ordinance designed to ensure that a PUD does not arrive on your
desk with only 9, 000 square foot lots but that there be a mix of
lot sizes provided. Furthermore, the ordinance has been amended so
that each applicant must demonstrate that each lot is able to
accommodate a 60 ' x 40 ' building pad plus a 12 ' x 12 ' deck without
intruding into any required setback area or protected easement.
Hopefully, these and other standards contained in the ordinance
will reduce or eliminate the variance issues that have occurred
Residential PUD
October 2 , 1991
Page 2
with residential PUDs in the past where these concerns were not
taken into account.
Another matter of concern dealt with Section 20-506 (e) concerning
the reservation of open space within a PUD. Initially, staff had
recommended that an across the board requirement of establishing a
25% open space be mandated. Several developers reviewing the
ordinance pointed out that, in their opinion, this was unfair since
it in effect resulted in a penalty wherein even a PUD that had
15, 000 square foot lots or larger would be required to have the
same open space requirements as a 9, 000 square foot lot
subdivision. Thus, a sliding scale was recommended and has been
incorporated into the current Code. Staff continues to support the
idea of increased open space requirements for residential PUDs.
The promotion of clustered development that results is, in our
opinion, a fundamental improvement inherent in residential PUDs.
This was exhibited in the current Lundgren proposal to develop the
site on Lake Lucy Road. On this site, which is being developed as
a PUD, the 33 . 3 acre site with 37 single family lots results in 8 . 6
acres of permanently protected wetland plus 3 . 8 acres of
permanently protected tree preservation areas and wetland buffer
yards. The resulting subdivision will result in the permanent set
aside of 12 .4 acres of open space, which is equivalent to 41% of
the gross area of the site. In addition, clustering of development
and resulting lessening of environmental impacts is being
accomplished in this project through the reduction of front yard
setbacks that will allow homes clustered more tightly to the road
system.
In another change, staff is proposing Section 20-506 (a) , which are
standards and guidelines for single family attached or clustered
home PUDs. We feel this was an issue that went unanswered with the
original discussion which pertained solely to single family
detached structures. The proposed ordinance would allow these
residential PUDs to occur only on parcels guided for medium and
high density uses by the City Comprehensive Plan. In these cases,
minimum lot sizes down to 5, 000 square feet may be allowed.
The last revision being proposed by staff is basically a
housekeeping item. Last year, the city established a buffer yard
requirement for industrial areas indicated on the Comprehensive
Plan when they share property lines with residential areas. The
buffer yard language was added to the PUD ordinance last year;
however, through an editing error on staff' s part, it was deleted
accidently when the new PUD ordinance was put into place this past
spring. Therefore, staff is recommending that (m) be added to
Section 20-505, Required General Standards, in the underlying PUD
ordinance. This will take care of this error and put the buffer
yard section where it belongs in the ordinance.
Residential PUD
October 2 , 1991 •
Page 3
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve amendments to
Article VIII , Planned Unit Development District for the City of
Chanhassen dealing with standards and guidelines for single family
detached PUDs, single family attached PUDs, and the establishment
of buffer yards.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Proposed draft ordinance.
2 . Memo from Paul Krauss dated June 5, 1991 and minutes dated May
15, 1991.
3 . Memo from Paul Krauss dated March 15, 1991 and minutes dated
March 6, 1991.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE
The City Council of the City of Chanhassen ordains:
Section 1. Article VIII, Planned Unit Development District of
the Chanhassen City Code is amended as follows:
Section 20-506. Standards and Guidelines for Single Family
Detached Residential PUD's.
a) Minimum Lot Size - The single family residential PUD allows
lot sizes down to a minimum of 9, 000 square feet. The
applicant must demonstrate that there are a mix of lot sizes
consistent with local terrain conditions, preservation of
natural features and open space and that lot sizes are
consistent with average building footprints that will be
concurrently approved with the PUD. In no instance shall
project density exceed Comprehensive Plan guidelines. The
applicant must demonstrate that each lot is able to
accommodate a 60 ' x 40 ' building pad and 12 ' x 12 ' deck
without intruding into any required setback area or protective
easement.
b) Minimum Lot Width at Building Setback - 90 feet 50 feet at
c) Minimum Lot Depth - 100 feet.
d) Minimum Setbacks:
PUD Exterior - 30 feet
Front Yard - 20 feet
Rear Yard - 20 feet
Side Yard - 10 feet
Accessory Buildings and Structures - located adjacent to or
behind principal structure a minimum of 10 feet from property
line.
e) The applicant must demonstrate that the flexibility provided
by the PUD is used to protect and preserve natural features
such as tree stands, wetlands, ponds and scenic views. These
areas are to be permanently protected as public or
private - _ . _ - - - - . - = - - ; . - - = tracts or protected by
permanently recorded easements. The Planning Commission and
City Council will make a determination regarding the
suitability of land to be set aside as open space. Open field
areas, area with steep slopes and similar land will only be
suitability of land tos be set aside as open space. Open field
areas, area with steep slopes and similar land will only be
accepted when land containing natural features described above
is unavailable in the PUD. Where open field areas represent
the only available option, these areas shall be landscaped
and/or reforested according to plans approved by the City. A
in these protected categories. Public park space must be
provided to meet or cxeccd requirements established by the
City. Park areas required by the City may be used to satisfy
up to 50% 2-54 of the standards. Wetlands and other water
bodies protected by City ordinance and permanent easement can
also be used to satisfy up to 25% of this standard.
The following table illustrates minimum open space
requirements:
Average Net Lot Size Open Space Percentage
(excluding designated wetlands)
15,000 square feet 10.0%
14,000 square feet 12.5%
13,000 square feet 15.0%
12,000 square feet 17 .5%
11,000 square feet 20.0%
10,000 square feet 22.5%
9,000 square feet 25.0%
f) An overall landscaping plan is required. The plan shall
contain the following:
1) Boulevard Plantings - Located in front yard areas these
shall require a mix of over-story trees and other
plantings consistent with the site. Landscaped berms
shall be provided to screen the site from major roadways,
railroads and more intensive land uses. Well designed
entrance monument is required. In place of mass grading
for building pads and roads, stone or decorative block
retaining walls shall be employed as required to preserve
mature trees and the sites natural topography.
2) Foundation Plantings - A minimum budget for foundation
plants shall be established and approved by the City. As
each parcel is developed in the PUD, the builder shall be
required to install plant materials meeting or exceeding
the required budget prior to issuance of certificate of
occupancy or provide financial guarantees acceptable to
the City.
3) Rear Yard - The rear yard shall contain at least two
over-story trees. Preservation of existing trees having
a diameter of at least 6 inches at 4 feet in height can
2
of the PUD and the plans should be developed to maximize
tree preservation.
g) Architectural Standards - The applicant should demonstrate
that the PUD will provide for a high level of architectural
design and building materials. While this requirement is not
intended to minimize design flexibility, a set of
architectural standards covenants should be prepared for City
approval. The primary purpose of this section is to assure
the City that high quality design will be employed and that
home construction can take place without variances or impact
to adjoining lots. The PUD Agreement covcnanta should include
the following:
1) Standards for exterior architectural treatments.
2) A Prohibition against free standing garages may be
required by the City when it is felt that unattached
garages will be difficult to accommodate due to small lot
sizes. If an attached garage is to be converted to
living space at some time in the future, the applicant
will have to demonstrate that there is sufficient room to
accommodate a two car garage without variances to obtain
a permit.
3) A requirement that appli—nt3 for building permits be
required to demonstrate that there is sufficient room to
accommodate a minimum of a 12 ' x 12 ' deck without
variancc3.
3) Guidelines regulating the placement of air conditioners,
dog kennels, storage buildings and other accessory uses
that could potentially impact adjoining parcels due to
small lot sizes.
Section 20-507 . Standards and Guidelines for Single Family
Attached or Cluster-Home PUD's.
a) Single family attached, cluster, zero lot line and similar
dwelling types shall only be allowed on sites guided for
medium or high density residential uses by the City Chanhassen
Comprehensive Plan.
b) Minimum lot sizes. Minimum lot sizes down to 5,000 square
feet may be allowed. However, in no case will gross density
exceed guidelines established by the City of Chanhassen
Comprehensive Plan.
c) Setback Standards/Structures and Parking:
PUD Exterior - 50 feet
Interior Public Right-of-way - 20 feet
Other setbacks - Established by
PUD Agreement
3
d) The applicant must demonstrate that the flexibility provided
by the PUD is used to protect and preserve natural features
such as tree stands, wetlands, ponds and scenic views. These
areas are to be permanently protected as public or
private/commonly hold a-nd maintained tracts or protected by
permanently recorded easements. A minimum of 25% of the gross
area of the PUD is to be set aside in these protected
categories. The Planning Commission and City Council will
make a determination regarding the suitability of land to be
set aside as open space. Open field areas, area with steep
slopes and similar land will only be accepted when land
containing natural features described above is unavailable in
the PUD. Where open field areas represent the only available
option, these areas shall be landscaped and/or reforested
according to plans approved by the City. A minimum of 25% of
protectcd categories. Public park space must be provided to
meet or exceed requirements established by the City. Park
areas required by the City may be used to satisfy up to 50%
25% of the standards. Wetlands and other water bodies
protected by City ordinance and permanent easement can also be
used to satisfy up to 25% of this standard.
e) An overall landscaping plan is required. The plan shall
contain the following:
1) Boulevard Plantings - Located in front yard areas these
shall require a mix of over-story trees and other
plantings consistent with the site. Landscaped berms
shall be provided to screen the site from major roadways,
railroads and more intensive land uses. Well designed
entrance monument is required. In place of mass grading
for building pads and roads, stone or decorative block
retaining walls shall be employed as required to preserve
mature trees and the sites natural topography.
2) Foundation and Yard Plantings - A minimum budget for
foundation plants shall be established and approved by
the City. As each parcel is developed in the PUD, the
builder shall be required to install plant materials
meeting or exceeding the required budget prior to
issuance of certificate of occupancy or provide financial
guarantees acceptable to the City.
3) Rear Yard The roar yard shall contain at least two
be used to Satisfy this requirement.
3) Tree preservation is a primary goal of the PUD. A
detailed tree survey should be prepared during the design
of the PUD and the plans should be developed to maximize
4
tree preservation.
f) Architectural Standards - The applicant should demonstrate
that the PUD will provide for a high level of architectural
design and building materials. While this requirement is not
intended to minimize design flexibility, a set of
architectural standards covenants should be prepared for City
approval . The primary purpose of this section is to assure
the City that high quality design will be employed and that
home construction can take place without variances or impact
to adjoining lots. The PUD Agreement covcnanta should include
the following:
1) Standards for exterior architectural treatments.
2) A prohibition against free standing garages. If an
attached garage is to be converted to living space at
some time in the future, the applicant will have to
demonstrate that there is sufficient room to accommodate
a two car garage without variances to obtain a permit.
3) A rcquircment that applicant3 for building permit3 be
accommodate a minimum of a 12 ' x 12 ' deck without
variances.
3) Guidelines regulating the placement of air conditioners,
dog kennels, storage buildings and other accessory uses
that could potentially impact adjoining parcels due to
small lot sizes (lots under 15, 000 square feet) .
Section 2 . Amend Section 20-505, Required General Standards,
by adding the following:
(m) Buffer yards. The City Comprehensive Plan establishes a
requirement for buffer yards. Buffer yards are to be established
in areas indicated on the Plan where higher intensity uses
interface with low density uses. In these areas, a fifty (50) foot
buffer yard is to be provided where the interface occurs along a
public street, a one hundred (100) foot buffer yard is required
where the interface occurs on internal lot lines.
The buffer yard is an additional setback requirement. It is to be
cumulatively calculated with the required setbacks outlined above.
The full obligation to provide the buffer yard shall be placed on
the parcel containing the higher intensity use.
The buffer yard is intended to provide additional physical
separation and screening for the higher intensity use. As such,
they will be required to be provided with a combination of berming,
landscaping and/or tree preservation to maximize the buffering
potential. To the extent deemed feasible by the City, new
5
plantings shall be designed to require the minimum of maintenance,
however, such maintenance as may be required to maintain
consistency with the approved plan, -shall be the obligation of the
property owner.
Buffer yards shall be covered by a permanently recorded
conservation easement running in favor of the City.
In instances where existing topography and/or vegetation provide
buffering satisfactory to the City, or where quality site planning
is achieved, the City may reduce buffer yard requirements by up to
50% . The applicant shall have the full burden of demonstrating
compliance with the standards herein.
6
7.
CITYOF
CHANHASSEN1%1' .
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-57,,a9. rr ^rr ,t1-1 n• roc,
Modrr—
MEMORANDUM
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager w .
FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director -t904---
DATE:
t9lac.c..DATE: June 5, 1991
SUBJ: Recommended Modifications to the PUD Ordinance
Staff has been working with the Planning Commission on developing
a new PUD ordinance for our community over the past several months.
This has long been a concern of staff' s since we believe the
existing PUD ordinance is extremely inadequate. Fundamentally, it
provides the developer with all of the flexibility usually
associated with the PUD ordinance but is very poor on defining what
the city ' s expectations are for higher quality development that we
should be receiving in return. The current ordinance contains
virtually no standards that establish minimum criteria against
which a PUD is to be reviewed. We also note that it is commonly
accepted by many on the Council and Planning Commission that a PUD
designation must be earned, that in exchange for the flexibility,
the city is to get a better and higher quality development than
would otherwise be the case. It is interesting to note that this
trade-off is nowhere to be found in the current ordinance. Lastly,
the single family standards in the PUD ordinance do not appear to
be working. They were originally adopted to amend the PUD
ordinance due to the approval of several residential PUDs which
served only to cram more homes on smaller lots. There was no
trade-off in terms of higher quality, design or open space and the
end result is that there are a larger number of variance requests
that a coming from these subdivisions. However, no one has since
used the new standards and upon further review we found out that
they really were not working very well.
Staff' s concerns regarding the PUD ordinance is of more than
academic interest. We truly believe that the PUD ordinance
represents the most ideal method for a city to regulate
development, particularly development that occurs on a large scale.
The PUD ordinance is unique in that it gives a good deal of
latitude to work out an acceptable design compromise, meeting the
needs of the developer, surrounding property owners and of the
city. This program then becomes part of a development contract
PUD Ordinance
June 5, 1991
Page 2
that is in essence their zoning on the property. Nothing else can
be done on this property unless it is rezoned in the future. As
you are probably aware, the City Council has a lot more latitude on
approving or denying rezoning than it does on approving a site plan
on a piece of ground that is already zoned for the use. We further
note that we have a number of large tracts of land in the new MUSA
area which can be ideally developed with the PUD ordinance. In
fact, we are working with developers on two large 100+ acre
industrial parks that we envision using the PUD ordinance. Against
this background, we believe that it was necessary to act quickly to
adopt PUD ordinance amendments that would give us the quality of
development that we have a right to expect.
The Planning Commission met to discuss this ordinance on several
occasions. By in large, most of their comments focused on the
section of the ordinance dealing with single family housing. At
their meeting on May 16th, the Planning Commission recommended the
adoption of all sections of the ordinance except those which
pertain directly to single family detached housing. They wished to
continue action on this section to allow for additional discussion.
The reason we took this action to separate out that part of the
ordinance is to allow the bulk of the PUD ordinance proceed to the
City Council for action so that we will be in a position to deal
with development that will probably be coming along now that the
MUSA line has been relocated.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve first reading of
amendments to Article VIII, Planned Unit Development District.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Ordinance amendment.
2 . Planning Commission minutes dated May 15, 1991.
3 . Staff report dated May 6, 1991.
- CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE
The City Council of the City of Chanhassen ordains:
Section 1. Article VIII, Planned Unit Development District of
the Chanhassen City Code is amended as follows:
ARTICLE VIII , PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
DIVISION I. GENERALLY
Section 20-501. Intent.
Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a
site through the relaxation of most normal zoning district
standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a greater
variety of uses, internal transfers of density, construction
phasing and a potential for lower development costs. In exchange
for this enhanced flexibility, the City has the expectation that
the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality
and more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the
use of other, more standard zoning districts. It will be the
applicants responsibility to demonstrate that the City ' s
expectations are to be realized as evaluated against the following
criteria:
Planned unit developments are to encourage the following:
(1) Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space
and protection of sensitive environmental features, including
steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and scenic
views.
(2) More efficient and effective use of land, open space and
public facilities through mixing of land uses and assembly and
development of land in larger parcels.
(3) High quality of design and design compatible with surrounding
land uses, including both existing and planned. Site
planning, landscaping and building architecture should reflect
higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the
community.
(4) Sensitive development in transitional areas located between
different land uses and along significant corridors within the
city.
(5) Development which is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
(6) Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may
be required by the city. Such park and open space shall be
consistent with the comprehensive park plan and overall trail
plan.
(7) Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if
appropriate within the PUD.
(8) Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building
designs and sightings and the clustering of buildings and land
uses.
(9) Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the
potential for traffic conflicts. Improvements to area roads
and intersections may be required as appropriate.
Section 20-502 . Allowed uses.
Specific uses and performance standards for each PUD shall be
delineated in a development plan.
(a) Each PUD shall only be used for the use or uses for which
the site is designated in the comprehensive plan, except
that the city may permit up to 25 percent of the gross
floor area of all buildings in a PUD to be used for land
uses for which the site is not designated in the
comprehensive plan if the city council finds that such
use is in the best interests of the city and is
consistent with the requirements of this section.
Specific uses and performance standards for each PUD
shall be delineated in a PUD development plan.
(b) Where the site of a proposed PUD is designated for more
than one land use in the comprehensive plan, city may
require that the PUD include all the land uses so
designated or such combination of the designated uses as
the city council shall deem appropriate to achieve the
purposes of this ordinance and the comprehensive plan.
•
Section 20-503 . District size and location.
(a) Each PUD shall have a minimum area of 5 acres, unless the
applicant can demonstrate the existence of one of the
following:
1) Unusual physical features of the property itself or of
the surrounding neighborhood such that development as .a
PUD will conserve a physical or topographic feature of
importance to the neighborhood or community.
2) The property is directly adjacent to or across a right-
of-way from property which has been developed previously
as a PUD or planned unit residential development and will
be perceived as and will function as an extension of that
previously approved development.
3) The property is located in a transitional area between
different land use categories or on an intermediate or
principal arterial as defined in the comprehensive plan.
Section 20-504 . Coordination with other zoning regulations.
a) Subdivision review under Chapter 18 shall be carried out
simultaneously with the review of a PUD. The plans required
under this chapter -shall be submitted in addition to or in a
form which will satisfy the requirements of Chapter 18 for the
preliminary and final plat.
b) Site plan review under Article II, Division 6 of this code
shall be carried out for each non-single family or duplex
principal structure, that is proposed.
c) PUD plans shall be coordinated with and in compliance with
provisions of Article V, Flood Plain Overlay District; Article
VI, Wetland Protection, and Article VII, Shoreland Overlay
District.
Section 20-505. Required general standards.
a) The city shall consider the proposed PUD from the point of
view of all standards and purposes of the comprehensive land
use plan to coordinate between the proposed development the
surrounding use. The city shall consider the location of
buildings, compatibility, parking areas and other features
with response to the topography of the area and existing
natural features, the efficiency, adequacy and safety of the
proposed layout of streets; the adequacy and location of green
areas; the adequacy, location and screening of non-compatible
land uses and parking areas.
b) The applicant shall demonstrate that the PUD plan offers the
city higher quality architectural and site design,
landscaping, protection of wetlands, creeks and mature trees
and buffering for adjoining properties that represent
improvements over normal ordinance standards.
c) Density. An increase/transfer for density may be allowed at
the sole discretion of the city utilizing the following
factors:
1) Density within a PUD shall be calculated on gross acreage
located within the property lines of the site in
accordance with the land use plan.
2) The area where the density is transferred must be within
the project area and owned by the proponent.
3) Density transfer in single family detached area will be
evaluated using the items listed in Section 20-506.
Density transfer eligible for multiple family areas are
not permitted to be applied to single family areas.
4) In no case shall the overall density of the development
exceed the gross density ranges identified in the
comprehensive plan.
d) The city may utilize incentives to encourage the construction
of projects which are consistent with the city's housing
goals. Incentives may include modification of density and
other standards for developments providing low and moderate
cost housing. Incentives may be approved by the city only
after the developer and city have entered into an agreement to
ensure that the low and moderate cost units remain available
to persons of low and moderate income for a specific period of
time.
e) Hard surface coverage shall be limited as follows:
Comprehensive Hard surface
Plan Designation Coverage (%)
Low or medium density 30%
residential
high density residential 50%
office 70%
commercial (neighborhood 70%
or community)
commercial (regional) 70%
industrial 70%
Individual lots within a PUD may exceed these standards as
long as the average meets these standards.
f) The setback for all buildings within a PUD from any abutting
street line shall be 30 feet for local streets and 50 feet
from railroad lines for collector or arterial streets, as
designated in the comprehensive plan, except that in no case
shall the setback be less than the height of the building up
to a maximum of 100 feet. The setback for all buildings from
exterior PUD lot lines not abutting a public street shall be
30 feet except that in no case shall the setback be less than
the height of the building up to a maximum of 100 feet.
Building setbacks from internal public streets shall be
determined by the city based on characteristics of the
specific PUD. Parking lots and driving lanes shall be set
back at least 20 feet from all exterior lot lines of a PUD.
The setback for parking structures including decks and ramps
shall be 35 feet from local streets and 50 feet from all other
street classifications except that in no case shall the
setback be less than the height of the structure. Parking
structure setbacks from external lot lines shall be 50 feet or
the height of the structure, whichever is greater when
adjacent to residential property; 35 feet when adjacent to
non-residential properties. Parking structure setbacks from
internal public or private streets shall be determined by the
city based on characteristics of the specific PUD.
Where industrial uses abut developed or platted single family .
lots outside the PUD, greater exterior building and parking
setbacks may be required in order to provide effective
screening. The city council shall make a determination
regarding the adequacy of screening proposed by the applicant.
Screening may include the use of natural topography or earth
berming, existing and proposed plantings and other features
such as roadways and wetlands which provide separation of
uses. PUD's must be developed in compliance with buffer yard
requirements established by the Comprehensive Plan.
g) More than one building may be placed on one platted or
recorded lot in a PUD.
h) At the time PUD approval is sought from the City, all property
to be included within a PUD shall be under unified ownership
or control or subject to such legal restrictions or covenants
as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the approved
master development plan and final site and building plan.
After approval, parcels may be sold to other parties without
restriction, however, all parcels will remain subject to the
PUD development contract that will be recorded in each chain-
of-title.
i) Signs shall be restricted to those which are permitted in a
sign plan approved by the city and shall be regulated by
_ permanent covenants, established in the PUD Development
Contract.
j ) The requirements contained in Articles XXIII, General
Supplemental Regulations, XXIV, Off-street Parking and
Loading, and XXV, Landscaping and Tree Removal. May be
applied by the city as it deems appropriate.
k) The uniqueness of each PUD requires that specifications and
standards for streets, utilities, public facilities and
subdivisions may be subject to modification from the city
ordinances ordinarily governing them. The City Council may
therefore approve streets, utilities, public facilities and
land subdivisions which are not in compliance with usual
specifications or ordinance requirements if it finds that
strict adherence to such standards or requirements is not
required to meet the intent of this or to protect the health,
safety or welfare of the residents of the PUD, the surrounding
area or the city as a whole.
1) No building or other permit shall be issued for any work on
property included within a proposed or approved PUD nor shall
any work occur unless such work is in compliance with the
proposed or approved PUD.
Section 20-506. Reserved for Single Family Detached Residential.
Section 20-507 . Controls during construction and following
completion.
a) The use of the land the construction, modification or
alteration of any buildings or structures in a PUD shall be
governed by the final development plan.
b) After the certificate of occupancy has been issued, no changes
shall be made in the approved final development plan for a PUD
except:
1) Any minor extensions, alterations or modifications of
existing buildings or structures may be authorized by the
city planner if they are consistent with the purposes and
intent of the final plan. No change authorized by this
section may increase the bulk of any building structure
by more than ten (10) percent.
2) Any building or structure that is totally or
substantially destroyed may be reconstructed only in
compliance with the final development plan unless an
amendment to the final development plan is approved.
3) Changes in uses, any rearrangements of lots, blocks and
building tracts, changes in the provisions of common open
spaces, and all other changes to the approved final
development plan may be made only after a public hearing
conducted by the planning commission and upon final
approval by the city council. Any changes shall be
recorded as amendments to the final development plan.
c) Major amendments to an approved master development plan may be
approved by the city council after review by the planning
commission. The notification and public hearing procedure for
such amendment shall be the same as for approval of the
original PUD. A major amendment is any amendment which:
1) substantially alters the location of buildings, parking
areas or roads;
2) Increases or decreases the number of residential dwelling
units by more than five percent;
3) Increases the gross floor area of non-residential
buildings by more than five percent or increases the
gross floor area of any individual building by more than
ten percent;
4) Decreases the amount of open space by more than five
percent or alters it in such a way as to change its
original design or intended use; or
5) Creates non-compliance with any special condition
attached to the approval of the master development plan.
Section 2 . This ordinance shall be in full force and
effect from and after its publication- according to law.
Passed and adopted by the City Council this day of
, 1991.
ATTEST:
Don Ashworth, City Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor
(Published in the Chanhassen Villager on
Planning Commission Meeting
May 15 , 1991 - Page 30 —
Emmings : Okay . I like that . It 's easy .
Batzli : Strike my withdrawal .
Emmings : Does anyone else have anything on the bluff line? You have our —
blessings here to do whatever . . .
PUBLIC HEARING:
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND ARTICLE VIII OF THE CITY CODE
CONCERNING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS .
Paul Krauss presented the staff report on . this item . Chairman Emmings
called the public hearing to order .
Erhart : Let me ask you this . What other reason why a developer would want
a PUD as opposed to , anything other than a smaller lot? What other reasons
in a residential area? Is the crux? —
Olsen: The setbacks .
Erhart : Okay , so then the question would be , let 's say the guy just wanted
different setbacks . So he wanted to go to a PUD but the way this is formed
now , he automatically has got to give up 25% , even though he 's willing to
stick with the 15 ,000 sqaure lots . That 's where I guess in looking at
this , if you were to use the minimum lot size which you ought to have as a
scale . Like if it 's 9 ,000 , then it 's 250 . If it 's 10 ,000 then it 's 20% .
If it 's 11 ,000 it 's 18% . —
Krauss : That 's a possibility . If you figure it on the average lot size .
Erhart : Well it seems to me it ought to be done on the average lot size . —
Not use the minimum lot size at all . And you have a scale so that yeah,
it does allow him to get more total lots as the average gets smaller and in
exchange we get some open land but I don 't think you can just pick a spot —
and say that 's it .
Ellson: You 're saying as we squish people more , we get more open space? _
Erhart : Yeah . And the advantage to the developer is that he gets more
lots and we get more open space but what you can 't do I think is pick one
point and say , if you 're going to come in for a PUD , whatever the reason —
is , you 're going to be on that point . Because then you give up any
creativity at all to adapt to the land itself or what the developer 's
trying to accomplish there . —
Krauss: Realistically though nobody , I can't understand why somebody would
come in with 15 ,000 square foot or better lots and request a PUD . If the
sole purpose of their requesting a PUD. is to be let off the hook on setback —
standards or street widths or something else , then there 's no net gain for
the city .
Erhart : Okay , so that 's just as unrealistic as the guy coming in with 144
9 ,000 square foot lots? What I 'm saying is there 's going to be someplace
between that spectrum . That particular development or that developer or —
Planning Commission Meeting
May 15 , 1991 - Page 31
what he 's trying to accomplish in terms of house styles and values of the
houses , that he 's going to pick and what we ought to do is , you want to
- nail it down so it doesn 't get to be a negotiating , totally arbitrary and
let 's put a little table together . It says okay , if your average lot size
is 10 ,000 square feet and the City wants 20% , every size is 11 ,000 square
feet . . .so you allow the developer to kind of , you can still create . We can
get what we want but he can still create the development that he has in
mind .
- Krauss: That might be reasonable . Again , we 're flying a little bit by the
seat of our pants on this one . Many communities experiences with single
family PUD 's are similar to Chanhassen 's and there 's not , and that I 'm
- aware of , there 's not a lot of progressive thought on okay , you 've all been
burned . How do you then fix an ordinance that doesn 't do that? I mean
it 's clear to me the trade off is , some of the trade off involves open
space . What the magic number is I think is an issue .
Erhart : Yeah . If it 's just open space for the same number of lots ,
there 's no incentive to pay the extra fees and everything . You 're going to
have to give them a little bit of incentive to give us the open space by
actually increasing the number of lots . I don 't think it has to be a lot .
- Krauss : We can certainly play with that .
Erhart : I know that a guy 's going to come in with the whole place isn 't
going to be 9 ,000 square foot lots . I guess I 'm having a hard time even
envisioning that .
Conrad: Would we still get a Near Mountain development with this? Near
- Mountain is a good PUD . I kind of like what this does but I guess I don 't
know what it discourages or if it forces one thing versus another . So
I guess my feeling is that I 'd like to have staff work a couple scenarios
just like this one so we can see what it does encourage . And one would be ,
if it could go back and reconstruct the Near Mountain PUD and see what this
would do to it . Now they have a lot of ponds and , I 'd just like to know if
we could have another development like that or if this would not allow a
- Near Mountain .
Krauss: We could certainly check that . I didn 't have the time but in
- doing this I was , my gut reaction was that Near Mountain should qualify .
If it doesn 't , then something 's wrong .
Erhart : Do they get 25% open space?
Olsen: They may have to give more open space .
- Krauss : Except that we 've credited , I mean there are ways to credit .
We 're not only looking for , this is open space that the public can use or
that 's common open space . We 're saying that of your 25% , one quarter of
that can be park . You 're probably going to have to dedicate more than that
but it could be . One quarter of that can be wetlands but then we 've said
if you 're protecting other natural features . For example Near Mountain has
a lot of forested areas . If we had those forested areas , which may or may
not be on somebody 's lot , protected by a conservation easement , then that
would be , you could attribute that towards your requirement because we 're
Planning Commission Meeting
May 15 , 1991 - Page 32 —
guaranteed that that open space amenity ; that natural feature is going to
be preserved in perpetuity .
Olsen: . . .remember where the outlot , the summit? That was originally
going to be condos and now it 's single family lots . That probably wouldn 't —
have been . . .
Krauss: It 's kind of tough adopting that after the fact too because those —
lots were not structure with this sort of ordinance in mind . What you 'd
have to do is go back and make some assumptions which you may be able to do
but I think it 's a useful exercise .
Conrad: What I don 't want to do is force , you know I don't want to stiffel
the creativity and I don 't want developers coming in here with all 9 ,000
square foot lots . So Near Mountain had a mixture and that 's kind of what —
we 're trying to look for , plus the open space and I get lost in the
formula . I don 't know what happens . So again , I think some of the
concepts is kind of neat if it works . If it works for multiple sized —
developments . Now I don 't know how it works from a 10 acre subdivision or
PUD to 1 ,000 acre so I guess it 's a neat concept to pursue .
Erhart : I think you ought to try it with the average because we don 't want
all 9 ,000 square foot lots . This is what . . .kind of what we 're encouraging
here . Table of different averages and see how that works . I think that
the concept that you 're working on is right on . —
Emmings: Maybe you ought to show Terry Forbord your example and get some
feedback from him .
Krauss: I will . I 'll bump a copy over to Shardlow too .
Emmings : And also ask him if the system that Tim isn 't talking about
wouldn 't be , I think that 's kind of . . .
Erhart : I think you actually mentioned it . —
Krauss: In fact he suggested , when he and I were talking , that was one of
the topics that we thought of .
Batzli : Paul , would your zero lot line type things , if it was 4 foot away
from the lot line , would that come under your single family detached?
Krauss : I intentionally didn't deal with that and Roger raised it again as
a concern . The most recent ordinance I 've written before this one , I
actually set that up as a separate district . —
Batzli : Separate from the PUD?
Krauss : Well no , as a PUD but it was separate standards . Single family
detached lots on typicaly single family homes were treated one way . Zero
lot lines were treated another way . As I read through this ordinance again
tonight though , I think that the reason for that is when you get closer .
When you 're building on the zero lot line , you have more implications as to
what the architectural design is . How you 're imposing on the adjoining
property owner . How you want to treat common space because there has to be —
- Planning Commission Meeting
May 15 , 1991 - Page 34
more common space when it 's that tight . . But as I thought about it , the
ordinance , the way we 've structured it right now , the single family
detached works pretty well because we 've built all that architectural stuff
in there and the language is loose enough that we could allow zero lot
lines under the same set of procedures and standards . I don 't think we
have to change very much to allow that . One thing you may want to consider
- though is some communities have a problem with zero lot line homes being in
single family neighborhoods . I don 't know that I ascribe to that
philosophy because basically they 're single family homes . They 're just
scrunched to one side . I don 't see us lowering the lot size much . I don 't
see us lowering the lot size below 9 ,000 ever in the RSF district or in the
low density district . If somebody wants to do a high intensity zero lot
line development , it really in my opinion ought to belong in areas that are
guided for medium or high density use in the Comp Plan because that 's the
densities you 're dealing with . And I think we can make that
differentiation . It 's not that hard .
Batzli : Did Forbord like , did you show him the whole proposed standards?
Krauss: No , we haven 't had a chance to sit down . I just briefed him on
the phone .
Batzli : I was curious what he thought about the foundation plans and
- architectural standards . The other elements of this besides the 25% .
Krauss: I don 't know . I suspect he didn 't have a problem with that
because that 's the way they design their project anyway . I mean we 're not
specifically designing for Lundgren Brothers Homes .
_ Ahrens : Yeah , I was going to say . Terry Forbord , it 's fine to run some
things past thim but we 're not designing our ordinance for him . Especially
since he 's going to be coming in with probably another PUD . He has some
property in Chanhassen and we don 't want to give him our ordinance and say
- how do you want this to read and what 's the best deal for you and then he
can design it around whatever development he wants to come in with .
Batzli : No , and I wasn 't proposing that . I just thought it was
interesting because other developers don 't develop to their standards and
while Terry might not have had a problem including certain number of trees
and plantings around the foundation , I 'll bet you a lot of other developers
would . I was just curious .
Krauss : Well I ' ll be happy to sit down with him . We can certainly do
- that . He 's useful as a gauging point though because on the spectrum of
residential developers , they tend to be a little better than most .
Ellson : Right . If you want to encourage anybody it would be him .
Krauss: Yeah , and if he has a significant problem with something , it 's
probably note worthy . If he believes he can live with something , it
- doesn 't imply that all other developers can live with it but it may mean to
us so what? That 's the standard of development we want to achieve .
Planning Commission Meeting
May 15 , 1991 - Page 35
1
Ahrens: But there are a lot of good developers in town too . You may want
to run it past them . —
Krauss: We can send it out to a few people who develop in the community
and see what they think .
Conrad: I had a couple just statements or comments on what we see in front
of us and I think Paul 's going to work some things but just philosophically
my intent on this ordinance was not to put more density in but to shift it . —
If there is more density that 's fine . I guess I was , well if there is more
density , I want to make sure that it 's good quality density . That 's just a
general comment on my part . I 'm interested about the density transfer
issue too because I really feel that that 's a viable thing . Again , if
I had my way , if a site is approved for 10 units and we can shift 5 of
those units to the other half of the property and leave the other half
open , that 's what I 'm trying to do . So I don 't mind building up the —
density . I 'm kind of interested in how the transfer formula works . Using
gross versus net . Is there a conversion factor? We 've always used net
before in terms of units per acre and now we 're going to use gross so. have —
we compensated for that changeover in terms of the number of units allowed
per acre?
Krauss: There 's no standard factor Ladd because it 's really highly
contingent upon the individual site . How much park are you dealing with?
How much wetland are you dealing with? I think though that the PUD gets at
that issue in another way . It 's demanding higher quality design . It 's —
demanding higher quality landscaping . It 's going to demand some modicum of ,
additional open space . You know you 're achieving your goals through a
different mechanism and if the developer happens to get more units out of —
it but it looks better overall and is less impacting , I guess that 's a fair
compromise .
Conrad: But what is the standard? The standard that you set is 1 .7 units
per acre . How did we get there? How did we get to 1 .7?
Krauss: We developed that in doing the Comprehensive Plan . Basically what —
we wanted to do is the Metro Council was telling us that the rule of thumb ,
everyone develops 2 1/2 units an acre . We said well that 's not an
appropriate assumption here because we are basically a no net loss wetlands —
community . Our park dedications are pretty stiff and all this and so we
went back in . Jo Ann and Mark and I and took apart , I don 't know , 12 or 15
plats we 've done over the last 5 years and tried to find what the average
density is . Now this is standard platting . This is not PUD 's .
Conrad: So average gross density?
Krauss: Right .
Conrad: Based on history? And that turned out to be 1 .7? —
Krauss : Correct .
Planning Commission Meeting
May 15 , 1991 - Page 36
Conrad : Okay . Over how many years?
_ Krauss : I would say it was the plats over the last 5 years probably .
Olsen: Maybe even 10 .
- Conrad: And just a picky point . On page 5 , letter ( g ). It said , more
than one building may be placed on one platted recorded lot on a PUD . What
does that mean?
Krauss: Under standard zoning you 're obligated to have a separate tax
parcel around each building . Within a PUD you 're approving an overall
master plan . You 've got a lot of control over exactly what happens .
What 's built where . It becomes less important to us if an industrial
occupant has three buildings on a single tax parcel . You 've exercised all
the control you need .
Conrad: Okay .
- Emmings: Does anybody have anything else on this? Any other comments?
Batzli : Yeah , I don 't like 9 ,000 feet . I think it 's too small .
Ahrens : You think 9 ,000 is too small?
Emmings : I wonder , what if it said something . Instead of saying you can
— have single family residential PUD allows lot sizes down to a minimum of
9 ,000 square feet and seeing some developers just licking their lips .
Can 't wait to go in here and make a development of all 9 ,000 foot lots .
- What if we just said that some of the lots may be as small as 9 ,000 square
feet .
Erhart : That 's where I think you tie in this average thing .
Elison : But if someone does 9 ,000 and it looks good and transfer and
things like that , I think we have to, we don't know .
Emmings: What were , the lots that we were all remarking about in .
Krauss: Were 9,000 square feet . That 's where that number came from.
Erhart : Yeah I know but there was only a lot here and there . It wasn 't a
mass of these lots . Were there?
Batzli : Yeah , they 're all on one end .
- Ellson: It 's one group of them and they 're very well done .
Conrad: There 's probably about 60 . 40 to 60 . Something like that .
Krauss: All of the professional literature says that , don't take the micro
view of what the property line says . What kind of context is it sitting
Planning Commission Meeting
May 15 , 1991 - Page 37 —
in . I mean if you have a 9 ,000 square foot lot backing up to a protected —
forest , it 's going to look a whole lot better than a 15 ,000 square foot lot
in a cornfield .
Ahrens: I think though that we 're worried about implying that we 're going —
to give them something that we really have no intention of giving them .
Batzli : I think if somebody comes in here with a bunch of 9 ,000 square
foot lots , we 're all going to be stunned and we 're going to sit here and
say , help us . What can we do to stop this?
Ahrens: I think we 'd better put some language in there just to give us the —
right to reject it .
Emmings: Or that we consider PUD 's where some of the lots were as small as —
9 ,000 square feet but not less than that . Something but you 've got to make
it a lot more .
Krauss: But we have that existing PUD that has the average , it doesn 't
work .
Emmings : I don 't understand . • —
Olsen : Well we have it right now where there 's an average of 13 ,500 and
you can go as low as 12 ,000 . And it has worked where it 's not all 12 ,000 —
square foot lots but the PUD 's haven 't been successful for other reasons .
Because we still don 't require preservation of open space and creativity
but . . .average doesn 't work .
Krauss: Well I think what came across loud and clear though again for
Forbord was that .a deviance of 1 ,500 square feet isn 't enough to induce
anybody to do anything . —
Ellson: That 's why we came up with the 9 .
Erhart: . . .gross density . That 's not now what you 're doing .
Conrad: But Paul is changing the formula .
Erhart : No , he 's increasing the gross density . You 're getting more lots
on the original piece of land . So that gives him the incentive then to
preserve some other piece of land . —
Krauss: But you 're not going to get more lots if you have a high average
minimum.
Erhart: I 'm not saying whether it should be high or low . You kind of have
to work it out what it is . The way you have it now , you 've only picked one
point and it has to be 25% and what . . . —
Krauss: Well that 's variable but I thought the intent of this was to get
away from the hard and fast , thou shalt have an average of no less than 13 . _
Planning Commission Meeting
May 15 , 1991 - Page 38
Ellson: That 's what I want to do too. I think we should leave the 9 ,000
and our intent in here is telling them that we don 't want to see all that
- and then you guys are certainly going to see it and the fact that it 's a
PUD , we have a chance to negotiate . That 's the whole idea behind it but
we 're putting more fences around them before we 've even seen it . We 're not
even giving them a chance to try to bring something to us . We 're telling
them right off the bat we just have decided there 's no way you can do it
well and don 't even bother .
- Erhart: I guess I 'm a little confused there . You don 't want a formula in
here now or you do?
- Krauss: No , no . We 're talking about two different things . The open space
formula I think we need because that 's one of the trade offs we 're getting .
That 's one of the benefits of going with the PUD . The question is what
kind of minimum lot area do you adhere to and from a strictly designed ,
philosophical standpoint , I don 't care if all the lots are 9 ,000 square
feet if everything else is done well .
Erhart : Okay , but what we could do to satisfy I think the concern is to
say yeah , you can have 9 ,000 square foot lots but your average can 't be any
less than .
Ellson: 9 ,000 .
Erhart : No , no .
Ellson: That 's what I 'm saying . If he can do a thing of all 9 ,000 square
foot and it looks good . See you 're making an assumption that you 'll never
- see a 9 ,000 average that would look good . You 're making a big assumption .
Like he said , if they 're all backed up against this bluff area and things
like that , it might not be that bad.
Erhart : That 's not realistic .
Krauss : It is if 25% of your land has to be in open space .
Erhart : Oh , I see .
Conrad: That could be .
Ellson: I think you ought to give them a chance to do it and if you don 't
like it , tell them then .
Batzli : The problem is , somebody 's going to come in with a plan .
— Ellson: That 's when we deal with it .
Batzli : Well , it 's going to happen and then we 're going to look at it and
say why in the world did we let them build 9 ,000 .
Ellson: No , we didn 't let them . We get a chance to look it over .
Planning Commission Meeting
May 15 , 1991 - Page 39 —
Conrad: We don 't give them the PUD . It 's not what we 're looking for .
Ellson: You 're not trusting them enough .
Batzli : We 've seen what , never mind . I 'm not convinced that we will look —
at it and know what we 're looking at because every time we look at PUD 's we
sit there and we say , gee . We don 't really get a sense of what they 're
doing and we don 't see this and we don 't see that . We won 't see it . We —
will not see what is actually occurring in the PUD until it 's in and then
it will be too late .
Krauss: One of the problems we 've had with PUD 's is , and I 've heard the —.
same thing echoed on the Council , is Ursula 's often going well what are we
getting out of this . We 're supposed to get something . What are we
getting? And I don 't have a good answer normally because our PUD ordinance —
right now doesn 't demand anything .
Ellson: And we haven 't given an intention of it to anybody until now . —
Krauss: This ordinance says , if you 're going to want this , you 're going to
have to earn it and here 's how you earn it .
Ellson: I think because of that intention will ward off the guy who thinks
he ' ll be able to sell us a PUD with a 9 ,000 back to back thing . He 'll go
well I know I 'm not meeting it . I 'm just trying for it . We 've got every —
reason to say forget it . I don 't think we should say an average . I think
it could potentially be done . Who am I to say no without seeing it?
Erhart : What you 're saying is if the average . . .maybe . It 'd be interesting —
to look at .
Krauss: There 's lots of examples to demonstrate it . I have some slides of —
it . I can give you books that show those kinds of plats . What happens
when you bottle up that space . It 's a fairly . . .
Ellson : It 's not like we 're changing the residential lot size to 9 .
Krauss: Keep in mind too that a PUD is a rezoning and I think it falls
into that legislative ability of. the city . You can be fairly arbitrary on —
rezoning and especially when there 's an intent section now that lays out
what your expectations are . If you really feel something doesn 't meet the
standards that you 've adhered to, don 't approve it .
Ellson: That 's the leverage we have .
Conrad: Do you feel Paul that we have to , my statement was , I 'm not really —
trying to pack more in . I 'm just trying to shift it so it 's economically
more viable but basically it 's your gut feel that we really should allow
more density to encourage . Economically we need more units per acre to —
stimulate the open space?
Planning Commission Meeting
May 15 , 1991 - Page 40
Krauss: Well there 's certain trade offs there . ' I mean Forbord indicated
that that indicates when you cluster you save money on streets . You save
Nom
money on utilities . You save money on development costs . - Youprobably
make a more attractive development which will help you sell it quicker but
I don 't philosophically have a problem if they get 15% more lots and we 've
achieved the open space that we want and we got the better standards ,
. — that 's fine too . They 're still consistent with the Comp Plan . They can 't
exceed the gross density that we have in that .
- Batzli : I just , you know my feelings are , I live in a PUD . I don 't even
know what size my lot is . We have a big park next to us . I still think
the lots that our houses are on are too small . I 'm the kind of guy , I like
a big yard . Maybe it 's just personal but I 'm in a PUD every day and if you
made the lot sizes 9 ,000 square feet , and I go by those in Lundgren all the
time . I think those are too small . I mean the picture makes them look
really nice but those things are crammed together . They back right up
- against the little extension of Town Line Road there . Whatever it 's called
there .
Ahrens : Pleasant View?
Emmings: But do the people that live there like them?
- Ellson: Is there a market for it? That 's what Terry was saying . You 're
not that customer but there evidentally is people .
- Batzli : They 're tiny lots and I don 't find them attractive personally . Now
maybe there 's a market for them but I don 't know . I would be hard pressed
to find something that I 'd like , you know if I had a chance to look at it .
If enough landscaping , enough transferring , enough open space to make it
worth while to give them that small of a lot .
Ellson: Well his example was that people wanted a 15 minute mowed lawn and
things like that .
Batzli : I would buy something else , yeah. If I did it again .
Ahrens : Where are we going on this?
Emmings: Well I guess what I hear is that you 're going to work out some
more examples . Maybe give us a little more concrete idea . Maybe try and
work out a schedule and get some input from some other people to what
you 're doing here and bring it back again . This is a public hearing again .
Did we close it? Do we need to close it? Why is it a public hearing?
Krauss: One thing you may want to consider . There doesn 't seem to be a
whole lot of concern or issues any longer with the body of the PUD .
ordinance . It 's the single family sectiori that 's generating the comment .
I 'm growing increasingly concerned that if the Metro Council does what I 'm
hoping they 're going to do in the next week or two , we 're going to need
this pretty quick .
Planning Commission Meeting
May 15 , 1991 - Page 41 —
Emmings: What do you propose Paul? Can you pull that section out and get —
the rest going up to the City Council?
Krauss: Yeah .
Emmings : So it 's basically just pulling out 20-506?
Krauss : Yes . —
Emmings : Now what if somebody came in with asking for a single family
detached PUD? —
Krauss: Well there is an existing single family detached PUD section that
we would not be eliminating until we replace it . You may want to cancel
that because it 's a bad section . —
Emmings : Right . Couldn 't you do something like this? Could we put in a
new section 20-506 to replace the old one that says that the City 's in the —
process of developing standards and just use that to retract the old one?
And just not have standards but put everybody on notice that standards are
in the process of being developed .
Krauss : You know you 'd almost be better protected by leaving the old one
in place since nobody wants to use it anyway . It will kind of hold our
spot for us . —
Emmings: Okay . Is there a reaction to that? For passing the rest of the
ordinance and just pulling out 20-506? —
Erhart : I think we should just leave . You 're talking about not making the
change at all then?
Emmings: No , we pass everything that 's here except Section 20-506 .
Krauss : And we 'll leave the existing single family intact until we can —
replace it .
Ellson: So you really think that if it gets approved we 'll have stuff —
really quick?
Krauss: I don 't know how quick it 's going to be but we 've got people that
seem to be chomping at the bit . But some of these projects are so large , —
they 're going to take a while to get off the ground .
Conrad: So your intent is to vote on the rest of the motion tonight? —
Emmings: That 's what Paul is proposing .
Batzli : I didn 't feel like we 're that far away on 20-506 . I mean I 'm
whinning about the square footage but I 'm a sole voice here . I 'm just
trying to see if anybody is . . . If everybody else likes 9 ,000 .
Planning Commission Meeting
May 15 , 1991 - Page 42
Conrad: No , we 're just looking right now Brian . We don 't know yet and it
may be , yeah I just don 't know so it 's not that I don 't agree with you . I
just don 't know how to handle . I think Paul and Jo Ann have a good , there
seems to be one simple solution and that 's what they 've presented but I
want to see how that works in a variety of circumstances. I haven 't
disagreed with anything you 've said yet . If we want to pass the rest , then
- I 've got to get back into something on page 3 . Under Section 20-505 ,
Required General Standards . Under Section ( b ) . The applicant shall
demonstrate that the PUD plan offers the City high . That 's the word I 'm
questioning . High quality . . .and then the last line says that represents
improvement over normal ordinance standards . So are we saying higher? Is
the word higher?
- Krauss : In that sense that 's what you 're looking at .
Conrad : Maybe that 's just a small thing but I guess I 'd rather see the
word .
Batzli : What about the-'word highest?
Conrad : I guess I like the word higher in there . And then I get back down
to my density transfer . In single family detached , which is what we 're
debating , so I don 't know what that means . I don 't know how that works . I
don 't know how to approve that right now until I see what we 're doing in
single family .
Krauss: Well that wouldn 't be applicable until you passed the new section
anyway .
Conrad: Until we passed the new section? Okay . I 'm comfortable .
Emmings : Anybody else want to comment on whether the , what they think
about passing the rest of this except for 20-506?
Batzli : Paul on 20-505( f )? Is parking lots and driving lanes shall be set
back 20 feet from all exterior lot lines?
Krauss: Yes .
Batzli : Never mind . I was confused. Do we cover in here or have we
previously covered our recurring problem of somebody putting in a road next
to an existing lot? Do we talk about that at all anywhere in here?
Olsen: We did somewhat address that with the setback .
Batzli : In here?
Olsen: No . . .accessory structures and . . . That was something that you could
determine as part of the subdivision of the PUD . You could say no , we
don 't approve . . .application . To determine setback for a road. We found
out it was difficult .
Planning Commission Meeting
May 15 , 1991 - Page 43 —
Krauss : I don 't understand the question . —
Olsen: We don 't want to allow a street at the edge of a PUD connected to
somebody else . You know like happened in Vineland .
Batzli : You 've covered it for existing streets but not streets that may be
put in later . Okay .
Emmings : I think we need a motion to close the public hearing .
Ahrens moved , Ellson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in —
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Emmings : Is there a motion with regards to the ordinance?
Erhart : I ' ll move that we recommend adoption of the PUD ordinance as
outlined in the memo to the Planning Commission , May 6 , 1991 . Is that a
good way to describe it? Do we actually have the ordinance written out in —
here?
Conrad: It 's right here . —
Erhart : Okay . Alright . The ordinance as stated in article VIII , Planned
Unit Development District except for Paragraph Section 20-506( e ) which will
be left open with a note that .
Krauss : Well I think you 'd want to preclude the whole 20-506 .
Erhart : Okay , the whole 20-506 which will include a note that says , what?
Krauss : If you just exclude this one , what will happen is you 'll have a
new PUD ordinance with the old single family section . So you don 't have to —
do anything . Just exclude this .
Erhart : Okay , so we 're going to exclude Section 20-506 . —
Emmings: I 'll second it .
Ahrens: Did you have some changes Ladd?
Batzli : I thought Ladd made some changes .
Erhart: Oh , I 'm sorry . Yeah, Ladd had some changes.
Emmings : He intended to incorporate those . I heard him say that . —
Erhart: Yeah , I said that .
Emmings: And I intended that in my second also .
Batzli : Paul , is the old standards for residential 506? Or this is a
brand new section isn 't it? Why don't we just put a 506 in there that says —
Planning Commission Meeting
May 15 , 1991 - Page 44
MEP
reserved or something?
Emmings: Because , is the single family PUD section that we have now called
20-506?
Krauss: Not unless we 're real lucky . But I 'll change the numbers around .
Emmings : We don 't have a 506 right now .
Batzli : Because 501 , well . It 's 504 .
• Erhart : It 's not going to work .
Krauss : Well yes it would . If you just replace , if your motion says
delete this one and replace it with Section , where am I?
Batzli : 20-504 .
Erhart : Delete 20-506 with and add existing .
Krauss: Section 20-504 .
Olsen: We 'll be sure not to repeal that section . The single family kind
of , it 's not real separate .
Batzli : Yeah , that 's the problem .
Ahrens : Why don 't we just identify the standards as guidelines for single
family detached PUD 's? We 're reserving that section .
Emmings : Yeah , and not have one . We 'll just won 't have anything for
single family until we pass one and let 's put in the section heading and
just say , to 20-507 reserve for single family .
Ahrens: 506 .
Emmings: 506 . Reserve for standards and guidelines for single family
detached PUD 's . Okay? Is that okay Paul?
— Krauss: Sure .
Emmings: Alright , do you want to include that in your motion? I 'll
include it in the second . Alright . Any more discussion?
Erhart moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of ordinance amendment to Article VIII , Planned Unit Development
— District with the following changes: Amending Section 20-506 to state that
it 's being reserved for Single Family Detached Residential . Changing in
Section 20-505(b) the word 'high" to "higher" . All voted in favor and the
_ motion carried unanimously .
4
CITYOF
690 COULTCEANBASSEN
ER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission —
FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director
DATE: March 15, 1991
SUBJ: Proposed Revisions to Article 8, PUD Development District
On March 6th, staff discussed proposed revisions to the PUD
ordinance with the Planning Commission. The discussion was rather
lengthy but focused primarily on utility of the PUD district and
problems that had occurred in the past with Chanhassen ' s, primarily
residential, experience. The Planning Commission discussed the
possibility of inviting individuals who were familiar with PUD' s to
provide you with background on their use relative to Chanhassen.
Based upon your request, we have invited John Shardlow of Shardlow,
Dahlgren and Uban and Terry Forbord of Lundgren Brothers
Construction to discuss the use of PUD' s with you.
John Shardlow is familiar to most of the Planning Commissioners due _
to his representation of some property owners providing their input
into the Comprehensive Plan process. Mr. Shardlow is a well
respected professional planner who has many years of experience in
representing a variety of clients . He also teaches a course in
Planned Unit Developments and has offered to bring some of that
material for your review. In addition to providing information on
the history of PUD' s, examples of their use and a discussion of a
model PUD ordinance, I have asked John to discuss the use of PUD' s
for industrial and commercial developments. His firm does
considerable design work for these types of projects and he is
uniquely qualified to provide this input. Mr. Shardlow' s firm is
also an active participant in the parcel of property located at the
southeast corner of the intersection of Hwy. 5 and Hwy. 41.
Lundgren Brothers Construction has an excellent track record of
developing high quality residential developments in our community.
In fact, the Near Mountain subdivision, which they are currently
completing, is being developed under PUD standards. Mr. Forbord' s
firm is also actively involved in developing subdivision proposals
for the new MUSA area that will be incorporated under the
Comprehensive Plan. He made a brief presentation in this regard at
PUD Ordinance Discussion
March 15, 1991
Page 2
— the October public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan and succeeded
in getting the boundary area of the 1995 Study Area revised as a
result. Mr. Forbord has been with the firm for a number of years
and is also well qualified to discuss the use of PUD' s in the
residential context. He is active in a number of groups including
his position as a board member of the Sensible Land Use Coalition.
Staff hopes that the Planning Commission will find this discussion
to be informative. Information you learn from this discussion
should prove to be useful in developing a revised PUD ordinance for
the community. It may also help you to envision the type of
development and the type of guidance the city can employ relative
to new large scale developments along Hwy. 5 .
Planning Commission Muting
March 6 , 1991 - Page 24
talking about a 100% commercial area and we were doing it PUD . Where did
I go wrong originally? And secondly why , remind me again why Market Square—
is a PUD .
Krauss : Well I think , Tim your perception probably goes back to the fact _
that Chanhassen historically has used it more in a residential setting than
we have elsewhere . Now that goes against conventional wisdom because the
reverse is usually true in most communities . In fact arguably , we 've had a
lot of problems with residential PUD 's and that 's why you got into that
because the changes in the PUD ordinance were designed to address the
problems that became evident after development in neighborhoods like
Pheasant Hills took place and you saw that nobody had room for decks and
that sort of thing . I 'm sorry , what was the second question?
Erhart : What was the purpose in Market Square? Why was that a PUD and
what did we get out of that?
Krauss : Well I 'd like to think that the end result was that we got a
fairly high quality , fairly high level of design architecturally from a
landscaping standpoint .
Olsen: We got setbacks . It was in the CBD where there is no setbacks .
Krauss : I don 't know what the trade off is supposed to be . I mean there
was always , it was an implied . Like I say , conventional wisdome was that
there 's supposed to be a trade off but it never said that in the ordinance —
and it never gave you any kind of indication as to what we should expect .
Also the rationale for Market Square in part being a PUD is because the
development was intense enough that they needed the flexibility . They
needed to be abletoget around things like the hard surface coverage if
they were going to make the development work . That 's fine if you 're
getting what , if the City gets what they want out of it . And I think that _
one worked out . But it only worked out after literally dozens of meetings
with the developer saying you know , putting our foot down and we 're not
going to take this and trying to work out compromises . And as I recall ,
the Planning Commission itself was negotiating architectural detailing at
the very end .
Erhart : Were they negotiating or just imparting our wishes? Is one 'of the
complicating things here is that you 're trying to make one ordinance cover
multiple zoning districts?
Krauss : I don 't think so . PUD is a generic term . It 's a generic ,
administratively functionally it cuts across all the land use categories .
We have some specific standards for single family because of our unique
experience in using it . Having seen some of the end results here with
residential PUD 's , I personally wouldn 't advocate that we ever do it again .
Not for single family but I think that if we did it again with the single
family , we 'd have better guidelines than we did before .
Erhart : You don 't think we got additional open space?
Krauss : I 'm not so sure . Well in Pheasant Hills we did get some outlots
that were protected but we couldn 't have probably protected them anyway .
Planning Commission Mt _ing
March 6 , 1991 - Page 25
- Olsen : That was before the .
Krauss: Was Lundgren 's after?
Olsen : That wasn 't a PUD .
Batzli : Was Fox Hollow before or after?
Olsen: Before . Lake Susan Hills was one of the after ones and we did
definitely get more .
Erhart : It was my impression that the whole negotiation there was that we
got open space out of that .
Krauss : Well again , if the City 's getting what is meeting it 's
expectations . Pheasant Hills was designed apparently on the presumption
that it would lower the cost of housing by going with smaller lots . That
- clearly didn 't happen up there . There are other ways of achieving that .
There 's another type of housing that I talked about briefly in here but I
didn 't propose standards for it but I was familiar with it from working
with it in Minnetonka . Is that I found that with several developments over
there , zero lot line or Z type of development . I don 't know if you 're
familiar with it but they 're single family detached homes on very small
lots that share , you know one wall of the house is virtually bn the
property line and the wall of the house adjoing it is virtually on the
property line and then there 's common spaces inbetween . I found that you
had to develop specific standards to deal with that type of development
- such as you already did with single fmaily because you have people living
in such close proximity that if somebody sticks their air conditioner
compressor under the other person 's bedroom window , you 've got a major
problem . Or you want design flexibility in the house but window , you know
one window here shouldn 't look into the bathroom over there .
Batzli : In that type of setting , are they physically , are the walls
- physically attached or is zero just kind of you 're a couple feet apart?
Krauss : Usually you 're a few feet apart .
Emmings : Can you put a portable chemical toilet inbetween?
Krauss: Split the difference .
Emmings : Just enough room in there .
— Krauss: I don 't know if we 're going to have that here . I 've got to assume
that sooner or later somebody 's going to propose that . I do have some ways
of handling it but I didn 't feel like muddying up the issues too much at
this point .
Conrad: I 've just got some thoughts . I think we 're going in some good
directions . We 've talked about some of these things in past years and some
- of it may be before Paul 's time . Maybe Jo Ann and I were the only ones
around but a lot of what happened . A lot of problems occurred when you get
into PUD . We don 't have a clue what we 're getting . We don 't know what
- we 're giving up value wise . Therefore , we don 't understand the negotiation
Planning Commission ME _ing
March 6 , 1991 - Page 26
process . Strictly city negotiating . There aren 't concrete performance
standards which a lot of communities have . We 're not smart enough here or
haven 't put the time in to develop those performance standards . We talk
about them but we don 't really know what they are . You reduce density by
x . You will increase or you save a wetland , you will actually increase . It
will give you x percent increase in density . We have a little bit of that —
here but not very much . So it 's like we 're bordering on something and to
really have good performance standards in one terrific , a whole bunch of
work . Otherwise we 're back in the same game of well , is staff negotiating?
And I think , I don 't want to discourage what Paul is presenting here
because I think anything that helps define more what we 're doing is better
but again , I just think for those of you who haven 't been around a whole
lot , performance standards can be extremely complex . They 're great if
you 're smart enough to figure out what they are . Typically you 're smart
enough . Don 't put enough time into it so you kind of wing it when the
developer comes in . But again , the thing that I need , I don 't know that
some of what we 're giving Paul is meaningful . I don 't know that taking a
lot from 15 ,000 square feet down to 12 ,000 square feet is meanginful . It
might be but I don 't know what the developers think about that . We haven 't _
seen them flocking in and requesting PUD 's because of that . On the other
hand , because I don 't know what that , how meaningful that is economically ,
I don 't know what we can expect from a developer on the other hand . So
again , from a commissioner , from a lay person , you almost have to trust the --
staff can figure some of this stuff out . And again , it 's a lot of , it 's
staff negotiation . In here Paul , I 'm just going to wing a few things about
what 's here . Under the allowed uses , there was a section called specific _
uses and performance standards for each PUD shall be delineated in a
development plan . The performance standards . So you have to make those up
every time a development plan comes in?
Krauss : Well you do , but that 's part of the flexibility that a PUD gives .
I can give you an example of one that , I was kind of pleased with how it
turned out . The Minnetonka Corporate Center is an industrial office PUD
that Trammel Crow developed . It 's off of 494 and the Crosstown . When we
worked the PUD agreement up for that , it laid out what types of buildings
and what sizes of buildings and the number of stories where going to go on _
individual areas . It delineated all the tree preservation areas . It
delineated where wetlands were going to be preserved . Where wetlands were
going to be created . Where major landscaping features were going to go .
It laid out a whole signage package . We threw out the sign ordinance and -
came up with a coordinated sign program . Came up with a coordinated
lighting program . There were general architectural standards that were
approved in there where most of the buildings were going to be glass and -
brick and there was limited use of tip up panels where truck loading was
concealed . Where there 'd be common spaces in some of the buildings . And
this is a 15 year development program that was laid out and it was a book
that was developed which was adopted and it was amended from time to time
but that book has essentially guided that development to where it is right
now . Now it 's not finished to this day but I think , you look at the
general level of development in there . The standards that have been -
adhered to and they 're pretty good . That 's what I see being adopted when
hopefully , when the development group comes in with 160 acres on TH 5 and
TH 41 . That would an ideal spot to go through a procedure like this . What
I would like to avoid like the plague on a site like that is zone the whole
thing IOP . Have it split up into 45 lots and anything that comes over the
Planning Commission ME _ing
March 6 , 1991 - Page 27
next 20 years goes . That seems like we 're throwing out any kind of control
we can exercise over it . Now you do exercise control over it through your
site plan ordinance and we 're trying to get better code requirements in
_ there . But I think you 're a lot better off if you can look at the big
picture on something like that and get those areas preserved that you want
to get . Get the building massing in the right places and get it all to
work as an overall concept .
Emmings: Now the site that you just mentioned in Minnetonka , was that done
on an ordinance that was similar to what we 've got in front of us here now
to review? What were the performance standards in the Minnetonka ordinance
that that was developed under?
Krauss : That was developed under an earlier version of the Minnetonka
ordinance . I wrote the current version of the Minnetonka ordinance and I
took a lot of that and kind of changed it a little bit but fit it into this
current proposal that you 're looking at now . What was in the Minnetonka
ordinance though were basic expectations , even the old ordinance , as to you
know , protecting the exterior of the PUD as to what the City had a right to
expect . The current version of the ordinance is more explicit . But
Trammel Crow was a good enough developer too that we were able to kind of
work mutually towards this thing and basically the current version of the
Minnetonka ordinance is reflective of my experience working with them on
that and what we had a right to expect .
Emmings : And just for clarifiation for me anybody , to the extent that I 've
been involved with PUD 's , it was always my understanding that , like you
- said in this one introductory paragraph . It was kind of common wisdom in
the city that a development has to earn a PUD zoning but it 's not really ,
that expectation isn 't written down anywhere . I know that when I was here
through one revision of the PUD ordinance , everybody said if we don 't get
something that we want out of this . And it 's not preservation of a wetland
because they have to do that anyway . We don 't ever , they don 't get any
points for that because they have to do it anyhow . They have to really
- give us something that we want or we deny it and that didn 't work over here
on Lake , was it Lake Susan Hills? The big development that 's west of Lake
Susan , what is that?
Olsen : Lake Susan Hills .
Emmings: Yeah . Because I remember the Planning Commission there felt we
weren 't getting anything and we recommended denial and the City Council saw
it just the other way around . They saw it as a tremendous opportunity to
zone a tract that was over 300 acres and they said it was a PUD so
- obviously in the City we haven 't had any concurrence or any agreement on
what we 're doing here so laying this stuff out I think is real important .
_ Conrad: In that case , they thought they were getting a good park and we
didn 't think we were getting a good park . Or play area or whatever . There
was just a whole lot of difference of opinion on that and again , it goes
back to we don 't have a clue what we 're getting . What is the developer
- getting value wise for increased density or for something and what are we
getting back? I 've never had a handle on that one . And most of the times ,
most of the PUD 's I feel we 're giving up far more than what we 're getting
- but that 's just .
Planning Commission Mt _ing
March 6 , 1991 - Page 28
Emmings : And interesting , in that case too , the threat was if we didn 't
see it as a PUD , then they would come in under the subdivision ordinance
and just put in a straight subdivision . And we said , on the Planning
Commission we said fine . We think we 've got a good subdivision ordinance .
Go ahead and do it because we don 't think that 's what you want but that did
scare the City Council . They didn 't want that .
Conrad : Yeah . And they have known something we didn 't know .
Emmings: Right .
Conrad: Are there cases where we would require a PUD?
Krauss : Well I would like to be in a position to require developments to
go PUD because I think we get better product and can work it better . Every
time I try it , the City Attorney tells me I can 't do it . You can almost _
kind , you can ask somebody to do it . You can be very specific that we 're
not going to let one variance go through unless . You can really put
somebody in a position where they wanted it . Also , developers these days
are more savy than they used to be and they realize that PUD 's allow
phasing . They allow the City to look at different standards for streets .
They allow them more flexibility at building clustering . Maybe more
density than they would normally get . And the better developers are , you —
. know they 're typically looking for that .
Conrad : I don 't know . I like PUD 's . I don 't think we offer enough in _
exchange in some cases . I 'd like to really encourage things like open
spaces and stuff and I 'm not sure what we are able to give really does
that . In other words , instead of putting 8 units on a piece of property ,
my posture and it 's really changed over the years . Instead of the 8 , if
you clustered them in a highrise which takes us to a different zoning
category but you know , double , triple the number . Leave some open space .
In essence what you 're doing is preserving some of that lot for open spaces _
or whatever but you 're really , you 're kind of changing what the zoning .
You know , my philosophy , I 'd be putting in a highrise to do that and I
don 't know that that 's what the current ordinances allow . But
philosophically , there 's just some neat trade-offs that you can make but a —
lot of people still love large lots and I think there are reasons to change
that because it preserves some other things out here that are equally as
valid . Couple other questions . I don 't want to dominate this but the 5 -
acres sort of bothered me because I don 't know if you can have a PUD in 5
acres . You said you 've heard that 's a standard that other communities have
but I 'm just sort of , you can 't have a residential . It 's though to have a _
residential PUD in 5 acres . Maybe you can have some other kind of PUD but
that 's a real , I guess that gives us flexibility . The other point I wanted
to add on . I think in this thing Paul you should be saying we would , the
City encourages PUD 's and maybe we can 't require it but I think wording
wise , we want to encourage it and at least my opinion is that we want to
encourage it because we do , we can get soge things that we like in that .
But I don 't know if you want to word that in there . I do like the density
transfer stuff but I 'm not sure again , I 'm not sure where that leads us .
The density transfer there , under the required standards Paul and Jo Ann .
It says density . The increased density , increased transfer for density
may be allowed at the sole discretion of the City . . .but it doesn 't give in --
that area , do we have to drop back to the density? The increased density
Planning Commission ME _ing
- March 6 , 1991 - Page 29
could possibly go down to 12 ,000 square feet . Is that where we 'd flip back
to the required standards 504? In 505 -you said we encourage it but there
aren 't any standards . But then we go back to 504 for residential and is
that what would apply?
Krauss : For single family .
— Conrad: For single family? See in that case , I just don 't know that we 're
going to get much and I help put those standards in .
Olsen: We aren 't turning developers away as far as single family
developments . When we first meet with them , they ' ll compare what they can
get with the PUD versus the straight subdivision and they go straight
subdivision .
Conrad: I guess I 'm sort of mumbling but if we want to encourage stuff ,
you 've got to be able to hang a carrot out there . So far the carrot 's not
— big enough . Maybe that 's okay . Maybe we shouldn 't change it .
Erhart : What are they looking for? What do they think is reasonable?
10 ,000 square feet?
Emmings : Or more clustered?
- Olsen: They all want the single family and they want the small lots .
Emmings : How small?
Olsen: As I was just telling Paul , you know 12 ,000 . That 's our minimum
but I don 't know how you can go much smaller but some of them like the
11 ,000 and 10 ,000 . I don 't know because what we do is we do take out the
wetlands first of all and we do take out the sloped areas so there goes
some of their net density right there . And then plus we 're saying we 're
going to take parkland and trails and additional . And when we start taking
— all of that away , their density just goes , you know they 're left with maybe
50 lots when they might get 52 lots going . It 's comparable .
Conrad: In the PUD that you 're proposing , 25% in this draft , 25% of the
original intended zoning can be altered so basically we could move those
units into a multi-family area?
- Krauss : Conceiveably yes .
Conrad: And therefore we could get some open space .
Krauss : Sure . I suppose if you had a large enough site and it could be
designed , you could have some townhomes in some section of it .
Conrad : And you feel comfortable with 25% because it keeps the intent of
the original zoning . The 75% , that 's basically it .
- Emmings: Then you wind up again with a situation where they come in and
they lay out a plan and over here they 've got , what they want is the 12 ,000
square foot lots and they get some of those and they 've got to leave some
open space and they get some multi-family . They put that in for you and
Planning Commission Ming
March 6 , 1991 - Page 30
then they build the homes and they never build the multi-family because
there 's no market for it . I think we 've seen that in Lake Susan Hills .
They were supposed to , have multi-family there and we wanted that and we
haven 't seen any and the reason I assume is that there 's just no market for
it . We never will see it .
Krauss: In Lake Susan Hills though , the sites are still being held for
townhome and high density developments .
Emmings: Yeah . Until they come back and say geez , we just can 't sell
them . Can we change this and I fully expect that to happen and that was
predicted when they were here with their plan . So that 's another problem
with that is we don 't have the range in the market out here . When people
come out here to buy , they come out to buy a single family home . It seems
like . At least now .
Krauss: I think that 's been the traditional . Well , traditionally
Chanhassen 's been a bedroom community but I think we 've all seen that
change in the last 5 years . I 've had several people making inquiries about
multi-family housing lately which surprises me because there 's , since 1985 —
when the tax law changed , there hasn 't been much multi-family built
anywhere in the Twin Cities and there 's a glut on the market in most
communities . But there are some people looking seriously at it here .
Emmings : Do you think it 's because of the jobs that have opened up? It 's
people moving out to be closer to their job .
Krauss : I think it 's because the city 's changed and jobs are a big part of
it . We have a lot of people who have children grown up here and then they
have to leave town because there 's no place to live .
Conrad: Let me give you a hypothetical case . I really like density
transfer and again it 's not anything I 've ever seen that would do a whole
lot here . But let 's say we have a 30 acre PUD which under today 's
ordinance we get 3 lots per acre or something like that . So really they
could have 90 single family residential lots there . Let 's say we wanted to
put those on 45 , no on 15 of the acres . So we had 30 acres to begin with .
We want to keep 15 open and we 're going to drop . We 're going to transfer
the density that they could have had in those 15 over to the other 15 . Can
this ordinance handle that situation?
Krauss : Yeah .
Ellson: By keeping the other one open?
Conrad : Again I 'm just , that seems like something that you 'd want to do in
certain circumstances . We 're going to move just half the lots and we 'll
double the density over here . Well see I don 't know that Paul is right
because what we did is we took 15 ,000 square foot lot and we just took it
down to 7 ,500 based on what I just said .
Krauss : Well no . The problem is we have separate single family standards .
If you 're talking about single family detached housing , you 're stuck with
the 12 ,000 square foot minimum .
Planning Commission Mt ,ing
- March 6 , 1991 - Page 31
Conrad: So we could only transfer a couple acres worth of density to the .
We could only open up a few acres basically until we got to that 12 ,000
square foot minimum . Whatever . So basically density transfer is an
interesting idea . I don 't know if we 're using it to the point where we can
encourage really some significant benefit . You know , if you open up a
little bit of space , who cares? It might not be that big a deal where if
you open up 15 acres for some particular reason , it may be a big deal .
I guess what I 'm saying is , I 've never seen our ordinance able to really
encourage creativity because we havge some restrictions because we , the
community are saying hey , we value single family so much out here we want
big lots . That 's why I moved here , and we 're not going to sluff that
standard . So I bring that up . I don 't have a solution to that but density
transfer I always 'thought was a neat thing to do if we ever figure out how
to do it . Some of the ratios Paul , in your hard surface coverage . Boy ,
— I guess , and I don 't know if they 're right or wrong and maybe you robbed
them from some other place but the one thing that 's kind of neat that
I always feel I have control over , even in bad situations . Even let 's say
in industrial/commercial uses , I think some of the neat things about our
industrial park is that it does have green space . It does , we 're set apart
because it 's not wall to wall , concrete to concrete , asphalt to asphalt
stuff . I attribute that to one , good planning and some sort of plan . But
— two , our requirement for impervious surface ratios that kind of gives some
berms out there . Kind of gives some trees . So when I see them , the hard
surface , I 'm not sure how much that 's changed and maybe it hasn 't changed
- at all . I 'm just sort of talking here but that adds to the character of
our industrial parks . The greenery in it and as much as I 'd like to
consolidate those parks , I still like the green . I still think we can make
them as pretty as what we 've got but I 'm not sure I like sacrificing some
of that and so , I sure could be persuaded . You know my intent or where I 'm
coming from . I think those are the bulk of my comments on that .
- Emmings: Ladd , can you think of any time we 've had a PUD here where it 's
really given us something? Where it 's really worked the way we 'd like to
see it work? I can 't .
Conrad : I 'm having a tough time . There are PUD 's where we 're getting some
things but as I said . I 've never seen a real creative PUD .
— Emmings : I haven 't either .
Conrad: And you know , the smaller the property , the less creative you can
— be . But I don 't think we 're really encouraging them either here with what
we give . I don 't look at it as a totally what do we get out of this PUD .
I think it 's Chanhassen wants this , developer wants this and the developer
can save him some money by clustering utilities and things over here and
Chanhassen can add to it 's quality of life by doing some other things . So
it 's a give and take but geez , I get real frustrated by what they 're giving
and that 's simply because I don 't have a clue what we get now in some of
— these negotiations . I just don 't know and maybe I never will .
Emmings : It 's a funny thing because it seems to me like a PUD is an ideal
- way to develop any big piece of land . Any big housing development . Any
commercial development or industrial development . I 'd like to see it all
done under here but if that 's right . The reason I like it is because I
think we get to have a hand in the planning or the design so that we do get
Planning Commission ME_cing
March 6 , 1991 - Page 32
some things we like . Whether it 's open space or extra landscaping or
whatever , but it 's never happened . So something is screwed up and I don 't
know , do you have any idea Paul why it 's never . I don 't think it 's ever —
worked here . Lake Susan Hills , we have PUD 's but it 's just another
subdivision really .
Krauss: I do think the Market Square is probably the best example , the
closest example of where that could work . If that was developed under the
CBD zoning , anything would have gone on that property . I mean there were _
no setbacks anyplace . You have the 1 per 40 requirement for trees .
There 's no coordination of access . There 's no architectural standard that
you really adhere to . On Market Square we felt very comfortable pushing
very hard for better than normal design . Remember we had the whole
argument about the roof lines and they came back and said it 's costly and
you were saying , well that 's part of the trade off . And we required very
large trees and a large number of them , particularly in the back property —
line and through the parking lot . We developed architectural standards for
the two outlots . So we don 't know what 's going to go on there but we know
that it 's got to be consistent with . —
Emmings : Well why in that case didn 't they just say , the heck with you ,
we ' ll just develop it with it CBD zoning?
Olsen: The impervious coverage and there were some things that they
wanted . Parking .
Emmings: Okay . So they couldn 't go CBD there? Just come in with
something that fit .
Krauss : Not and have the same project , no .
Emmings : Because what you said just makes it sound like we 've got holes in
our standards that we require for development in the CBD really . It would —
seem to me that anything that goes into the CBD ought to be done as a PUD .
Maybe .
Krauss : Well the CBD is sort of a frightening district . Now it 's not
unlike a lot of communities that have a real old downtown where there was
no standard and it 's tough to begin a standard in that kind of a context .
But I feel very comfortable that we did a lot better with the PUD over
there than we would have done otherwise . And we got coordination that we
wouldn 't have had . I mean we have internal access roads . We had them
build turn lanes . They 're moving bus shelters . There 's a lot of stuff
that goes in there and it 's tough to keep , for an accounting of this stuff .
I mean there 's not a balance sheet that says we gave this . They gave this
because it 's an ongoing process . I mean we get something out of them .
They get something out of us . In the meetings before it comes to —
the Planning Commission , the Planning Commission you went through that
project 3 times that I was familiar with . Each time there were more
criteria . The City Council did the same thing .
Conrad : But you know a lot more than we do Paul . You 've done that .
You 've gone through it and you know when we see it on a one shot deal , we
don 't know what 's been negotiated really . We 're really in the dark .
_ Planning Commission Mecing
March 6 , 1991 - Page 33
Krauss : Well one interesting thing with Market Square too that I think
points out why one aspect of why a PUD is a good thing to have . You 're all
aware that from time to time over the last 2 years it seemed like Market
- Square was going to wither and die and go away . It now seems as though
it 's really going to happen but I 've had from time to time interest in
splitting up the properties and being just able to develop , parcel things
_ off and people have come in and said , I 've got every right to do this . Or
you know , it 's owned by 3 individuals right now . Burdick owns part ,
Bloomberg owns part . Burdick will just take his piece and develop it
independently . I 'm sitting here saying you can 't do that . The whole thing
- is zoned PUD . The only thing that could go on it is Market Square and
anything else that you want to do is going to have to go for a rezoning and
we 're notgoing to recommend approval of a rezoning unless there 's a
comprehensive plan that we find acceptable . So we haven 't gotten Market
Square. in the ground yet but we haven 't gotten piecemeal stuff that 's a
problem .
- Emmings: I thought you had to have unity of ownership before you could
even have a PUD .
- Krauss : That 's fine . Then the partnership agreement does say they would
do that .
Emmings: Oh , okay . So there is a partnership between those three on that
property? Okay . Well this could go on for a long time and we 've got to
shorten it up somehow . Annette , have you got anything?
- Ellson : Well I like the idea of getting it a little stronger and I was
thinking the same as you Steve . It always seems like we 're in such a
reactive mode and I think I say it like every meeting but I really think if
we want to ask something and we think PUD 's the answer , then let 's go out
with our ideas and talk to people and help because by the time a developer
likes this piece of land , he 's already got it in his head and then we 're
going in and trying to do whatever . We 're so reactive . That 's one of the
reasons I feel we don 't always see ourselves getting involved because
they 've got it all laid out . They had that 100 homes in there or whatever
and if we could say , offer people . You know we 're taking a look at density
- swapping . Are you interested because we 'd like to keep this grove of oak
trees . Here 's a couple ideas any developer , let 's talk . I don 't know . I 'm
thinking in terms of something like that but I agree that this is like the
most beneficial zoning we can have . We really could come out with stuff
that we really want and preserve everything that our goals do if we work
with this the right way . I also agree with everybody else saying that so
far nothing too swell has come out of it yet but the potential is there .
- So I just think we have to go out and do some of that ourselves and offer
the opportunity to people and the kinds of things that we want to maintain
and what we 're willing to swap for . And you make the good point . Do we
- have enough of a carrot to say , throw it all on 7 1/2 . . .allowed to do that
but we could have such potential . It just seems like you want to take
advantage of it but I like what you 've done . It 's very difficult to fine
tune it though . I tried to help but I don 't know exactly where . So those
are my comments , as inept as they might be .
Emmings : Should we vote on how inept they are? Brian?
Planning Commission ME—ing
March 6 , 1991 - Page 34
Batzli : Paul was right about one thing and that was that there was a lot
in here and I think , as I sift through it , I still I don 't think have quite
figured out what we 're really trying to do with this even yet . I guess , I -
like parts of it and parts of it I don 't understand why it 's in here . I
don 't know where Paul got some of these things from , even in the intent
section so I think we need to have a lot more discussion on this and what -
it is we 're trying to do . I think it was raised by several commissioners
and that is , we seem to want this but we don 't know why we 're not getting
anything with our current ordinance . And if our current ordinance is -
vague , by beefing up the intent and demanding more , I don 't think we ' ll get
more in . So I guess I don 't understand what we 're hoping to achieve by
toughening an ordinance when we 're not getting any PUD applications in here
now with a weak ordinance . That 's a philosophical , rhetorical question . I -
don 't know .
Farmakes: You made the comment that for financial reasons or market -
reasons that you 're not getting a lot of applications for this?
Krauss: Sure .
Olsen : Most definitely .
Farmakes : Do you believe that that 's going to change or do you think that -
• it 's just Chanhassen in general? I mean if the ordinance is weak , you say
there are some people who are inquiring about this?
Krauss : The only thing that we 're not getting right now is we 're not
getting applications for residential , single family residential PUD 's . And
from my standpoint , that 's fine because they cause us more trouble than
it 's worth . Where I think you 're going to be seeing this more and more is -
mixed use residential , commercial and industrial . We 've reached the stage
in our growth where I guess for lack of a better word , we 've hit the big
time and the kinds of development we 're going to be getting out here over -
the next 10 years require more sophisticated approach that a PUD can offer .
The industrial park . Chanhassen Industrial Park should have been a PUD .
I 'm firmly convinced that as good as it is , we could have done better had
that ordinance existed at that point in time . Now we have tracts of land
south of the railway tracks . You know , assuming the MUSA line gets
approved . We 've got a 90 acre chunk south of there . We 've got 160 acre
chunk on TH 5 . We 've got some commercial development around new TH 101 . I -
mean there are lots of sites where this is going to come into play . And I
think you really need to change gears for a moment and project forward as
to where this is going to be used in the next decade because I think our -
past experience of , in this isn 't really going to be very relevant .
Batzli : Do you think we should go in and rezone areas that we want PUD PUD
right now with the new ordinance in effect and to basically demand that
they be developed PUD?
Krauss : Well that 's an option Commissioner Batzli . In fact , I don 't like -
to keep referring back to Minnetonka but when we developed the 394
ordinance which is a corridor ordinance , we rezoned everything to PUD up
there and then developed corridor standards that applied in those PUD 's .
Conrad : That really makes a lot of sense .
- Planning Commission Mec,cing
March 6 , 1991 - Page 35
Ellson : That 's not a bad idea at all .
Batzli : That would be the only thing that would make sense to me because
- otherwise you 're going to , I think get exactly what we 've had in the past
and that 's somebody 's going to come in . They 're going to look at our PUD
and then they 're going to say , well I don 't want to give you that much .
— I 'm just going to develop it to your lower standards that you 've got in
your IOP district standards or your BF or your CBD . Whatever else you 've
got . I don 't see that they 'll use this unless we rezone it .
Erhart : Aren 't you missing though , you don 't get anything because they 're
not big enough? A PUD works when you have a large piece of land under
single ownership . Whether you zone an area PUD or not that 's not under
- single ownership , you 're not going to get anything . The key to getting
something is a large parcel of land under single ownership . Isn 't that
really the crux of it?
Krauss : That 's a lot of it . That 's the easiest , that 's the best place to
get the most bang for the buck . But those are the same tracts of land .
Those are the tracts of land that we have out there . We do have massive
- ownership . I mean the whole TH 5 frontage is probably in 15 property
owners hands . And they 've already formed a development consortions .
- Ellson : Yeah , I was going to say . Those people were all signing off on
these things .
_ Erhart : And we if can get them to do a PUD and collectively work together ,
it will be great . What is a real thing here , if we want to get some neat
stuff done here , is to focus on encouraging massive developments where you
can go in and look at it from a broad point of view . I 'm not sure we can ,
— this is going to do that much .
Conrad : Let 's say we zoned the entire TH 5 corridor PUD . Does that
encourage the current owners to consolidate ownership?
Krauss : Not necessarily . What it does do though is give you more design
latitude to require what you think is appropriate .
Emmings : Now we just went through a process for the Comprehensive Plan
where we fussed around specifically laying out zoning .
Conrad: We could have gotten out of all of that Steve by just zoning it
PUD and telling the residents that we didn 't know what was going to go in
there .
Batzli : But you can do PUD and it would just have to be developed
underlying in accordance with the comprehenisve plan .
Krauss : Which is land use . And in fact , one of the things that the City
Council did that I informed you about was when they talked about the 137
- acres in front of Timberwood . The City Council approved language that
basically left that residential but stated conditions under which non-
residential may be considered . One of the requirements was that it be
developed as a coordinated PUD . You know , along with the design standards .
In fact that brings to mind one thing too . John Shardlow in all his
Planning Commission Mt—ting
March 6 , 1991 - Page 36
presentations . Remember John Shardlow wasn 't only a planning consultant ,
he 's a member of a consortion that owns that 160 acres out there . He 's
already stated a couple of times that it 's their intent to come in with an
overall development plan . A PUD development plan .
Batzli : For the whole corridor? —
Krauss: No . For their 160 acres .
Batzli : Well they had some sort of plan already that they tried to show us
didn 't they?
Krauss: Well yeah . —
Batzli : Well it was a plan .
Krauss: Yeah .
Emmings: Jeff , did you get a chance to finish?
Farmakes: No , I have no further comments . I think it 's a good thing .
Ellson: How about you Steve?
Emmings: I guess everybody 's , I don 't have anything to add really . I
think it 's important to do . I don 't know how we get from where we are to —
getting a better ordinance that will get something done . And the only
specific thing , while somebody was talking here about open space , I don't
know if any of our ordinances or anything we have ever mentions open space
as something . You know we talk about trees and other things but the PUD —
ordinance doesn 't mention open space and I think maybe somehow we ought to
specifically reference it . That that 's something that we would consider an
asset . Preserving open space is something . —
Batzli : That brings a smile to my heart you guys talking about open spaces
in a positive way . I like that .
Emmings: Very Zen . We 're into Zen . But how can we get any further down
the trail?
Conrad: The one thing I 'd like Paul to say , I 'd like Paul to tell us some
things about , to do some criticisms of some of our standards . The 12 ,000 .
He basically left some things in place not wanting to really attack them —
but just sort of an analysis to say , hey do we have enough flexibility?
Density transfer 's a neat word but is it really going to be useful? Or do
we have to change something . And maybe there 's some other things . Lot
sizes . Is the 25% that he 's now putting in to a particular PUD where we —
can change it from the original intent , is that enough? I guess I 'm just
curious , I 'd like him to come back or staff to come back with some
rationale for changing certain of our guidelines . Standards . —
Emmings: The other thing too I think , under the intent section , all the
things that are listed there are specific and somehow to me there ought to
be some kind of a general statement of intent . A general statement that
we 'd like to encourage this kind of development . That we expect somehow to
Planning Commission Meting
March 6 , 1991 - Page 37
_. get something and we expect to give something . Maybe it would be a good
idea , I wonder if it would be a good idea to have somebody like John
Shardlow or other developers who you know , or have worked with in the past ,
come in and tell us what they want to get from us in order to give us some
of the things that we 're interested in getting . Do you think that that
would be useful?
Krauss: I think that kind of dialogue might help . Somebody like Bob
Worthington possibly might be willing to do that . John Shardlow might too .
Emmings: Well maybe you ought to get 2 or 3 . Shardlow 's obviously got a
specific thing in mind when he talks to us and that detracts from it 's
value to some extent or you 've got to be aware of it . But maybe if you can
get somebody who 's more neutral .
Batzli : I 'd like to see like the guy from Lundgren , from an RSF
standpoint .
Emmings: Yeah . Those guys know what they 're doing . They seem to be very
knowledgeable . I don 't know if they ever developed PUD 's but . Maybe that
would help us get us to figure out what 's going on .
Ellson: Yeah , because we don 't know what incentive items at this point .
Conrad: And then maybe Paul can also tell us some things about zoning .
The options of going back and zoning PUD 's right now . If that makes sense
or we shouldn 't do it or should .
Erhart : You know how you can get open space in residential area? You
increase your minimum lot size and then you offer the 12 ,000 foot . . . I
think we 've all agreed that 12 ,000 is getting pretty close to the absolute
minimum . If you really want open space , you increase your average lot size
or your minimum standard lot size in the subdivision to a bigger number
like 20 ,000 square feet .
Emmings: Then you 've got all open space between houses .
Erhart : Because when you do that , then the developer 's going to come in
and say , gee whiz . Alright now I 've got some incentive to go to PUD
because I can save . I can go from 20 ,000 square feet to 12 ,000 square feet
and I 'm giving you up that density in terms of open space . But the problem
is , we 've got our standard lot now so small that the spread between the
12 ,500 and 15 ,000 isn 't adequate to incentivize a developer to come in and
develop open spaces .
Batzli : I would agree . But I think that 's the problem in each one of our
districts . If you looked at it district by district , you could go through
and say , this is why they don 't use PUD more .
Erhart: I don 't know if anybody 's ready to increase our lot size from
15 ,000 .
Batzli : I would be .
Planning Commission Me-cing
March 6 , 1991 - Page 38
Krauss: If the focus is on the single family and I guess I would have
preferred to stay away from that but I think you can actually go with a —
smaller lot size in residential PUD 's as long as there 's a commensurate
requirement that architectural design is known ahead of time and approved
and designed to match . The problems we 've had is we let somebody build on
a smaller lot and they put the same , if not a larger house than they were —
going to do before . Didn 't tell the property owner anything and put this
big patio door over looking the backyard that really is illegal to use
because if you build a deck out there , it 's in the neighbor 's lot . Those —
things can be , I mean they 're design problems . You can go with much
tighter lots . You can almost go down to the zero lot line situation as
long as you lay out the design parameters ahead of time . They 're filed
against the property . The owner , the purchaser of the lot understands —
them . The developer is obligated to build to that standard and you know
what you 're getting ahead of time . It just doesn 't work when you give
somebody carte blanche to do whatever they want to do after the lots are —
created and that 's the problem we 've had .
Conrad: You know why we focus on residential Paul is because usually when
we look at commercial or industrial , it is one building going in on one
parcel . It 's not where you have 20 acres and somebody 's coming in to , we
don 't see that much of that .
Elison: That 's why he 's saying , this is a potential in the future .
Conrad: Paul , he 's going to have to educate us in that area because _we —
really don 't see much of it and we don 't know .
Krauss : One other example you might want , if you 're tooling past there . If_
you want to see a monolithic one building PUD that I think worked real well
is look at the Fingerhut headquarters on 494 and Baker Road . We did that
as a PUD because it encroaches into a single family neighborhood and we
wanted to be able to give assurances to the neighbors that what we saw is —
what we got . We bought a package and we wanted to keep it that way and we
wanted to incorporate high levels of design and a lot of site buffering and
we wanted to make sure that that was permanently required . That somebody 5
years from now couldn 't cut down all the trees just because they felt like
it , which they could do under normal zoning . So that was done as a PUD and
I think if you look at that , you 'll see how it 's designed to set into there
with rolling land and wetlands and ponds and trees .
Batzli : But the issue I think we're having problems with , how did you
force them to go PUD rather than develop it some other way? Did they —
request a zoning change?
Krauss: We couldn't sell it to the neighborhood unless we did it that way .
Emmings: What was it zoned?
Krauss: There was an office zoning for the older part of the building and —
they owned some lots south of there that still had residential zoning on
them . Even though they were guided for office use in the plan that we had
because we knew that Fingerhut bought it and had sat on it for a number of —
years . But we told them that there was no way we could work it through the
neighborhood in good conscience unless they went PUD .
- Planning Commission Meeting
March 6 , 1991 - Page 39
Farmakes: The residential looking building by the water tower , was that
also part of the PUD?
Krauss : No . That 's owned by Bob Naegele .
Emmings : What 's in that building?
Conrad: Yeah , what does he do there?
Krauss : It was supposed to be his restaurant empire which he has since
sold off .
Emmings : Is it just offices in there?
Krauss : It 's offices and he fought us . He wanted to build a billboard
into the side that faces the interchange .
Emmings : Okay , we 've got to close this off . We 're going to be here
forever unless somebody 's got some burning issue but I think , unless
somebody 's got another idea , let 's get some people talking to us about what
this means to them and you can address some of the things that Ladd brought
up because I think they 're important . Whatever they were .
- Conrad: I can 't remember them myself .
Emmings: Okay .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Emmings so noted the Minutes of the Planning
Commission dated February 6 , 1991 as presented .
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE:
Emmings: Let 's assume that everybody 's read it . Does anybody have any
questions for Paul?
Elison: I have a question on that Teton Lane thing . Just a quick
question . I didn 't understand it . I can 't remember . I remember I wanted
that road to go through . I can 't remember how it actually got . They don 't
have to build it through and now the guy wants to subdivide? I remember
this but I don 't remember what City Council ended up passing on that .
You 're looking at upgrading that but was it a condition for them?
Krauss : It was conditioned for the developer to acquire easements so that
- we could deed the road to us but that it be barricaded so nobody could ever
use it because the property owners , well the property owners along side
Teton swore that they 'd never develop their property and that they didn 't
need it and they didn 't want the traffic to go through there . So the
Council approved barricading of Teton even though it is a public street
now . Now since that time Donovan split off the corner in a one acre lot
and he 's now talking to a developer about platting out another 10 acres of
- it and he owns more land in there . There 's another lot that 's for sale and
other lots have development potential . The Council was put in a tough
position on that one . I mean here they basically believed people that said
they would never develop property and now , a year and a half later , it 's
being developed .
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 4 , 1991
Vice Chairman Erhart called the meeting to order at 7: 30 p .m . .
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart , Ladd Conrad , Jeff Farmakes , Joan Ahrens and
Brian Batzli
- MEMBERS ABSENT: Annette Ellson and Steve Emmings
STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss , Planning Director ; Jo Ann Olsen , Senior
Planner and Kate Aanenson , Planner II
PUBLIC HEARING:
- PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND REZONING TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
OF 94 ACRES TO CREATE 10 INDUSTRIAL LOTS LOCATED SOUTH OF THE CHICAGO ,
MILWAUKEE , ST . PAUL AND PACIFIC RAILROAD AND EAST OF AUDUBON ROAD ,
CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER , RYAN CONSTRUCTION.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item .
Erhart : Does the developer have any presentation or comments to make
regarding the report on the plan?
- Kent Carlson : Yes .
Erhart : And your name is?
Kent Carlson: My name is Kent Carlson . I 'm with Ryan Construction
Company . We 've worked the past few months with staff to develop these
plans and we 're very pleased with where we are today and thank you for
- taking the time to consider them . One of the things that we 're looking at
and we 've discussed with the plans is the grading and the conditions that
will exist as we prepare the Phase I property for development . Staff has
- requested that we do all of the grading at one time and install all of the
landscape on the buffer zone and that 's a concern of ours . One of the
issues is the landscaping that would be installed in that buffer zone . If
there isn 't any development nearby , we 're concerned that it won 't survive .
During this past season it would have survived because we had so much rain
but previous to that we went through several years where there was kind of
a drought condition and a lot of the landscaping that we planted in some of
- our other business parks did not survive . So what we 'd like to propose is
what we 've discussed with staff earlier . Is putting in the landscaping
along that buffer zone as the sites develop or as the screening is
required . In our landscaping and grading plans you 'll see that the
elevation and the buffer and the berm that 's going to be built along
Audubon and to the south of that area is going to be quite extensive . So
the existing conditions will be improved upon and the residential
neighborhood directly across Audubon shouldn 't be negatively impacted .
What you 'll see is very similar to the conditions that exist today with
kind of a large berm there that will be in a green area . We 're not going
— to be removing any trees there . The current site uses the soybean field so
you 've got kind of a green low lying cover already so that 's to remain
there . Again , what we 're trying to do is just provide additional
landscaping and berming as the site develops . I guess that 's my only real
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 2
comment as to the staff report . Everything else I think has been worked
out satisfactorily .
Erhart : Okay . You 've reviewed all of the conditions with the staff on the
report?
Kent Carlson: Yeah . There 's a few conditions that Kate mentioned that we
need to get together and work out . That 50% office . We talked about
certain users that are in the marketplace that don 't fit that criteria and
yet they would be a very welcomed tenant to have along Audubon because of
the size , the mass , the design elements of their projects . So to try and
pigeon hole a specific 50% office use is going to be difficult as far as a —
criteria . I think we 're better coming up with the design standard to meet
that . Again , the way we 've priced that property over along Audubon , we 're
going to attract the more image conscience user to that area . We 're
looking for buildings that are typically going to be a little lower in
height . Going to be a little smaller in scale . That along with the
setbacks and the requirements for the buffer zones and those things are
going to allow us to have a little bit more of a green area . A little
nicer mix up in that area as the entryway to the park . So I think econmics
will drive the decision to have nicer buildings in that area .
Erhart : Okay Kent . Thank you . Okay , any other comments from the public
on the project or Kathy 's report? If not , is there a motion to close the
public hearing .
Ahrens moved , Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed .
Erhart : Is there any , do you want to respond to anything that Kent had
indicated about the landscaping? Kathy at this point is that .
Aanenson: We 've talked about that . I ' ll let Paul address that .
Krauss : Basically . . .sketch that 's on here . —
Erhart : Just to review . Right now your conditions is that they should do
all the landscaping as shown?
Aanenson: In Phase 1 for the construction .
Krauss : For the buffer . The project 's being built in two phases as Kent
outlined . This is the first project that you 've seen that incorporates
those buffer yards that we developed when we drafted the Comprehensive
Plan . Ryan is fully comfortable with providing us with that space . The
additional space and they have developed a preliminary landscaping plan for
the buffer that needs to be refined a little bit but it probably does a
responsible job . We added a condition that the first phase buffer yard be
developed with the first phase and not wait until buildings are proposed
that we don 't have any control over that . That 's an economic thing . The
reason we did that was two fold . First of all when the buffer yard
ordinance was drafted , in part one of the questions that was raised was
will these buffer yards be installed up front or is that something that
will have to wait . I think specifically some of those questions were being
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 3
posed by people who lived across the street and thought they had a buffer
yard but it was never been defined by the city and they never got it
although Jo Ann was negotiating with them and we think they 've volunteered
to put in some buffering after the fact . But that was , and the ordinance ,
the buffer yard ordinance is structured to require that stuff up front . So
that 's where we were coming from when we required it . On the other hand I
think that Kent 's made some fairly persuasive arguments that this is an
extremely large project and it is difficult to maintain those plantings in
areas where you don 't have anybody there and you can 't readily water and
- that sort of thing . I guess when we discussed this at length this
afternoon I was unable to agree to change the recommendation . But I do
understand the concerns . There 's also a cross concern obviously and I
don 't know how much you need to concern yourselves with that but there is a
considerable cost to up front the trees and landscaping before there are
buildings up to carry that cost . I guess arguably you 'd have the same up
front cost to build roads and sewers before buildings go in too and this is
part of that package . So I guess the long and the short of it is , the
ordinance requires it up front . You can vary that if you want to . I think
there 's some reasons to consider modifying the requirements . Ryan is
trying to come up with some compromise positions to do that . I don 't feel
I can recommend it to you but if you want to consider that , we ' ll work it
either way .
Erhart : Okay . Well we 'll continue that in the discussion here so with
that why don 't we open it up to the commissioners and I guess with the few
people here tonight I 'd suggest that we kind of have an open discussion and
— maybe try to keep it by subject . Feel free to interject but we ' ll start
with Ladd anyway if you want to start out with something .
Conrad: Landscaping wise , I guess that 's a key issue here and I 'm real
impressed that staff and the developer have agreed on so many things .
That 's outstanding because if we start fumbling around with it , we 'd know
what would happen . My compliments . Generally it seems like a good idea to
- buffer in the beginning and to landscape . Especially , it creates a
presence for the development . An entry presence . Like a monument . It
screens the neighbors . It creates a really positive image . If we didn 't
- do that , is it piecemeal then? Is it piecemeal then by lot?
Krauss : That 's the concern . By the way , before I respond to that too . I
just saw something that we clarified for ourselves this afternoon . We 've
been talking about the buffer yard on Audubon Road and the plans do show
the buffer plantings all the way to the north of the site . In fact the
buffer yard ends someplace right about here because that 's where
- residential development ends . The buffer yards were only created where you
had higher intensity land uses up against residential land uses so north of
that line , that landscaping and that buffer , we 've already talked to the
developer . That buffer yard that you see on Lot 1 , which is this one up
here is not needed . So I guess the landscaping question that we 're looking
at installing on page 1 runs from here to here . So you know , and you raise
the question about piece mealing it . That 's a concern . There are ways of
working it out . Kent suggested a few . For example you have a site over
here . You could be building on this site and this site and that site
before and without requiring a buffer yard here because you haven 't build
- on that site . The worst case is the buffer yard will be built whenever
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 4
market conditions dictate . Now hopefully this thing will be a prosperous —
development and will be built quickly . I just am uncomfortable counting on
that .
Erhart : If I can interject a couple questions . On the buffer , are those
built on berms or is that going to be?
Aanenson : We 've got a cross section .
Krauss : I don 't know if this one shows it as well . But yes , it 's hard to
pick up from . You 'd have to look at the full scale grading plans that you —
have . There are considerable berms along Audubon .
Aanenson: Kind of meandering .
Krauss : Yeah , and we 've asked for more detail on that but clearly we are
getting landscape berms along Audubon .
Ahrens : So the concern , Ryan 's concern is that or Kent . Is it Kent?
Kent Carlson: Yes . —
Ahrens : Is that you won 't be , what you plant on the berms may die because
there 's not going to be anything developed in the park? _
Kent Carlson : Right . . . .no one there to maintain the trees . . . All of the
buildings are going to be built with irrigation systems . . .and without
anybody there to take care of the vegetation in the buffer zone , the —
irrigation systems won 't go into the buffer zone necessarily but . . .
Ahrens: I assume though that you 're going to have the berms in place? —
Kent Carlson : The berms will be placed .
Ahrens: And there 's going to be sod on the berms?
Kent Carlson : Probably grass seed .
Ahrens : So there 's going to have to be some system set up anyway to water
the seed .
Kent Carlson: Yeah . . .prairie grass . . .
Ahrens : Is there anything else that you can plant on there that would be ,
any bushes or anything? That wouldn 't be high maintenance? Temporarily
put something on the berms until you put trees . I mean is there a
compromise that can be worked out there?
Aanenson : Like a ground cover that wouldn 't take much?
Ahrens : Yeah .
Kent Carlson: Yeah but I don 't know that it gives us the height . I think
the majority , if you look at the elevations of the center where you 've got
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 5
sight lines and you 've got a building . You 've got what would be a 2 story
building there . The berm really screens the business park itself and the
- land area is mass is behind in the business park quite well from across the
street in the residential area . It 's only when you put in a structure that
you ' ll need additional landscaping . That 's our feelings is that you can
wait . When we have something to screen , a building . . .and we 've got
something to screen , then it 's appropriate to put the landscaping in on top
of the berm . . . And Paul and I talked about . . .develop the lots on the north
side between Lake Drive and the railroad tracks . . .develop the ones on the
south side , we 'd go ahead and put some landscaping in there anyway . We
take some of the risk there because we do have a building . . .on our
preliminary approval neighbors were concerned . . . Our biggest concern , the
problem I have , I don 't have any problem spending the money . It 's spending
the money 2 or 3 times because they could die and then you go back and
remove it and plant it again and then it dies the following year and then
you have to plant it again .
Ahrens : I agree . There 's nothing that looks worse than a berm that has
dead landscape all over it . We have enough in the city but will an
- unlanscaped berm cover up development that may be on Lots 6 and 7?
Kent Carlson : No , that 's what I 'm saying . If we develop Lots 6 and 7
before . Whenever we have something that needs it , we 'll put it in . Even
if on the other side of . . . I guess we 're looking at kind of phased plan for
the area north of Lake Drive . . .
Erhart : Any other comments about that particular subject . I guess if not ,
the question I have is , would you expect that in putting in the underground
sprinkling system that you 're going to sprinkle this berm and the buffer
— area . I thought I heard you say through it all that you would not .
Kent Carlson : Typically you don 't run it all the way out to the edge of
the berming . You can have some elevations that . . .just difficult to
install . But if you put . . .out into your back lawn area , you get a pretty
good sweep area .
- Erhart : Yeah really but it wouldn 't seem to me to make any sense if you
have a berm strip , if we have a buffer strip that 's intended to be a
natural growth , you wouldn 't want to sprinkle it at all . Why do that?
- It 's just a waste of water . Given that , and I question the premise that
that would be , those buffers would be taken better care of once there 's a
building there and someone occupying it . I just can 't imagine the
_ sprinkling it and quite frankly in our experience in our building , the
trees weren 't taken care of any better when you were there than before they
were put in . So I guess I would have a hard time , I guess I 'd agree with
Paul . It seems to me they ought to be put in in the beginning , at least on
- Audubon . The other thing is , the berms where all the trees died and then
we put those in in a drought . Some of those berms are extremely high .
What are we talking about here? The top of the berm relative to the
surrounding ground .
Krauss : As I recall , I know the ones you 're thinking of . They 're not
nearly as high as the ones up there .
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 6
Erhart : All the water drains off the berm and so they get dry . The other
advantage you have in planting them early is you have the opportunity to
get the growth on the trees earlier on so you get it established . I don 't
know . Any other comments on that subject? Ladd , do you want to carry on?
Conrad: Paul , you 've reviewed the landscape plan and the berms are
accomplishing the need for the neighbors to the east . They 're high enough
and you know , I look at what was to be planted there and not being an
expert . That you 're comfortable with the planting . The proposed plantings
accomplishing what we want . It looks like a mixture . There were some
Norway maples in there which is not a , it 's a fast growing tree and that
might meet some needs . -
Krauss: We 've asked for some additional detail in the grading for the
berming but the landscaping is fairly well done . Keep in mind that this
buffer yard is part of a bigger picture of buffering the property across
the street . We have the right-of-way for Audubon which in itself is just
distance and doesn 't do very much except that Audubon is graded , the site 's _
going to be lower and below Audubon . So you have the homes on the other
side down a little bit . The street up here and then the development down
further . Then we ' ll have the 50 foot area along Audubon . It 's 50 foot
over here and it 's 100 foot down there which is considerably more space
that will be bermed and landscaped and that 's just the perimeter of the
project and then you have the final layer which is individual site plans
which you ' ll approve in the future which you can get additional screening _
if necessary and the general landscaping materials . So there 's sort of a
multiple tier approach to it that should do a pretty good job .
Conrad: How close is the nearest house to the south?
Krauss : Well the south isn 't platted yet . That 's the Rod Gram 's property .
We 've been speaking to a couple folks looking at developing that but it
hasn 't materialized into a project yet . But presumabely , in the worst case
you could have somebody 's backyard with a 30 foot setback right over there .
Conrad : But right now we 're talking hundreds of yards before the next
large lot?
Krauss : Oh well , Sun Ridge Court is quite a ways to the south and it 's
over the top of a hill .
Erhart : What we 're requiring is that the buffering landscaping be done
through Phase 1 , not beyond that initially?
Krauss: Yes .
Conrad: Okay . Just a couple of other questions . The weather station lot .
The road that goes up to the top and I 'm not sure I 'm looking at the right
stuff but there 's a road that goes up to the top of the hill . What happens -
at the top of the hill? What is that site for? Is that a balloon release
thing?
Krauss : We 've seen a bunch of different plans . I think Kent , is this the
most recent concept because I 've got .
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 7
Conrad: I 'm just curious what the bullseye is for .
Kent Carlson : Oh , the balloon release?
Conrad: Is that the balloon release?
Kent Carlson : They 've got two things . They 've got a radar tower in here .
They 've got a balloon release .
Conrad : Yeah , the radar tower is down the hill .
Kent Carlson : Yeah , I know that 's . . . There 's like a 300 foot radius
- around it .
Conrad: And these balloons are how big? Tell me what happens in this
process when they release a balloon .
Krauss : Well I met with the weather station folks about a year ago and in
fact in college we used to buy these balloons and use them just to play
- with but they 're only about 12 feet across .
Conrad: And they release them and they 're gone?
Krauss: Yeah . They carry a little instrument package underneath it and
it 's labeled if anybody finds it , they should return it to the weather
service for a reward or something like that .
Conrad : So it 's not a permanent , visible , visual hazard?
- Krauss : Oh no . It 's not like an inflatable gorilla on a Ford dealership .
The building where they ' ll be launched is permanent and it 's a 1 1/2 story
high building with a little dome on it . They inflate it inside the
- building .
Conrad: And that 's a building?
- Krauss : Yeah . Well , it 's a very small structure . It looks like a tiny
observatory with one of those roofs that kind of scallop open .
Conrad: How is it designed? You 've seen it and you 're comfortable that
it 's not offensive?
Krauss: Well , you 've got to take all of this with a grain of salt
commissioner because we have not seen their final site plan submittal . In
fact they 're flying a couple of fellows out here from California next week
to talk to us again . The plans that I 've seen have the office building
- closer to Audubon Road where we prefer it . It 's a brick office building .
It 's 15 ,000 square feet but their plans are in a state of flux and what 's
represented conceptually on this submittal is just , it 's the best
- information the developer is able to get from the weather service but the
weather service has not submitted an official plan yet and it may change .
It 's clear that every plan that I 've seen has a 15 ,000 square foot brick
office building . It has a small building for the balloons and it has the
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 8
weather radar which is a tower with a height I believe it 's come down . It 's
down around 140 feet . —
Conrad: The weather radar , does that have the moving radar?
Krauss: No .
Conrad: It doesn't?
Krauss: No . Well , it does move but it 's inside a housing .
Conrad: I 'm belaboring the point but we 're looking at buffering and —
landscaping and we 're making a decision right now based on something that 's
going in there that maybe our buffer yard should consider . That 's a little
bit of concern because it is an unusual or little bit different operation —
we 're dealing with there .
Krauss: If I could add , in a lot of ways I 've thought it 's kind of the
perfect use for that corner because , because of their space requirements , —
they 're taking it . Is it a 10 acre site?
Aanenson: Yes . —
Krauss: They 're taking a 10 acre site and doing virtually nothing on it .
Most of it 's going to remain green space . So when you add our buffer yards _
to the fact that most of it 's going to remain forever open , it 's kind of a
nice way to interface with homes further to the south .
Conrad: Well kind of , unless they throw a surprise that the neighbors —
don 't like and moving parts or something .
Krauss: Well again , you have to approve that .
Conrad: Right . Right . But this is our only shot at this point . When
they come in , we 'll be able to talk to them about their yard and whatever
but .
Erhart : Kent .
Kent Carlson: . . .is 12 feet below the road out there so the road comes in
and you 've got your berm and it drops below that 12 feet so that berm .
Conrad: The dome of this little circle that I keep pointing at? Okay .
Kent Carlson: Yeah , so it 's well below the berm . So people sitting across
the street would be able to look across Audubon and visually see the berm
and not see the top of that building . . .based on the preliminary information
we have . They will see the radar tower . 140 feet .
Conrad: Yeah . We 'd like you to screen that tower somehow but . Okay .
That 's all I have for landscaping .
Erhart: Maybe if you don 't mind . Would you say the landscaping provided
meets the ordinance or exceeds the ordinance? Substantially exceeds the
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 9
ordinance? What would you say?
Krauss : Well it certainly meets the requirements .
Aanenson : We 're just talking about the buffer landscaping?
Erhart : The buffer landscaping .
- Aanenson : They ' ll have to do a specific site plan .
Erhart : I understand . No , the buffer landscaping . Do you think it meets
_ the new ordinance? Do you think it substantially exceeds our new
ordinance?
Krauss : It 's tough to measure Chairman because the buffer yard ordinance ,
- unlike the landscaping ordinance doesn 't set a dollar amount . It just says
you 've got to accomplish a goal and we think they accomplish the goal .
— Erhart : Because one of the things you might , in response to their request
would be to negotiate for more . You know if we 're to comply with that ,
then negotiate for more landscaping maybe as a horse trade . An idea . Do
you have some more stuff?
Conrad: Not much . The walking path . Is that pretty much the way we saw
it in the beginning? I had a hard time looking at materials and figuring
— out .
Krauss : I think maybe on the original concept it showed an internal loop
in the property . The developer realized they had some problems with it and
our park folks realized that they probably didn 't prefer it that way
either . The problem that the developer has is it 's against the railroad
and they want rail access . It 's also towards the backs of some of their
- buildings and it 's a little bit tough to police . As far as our parks were
concerned , this is part of an overall trail system that they 'd like to
develop . It comes down through here and comes out onto the outlot that
- we 're going to be getting and ultimately they want to have trail
connections up and down Bluff Creek . We 're going to hopefully begin
negotiations with the railroad . There 's an underpass under the railroad
that we 'd like to use . So it 's a part of a bigger system where you 'll be
able to make loops ideally one day down to Lyman or up to TH 5 and get
across TH 5 .
- Erhart : How do the people on the north side get to that trail? Is there a
trail off the end of the cul-de-sac?
Krauss : Inside this project?
Erhart : Yeah .
- Krauss : I think was that one of the things you were . . .?
Aanenson : Yeah .
Krauss : Where exactly?
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 10
Aanenson: It will come up this way and tie up along the road . . .
Erhart : Wouldn 't it be logical to put_ a trail between Lot 7 and 8 into the
cul-de-sac or a trail easement at least?
Aanenson: You 're talking . . .this right here .
Erhart: No . The western cul-de-sac there . In phase 2 . So the people in
the offices on the north side of the development can walk down the center —
of the street and get into .
Aanenson: Well we will have an access there . We are requiring that they —
provide a utility easement over the storm sewer so we can get access to the
ponding .
Krauss: It 's not a bad idea . I mean it would allow people in the
industrial park to have access as an internal loop .
Erhart : I guess I assumed that was one of the given objectives of the —
whole thing was that the people in the park at lunchtime have some place to
walk . Yeah , I see you were entirely focusing on the overall trail system .
Aanenson: The larger loop , yeah .
Erhart: Oh yeah. I think that 's one of the common things in some of the
industrial parks I 've visited . Modern ones is that the trail system is —
integrated with the industrial parks so people can get out and conveniently
use it . Ladd , is that everything you had?
Conrad: Yeah .
Erhart: Okay , Joan . What have you got? —
Ahrens: Are we off to other subjects now?
Erhart: Yeah , I think we 're on . I think you covered all your subjects —
didn 't you?
Conrad: Pretty much . —
Erhart: Okay .
Ahrens: Kathy , when you were giving your staff report you talked about ,
you said there was no development contemplated at this time for Outlot A . I
assume that property 's going to be deeded to the city .
Aanenson: Yes it will be .
Ahrens: We don 't plan on any development ever?
Aanenson: No . There 's a mature stand of trees that 's approximately 6
acres . That will be preserved and then in the Comp Plan , the Bluff Creek
corridor is identified as a protected open space . So as we 've shown , the —
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 11
trail will be going through that area . So no , there will be no development
of Outlot A .
Ahrens: Okay . On Lots 1 and 5 . There is development planned for those
two lots right now?
Aanenson : I think they 're just showing that as a rendering . We 're not
reviewing anything . That 's just to give you an idea . They do want that
separate access and we talked about that in the report on Lot 1 . We talked
- about our first preference would be no separate access but if there was ,
that there may be a time when a light would be required at Lake Drive and
Audubon . At that time we may restrict by putting a channel lane through
there that those people would not be allowed to turn left . We felt that
this sign , based on the traffic report , that most of the turn movements are
going to the north back up to TH 5 . Both people at Lot 1 and Lake Drive
will be turning to go onto TH 5 so we feel that there would be a
conflicting turn movement so .
Ahrens : Just a question for informational purposes . Is MnDot planning a
- light on CR 117 and TH 5 also?
Krauss: At Galpin?
Ahrens: Yeah .
Krauss : Yeah . When TH 5 is rebuilt , which we 're trying to work towards ,
- that would come into play . The traffic here at Audubon may be high , levels
may get to a high enough point that you need to signalize it before MnDot
can put together that project . But yes , there will be signalized
intersections at each of those .
Ahrens : At Audubon and CR 117 . Huh . Okay . This staff report is very
good by the way . I think you did a good job on it . This long cul-de-sac .
You voiced some concerns in your report about this .
Aanenson : Well it wasn 't our first preference but based on the shape of
- the property and the slope and the railroad , the triangular shape ,
obviously it would be our first choice to loop it but then we 'd have the
problem with the preservation of Bluff Creek and the like . It is a long
cul-de-sac . 1 ,700 feet but we feel that based on the topography and the
configuration of the lot , it 's the best design .
Ahrens: And how wide is it?
Aanenson : Well it would be 60 feet wide but we 'd want 80 feet at the
intersection from the shorter cul-de-sac forward so we can get the turn
- movements that we want because we feel that , as we mentioned , based on the
traffic here and the other industrial area , that there will probably be a
light at this intersection too . So we can have a left turn , a straight
across going on Lake Drive and a free right turn .
Ahrens : Okay . So you 're anticipating this as mostly just going to be car
type of traffic into the cul-de-sac?
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 12 -
Aanenson: Yeah . They break down in the traffic report the percentage of
trucks but I could give you that percent . 8% . 8% trucks . 8% of the
traffic would be trucks .
Ahrens : I don 't have any more comments . -
Farmakes: The only comment that hasn 't been discussed I guess is , sort of
left at lying is to what the preference would be as far as completing that
berming prior to buildings going up . Or landscaping . I guess my
preference would be that the berm itself and the exterior along Audubon
Road be completed . I guess we 're flexible on the interior and that makes
sense to put it at the trees when buildings go up to take care of it . The —
question though beyond the berm how much maintenance is going to be done on
those trees outside by the road . On the other side of the berm where the
building owners won 't be seeing that . I guess I 'd like to see that put in .
Conrad : So you 'd like to see it bermed and landscaped?
Farmakes : I 'd like to see it landscaped on the berm but not on the
interior .
Conrad: So you 're in agreement with staff? -
Farmakes : Yep .
Conrad: So you feel that the developer should put the landscaping in and
maintain it .
Farmakes: On the east side .
Conrad: On the Audubon side .
Farmakes: Because for sure the Lots 11 and 10 are going to be open to
those development . It depends on which way you look out of your home . So
if you 're not going to put anything in there , at least on 11 that you 're
going to see right into that .
Conrad: The berm would shelter it .
Farmakes : Well again , without trees it 's going to look like .
Conrad: A berm .
Farmakes : A berm .
Conrad: Joan , what are you thinking? I wasn 't sure . —
Ahrens : I don 't want to be unreasonable about this and I think they 've
made it clear , the developer 's made it clear that any time that any -
development goes in here at all , they 're going to be putting up landscaping
and I don 't have a problem with the piecemeal . As long as they 're going to
screen whatever 's being developed , I don 't care if it doesn 't go completely
along Audubon Road to start out with . I want the landscaping to look nice .
I think ultimately it will . I think it 's unreasonable to expect them to
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 13
completely landscape that berm if there 's not even going to be any
development there to begin with . What are they buffering? Empty lots?
Conrad : I tend to agree with you . The only thing I see is you get
landscaping going early . But this is going to be a good looking , I think
this is going to be a good looking development and I 'm not sure that we 're
really , I don 't know . I 'm not as concerned with the landscaping as I
normally am . I think if we berm it and we have that integrity around the
entire parcel so we 're comfortable that staff has , and then we reseed it
- with grass , I think I 'm comfortable with that . But Brian you could
persuade me .
Batzli : You 're saying berm it and seed it?
Conrad : Berm it and seed it and then we ' ll landscape it when the
individual developments go in and that 's pretty much contrary to what I 've
- always said but in this particular case it just seems okay .
Erhart : Anything else Jeff?
Farmakes : No .
Erhart : Okay . Brian , are you ready?
Batzli : Yeah . Can I ask a couple dumb questions first?
- Conrad : Talk about landscaping first and then go to the dumb ones .
Batzli : I came in kind of late on the landscaping but my general feeling
is if they berm it and seed it and as they develop the lots they landscape
it , I don ' t think we usually ask for more than that . Most developers that
come in and do these things , I mean you really don 't do it until you
develop that lot . Even in a residential PUD or lot areas so I don 't know
why .
Conrad: There 's sure a lot of logic for doing it all in the beginning .
- It 's a neat way to do it . It packages the whole parcel . It 's a good show
piece for the developer . It starts landscaping early . Buffers the
residents from , boy there 's a ton of good arguments for it .
Erhart : Kathy or Paul , do we have any precedent or history on something
similar to this what we 've done?
- Krauss : I don 't think so but I don 't think we 've had the ability to do it
in the past either . The existing industrial park was developed in a
piecemeal way . It has no overall landscaping framework . Lake Susan Hills
I think we wish probably in that case that we had done it up front with the
homes . . .because in that case it was a little different but it 's difficult
to go in somebody 's backyard and add trees after the house is built .
Erhart : Are you talking about the perimeter landscaping?
Krauss : That 's the only thing we 're talking about in this instance .
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 14 —
Erhart: Okay , now onto the dumb questions . Just kidding .
Batzli : Is our normal limit on cul-de-sacs 1 ,500 feet? Is that kind of
what we look at for our benchmark?
Krauss: Well , the ordinance was changed a number of years ago to eliminate
a maximum length . It used to be 500 feet . That was probably more
residential but now it kind of says don 't go too long but if you need to .
I might add too that this was one of the road connections that we looked at —
a little bit during the comprehensive plan . Gary Warren and I had
initially sketched a road that would have been an extension of Lake Drive .
This is getting kind of messed up but it was originally supposed to come —
down here and jump the railway tracks at a crossing and then connect over
here . There 's alternatives that are possible coming down through here . But
the problems that we encountered , the reason we dismissed that is the Bluff
Creek flood plain is quite large there . The only significant trees in that
entire valley south of the railway tracks is located on that Outlot A that
we 'll get title to and if you put a road through there , you 're going to
lose that . And a railroad crossing is probably more academic than reality —
because it 's always tough to get . All things being equal we decided that
the cost , the environmental cost of doing it really was not worth it . The
trade off wasn't there . We would have preferred the continuity if we could —
have gotten it . It just didn 't seem reasonable . We also looked at some
possibilty of looping a road back to the south . Coming out through here ,
but that really doesn 't get out . Then you 're mixing residential traffic —
and industrial traffic and that doesn't make too much sense either .
Batzli : Dumb question number 2 . Is this currently zoned PUD?
Aanenson: No , it 's zoned A-2 . We 're going for a rezoning .
Batzli : Are we supposed to rezone it? —
Aanenson: Yes .
Batzli : Before considering this?
Aanenson: Yes . We did that as a part of this . We did that as a part of
the conceptual too and the rezoning justification was a part of this . —
Batzli : But where in the packet do we actually say we want to rezone it?
Conrad: I think we need a special motion on that .
Batzli : Yeah.
Krauss: Well it 's preliminary development plan and rezoning to PUD .
Planned unit development . If there 's not a motion in the conditions , there
should be a separate motion for the rezoning . —
Batzli : And in the packet that we got from the Park and Rec Coordinator ,
or someone , they talk about we 're going to get the deed for Outlot A . Is
that one of the conditions? Should it be one of the conditions?
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 15
Aanenson: The condition that there 's no development on Outlot A .
Batzli : But then we 're not going to get the deed to it?
Krauss: No we will . This is in the process of negotiation right now . I
expect it to be resolved in short order . It involves some HRA interaction
into how we acquire that parcel . At this point , I mean we 're going to wind
up with title to it .
Batzli : Does it matter if we don 't?
Krauss: Well , we weren 't going to take it as a development , well does it
matter yes . We 'd like the title to it . We 'd like to be able to make it
part of that recreational trail corridor and to permanently be able to
protect those trees that are out there . Part of the trade off involves , if
- we took this outlot through a development exaction then we wouldn 't get the
cash park dedication that we would normally get . The park department would
prefer the cash dedication so our HRA is going to work on a proposal where
- the HRA acquires that through purchase and we get the park dedication fees
paid for the park department as development occurs . So I don 't think you
need an additional condition at this time . It is happening .
Batzli : In any event , even if that doesn 't go through , the condition is on
that no development occurs?
- Krauss : Right .
Batzli : In that case , unlikely as it seems right now , who takes care of
- that outlot?
Krauss: I don 't know . That 's a good point . That 's an eventuality we
didn 't cover but if in that case it would remain an unbuildable lot which
would be owned by Ryan development and I would think they would have
continued responsibilty to maintain it .
- Batzli : Is the holding pond for the second phase going to be on Outlot A?
Aanenson : Yes .
Batzli : So if they transfer title , does it then becomes the City 's
responsibility to keep up?
- Aanenson: It would anyway . They would transfer that right , yes . And
we 're asking them to provide access so we can get in and maintain it .
Regardless we would maintain it .
Batzli : On the environmental impact statement . We 're assuming that the
City Council is going to , that 's going to happen . That they 're going to
come up with the finding that it 's not required _
Krauss : Yeah . Well we 're not , I think that that 's going to be the finding
but we 're being presumptuous yet to do that . The process with the EAW is ,
- I wanted you to review it first and if you 're comfortable with it , we had a
couple changes we wanted to make but they 're minor . At that point we send
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 16
it to the Environmental Quality Board . It gets published in the EQB
Monitor and then there 's a 30 day response period . The process provides
for us , this is not a mandatory EAW . We 're requesting that this be done so _
we 're the petitioning body but we would receive comments from concerned
agencies . Based upon those comments , sometime in January the City Council
would have to make a finding as to whether or not further investigation
were required .
Batzli : The only thing I was looking at was from a water quality
standpoint . Question 11( b ) where they talk about is there a sensitive
ecologically resource on or near the site and the question is whether the
Bluff Creek corridor is on or near enough or whether that 's the kind of
thing that we look at . And I know that in the report you talk about ,
you 're basically buffering the PUD development with . . . Do you feel
comfortable with their finding that nothing is on or near the site enough
to answer yes to that question so an impact statement 's required?
Krauss: I think you 're raising a valid point . I think the answer is yes
and it 's covered elsewhere in the EAW . I think we should modify that
because we talk at great length about the need to have nutrient removal _
before it goes down into Bluff Creek and in fact .
Aanenson: Those are the two changes that we made that you didn 't hear .
We 're recommending that that be added . That the NRP pond standards be used
and that they also use the erosion control measures that we identified in
the report be added to their EAW .
Krauss: One of the other things we 're working on now with the DNR on this
is right now Bluff Creek is just a channelized ditch through this property
because it was so intensively farmed . We 're having the developer come up
with a grading plan that in essence kind of busts up that ditch and
excavates out some of the lowland beyond it so we ' ll have periodic
innudation and the wetlands that used to be there hopefully will come back .
But the answer to your question is yes . That should be changed and is one —
of the things that needs to be .
Batzli : The projected Bluff Creek trunk line , is that the trunk line —
that 's been on and off for several years with the Met Council?
Krauss : No .
Batzli : What trunk line is that?
Krauss: No , this is .
Batzli : Or is this the interceptor that 's been scrapped?
Krauss : Well , there was the Bluff Creek Interceptor . The famous one
that 's never going to be built . When we had the comprehensive plan
approved , we had an alternative system that was approved by the Metro Watse _
Control Commission and going back through my butchered up schematic here .
The Bluff Creek pipe that you 're talking about Mr . Batzli is going to go
all the way down here to the Minnesota River and then over to Eden Prairie .
That 's not going to happen . I don 't even think we want it to happen —
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 17
anymore . The environmental damage is too significant . What Metro Waste
- approved is to put a lift station someplace down here by Lyman Blvd . . It
may actually be a little bit south so that drainage in the Bluff Creek
system will flow down to that . So basically you have gravity flow where
you would have had it anyway . Then at that point it 's going to be pumped
back up Audubon to new Lake Drive where it will flow gravity right into the
Lake Ann pipe . So we 're basically using unused capacity in the Lake Ann
pipe to service an area that should have normally gone someplace else but
there 's no place to do it .
Batzli : I thought we were running out of capacity in Lake Ann?
Krauss : No , we 're really not . We 're actually doing pretty good with that .
Bonestroo who 's working with us on several projects helped us in the final
stages of the comprehensive plan . They demonstrated to MWCC 's satisfaction
that there 's plenty of capacity in the pipe because Eden Prairie didn 't
use , and most of us haven 't used the rates that they projected . And
there 's an upstream restriction , I think it 's the Lake Virginia pump
- station that no matter what they do upstream of that , it can only pump so
much so there 's capacity left . The question that Bonestroo is looking at
now is we 've got authorization to do this but they 're trying to plan for
- everything that 's undeveloped in that city including that big study area
south of Lyman Blvd . and what we 're looking at is whether or not there 's
ample capacity in Bluff Creek for that . I 'm sorry , in Lake Ann for that to
take everything left in the city and that 's a little nip and tuck right
now . They 're finessing that at the moment but as far as this goes and our
entire MUSA line addition , that 's all taken care of .
- Batzli : Well the condition I think reads , it talks about reversing the
flow if feasible or something to take advantage of this . Phase 1 should be
switched to follow the trunk sanitary sewer system proposed for Phase 2 .
Is that part of Phase 2 then?
Krauss : Phase 2 is the big project that I described . And the reason that
there 's a Phase 1 is because the big project , which they 've given us a
- feasibility study petition for , is a pretty major program and we 're not
certain whether that 's going to be able to come on line late this year or
next . So what they were looking for was an alternate means of servicing a
- couple of the higher sites near Audubon Road . There is an existing sewer .
Not a very big one that serves Lake Susan Hills that comes , dead ends at
Audubon . There is some capacity in that line . Not a lot but probably
enough to take the first few buildings . And what we 've been saying is that
the real way to serve that area , we can do that on a temporary basis but
it 's really not designed for that and after we have the big system around ,
this Ryan Development is going to be designed so that you plug up one pipe
- and have it flow back the way it should be . We 've also got some conditions
in there saying that even if we 're able to provide you some temporary
service for some of these sites , this does not get you out of your
- obligations for paying for that bigger system .
Batzli : I guess my problem was , if feasible , it sounded like you wanted to
eventually go to that other , not interceptor but trunk line but if feasible
doesn 't sound very strong to me and if you really wanted to do it .
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 18
Krauss : To be honest , I wish we had our engineering folks here tonight .
They 're both ill . They did plan on being here . I 'm not certain if that ,
in the meetings I was in , I had always assumed that to be mandatory . That --
eventually it would be put there . Is that your recollection as well? I
guess the best we can do commissioner is to clarify that before it gets to
Council because I assumed it all was going to go that way .
Batzli : Yeah , I 'd like you to do that . I 've got like two more dumb
questions . How I 'm doing so far? Dumb enough?
Erhart: You 're taking all of my questions .
Batzli : Okay . How do you enforce an amount of discharge into the sewer
system? You 've got this covenant regulating the amount of discharge . I
assume that 's because we just have limited capacity through Lake Susan
Hills there but how do you monitor that?
Krauss : Well in fact that was one of the items that we discussed tonight
that we 've come up with some modified language on . The developer 's
concerned that covenants are rather clunky and they cloud titles and this —
is a temporary one at best anyway and we agreed . What we 're going to do is
revise the condition so that when each site plan , Phase 1 site plan that
flows out that way is requested , the developer is going to have to
demonstrate that the projected flowage from that site is consistant with
the capacity of the pipe .
Batzli : So you 're not going to have the covenants on there?
Krauss: No . We 're going to do it through a site plan approval .
Batzli : I think the other stuff has been talked about it sounds like so
that 's it for me .
Erhart : Okay . Well I 'll tell you . The only thing that 's , I think it 's a
good plan It will be a good development and I agree that Kathy did a
really splendid job of outlining the issues . The one thing that did make
me uncomfortable is this whole thing with the sewer . I 'm not an expert and
yeah I think it would have been handy to have engineering here but the
impression I get is that we 're trying to rush into something and I 'm not
sure it 's , I 'm just not comfortable that it 's all clear . I mean there 's a
lot of questions out there . For example , why wouldn 't we know yet what the
capacity is on Lake Susan Hill? The 8 inch pipe at Lake Susan Hills? I
mean that 's a pretty easy thing to do .
Krauss : It is but it 's part of the feasibility study. that 's going to be
commissioned Monday night by the Council to figure out what the interim
capacity is . You have to do some computations about how many lots are
already using it . What kind of volumes we have now . What kind of lots
we 're already committed to serve in that project that are unbuilt . It 's
not that difficult a thing to do but it hasn 't been done yet . I guess too , __
as to the question of putting the cart before the horse or this seems
possibly premature . The way development normally has worked before in
Chanhassen is the city does not or has not pre-emptively gone in and built
major infrastructure without having a developer on the hook to pay for it . —
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 19
Or help pay for it . Ryan is the first one in on this major system to do
that and they 've been very cooperative with us on taking their fair share
of the cost on doing that and everything else . We have three other , four
other projects that are in the talking stages that are going to be using
the same pipe but they 're not as far along as to petition the project yet .
Erhart : The Phase II pipe?
Krauss: Yeah . The . . .system . The big system . There 's every intent . I
mean this is a project that doesn 't work unless , until that major system is
in and Ryan knows that and we know that and we knew that when we wrote the
- comprehensive plan . The only thing that they 're trying to get a jump on is
they 're willing to set the wheels in motion to get the big project done ,
which point becomes a city effort but they 're looking to get a couple
buildings or the possibility of building a couple buildings yet this
construction season so we were trying to work with them on that .
Erhart : And that 's just fine with me but what you just said isn 't the way
- I read essentially the conditions . What I think we 're going to get and I 'm
basically agreeing with everything Brian 's concerns . What you 're going to
get is a permanent Phase I that empties across the street and I don 't think
- that was ever the overall plan and that 's what you 're going to get with the
way it 's laid out now because I agree the term , if feasible is very weak at
best .
Krauss : Well I would be comfortable with you changing that as long as , I
mean if I don 't find out that the City Engineer has some real reason for
doing it .
Erhart : A couple other ideas . Right now essentially we 're given , the way
it 's written , we 're given approval for Phase I to essentially hook up to
the existing 8 inch sewer .
Aanenson: You do it on a lot by lot basis . First they have to determine
how much capacity is available and then each lot , depending on the use
would have to come in .
Erhart : Okay . Why wouldn 't we force them to , when they put in each lot
they also put in the lines to go west simultaneously? If our intention is
to make them do that and they 've got to pay for it anyway .
Krauss : The system of pipes that you 'll see in the street in the utility
plan is a part of that system that feeds down the hill . I 'm pretty sure
it 's on page 1 . Does that show up?
- Erhart : Well that 's okay . . .
Krauss : Oh here it is .
John Diedrick: John Diedrick from RLK Associates . Lots 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 will
flow to the cul-de-sac north off of West Lake Drive . The gravity at that
point would have the option to move to the west instead of to the east once
the Phase II sanitary sewer line is in place . Lots 10 and 11 we have
divided Y connections to the sanitary sewer so that in the future there
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 20
would be an opportunity for Lots 10 and 11 also to be routed to the west
instead of to the east . Again , we don 't have use scheduled for those lots
but we 're trying to set up the infrastructure so that we have that option
to go to the west .
Erhart : Without going back in and digging up the landscaping and -
everything?
John Diedrick: Correct .
Erhart : The fear would be to come back and say well gee now look at the
cost we ' ll incur .
Kent Carlson : The system is designed to go either way .
Erhart : Alright , that makes me much more comfortable on this issue .
Particularly if we can eliminate this if feasible and make it mandatory .
Then I 'm settled with that . Let 's go to the conditions on signs . This
would be condition number 24 . Item ( b ) . All signs require separate
permit . Is that in our ordinance?
Aanenson: Yes .
Krauss: But if we could clarify that because the developer had the same
question . That 's a sign permit that you just come to the counter upstairs
and pay your $35 .00 or $60 .00 , whatever it is . We verify that it meets the _
criteria and that there 's no building code issues and then they just go .
Erhart : Even if a guy puts a little sign on his door .
Aanenson : Yeah , we have to review them all to make sure they meet code .
Erhart : But anyway as long as they 're meeting code . That 's what I was
wondering . Are we going beyond Code here and starting to write in wishes
because we 've really got to stick to Code . What about the common theme
through the whole? This is new to me .
Aanenson: The entry sign that they have for the Chan Business Center will
probably set the theme .
Erhart : Yeah , I know what it is . I 'm just saying , is this something new?
Krauss : Well yes and no . What we 're looking for is a signage package in
the PUD documentation that will set some parameters for the signage that 's
in there . I think if you look at the newer industrial parks , I mean one
that I 'm most intimately familiar is the Minnetonka Corporate Center .
There 's consistent monumentation in each site . While they have corporate
logos has a similiar type of sign . It 's in a similar type of place .
They 're not all . . .different from one another . It shows some cohesiveness
in the industrial park . We 're giving some pretty wide latitude for the
developer to establish those general parameters but once they 're
established we 'd like to maintain them .
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 21
Erhart : Kent , you 're all in agreement with that condition? Okay . So
- that 's a trend that we 're going to probably be seeing . We can look forward
to seeing I guess . It 's okay with me . I like it . I thought it was new .
Just again for my benefit here , the drainage pond . Is the object to take
the entire 94 acres and not increase the drainage from that parcel at the
100 year storm? In other words , you can use existing interior ponds and
whatever you have to meet that goal? Is that what?
Krauss : Yeah . Until we have an overall comprehensive drainage plan , which
we don 't have right now , we have to operate the city the way that we always
have up until now which is that sites have to be developed with sufficient
- ponding so that post development runoff rates don 't exceed pre-development
runoff rates . Now to that we 've added a new condition that we did with
Lundgren and we 're doing on this one that not only that but we want to know
that your pond is designed and usually is oversized and structurally
designed so that you 're removing a significant percentage of the nutrients
from the storm water . So that before it gets discharged into Bluff Creek ,
we 're modulating the rate at which the water is going to hit the creek and
- we 're hopefully maintaining or even possibly improving the water quality
before it gets there .
- Erhart : And to what degree possible you can use existing ponds for that
purpose?
Krauss : Well we could if there were any but there 's aren 't on this .
Sometimes you 've got to watch it . . .
Batzli : Put in those fancy new ponds that we talked about over at the
- Lundgren Development .
Krauss : The NRP stuff . Yeah , that 's what we 're doing here .
Erhart : What 's the 30 day comment period in the EQB Monitor? Is that one
of those things I missed at the one meeting or is that something new?
Krauss: No . It 's been that way since the 70 's . When you get it published
in the Monitor , it basically says here it is . If you 've got comments ,
write .
Erhart : Who gets that?
Krauss : I get one .
Erhart : The planning professionals?
- Krauss : Mostly planning professionals . Regulatory agencies . I think
there 's some interested environmental groups that sign up for it .
Erhart : Okay . And lastly I think , you know this outlot negotiations seems
odd . To establish a price per lot for the Park and Rec and then come back
later and negotiate for the outlot but you obviously are experts at that so
it appears to , are there any other questions or comments?
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 22
Batzli : Number 28? Why is there a condition in here that we do
something? —
Aanenson: We can change that . Take it out .
Batzli : Was that intended to be in here? —
Krauss: Occasionally we want to put ourselves on notice that we 're buying
into , we 're acknowledging that we 're going to do something . The Council —
needs to recognize that . You know inevitably there 's going to be a city
share of the cost of that thing .
Aanenson: We did add one Brian , by the way . 29 . A condition .
Erhart: Would you go through that again .
Aanenson: Okay . Condition 29 is we left out the , back in the development
standards for the PUD .
Erhart : Just a second Kathy . This is getting really complex . Could
someone kind of raise their hand to try and get a motion together on this .
There were some changes .
Conrad: Whoever makes the motion I think should work through it . As they
make the motion they should go point by point with staff .
Erhart: Yeah , that 's kind of where I 'm going with this is we 're going to
have to kind of go through what you did once and maybe we'll go through 29
at that point . The other thing I 'd like to add is to make sure we have a —
trail , the ability to put a trail from the end of the western cul-de-sac
down to the trail so when we get to that motion . The issue appears to be
the landscaping . What I thought I heard the consensus was to allow them to
do it on a staged basis . —
Conrad: It looked like 3 to 2 at this time . I think we should just raise ,
and it 's obviously raised at City Council . They 'll pay attention to it . —
It 's a close one . It 's one that could go either way .
Erhart: Where in the motion is that addressed Kathy?
Conrad: That 's under the 29 right?
Aanenson: That 's my number 30 . —
Conrad: I thought 29 was your design and landscaping criteria?
Aanenson: Yeah , but I 'm not sure .
Erhart : With that then , why don 't we start . Brian, can you make a motion
on this? Or who wants to?
Conrad: Well we 've got to make a motion to rezone first .
Planning Commission Meeting
- December 4 , 1991 - Page 23
- Krauss : I was just looking at the way this was structured and you could
change that first motion to the staff recommends that the rezoning to PUD
and PUD Preliminary and well it 's got to be changed . Preliminary and Final
stage plan .
Erhart : We ' ll just go from the beginning . Why don 't you go ahead and read
that again .
Conrad: Let 's do the zoning first .
Erhart : He wants to combine it .
Conrad : No .
- Ahrens : He doesn 't care . Let 's just .
Erhart : Okay , who wants to make a motion?
Conrad : I ' ll move that the property that 's described as the Chanhassen
Business Center be rezoned from A-2 to PUD .
Ahrens : Second .
Conrad moved , Ahrens seconded to approve the Rezoning of property from A-2 ,
- Agricultural Estate to PUD , Planned Unit Development-Industrial for the
Chanhassen Business Center _ All voted in favor and the motion carried .
- Erhart : Okay , now a motion on the PUD . Kathy would you go again through
what .
Aanenson: Okay . Number 2 . The typo . It says $3 ,500 .00 . That should be
$2 ,500 .00 . On number 8 , that has been completed . You can just say the
applicant shall petition the City for a feasibility report . We put the
$12 ,000 .00 in and that 's really , I 'm not sure that 's an exact dollar amount
- so we 're just recommending you strike out , and provide a $12 ,000 .00 escrow .
Strike that . 19 . That 36% . We feel like those calculations may be
flawed . We 'd recommend that , just say the developer may be responsible for
a percentage of the cost for the traffic signals . It may be 5% but we 'd
just as soon leave it open at this point .
Batzli : What if we say a large percentage?
Aanenson : Not to exceed 50% . Number 22 . We talked about this . It says
that the parcels located along Audubon Road contain at least 50% of their
- floor area in office space . We 'd like to strike that 50% . If we want to
use some other language . If we can leave that open to what the concerns
are . The design of those buildings .
Conrad : Yeah , all parcels located along Audubon meet a design criteria
that what? Works within the context of the neighborhood .
- Krauss : We 'd like your authorization to refine that . We didn 't have much
chance to do that . We talked about it this afternoon but we talked about
defining the type of building that 's appropriate there . It 's not a 50 foot
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 24
high base section but it 's a lower profile . More office oriented towards
the street and more windows . We know what we 're getting at but we have to
come up with the exact language . —
Aanenson : Okay , and then 25 . The applicants this clarification . On
25( c ) . All light fixtures shall be shielded . Light levels should be no
more than half candle at the property line . They want clarification that —
that 's for site lighting . Does not apply to street lighting . And the last
one , Ladd you 're right . 29 . Site and landscaping screening . If you want
to flip to page 10 . We 've outlined the criteria for site and landscape —
screening and in that , number 4 the criteria is that all of the buffer
landscaping in Phase 1 be completed . So you can either change that whole
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 needs to be added as a condition . But if you want to change
number 4 to reflect .
Conrad: Kate , in number 2 . Didn 't you want to change the words in there?
Aanenson : Yes . And/or . Thank you Ladd .
Batzli : I 'm sorry , where was that? —
Aanenson: On number 2 . All approved outdoor storage must be screened with
masonry fences and/or landscaping . Did you want 4 to reflect the seeding?
Bermed and seeded for Phase 1 instead of completed landscaped?
Erhart: Do you want to put that in 29?
Aanenson: Yeah .
Erhart: Sure , go ahead . —
Krauss: So it will be developed in a phased manner?
Aanenson: Yeah .
Conrad: We 're sort of doing this , this is sort of a committee approach.
Erhart: You 've also got all these conditions here .
Conrad: I think as you presented this to Council you have to reflect both —
sides of the issue obviously .
Erhart: Is there any restrictions on this phasing that we can think of
that we would want to , for those who are proponents of the phasing? Is
there anything?
Batzli : Well actually it would be kind of nice to put some sort of —
deadline in there though I think . They can phase it so long as it doesn't
take more than x years .
Erhart : I 'm an opponent of the phasing . I favor that . Any other comments
on that? Anybody . . .into that?
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 25
Ahrens: I don 't know if I 'd go with putting in years . Like within 5 years
or something?
Batzli : Yeah. How long do you want it to look half finished?
Ahrens : Well it depends on if they 're vacant lots . Does it look half
finished . . .supposed to look .
Batzli : I don 't know . A sodded berm with nothing on top of it with trees
going up and then stopping and then the next . Let 's say they leave Lot 10
and they develop Lot 11 . Lot 10 , you have trees going to Lot 10. Nothing .
I don 't know . I think it 's going to look half finished . I 'm willing to
let them do that because it 's reasonable but .
Ahrens: What do you consider a reasonable amount of time?
Batzli : I don 't know. That 's a good question .
Erhart : When do you expect the development to be filled out?
Kent Carlson: It 's hard to say . 5 to 7 years . . .
Batzli : I don 't know . I like 5 years but that 's just me . I 'm allowing
them to defer costs for 5 years . I think that 's a pretty big concession in
a PUD personally .
Ahrens: I could go along with 5 years .
Erhart : Ladd , do you have any input on that one way or the other?
Conrad: Not at all . I don 't care .
Erhart : One way or the other?
Conrad: No , don 't care . •
Erhart : Jeff .
Farmakes: I 'd like to see the whole thing put in.
Erhart : Why don 't we just leave it up to staff .
Aanenson: My feeling is , if we put a time limit on it they 'll come in if
it 's not completed and we 'll have a chance to talk to you about why and
what 's going on .
Erhart: And then I think the last thing is , is there a condition here to
put that trail in there or is that 31?
Aanenson: That will be 30 .
Erhart : Okay , 30 . With that .
Batzli : Can we delete number 28?
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 26
Conrad: No , that 's okay .
Batzli : You like that?
Conrad: Yeah .
Batzli : Okay .
Conrad: What 's the trail?
Erhart: The trail is to allow an easement or something . It may already
exist on utility easement . From the park to walk off the end of the west
cul-de-sac and get onto the trail system without having to go essentially _
out to Audubon .
Batzli : What kind of access to the pond and stuff is there going to be?
Krauss : Well there needs to be final definition of that for approval by
the engineer but we 're thinking of you can grade in like a Class V and then
plant over it so you can , with a slope adequate enough so that we can get _
in there and use a backhoe and clean out . So if you 're going to do that
anyway , putting a trail in is easy .
Batzli : Putting a trail in is no big deal .
Erhart : My point was just to make sure that we can do it . When we do
Phase II .
Conrad: Tim do you want to change number 11 and get the words if feasible
out of it? —
Erhart: Oh yeah .
Batzli : I 'd just strike the words if feasible . —
Conrad: Yeah , let 's get rid of them . And then what do we need to do with
the setbacks that have been changed? —
Aanenson: I 'll just make that . If you want to say as corrected in the
staff report or something . —
Erhart: Is everybody comfortable that we 've got essentially the , we all
understand what , if the motion is made what we 're moving on? I guess so .
So someone go ahead . I don 't know that we have to go through all the items —
again . Just make a simple motion .
Batzli : I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of PUD
Prelimnary Plan for Chanhassen Business Center .
Krauss: Preliminary and Final stage .
Batzli : Yeah . As set forth in the staff report dated whenever it 's dated .
12/4/91? Is that it?
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 27
Krauss : Yeah .
Batzli : And set forth on the plans , whenever these plans are dated . If
they 're dated . Received October 22 , 1991 . With all of the changes that we
just discussed .
Erhart : Is there a second?
Conrad: Yeah , I 'll second .
Erhart : Discussion?
Conrad: Yeah . Kate , you brought up something that I wrote down and I
don 't know if it got reflected . Revised right-of-way standards . I had a
note down . Revised right-of-way standards . Did we incorporate?
Aanenson : Yeah , it was 17 feet of additional right-of-way . We 've got that
in the conditions .
Krauss : Condition 26 .
Conrad : Was that 26?
Aanenson : Yeah .
Conrad: Okay .
Erhart : Any other discussion?
Batzli moved , Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Preliminary and Final Stage PUD Plan #91-4 for the Chanhassen
Business Center based on the plans stamped "Received October 22 , 1991 " and
subject to the following conditions:
1 . Final PUD plan approval be subject to the 30 day comment period after
public notice of publication of the EAW in the EQB Monitor and a
finding by the City Council that an Environmental Impact Statement is
not required .
2 . The applicant will be required to pay park dedication ( $2,500 .00/acre )
and trail fees ( $833 .00/acre ) in the development contract . No
development shall occur on Outlot A as it shall be preserved as open
space . The trail system shall be required to loop even if it is on a
temporary basis .
3 . The development standards as proposed by staff shall be incorporated
into the PUD development guide for the Business Center .
4 . Site plan approval from the city will need to be obtained for each lot
as development is proposed .
5 . Provide an additional 17 feet of right-of-way along the westerly side
of Audubon Road throughout the plat . Provide the 20 foot wide drainage
and utility easements over the proposed sewer and water lines outside
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 28
the road right-of-way . Provide a 20 foot drainage and utility
easement for the sanitary sewer proposed along the west side of
Audubon Road lying south of the proposed main entrance .
6 . The main entrance street shall be named Lake Drive West consistent
with the future extension of Lake Drive West east of Audubon Road . If
a curb cut is allowed for Lot 1 on to Audubon Road , it shall be
located a minimum of 500 feet north of the proposed main entrance
( Lake Drive ) and provide for a deceleration lane .
7 . Provide the City Engineering Department with storm sewer calculations
designed for a 10 year storm event and ponding calculations to show
that the ponds will retain a 100 year storm event and will discharge
at a predeveloped runoff rate . Data shall be provided on nutrient
removal capacity of all ponds for review and approval by the City . A
secondary retention pond should be constructed for the northerly 15
acres of the site which drain to and parallel of the railroad tracks -
( Lots 4 and 6 ) .
8 . The applicant shall petition the City for a feasibility report for the _
extension of a trunk sewer line to service Phase II of the site which
will be refunded upon project approval and authorization by the City
Council .
9 . If only Phase I of the site is graded , silt fence shall be
incorporated along the perimeter of the construction limits and if the
entire site is graded , Type III erosion control shall be installed and _
maintained along the westerly perimeter of the construction limits .
All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored
with seed and disc mulched , sod or wood-fiber blanket within two weeks
of site grading or before November 15 , 1992 , except in areas where
•
utilities and streets will be constructed yet that year . Areas
altered with a slope of 3 : 1 or greater must be restored with sod or
wood-fiber blanket . As a part of the erosion control measures , the -
applicant shall be required to remove any materials that enter into
Bluff Creek .
10 . The watermain loop between Lots 8 and 9 shall be extended to within 10
feet of the southerly property line and then proceed east and parallel
to the south property line back to Audubon Road .
11 . The applicant shall provide the Engineering Department with the
calculations estimating the capacity of the sanitary sewer line
through Lake Susan Hills West development and the predicted flows each -
lot will generate . A conversant regulating the amount of discharge
from Phase I shall be placed in the title of each parcel as well as in
the development contract to ensure that flows will not exceed capacity _
limitations downstream . The sanitary sewer lines in Phase I should be
switched to flow into the trunk sanitary sewer system proposed for
Phase II .
12 . Inside slopes of the retention ponds shall be reduced to a minmum of
4 : 1 .
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 29
13 . As a condition of final plat approval , the applicant shall enter into
a development contract and provide the financial security to guarantee
construction of the improvements .
14 . The developer shall construct the utility and street improvements in
accordance with the latest edition of the city 's standard
specifications and shall prepare final plans and specifications and
submit for city approval . Project specifications shall incorporate
the city 's standard specifications . The developer shall acquire
utility construction permits from the PCA and Minnesota Department of
Health .
15 . The developer shall obtain all necessary permits from the Watershed
District , DNR and Army Corps of Engineers and comply with all
conditions of the permits . Drainage plans shall be revised as
outlined in the approved staff report and shall be resbumitted to city
staff for approval . The applicant shall obtain permission/permit from
the railroad authority for all grading activities within the railroad
property .
16 . The developer shall incorporate street lights into the street
construction plans . The street lights should be installed at 150 to
200 foot intervals . The street lights shall be designed consistent
with existing lighting on Audubon Road . A 250-watt contemporary
low-profile rectilinear-rectangular style lighting fixture with
pressure lamps mounted on a 25 foot high corten steel pole ( see
Attachment #2 ) .
— 17 . ( No 17 on the staff report . )
18 . The entire tract of land development shall be assessed for the future
trunk sewer system to be built for Phase II ( Lots 6 , 7 , 8 9 and 12 ) .
19 . The Developer shall be responsible for a percentage of the costs for
traffic signals at Audubon and TH 5 .
20 . The permitted uses in this zone shall be limited to light industrial ,
warehousing an doffices as defined in the PUD ordinance .
21 . Truck transfer terminals shall be prohibited from this project .
22 . All parcels located along Audubon Road shall meet a design criteria
and that the office components of the building be oriented towards the
exterior of the PUD .
23 . Building materials and designs shall be :
a . All materials shall be of high quality and durable . Masonry
material shall be used . Color shall be introduced through colored
block or panels and not painted block .
b . Brick may be used and must be approved to assure uniformity .
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 30
c . Stone shall have a weathered face or be polished , fluted , or
broken face .
d . Concrete may be poured in place , tilt-up or precast , and shall be
finished in stone , textured or coated .
e . Metal siding will not be approved except as support material to
one of the above materials or curtain wall on office components
or , as trim or as HVAC screen .
f . All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with
the primary structures .
g . All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of
compatible appearing material . Wood screen fences are prohibited .
All exterior process machinery , tanks , etc . , are to be fully
screened by compatible materials. —
h . Large unadorned walls shall be prohibited . All walls shall be
given added architedtural interest through building design or
appropriate landscaping .
i . Space for recycling shall be provided in the interior of all
principal structures for all developments in the Business Center . —
24 . All freestanding signs be limited to monument signs . The sign shall
not exceed eighty ( 80 ) square feet in sign display area nor be greater -
- than eight ( 8 ) feet in height .
a . Each property shall be allowed one monument sign located near the —
driveway into the private site .
b . All signs require a separate permit .
c . The signage will have consistency throughout the development . A
common theme will be introduced at the development 's entrance
monument and will be used throughout . —
d . Consistency in signage shall relate to color , size , materials and
heights .
25 . The street lights should be designed consistent with the existing
lighting along Audubon Road .
a . A decorative , shoebox fixture ( high pressure sodium vapor lamps )
with a square ornamental pole shall be used throughout the
development area for area lighting . _
b . Lighting equipment similar to what is mounted in the public street
right-of-ways shall be used in the private areas .
c . All light fixtures for site lighting shall be shielded . Light
level should be no more than 1/2 candle at the property line .
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 31
26 . An additional 17 feet of right-of-way on Audubon Road is required .
Lake Drive West shall have a 60 foot right-of-way . The right-of-way
shall be 80 feet from the intersection of Audubon Road to the short
cul-de-sac off of Lake Drive West . The radius on the curbs at Audubon
Road shall be 30 feet .
27 . The entrance drive to Lot 1 be moved to the north ( approximately 500
feet north of Lake Drive West so that it aligns with the existing
drive to the east of the Stockdale property ) .
28 . The city shall work with MnDot to request that a traffic signal be
installed to coincide with the completion of Phase I of construction .
29 . 1 . All open spaces and non-parking lot surfaces shall be landscaped ,
rockscaped, or covered with plantings and/or lawn material .
2 . Storage of material outdoors is prohibited unless it has been
approved under site plan review. All approved outdoor storage
must be screened with masonry fences and/or landscaping .
3 . The master landscape plan for the CBC PUD shall be the design
guide for all of the specific site landscape developments . Each
lot must present a landscape plan for approval with the site plan
review process .
4 . The buffer areas proposed along the internal public roadways and
southerly property line to and along Audubon Road shall be bermed
and seeded at the completion of Phase I with landscaping to occur
as the sites develop .
5 . Loading areas shall be screened from public right-of-ways . Wing
wall may be required where deemed appropriate .
30 . An easement from the park walking off the end of the western
cul-de-sac to get onto the trail system without having to go out onto
Audubon .
31 . The applicant shall comply with all conditions of the preliminary
plat .
All voted in favor and the motion carried .
Krauss : Can we also get a motion on the preliminary plat? We didn 't set
that up but there 's a preliminary plat before you as well . The conditions
are in here but .
Erhart : Okay . You want another motion on the preliminary plat?
Aanenson : We did both with that .
Krauss : Oh , did you cover that?
Aanenson : We did preliminary and final .
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 32
Krauss: No , no . You did preliminary and final stage PUD plan . You didn't
do the plat .
Batzli : Could we go back then and amend our motion to put in one more
condition?
Conrad: Is this a bartering deal?
Erhart : Do you do this when Steve 's here?
Batzli : The only question is , normally we throw in a condition that the
platting and this kind of stuff is tied to one another and that it 's
contingent on them following through on all the conditions so we kind of —
cross it over . So I 'd like to move that we add to our last motion a
condition 31 which the applicant shall comply with all conditions of the
preliminary plat that we 're just about to pass . —
Conrad : I would second that .
Erhart : Did we vote on , we voted on the first one . Can we do this? —
Krauss: You can officially , the prevailing side can re-open and
reconsider . —
Erhart: Okay , any discussion on that then .
Batzli moved, Conrad seconded to amend the Preliminary and Final Stage PUD
to include a condition 31 which reads, the applicant shall comply with all
conditions of the preliminary plat. All voted in favor and the motion
carried. —
Batzli : I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of a
Preliminary Plat according to the staff report with condition that the —
applicant meets all conditions set forth inthe Preliminary and Final PUD,
whatever this thing was . Preliminary plan and according to the plans
received dated and stamped "Received October 22 , 1991 " .
Conrad: I ' ll second that .
Ahrens: October 21st you mean? —
Batzli : The plans were dated October 21st?
Aanenson: 22nd .
Batzli : I don 't know .
Erhart: Whenever they were submitted . Any more discussion?
Batzli moved, Conrad seconded to approve Preliminary Plat #91-13 LUR for
the Chanhassen Business Center based on the plans stamped 'Received October
22, 1991" and subject to the following conditions:
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 33
1 . Provide an additional 17 feet of right-of-way along the westerly side
-- of Audubon Road throughout the plat .
2 . Provide the 20 foot wide drainage and utility easements over the
proposed sewer and water lines outside the road right-of-way .
3 . Provide a 20 foot drainage and utility easement for the sanitary sewer
proposed along the west side of Audubon Road lying south of the
proposed main entrance .
4 . The main entrance street shall be named Lake Drive West consistent
with the future extension of Lake Drive West east of Audubon Road .
5 . Provide the City Engineering Department with storm sewer calcuations
— designed for a 10 year storm event and ponding calculations to show
that the ponds will retain a 100 year storm event and will discharge
at the predeveloped runoff rate .
6 . If a curb cut is allowed for Lot 1 onto Audubon Road , it shall be
located a minimum of 500 feet north of the proposed main
entrance ( Lake Drive West ) and provide a deceleration lane .
7 . The applicant shall petition the City and provide a $12 ,000 .00 escrow
for preparation of a feasibility report for the extension of a trunk
sewer line to service Phase II of the site which will be refunded upon
project approval and authorization by the City Council .
8 . A secondary retention pond should be constructed for the northerly 15
acres of the site which drain to and parallel of the railroad tracks
( Lots 4 and 6 ) .
9 . If only Phase I of the site is graded , silt fence shall be
incorporated along the perimeter of the construction limits and if the
entire site is graded , Type III erosion control shall be installed and
maintained along the westerly perimeter of the construction limits .
10 . The watermain loop between Lots 8 and 9 shall be extended to within 10
feet of the southerly property line and then proceed east and parallel
to the south property line back to Audubon Road .
11 . The applicant shall provide the Engineering Department with the
calculations estimating the capacity of the sanitary sewer line
through Lake Susan Hills development and the predicted flows each lot
will generate . Sanitary sewer discharge through Lake Susan Hills West
3rd Addition shall be considered a temporary condition if future trunk
facilities on Audubon Road can feasibly serve Phase I .
12 . A covenant regulating the amount of discharge from Phase I shall be
placed in the title of each parcel as well as in the development
contract to insure that flows will not exceed capacity limitations
downstream .
13 . Inside slopes of the retention ponds shall be reduced to a minimum of
4 : 1 .
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 34
14 . As a condition of final plat approval , the applicant shall enter into
a development contract and provide the financial security to guarantee
construction of the improvements .
15 . The developer shall construct the utility and street improvements in
accordance with the latest edition of the City 's standard
specifications and shall prepare final plans and specifications and —
submit for city approval . Project specifications shall incorporate
the city 's standard specifications . The developer shall acquire
utility construction permits from the PCA and Minnesota Department
of Health .
16 . The developer shall obtain all necessary permits from the Watershed
District , DNR and Army Corps of Engineers and comply with all
conditions of the permits . Drainage plans shall be revised as outlined
in the approved staff report and shall be resbumitted to city staff
for approval . —
17 . The applicant shall obtain permission/permit from the railroad
authority for all grading activities within the railroad property .
- 18 . The developer shall incorporate street lights into the street
construction plans . The street lights should be installed at 150 to
200 foot intervals . The street lights shall be designed consistent
with existing lighting on Audubon Road . A 250 watt contemporary low
profile rectilinear-rectangular style lighting fixture with pressure
lamps mounted on a 25 foot high corten steel pole (see Attachment #2 ) . -
19 . All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored
with seed and disc 'mulched , sod or wood-fiber blanket within two weeks_
of site grading or before November 15 , 1992 except in areas where
utilities and streets will be constructed yet that year . Areas altered
with a slope of 3: 1 or greater must be restored with sod or wood fiber
blanket .
20 . The entire tract of land development shall be assessed for the future
trunk sewer system to be built for Phase II (Lots 6 , 7 , 8, 9 and 12 ) . —
21 . The sanitary sewer lines in Phase I should be swithced to flow into
the trunk sanitary sewer system proposed in Phase II . —
22 . The developer shall be responsible for a share of the cost for traffic
signals on Audubon Road at Lake Drive West and TH 5 .
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Erhart : Is there anything else anybody wants passed? Thanks for coming . —
We look forward to having your development here in our city .
Conrad: Good job .
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 35
- PUBLIC HEARING:
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO REQUIRE AN INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR
RECREATIONAL BEACHLOTS .
Public Present:
Name Address
Mark Rogers 3851 Leslee Curve
Ivan Underdahl 7502 77th Street
- Bill Finlayson 6320 Fir Tree
Bernie Schneider 7501 77th Street
- Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item . Vice Chairman
Erhart called the public hearing to order .
Mark Rogers : My name is Mark Rogers . I 'm with the Pleasant Acres
Homeowners Association on Minnewashta . Just had a couple of small things .
First a question . It 's my understanding that this ordinance grew out of a
request from the City Council . Is that true? To develop such an
- ordinance .
Aanenson: Recreation beachlot ordinance in general?
Mark Rogers : The one we 're talking about , yeah .
Erhart : Change it to a temporary .
Krauss : No . This pertains to the , in all the new beachlots are required
to get a conditional use permit and they have done that . You 're correct .
— This orginally came from concerns that were raised , well problems that we
had to deal with but concerns that were raised by the City Council that the
older beachlots are much tougher to regulate . There isn 't a good set of
information or guidelines to know exactly what is allowed on these things .
What we 've heard and what we 've seen and what the Council 's told us is that
over the years more and more boats start showing up and it 's not clear
who 's entitled to what out there . So the idea came down to permit these
- things . Figure out once and for all exactly what folks are entitled to .
Give them a permit for that and then it 's a fairly easy matter to regulate
it from that point on .
Mark Rogers: Okay . I 've got several points . He just touched on one that
I guess I ' ll leave until last . It 's the greatest . With paragraph B , I
would say that the notification should not only go to the property owners
on the lake but also all affected property owners in the individual
associations . Which should be an easy thing to do .
- Krauss : Is it? I mean are all these people listed as owners of beachlots?
Aanenson : We 've been sending them to the homeowners associations .
Krauss : I 'm not so sure it 's always so easy to find out exactly who 's
involved in each one .
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 36
Mark Rogers : No , but your notice here actually doesn 't even mention
anybody from the beachlot . It just says the property owners and the public
notice . In our case our association has a Quit Claim Deed to the property
and the individuals in the association are not listed on that .
Krauss : Oh , what this is referring to though is your beachlot will be
making an application and this tells us how we have to notify all the other
property owners around there of your request .
Mark Rogers : But we would certainly want to know about what 's happening
with the other beachlots that might be on our lake and so forth . So I
guess that 's what I 'm driving at . It would take some work to talk to the -
associations to find out the addresses and so forth but the names of the
people would not , would vary but the addresses of those homes would not .
Erhart : Okay , so when you use the terms owners of property on the lake ,
that does not , it may not necessarily mean that the owner is of other
beachlots . It 's not clear . So you just want that clarified that that
would include other beachlot owners?
Mark Rogers : Right .
Aanenson: So for every beachlot that 's going for review , you want every
other beachlot notified of that review?
Mark Rogers: I think so .
Erhart : On that lake .
Conrad: That 's not what you 're saying . Ah , then I misunderstood . I
thought you wanted everybody notified in the homeowners association .
Mark Rogers: You are correct . I guess maybe we 're describing it
differently .
Conrad : You 're not concerned about a different beachlot?
Mark Rogers : Well that I am too .
Aanenson : So everyone would be notified of everybody else 's hearings too .
So it 'd be every month . . .
Conrad: What would that?
Mark Rogers: The purpose , it would affect us just as much as the other
property owners on the lake . If they 're being notified of some changes or -
conditions of some permit , why wouldn 't we , as a matter of fact , it might
even affect us more than the other property owners on the lake .
Conrad: Now my understanding was this was a one time deal . To get the
permit .
Aanenson: Right . To give them an understanding of what they can build in .
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 37
Conrad: Right . So this is not a forever type deal . This is a one time
deal to get notification to everybody in that homeowners association that
this is what is permitted . Or to review what is permitted and get
- consensus so that the city has an idea of what is permitted in that
beachlot . So to inform other beachlots about your particular situation , I
don 't know that that 's .
Mark Rogers : Well you can 't do them all at once . I 'm anticipating , I
don 't know how many there are .
Aanenson : 13 .
Mark Rogers: Okay , 13 . You can 't do 13 in one night . At least I wouldn 't
- think so . And I would like to know when the other ones are up . They might
be similar to ours . They might be different from ours . I 'd like to know
when those meetings are .
Conrad : But for us to call and find out , or are we going to have to call
and find out everybody anyway? If we send notice to everybody in the
association .
Aanenson: We 've been doing . . .the homeowners association president . That 's
the way we 've been doing it .
Conrad: Yeah . It 's going to be that person 's job . The homeowner 's
association to deliver a list and so what you 're saying is everytime one of
these 13 comes in and send out a notice of public hearing to everybody in
every homeowners association , which we 're talking about a 1 ,000 or you
know , it 's a big number of how many people are in the homeowners
associations with beachlots . You 're talking about mailing out 1 ,500
- letters everytime somebody is doing something . It probably makes more
sense to send it out to the president of the homeowners association .
- Mark Rogers: Well , it 's just like , for instance the mailing for this
meeting came to me and not to the president . At the last meeting I had
requested that at least I get a copy and I checked with the president and
_ he did not get one for this . And had I not you know happened to talk to
him , he would have been unaware of this meeting . If it 's important enough
for all of the property owners on the lake to be notified about it , why
isn 't it important enough for all of the homeowners in the homeowners
- association to be notified about?
Erhart : Do you have a point on this specific subject?
Ivan Underdahl : Yeah I guess I had a question . We 've been here . . .but when
it was first brought up here now , I guess I almost question what was the
purpose of having this item on the agenda tonight?
Erhart : Okay , and your name is?
- Ivan Underdahl : Ivan Underdahl .
Erhart : Let 's step back a moment because it 's not clear in my mind what
the history is here again .
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 38 —
Aanenson: Okay , when the recreational beachlot was adopted . —
Ivan Underdahl : You asked for public comment so I thought that was the
right time .
Conrad: He didn 't mean you literally step back . I think he figuratively .
Erhart: No , no , no . Steve , stay up there . I 'm really asking your first —
question myself because it wasn 't clear in my mind so .
Aanenson: There were existing beachlots that were in place that were
grandfathered in . What has happened over time is there was no one when —
those were adopted , those that were grandfathered in , there was not
inventory of what they had in place . Over time there 's been complaints
that those have expanded beyond what was grandfathered in . What we 're —
trying to do is come up with a mechanism to establish what they were
grandfathered in with .
Erhart : Okay , and we have not done that before?
Aanenson: No . The other ones have been given conditional use and we
established what they can have . We can go out and cite them for expanding .
These 13 that we 're talking about , we need to establish what they can as
far as grandfathered .
Erhart: The primary objective is to get .
Batzli : This is establishing a baseline .
Aanenson: Exactly .
Conrad: And so the point of tonight 's meeting was to develop the process —
to do that but not we 're not reviewing those 13 at all tonight . We 're just
saying , what has to happen to get those 13 beachlots . And inventory of
those 13 beachlots . How do we do it? Do we mail everybody a notice 10
days prior to public hearing? So that 's what we 're here tonight to do .
Not to review .
Ivan Underdahl : . . .policies besides this and I guess if somebody hadn 't —
stood up , it sounds like that 's all there is to it . It sounds like you
were ready to , there was going to be nothing more about it .
Erhart: I guess we were hoping that somebody would stand up . That 's the
purpose of this procedure .
Ivan Underdahl : And as far as notice for this evening , our association
didn 't receive any notice as far as I know . We saw it in the paper and
we 're only here to . . .
Erhart : Could you comment?
Mark Rogers: How many lakes are we talking about? —
Conrad: 7 lakes .
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 39
Mark Rogers : So it 's not just Minnewashta?
Conrad: Right , everyone .
Aanenson : Lotus . Riley .
- Ivan Underdahl : When you think of grandfathering now , does this . . .permit
that 's required , is the implication now that if they 're trying to be
accepting the granfathering or reconsideration of the total situation
without . . .?
Krauss : We do have some , there was some sporatic inventories done a couple
of times and we have information as to what we think was there then . We 're
- asking you to also provide information on what you think was there at the
time this became grandfathered in as a non-conformity . I guess the way we
envision it is there 's something of a negotiation process there . I mean
- ultimately they may accept what 's there today if that 's reasonable based on
what we think was there back then or we may ask that it go back to
something .
Ivan Underdahl : I guess that was my point . If this permit that is going
to have to be obtained is simply going to be adoption or the only thing you
can apply for is what existed as far as the grandfathering is concerned?
Krauss : Well , to be honest our information isn 't exactly enough to come in
and say you had 3 boats back there in 1980 , what was it 2 . And that 's
definitely what it is .
Aanenson : We gave them that information following that so we gave them the
inventory that we thought . . .
( There was a tape change at this point in the discussion . )
- Ivan Underdahl : I guess my point was the permit that can be applied for
now . Is that going to stipulate that you can only have what was there at
the time of the ordinance or is it open to new conditions or situations?
Or is it just going to be . . .
Olsen: You ' ll get an opportunity to make a case in front of the Planning
Commission and the Council .
Mark Rogers : I thought that 's what we 're doing tonight .
- Bernie Schneider : I think that 's probably the toughest part of that
process as I see it because the ordinance itself is worded very loosely in
regards to that so that 's going to be a very tense process to try and get
that down to just what we . . .
Bill Finlayson: I see the Minnewashta Association 's beachlot as a lot on
the beach that is not much different than either one of my neighbors who
- have lots on their beach . Nobody 's regulating the amount of boats that any
homeowner on Lake Minnewashta can own . I mean if in 1982 they had one boat
and in 1989 that had 2 boats , I don 't understand why it makes a difference
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 40
whether Minneswashta beach association had 15 boats and then in 1992 has 16
boats . It 's not clear to me why this all came about . The history of what . -
Erhart : Let me clarify one thing for procedure here . The informal
discussion here is fine . Are we messing up the Minutes by not getting
people 's names? Okay , your name was that just spoke .
Bill Finlayson : I 'm Bill Finlayson from the Minnewashta Beach Association .
I 'm the chairman . -
Erhart : Okay procedure , would you like to get back to formal where we have
one speaker at a time or is it okay to keep it informal?
Krauss: I think it would help on the Minutes if we could .
Erhart : Yeah if you could stand back up again and then we ' ll . Again your -
name .
Mark Rogers: Mark Rogers . Pleasant Acres on Minnewashta . And again I 'd -
just like to reiterate that what 's contained in the first paragraph , the
quote being permits shall be issued following receipt of satisfactory proof
concerning the nature and extent of the legal non-conforming use . I 'm real _
nervous about what that means as far as the process and what goes into
setting those limits . That is the whole meat of the ordinance really . I
agree with the intent of it . I can certainly see yours and others needs to
want to know what 's there and regulate what 's there but I just don 't know -
how we can improve this or if we should improve it in the ordinance but I
feel like there 's great potention that we could get stuck with something
that would be very difficult to live with .
Erhart : What 's the key , one of the beachlots organization to stuff all
kinds of uses in there just before they come in for the hearing and saying
they 've been doing that forever?
Krauss: Well I think it 's clear that that 's why we 're not going to accept
the status quo as of whatever date they come in . I mean some of the --
beachlots are perfectly fine and frankly we don 't know very well if they
had 3 boats or 5 boats back there in 1982 . And if they had fairly good
rationale to support it , I mean it 's a negotiating process I suppose and _
it 's going to be negotiated in front of you and the City Council . But you
know we would have some information . They would have some information .
We ' ll have to work out what 's fair with that . But if you 've got a beachlot
that in 1982 had 2 boats and now it has 15 , something is seriously remiss
and the clock 's going to probably have to be turned back to some extent .
Erhart : Do we have any way to know that in 1982 it had 2 boats? -
Aanenson : We 've done 3 inventories . And when we met with the homeowners
associations , we presented them with what we had as our best information
and we asked them to go back and check their records , photographs and
provide us with what they have as their best information . Some of the
homeowners associations have lotteries so they have receipts of fees so
they can actually document . -
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 41
- Erhart : So your idea is essentially negotiate as much of this prior , in
advance prior to bringing this to the Planning Commission .
— Aanenson: We 've met with them once and provided that .
Mark Rogers: That 's right and I have that in front of me here . Even in
_ the 1991 there were several errors so I can 't speak for the earlier
assessments . But part of this is in 1982 which was when I believe they had
the initial assessment of how many homes . Say you had written down like
53 . There 's 80 now and one more subdivision going in and property for
- several others . So there 's obviously pressure that would be very intense
should we cut back to what 's recorded for the 1981 levels . So that 's why
people are going to get excited about this .
Ahrens : Isn 't what Mark 's talking about , what is going to be discussed
when their permit application comes before the Planning Commission?
— Mark Rogers : Sort of .
Ahrens: We 're not discussing .
Batzli : No , but he 's talking about the fairness of the process and he
really I think , he 's questioning our surveys but I think even more than
that he 's saying that probably there 's more houses and the uses have
intensified and people are going to be angry if we turn back the clock .
Ivan Underdahl : I 'd just like to point out another situation too where
- it 's not necessarily an intensification for people who are there now but
the fact that at the time this ordinance went into effect , there were just
a very limited number of people that would even have chosen to use it . Or
— that lived there so there really weren 't as many boats there at the time
because of the relatively new development . And on our situation there
were only 2 people that had chosen to have boats there . Most of the lots
_ were vacant . Several of those members lived directly on the lake . Had
their own docks and private locations . So now when there are more
residences there , they would like to have boats there too . But there were
only 3 parties that could have had an interest in having boats there at the
- time the ordinance was developed . . .our grandfathering would say limited to
2 . But it 's not clear because the reason there weren 't any more boats
there at the time was there weren 't people there to have them .
Conrad : Then the current ordinance should apply to you . That 's real
clear . That just doesn 't make sense . If people didn 't have them there ,
that would give you rights if you used it then but then the ordinance , the
current ordinance that 's good for everybody else should apply to you right
now .
- Ivan Underdahl : The current ordinance would limit it to 2 boats .
Conrad: Well the current ordinance should apply to everything that 's not
_ grandfathered . And you can 't say well if we had built up and had 75 houses
before , that we could have put more boats down . That doesn 't make sense at
all .
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 42
Ivan Underdahl : The current ordinance , in our particular subdivision , the
current ordinance limits us to 2 I guess as we understand it , or staff 's
interpretation . However any private property owner is entitled to 3 . So
this is unfair right off the bat . In addition to that , all of our property
owners have the boating/docking rights in their covenants and restrictions .
Erhart : Okay we 're not here tonight to talk about the beachlot ordinance .
We 're here to talk about .
Ivan Underdahl : . . .the application for this use permit or whatever was
primarily then going to be based upon what existed at the time the
ordinance went into effect . —
Krauss: I think it 's going to be based on probably 3 things . The
information that we have , which is all that we have right now . Information
that the beachlot owners can provide to us , which we may decide is more
accurate . And in some cases , I 'm not sure but we may have a beachlot that
under the current ordinance is entitled to more than was there in 1980 .
Maybe it 's got enough space and met the requirements , then they could be —
increased that way .
Batzli : So in other words they may be grandfathered in but if the
ordinance allowed them more , you 'd ignore the grandfathering . Is that what
you just said?
Krauss: I think that that 's fair . —
Erhart: Maybe what we need here is a good , well written intent statement
before we really take this to the next level because I think that 's what
we 're , that 's the issue we 're dealing with. What are we intending to do
here?
Bernie Schneider : I have a question . In establishing the number of boats —
that we will be allowed at a recreational beachlot , once the ordinance is
passed , who makes that decision? Is that up to the Planning Commission or
what body will listen to our pleas? —
Krauss: It will ultimately be the City Council . We 'll make recommendation
to the Planning Commission and they 'll recommend to the City Council and _
it 's the City Council 's call .
Bernie Schneider : So the City Council will take each request separately?
Krauss: Right .
Bernie Schneider : . . .reasonable? Not necessarily what 's grandfathered in . —
Krauss: Well again , I mean I can 't prejudice them doing that . I think the
Commissioner 's statement about a . . .is a real valid one . I can tell you how
I think the process is going to go and I see there being some room to
discuss some of these things . But I guess the mere fact that there 's more
homes now than there was before , that does not persuade me . When something
is grandfathered in , it 's locked in at that point in time . The uncertainty —
for us is we 're not really certain in all these cases what exactly all that
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 43
- was . We have some information . We 're willing to accept your information
and we want to figure out what it was . It doesn 't entitle you to double or
triple in size . Now if , again if your beachlot under the current ordinance
would be entitled to more anyway , we 're not going to artificially hold it
down .
Bill Finlayson: There 's so many hypotheticals here . If the beachlot was
established in 1982 and they were gathering funds to buy a dock and so
forth and there were no boats down there and then the beach association got
enough money together to install a dock and then they installed x amount of
- boats , if you go back to 1982 , it doesn 't make any sense . Obviously they
developed the property over a number of years . I know at Minnewashta Beach
Association we 've been developing that piece of property for a number of
years . There are many improvements made over the years . Who inventoried
this thing? Who did this investigation of the 13 associations as to what
they were back in 1982? Somebody 's been researching this?
- Krauss : Yeah . Jo Ann , do you want to give a little bit of the history?
Olsen : I 'm not sure who did it in 1982 . One of the other planners . Scott
Martin . .but the planning department had done a survey .
Erhart : This is something we 're doing now or you say you found .
Olsen: . . .we found .
Erhart : Okay and you found some old surveys and you 're pulling those
- together , okay .
Aanenson: We compiled them together . We met with the homeowners
associations and presented that information to them and explained the
process . We met with each association and explained the process so .
Erhart : You met with every homeowners association about this ordinance
- already?
Aanenson: Yes .
Mark Rogers: It was passed out right about at that time and we were told
that the chance for comments and so forth was here for changes and I guess
_ that 's why I 'm here . I 'm surprised there aren 't more like me . I guess I
just want to summarize my concern with this paragraph A . Setting the
number and all this kind of stuff is if it 's , this is really the crux of
how hard we 're either going to fight or support this amendment , or this
- ordinance because if it looks like we 're going to be cut back to 1982 and
let 's face it . Chanhassen is certainly not the city it was in 1982 . All
the business developments that you 've seen and other housing developments
that you talk about . I mean to go back to 1982 just can 't happen on the
city as a whole . That 's a big part of my concern in looking at this issue .
So enough said about that . I think that 's the big sticking point for us .
And to clarify one other thing , I think remember Richard Wing at this same
meeting saying that an individual homeowner could have 5 boats at his
house , not 3 .
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 44
Ivan Underdahl : . . .someone else at that meeting said the same thing .
Somebody on the committee there . . .
Mark Rogers: I don 't think anybody from the Planning Commission was here .
Olsen: The DNR regulates that .
Mark Rogers: Yeah , and so that would certainly be something to be
considered .
Ivan Underdahl : But I thought the City did that in it 's own ordinance . . .
Conrad: We limit it to 3 .
Ivan Underdahl : Minnetonka I believe limits it to 5 .
Mark Rogers: I think Wing said it was 5 . Well .
Erhart : We 're getting off into the beachlot again.
Mark Rogers: Okay , and point 2 is something that you brought up Ladd about
this is permanent . This is a one time deal .
Conrad: To establish what was grandfathered .
Mark Rogers: Okay . I wanted to ask . _
Conrad: Just two real clear things . There is a beachlot ordinance that
everybody should have to live under because it 's there and a lot of time
was spent developing that ordinance .
Mark Rogers: Well that 's not my question though .
Conrad: But it is there and so the point of this process that we 're
looking at right now is to make sure that if something exceeded that
because it occurred , there should be fairness to allow that use that
occurred prior to 1982 if it makes sense . And that 's the process right now
that I think staff 's trying to undertake .
Mark Rogers: But the ordinance did not pertain to the non-conforming uses —
that were in effect at that time .
Conrad: Right .
Batzli : But the fact that the ordinance was passed means that all you 're
legally entitled to is the use that you had on the lot in 1982 . And if you _
expanded it , that doesn 't mean that you 're legally entitled to it at this
point .
Mark Rogers: Well I 'll tell you , if that 's what 's going to go into the
ordinance , that you 're going to try and strictly stick to the 1981 survey ,
I think you 're going to have a big fight trying to pass this ordinance .
Well I guess that 's all I can say . _
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 45
Conrad: Give us some examples of what would be a problem . I 'm not aware
to tell you the truth that there are major . Obviously some , there have
been some problems with certain beachlots . With most of them are run
- pretty well but there 's something that you don 't feel that you have that 's
not acceptable that has happened since 1982?
Mark Rogers : According to this survey , which lists 1981 , not 1982 . We had
according to this survey , we had 4 boats with room for 6 docked . In 1991
the survey said we had 17 , I believe that 's an error but the number should
have been at most 16 .
Conrad : 16?
Mark Rogers : Boats docked . Room for 16 . As you can see , there 's a wide
difference between 4 , room for 6 and 16 .
Batzli : So do you think that there was room for 16 back in 1981 or 1982 or
that 's been the expansion of your beachlot since then?
Mark Rogers : I was not there in those years . I believe that is probably
- more than what we have now . 16 boats is probably more than there was there
in 1982 . I did not personally get a boat until 1989 . And I first moved
into the neighborhood in 1986 .
Conrad : Well yeah , in that situation there 's going to be some problems . I
think that 's the point of the process .
Mark Rogers : That 's what makes us nervous because if we say yeah , this is
a good amendment and we get into , or good ordinance and we get into
supporting it and the Council passes it and then I come back in front of
- the Council and now we sit down and talk about the numbers , I 'm getting
this distinct feeling from you anyway that we 're going to walk away very
mad .
Erhart : Let me say , I don 't think this ordinance , was one of the driving
reasons to create this ordinance because we 're having a problem?
- Aanenson: Yes .
Conrad : Very definitely .
Mark Rogers: The planning staff at that time indicated there had been some
problems in our own at the meeting . In our own case they said it was not
with our association but with , I don 't know if it was Minnewashta Heights
or somewhere on the north shore of the lake that there had been some
difficulties . But what essentially would wind up .
- Erhart : I think is it fair to say that if you 're not causing problems , I
mean we 're not going to try to , I guess are you saying is the Council going
to be reasonable? I guess I expect that they 're going to be reasonable .
Is the intent to make all non-conforming grandfathered beachlots conform to
our new ordinance? That 's not the intent is it?
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 46
Aanenson: No . The intent is to establish a baseline . . .of what they were
grandfathered in with . —
Erhart : Establish a baseline so I don 't think .
Batzli : Yeah but that last part of your sentence , what they were _
grandfathered in with and in this case that 's a problem .
Aanenson : A few of them have that problem . It expanded . The subdivision —
has grown .
Batzli : But the City Council , their intent was to actually go back to what
was grandfathered in?
Krauss: Well no , and I think you 're hitting on the crux of the issue here .
Their intent was to establish a means of regulating these things . I
guess my own personal interpretation of it is somewhat more of an open
ended negotiation . I find it tough to believe that it 's going to be
difficult to justify tripling in size of something beyond what was
grandfathered but there may be some sort of a middle ground that 's found to
be reasonable . There is not an intent section here . You didn't discuss
intent when we brought this to you in terms of how that process would begin _
nor did the City Council . It may be a useful question to ask yourselves . I
mean what would your intent be and possibly we can ask the same question of
the City Council .
Bernie Schneider : I 'd like to ask a question . When the survey was taken
in 1982 , if that 's when they were taken , were the homeowners associations
notified that the survey was going to be taken and that would determine the —
number of boats that would be allowed in the future? If the association
was not notified .
•
Krauss: We have no way of knowing . This is 10 years ago .
Conrad: Again , the point is a beachlot can only take so much traffic . 100
feet can only have so many boats on it . Maybe that 's the same amount of
boats that a neighbor has or whatever but there 's an ordinance out there .
I think the intent of this process is to make sure that all the beachlots
have some kind of guideline that 's reasonable . And that 's the point right
now .
Bernie Schneider : In 1975 when the City Council approved our subdivision ,
they also approved the Declarations of Covenants and Conditions which —
stated that every property owner had the right to moor a boat at the dock .
That 's right in the Covenants . We had a lawsuit going back 10 years ago
over a second , third and fourth addition expected to get the lakeshore --
rights and they were denied that in Court . Because of the fact that they
were denied the lakeshore rights and the boat docking priviledges , the
highest property owner was awarded $15 ,000 .00 in damages for . . . There were _
different property owners that were paid off because they lost their
lakeshore rights . Now if the City Council authorized this back in 1975 ,
how can the City Council in 1991 take away the rights that were
grandfathered into us? Everybody says the grandfathering only applies to —
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 47
the two boats that were there back in 1982 . That should have no bearing on
this .
Conrad: Well legally there may be a case .
Bernie Schneider : I kind of think so because .
Erhart: I don 't think that 's what I heard . I didn't hear that we 're
trying to grandfather in what was there in 1982 . I think we 're trying to
determine what the intent , what the deal was when it was put in . If the
deal was that 15 homes each get a boat , then that may be what has to be
dealt with .
Ivan Underdahl : That was the point I was trying to make but I think the
answer I think came . . .what was grandfathered is what you 'll be going by .
Conrad: But we probably won 't find out what was really intended .
Ivan Underdahl : This problem perhaps originated with our homeowners
associations because one of the members also owns that adjoining property
and for some reason he became upset that there were 4 boats at the dock
although there were no problems in having 4 boats at this dock . But he
initiated a lawsuit .
Conrad: I don 't think you 're the only one . There are others .
Ivan Underdahl : He 's tried to prevent us or get an injunction from having
any boats docking there at all . Well that 's what 's going on . . . .he 's been
pressuring the city now to enforce this grandfathered ordinance which would
limit the number of boats .
Erhart : Well I think the comments are appreciated. I think we 're starting
to get a handle on the complexity of the issue here . So Mark , do you have
any other comments?
Mark Rogers: Yeah . Just one other one is again , I was starting to get at
the , if we were to go through this process and get the permit . There
doesn 't seem to be any mechanism for amending or changing this permit
should it be required for whatever reason . I don 't know if that 's intended
or covered under something else but realistically it would seem that that
should be allowed for . And the last thing was should we get this permit ,
would we need any other permits in the future? I mean does the permit
cover toilets , picnic tables , whatever so that we would not need any other
conditional use permits or I don 't know , what else there might be in the
future short of reasonable beachlot kinds of things .
Olsen: . .conditional use permit .
Mark Rogers: For?
Jo Ann Olsen 's comment could not be heard on tape .
Mark Rogers: Okay , that wasn 't clear from our first meeting because if it
was listed on the survey and so forth.
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 48
Olsen: . . . I thought you were asking .
Mark Rogers: I guess I 'm asking because other beachlots have to have a
conditional use permit for toilets , I think you 're saying so , would that be
another permit that we would have to then go get?
Krauss : You 've got an existing one now?
Mark Rogers: Yes we do . —
Krauss: That would be in the package of , assuming it 's approved, that
would be in the package approved under this one permit application . You —
wouldn 't have to come in twice for the same thing .
Batzli : But if they didn 't have the toilet , it was grandfathered in , they
may have to apply for it under the new ordinance and maybe that would be —
under an amendment section is what he 's talking about .
Mark Rogers: Okay . I guess that was about it . —
Erhart : Okay thanks Mark . Is there anything else we haven 't covered?
Bernie Schneider : Just on procedure now . This is going to be submitted ,
if the Planning Commission here approves this resolution tonight , it will
be submitted to the City Council and then the City Council , will the City
Council hold a public hearing on this also? Or is it all . . . —
Krauss : Well the official public hearing , the one that 's mandated by law
is held at the Planning Commission but every City Council meeting is wide —
open- and the Mayor always asks if anybody has anything to say . So if they
. do pass it tonight , there will be more opportunity to speak at the Council .
Bernie Schneider : So this is the final meeting as far as the Planning
Commission?
Krauss: Well I don 't know . They may continue this or ask for changes to —
the ordinance and not approve it tonight . That 's their call .
Ivan Underdahl : We just happened to see it in the paper but I don 't know —
what was on the letter .
Erhart: Kathy , did you meet with their homeowners association? Okay , and
were you at that meeting?
Ivan Underdahl : Well that was a long time ago .
Erhart: How long ago was it?
Ivan Underdahl : I don 't know how long ago it was .
Olsen: We did send out letters to all the homeowners .
Mark Rogers: About this meeting tonight?
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 49
- Aanenson: The president .
( There was talking back and forth about the notification letter of this
- evening 's meeting . )
Olsen: I don 't know with the storm and stuff , the mail might have .
Erhart: Well when was it mailed out Jo Ann?
Olsen: Beginning of last week . But with the holidays . . .
Ivan Underdahl : I was wondering , when does an association get the
opportunity to plead it 's case .
Conrad: You would come in front of this group first to plead the case . So
tonight we 're just saying , tonight we 're making a decision maybe , should we
have a permit process . That 's really what we 're doing and then some of the
questions are , well how do we notify those groups of when that takes place .
But tonight is just should we do it . Then we have the next step where
individual , where it would be up to you when your homeowners association
- wants to come in and see us . You 'd have one year to do it . Then you plead
your case and if you can say based on legal conditions that we 've had we
think grandfathered 4 boats or whatever , then we listen to that and make
our recommendation to the City Council .
Bill Finlayson: I don 't know what number you 're going to give me . I heard
a rumor of about 14 boats on Minnewashta Heights Beach Association . Now
what number are we talking about so we know whether we have to plead a case
at all? Because I know that I mean I can pretty much establish 16 boats
and I can go back to maybe . . .
( There was a tape change at this point in the discussion . )
Olsen: . . .conditional use permit for your recreational beachlot so you 're
legal non-conforming . You 're automatically in the process . You 'd have to
get the permit .
- Bill Finlayson: Now is the permit a one time thing forever? Is there a
cost involved in this permit?
- Olsen: That 's something that we haven 't established yet but there would be
a fee .
Bill Finlayson: A dollar?
Olsen: I think we were discussing $75 .00 .
Bill Finlayson: $75 .00? Forever right?
Olsen: Right . That is established by the City Council .
Erhart: Okay , anything else and again I think we all really appreciate you
coming . I think we got a good feel for what the issues are here . If
not , I 'd entertain a motion to close the public hearing .
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 50
Batzli moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. —
Erhart : Why don 't we just have an open discussion on this . Go ahead .
Ahrens: I think there needs to be an intent statement in here because
there 's obviously a lot of questions people have concerning why we 're doing
this . I think that the ordinance should address any changes people may
have in the future concerning . I don 't know what it is . Maybe reapply for —
another permit is it . But that needs to be clear in here . Who 's the
Zoning Administrator? Is that you Paul?
Krauss: Yeah .
Ahrens: Is that really a title you have or is that just something you —
assume?
Krauss: Actually it was officially transferred . It used to be Don
Ashworth and he didn 't know it . Or I guess he forgot . —
Ahrens: Does this make any sense to have that in there?
Batzli : I think it 's a term that 's defined in our Zoning Ordinance .
Erhart: Yeah , we 've used it quite frequently .
Ahrens: Okay . I don 't have any more comments . I think this has been ,
discussion has been pretty adequate .
Batzli : So you 'd want to table it and draft a new?
Ahrens: Yes . _
Erhart: Jeff , do you have a comment?
Farmakes: I would agree to table this . Get an intent statement . It seems
like there 's some confusion out there coupled with the fact that a lot of
people currently didn 't get a notice on it .
Erhart : Ladd .
Conrad: I don 't know , obviously there 's confusion . So I think the work , I
—
don 't know that the work has to be done in this document . Putting the
intent there is fine I guess . I think the real key is to make sure that
the associations who have to go through this process understand what 's
going on and typically the intent , 10 words or 10 sentences may not do it —
in something like this . I think reference by the people who are here
tonight , it has to be real clear what the process is and even some of the
guidelines . I think realistically when you come back in , I hold the —
current ordinance to be something that we really do guide development by .
The current ordinance makes a lot of sense so I would be dishonest if I
said that that wasn 't a guidelines that we 're going to use as we review
things but I think again as we talk to the homeowners , I think the —
associations , there has to be some , and I can't , I don't know what 's gone
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 51
on with staff . They 've met with everybody but I think it 's got to be real
clear what those homeowners associations , what the process is and what they
have to do and what the City 's posture , what the City 's role is in this
- whole thing . And I don 't know that that gets done in an intent statement
here . It may be a letter that says Dear Homeowners Association . Here 's
what we 're doing and if you want to send somebody else in and review the
process with us to get a better understanding , you should do that .
Erhart : Okay was there something handed out at the meetings of the
homeowners associations?
Aanenson: A copy of this ordinance and then we gave them a copy of the
inventory . Mark has a copy .
Erhart : Okay so there wasn 't any intent or general description of the
purpose or anything at that?
Aanenson : Yeah , we stood up and gave a presentation . Then somewhat we
kind of broke and met with them individually to answer specific questions .
- Erhart : Yeah but it wasn 't written , was it written out? Your
presentation , is it written out? So some of this might be around that we
could use .
Conrad: So how many showed up for that? Most?
Olsen : Quite a few but . . .
Batzli : So that may be why some of them aren 't here tonight .
- Bill Finlayson : When was that meeting held?
Olsen: October?
Aanenson : Yeah , I think that 's when it was .
Bill Finlayson: There was one before this I know . Is that the meeting
you 're talking about?
Olsen : Yeah , 4 : 30 .
Erhart : Here?
Ranenson: I think we set up like 4 : 30 to 6: 00 because we figure people
could trickle in and we could meet with them one on one .
Conrad : I can see how this is confusing to some folks .
Erhart : Okay , Brian did you have anything else?
Conrad: Yeah , I 'm pretty much done but again that 's the intent statement
is here but I think it 's the process that we have to follow . Even some
that are here rightnow are still a little bit concerned what 's going to
happen and how it works . I think that 's really communication .
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 52
Batzli : I like the idea of an intent statement I think . And potentially —
adding at least a sentence regarding amendment . That if they want to amend
it , then they go through the process again or something . Reapply for
another one . Because that may , you may want to handle , it seems to me that
in, if they want to expand for example by adding a toilet , it 's not clear
to me whether they would go through this process again or whether they
would go through our normal beachlot stuff about adding a toilet on a
beachlot .
Aanenson: Or go through the variance procedure , expansion of a
non-conforming . —
Krauss: At that point it 's not a non-conforming use anymore . It 's a
permitted use so . The only options we would have is either come back —
through or establish a separate amendment procedure .
Batzli : Yeah , but handle that so it 's clear what they 're going to do . And
I had a question about enforcement of this . On a conditional use permit , a
hearing is held before us and then it goes to City Council or what have
you . How do you envision if a problem arises under their permit , how would
it be handled? —
Krauss: It 's the same as a conditional use permit . We inspect them
annually . If we find a violation , we write to them about that . If they 're
in violation of their permit and we can't achieve some accommodation , we
take it before the City Council and ask them to consider revocation .
Batzli : How would you revoke a permit? —
Aanenson: Do you think we should put something into that?
Batzli : I don't know. I 'd like you to at least look at that and see how
you would have to enforce this .
Aanenson: A violation section? —
Batzli : A violation section . Or if you 're going to do it according to the
conditional use permit , you can maybe again add a sentence . —
Conrad: You know just the bottom line of this thing is real threatening to
a homeowners association . We 've got to be real sensitive to that . There 's
a feeling that we 're taking away rights and on some basis we may but we 've
got to be real sensitive to the fact that what this is doing and it makes
people nervous .
Erhart : Okay , what are we talking? Are we talking an intent statement , a
violation . Are we talking about putting that into the ordinance itself?
Or are we talking about when we hand this something out to people that it —
sort of sells .
Aanenson: Put it right in the ordinance .
Bill Finlayson: I think the Minnewashta Beach Association can argue
numbers but we 'd like to have something to argue with .
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 53
Erhart : What the basis , okay and that 's what we 're trying .
Bill Finlayson : We want to be able to , we have documentation you know . We
want that reviewed obviously .
= Conrad : But I guess I 'm still looking , I 'm going to plead my case here .
I 'm still looking for some kind of document that says Chanhassen is trying
to get a handle on beachlots period . We have an ordinance that regulates
- most of them and some of them the ordinance didn 't apply to and right now
we 're trying to update what those beachlots can do . Here 's the process
that we have to follow and maybe you did that in person so excuse me for
when I am naive about what 's happened but here 's what it appears that your
legal for at this point in time and here 's the process to bring it in front
of the Planning Commission to get a permit . I 'm looking for that kind of a
play script type of communication to let people know .
Erhart : I 'm not , while I think we should put an intent and perhaps
violations in the ordinance I still , I think we need an additional document
- that gets handed out . Mailed out when you mail out the ordinance or
perhaps mailed out with the public , next if we table this . Mail out that
describes how we 're going to , what is the method for determining what is
grandfathered or the preferred method . What are the guidelines going to
be?
Krauss : Well , I think we can indicate something along those lines but if
- this gets into the sphere or trying to negotiate an equitable settlement ,
if that 's what it is based upon information that we had . Based upon
information that they had . Based upon some legal documentation about what
_ was committed , I don 't think we can tell you ahead of time what the
result 's going to be .
Erhart : No , I 'm not trying to do that . I 'm just saying , as Ladd said ,
some comfort as to we 're not trying to take things away from people .
Aanenson : That 's why we tried to have the informal meeting ahead of time
- before this . We thought we had tried to mitigate all those questions
before they came in but obviously we didn 't do a good enough job .
Erhart : Well I don 't know . It could be you did a great job and that 's why
there 's only 4 people here . It 's hard to determine but I think if I can
summarize , I think what we 're saying here is , I think we should add an
intent statement . Something with violations and amendments . I guess the
other issue Mark had was on notification . You may want to look at that .
Batzli : Clearly you at least want to mail the revised copy to these five
members in addition to the homeowners presidents because it sounds like the
homeowners presidents didn 't receive the notice or they didn 't pass it
along .
Erhart : I think my experience in trying to deal with the homeowners is
that they don 't communicate very well among themselves . Mailing to one is ,
what have you got , 17? Chances are 2 of those are going to be on vacation
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 54 -
or gone for a week , particularly at Thanksgiving . You 're going to , it 's
just not going to work with a weeks notice .
Mark Rogers : I agree with that . Especially with something like this . You
know here 's a case where . . .believe that they have a legal right to have a -
boat and there are people within my association who . . .that same sort of
thing and if they perceive that I somehow was negligent in informing them
of this process , I don 't want to get involved with that . I want to do the
best I can to represent the association but they need their own
responsibilty .
Krauss: Well we were talking about . We thought we would write a letter to -
the homeowners presidents to give us a mailing list of who 's in their
associations . We have no idea of who they sold rights to . There 's just no
recorded documentation that we have . -
Bill Finlayson: We pretty much regulate ourselves . We have a certain
amount of spaces available and we stick within those guidelines . We 've
never had a waiting list . For the first time next year we 're going to have
a waiting list of one . It 's the only time this has ever happened and that
person 's certainly on a waiting list and he won 't be able to get in until
someone else moves out . We 've been regulating ourselves for some time . -
Erhart : Okay , let 's move along . Let 's get a motion . Can we get a motion
here? -
Conrad: Before there 's a motion , is there any other comments about what
staff had down here? Any changes to what they had so they don 't come back
with something that we want to change or are those words okay? I 'm
comfortable with what 's down here .
Batzli : I actually , in reading this where it says the permit shall be
issued following receipt of satisfactory proof , that actually doesn 't
really need to be in there because it should be down in the hearing
section . I personally didn 't understand that whole sentence . Why it was
where it was . It 's not going to be issued following satisfactory proof .
It 's going to be issued following the hearing and the City Council review
based on something else which is what we 've been talking about tonight .
It 's not going to be issued following them coming in with a bunch of
documents . Setting it down on Paul 's desk and he goes here 's your permit .
Erhart : Kathy? Anything else? Is there a motion? -
Conrad: I move that we table action on this item until staff drafts an
intent statement and a violation fee?
Olsen : A violation section .
Conrad : A violation section . -
Aanenson: And amendments .
Erhart : And something to do with amendments , yeah . I think it 's clear to
staff what our intent here is . Is there a second?
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 55
Batzli : Second .
- Conrad moved , Batzli seconded to table the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to
require interim use permits for recreational beachlots until staff can come
back with a draft of an intent statement , violation section and a section
regarding amendments _ All voted in favor of tabling and the motion
carried .
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONCERNING BUS SHELTERS AND PARK RIDE LOTS .
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item .
- Erhart : Okay , is there any reason to open a public hearing on this? Okay .
Any comments from the commissioners?
Conrad: The only thing that I didn 't see in there was anything about
landscaping so I might assume that the landscaping of the section , what
landscaping will apply to this? Jo Ann .
- Olsen : The landscape ordinance for site plans .
Krauss : Is it mandated that this get site plan approval?
Olsen : . . .conditional use permit which . . .
Krauss : Well if we add to the ordinance just a one sentence line that says
- it 's also required to get site plan approval , have the full landscaping
requirements .
- Conrad: My only point is , what we 're doing is creating a giant parking lot
and if anybody cares about how we screen a giant parking lot . If we 're all
comfortable that the landscaping ordinance does that , which it probably
does .
Erhart : Are you comfortable with the landscaping ordinance that applies to
this parking lot?
Olsen: Yeah , it 's . . .
Conrad: It probably makes sense .
Krauss : Keep in mind we 're the bus company too .
Erhart : That 's what scares us .
Conrad: Yeah , Paul that 's not the right thing to say .
Erhart : Are you satisfied Ladd?
Conrad: Yeah , I think the ordinance , as long as the ordinance applies to
this , then we 're okay .
Erhart : Okay anything else?
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 56 —
Batzli : Yeah . I thought we were going to , I thought the farmers market
thing was going to be tied in with the other stuff we were doing on the
temporary uses or whatever .
Krauss: There is going to be , right . Kate 's working on that right now . --
There is a separate section . We just happen to feel that a park and ride
lot is an ideal place for this to go and when you 're talking about a
specific ordinance dealing with park and ride lots , we might as well _
mention it there too .
Batzli : Okay so we 're just mentioning that it may , the conditional use
permit may allow it but we 're going to cover it somewhere else what the
conditions are for that farmers market or in our temporary use , whatever
we 're going to call it . Our new section is called .
Krauss: Yeah . If somebody wanted to come in after the fact and establish
a farmers market at this park and ride , we 'd run it through the conditional
use permit procedure and permit it that way . —
Batzli : But that 's where the conditions are going to be for the farmers
market . What the temporary use stuff that 's Kate working on now .
Krauss: Right .
Batzli : Let me ask a really dumb question . I 'll probably be thrown right —
out the window . Why can 't the structure contain advertising signage?
Olsen: That 's more . . .we wanted to keep it clean . . .
Batzli : But I mean every other bus shelter you see in the whole entire
world has advertising signage in it . It 's just a philosophical thing .
Krauss: No , and every other bus shelter we see doesn 't cost $10 ,000 .00 or
$12 ,000 .00 to build . They 're little plexiglass boxes .
Ahrens: The new ones on the Nicollet Mall don 't have any place for
advertising .
Batzli : They don 't? So Nicollet Mall and Chanhassen are going to be —
without advertising signs .
Ahrens: Setting the pace for the future . —
Erhart: What about , should we put a place in there to put like notices
though? A bulletin board .
Ahrens: Like a bus schedule .
Erhart: Yeah , bus schedule . —
Batzli : Or a copy of the little Chanhassen newsletter that comes out .
Krauss: See the only reasons these things have advertising in them is as
these things are bus benches , bus shelters are erected by advertising
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 57
companies . The City gets it for free . Well I think Southwest Metro has
gone a much classier route . The bus shelters are distinctive . They 're
architecturally designed . They don 't have advertising .
Batzli : And we have to pay for them . Why don 't we let some advertiser put
them in for us?
Ahrens: What do you want to advertise in them?
- Batzli : I don 't know . I mean every other park bench you see has got some
realty guy on there . I don 't know . Why are we paying for them? I mean
we 're trying to keep down taxes and here we 're building monuments for a
park and ride lot . Who cares? For a park and ride lot? Do you care if
it 's a monument or a little plexiglass thing that advertises in there?
Conrad : Well there 's a good case to be made for a keyast . A well designed
keyast that has , you know we 're not talking about grandiose advertising but
you could sell it and it 'd be relatively easy to sell advertising space and
it would be a public service . So I thought about that . It 's not a big
- deal to me but I think city businesses , boy if they wanted to reach a
public , boy what a great place to do it and you can do it real easily .
Erhart : Who 's going to own this?
Krauss : Southwest Metro .
Erhart : Okay , so if there was advertising , they 'd collect it .
Conrad : They 'd have to sell it too . They 'd have to sell the space and
- that 's sort of a pain . If they 're not set up to do it then , does Southwest
Metro sell anything in their buses? Do they have a system?
_ Krauss : I don 't know . I know I haven 't seen it on the outside of their
buses .
Batzli : They don 't have the little cards up?
Krauss: I 've never ridden one of their buses . I don 't know .
Batzli : I haven 't either .
Erhart : We just hired a girl from Romania that 's here on political assylum
and she showed up for the interview . In the interview she said that she
does not own a car and can 't drive . I said , how 'd you get here? She says
I took a bus and I says you can get here on a bus?
- Krauss: We 've got an Iragee in our Planning Department who did the same
thing . She 's since learned to drive . . .
Conrad : I think we should leave the advertising out until somebody gives
us a decent proposal . We can always change the ordinance .
Batzli : Given the perpensity to graffiti and everything else . I mean if
- we 're going to build a $12 ,000 .00 thing that 's going to be graffitied up
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 58 —
because Graffiti Bridge is gone now and all this pent up need to graffiti ,
I 'm stunned . I never heard that we were going to do that .
Ahrens : Pent up need to graffiti?
Batzli : Yeah . I guess I read the little Chanhassen Villager that we 're
going to balance the budget and come hell or high water we 're going to run
a deficit and we 're going to do this and we 're going to do that . Now we 're
building $12 ,000 .00 monuments and no advertising . It 's stunning .
Erhart : It 's not us .
Batzli : Well it 's not city money but who supports Southwest Metro?
Conrad: We have a transit fee that we pay .
Batzli : Yeah . So we support it . I don 't know why we 're trying to the
leaders in non-advertising on buses . That 's my only point and why we need
to build park and ride lots that are , I don't know . —
Ahrens: Most people wait in their cars anyway .
Conrad: Geez , if you 've ever waited for a bus you 're dying .
Batzli : That 's the only one I 'm familiar with . _
Erhart: Okay , where do we want to go with the advertising? Have we found
anybody to attach to Brian 's ideas on the advertising? Okay . Good try .
Batzli : I 'll save a copy of the Minutes for posterity .
Erhart: Anything else on this? Ladd , you 're cooking . —
Conrad: I was just trying to think if somebody came in with a good
proposal for advertising what we 'd do .
Erhart: We 're talking about one of these right?
Conrad: Yeah . —
Ahrens: We have one keyast we 're talking about?
Krauss: Well ultimately two or three .
Ahrens: One park and ride lot? That 's it?
Krauss: Well ultimately there 's going to be two or three or maybe a fourth
but that 's , I mean sites that they 've located including the one we have in
here in town now , that one may move out to the corner of TH 5 and Dell —
Road . Another site 's over at TH 5 and TH 41 . Another site is down on
TH 212 and TH 101 , the new interchange .
Ahrens: These are potential sites?
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 59
Krauss: Yes .
Ahrens: It wouldn 't be a big money maker now anyway? Not like the permit
process we talked about earlier .
Batzli : 13 times $75 .00 is a big money maker? We 're going to spend more
than that on the lights burning in here for just the hearings alone .
Ahrens : I know . Especially this one .
Conrad: But don 't we want to have a place for public notices Paul or Jo
Ann? Now here you 've got a captive audience . I don 't know how many are
riding the bus . 50 to 100 . Wouldn 't you want to have a place for public?
It 's just one more way of communicating to the citizens of Chanhassen .
Olsen: . . .were thinking more of paid advertising . . .
Conrad: Here 's a case where we could require some kind of bulletin .
Erhart : I was thinking public yeah . Provide a place to put city notices .
The people who are going to use this bus live and work in Chanhassen .
Either live or work here . It 's a heck of a good way .
Batzli : Put copies of our Minutes .
Ahrens: That will put them to sleep .
Conrad: I guess I 'd like to see that .
Erhart: Just like a cork bulletin board someone could put something else
— up? It 's not one that they have to go to the City and get a key or
something . Then they 're going to have to hire someone to manage that .
Conrad: That cork is tacky .
Batzli : Have you seen the one at 7 Hi . They used to have a community
bulletin board . I 'm sure it 's not there anymore because was in the Red Owl
or Country Store , whatever it was . It was just tacky . It was bad .
Conrad: Did you ever sell anything there?
Batzli : No . I did look at it occasionally .
Erhart: They 've got one up at the shopping center on TH 4 and TH 5 , inside
the shopping center that 's a public community bulletin board and I thought
that one was , you know people put their little want ads and signs and
stuff .
Batzli : Well I 'm sure if you 've got somebody going over there and kind of
keeping all that straight .
Erhart: That 's probably why it looks good .
Conrad: But we don 't want the for sale , dog for sale stuff .
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 60
Ahrens: Give the public what they want . That 's what I always look at .
Conrad: But you know it 's an opportunity for us to post official
documents . How many people ride the bus a day out of here? 50 to 100?
Something like that .
Erhart: Are you talking about this would be just for the City 's use?
Conrad : Yeah , primarily .
Batzli : Jo Ann 's going to have to drive out there every Tuesday and change
it . I can see it now . —
Erhart: If we wanted to do that we could always change the ordinance at
that time also and allow us to do that . —
Conrad: But if you want to force the Transit Commission to put this in ,
now 's the time to do it . Are they going to put it in anyway? Aren 't they
going to put a schedule up? —
Olsen: . . .the intent . . .
Conrad: We 're not prohibiting it but how about requiring it . If we want
it , we should have it in the ordinance right now . If we don 't want it , and
it 's time to go home , we 'll close the subject .
Erhart: Anybody from staff want it then?
Ahrens: Want what in? —
Erhart: We 're talking about requiring them to put in the glass door with
the bulletin board behind it where the city can put notices . —
Batzli : If this is just a proposed condition , why don 't we say we might at
our option require something like that . Then we can talk about it when the
time really comes .
Conrad: You 're just getting out of the deal . We either want it or we
don 't . —
Batzli : Well it depends .
Conrad: Yeah , it depends . We ask the City Council to make a decision . Do
they want another place to post city . There 's some cost behind it . Maybe
it 's not worthwhile , I don 't know but this is the last time we 're going to
see this thing . —
Batzli : Who 's the Southwest Metro Representative? Who?
Olsen: From here?
Batzli : From here .
Krauss: It 's up for reappointment . Do you want to be it?
- Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 61
Olsen : It 's three cities . . .Chanhassen , Chaska and Eden Prairie .
Batzli : I think you need somebody that actually rides the bus that has an
interest .
Farmakes: There are 800 people waiting there .
IMM
Ahrens: I don 't think it 's worth spending 45 minutes . . .
Erhart : Yeah , what do you want to do? In or out?
Olsen: You can just take out . . .
Batzli : No , leave it in there . Tell the Council if they want it , they can
do it .
- Ahrens: I agree .
Erhart : Okay , someone make a motion .
Conrad: Okay , I would move , what are we moving?
Erhart : We 're moving to recommend the adoption of the ordinance right?
Conrad: Yeah , the ordinance . Are we just park and ride lots or are we
talking about bus shelters and bus benches too? Okay , I would recommend
- approval of the amendment to Section 20-266 , Section 20-294 as staff report
states and Section 20-294 as the staff report states with the addition of
point number 9 which includes site plan review and , huh . Just with point
number 9 which is site plan review and a recommendation to the City Council
that they review the option of requiring community bulletin board that
could be included in the park and ride lot .
Erhart: Okay , is there a second?
Conrad : That 's not part of it . That 's just a recommendation to the City
Council to review that subject . I didn 't put it in as one of our
recommendations .
Batzli : Second .
Erhart: You stated there was a section 9 . Where?
- Conrad: I added item number 9 . Under Section 20-294 .
Ahrens: He 's not in the ordinance .
Olsen: He 's on the part that I added .
Ahrens: Page 2 .
Batzli : Right . Well we have two sections 20-294 . I didn 't understand
that but I assume that 's going to be straighten out . So if I would love to
kind of friendly amend this that the staff figure out where to put the
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 62
requirement that there 's a site plan review .
Erhart : Okay , any other discussion or amendments?
Conrad moved , Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the proposed conditions to be added to Article IV , Conditional
Uses , Standards for Agricultural and Residential Districts , Division 3 and
Standards for Business , Office , Institutional and Industrial Districts ,
Division 4 of the City Code including an item 9 under Section 20-294 which
will be site plan review . All voted in favor and the motion carried .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated -
November 6 , 1991 were so noted .
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: -
Erhart : Questions on the City Council update?
Batzli : Have we heard anything on the Moon Valley stuff?
Krauss : No . That was a grueling couple of days .
Batzli : Was it just last week?
Krauss : Yeah . Judge Kanning , well he gave them 10 days to present summary _
arguments and then I suppose it 's going to take another while to go and
review it . On the three points though , for whatever it 's worth , on the
point as to establishing that they are not grandfathered in on the northern
piece , Judge Kanning seemed to indicate that he felt pretty strongly that -
they don 't have any rights to that piece at all . Roger thinks , Roger and
Tom Scott think we 're in very strong legal ground on the question of
whether , I mean the Judge has already decided we have a right to regulate
them . The question of whether or not we have a right to restrict them from
mining all the material , Roger feels we have a very strong case . As for my
rejection of their application , my guess is they 're going to order us to
take it and they may order them to provide information . It clearly came
across in the meeting that they have information that they 've intentionally
withheld . So hopefully they 'll be ordered to provide that stuff . We ' ll
see probably in a couple of weeks .
REVIEW LOWELL CARLSON SITE PLAN.
Erhart : Okay , did you have something you wanted to talk about the Lowell
Carlson site plan?
Olsen : We just wanted to get your . . .would you accept . . .
Erhart : This is in a residential area?
Olsen: It 's zoned residential with there 's residences on either side of
Lowell . . .
Erhart : Okay , what are our alternatives to accepting that? We 're
requiring that the guy put all this in a building and we can 't , there 's no
- Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 63
way we can .
Olsen: Inside . . . He 's got a lot of stuff he can removed from the site .
Erhart: Right . But we can 't legally do that? We can either make him
enclose it and screen it or make him put it in a building .
Olsen : . . .remove stuff that shouldn 't be there . . .
Erhart: Why wouldn 't we do that?
Olsen: . . .but what he 's proposed to us is a 12 ,000 square foot . . .
Erhart: That seems to me to permanentize the problem doesn 't it?
Ahrens : What will the neighbors think of a 12 ,000 square foot building?
Olsen: . . .
Ahrens: That 's a big building .
Erhart : Isn 't this the same building he 's been proposing for years and
then never does it anyway?
Batzli : Well yeah but he was just going to put up some tin shed or a
couple of them . He wasn 't going to put up a big one .
Krauss: He had bought the old Tonka Toy Company building .
Olsen: I think he 's still . . .
Batzli : Tonka Toy building?
Krauss: Yeah , he had the Tonka Toy building and he took it apart . Now he
doesn 't know how to put it back together again . It sat on the grass for 2
years .
Imm
Erhart: But everytime we go out there he shows it to us and says here , I
can put this up . It seems to me this process is going to go on forever .
It seems to me if we could get the guy to put some heavy landscaping around
the thing and then keep the process going while he does that , we 'd get more
accomplished .
Conrad: Has anything ever happened with Lowell?
Olsen: Well he has cleaned up the site .
Conrad: So the three things that were to be done by September 22nd , have
they been done? Clean up all items listed by September 22nd . All
vehicles , equipment on site must be licensed , operable?
Olsen: I don 't know .
Conrad: I 'll guarantee .
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 64 —
Olsen: He 's got to do it or . . . —
Erhart: Okay , if we win the case outright , what happens?
Olsen: Well this is part of the settlement . The case has actually been
won .
Erhart: Okay , but what 's the best that can happen for the City? —
Olsen: To get it screened . . .
Erhart: Okay and your term screening applies to . . .
Olsen: The building and screening .
Erhart: The building and screening .
Farmakes: Is this how much building he would need to house what he 's got —
there now?
Krauss: I doubt it . I mean that 's a building that 's as large as that
office building that you approved in the industrial park .
Farmakes: I was going to say . . .little oversized .
Conrad: That 's the size of the building he took down so that 's what he
wants to put up .
Batzli : 12 ,000? —
Krauss: He never had it erected on his property .
Farmakes: So that isn 't grandfathered?
Olsen: No . —
Krauss: No , not at all . His use at some level is grandfathered .
Olsen: I just didn 't want us to say no way . That 's why I wanted to put it —
past you .
Conrad: 12 ,000 is absolutely not even , I couldn 't even consider it . And —
to tell you the truth , you were recommending 5 ,000 . I don 't know that we 'd
do that for anybody else . That 's still a decent sized building . That 's a
big building and we 're putting it in a residential neighborhood . I don 't —
know . I guess we should help . We 've tried to help Lowell Carlson for 5
years or 10 , whatever the number is and nothing happens and obviously he 's
lost the case but geez , I just can 't be real sensitive to putting up ,
letting him put up something that 's kind of going to be an eyesore in the —
neighborhood . I don 't know .
Erhart: What we 're pushing for is what screening? Perimeter screening .
Ahrens: Probably his entire property .
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4 , 1991 - Page 65
Erhart: And how big is the lot?
Conrad: Couldn 't he berm that? He 's in the business . He 's got the
equipment to do the berming .
Batzli : He could pile all his junk up there and cover it up .
Conrad: So if we bermed his equipment so that the neighbors , would that be
too big a berm?
Olsen: Yeah , I mean . . .
Conrad: And we can 't build 10 feet berms? That 's a lot of earth isn 't it?
Olsen: Yeah . And that would be pretty ugly .
Erhart : Even Rick Murray couldn 't do that .
Conrad: Yeah , the trees will die .
Olsen: Okay , well we 'll . . .
Erhart: Do you have an answer from us? Okay , is there anything else?
Batzli moved, Farmakes seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor
and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. .
Submitted by Paul Krauss
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CITY OF
041
'64CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
a
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director e le. I1t.,
DATE: January 15, 1992
SUBJ: Report from the Director
--- Due to the holidays and abbreviated meeting schedule, there have
been no City Council meetings held since the last update report.
One of the discussion items that is scheduled for tonight is the
establishment of goals for 1992 . You will find the on-going
project list update attached to this memo for your review.
-- The past 18-24 months have seen a significant decrease in the rate
of new development--not only in Chanhassen, but virtually
everywhere in the metro area, and indeed across the country. I
__ believe that we have put this time to extremely fruitful use.
During this period, we have developed and gained approval of the
new Comprehensive Plan. Significant portions of the Zoning
Ordinance have been rewritten to require higher quality and more
sensitively designed development. We have established a surface
water utility district and are currently involved in an 18-24 month
process to completely revamp the way the city manages its water
- resources. We are already seeing early benefits of this study in
improved water quality standards that are being attached as
requirements to recent developments. We have gained improved
understanding, coordination and cooperation of traffic flow and
projections in our community and surrounding areas through the
Eastern Carver County Transportation Study. Again, this is
evidence of another plan that is already paying dividends since we
are incorporating its standards as conditions of approval to
ongoing development proposals. Preliminary work has been
undertaken on the Highway 5 Corridor Study. At the following
- meeting, the Planning Commission will be given an overview of the
work done to date by the University of Minnesota, and hopefully
embark upon the redirection and completion of this work. Again,
= this work is paying immediate dividends since many of those
involved have found some of the concepts to be thought provoking.
Staff will be working to incorporate these and other concepts as
R
t0 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Planning Commission
January 15, 1992
Page 2
they are developed as opportunities permit. Another project that
is not yet completed, but we hope to have wrapped up in 1992 , will
result in improved tree preservation for the city.
As you can see, we have been quite busy, and I think we have reason
to be proud of these accomplishments. For a long time I have been
telling you that the 1990s are likely to be a very significant
decade for this community. The ongoing recession has delayed the
onset of this era for the city. However, there are significant
signs that this is about to end. A very significant portion of the
area that was recently incorporated into the MUSA Line is being
considered for a variety of projects. Most of these proposals have
not yet reached the stage where we can bring them to the Planning
Commission, and indeed some of them are not concrete proposals at
all and only involve preliminary discussions. I have attached a
map which tries to give you some image of the sizable area where
the community is likely to see development in the coming year or
two.
At the time of writing, two issues remain unresolved, but their
resolution appears to be imminent. The Market Square shopping
center appears to be on the verge of closing on their financing and
ground could well be broken by the end of this month. I wouldn't
bet the house on this since we have been frequently disappointed in
the past, but it truly does seem to be on the verge of actually
occurring. The second matter concerns the Moon Valley litigation.
We are still awaiting Judge Kanning' s rulings on the matters before
him and may well have further information to relate to you at the
Planning Commission meeting.
REVISED DECEMBER 1, 1991
ONGOING ISSUES STATUS
Comprehensive Plan Issues
1. * 1995 Study Area (North) Several meetings held with task
and Hwy. 5 Corridor Study force. U of M Program to wrap
up by January 1. Working to
structure more in depth
corridor study to begin in
January.
2 . * 1995 Study Area (South) Assigned to Planning Commission
staff. Work to be initiated as
time commitments allow.
OTHER ITEMS
1. Rezoning BF Dist. to A2 Staff preparing updated
information for Planning
Commission direction.
2 . Sign Ordinance Work group established. First
meeting in November.
3 . * Tree Protection Ordinance MnDNR completed mapping program
Mapping of significant and will work with city to
vegetative areas develop. New ordinance to be
developed in 1992 .
4 . Rezoning 2; Acre Lots to Adopted 10/14/91
RR
5. Wetland Ordinance/Surface Task force established. First
Water Management Program meeting held October 7 . Video
surveys of lake bottoms
underway. Application
submitted to MnPCA for Clean
Water Action Grant for Lotus
Lake.
6. Shoreland Ordinance In January we received
notification from the MnDNR
that we are a priority
community with a 2 year
deadline
7 . Group home ordinance 1991/inactive
8 . Rural Area Policies Approval granted by Metro
Council. Ordinance revisions
required.
9 . PUD Ordinance Residential PUD standards to PC
on 10/3 . Future meetings
required.
10. PC input in Downtown 1991/ongoing
Planning and Traffic Study
11. Review of Architectural 1992
Standards to Promote High
Quality Design
12 . * Bluff Creek Corridor With adoption of Bluff Line
Greenway Preservation ordinance, CC
referred item to Park and
Recreation Commission. Staff
working with Riley Purgatory
Bluff Creek Watershed District
to develop joint Bluff Creek
corridor program.
13 . * Modifications to beachlot First meeting held for
ordinance - Re: Non- informational purposes .
conforming beachlots Scheduled for 12/4/91 agenda.
14 . Ordinance amendment to PC reviewed 11/6/91.
Non-conforming use section
to clarify ordinance.
15. * Temporary uses, sales - Guidelines memo reviewed by PC
new ordinance. and scheduled for CC. Ordinance
revisions to follow.
* Change in status since last
report
If
'4. wl �` " �••_ 111. � � +�� )iiIl&1_ r_!
1/� im. ��• ��
•
.. ,„:._7," F__,..,.. ,...sta. vN -.,,,,....-au, arr. ,.. •,‘, ,,,,1:-.7-q, ' i •MIMIlein ,i' lio?-,7\_las_ 4 Ire
k ....- ' AV ::=.7•'..- ' 4 .tr:111111___ 4-:,- wir lu. , ..- -----, 4.--.. t 1
1 it
' .7=tat 1.
- -.tact:.
7 we-, Z ii ,,.. ,41.-747... -W V:pi ililli(1.4/
�[y k ,•s.•s ‘ .4
a. / ` ` �_ll. - 'HP! * 1
11
[,Na %s r �� ; 5• i..:. �� to ' s l�`cR�, f h -^�`. r 1 _____mo6�rs ':7. - _. I '1.;L' 11,71 J 4 � \_-- r
_ awzdi• -":":10,114 ,14.
:t. rc c[i :`c iiosi ; �1� I
���11!•!M 11.(<J� A _ i
�' �j''-`.� c• I N �.. air / W .rip' 1i•,i�� ! 1.1;:?..-' "Ill's''#‘11%: ft 7 _L`'1 itis?. o `�� ,a_L, _ �,A.'tom `N eet.. :�i,��k� _ t s. : „,,, i=,y�Z " v
;,:
-.1
Ill
rad ,;_____„.:,...4 1. -. +° ��Irr..,IN� IV/IIN111t •RbI.� :-L
Oy11.'' 7.5.11M411114 �1 am..
�N.,.:
f �.a \\
ittiVIIIK. : - --— ---- 01::_fir '',-- I , IP.‘ . .:: .70,,,,,,....",..:„,...4,. .-----,
2,4amr, , -;-- _ _. dr ------Amirm ... If* ' z.:0-.-•.,--0,..... ....j11 Ovii . -----r-- N 1
b. ' i , 4 Riii $150- i "4 ...0027-`4 '•-•'
3 %MIT...110li—lI t_14,P,,�� .*moi: ptr ! •`✓‘
AM
4. -i. , .
, ...,
Nribi_a-in ------.*-44 -im _
__. r
iii ir",„-
...._ _a_
N.
.40 _____
, R.
11110.4..'..-:' rktil....
4... .
i,./i -
cp
. 37,11— ei ,..1 illt___ ii. �ior _
, _____,„
. w ,
-im..s ,z---4,--51!-Al IIIII
kvii_IPLAts tig - . ,4,. .--------;,-;',1 ..-m ill
t reitbilli I i 1
;---\:*t'.\\,
,
:11 .'•�M I I MN I I ,
Jill , g Pr
. i.
, . ....:
._,
•r� ` .1/411/4,,,, .
• ,
. .
i004.
• s
C4 1 t ,
NIB
b.
i I i,
y wi
It , I 1 % r ---001c
. 4 c----- or
j .,-,,
/// § a.
/3
i §
oiediA. //' _____...„
onitifts
>.•
,.... b,
...,
�7.47 ,•,
...„,..:).),� ''�� �-. — a �', ..... ,
, ' Dose
4
.... .
v
—,..L.,.2.- :-.sri.i• =blew '
1 �.,•i1M'm• l
41i Y1 11
'L� i ,,,0IJIA JO All 1 I
11 - 1111111 i
i i iii i i
CITY 4 F
v CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
= FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director ()K (1'-'
DATE: January 15, 1992
- SUBJ: Report from the Director
Due to the holidays and abbreviated meeting schedule, there have
been no City Council meetings held since the last update report.
One of the discussion items that is scheduled for tonight is the
a establishment of goals for 1992 . You will find the on-going
project list update attached to this memo for your review.
The past 18-24 months have seen a significant decrease in the rate
of new development--not only in Chanhassen, but virtually
everywhere in the metro area, and indeed across the country. I
believe that we have put this time to extremely fruitful use.
During this period, we have developed and gained approval of the
new Comprehensive Plan. Significant portions of the Zoning
Ordinance have been rewritten to require higher quality and more
- sensitively designed development. We have established a surface
water utility district and are currently involved in an 18-24 month
process to completely revamp the way the city manages its water
resources. We are already seeing early benefits of this study in
improved water quality standards that are being attached as
requirements to recent developments. We have gained improved
understanding, coordination and cooperation of traffic flow and
projections in our community and surrounding areas through the
Eastern Carver County Transportation Study. Again, this is
evidence of another plan that is already paying dividends since we
- are incorporating its standards as conditions of approval to
ongoing development proposals. Preliminary work has been
undertaken on the Highway 5 Corridor Study. At the following
meeting, the Planning Commission will be given an overview of the
work done to date by the University of Minnesota, and hopefully
embark upon the redirection and completion of this work. Again,
this work is paying immediate dividends since many of those
involved have found some of the concepts to be thought provoking.
Staff will be working to incorporate these and other concepts as
Is
tr, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Planning Commission '
January 15, 1992
Page 2
they are developed as opportunities permit. Another project that
is not yet completed, but we hope to have wrapped up in 1992 , will
result in improved tree preservation for the city.
As you can see, we have been quite busy, and I think we have reason
to be proud of these accomplishments. For a long time I have been
telling you that the 1990s are likely to be a very significant
decade for this community. The ongoing recession has delayed the
onset of this era for the city. However, there are significant
signs that this is about to end. A very significant portion of the
area that was recently incorporated into the MUSA Line is being
considered for a variety of projects. Most of these proposals have
not yet reached the stage where we can bring them to the Planning
Commission, and indeed some of them are not concrete proposals at
all and only involve preliminary discussions. I have attached a
map which tries to give you some image of the sizable area where
the community is likely to see development in the coming year or
two.
At the time of writing, two issues remain unresolved, but their
resolution appears to be imminent. The Market Square shopping
center appears to be on the verge of closing on their financing and
ground could well be broken by the end of this month. I wouldn't
bet the house on this since we have been frequently disappointed in
the past, but it truly does seem to be on the verge of actually
occurring. The second matter concerns the Moon Valley litigation.
We are still awaiting Judge Kanning's rulings on the matters before
him and may well have further information to relate to you at the
Planning Commission meeting.
REVISED DECEMBER 1, 1991
ONGOING ISSUES STATUS
Comprehensive Plan Issues
1. * 1995 Study Area (North) Several meetings held with task
and Hwy. 5 Corridor Study force. U of M Program to wrap
up by January 1. Working to
structure more in depth
corridor study to begin in
January.
2 . * 1995 Study Area (South) Assigned to Planning Commission
staff. Work to be initiated as
time commitments allow.
OTHER ITEMS
1. Rezoning BF Dist. to A2 Staff preparing updated
information for Planning
Commission direction.
2 . Sign Ordinance Work group established. First
meeting in November.
3 . * Tree Protection Ordinance MnDNR completed mapping program
Mapping of significant and will work with city to
vegetative areas develop. New ordinance to be
developed in 1992 .
4 . Rezoning 21/2 Acre Lots to Adopted 10/14/91
RR
5. Wetland Ordinance/Surface Task force established. First
Water Management Program meeting held October 7 . Video
surveys of lake bottoms
underway. Application
submitted to MnPCA for Clean
Water Action Grant for Lotus
Lake.
6. Shoreland Ordinance In January we received
notification from the MnDNR
that we are a priority
- community with a 2 year
deadline
7. Group home ordinance 1991/inactive
8 . Rural Area Policies Approval granted by Metro
Council . Ordinance revisions
required.
9 . PUD Ordinance Residential PUD standards to PC
on 10/3 . Future meetings
required.
10. PC input in Downtown 1991/ongoing
Planning and Traffic Study
11. Review of Architectural 1992
Standards to Promote High
Quality Design
12 . * Bluff Creek Corridor With adoption of Bluff Line
Greenway Preservation ordinance, CC
referred item to Park and
Recreation Commission. Staff
working with Riley Purgatory
Bluff Creek Watershed District
to develop joint Bluff Creek
corridor program.
13 . * Modifications to beachlot First meeting held for
ordinance - Re: Non- informational purposes .
conforming beachlots Scheduled for 12/4/91 agenda.
14 . Ordinance amendment to PC reviewed 11/6/91.
Non-conforming use section
to clarify ordinance.
15. * Temporary uses, sales - Guidelines memo reviewed by PC
new ordinance. and scheduled for CC. Ordinance
revisions to follow. -
* Change in status since last
report
IIII
FtA %!t
< ' le.,,-- 1. ' .,-...,.. vil*, i i ._..,i..,:tik , ‘,....V1,-.1:::.:i. -:, •
a., •
r,
lam . i \--w, t r--#— ' II
_. �JrI.
J1 /�_
F•tp `_.r/� w ,�i.�1��'� .� >,�'� �,,fr - y` I. f 0 L I,
�� /...M Cl1c! �I:J�;`1... : If kp is � eta gar
v7 +��Ur...�11r.Fj�� . _, _ Witilk/1 '
)fir a��_may.• 4, %gap 818i�:,F R E. Et...
-It;t r4y I 1
C.c� .-SII 1�<<• e : . -- • ,- w 11 .; - _ , ��� ..:".�3�� I
C•r•L�rl ,,s, ,0r1 l'- - „w D ineggli.1111\:•:- - . 11 �f� 'i���iriS•1, :
' ._:ifd ~�' l•.0.„,,, t'`,i�i ® 11 ri.. V i �;i 1,4 owl I
.IW I limo 4� X1i�r..:.r%i•y 7 `��`' /ii:/1/.01•; ���,IIIt1••. ��, L1
ii,i?..,:, ., . _...-.:---:-.-_',•''____%x-±7.---'7:,,,-,-4-_.'.-,,-1)ir t1.
= Aid ' �.N ��.,q ` � `/ !
'ice, �:.D�._
.A
1-Ziklitiwo S.%'4 inem._-11.11..1 1
• 'UMW.
Ili:4 lir •• -, ,,, ,. .. �16 — --
z . ii
iser III
,.411,-.T.,___\ Y, ���� p 'f }
t Sill
i . 40,101.41
7._ . 1 is
op i . cp
.Y.
11 \�� ! Ii Inilf
C) , li. = .1\, .. : O
1 1 el . ,
"'_. �., h _ c_ I .\ g
s
§ I
T.
�� 1111 � -
�. 1
111 ....., i __::
; ,
Z i '
« t.' .,—,
�• I 1
M
--«tet
I ill•••••-•,_ ... /4 c-_:::: 447 1 j 1..) ‘,..-..1, /
I
ofekk
Ma AI
X14. �'
it:
i. t i ------'''" § a.
I ar4T•l Q ~
•
004/
!_ I v •
/
WII+V..We. - ' xo.
�- -• 1 1 is
` /. *-40-
;11 `FyI\
-\ 1 I v,3S.M1,.1(./ JO AI.i3
\ .IMOlj iA !O It, 11Z
I .
TI I I j -�
8 fi I I I I ���i i
� 1, s F ^ I
LO
CITYOF
1p CHAIIHASSEN= t 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Kate Aanenson, Planner II Vet.
DATE: January 10, 1992
SUBJ: Issue Paper/Sign Ordinance
BACKGROUND
As previously discussed with the Planning Commission and the City
Council , staff will be rewriting the Sign Ordinance. The intent of
the sign ordinance is to establish standards which permit business
a reasonable and equitable opportunity to advertise; while the city
wants to preserve and promote civic beauty and limit the visual
clutter. This report is intended to give an overview of some major
areas where the ordinance could be modified.
GOALS
After review and input from the Planning Commission, a committee,
which has been established, will begin the review and rewrite
process. This Committee includes Councilman Tom Workman, Planning
Commissioner Jeff Farmakes, Kevin McShane of the Chanhassen Bank,
and Gene Borg of McDonalds. After the sign committee has spent
time rewriting the ordinance, their proposed changes will be
reviewed by the Chamber of Commerce and then presented to the
Planning Commission and City Council for their recommendations and
implementation.
One of the goals of the new ordinance should be that the ordinance
should be easy to interpret and enforce. And finally, the new
ordinance should be in a format where industry uses could have all
the standards in one place. This would require a document where
the definitions and standards as well as district requirements are
in one document.
ISSUES
The following constitutes our review of the existing ordinance and
brief discussion of the issues as we see them. We would ask the
t./ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Planning Commission
January 10, 1992
Page 2
Planning Commission to review the materials and provide any
additional guidance you feel is warranted. We would then pass the
information along to the Sign Ordinance Task Force so that they may
begin developing the ordinance.
ARTICLE XXVI.SIGNS
DIVISION 1. GENERALLY
Sec. 20-1251. Purpose.
The purpose of this article is:
(1) To establish standards which permit businesses a
reasonable and equitable opportunity to advertise.
(2) To preserve and promote civic beauty, and prohibit signs
which detract from this objective because of size, shape,
height, location, condition, cluttering or illumination.
(3) To ensure that signs do not create safety hazards. To
ensure signs which are designed, constructed, installed
and maintained in a manner that does not adversely impact
public safety or unduly distract motorists.
(4) To preserve and protect property values.
COMMENT: This area needs to be expanded to include the desire to
have signs architecturally compatible with buildings. In addition
the purpose should include a statement that permanent signs should
be given preference to the on-premise owner or occupant, and that
temporary commercial and advertising displays be given limited
approval for grand openings and occasional sales events.
Sec. 20-1252. Permit and variance fees.
Fees for reviewing and processing sign permit applications and
variance requests shall be imposed in accordance with the fee
schedule established by City Council resolution.
Sec.20-1253 . Variances.
The City Council, upon the recommendation of the Planning
Commission, may grant a variance from the requirements of this
article where it is shown that by reason of topography or other
conditions, strict compliance with the requirements of this article
would cause a hardship; provided that a variance may be granted
only if the variance does not adversely affect the spirit or intent
of this article. Written application for a variance shall be filed
with the Planning Department and shall be supplemented with
reproducible copies of the proposed sign. The application shall be
processed in conformance with the public hearing requirements
dictated for variances in Section 20-28. No variance shall be
granted by the City Council unless it has received the affirmative
vote of at least four-fifths of the full City Council.
Sec. 20-1254 . Permit generally.
(a) Except as provided in Section 20-1255, no sign or sign
structure shall be erected, constructed, altered, rebuilt
or relocated until a permit has first been issued by the
city.
(b) The following information for a sign permit shall be
supplied by an applicant if requested by the city:
(1) Name, address and telephone number of person making
application.
(2) A site plan to scale showing the location of lot
lines, building structures, parking areas, existing
and proposed signs and any other physictl features.
(3) Plans, location, specifications, method of
construction and attachment to the buildings or
placement method in the ground.
(4) Copy of stress sheets and calculations.
(5) Written consent of the owner or lessee of any site
on which the sign is to be erected.
(6) Any electrical permit required and issued for the
sign.
(7) Such other information as the city shall require to
show full compliance with this chapter and all
other laws and ordinances of the city.
(8) The City Planner, upon the filling of any
application for a permit, shall examine such plans,
specifications and other data. If the proposed
sign complies with this article and other
applicable ordinances, the inspectors shall issue a
sign permit unless City Council approval is
required. If City Council approval is required,
the matter shall be promptly referred to the
council for action.
COMMENT: This area needs to be expanded to state that before a
sign permit is issued, a fee must be paid. Currently the building
department is not reviewing stress calculations, the methods of
construction, or inspecting the installation of signs. Staff is
recommending that the permit process and the administrative
procedure be changed so that all signs are reviewed and inspected
by the city. Periodic inspection may also be warranted. This
2
administrative procedure would also require changing the sign
permit application.
Bec. 20-1255. Signs allowed without permit.
The following signs are allowed without a permit:
(1) Campaign signs, not exceeding twenty-four (24) square
feet in area. The sign must contain the name of the
person responsible for such sign, and that person shall
be responsible for its removal. Such signs shall
remain for no longer than seventy-five (75) days in any
calendar year. The city shall have the right to remove
and destroy signs not conforming to this paragraph.
COMMENT: The requirement for campaign signs needs to be modified
to include the language from the new, 1990 state law. This law
states that all non-commercial signs of any size may be posted from
August 1 in a state general election year until ten days following
the state general election. There are also some new Supreme Court
findings pertaining to signs that need to be addressed. Basically,
you cannot regulate a sign based upon text without running afoul of
First Amendment rights. Therefore, ordinances that establish
special conditions on campaign signs or those that ban billboards
by declaring "off-premise advertising signs" illegal, are likely to
be overturned.
(2) Directional signs.
a. On-premises signs shall not be larger than four (4)
square feet. The maximum height of the sign
shall not exceed five (5) feet from the ground.
The placement of directional signs on the property
= shall be so located such that the sign does not
adversely affect adjacent properties or the general
appearance of the site from public rights-of-way.
The number of signs shall not exceed four (4)
unless approved by the City Council.
b. Off-premises signs shall be allowed only in
situations where access is confusing and traffic
safety could be jeopardized or traffic could be
inappropriately routed through residential streets.
The size of the sign shall be approved by the City
Council.
c. On-premises signs for industrially zoned land in
excess of forty (40) acres shall not exceed twelve
(12) square feet. The maximum height of the sign
shall not exceed five (5) feet from the ground.
The placement of directional signs on the property
3
shall be so located such that the sign does not
adversely affect adjacent properties or the general
appearance of the site from public right-of-way.
The number of signs shall not exceed four (4)
unless approved by the City Council.
(3) Signs or displays which contain or depict a message
pertaining to a religious, national, state or local
holiday and no other matter, and which are displayed for
a period not to exceed seventy-five (75) days in any
calendar year.
COMMENT: This section should be amended to include community signs
with the intent that they be used for religious, national, state or
local holidays or festivals. This would include banners, flags
etc. There needs to be some criteria including the need to define
the size and location of these types of signs.
(4) Informational signs not exceeding sixteen (16) square
feet.
(5) Integral signs.
(6) Motor fuel price signs are permitted on the premises of
any automobile service station only if such signs are
affixed to the fuel pumps or are made an integral part of
a ground low profile or pylon business sign otherwise
permitted in that zoning district. Motor fuel price
signs affixed to a fuel pump shall not exceed four (4)
square feet in sign display area. When such signs are
made an integral part of a freestanding business sign,
the sign display area devoted to the price component
shall not exceed thirty (30) percent of the total sign
display area of the sign.
(7) Nameplate signs not exceeding two (2) square feet.
COMMENT: There is no definition for integral sign, although a
nameplate is a type of integral sign; therefore Nos. 5 and 7 should
be combined. The definition of integral/nameplate needs to be
amended to state that the two square feet is the total per building
and does not include multi-tenant names.
(8) Non-illuminated construction signs confined to the site
of the construction, alteration or repair. Such a sign
must be removed within one (1) year from the date of
issuance of the first building permit on the site, and
may be extended on an annual basis. One (1) sign shall
be permitted for each street the proJect abuts.
Commercial and industrial signs may not exceed fifty (50)
square feet in sign area, and residential construction
4
signs may not exceed twenty-four (24) square feet in sign
area.
(9) O.S.H.A. signs.
(10) Signs of a public, non-commercial nature erected by a
governmental entity or agency, including safety signs,
directional signs to public facilities, trespassing
signs, traffic signs, signs indicating scenic or
historical points of interest, memorial plaques and the
like.
COMMENT: An O.S .H.A. sign (No. 9) is a type of governmental agency
sign and should be combined with number (10) .
(11) Rummage (garage) sale signs. Rummage sale signs shall be
removed within two (2) days after the end of the sale and
shall not exceed five (5) square feet. Rummage sale
signs shall not be located in any public rights-of-way.
The city shall have the right to remove and destroy signs
not conforming to this paragraph. The city may access a
fee in the amount established by resolution for each sign
removed by the city.
(12) Temporary development project advertising signs erected
for the purpose of selling or promoting any non-
residential project, or any residential project of ten
(10) or more dwelling units, shall be permitted subject
to the following regulations:
a. Not more than two (2) such signs shall be allowed
per project.
b. Such signs shall only be located along streets that
provide primary access to the project site.
c. Such sign shall be set back not less than twenty-
five (25) feet from any property line, and shall
be firmly anchored to the ground.
d. No such sign shall be located closer than two
hundred (200) feet from an existing residential
dwelling unit, church, or school which is not a
part of the project being so advertised.
e. Such signs shall not be located closer than two
hundred (200) feet from any other such sign
located on the same side of the street.
f. Sign display area shall not exceed sixty-four (64)
square feet, and the height of such signs shall not
exceed fifteen (15) feet.
5
g. Such signs shall be removed when the project being
advertised is eighty (80) percent completed. For
the purpose of this paragraph, the percentage of
project completion shall be determined by dividing
the number of dwelling units sold in the
residential project by the total number of units
allowed in the approved development plan; and by
dividing the number of buildings constructed in
non-residential projects by the total number of
building sites in the approved development plan.
COMMENT: Temporary signs for development projects should be
limited to those projects located in the City of Chanhassen. In
addition, a requirement should be made that the signs be non
illuminated .
(13) Temporary real estate signs which advertise the sale,
rental or lease of real estate subject to the following
conditions:
a. On-premises real estate signs advertising the sale,
rental or lease of the premises upon which the sign
is located.
1. One (1) non-illuminated sign is permitted per
street frontage.
2 . Sign display area shall not exceed twelve (12)
square feet per sign on property containing
less than ten (10) acres in area,and thirty-
two (32) square feet per sign on property
containing ten (10) or more acres.
3 . No such sign shall exceed ten (10) feet in
overall height, nor be located less than ten
(10) feet from any property line.
4 . All temporary real estate signs shall be
removed within seven (7) days following sale,
lease, or rental of the property.
b. Off-premises real estate signs advertising the
sale, rental or lease of business and industrial
buildings:
1. One (1) non-illuminated sign is permitted per
building.
2 . Such signs shall only be permitted in business
and industrial districts and on property
located with the same subdivision or
6
development as the building being diatiad
• 3 . Such signs shall not be_ located closer than
two hundred (200) feet from any other such
sign located on the same side of the street.
4 . Sign display area shall not exceed thirty-two
(32) square feet, and the height of such signs
shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet.
5. Such signs shall be removed within seven (7)
days following the lease or sale of eighty
percent (80%) of the building floor space
which it is advertising, or within twelve (12)
months from the date a permit is issued,
whichever comes first.
c. Off-premises directional signs which show direction
to new residential developments in accordance with
the following. The intent of this subparagraph is
to allow short term signage, for residential
development, to familiarize the public with the new
development.
1. Such sign shall only be permitted along major
arterials and collectors as identified in the
comprehensive plan.
2 . Only one (1) sign per intersection and one (1)
sign per development shall be permitted.
3 . Sign display area shall not exceed twenty-four
(24) square feet and the height of such
signs shall not exceed ten (10) feet.
4 . Such sign shall not be located closer than
twenty-five (25) feet from any street right-
of-way line, and shall be firmly anchored to
the ground.
5. Such sign shall only be constructed out of
wood materials and be non-illuminated.
6. Such sign shall be removed six (6) months
after the sign has been erected and developer
may not apply for a second off-premises
directional sign permit.
7. Sign copy shall include the name of the
subdivision and a direction arrow only.
7
Sec. 20-1256. Permit for searchlights, banners, etc.
The use of searchlights, banners, pennants and similar devices
which extend over public rights-of-way, shall require a permit.
The permit shall be valid for no more than ten (10) consecutive
days. No more than three (3) permits per business shall be granted
during any calendar year.
COMMENT: Traffic safety may be an issue if banners/pennants are
allowed to extend over the public right-of-way. It may be
appropriate to state that the Engineering Department shall approve
any sign over the public rights-of-way.
Sec. 20-1257. Display of permit.
Signs requiring permits shall display the permit sticker or
sticker number in a conspicuous manner.
COMMENT: Currently the City is not using the permit stickers. The
purpose of the sticker is to be able to readily determine whether
or not a permit has been issued upon quick inspection of the sign.
Staff feels that an accurate inventory of signs can be made, as
well as reviewing for normal maintenance, without the use of
stickers.
Sec. 20-1258. Inspection.
All signs for which a permit is required shall be subject to
inspection by the city building official. At minimum, an annual
inspection shall be made. The building official may order the
removal of any sign that is not maintained in accordance with the
maintenance provisions of this article.
COMMENT: Currently the City is not doing this. It is a good idea
to have all signs in the city inspected annually. Not only will
this aid in finding illegal signs, but it will also help in
identifying those signs in need of maintenance or signs in
disrepair.
Sec. 20-1259 . Prohibited signs.
The following signs are prohibited:
(1) Advertising signs.
(2) Advertising or business signs on or attached to
equipment, such as semi-truck trailers, where signing is
a principal use of the equipment on either a temporary or
permanent basis.
8
(3) Motion signs and flashing signs, except time and
temperature signs and barber poles.
(4) Projecting signs.
COMMENT: Projecting or suspended signs should remain illegal,
except an awning or canopy sign may be permitted. The definition
of a Awning or Canopy sign is a sign constructed of flexible
translucent or fabric-type material which incorporates a written
message or logo on the exterior.
(5) Roof signs, except that a business sign may be placed on
the roof, facia or marquee of a building provided it does
not extend above the highest elevation of the building,
excluding chimneys, and provided:
a. Roof signs shall be thoroughly secured and anchored
to the frames of the building over which they are
constructed and erected.
b. No portion of roof signs shall extend beyond the
periphery of the roof.
(6) Business signs which advertise an activity, business,
product or service no longer produced or conducted on the
premises upon which the sign is located. Where the owner
or lessor of the premises is seeking a new tenant, such
signs may remain in place for not more than thirty (30)
days from the date of vacancy.
(7) Wall graphics.
COMMENT: The definition of wall graphics needs to be expanded to
include items which by their nature act as a sign without using any
words. These graphics include such items as corporate logos or
company symbols. These would be excluded unless they were included
as part of an approved sign, as noted in Section 20-1268 Non-
commercial Speech.
(8) Portable signs except as permitted in Section 20-1272.
COMMENT: No office-premise temporary sign should be allowed except
those specifically noted and regulated for real estate purposes or
otherwise noted in the ordinance. Temporary signs should be
limited to on-premise establishments for the purpose of special
events or grand openings.
(9) Signs which are tacked on trees, fences or utility poles.
(10) Home occupation signs, except for one (1) identification
sign. The sign may not exceed two (2) square feet in
area.
9
COMMENT: Home Occupations, whether a permitted or conditional
use, should receive a sign permit. Home occupation signs need to
be moved to Division 2 of the Sign Ordinance, Signs Allowed in
Specific Districts by Permit.
Sec. 20-1260. Nonconforming uses.
When the principal use of land is legally non-conforming under
this chapter, all existing or proposed signs in conjunction with
that land, shall be considered conforming if they are in compliance
with the sign provisions for the most restrictive zoning district
in which the principal use is allowed.
COMMENT: We may also wish to establish a category for non-
conforming signs which are located on property having a conforming
use. If a non-conforming pylon sign is destroyed, should it be
allowed to be rebuilt or must it now comply with current standards?
Sec. 20-1261. Bonus sign area.
(a) To encourage design excellence, the maximum sign areas
for certain businesses, industrial, and directory signs
may be increased up to a maximum of ten (10) percent
based on the original sign area limitation.
(b) Ground profile, free standing and wall signs may be
increased as follows:
(1) When the sign is constructed of solid wood and uses
only earth tone colors.
(2) When the sign (except for wall signs) is installed
in a landscaped planter.
COMMENT: Consideration to the following elements should be given
when submitting plans for signs: architectural compatibility, color
and style, size, scale, proportion (balance) , location and
landscaping. Pole covers should be considered as a requirement as
well as requiring monument signs only.
Sec. 20-1262 . Uniform Sign Code.
The design and construction standards as set forth in Chapter
4 of the 1985 Edition of the Uniform Sign Code as may be amended,
are adopted.
COMMENT: This section should be eliminated from the ordinance.
The Uniform Sign Code has definitions that conflict with those in
this ordinance. The definitions in the Sign Ordinance are specific
and reflect the desires of the City of Chanhassen. The Uniform
Sign Code is very generic and does not address specific standards
the City wants to establish. This section should be rewritten and
10
be called Construction Standards and should state that all signs
shall comply with the National Electrical Code and Uniform Building
Code as a requirement.
Sec. 20-1263. Electrical regulations.
The installation of electrical signs shall be subject to the
National Electrical Code as adopted and amended by the city.
Electrical service to such sign shall be underground.
Sec. 20-1264. Address sign required.
Except for farm buildings, at least one (1) address sign
identifying the correct address shall be required on each principal
building, accessory building, or mail boxes in all districts. The
numbers shall be at least three (3) inches in height.
Sec. 20-1265. General location restrictions.
(a) No sign or sign structure shall be closer to any lot line
than a distance equal to one-half (1/2) the minimum
required yard setback. No sign shall be placed within
any drainage or utility easement.
(b) Signs on adjacent non-residential property shall be
positioned so that the copy is not visible from
residential uses or districts along adjoining side and
rear yard property lines.
(c) No sign, other than governmental signs, shall be erected
or placed upon any public street, right-of-way or public
easement, or project over public property.
COMMENT: Section 20-1269 Traffic Hazards, etc. , should be combined
with this section. In addition, a site distance triangle should be
used. This would require that all signs be placed a minimum of 60
feet from an intersection. This would eliminate signs from
creating a site distance problem at intersections. Signs should
not be allowed to extend over any pedestrian or vehicular access
area unless specifically approved by the City Engineer.
Sec. 20-1266. Maintenance and repair.
Signs and sign structures shall be properly maintained and
kept in a safe condition. Sign or sign structures which are
rotted, unsafe, deteriorated or defaced shall be repainted,
repaired or replaced by the licensee, owner or agent of the
building upon which the sign stands.
11
COMMENT: The definition of maintenance needs to expanded. Every
sign should be kept in complete operating condition. The
landscaped area in which any sign is placed shall be kept free from
weeds, garbage, and debris. Maintenance includes the repair of
facades where signs have been removed; the painting, cleaning, and
repairing of signs. Maintenance should not include structural
alterations, cosmetic or style changes, or enlargements.
Sec. 20-1267. Uniformity of construction, design, etc.
All permanent signs shall be designed and constructed in a
uniform manner and, to the extent possible, as an integral part of
the building's architecture. Multi-tenant commercial and
industrial buildings shall have uniform signage.
COMMENT: This section should reflect the city's intent as stated
in the purpose section, that being signs which require
architecturally compatibility with the building. When buildings or
developments are presented for site plan review, proposed signs for
the development should be presented concurrently for staff review.
All planned centers and multi-tenant buildings should submit a
comprehensive sign plan for approval by the Planning Commission and
City Council.
Sec. 20-1268. Noncommercial speech.
Signs containing non-commercial speech are permitted anywhere
that business signs are permitted, subject to the same regulations
applicable to such signs.
Sec. 20-1269 . Traffic hazards, etc.
Signs shall not create a hazard to the safe, efficient
movement of vehicular or pedestrian traffic. No private sign shall
contain words which might be constructed as traffic controls, such
as "Stop" , "Caution, " "Warning, " unless the sign is intended to
direct traffic on the premises.
COMMENT: This section should be added to the general location
restrictions.
Sec. 20-1270. Attachment to building.
No sign shall be attached or be allowed to hang from any
building until all necessary wall and roof attachments have been
approved by the building official.
COMMENT: Currently the Building Department is not inspecting
these types of signs. This procedure will be modified as the
administrative procedure is changed. This section should be
amended to state that any canopy or awning sign should have a
minimum of 8 foot clearance.
12
Sec. 20-1271. Attachment to rocks, fences, etc. , interference with
utilities.
No signs, guys, stays or attachments shall be erected, placed
or maintained on rocks, fences or trees nor, interfere with any
electric light, power, telephone or telegraph wires or the supports
thereof.
Sec. 20-1272 . Illumination.
Illuminated signs shall be shielded to prevent lights from
being directed at oncoming traffic in such brilliance that it
impairs the vision of the driver. No such signs shall interfere
with or obscure an official traffic sign or signal ; this includes
indoor signs which are visible from public streets.
COMMENT: The illumination needs to be more specific such as, no
sign or groups of signs shall exceed 1/2 foot candle in brightness
as measured at the property line.
Sec. 20-1273. Portable signs.
Portable signs may not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet and
may not be illuminated with any flashing device. Use of a portable
sign shall require a permit. The permit shall be valid for no more
than ten (10) consecutive days. No more than three (3) permits per
business shall be granted during any calendar year.
COMMENT: A portable sign is a temporary sign and should be limited
to on site use. The purpose of a temporary sign should be for
special events or grand openings.
Sec.20-1274. Obstruction of egress or ingress; attachment to
standpipe or fire escape.
No sign or sign structure shall be erected or maintained that
prevents free ingress or egress from any door, window or fire
escape. No sign or sign structure shall be attached to a standpipe
or fire escape.
Sec. 20-1275. Construction requirements for freestanding signs.
A free standing sign or sign structure constructed so that the
faces are not back to back, shall not have an angle separating the
faces exceeding twenty (20) degrees unless the total area of both
sides added together does not exceed the maximum allowable sign
area for that district.
13
COMMENT: This section should be moved and combined with the new
section to be called construction standards, Section 20-1262 .
Standards for canopy or awning signs needs to be developed as well
as standards for menu boards. Menu boards should be placed in a
landscaped planter.
Sec. 20-1276. Painting of supporting parts, etc.
The exposed uprights, superstructure and/or backside of all
signs shall be painted a neutral color such as light blue gray,
brown, or white, unless it can be illustrated that such part of the
sign designed or painted in another manner is integral to the
overall design of the sign.
COMMENTS: This section should be modified to state that all on-
premise freestanding signs must have structural supports covered
or concealed with pole covers. The actual structural supports
should not be exposed, and the covers should be architecturally and
aesthetically designed to match the building.
Sec. 20-1277 . Cemetery signage.
Signage for a cemetery shall be processed as a conditional use
permit in all districts.
COMMENT: A section on Legal Action should be added to the sign
ordinance. This section should address a procedure for notices of
violations to the ordinance, citations, abatement and removal of
unsafe or dangerous or illegal signs and abatement and removal on
non-maintained, abandoned signs or signs identifying a discontinued
use. A right of appeal section should also be included in this
section.
DIVISION 2 . SIGNS ALLOWED IN SPECIFIC DISTRICTS BY PERMIT
Sec. 20-1301. Agricultural and residential districts.
The following signs are allowed by permit in the A-1, A-2, RR,
RSF, R-4 , R-8 and R-12 districts:
(1) Public and institutional signs. One (1) ground low
profile or wall sign, not exceeding twenty-four (24)
square feet of sign display area, shall be permitted on
the premisses of any public or institutional property
giving the name of the facility and nature of the use and
occupancy. Such sign shall be located at least ten (10)
feet from any property line, and shall not exceed five
(5) feet in height.
(2) Development identification signs. One (1) development
identification sign, not exceeding twenty-four (24)
14
square feet of sign display area, shall be permitted for
each major entrance into any residential development of
ten (10) or more dwelling units. For the purposes of
this paragraph, "major entrance" shall be defined as the
intersection of any local street serving the identified
development with any arterial or collector street as
designated as such in this chapter. Such sign shall be
located so as not to conflict with traffic visibility or
street maintenance operations, and shall be securely
anchored to the ground.
COMMENT: This section needs to address those uses which are a
conditional use in the agricultural and residential district,
including uses such as a bed and breakfast, mineral extraction, day
care, recreational beachlots, contractors yards, wholesale nursery
and golf driving range. The home occupation ordinance permits one
sign not to exceed two (2) square feet in area.
Sec. 20-1302 . Neighborhood business and institutional districts.
The following signs shall be allowed by permit in any OI on
BN District:
(1) Ground low profile business signs. One (1) ground low
profile business or institutional sign not exceeding
twenty-four (24) square feet of sign display area shall
be permitted per street frontage, with a maximum of two
(2) such signs per lot. Such sign shall be located at
least ten (10) feet from any property line and shall not
exceed five (5) feet in height.
(2) Wall business sign. One (1) wall business sign shall be
permitted per street frontage for each business occupant
within a building. The total of all wall mounted sign
display areas shall not exceed ten (10) percent of the
total area of each building wall upon which the signs are
mounted, but no individual business sign shall exceed
twenty-four (24) square feet in sign display area. A
wall business sign shall not be mounted upon the wall of
any building which faces any adjoining residential
district without an intervening public street.
Sec. 20-1303. Highway and general business districts.
The following signs shall be allowed by permit in any BH, BG,
or BF District:
(1) Ground low profile business signs. One (1) ground low
profile business sign shall be permitted per street
frontage, with a maximum of two (2) such signs per lot.
Such sign shall not exceed eighty (80) square feet in
sign display area nor be greater than eight (8) feet in
15
height. Such sign shall be located at least ten (10)
feet from any property line. In no case shall any lot
contain more than two (2) freestanding business signs,
whether such signs are pylon or ground low profile signs.
(2) Pylon business sign. One (1) pylon business sign, not
exceeding sixty-four (64) square feet of sign display
area, shall be permitted per lot. A pylon business sign
greater than sixty-four (64) square feet, but equal to or
less than eighty (80) square feet, may be permitted after
securing a conditional use permit. Such signs shall be
located at least ten (10) feet from any property line,
and shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height. In no
case shall any lot contain more than two (2) freestanding
business signs, whether such signs are pylon or ground
low profile signs.
(3) Wall business sign. One (1) wall business sign shall be
permitted per street frontage for each business occupant
within a building. The total of all wall mounted sign
display areas shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent of
the total area of each building wall upon which the signs
are mounted. No individual business sign shall exceed
eighty (80) square feet in sign display area. A wall
business sign may be mounted upon any wall of a principal
building.
(4) Development identification signs. One (1) development
identification sign, not exceeding sixty-four (64) square
feet of sign display area, shall be permitted for each
major entrance into any commercial development of three
(3) or more buildings. For the purposes of this
paragraph, "major entrance" shall be defined as the
intersection of any local or collector street serving the
identified development with any arterial or collector
street as designated in this chapter. Such sign shall be
located so as not to conflict with traffic visibility or
street maintenance operations, and shall be securely
anchored to the ground.
Sec. 20-1304 . Industrial office park signs.
The following signs shall be allowed by permit in any IOP
District:
(1) Ground low profile business signs. One (1) ground low
profile business sign shall be permitted per street
frontage, with a maximum of two (2) such signs per lot.
Such sign shall not exceed eighty (80) square feet in
sign display area nor be greater than eight (8) feet in
16
height. Such sign shall be located at least ten (10)
feet from any property line.
(2) Wall business sign. One (1) wall business sign shall be
permitted per street frontage for each business occupant
within a building. The total of all wall mounted sign
display area shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent of the
total area of the building wall upon which the signs are
mounted. No individual business sign shall exceed eighty
(80) square feet in sign display area. A wall business
sign may be mounted upon any wall of a principal
building.
(3) Development identification signs. One (1) development
identification sign, not exceeding ninety (90) square
feet of sign display area, shall be permitted for each
major entrance into any commercial development of three
(3) or more buildings. For the purposes of this
paragraph, "major entrance" shall be defined as the
intersection of local, collector or arterial streets
serving the identified development with any arterial or
collector street so designated in this division. Such
signs shall be located so as not to conflict with traffic
visibility or street maintenance operations. and shall be
securely anchored to the ground.
(Ord. No. , Art. IX,S8. 12-15-86
Sec. 20-1305. Central business district.
The following signs shall be allowed by permit in the CBD
District:
(1) Wall business sign. One (1) wall business sign shall be
permitted per street frontage for each business occupant
within a building. The total of all wall mounted sign
display areas shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent of
the total area of the building wall upon which the signs
are mounted. No individual business sign shall exceed
sixty-four (64) square feet in sign display area. The
design and location of all business signs in this
district shall be in keeping with the purpose and intent
of this article and the goals and objectives of the
downtown redevelopment plan of the city. Central
Business District signage shall be uniformly designed to
be an integral part of the building's architecture to
avoid excessive signage and to ensure a harmonious
appearance throughout the downtown area.
(2) Business directory sign. One (1) business directory sign
shall be permitted per shopping center. The design
and location of such shall be consistent with the design
objectives for wall business signs in this district. The
17
maximum height for such sign shall be twenty (20) feet
and the total sign display area shall not exceed (80)
square feet.
(3) Pylon business sign. One (1) pylon business sign, not
exceeding sixty-four (64) square feet in sign display
area, shall be permitted per lot. Such signs shall be
located at least ten (10) feet from any property line,
and shall not exceed (20) feet in height.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. IX, S 9, 12-15-86)
Secs. 20-1306-20-1350 . Reserved.
COMMENT: Planned centers and multi-tenant buildings should only
be allowed one directory (monument or freestanding) , and then be
limited to wall signs only. These signs should have a common theme
and be architecturally compatible with the building. This would
apply to the highway and general business, industrial office park
and central business districts.
Consideration should also be given to the size of the development.
The way the ordinance is written, whether the project is 1/2 acre
or 20 acres, the same amount of signage is permitted. Scale of the
developments should be a factor in determining the amount of
signage. Two freestanding signs, 20 feet in height, may appear
minimal on a 10 acre site; but on a 1/2 acre site, 2 signs
would have negative impact on the aesthetics of the site.
An example of freestanding signs out of scale with the building
would be Country Clean at the corner of Great Plains Boulevard and
Chan View. The Chanhassen Mall (Frontier Center) sign is too tall
for a business direction sign. The sign is also in need of
maintenance. The American Legion has multiple freestanding
signage, causing visual clutter. This location (the Legion) is at
a major entryway into the city and gives a bad impression of the
city development standards. Amortization of non-conforming signs
could be an element of the new ordinance. This issue has also been
discussed in the Highway 5 Corridor Study.
Sec. 20-1 DEFINITIONS
Sign means any object, device, display, or structure, or part
thereof situated outdoors, or visible through a window or door,
which is used to advertise, announce, identify, display, direct or
attract attention to an object, person, institution, organization,
business, commodity, product, service, event or location, by means,
including words, letters, figures, design, symbols, fixtures,
pictures, illumination or projected images.
Sign, advertising means any sign which directs attention to a
business, commodity, service, activity or entertainment not
18
conducted, sold or offered upon the premises where such a sign is
located.
Sign, bulletin board means a sign which identifies an institution
_ or organization on the premises of which it is located and which
contains the name of the institution or organization, the names of
individuals connected with it, and general announcements, of events
or activities occurring at the institution or similar messages.
Sign, business means a sign which directs attention to a business
or profession conducted, or to a commodity or service sold, offered
or manufactured, or to an entertainment offered on the premises
where the sign is located.
Sign, business directory means a sign which identifies the names of
specific businesses located in a shopping center and which is
located on the premises of the shopping center so identified.
Sign, campaign means a temporary sign announcing, promoting, or
supporting political candidates or issues in connection with any
national, state, or local election.
Sign, canopy or marquee means a sign which is mounted, painted on,
or attached to any projection or extension of a building that is
designated in such a manner as to provide shelter or cover over the
approach to any entrance of the building.
COMMENT: Need to add Changeable Copy, a sign which the copy is
changed manually or electrically, such as a message center or
reader boards with changeable letters or changeable pictorial
panels, and electrically controlled time and temperature signs. It
does not include panels or painted bulletins.
Sign, construction means a temporary sign erected on the premises
on which construction is taking place, during the period of such
construction, indicating the names of the architects, engineers,
landscape architects, contractors or similar artisans, and the
owners, financial supporters, sponsors, and similar individuals or
firms having a role or interest with respect to the situation or
project.
Sign, development identification means a permanent ground low
profile sign which identifies a specific residential, industrial ,
commercial or office development and which is located on the
premises of the development which it identifies.
Sign, directional means a sign erected on private property for the
purpose of directing pedestrian or vehicular traffic onto or about
the property upon which such sign is located, including signs
marking entrances and exits, circulation direction, parking areas,
and pickup and delivery areas.
19
Sign display area means the area within a single continuous
perimeter enclosing the extreme limits or the actual sign message
surface, but excluding any structural elements outside the limits
of each sign not forming an integral part of the sign. The
stipulated maximum sign display area for a sign refers to a single
facing.
COMMENT: Sign Festive Flag Banner, a flag or banner constructed of
cloth, canvas or light fabric, that is hung from a light pole. The
flag/banner shall contain no advertising except for cultural
events, special holidays/seasons, etc.
Sign, flashing means any directly or indirectly illuminated sign
which exhibits changing natural or artificial light or color
effects by any means whatsoever.
Sign, freestanding means any non movable sign not affixed to a
building.
Sign, governmental means a sign erected and maintained pursuant to
and in discharge of any governmental functions, or required by law,
ordinance or other governmental regulation.
Sign, ground means any sign, other than a pole sign, placed upon or
supported by the ground independent of any other structure.
Sign, ground low profile business means a business sign affixed
directly to the ground, with the sign display area standing not
greater than two (2) feet above the ground.
COMMENT: The two ground sign definitions conflict. The definition
of ground sign should be changed to a low sign where the extent of
the sign surface is attached to the ground or a foundation in the
ground, and where there are no poles, braces, or other visible
means of support other than attachment to the ground.
Sign, holiday decoration means a temporary sign in the nature of
decorations, clearly incidental to and customarily and commonly
associated with any national, local or religious holiday.
Sign, home occupation means a sign containing only the name and
occupation of a permitted home occupation.
Sign, illuminated means a sign lighted by or exposed to artificial
lighting either by lights on or in the sign or directed towards the
sign.
Sign, informational means a sign containing descriptions of major
points of interest, government institutions or other public
services such as hospitals, sports facilities, etc.
20
Sign, roof means a sign that is mounted on the roof of a building
or which is wholly dependent upon a building for support and which
projects above the roof line of a building with a flat roof, the
eave line of a building with a gambrel, gable or hip roof or the
deck line of a building with a mansard roof.
Sign, temporary means a sign or advertising display constructed of
cloth, canvas, fabric, plywood or other light material and designed
or intended to be displayed for a short period of time.
Sign, wall means a sign attached to or erected against the wall of
a building or structure with the exposed face of the sign in a
plane approximately parallel to the face of the wall, and which
does not project more than twelve (12) inches from such building or
structure.
COMMENT: Should add the definition of Sign, Window, a sign either
attached to a window or door or located within a building so as to
be visible through a window or door from outside of the building.
Pictures should be used with many of these definitions. A picture
is worth a thousand words and helps in interpreting the definition.
22
Sign, institutional means a sign which identifies the name and
other characteristics of a public or private institution of the
site where the sign is located.
Sign, integral means a sign a constructed as to be an integral
portion of the building of which it forms a part.
COMMENT: Need to add the definition of Menu Boards, a sign that is
used to advertise the product at a fast food restaurant.
Sign, motion means any sign or part of a sign which changes
physical position by any movement or rotation of which gives the
visual impression of such movement or rotation.
Sign, nameplate means a sign, located on the premises, which bears
the name and/or address of the occupant of the building or
premises.
COMMENT: Should add the definition of Sign Nonconforming, a sign
or sign structure or portion thereof lawfully existing at the time
this ordinance became effective, which does not conform totally to
the regulations prescribed in the District in which it is located.
Sign, Off-Premise, an advertising sign which directs attention to
a use, product, commodity or services not related to the promises
on which it is located.
Sign, On-Premise, a sign which directs attention to a business,
commodity, product, use, service or other activity which is sold,
offered or conducted on the premises upon which the sign is
located.
Sign, pole or pylon means a freestanding sign erected upon a pole,
post or other similar support so that the bottom edge of the sign
display area is eight (8) feet or more above the ground elevation
at the base of the sign.
Sign, portable means a sign designed 80 as to be movable from one
(1) location to another, and that is not permanently affixed to a
building, structure, or the ground.
Sign, private sale or event means a temporary sign advertising
private sales or personal property such as a house sale, garage
sale and the like or private nonprofit events such as picnic,
carnival, bazaar, game night, art fair, craft show or Christmas
tree sale.
Sign, projecting means a sign that is wholly or partly dependent
upon a building for support and which projects more than twelve
(12) inches from such building. Sign, real estate means a sign
pertaining to the sale or lease of the premises, or a portion of
the premises, on which the sign is located.
21
ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION
CAIIPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, PA.
Arn,rncvs Law
Thomi.t.J.C,nnrhell (612)452.5C
Roger N.knut.,,n Fax (612)452-5550
Tho .»NI. Scott December 19, 1991
G.,ry G.Fuck.
Janie<R.\\.il ton
Elliott B. Knctsch
Mich.tel A. Broh.tck
Rcnae D.Steiner
The Honorable Philip T. Kanning
Judge of the District Court
Carver County Courthouse
600 East Fourth Street
Chaska, MN 55318
Re: Moon Valley Aggregate, Inc.
vs. City of Chanhassen
Our File No. 12668/201
Court File No. 90-27099
Dear Judge Kanning:
Enclosed please find Defendant 's proposed Findings and Order.
Very truly yours,
CAMPBE KNUTSON, SCOT 'I
& FUi •. , P.A.
By: L �.
�. omas M. Scot
TMS :rlt
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Paul Krauss (w/enclosure)
Mr. Jerry Brill (w/enclosure)
•
RECEIVED
DEC 2 3 1991
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Suite 317 • Eagandale Office Center • 1380 Corporate Center Curve • Eagan, MN 55121
STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF CARVER FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
CASE TYPE: 10/DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
Court File No. 90-27099
Moon Valley Aggregate, Inc. ,
a Minnesota corporation,
Plaintiff,
vs. FINDINGS AND ORDER
City of Chanhassen,
Defendant.
The above-entitled matter came on for hearing before the
undersigned on November 25 and 26, 1991 pursuant to the Court's
October 10, 1991 Order.
The first issue before the Court is Defendant's pending motion
dated July 16, 1991 and originally heard on October 10, 1991
requesting an order directing that Plaintiff cease the operation of
its mining business due to its failure to make application for an
earthwork permit by May 25, 1991 as directed by this Court's Order
of April 25, 1991.
The second issue submitted to the Court is the legal status of
any mining activities on the north (Zimmerman") parcel.
Jerry Brill of Siegel, Brill, Greupner & Duffy, P.A. , 100
Washington Square, Suite 1350, Minneapolis, MN 55401, appeared on
behalf of Plaintiff and Thomas M. Scott of Campbell, Knutson, Scott
& Fuchs, P.A. , 1380 Corporate Center Curve #317, Eagan, MN 55121,
appeared on behalf of Defendant.
Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, together
with all the files and proceedings--herein, the Court makes the
following Findings of Fact:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Plaintiff ("Moon Valley") is a Minnesota corporation
which operates a gravel mining business on an approximately 40-acre
parcel of property located at 100 Flying Cloud Drive, in the city
of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota.
2 . Wallace Griepentrog purchased this 40-acre south parcel
on which the Moon Valley gravel pit is located in 1959. This
parcel is legally described:
All that part of Gov't Lot 1, Section 36, Township 116, Range
23 , Carver County, Minnesota, which lies Northerly of trunk
highway no 212 .
3 . In addition to gravel mining, the south parcel was used
as a ski area until the mid 1960s and has been used as a rifle
range since 1961.
4 . Griepentrog purchased on a Contract for Deed the 45-acre
north parcel ("Zimmerman property") on top of the bluffs from Fred
and Elizabeth Zimmerman on December 1, 1973 . This parcel is
legally described:
All that part of the Southeast Quarter (SE-1/4) of Section 25,
Township 116, Range 23 , lying Easterly of the Easterly right
of way of the Chicago and Northwestern Railway (formerly the
Minneapolis and St. Louis Railway) containing 45 acres, more
or less, according to the Government Survey thereof, Carver
County, Minnesota.
5. On February 8, 1972 , Chanhassen adopted Zoning Ordinance
No. 47 (hereinafter "1972 Zoning Ordinance") which was effective
-2-
upon publication on March 9, 1972 . Mining was allowed under the
1972 Zoning Ordinance only pursuant to a conditional use permit.
6 . The gravel mine on the south parcel is a valid
nonconforming use since it was in existence prior to the 1972
Zoning Ordinance.
7 . There was no mining activity on the Zimmerman parcel
prior to the late summer of 1973 .
8 . On or about February 23 , 1973, Griepentrog applied for
conditional use permits (hereinafter "CUP") to operate his rifle
range and gravel mine on the south parcel.
9 . At a planning commission hearing on the combined
application on June 12 , 1973 , Fred Zimmerman indicated he wanted to
sell his 45 acres, but had been told that it was not saleable
because of Griepentrog' s rifle range.
10. The Planning Commission subsequently in July of 1973
tabled the CUP Application at the request of Griepentrog's
attorney, while Griepentrog negotiated a purchase of Zimmerman's
property.
11. Griepentrog never had the CUP application placed back on
the Planning Commission agenda.
12 . The CUP application never requested permission for mining
activity on the Zimmerman parcel.
13 . The only earthwork Griepentrog did on the Zimmerman
property in 1973 was to remove some clay on one small area of the
bluff encroaching thirty yards onto the Zimmerman property in order
to extend his shooting range.
-3-
14 . There has never been any gravel mining on the Zimmerman
property.
15 . Between 1974 and 1986, when Griepentrog sold both parcels
to Thomas Zwiers, the owner of Plaintiff Moon Valley, little, if
any, clay and black dirt removal occurred on the Zimmerman parcel.
16. No mining occurred on the Zimmerman property in 1987, the
year after Zwiers purchased the property.
17. In the Fall of 1988, when Zwiers started mining clay on
the north parcel, the City objected to the activity and Moon Valley
stopped the mining.
18. Plaintiff does not have any nonconforming mining use
rights on the Zimmerman parcel because it was not a use of the land
existing at the time of adoption of the 1972 Zoning Ordinance.
19 . The City is not estopped from enforcing its zoning
regulations relating to mining on the Zimmerman property.
20. On May 14 , 1990, Chanhassen adopted Ordinance No. 128,
effective May 24 , 1990, regulating "earthwork" operations, which
are defined as "excavating, mining, filling or grading" activities.
21. The ordinance, with certain exceptions, requires a person
to obtain a permit before engaging in earthwork activities.
Existing operations, such as Plaintiff's business, had six months
until November 24 , 1990 to either obtain a permit or cease
operations.
22 . The express purpose of the ordinance is to promote the
health, safety and welfare of the community by establishing
reasonable uniform standards and controls for excavating, mining,
filling and grading activities within the City. The ordinance
-4-
requires the applicant to submit various types of information about
its operation, including a site restoration plan. It also sets
forth standards for setbacks, fencing, appearance and screening,
methods and times of operations and restoration of the property.
The ordinance permits deviations from these standards for
existing operations, when it is not feasible to comply because of
preexisting conditions, when because of topographic or other
conditions it is not possible to comply and when alternates that
accomplish the purpose and intent of the standard are agreed upon
by the City and the operator.
23 . In its April 25, 1991 Order, the Court determined that
Chanhassen has the legal authority to require Plaintiff to obtain
an earthwork permit under its Ordinance No. 128 adopted May 24,
1990. The Court further ordered:
Plaintiff Moon Valley shall make an application for a permit
pursuant to Ordinance #128 , as adopted by the City of
Chanhassen, within 30 days of the date of this Order. In the
event that Plaintiff fails to make such application for an
Ordinance #128 permit within 30 days of the date of this
Order, the City of Chanhassen shall have the option to seek an
order of this court requiring Plaintiff Moon Valley
immediately cease its mining operations. Said permit shall be
considered according to the City of Chanhassen's normal course
of permit application determinations.
24 . No permit application was filed by the May 25, 1991
deadline. The City was assured by Plaintiff's attorney that an
application would be filed by Plaintiff's planner, John Voss, by
June 30. In reliance upon that assurance, the City agreed not to
bring a motion to shut down Plaintiff's operation for failing to
comply with the May 25, 1991 deadline.
-5-
25. The June 30 filing date passed without an application or
explanation by Plaintiff. On July 16, the City served its Motion
which is the subject of this evidentiary hearing. After meeting
with Mr. Voss on July 31, the day before the original August 1
hearing date, the hearing was postponed to August 29 and then to
September 18 and finally to October 10.
26. On September 17, 1991, Plaintiff finally filed the Permit
Application. By letter dated October 1, 1991, Chanhassen's
Director of Planning, Paul Krauss, advised Plaintiff of the
deficiencies in the Application. Plaintiff never responded to the
request by Krauss for additional information and clarifications.
27 . Zwiers directed Voss to submit in the application two
totally different mining plans for the property. Plan A involved
essentially transforming the entire property into a moon scape
without any end use plan, interim screening plan, drainage or
erosion control plan or restoration plan. Alternative Plan B was
substantially deficient due to the lack of crucial information
relating to slopes and subsurface conditions, among other things,
and the inclusion of land not owned by Plaintiff.
28 . The Application filed by Plaintiff was neither done in
good faith nor does it substantially comply with Ordinance
requirements.
-6-
Based upon the above IFindings of Fact,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff shall cease operation of its mining operation
in all respects until it obtains the necessary earthwork permit
from the City of Chanhassen; and
2 . It is hereby determined that Plaintiff does not have any
nonconforming use rights to mine the Zimmerman parcel.
Dated: , 199 .
BY THE COURT:
The Honorable Philip T. Kanning
Judge of District Court
-7-
CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, PA.
.Artornry�
Thomas J.Campbell (612)452-5000
Ro_er N.Knutson Fax (612)45'_-5
Thomas M. Scott
Gary G.Fuchs
Junes R.Walston
Elliott B.Knetsch
Michael A. Brohack December 18, 1991
Rcnae D.Steiner
•
The Honorable Philip T. Kanning
Judge of the District Court _
Carver County Courthouse
600 East Fourth Street
Chaska, MN 55318
Re: Moon Valley Aggregate, Inc.
vs. City of Chanhassen
Our File No. 12668/201
Court File No. 90-27099
Dear Judge Kanning:
This letter is a reply to Plaintiff' s Brief, dated December
10, 1991.
PERMIT APPLICATION
As to the permit application, this Court cannot decide at this
time in the abstract if any condition the City may attach to
Plaintiff ' s earthwork permit are arbitrary or in violation of its
nonconforming use rights. This Court has already determined that
the City has the authority .to require a permit. There was no
evidence that any of the information in the ordinance is unduly
burdensome or unnecessary.
There also is not one scintilla of evidence that the City
wants to permanently shut down Plaintiff' s existing operation on
the south parcel. To the contrary, the City has always recognized
Plaintiff's nonconforming use rights, subject to the City's
established right to regulate the activity under its police power
authority. The ordinance requires Plaintiff to provide certain
information in its application which it refuses to provide.
ZIMMERMAN PROPERTY
As to the Zimmerman property, I offer the following additional
comments:
a. There was no evidence that Griepentrog ever communicated
to the City in 1973 that he intended to mine the Zimmerman RECEIVED
property.
DEC 231991
Suite 317 • Ea an,iale Office Center • 13S0 Corporate Center Curve • Eagan, 11'. :P$10F t;hANH E1
The Honorable Philip T. Kanning
December 18, 1991
Page 2
b. All the purported mining that Griepentrog did on the
Zimmerman parcel between 1974 and 1986 was in or adjacent to the
field area farmed by Vogel.
c. Zweirs ' only mining on the Zimmerman parcel was in the
Fall of 1988 and the City ordered him to stop at that time.
d. There is no substantive evidence that the City had
knowledge of any mining on the Zimmerman property, if it in fact
occurred, prior to Zweirs' activities in the Fall of 1988 . The
area mined was neither visible from any roadways nor to Vogel who
was farming the property.
e. There was no testimony that Zweirs, when he purchased the
property, "relied on being able to continue the mining operation on
the entire parcel without a permit" as Plaintiff claims. Zweirs
did not testify at all. Voss' testimony that Zwiers' recognizes
that the Zimmerman property can be best used for high priced
residential development contradicts this statement by counsel.
f. The court in Petition of Halberg Construction and Supply,
Inc. , 385 N.W. 2d 381 (Minn. App. 1986) , cited by counsel in support
of its estoppel argument stated:
. . . To estop a government agency, some element of fault or
wrongful conduct must be shown. A plaintiff seeking to estop
a government agency has a heavy burden of proof. When
deciding whether estoppel will be applied against the
government, the court will weigh the public interest
frustrated by the estoppel against the equities of the case.
In Halberq, there was no knowledge by Halberg that he did not have
a state-wide trucking permit, numerous audits and special permits
inconsistent with a restricted license were issued by the state
over the years, if the state was not estopped Halberg would be
placed in bankruptcy and irreparably harmed, and there was no
significant public interest frustrated.
Here, Griepentrog knew he did not have a conditional use
permit for the Zimmerman property. If the City knew about any
mining on the Zimmerman parcel, it never took any official action
inconsistent with the lack of a permit. There is no evidence of
any irreparable injury to Zweirs. Finally, the City's ability to
enforce its zoning ordinance is substantial.
CONCLUSIONS
The City renews its two-fold requests that the Court shut down
Plaintiff's operation until it obtains the required permit and
The Honorable Philip T. Kanning
December 18 , 1991
Page 3
determine that Plaintiff has no legal right to mine the Zimmerman
property.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT
& CHS, P.A.
4Z+E_By:
Thom . Scott
TMS:rlt
cc: Attorney Jerry Brill
Mr. Paul Krauss
CITY OF
cHANBAssEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
December 23 , 1991
Mr. Ron Harnack
Board of Water and Soil Resources
Southbridge Office Building
Suite 104
155 South Wabasha Street
St. Paul, MN 55107
Dear Mr. Harnack:
On behalf of the City of Chanhassen, I am requesting that BWSR
designate the City of Chanhassen as the responsible local
governmental unit to administer the Interim Wetlands Program that
is in our community. Chanhassen has been a no-net loss community
for nearly eight years and has an in place comprehensive wetlands
protection ordinance. We also have extensive expertise in
administering our ordinance, as well as coordinating our reviews
with agencies such as yours, DNR, the Watershed Districts which
cover our community, Army Corps of Engineers, and U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. My staff and I also have extensive experience in
these areas and have developed extremely strong working
relationships with all listed parties.
The City of Chanhassen has demonstrated a continuing commitment to
protecting our wetlands and water resources. We are involved in an
ongoing program to develop coordinated comprehensive plans dealing
with storm water management, water -quality protection and
improvement and enhanced wetland regulations. Under the program,
a Surface Water Utility District has been established and our
residents and business community are contributing significant sums
of money to this project. We have already retained a consultant
who has been working with us for several months and expect to see
great strides made in the near future. I am providing you with
copies of our informational brochure that was developed to gain
support for this program.
If there are any procedural requirements to being designated the
local governmental unit that I am not aware of, please let me know
and we will have our council undertake them as soon as possible.
I recently became aware that Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed
District has requested similar designation for that portion of our
to PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Mr. Ron Harnack
December 23 , 1991
Page 2
community that come under their jurisdiction. I need to contact
them directly since we have already had several discussions with
their staff indicating that the city was going to request the LGU
status.
We look forward to working with you and your staff on this matter
in the future.
Sincerely - -
(.;;;71
Paul Krauss, AICP
Planning Director
PK:v
pc: City Council
Planning Commission
Raymond Haik, Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District
Mike Panzer, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
Russell Sorenson, Lower Minnesota River Watershed District
Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner
Chanhassen Surface Water Management Task Force
Ismail Martinez , Bonestroo, Rosene and Anderlik
POPHAM HAIK
2400 ONE TA SOR CENTER S C M N O S R I C H & K A U F M A N, LTD. 3300 P1 AV TOwr E R
1200 3EVENTEENTM STREET 222 SOUTH NINTH STREET
DENVER,COLORADO 60202 MINNEAPOLIS.M1NNL$DrA 55102
E 303-893-1200 TE LE PHONE 612.333-4500
TELECDRICR 303-9932164 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA TELECOPIER 612.334-2713
4100CEMTRuIT FINANCIAL CENTER 13001 N W
100$.E.SECOND STREET lu1TE SOO EAST
MIAMI,FLORIDA 33131 WASHINGTON,D.C.20005
TELEPHONE 305-530-0050 RAYMOND A.HAIK TELCPNON[302.662-9700
TELScOPI ER 305.530-0055 DIRECT DIAL(612)334-2600 TtLEcowiti 302.662-6769
December 10, 1991
Mr . Ron Harnack
Board of Water & Soil Resources
Southbridge Office Building
155 South Wabasha Street, Suite 104
St . Paul , MN 55107
Re: Local Governing Unit to Administer the Interim Program
for the Wetlands Act
Dear Ron :
At their December meeting, the Managers of the Riley-
Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District directed the staff to
request State Board designation as a responsible local
governmental unit to administer the Interim Wetlands Program. As
discussed, the District has administered a Watershed wide
permitting system. It reviews all the developments whether by
private property owners , local government units, county
governments or state governments from the viewpoint of the impact
of the land use on the water and related land resources of the
Watershed .
The Watershed approach to permitting has enabled the
District to deal with water quality and water quantity and also
identify the flood plain, open space of bluffland protection
requirements of the District . The permit system has been
administered by working through and with the municipalities of the
District . The cities make the land use and zoning decisions . The
cooperative system has worked and the Managers believe that it can
continue to be an effective way to regulate water and related land
use development .
Mr . Ron Harneck
December 10 , 1991
Page 2
If there are any additional items of information that the
State Board requires, please contact the undersigned. The
District will be meeting with the municipalities to insure that
the present coordinated cooperative approach continues to be
acceptable .
Very truly yours,
1"--(
(":._ LH)
Raymond A. Haik
cc : Manager
Barr Engineering
Chanhassen Public Works Department
Eden Prairie Public Works Department
Bloomington Public Works Department
Minnetonka Public Works Department
134RAH/49
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
1110! 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission and City Council
FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director 67:—
DATE: December 23 , 1991
SUBJ: Long Range Facilities Plan for Independent School
District #112
As you are probably aware city staff, along with the Mayor and Tom
Workman, began to talk to the school district about future
expansion plans some two years ago during the development of the
city's Comprehensive Plan. School district administrative staff
indicated that their likely need was for an additional middle
school site at some point within the next five years and that this
could potentially be located in the Chanhassen area. There was a
general consensus reached that this would be of great benefit for
the city if it could be located in our community and staff began
working towards that ultimate goal. Growing out of these
conversations, several potential school sites were visited by
myself, Bob Ostlund from the School District, and Zack Johnson from
EOS Architects, who has been retained by the school district. For
reasons of location, topography, and in my opinion, its ideal
location relative to community land use needs, a site located at
the southeast corner of the intersection of Hwy. 5 and Galpin
Boulevard was selected. This site is illustrated on the adopted
Comprehensive Plan. The city indicated that attempts would be made
to put together a financial package wherein the city could assist
the school district in obtaining this site.
Last summer the City Manager and Planning Director contacted Dr.
Dave Clough, whc is the new Superintendent for the school district.
We were attempting to see where the school district was in the
planning process for several reasons. We wanted to be able to
undertake the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan, but more
importantly, development pressures were starting to occur on the
potential school site and action needed to be taken. Don and I
were invited to attend a meeting of the School Board wherein we
described the process we had undergone to date and the growth
pressures we envisioned for the city in the coming decade. Growing
t4, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Long Range Facilities Plan
Independent School District #110
December 23 , 1991
Page 2
out of that and a need to satisfy other school district needs, Dr.
Clough set up a Long Range Facilities Task Force for the school
district. Two meetings have been held to date, one of which Don
attended and I attended the other meeting. The process that they
have laid out will result in a decision by April or May of next
year in terms of developing recommendations for adoption by the
School Board. Those recommendations are far reaching and will
involve decisions not only pertaining to construction of new
facilities but also development of new programs.
One aspect of the meeting that I found particularly interesting had
to do with the architect 's critique of the physical plant of the
Chaska High School . The architect' s review of the physical plant
of the existing Chaska High School was interesting since the
building itself appears to be quite inadequate for the job. For
example, the library is severely undersized, there are few
conference and teacher prep rooms, cafeteria facilities are
inadequate, gym facilities are inadequate, and if they are
improved, the only way to do so would be to destroy the already
inadequate playing fields.
Staff will keep the City Council and Planning Commission posted as
to the progress of the committee. Tom Workman is also attending
these task force meetings as a Council representative, so I believe
we are well represented on this group.
CITY OF ::
*9,
0BANHAssEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Paul Krauss, Planning Director
FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner
DATE: December 11, 1991
SUBJ: Lake Management Forum Workshop
In April 1991, a workshop was held and it was determined that the
current status of lake management in Minnesota needed to be
reviewed and, if found to be insufficient or not working, that
legislative changes would be recommended. On November 22 and 23 ,
1991, the Lake Management Forum Workshop was held to begin the
review process of lake management in Minnesota. I was asked to
attend the workshop and participate on a task force.
The following task forces have been created:
• Lake Management Based on Natural Boundaries - Watersheds
• Lake Classification Based on Natural Characteristics and
Lake Use
• Lake Management Data Collection and Application
• The Framework for Lake Management in Minnesota
• Strategic Planning for Lake Management in Minnesota
I am on the task force for Framework for Lake Management in
Minnesota. I have attached a summary of our first meeting which
lists the future agendas.
r
(November 15 - May 15, 1992) Facilitate Task forces
(May 15- September 15, 1992) Reconvene Focus Groups
(September 15 - November 15, 1992) Prepare Final Report,
Recommendations, and Implementation Strategies
(November 15, 1992 - April 15, 1993) Deliver Final Report and
Recommendations. Expected Outcomes: The final report will be
t4, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Lake Management Forum Workshop
December 11, 1991
Page 2
presented to appropriate audiences, including the State
Legislature, governmental agencies and other interested
entities. Assistance will be provided to those organizations
undertaking actions recommended by the Lake Management Forum.
Freshwater December 2, 1991
Foundation
at Spring Hill Center
725 Count(Road Six
Wayzata.M\55391
(612,449-0092_
fan:(612)449-059:
Water is Life
JoAnn Olsen
Founder Planner, City of Chanhassen
Richard G Gras.Sr.D S:
Officers of the Board 690 Coulter Dr.
Lindsay G Anhu:.Jr Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chairman
Richard S Caldecote.Ph D •
Vice Chairman •
Lucienne J Tas for Dear JoAnn:
Secrrtan
Thoma L Warner
Trea.urer Thank you for participating in the Lake Management Forum Workshop. I
- Gregors E. Brodeur
ura
Assnr Tira.urrr hope you found the weekend useful, enjoyable and relaxing. I was pleased
Board of Directors with the participation of all the Forum members and I am encouraged by the
Hoi.ard A Andersen. M D
Bets Baker support of the program. I hope that we can continue the positive and
- Hann Blount
Donald G Brauer rewarding effort.
M Bosd Burton.Jr.Ph D
Daniel C Chat*:
James A Gra,
Clark c I have enclosed a summary memo for your review. Please use these materials
- John Hirrile
Jo Ellen Hurt as you prepare for your December task force meetings. If you have any
Robert W Leslie
Daniel T Lind-.a, questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Joseph T Ling. Pr D
John B Lund,;uis:
- R' Duncan MecMillar
Warren G Malkerson Thanks again for your willingness and enthusiasm as we proceed with the
Charles M Moos
Marc Reiner Lake Management Forum.
Stephen Ros7ell
D Dean Spatz
- Emir Anne Staples
Mrs Warde F N'heaion Sincerely,
Doug Whitaker
H Martin Jessen
Resident and C E 0 b „ !,
Ad•ison Board
Roper L Baker
M Baker Dick Osgood, Director
Raymond D Bia;k
E W Blanch.Jr Surface Water Programs
Mrs. Herbert W. Buscher
Henn Doerr
James L Hetland.Jr
Mrs John 0. lnine
Earl H Mosiman
Mrs William G Phillips
Robert L Searles
Mrs Eduard R Titc.smh
RECEIVE '.
DEC 0 3 199 i
A Public 'nonprofit Foundation
Contributions are Tas•Deductible CIT'' LJf lif thi s r .—mak t`
_ A
Pnmed on Recycled Paper
MEMO
Date: December 2, 1991
To: All Participants/Minnesota Lake Management Forum
From: Dick Osgood
Freshwater Foundation
Subject: Summary report of the November 22-23, Workshop at Spring Hill
This report is a brief summary of the Minnesota Lake Management Forum Workshop held
on November 22-23, 1991 at Spring Hill. The report is organized according to the workshop
agenda, and includes appropriate enclosures. For those who could not attend the workshop,
we have included a copy of the agenda and roster of participants.
Welcome
Marty Jessen,President of the Freshwater Foundation,described the work of the Freshwater
Foundation in reference to several program initiatives relating to both groundwater and
surface water. He indicated that the Freshwater Foundation defined its role as neutral
convener of the Minnesota Lake Management Forum, and that it was strongly committed
to the objectives of the Forum. Todd Driscoll, of the Blandin Foundation, stated that
environment is one of the principle program areas for the Foundation, and that water, in
particular, is of central importance to the staff and board of the Foundation.
Introduction and Overview
Dick Osgood provided an overview of the process which began in February of 1991, and will
continue through April, 1993. Phase One occurred during February-June, 1991; Phase Two
will be implemented during the period, August 15, 1991 - April 15, 1993. The work plan
for Phase One and Phase Two was distributed to participants (enclosed for those who did
not attend).
During the workshop discussion, it became apparent that participants needed a more
comprehensive understanding of the process, and a clear definition of the "end product:
Therefore, we have provided a diagram for your review which includes the work plan for
Phase One and Phase Two, and a definition of the final product. We anticipate a Phase
Three, but we feel that it is premature to describe this phase in any detail at this time.
Presentation/Discussion of Survey Results
Dave Brostrom presented the results of the Information Survey, including commentary on
both objective and subjective responses. He pointed out that the survey instrument was
designed to examine the six subject areas identified at the April, 1991 Workshop, and to
determine whether additional areas should be considered.
The results of the survey are to be used by the Task Forces in their discussions. The survey
results generally supported the conclusions reached in the April Lake Management
Workshop. The responses to certain survey questions reflected differences of opinion
according to the categories of the respondents' affiliations, and were highlighted in the
presentation. Three major themes were noted in the responses to the subjective survey
questions:
We should consider the establishment of a Task Force to address the issue of exotic
species and their threat to lakes in Minnesota;
The need to be aware of the funding implications of the Forum's recommendations;
The need for the Lake Management Forum's final product to lead to action.
Each participant in the Forum has been assigned to a Task Force, on the basis of their
preferences noted earlier. Please take particular note of your Task Force's meeting
schedule and work plan and feel free to contact your task force chair or me if you have any
questions.
Task Force Organization and Process
Dick Osgood provided an overview of task force organization and process, including
composition and leadership, preliminary charges, meeting schedule and location, and
communication within and among the task forces. These charges to the task forces are
derived from the results of the April 1991 Lake Management Workshop and the responses
to the Lake Management Forum Information Survey. After discussion, it was agreed that
there should zat be an additional task force on exotic species. Osgood provided an
instruction sheet for use by each of the six task forces,who met after dinner. (For those not
at the workshop, we have enclosed the instruction sheet,the proposed general charge to the
task forces, and the individual charges to each of six task forces).
Convene Individual Task Forces
The six task forces met independently following dinner to complete their work based on the
instruction sheet. They were asked to prepare a brief report for the Saturday large group
discussion.
I
Large Group Discussion
Each of the task force chairs reported on the following: Revisions of their respective task
force charge; an outline of their work plan; an agenda for their December meeting; and
commentary regarding staff needs, meeting schedule, etc.
As related to the task force reports, the following information is enclosed:
Schedule of meetings for all tasks forces including data, time, and location;
Brief outline of reports from each task force as presented by the chairs at the
Saturday morning session.
Reconvene Task Forces
Each of the task forces reconvened to make final plans for their December meetings.
During the final wrap-up, Dick Osgood stated that each chair would be responsible for
preparing minutes of their respective task force meeting; minutes would be submitted to
Osgood, reproduced and mailed to the respective task force members and to all other task
force chairs and co-chairs. In addition, each chair would be responsible for preparing a one-
page 'bulleted" highlights sheet of each of their meetings; highlights would be submitted to
Osgood, reproduced, and mailed to members of all task forces.
r•
rr -: Y
cJ m iv E5 g i 1 3 =
+ I1iLii11
FL:*, F it g P '!' i i i ? t x
..c - 2 t ; ; &
i2 S El A
E
� aG E °
_
H_14 Le E 11Toa ! e < Tz
3
zF W ; JIIIL
o
-
Z _ aT
^Ito R
E
�y F II<� .o
c 1111 54 c a _
iii
0 3 'DT1 o 0Q .60
U.
o E L1 c 1
ti. 0 illil 4 1 II
ti .9', E _ IN Eee n chi 5 r E to �e S f
..! "' ANTE a Jill: t , I
MINNESOTA LAKE MANAGEMENT FORUM
FRESHWATER FOUNDATION
NOVEMBER 22 & 23, 1991
Work Plan
PHASE ONE
I. Project Preparation, Interviews, Briefing Paper, Workshop, and Summary Report
(February - May, 1991)
A. Formation of the project and funding proposal
B. Identification of key questions and participants
C. Conduct interviews
D. Develop and distribute briefing paper
E. Prepare summary report
II. Prepare Phase Two Work Plan and Funding Proposal (May - June, 1991)
PHASE TWO
I. Project Preparation and Lake Management Workshop (August 15 - November 15,
1991)
A. Inform lake management community of project
B. Establish survey steering committee
C. Formulate survey instrument and identify survey audience
D. Implement survey
E. Evaluate survey results and prepare corresponding report
F. Distribute survey report to workshop participants
G. Plan first workshop session to:
1. review work accomplished at April workshop
2. evaluate survey results
3. establish/assign task forces
H. Conduct workshop and workshop summary
Expected Outcomes: Through the survey, the input of an expanded audience will be
incorporated into the work of the Lake Management Forum. The results of the survey will
verify and further refine the six subject areas. In order to address these subject areas, the
Forum members will establish and charge the task forces that will each address a specific
subject area.
II. Facilitate Task Forces (November 15 - May 15, 1992)
A. Organize five meetings of each task force
B. Prepare meeting notes and coordinate activities of each task force
C. Assist in the preparation of task force reports to the forum's mid-May
workshop 1992
D. Maintain communications among task forces and Forum participants
E. Distribute preliminary task force reports to Forum members at the mid-May
workshop
F. Plan second workshop session to hear reports and review the work of the task
forces
G. Conduct workshop and prepare workshop summary
Expected Outcomes: Five meetings of each of the six task forces will be held. Each task
force will produce and present a report to the Forum. Forum members will evaluate the
reports at a Forum workshop.
III. Reconvene Focus Groups (May 15 - September 15, 1992)
A. Convene 2 meetings of each task force to review workshop comments and
refine task force reports
B. Prepare final task force group reports for distribution to participants at the
mid-September workshop
C. Plan third workshop session
D. Conduct workshop and prepare workshop summary
Expected Outcomes: Task Forces will reconvene and refine their respective reports,
producing final reports and submitting them to the Forum members. At a Forum workshop,
the members will approve the reports, and associated recommendations and implementation
strategies.
IV. Prepare Final Report,Recommendations,and Implementation Strategies(September
15 - November 15, 1992)
A. Summarize the task force reports into a single final report
B. On the basis of the final report, formulate a set of recommendations for
action that describe what needs to happen
C. Develop a set of implementation strategies to advance the recommendations
D. Distribute final report, recommendations, and implementation strategies to
Forum members for their final review
E. Prepare final documents based on Forum member's review
Expected Outcomes: Task Force reports will be combined into a single final report of the
Lake Management Forum, including recommendations and implementation strategies. This
final report will be distributed to and reviewed by the Forum members. Based on this
review, the final report will be modified as necessary prior to its release.
V. Deliver final report, and recommendations (November 15, 1992 - April 15, 1993)
A. Distribute final report to forum members and other audiences
B. Provide testimony before legislative committees
C. Participate in meeting with state and local agencies and other entities involved
in lake management
D. Coordinate the participation of Minnesota Lake .Management Forum
participants in the delivery of the final report
E. Assist in the development of legislation responding to the final report
F. Assist in formulating programs and proposals to continue the efforts of lake
management in Minnesota
Expected Outcomes: The final report will be presented to appropriate audiences, including
the State Legislature, governmental agencies and other interested entities. Assistance will
be provided to those organizations undertaking actions recommended by the Lake
Management Forum.
Task Force Presentation
November Z3, 1991
I, Lake Management Based on Natural Boundaries - Watersheds
Charge:
1. Definition of ...
2. Develop hypothetical watershed-based case study
3. Watershed land use impacts on lakes
— assess programs which reduce impacts
4. Local government and lake association roles in watershed management.
5. Reorientation? Of agency programs to advance watershed management.
6. Financial implications of watershed-based management
— getting $ to where it is needed.
Work Plan:
Meeting 1 (12/11): Charges #1, #2
Meeting 2 (1/15): Charge #3 •
Meeting 3 (2/12): Charges #4, #5, #6
Meeting 4 (3/18): Refine Issues, recommendations
Meeting 5 (4/22): Draft Report
Information Needs:
For Meeting #1
+ Agency Input
(DNR-Fisheries? Larry Gates, John Pnulgy, Others?)
+ Task Force and/or FWF will obtain, copy and disseminate any pertinent
materials in advance of meetings.
+ Review questionnaire results
Task Force Presentation
November 23, 1991
P. Lake Management Data collection and Application
Task 1:
•
Elements (Data) of Effective Lake Management
▪ Watershed
• Water Quality
▪ Macrophytes, including Exotics
▪ Use
- Economic value
• Fisheries and Wildlife
Identify Means To:
Task 2 - Inventory existing data
Task 3 - Relate data collected to management needs
Support decision-making
• Uniform format
Levels of data
• Protocol
Task 4 - Develop local association's role in collection
Task 5 Make data available and useful
▪ software
▪ analysis and summary
Work Plan
December 9 - Organize and develop elements of effective lake management
January 14 - Complete all tasks for each element
February 11 - (Approximately two elements per meeting)
March 17 -
April 21 - Summarize and prepare rec's for first draft task force report
Task Force Presentation
November 23, 1991
III. Lake Classification Based on Natural Characteristics and Lake Use
GOAL: Sustainability
Reasons to Classify:
1. Facilitate communication
2. Direct management
3. Facilitate regulations
Factors for classification:
1. Geomorphology; 2. Land use; 3. Lake uses; 4. Biology
Sustainability: The ability to assimilate the activities which impact on a lake without
creating significant adverse impacts on the intrinsic values of the lake.
Schedule:
December - Review and Assess charge
January - Develop classification approach and guidelines and a way to evaluate it.
February - Develop justification of classification based on potential to promote
sustainability and succeed.
March - Draft report
April - Review, Revise and Stop
Work Plan (December 10):
1. Review goal, reasons and bases for classification
2. Review and revise specific survey issues and relate to bases
3. Assessment of lake classifications
Information Needs:
1. Inventory existing system
2. Rationale, users, factors, costs, locale, of systems (above)
3. Define available information on lake demands and uses
Staff Support:
1. Compile (1&2) above and provide to Task Force by Dec. 3.
2. Compile #3 above and provide to Task Force by Jan S.
Task Force Presentation
November 23, 1991
IV. The Framework for Lake Management in Minnesota
1. Major Players BWSR, PCA, MDH,DNR Ag, Organizational Charts & Mission (Ron
Harnack/Steve Heiskary?)
a. Identify - local, state, regional, private
b. Assess Roles & Responsibilities
- who manages the lake?
-boundary issues, eg. state government regions, local government boundaries
- authorities
c. Context/Perspective
- Mission of players
- Perspective
- Vision of lakes (& goals)
2. The Focus/Vision of the "Framework" Task Force
a. Link to overall Forum Vision
b. Thinking of user's perspective ("bottom-up")
- from this perspective .. what "connection" problems ?
c. Given that each lake has own "thumbprint"and must be managed in a unique way
Flexibility in approach must be possible in the framework for lakes.
3. Identify problems resulting from fragmentation
a. Common or conflicting objectives for management(globally=for a specific lake)
b. Organizational Philosophy
c. Competition for $
d. Complexity of permits system
4. Possible Solutions
a. WHO should be managing lakes?
b. Can we simplify to make more efficient?
c. Funding - local, state, private roles
d. Partnerships
e. Linking lake management with users.
f. Consider the impacts of changes that might be proposed.
Task Force Presentation
'November 23, 1991
V. Strategic Planninc for Lake Management in Minnesota
Goal: State Plan
Regions
Local Plan - Actors, Roles, Action, How
Vision: Resource Protection
Use Diversity
Value
Tourism
Real Estate
Recreation
Life Quality
Economic
Co-op Management
Actors:
State - DNR, MPCA, BWSR
Local Government
Lake Associations
Lake Users
• Actions:
Process (How):
Modify Goals Stakeholders
Evaluation DATA Plan Development
Implementation Plan for A on
1. Vision
2. Shareholders Entity
•
3. Mechanism
Task Force Presentation
November 23, 1991
• VI. Lake Management and Education
1. Dates for future meetings
December 12 - Aitkin
January 16 - Spring Hill
February 12 - Spring Hill (We may also meet with our "other" task forces)
March 20-Duluth, Sea Grant Office 208 Washburn Hall,UMD 55812, 218-716-8100
April 23 - Spring Hill
2. Each of us will do for December 12th meeting (Please prepare written responses/lists):
▪ List of 3 most important tasks or objectives for our committee
• Identify key audiences (any level)
▪ Identify the one best mechanism to educate people about lakes and lake
management
Read over comments from survey
3. Individual tasks for December meeting:
Don - Outline step-by-step process for how you would develop a marketing
plan
? - Outline how lake associations do education, communication on lake
issues (eg., newsletters, meetings, reaching consensus)
Paula, Pat, Molly, Barb -
(1) Pull together example of educational materials and programs
that have worked/failed.
•
(2) Identify 'parallel" 1 & e committees, efforts at all levels.
MINNESOTA LAKE MANAGEMENT FORUM
FRESHWATER FOUNDATION
Roster
I. Lake Management Based on Natural Boundaries - Watersheds
Art Norton --co-chair
Dennis Asmussen - co-chair
Art Norton • Dale Krystosek
Itasca Co. SWCD Beltrami SWCD
516 C Pokegama Ave. So. 403 Federal Building
Grand Rapids, MN 55744 Bemidji, MN 56601
218-326-0017 218-751-3036
Dennis Asmussen Jeff Lee
Minnesota DNR Mpls. Pk. & Rec. Bd.
500 Lafayette Rd. 3800 Bryant Ave. S.
St. Paul, MN 55155-4052 Minneapolis, MN 55409
_ 612-296-4822 _ 612-348-4448
Terry Bovee Howard Peterson
88 S. Park MN Assn. Wtrshd. Dist.
LeCenter, MN 56057-1620 7021 Duck Lk. Rd.
612-357-6126 Eden Prairie, MN 55346
612-934-2050
Rick Hanna
Environmental Svc. Carl Swanson
P.O. Box 8608 10180 93rd Ave. N.
Mankato, MN 56001 Maple Grove, MN 55369
507-389-8381 •
•
Jim Hodgson Douglas Thomas
MPCA MN Bd. of Water & Soil Res.
1601 Minnesota Dr. 155 South Wabasha, Ste. 104
Brainerd, MN 56401 St Paul, MN 55107
218-828-2492 612-297-5617
Tim James
SWOAP - MPCA Regional Office
714 Lake Ave.
Detroit Lakes, MN 56501
MINNESOTA LAKE MANAGEMENT FORUM
FRESHWATER FOUNDATION
Roster
IL Lake Management Data Collection and Application
Kathy Svanda - co-chair
Terry Noonan - co-chair
Kathy Svanda Dr. Dave Lime
Mgr. Non-Point Source College of Forestry
Div. Water,Quality 115 Green Hall
ME PCA 1530 N Cleveland
520 Lafayette Rd. St Paul, MN 55108
St. Paul, MN 55115 612-624-2250
612-296-8856
Terry Noonan Dave Wright
MN DNR, Box 25
Ramsey Co. Public Wks. 500 Lafayette Rd.
3377 N. Rice St. Paul, MN 55155-4025
St. Paul, MN 55126 612-296-3500
612-482-5230
Lance Yohe
Judy Hartsoe International Coalition
Metropolitan Council Box 127
230 E. 5th St. Moorhead, MN 56560
St. Paul, MN 55101 .- 218-233-0292
612-291-6323 •
Charles S. Holt, PhD
8734 Cranberry Ct. N.E.
Bemidji, MN 56601
218-755-2877
. Floyd Jorgenson
Beltrami SWCD
403 Federal Building
Bemidji, MN 56601
218-751-3036
•
MINNESOTA LAKE MANAGEMENT FORUM
FRESHWATER FOUNDATION
Roster
III. Lake Classification Based on Natural Characteristics and Lake Use
Don O'Brien - chair
• Ray Norrgard • co-chair
Don O'Brien
Cullen Lake Assoc. Gene Hollenstein
Box 23 Izaak Walton League
Nisswa, NLN 56468 8927 Hallmark Ave. S.
218-963-7485 Cottage Grove, MN 55016
612-459-2162
•
Ray Norrgard •
1875 Glen Paul Ave. Beth Kluthe
Arden Hills, MN 55112 Planning & Zoning Admin.
612-636-5551 Hubbard County Env. Svcs. •
Courthouse
John Barten Park Rapids, MN 56470
Hennepin Cty. Parks 218-732-3890
3800 County Rd. #24
Maple Plain, MN 55359 Arlo Knoll
612-476-4663 MDNR - Div. of Minerals
PO Box 567, 1525 3rd Av. E.
Kim Chapman Hibbing, MN 55746
The Nature Conservancy 218-262-6767
1313 Fifth St. SE
Minneapolis, IvLN 55414 Dr. Joseph Shapiro
612-331-0758 Limnological Research
University of Minnesota
Bob DeVries 310 Pillsbury Drive
7213 Major Ave. N. • Minneapolis, MN 55455
Brooklyn Ctr., MN 55429 612-624-7005
Steve Heiskary •
Minnesota PCA
520 Lafayette Rd.
St. Paul, MN 55155
612-296-7217
MINNESOTA LAKE MANAGEMENT FORUM
FRESHWATER FOUNDATION
Roster
IV. The Framework for Lake Management in Minnesota
Jack Skrypek - chair
John Wells - co-chair
Jack Skrypek Fred Moore
Box 12 NLN-DNR ' City of Plymouth
500 Lafayette Rd. 3400 Plymouth Blvd. •
St. Paul, NLN 55155 Plymouth, MN 55447
612-296-0783 612-550-5000
John Wells JoAnn Olsen
Environmental Quality Board Planner, City of Chanhassen
300 Centennial Bldg. 690 Coulter Dr.
658 Cedar Street Chanhassen, MN 55317
St. Paul, Iv NM 55155
612-297-2602 Pete Orterson
MN DNR, Div. of Waters
Pat Alberg 500 Lafayette Rd.
Hubbard County Commissioner St. Paul, MN 55155
Rt. #3, Box 311 612-297-4601
Park Rapids, MN 56470
•
218-732-3034 Timothy Scherkenbach
Minnesota PCA
Ronald Beare 520 Lafayette Rd.
Becker County COLA - VP St. Paul, MN 55155
217 Prairie Wood Dr. 612-296-7202
Fargo, ND 58103
701-237-3643 Dan Steward
MN Bd of Wtr & Soil Resources
Bill Becker 503 Washington St.
MN DNR Brainerd, MN 56401
500 Lafayette Rd. 218-828-2598
St. Paul, MN 55155-4010
612-296-3093 George R. Tengwaii
Bd. Member, MN Rural Water
Box 975 .
Willmar, MN 56201
1-235-3732
Pat Wulff
2865 Lakeshore Ave.
Maple Plain, MN 55359
612-479-2972
MINNESOTA 1KE MANAGEMENT FORUM
FRESHWATER FOUNDATION
Roster
V. Strategic Planning for Lake Management in Minnesota
Dave Neiman - chair
Dave Neiman
P1Anning Director Gene Strommen
Crow Wing County Courthouse LMCD
Brainerd, Iv N 56401 900 E. Wayzata Blvd. # 160
218-828-3964 Wayzata, MN 55391
612-473-7033
Rich Brasch
City of Eagan Paul Swenson
3501 Coachman Rd. MDNR, Div. of Waters
Eagan, MN 55122 Box 32
612-681-4300 500 Lafayette Rd. .
St. Paul, MN 55155
David Dotzenroth 218-2964800
LMLOA
3225 Casco Circle Wayne V. Weller
Wazata, MN 55391 658 Summit Ave.
612-471-8122 Hill City, MN 55748
218-697-2487
Bill Maucker
Box 341 Bruce Wilson
Nisswa, MN 56468 MICA
218-568-8823 520 Lafayette Rd.
St. Paul, MN 55155
George Orning 612-296-9210
International Coalition
Box 127
. Moorhead, MN 56560
218-233-0292
Robert Salonek
620 Hamel Rd.
Hamel, MN 55340
•
MINNESOTA LAKE MANAGEMENT FORUM
FRESHWATER FOUNDATION
Roster
VI. Lake Management Education and Communication
Molly McGregor - chair
Barb Liukkonen - co-chair
Molly MacGregor Paula Ripley
MH
B 7024 Polaris Lane N.
Cass County Courthouse Maple Grove, MN 55369
Walker, MN 56484 612-420-5392
218-547-3300
Patricia Ruble
Barb Liukkonen Ruble Consulting
NEC Ext. Svc. P.O. Box 442
216 Selvig Hall - UMC Princeton, MN 55371
Crookston, MN 56716 612-389-4563
218-726-8106
J. W. Schwartz
Wally Christensen Ten Mile Lake Association
Pres. Assoc. Cass Cry. Lks 7201 York Ave. S. #1107
Pres., Child, Girl, and Woman Edina, MN 55435
Lake Association 612-896.1067
HC 74, Box 1675
Hackensack, MN 56452 John Alden
218-682-2578 (Alternate for J.W. Schwartz)
Director, Ten Mile Lk. Assn.
Wayne Goeken HC 75, Box 728
Exc. Secty. Sand Hill Watershed Hackensack, MN 56452
P. O. Box 584 218-547-3114
•
Fertile, MN 56540
218-574-2622
Don McCarty
P.O. Box 293
Faribault, MN 55021 .
507-334-8239
MINNESOTA LAKE MANAGEMENT FORUM
FRESHWATER FOUNDATION
Roster
Observers:
Todd Driscoll
Blandin Foundation
100 N. Pokegama Ave.
Grand Rapids, MN 55744
218-326-0523
Sue Thornton
LCMR
Rm. 65, State Office Bldg.
100 Constitution Ave.
St. Paul, NEC 55155
MINNESOTA LAKE MANAGEMENT FORUM
FRESHWATER FOUNDATION
Task Force Meeting Schedule
The following is a tentative schedule of the task force meeting times and locations. The
meeting times are from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., unless noted otherwise. We are also
considering a mid-term meeting of the forum,which may require us to amend this schedule.
I. Lake Management Based on Natural Boundaries -Watersheds
December 11 Brainerd-PCA (9:00-2:00) March 18 Brainerd-PCA
January 15 Brainerd-PCA April 22 Brainerd-PCA
February 12 Brainerd-PCA
2. Lake Management Data Collection and Application
December 11 Spring Hill March 17 Spring Hill
January 14 Spring Hill April 21 Spring Hill
February 11 Spring Hill
3. Lake Classification Based on Natural Characteristics and Lake Use
December 10 Little Falls March 18 Spring Hill
January 15 Spring Hill April 22 Little Falls
February 11 Spring Hill
4. The Framework for Lake Management in Minnesota
December 17 Spring Hill March 19 Alexandria
January 16 Alexandria April 23 Spring Hill
February 18 Spring Hill
5. Strategic Planning for Lake Management in Minnesota
December 13 St. Cloud March 19 St. Cloud
January 16 St. Cloud April 23 St. Cloud
February 13 St. Cloud
•
6. Lake Management Education and Communication
December 12 Aitkin March 20 Duluth
January 16 Spring Hill April 23 Spring Hill
February 12 Spring Hill
•
MINNESOTA LAKE MANAGEMENT FORUM
FRESHWATER FOUNDATION
December Task Force Meetings
Final Schedule
_ Please note changes from the earlier schedule and call your task force chair with questions.
I. Lake Management Based on Natural Boundaries -Watersheds
Date: December 11 Time: 9:00 -2:00
Location: Brainerd PCA (218/828-2492)
1601 Minnesota Drive
Brainerd, Minnesota 56401 •
2. Lake Management Data Collection and Application "' note data change •"
Date: December 9 Time: 10:00 - 3:00
Location: Spring Hill Center (612/473-3332)
725 County Road Six
Wayzata, Minnesota 55391
3. Lake Classification Based on Natural Characteristics and Lake Use
Date: December 10 Time: 10:00 - 3:00
Location: Sunwood Inn (800/321-4151)
1 Sunwood Plaza
- St. Cloud, Minnesota 55302
4. The Framework for Lake Management In Minnesota
Date: December 17 Time: 10:00 - 3:00
Location: Spring Hill Center (612/473-3332)
725 County Road Six
Wayzata, Minnesota 55391
S. Strategic Planning for Lake Management in Minnesota '*s note location change '_
Date: December 13 Time: 10:00 - 3:00
Location: Sunwood Inn (800/321-4151)
1 Sunwood Plaza
St. Cloud, Minnesota 55302 •
•
6. Lake Management Education and Communication ••' December meeting canceled s"
f
CITYOF
qir CHANHASSEN
-
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
December 16, 1991
•
Mr. Curt Oakes
City of Victoria
7951 Rose
Victoria, MN 55386
Dear Curt:
As you know, the Chanhassen Compost site closed two weeks early due
to the Halloween snow storm. The site closed at the same time the
publicity for Victoria residents went out stating that they could
use the site on a temporary basis. Therefore, the residents of
Victoria did not have an opportunity to use the site. It was
agreed that Victoria could use the compost site since it would only
be used by the residents for two weeks and it was for an emergency
basis only. Chanhassen has not determined whether the compost site
will again be opened. The Chanhassen Recycling Committee prefers •
to emphasize composting at home. Also, the compost site was
expensive to operate.
As we discussed, it may make sense to combine compost sites between
adjoining cities. If Chanhassen was again to open the compost site
next spring and Victoria wished to use the site, it would have to
be on the condition that Victoria share in the cost of the compost
site. I will keep you in touch with our plans to reopen the
compost site and let me know what Victoria's plans for a compost
site are. _
_, r •--rte
. Sincerely,
1
Jo Ann Olsen f .ala.`_ :'i ��.
Senior Planner
.JO:msy
pc: Mayor and City Council
LF.etYcling Commission
Don Ashworth, City Manager
Carver County
Is
.p PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
December 19, 1991
Mr. Will Abbott
1128 Blair Avenue
St. Paul , MN 55104
Dear Mr. Abbott:
I have enclosed the minutes of the August 13 , 1990, City Council
meeting where the Donovan subdivision was approved. The conditions
of approval require connecting any new home on Parcel B to city
sewer and water. Condition #8 , which would have placed limits on
building on Parcel B was deleted by the City Council.
If you proceed with your plans to build a home on Parcel B, I would
encourage you to keep in mind the future development potential of
the parcel. Failure to do so could have economic repercussions for
you in the future.
Sincely, /
Paul Krauss, AICP
Planning Director
PK:v -
pc: City_ Council
LBlM
ining Commission
File #90-11 SUB
•
0,
t4, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
CITY T FFC HANBASSEN
f
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
December 13 , 1991
Mr. Jack Anderson
Jack Edward Anderson Architects
5221 Crestwood Drive
Minnetonka MN 55345
Dear Mr. Anderson:
At their Monday, December 9 , 1991, meeting, the City Council
affirmed the selection of EOS Architects to undertake design work
associated with the Chanhassen Senior Center. On behalf of the
city, I want to thank you for preparing a bid proposal for the
project. I will attempt to keep you informed as to future projects
the city undertakes requiring architectural services.
Sincerely,
Paul Krauss, AICP
Planning Director
PK:v
pc: City Council
Planning Commission - 'bzzrz- ,-
•
k'
•
rfr
• �A
t 0 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
December 13 , 1991
Mr. Gary Nyberg
Smiley Glotter Associates
1021 LaSalle Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55403
Dear Mr. Nyberg:
At their Monday, December 9, 1991, meeting, the City Council
affirmed the selection of EOS Architects to undertake design work
associated with the Chanhassen Senior Center. On behalf of the
city, I want to thank you for preparing a bid proposal for the
project. I will attempt to keep you informed as to future projects
the city undertakes requiring architectural services.
Sincerely,
Paul Krauss, AICP
Planning Director
PK:v
pc: City Council
Planning Commission
•
I'►
�O PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
CITY OF
li
'Illiit4;:: cHANBAssEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
Il
December 13 , 1991
Ms. Shelley A. Santine
Standley Fishman Associates, Inc.
348 North Prior Avenue
St. Paul , MN 5 5 1 04
Dear Ms. Santine:
At their Monday, December 9, 1991, meeting, the City Council
affirmed the selection of EOS Architects to undertake design work
associated with the Chanhassen Senior Center. On behalf of the
city, I want to thank you for preparing a bid proposal for the
project. I will attempt to keep you informed as to future projects
the city undertakes requiring architectural services.
,S-iscerely,
„._}/ i„,...-------
.
Paul Krauss, AICP
Planning Director
PK:v
pc: City Council
Planning Commission -__ 7,
. -•
7
.
—.
. .
rs,
tot PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
CITY of
c2
EN
1111tP 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
December 13, 1991
Mr. Donovan D. Wagner
Reese Wagner, Inc.
8220 Commonwealth Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Dear Mr. Wagner:
At their Monday, December 9, 1991, meeting, the City Council
affirmed the selection of EOS Architects to undertake design work
associated with the Chanhassen Senior Center. On behalf of the
city, I want to thank you for preparing a bid proposal for the
project. I will attempt to keep you informed as to future projects
the city undertakes requiring architectural services.
Sincerely,,
aul Krauss, AICP
Planning Director
•
PK:v
pc: City Council
Planning Commission
OW
t4, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
CITYOF
cli
si
lir
t 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
December 13, 1991
Mr. Richard J. Warren
Director, Human Resources
United Mailing, Inc.
1001 Park Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317-0429
Dear Dick:
I appreciated having the opportunity to meet with you at the United
Mailing site on December 9th to discuss your outdoor storage needs.
As we discussed, United Mailing has historically kept a portion of
their site occupied with outdoor storage in the form of trailer
boxes. The basis for this is that current city standards require
the screening of outdoor storage areas. You have indicated that
there is currently a need to relocate some of this parking to the
western parking lot. On behalf of the city, I agreed that this
could be done on a temporary basis as outlined in your December 9 ,
1991, letter conditioned upon your working with the city to develop
a landscaped screening plan. We agreed that you would work with
the city on this plan on or by April 1, 1992 , in light of United
Mailing's current high workload.
I am certain that we can work together to produce a reasonable
screening plan. The city's goal of maintaining a high quality
environment in the industrial park is one that I am sure United
Mailing also supports.
. Since ely,
Paul Krauss, AICP :._ -
Planning DirectortA.
PK:v •
pc: City Council
Planning Commission •
File #84-3 Site Plan
es
I, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
UM CA
l UNITED MA L r c
UNITED MAILING , INC.
1001 PARK ROAD
CHANHASSEN.MINNESOTA 55317-0429
PHONE(6121474-4182
December 9, 1991
Paul Krauss, AICP
City Of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Paul :
Confirming our 12/09/91 conversation, we appreciate the temporary
trailer parking variance for our west lot. As requested, we will
park trailers only on the south side closest to the railroad
track. Our expectation is that we will need this extra trailer
storage until 2/01/92 .
Your suggestions regarding landscape screening sound realistic.
I will look forward to a more detailed discussion on or about
4/01/92 .
Sincerely,
Richard J. Warren
Director, human Resources
RJW/kml
pc: Elaine Major
Bill Maloney
RECEIVE(
DEC 12 199
r `
$4,,,,.11-;
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN1111111!
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director
DATE: December 30, 1991
SUBJ: Legal Procedures Relative to Outdoor Storage and
Non-conforming Uses
From time to time, Steve Emmings provides me with copies of court
actions of interest involved with community development. The
attached opinion concerns a case involving outdoor storage as a
non-conforming use. The court 's treatment of the non-conformity is
particularly interesting since some of the arguments bear a
resemblance to those made by the Moon Valley operators.
The appeals court ultimately upheld a permanent injunction obtained
by the City of Savage over an outdoor storage yard operator. The
operator expanded the non-conformity to a different portion of the
site after the city enacted an ordinance regulating outdoor
storage. Apparently, in spite of repeated attempts to have the
matter rectified without success, the city took the operator to
court.
If
TIRO PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
FINANCE AND COMMERCE COURT OF APPEALS EDITION NOVEMBER 8, 1991
COURT OF APPEALSRKI maintains the finding that it did not use the southern portion
of the property for open storage before 1975 is dearly erroneous.
CIVIL()PINIONS The company states that,prior to 1975,it used this part of the land
•
UNPUBLISHED for access and for turning trucks and equipment about to serve the
• ."northern portion.
This opinion will be unpublished and We are unpersuaded by this argument. Testimony established -
,,.,., -.=• may not be cited except as provided by that the water table was within a foot of the surface on the southern
• '2-''=;'Minn.Stat.§480A.08,subd.3 (1990) part of the property prior to 1975. At that time the ground was so
. wet that the weeds were impossible to cut and it was unsuitable for
""'. .:. " '`' >s;.T ,,„,„, storage. Knutson himself admitted he did not begin to lace fill on
loos* dcllitti • the property to raise its elevation until he bought it in April 1975.
: ;. . , : :*. :._ %,; .:•K•• ,,,.: ,s-53Y If the soil was too wet for storage before it was improved,it would
�R x <. ” `'....':<. ' 'r. '9.revs<' #. � x'j- be too muddy for travel because heavy ui ment would sink. The
•
trial court's findings of fact cannot be deemed clear error.
• 2.. The admissibility of photographic evidence rests with the trial
Scott County Parker,Judge court's discretion and the reviewing court will not reverse absent an
District Court'File 9011878 abuse of discretion. Hueper v. Goodrich, 263 N.W2d 408,411
-' (Minn. 1978).
City of Savage, Phillip R.Krass RKI challenges the trial court's admission of 1971 and 1974
Krass&Monroe,Ch. photographs offered by the city to prove that the southern portion
Respondent, 1650 West 82nd Street was not used for storage before the open-storage regulation took
Bloomington,MN 55431 effect. The company asserts that the photos were taken in spring
vs.' when RKI's equipment would be at job sites, that the height from
Richard Knutson,Inc., Jeffrey C.Paulson which they were taken obscured details, and that the 1974 photo-
David D.Hammargren graphs were admitted with insufficient foundation.
Appellant: • Christoffel&Elliott,P.A. Minn.R.Evid.901(a)states:
805 Capital Centre The requirement of authentication or identification as
• 386 North Wabasha Street a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by
St.Paul,MN 55102 evidence sufficient to support a:finding that the matter
in question is what its proponent claims.
RKI's employee, who had been with the company since 1970, —
Filed November 5, 1991 hesitantly authenticated all three photos,although he also testi-fled
• Office of Appellate Courts that he had never obtained an aerial view of the property.Concern-
•
Afirmed. ' ing the 1974 photographs,be stated,"I don't know if,you know,as
Considered and decided by Lansing, Presiding Judge, Parker, far as existing in 1974 if that's what it looked like.I--the pipes are
Judge,and Foley,Judge. still there and,I mean, it looks like the same place to me." Thus,
the rule was satisfied;someone with knowledge of the property at
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
the
PARKER, JUDGE (Hon. John Fitzgerald, District Court Trial relevant time was able to identify it.
Judge) The questions concerning the date of the photographs,the time of -
The City of Savage sought a permanent injunction to prevent year they were taken,the clarity of details,and the hesitancy of the
i Richard Knutson,Inc.(RKI),from maintaining open storage on its admitestinony go t It theu weight ten given that thisthe evwas a bench tot its
Boone Avenue property,claiming that RKI's storage area exceeded admissibility. must be borne in mind was a trial,
i conducted by a judge of considerable experience. A trial judge is -
limits imposed by ordinance and that the company had not obtained
a special-use permit to allow it to deviate from those limits. more fitted by education and experience to sort out the probative
After a trial to the court,an order permanently enjoining RKI from value Thef evidence than a]f ay jury zoningcan reasonably e is a expected oftlaw,be,
using the property for open storage was issued. RKI appealed and 3. interpretation oof a ordinance a question
moved this court for an order staying enforcement of the in-junction. and this court owes no deference to the trial court's inter-pretation.
CON Corp. v. City of Eagan, 348 N.W.2d 66, 72 (Minn.
f We granted the stay pending our decision on the merits of the appeal. 1984).
RKI asserts that one of the trial court's findings was clearly Savage,Minn.,Ordinance 57,§2.4(Oct. 10, 1973),provides:The lawful use of any land or buildings existing at the
erroneous, that it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to time of the adoption of the Ordinance may be con-
admit certain photographs,that the trial court erred in into-preting tinued,even if such use does not conform to the regula-
the nonconforming-use ordinance, and that the court issued an tions of the Ordinance,except as provided below:
overbroad injunction.
DECISION 2.3.2.2 Relocations. A nonconforming use shall not be moved
1. A reviewing court will not set aside the trial court's findings to any other part of the parcel of land upon which the same was
of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. Minn.R.Civ.P.52.01. conducted at the time of the passage of this ordinance.
The trial court found: The court found that RKI did not use the southern parcel for
3. That [RKI) used the northern two-thirds of the storage prior to the enactment of the zoning ordinance and that its
prop-erty,hereinafter referred to as Boone Avenue' • use of the southern part of the property for storage constituted an
' for open storage beginning in the summer of 1969,
and from 1975 until the present used both the upper and impermissible RKImaintains
s that theion trialoa nonconforming use.
lower portions of the property. RKI mainta was that court's interpretation of"relocate"is —
overly broad. Relocate, thecompany argues,means to leave one
• • • point entirely and begin again at a new place. Accord-ingly,it did '
8. That on October 10,1973,at the time of the enact-went of the not "relocate," since it continuously used the northern part and
open storage non-conforming use regulations,[RKI)used the north- expanded its prior nonconforming use to the south. RKI asserts,in --
em two-thirds of the Boone Avenue property for storage. short,that the subdivision governing relocation does not proscribe
9. That [RKI] impermissibly expanded its use of the Boone expansion.
Avenue property as an open storage site by using the land on the To support its argument, RKI uses the headnote printed before
southern one-third of the parcel for storage beginning in 1975. subdivision 2.3.2.2 of the ordinance,entitled"Relocations.' Use of —
B13
NOVEMBER 8, 1991 FINANCE AND COMMERCE COURT OF APPEALS EDITION
•
a headnote is not a proper way to determine legislative intent. See extended three times so that the company could complete the
Minn. Stat. § 645.49 (1990) (headnote is merely a catchword to required work on the property. The city revoked the permit in 1989 i
indicate the contents of the subdivision and is not part of the statute); for noncompliance with the conditions precedent to obtaining it. In 4
Wangensteen v.Northern Pac.Ry.Co.,218 Minn.318,322, 16 1990,RIG again applied fora special-use permit,which was granted
N.W.2d 50,52(1944)(headline is not part of the act and change in subject to fulfilling the conditions precedent. Again, RKI did not
a headline cannot be used to indicate legislative intent to change the comply with the conditions.
law). ' Although RKI loses a storage site,the city would have per-mitted
The language of the subdivision prohibits "moving" a noncon- it to continue this use had it complied with the necessary conditions.
forming use to any other part of the parcel of land. We reject as The city cannot plan uniform property development and control
unduly restrictive RKI's view of the term 'moving." RKI moved nonconforming uses if it cannot insist that conditions precedent to
its open-storage activities from the extreme northern end of the obtaining these permits are met. It was not an abuse of discretion
prop-erty to the extreme southern end, very near to a well-kept for the trial court to determine that the equities weighed on the side
resi-dential neighborhood immediately south of the property. of granting the injunction, or to apply the injunction to the entire
Under these circumstances, the trial court cannot be said to have tract.
tnisap-plied the ordinance in prohibiting this particular "moving." Affirmed.
In changing the impact of the nonconforming use to adjacent proper-
ty on the south,RKI"moved"the use and violated the ordinance. This opinion will be unpublished and
4. Whether to grant an injunction generally rests within the sound may not be cited except as provided by
discretion of the trial court,and its action will not be disturbed upon Minn.Stat.§480A.08,subd.3(1990)
appeal unless,based upon the whole record,it appears there has been
an abuse of such discretion. Cherne Indus.,Inc. v. Grounds & ......:.,%:...:. ; ;�: "i.` - °..... "p'"'-
Assoc.,Inc,278 N.W.2d 81,91(Minn. The court must framefil:h:-..!::':0:$44.3. ,`...,...,,.:..:,..,...„*.,—.4.w.—,-,,,,, ,
...,:k,:::-.....:,,,,,,:5,x•'«
injunctive relief, however, to remedythe specific harm claimed aK> ; _ U .;,. p .:10
pec :-;> .
k ..::.A.: n max- .- ..."•::.-;xr{' :k'
Hartford-Empire Co.v.United States,323 U.S.386,410,65 S.Ct. < :": :. <: `:<»'' ' s '.'.‹. - ;. , f
373,385(1945).
The trial court permanently enjoined RKI from maintaining open
m_ storage on any part of its Boone Avenue property. Hennepin County Lansing,Judge
RIG argues the northern and southern parts of the property are District Court#8821439
two distinct parcels of land and the court's injunction was overly
broad because the activities on the northern parcel were protected Transamerica Insurance Patrick J.O'Connor,Jr.
- by the "grandfather" provisions of the nonconforming-use or- Finance Corporation, Faegre&Benson
dinance. f/k/a Tifco,Inc., 2200 Norwest Center
Issues not raised in the trial court will not be reviewed for the first 90 South Seventh Street
time on appeal. Woody v.Krueger,374 N.W.2d 822,824(Minn. Appellant, Minneapolis,MN 55402
— App. 1985). RIG has not previously alleged that the north-em and
southern parts of the Boone Avenue property were two distinct vs.
parcels of land. RKI's answer and counterclaim state:
For the time period beginning prior to the enactment of Western National Mutual James T.Martin
= the city's zoning ordinance to the present, [RKI] had Insurance Company, Gislason,Martin&Varpness,
used the entire parcel for open storage of equipment, P.A.
vehicles, and materials, this use has been continuous Respondent, 7600 Parklawn Avenue South
and uninterrupted and has not been abandoned by Edina,MN 55435
— [RKI]at any time.
(Emphasis added.) Mid-Continent Agencies,Inc., -
RKI's post-trial memorandum states: Defendant.
RKI always considered the storage yard as a single Filed: November 5, 1991
_ parcel to be used for the storage of vehicles,equipment Office of Appellate Courts
and materials. Considered and decided by Norton, Presiding Judge, Lansing,
Knutson testified he bought the two parcels "as one parcel.' RKI Judge,and Short,Judge.
also applied fora single permit for the entire property. UNPUBLISHED OPINION
The trial court treated the property as one tract,as shown by the LANSING, JUDGE mon. Eugene Minenko, District Court Trial
legal description in the order,which encompassed both the northern Judge)
and southern portions. The court found RKI moved its prior non- Insurance premium financing company seeks recovery of money
conforming use from one part to another part of the Boone Avenue paid to insurance agency but not forwarded to insurer. We affirm
property. Because of the move,the activities on the north-ern part
were no longer permissible. The scope of the court's injunction, the trial court's denial of judgment against the insurer but reverse
dictated by the extent of the violation established, was not over- and remand for entry of judgment against the agency.
broad. Evidence showed RKI significantly increased and expanded FACTS
its nonconforming use on the northern portion, and loss of the As part of its insurance premium financing business, Tifco
protection of the grandfather provisions for the northern part of this financed policy premiums for Rainbow,Inc.and Ace Blacktop,Inc.
single tract does not appear to constitute an abuse of discretion, in See Minn.Stat.§§59A.01-.15(1990). The policies were issued by
view of RKI's violation of the ordinance. Western National Mutual Insurance Co.and written through Mid-
_ Injunction is an equitable remedy. If the plaintiff has proved that Continent Agencies, Inc. Western markets insurance through a
he or she is entitled to a permanent injunction,the court must then network of independent agencies.
balance the equities in determining whether an injunction should be - Tifco's premium finance agreements required Rainbow and Ace
issued. Minnesota Pub.Interest Research Group v.Butz,358 F. to remit a cash down payment and pay the remainder in equal
Supp.584,625 (D.Minn. 1973). installments. Under a purported"appointment of agent,"Mid-Con-
In balancing the equities,the court appropriately considered the tinent received notices for and collected payments from the insureds.
history of this case. The company twice applied for and was granted Although designed primarily for insurance polices that require an
a special-use permit,conditioned upon its fulfilling certain require- annual payment in advance,the premium financing agreements with
meats regarding improvement of the property. The first permit was Rainbow and Ace were on policies that allowed for interest-free
B14
CITY 4F
._
..
._� ijirtCHANHASSEN
.: .
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
114t.
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
Planning Commission
Park and Recreation Commission
4 FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner
Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreati n Coordinator .h'/-&-
DATE: January 10, 1992
SUBJ: Tree City USA
The city has completed an application to become a Tree City USA.
If Chanhassen meets four standards, we can become a Tree City USA,
which allows us to be eligible for several grants from the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Forestry Section. We
also receive a walnut mounted plaque, a Tree City Flag, and special
highway signs for community entrances. Attached for your review is
a copy of the application and a copy of a brochure on Tree City
— USA. One of the four standards is the naming of a Tree Board. We
are asking that the Park and Recreation Commission be named as the
city' s Tree Board. A second standard is the establishment of an
Arbor Day celebration, which all Council and Commission members
would be able to participate in.
The preservation and planting of trees is a practice near and dear
to many of you and to members of this community. The naming of
Chanhassen as a Tree City, USA is one more step in reassuring the
value of trees.
tool PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
OF NA TU
<zz- 0 COST-SHARE
PROGRAM
Urban& Community
Forestry Program
TITLE: SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (SBA)-
NATURAL RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
BACKGROUND: Funding under this program is for the purpose of expanding
opportunities for small business involvement in planting trees on local
government(community) land or land controlled by local governments
(communities).
CRITERIA: The applicant must be a local unit of government (community) and
must meet the standards of the TREE CITY USA program sponsored
by the National Arbor Day Foundation. Applicants which do not
currently meet the standards may still apply for grant funding, but will
not receive approval until the standards are achieved (grant monies
may be used to help meet the per capita expenditure requirement).
The maximum grant per community is $5,000.00,and the grant request
must not exceed 50% of the total project cost. Planting stock criteria
are described in the application package.
ELIGIBLE Project funds may only be used for the purpose of planting trees on
PROJECTS: on public property (parks, street boulevards, other public land). In-
kind contributions may be used primarily for maintenance (up to 3
years).
FUNDS
AVAILABLE: $127,155 (for FFY 1991)
APPLICATION
DEADLINE: July 10, 1991
PLANTING DATES: Fall 1991 and/or Spring 1992
FUTURE FUNDING: Uncertain at this time (for FFY 1992); Congress is still working on the
federal 1992 budget.
FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan E. Stiegler,
Community Forestry Programs Specialist, Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources, Division of Forestry, Box 44, 500 Lafayette Road,
St.. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4044.
pFNATUjfe
40
COST-SHARE
4 SGA
PROGRAM
Urban & Community
Forestry Program
= TITLE: TREE PLANTING FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION
BACKGROUND: Funding under this program is to plant trees (and shrubs) in
Minnesota communities to reduce energy consumption especially
during peak heating and cooling periods, and indirectly reduce carbon
dioxide (CO2) emissions into the atmosphere from those utilities
burning fossil fuels. Cost-share funds will be provided to communities
that have demonstrated the ability to match funds from local sources
(i.e., businesses, non-profit groups, government, etc.), and have a
prepared plan for energy conservation planting.
CRITERIA: At this time, final criteria have not been established. A multi-agency
work group has been created to develop appropriate practices and
evaluation criteria. It is expected that the communities applying for
these funds will have to meet (at a minimum) the standards of the
TREE CITY USA program sponsored by the National Arbor Day
Foundation. Also, communities will be expected to at least match the
grant amount requested.
Specific criteria related to the energy conservation potential of the
project will also be established. Proposals will be evaluated and
ranked by the multi-agency work group.
ELIGIBLE Project funds may be used for the purpose of planting trees (and)
PROJECTS: shrubs) on public property with a direct impact upon building shade
and/or wind protection. A component for cost-sharing the planting of
trees on private property may also be developed.
FUNDS $80,000 (pilot program for 1991/1992); matching amounts from US
AVAILABLE: Forest Service and Northern States Power (NSP) (@ $40,000)
APPLICATION
DEADLINE: Fall 1991 (date to be determined)
PLANTING DATES: Spring 1992
(OVER)
FUTURE FUNDING: The Legislative Committee on Minnesota Resources (LCMR)
sponsored program entitled "Tree and Shrub Planting for Energy in
Minnesota Communities"has allocated$959,250 for cost-share funding
of tree and shrub planting. This appropriation is available only as
cash flow permits (Oil Overcharge Money). These funds should be
available for planting projects in Fall 1992 and Spring 1993.
These funds are just one part of the overall S1/5 million LCMR
sponsored project which includes approximately $200,000 for
University research in energy conservation planting as well as funding
of publications related to the research findings, and the
implementation of the MINNESOTA ReLEAF program.
In addition to the LCMR sponsored program, the Minnesota
Legislature will be addressing (in 1992) legislation related to the
Report entitled "Carbon Dioxide Budgets in Minnesota and
Recommendations on Reducing Net Emissions with Trees" prepared
— by the Department of Natural Resources-Division of Forestry(January
1991). The state agencies charged with preparing this Report
recommended that a $13.5 million annual tree planting program be
established, with S8 million targeted for the urban areas and S53
million for rural plantings. Funds for this program were to be raised
through a "CO2 tax" levied on each of the primary fuel use sectors
based on the amount of the emissions contributed by each of these
sectors (e.g., transportation, utility, residential, industrial, agricultural
and commercial).
FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan E. Stiegler,
Community Forestry Programs Specialist, Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources, Division of Forestry, Box 44, 500 Lafayette Road,
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4044.
.S�F�'� OF NA Ty
A FsGG COST-SHARE
rtn PROGRAM .
Urban & Community
Forestry Program
TITLE: 'AMERICA THE BEAUTIFUL"-CHALLENGE GRANT PROGRAM
BACKGROUND: The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources-Division of Forestry
in cooperation with the US Forest Service and the Minnesota Shade
Tree Advisory Committee has established an urban and community
forestry Challenge Grant cost-share program. Funds available under
this program . will be provided to eligible communities and
organizations on a competitive basis for urban forestry projects.
_ CRITERIA: Specific criteria for this program are to be established by the"America
the Beautiful" Task Force of the Minnesota Shade Tree Advisory
Committee, but are anticipated to include the following:
(1) Communities applying for these funds will have to meet (at a
minimum) the standards of the TREE CITY USA program
sponsored by the National Arbor Day Foundation.
(2) The Challenge Grant may not exceed 50%of the total cost and
shall be provided on a matching basis (limits to be established).
The local unit share may be in the form of cash, services or in-
kind (volunteer) contribution.
(3) Applications will be accepted from local units of government,
(municipalities, townships, counties, other) and non-profit
organizations [501 (c)(3)].
Applications will be reviewed and ranked by the "America the
Beautiful" Task Force of Minnesota Shade Tree Advisory Committee.
ELIGIBLE Types of projects eligible for grant assistance under this program
PROJECTS: may include the following:
(1) local government program development including staffing,
ordinance development and revision, staff development, tree
inventory (new and updates), and management plans;
(OVER)
(2) non-profit program development including staffing, program
development and administration, volunteer training and
internships, master plans and developing sources for local
support (fund-raising);
(3) demonstration projects including tree plantings, planting plan
design, tree maintenance projects and site improvement around
existing trees;
(4) informational and educational projects including Arbor Day
celebrations, workshops, training sessions, conferences, youth
programs, public service materials (e.g. PSAs), brochures,
exhibits and videos (production and distribution).
FUNDS
AVAILABLE: S65,000 (FFY 1991)
APPLICATION
DEADLINE: Fall 1991/Winter 1992 (date to be determined)
- PROJECT DATES: Winter/Spring 1992
FUTURE FUNDING: For FFY 1992 it is anticipated that the urban and community forestry
appropriation (US Forest Service) will be comparable (or more) to
FFY 1991. Therefore, additional funding for Challenge Grant projects
should become available.
Furthermore, the National Tree Trust is now well-established and will
be announcing its grant program sometime in the near future (late-
1991). The National Tree Trust is a private, non-profit corporation
created by Congress and President Bush to mobilize volunteers,
promote citizen involvement, and bring corporate and civic institutions
together in support of local tree planting and preservation.
FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan E. Stiegler,
Community Forestry Programs Specialist, Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources, Division of Forestry, Box 44, 500 Lafayette Road,
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4044.
=� " National KeepA
Great
. ArDay ThingGrowing� Foundation
0
_,.
•
Nebraska Citi;NE 68410
AMERICA
_ . ..._ _______ ___ ..........___. ......._ ._ _____.__ _ ___ _____
, ,
1
Make your town a Tree City USA! Ask ‘,11:::4'.. _. } ; ,." a
it r. T; fi
for a Tree City USA application from ` ' . 1 ' "
IThe � �;� � ;,� , x � �+=::,�'?�
National Arbor Day Foundation or ' t-, >:.- " - ,-...:1 f' li '
your a rs- t," `
state forester. 1 g_, ti. ;� ; :_ R: ; '" �
.c_. ._
' • ,
:* � !
1, 7 �
I
I . •.-111
d
�~ '� ' r�= .-,„ -�,
-1 ♦ a .' -
- i • `) ..,fn 's
. . -
,:-'t.
I
i J
¢ -r _ ... mss•:
,.!:...: :-!-.14...:4,. -- --
Keep A Great >
Thing -- .,_ if, -
Growing '
AMERICA L " .:
TREE CITY USA --
miLva........", .„ 1
.Lr
Ctrs Rs ��
___ .
1
8799002. ew.
{.
TREECITYUSA
r: The National Arbor Day Foundation
I I
-17'
... �r R is t '. e '.'-*: . h� -
Keep A Great - ..,..7,-.,4N-T5--,-,, s
Thing Growing ; . : : � 7.
AMERICA
N
Y
TREE CITY USA
ham 2
•
y..
fri
- Ame ca's _�__
Urban Forest and You
ban Each morning millions of us wake up in a1. �;,-� ; 3_ ..."4,,��� 8
majestic forest. '''"a`:41 ' t.,..
7-11
A forest in which we live our lives, which we '' -
leave to generations yet unborn. This is what we are asking you to do:
America's Urban Forest. 1) If your town is not yet a Tree City
It includes the trees in your yard, and along USA,help it become one.This booklet
the streets and highways around town. The shows you how.
` trees in parks and playgrounds...by railroad 2) If it is a Tree City USA, work with the
tracks and hiking trails...along rivers and other people who care about your corn-
streams...in golf courses and open spaces. And munity to make your urban forestry
the woods at the edge of town where houses and program even better.
apartments and offices are being developed. 3) Join the Friends of Tree City USA.
Om
This booklet is about America's urban forest As important as it is, America's urban forest
and about Tree City USA. is at risk.In many communities,the forest is in
But most of all,it is about you.About what you decline. Disease and insects and salt and devel-
lii can do to make your community a better place in opment and age and neglect have taken their
which to live. toll. Planting has not kept up with removal.
,�,� America's urban forest is not being managed as
- it should. We must do better, and that's where
_ ,._ your efforts can make a difference.
The National Arbor Day Foundation sponsors
- the Tree City USA program with the coopera- ,;,,,«-' xx, ;
- tion of the state foresters who provide direct
— _ - - assistance to communities and the U.S. Forest
Service, which helped finance this booklet.
- rt:
*i i 1 1 a. 'Ibgether, we will do what we can to help you
{iy 1 4 ii make a difference in your community.
-- 4.-IMIAL.....'"'":^.----..r • /7410MICh 'N ' - 6ef'4 -
-
" 1 r John Rosenow, Executive Director
h____ - �� .r The National Arbor Day Foundation
2 3
.Y 4..i L .,• t`c•s
fees Make Our .�Y �..,:& ;, i.r,; 1"„
Move Valuable41. - z'°'-
h xnt' r: v'R.i-r n
•
•
When trees surround your home, bird = .�;.� ' ' :." . .
songs fill the air, adding delight to daily '� s - l,... . :x• -6.:
'u viii ' I _.Y
routine.Trees cast their sheltering shade -• - .
as theymoderate the temperature,quiet _ 1 ,
Pe 7 M'"
=� . . .
the noise, and clean the air. �—
In summer, shade trees can save up to Ilim - _ g1; ,a• 1hk
50% of air conditioning costs. In winter, � ��; �,.., ,
windbreak trees can reduce heatingbills '4 ',+'" '�
as much as 30%. y t w.,. ` i ': i. v ;
Soo
.t o ..%Alit 140,21
i . ,,,,,!f'. ` ' �`- outside your kitchen window.And feel the
_ ' .l r�,_.
., , sense of comfort and belonging that
' s -s comes only from living among trees.
,t-ik - s ' Trees add to the quality of life which,in
4' , turn, increases your property value...up
— .r,-....;..%-• `' ' - v to 15% in areas with well-tended trees!
' - ' 'Dees make our homes more beautiful
•• r »`'� q . 5 t and valuable, and 1- ere
�.�T '. • • /R
int- - =: e :" - -+ more bountiful. -
rF a t 'Y L 'A - 'y5 - L
a w . _- • fir, ';:€'41.46-
,*
-_......=--- —.- _
—
Life is just better when you're sur- l -.-.,..:4•,;;,-Q,„;:'''...1"':''-r —.
rounded by trees. You can enjoy the `.• -- ` -.. . - '}
special taste of fruit picked with your -.•-.4,-A - 4--
',es ; � '�- =r -
own hand from trees you have grown. ' ?- -_,-_,L,-... -,... T ~' �.� '. ;
Watch colorful birds and frisky squirrels 1 , ,�y��y j e-.:--,+.-
.
-
i
4 5
iiiiiiiiiii.1.1:: ,,,,,,:,-.:,$,:,,
Trees Make Our
Businesses More S �.
In many communities, tree programs _41$14 : ,;
have been an important stimulus for .:_` .. .- ,r:,
economic development. , - 5`"''S
s .. , . EtALH Err
lbwns and cities beautifully planted i " ,:i...- 4
with trees are more likely = 4-� ,z-4--
e y to attract new ---=. I------A,
businesses and are more appealing to • _-
— tourists.
Many commercial retail areas enjoy
the business-building benefits of trees. actually save money during the construc-
Tree-lined streets make people feel wel- tion process by saving trees,and that the
comeand comfortable. People linger and space in a wooded setting is more valu-
shop•longer—and spend more money as able to sell or rent. Businesses leasing
a result. office space in these wooded develop-
- ments find their workers are more
productive and absenteeism is reduced.
'Dees are good for business.
A.
.'_�tc; .5. rK _ - Wit-
— In green and wooded areas, /1 1- rt
apartments rent more quicklydfrY _• r "
and tenants stay longer• ff w: . ..4--,-,...,r,,, `y ` - , A.
Office and industrial park ,,• til to' 'Cy,;
developers find they can ,'', - • '.'
J - mss '
•
ETA; . cj 'r 'i : it last
f tt
E'
6
7
•
Trees Make Our
Cities Move Livable Recreation can be enjoyed nearby. You
can picnic or bikeride in a manicured
Life is just better in cities filled with park. Or take a solitary stroll along a
trees. timbered creek, and maybe see a deer
•
bir Homes are nestled in quiet, green, bound through the woods. Thanks to
shaded neighborhoods. the cover of trees,the soil is conserved,
You commute to work along tree-lined the water is pure, the air is clean.
streets and greenways. Your city has style and distinction,and
1' You can take lunch-time walks through a sense of quality.
parks and plazas filled with people,foun- In towns filled with trees,you can see
tains, and trees. Or around your town's and touch nature every day and enjoy the
— leafy cqurthouse square. fullness of life.
-a
yti .
14%
- tkv. Ajj Edi :-o ,. '. if .�r -* r . y
�. - auG_. • , - • �t+'fTr '
w
A L.
_� •
tea �^; � r ��� rtr . 'C.
la
....:7'4'4-1:41-i :' •e3`it J:\ i .i . \Atw3ti�3WTZ-74141‘4.'• ; 'i
9
•�'` �,, - - `� 1/I Y�.�` •tip —'__._
A Specic�lKind of Care '_ '.,+ , �=..- _..
The future of America's urban forests _ ,','A`e'+ ,..,r -•.r� , .,
depends upon our commitment to their g„y �f'�'� ' `°f"` "". _ts
care.._ _ — �7�
An even more intensive care than wild _' .. 1 t`
land forests require... '–` '- _ �' -
• i
A Special Kind of Care. _ 4r;.,�: t; ,, 1F
— Special care to protect the trees from `" _` . • -
the tough conditions of the city:pollution, ^�'.? ,- -; ,.
poor soils, scorching heat, restricted i .-
_ roots, road salt, and vandalism. Provid- - ' + ' r ; J = ' `- '•
ing that special kind of care is what a ,� V--,,,..'=7 r i
good community forestry program is all = ' !_
about. A community forestry program ' '� l:
answers the need for wise stewardship. , F -; .
=s s `. . �S
mss -
4.
t 9 4;c
i F:r
Making sure that our towns and cities
.� J-1."; -'1 '• have good urban forestry programs is a
job for each of us—each mayor,each city
=-i 4 council member,each tree board member,
. � - - 1 - ' each city forester, each civic leader, each
k..,, ,r� '` ___ citizen. You need to make sure that your
K: , community has a solid management pro-
_ ,�, , .,� .�_�'` , gram — a plan of action for protecting
= - • - *-. .�.. and improving the urban forest.
.}'' t `'� The trees need your help.
!j :, ,y '.. a
..t` _. ♦_ Urban Forest Management 1
— _ Planting • Insect and
r •
• Watering Disease Control
4.0 ,_,11 • Pruning • Dead Tree Removal
—
10 11
Keep A Great Thing forester's office to organize or improve
mprove
your community forestry program,and to
Gr ngAni he your town become a Thee CityUSA.
TREE CITY' USA presents
National Arbor Day Founation
a beautiful walnut-mounted
plaque, a larreCitand
Hundreds of towns and cities across 1 special highway signs for USA
communitye
1... America are achieving public attention entrances to each Thee City USA.
and national recognition for their urban
forestry programs Tree City USA recognition can make a
USAs.Y A grams by becoming Tree City ` strong contribution to your community's
pride. Tree City USA can serve as a
Communities of any population can blueprint for planting and maintaining
qualify—from less than one hundred to your community's trees. And it will put
the millions. you in touch with other communities and
If your city meets the four Tree City resources which can hel
f USA standards described in the following your program. A you improve
pages, it tan qualify, too! Your work in supporting
Tree City USA application forms are improved
ty USA %%ill
available from The National Arbor Day bringurban sforestry benefits to your lommunity It
Foundation or your state forester. You7
will bring can obtaiT ye, n assistance from your state the gratitude of future you generat ons.of stewardship and
;�, An effective community forest
. program is an ongoing forestry
'�- '� g g process
te
, of renewal and improvement
...a program of tree plant-
€ •'f',x ing and care that con
f .**** 'i► I - tinues through the years. .
*., �* ,� ,, As a Tree CityUSA your
***' -- * community wilaven solid
*—
. . * ,' ,L --.r.,14,,,..,.9 rR foundation for that process
of improvement.
--.. -....:> ilir '11110". i
_ i j , } _ FR I ENS
. 1480
sei
''TEE(7
".1Arl,,rj II. 1 USA r, TREECir YUSA I
12L
13
L
L
L
L
L
11
The Four to be an organization with legal status that 4�_
TREE CITY USA implements an the community's antrees.l work plan to care for }
Standards Standard �J A City'free Ordinance .
'lb be named as a Tree City USA, the city '
'Ib be named a Tree City USA,a town or city ' tree ordinance needs to designate the tree
must meet four standards. No matter what board or department and give them the s,',,
size your community, these standards are responsibility for writing and implementing '`'
workable and obtainable. ' the annual community forestry work plan.
L
Standard l: A 'free Board or The ordinance should determine public
tree-care policies for planting, maintenance
Department and removals. ;_�
r.. In a typical city,at least half of the trees are Ideally the city tree ordinance will make
on public property—along streets, in parks, provisions for establishing and updating
and around public buildings. Someone needs a list of recommended street tree species
to be legally responsible for the care of those to be planted with spacing and location
trees: a department, board, commission or requirements.
other authority. A sample city tree ordinance may be
A tree board is a group of concerned citi obtained by writing The National Arbor Day
zens,usually volunteer,charged by ordinance Foundation.
—
to develop and administer a comprehensive
city tree management program. Tree boards
usually function with the aid of professional '
foresters- =v` -
In communities with a population of more •, ;
than 10,000,city forestry departments with ,
salaried employees are often feasible. ,.
These departments may or may not be
supported by advisory boards or `ill ••_ 1 ___
=t=
administrative commissions. ! �`
Broad-based community involvement ' ;`r - '__''
is encouraged. Beautification commit- _- -
tees and civic and service clubs can -
play a vital role. However, -
h0
_ to insure year-to-year �' - _ <,+ -
continuity. there needs „...0A, 4,- A. -
J 4 , , .
- fir` -_ ''� �.
16
• :i i ;`I
s .
j
14
15
L
L
—
Standard 3: A Community planting of several other species would be of
Forestry Program with an Annual special importance. If your trees are gener-
Budget of at Least $2 Per Capita* ally healthy but have been neglected,
pruning may be the top priority.
Many communities begin their program by Ideally,a city tree board or shade tree com-
taking an inventory of the trees growing on - mission serves in a planning and advisory
a..'C public property. The species, location, and capacity with qualified city employees or
tcondition of each tree are noted(i.e.,healthy, commercial contractors carrying out the
needs pruning, should be removed, etc.),and work. In small towns the tree board might
the inventory data is summarized in a writ- ' actually implement the program—purchas-
T_ ten report for presentation and approval by ing and distributing trees, arranging
the city council. The report should be an publicity,marking trees for removal,digging
objective analysis of the present state of the planting sites, and so forth.
urban forest with recommendations for 'lb be named as a Tree City USA,a town or
future'thanagement. city must annually spend at least $2 per
- The essential,ongoing activity for the care capita for its community forestry program.
of trees along streets, in parks, and in other In determining the size of your city's
public places is the community forestry pro- budget,consider all funds spent for tree care.
gram. The annual work plan should address Along with the budget for the street tree
dead and hazardous tree removal,safety and department or board, include items such as
fine pruning,planting,watering and fertiliz- the park department's tree expenditures,
``' ing, and insect and disease control. dead tree removal, and other labor and
Long-term planning is important. Your administrative expenses associated with the
priorities will depend on local circumstances. management of the city's forest. Many com-
a.- munities find that they are spending far more
„� �, than $2 per capita.
= � Remember,the$2 per capita is a
���. minimum requirement for a
., basic program. Many towns far
'. ,,. ; exceed this amount. Beautiful,
• �_ livable cities are the result.
- ,V.i - - --
p t
— i .._-_---7---_:-:-----_-_- _— -_ � _ -- ..r'%. - - ' U
y s--..,\-
\ ��!
,..--;iti 1, ,
If your community's trees were hit �, N ', VII fl .
hard by disease, for example, your '+ - �•,': '
P Y
program might emphasize diseased • Vie%- �. ' :` /
tree removal and the planting of new .'-. in : ;i
— trees. If your inventory shows a pre- --
dominance of one or two species of trees, ► . -s
*$1 per capita will be accepted through 1990
l III
16 17
1
•
L
L
L
timmimilmmi
Standard 4: An Arbor Day Dedicate a forest,or a tree or a flowerbed in
Observance and Proclamation a park,and make it an occasion to talk about
stewardship. Ask a local nursery or garden
This is the easiest and probably the most center to hold an open house. Organize an
enjoyable standard to accomplish. An Arbor Arbor Day fair.
Day ceremony can be simple and brief,or an No matter how large or small your Arbor
all-day or all-week observance.A basic Arbor - Day celebration,to make it official the mayor
4. Day ceremony might include: 1) greetings must issue a proclamation declaring the
and proclamation by a civic leader,2)reading observance of Arbor Day in your community
a brief Arbor Day history,3)children singing You can obtain a free "Celebrate Arbor
songs and reading poems about trees and tree Day!" packet by writing The National Arbor
planting, 4) planting a tree together, and 5) Day Foundation. The packet contains a sam-
completion of the planting along with a dem- pie proclamation, Arbor Day dates, a
onstration on how to properly water and care children's Arbor Day play, and other ideas
.. for the new tree. for celebrating the Tree Planter's Holiday.
You:might want to make your Arbor Day a
majorcommunity-wide celebration. Raise s
the flag,strike up the band!Make Arbor Day ,I
— fun,make it memorable.Organize a fun run, ,
have a poster or a poetry contest,get the PTA
to sponsor a children's pageant or play. t
Have an Arbor Day concert of songs about
UM trees or with tree names in their titles.Ask a '-7
civic group to promote a paper drive. Use the _:- <i -
proceeds to buy a special tree to plant in a I - - - s1
public place.Ask a local radio station to spon- 1 - * "`-. .s
sor a tree trivia contest and give away trees to `„64a� ,
the winners. Conduct a tree hike to see out- (j ' ki .ti`•I
standing,unusual,or historic trees. A16 _
..---•-•-- , . ilit 4.,
Vis=
i /, cy
. I
���t ,,> ,
4 - `1,1111t1•,' - ! a�� , ..<j /jam ♦ II. ,- i
.f. d - I • / ,,f 1/
��' tiv.l t �{ NwV i}1 / 17.. ,;-__.- '
t� ',.3+ 1' „ ��Ch, Fi:$.!,,m/ t1' 1 .s. `j' I:011 S..it,,)-'g . re Y_ ''
-- j I!,
`; s �'!194 - $Zi t' +'. },'1 J ��l-�_i,�-
.. • • . _
18 19
imiliimmiimin ..iiiii
There's I-I4 from the Professionals can help you with many
• important aspects of your urban forest
Tree-Care �� management. A few examples: setting
up a tree inventory... writing a city
Urban forestry experts from your state tree ordinance... selecting species to
forester's office, with the support and i be planted. . . organizing an ongoing
cooperation of the U.S. Forest Service, pruning program...or controlling dis-
stand ready to help your community. You eases and insects.
can also get advice from a consulting While there are many sources of pro-
urban forester or arborist. fessional assistance,a good place to start
While state urban foresters help plan, is your state forester's office. You can
city foresters both plan and turn those obtain the name, address, and phone
.. plans into reality. number of your state forester by contact-
The Udvice and leadership of tree-care ing,The National Arbor Day Foundation.
professionals can be a decisive factor in
the quality of a community forestry
program.
L st. `` , t --
=fit �a. t r • i ;
43,
41 7 t ,
ir
.4 _4 F `- _ *, Iii -
i
-- . -- -
. E
20 21
JaintheFRiENDSofi. � .. y
'It,!'IK
TREE CITY' USA ' ° . 14 `' g
You can become better informed on how _'4 '• �£
to care for trees—throughout your corn- r.A- ,_"-, s 4
�:. VTREE aTr usR _-. , ' :; t -.
munity and in your own yard...you can !F 4
stay current on the very latest in commu- '-k. - .1,-, -s=, '
nity forestry knowledge and innovations y.:< ` -' s''. ., i
...and you can become more involved in '1! - :o. '—
the urban forestry movement in your '
town and throughout America. ..by revealing step-by-step drawings.
becoming a member of the Friends of Tree No matter how complex the topic,you can
— City USA. put what you learn to work immediately for
As a.:person who cares about your your community or in caring for the trees in
neighborhood and your community, and your'own yard. .
who shares our vision of an America in You will gain a new confidence in having
which every town and city is enriched by the best help possible with activities like
the life-enhancing gifts of trees, the pruning young shade trees and conifers,
Friends of'nee City USA is the organiza- taking tree inventories, caring for storm-
tion for you. damaged trees, moving large trees, saving
_
You �'4'ill Receive a Subscription trees during construction, creating green-
P ways—and much, much more.
to the Tree City USA Bulletin lb become a member of the Friends of
Based on con- Tree City USA, and receive your subscrip-
tinuously updated tion to the Tree City USA Bulletin, just
information from complete the form below and return it with
La national net- - your$10 membership fee.
work of state,
federal.
� r
federal, and Membership Acceptance Formm
:
L municipal foxes- V`. ❑ <'.nim My check for 510 for my
try experts...as membership in the Friends of Tree City USA is
well as horticul- enclosed.Start my subscription to the Tree City
USA Bulletin right away.
.L turalists and
arborists...the bimonthly Tree City USA r_
Bulletin will give you invaluable help in
caring for trees. You'll get the latest
L proven guidance on matters like resolv-
ing treefsidewalk conflicts...identifying4 ,,.,,,
tree-related hazards and their potential • Make out your check to The National
liability.-.growing trees in urban soil. Arbor Day Foundation. Send your check
L The Tree City USA Bulletin is written and this form to The National Arbor Day
in clear, simple English and is thor- Foundation,100 Arbor Avenue,Nebraska
oughly illustrated with photos as well as LCity,NE 68410. J
1
L
22 23
L
L
L . '
L
.....L
a TREE CITY USA, youIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMMIIrrlliIlIllIllIll.IIIIIIIIIIIMIAs
_ community will receive... �w '
- *wws *�
- wws A
MEP
FRIF � .:
I .
E N ,.
}f ...,.1,
._ :.
C-1
10,80 ..
..... ...._
1 , ,,.. .. . ..1
.01 " mss,
•
TjjjjYuSn // ,.,i,` EC• li r
f'�'N' real drr„,,,,
...highway signs for community ...a tree City USA flag ...a v.ainut-nwunted plaque
entrances
...along with the joy of stewardship and the gratitude of future generations
LThe National Arbor Day Foundation, buildings.The TREE CITY USA pro-
gram is designed to recognize those success based on the judgement of the
in cooperation with the U.S. Forest Ser- state forester's office,and provide for an
vice and the National Association of communities that effectively manage awareness and appreciation of trees
State Foresters, recognizes towns and their public tree resources,and to en- among the residents of the community.
1 cities across America that meet the courage the implementation of commu- CITY USA recognition can
standards of the TREE CITY USA nity tree management based on four make a strong contribution to your corn-
program. TREE CITY USA standards. munity's pride,and it will put you in
At least half of the trees in a typical These four standards provide struc- touch with other communities and re-
city are on public property... along ture for a community forestry program, sources which can help you improve
L streets, in parks.and around public require that program to demonstrate your program.
Application Procedures
The TREE CITY USA application than December 31. Your state forester Because your TREE CITY USA appli-
•
must be completed by an appropriate will evaluate your application and for- cation must be certified by your state
city official (mayor. city forester.chair- ward it to The National Arbor Day forester you are encouraged to contact
man of the tree board.etc.). Foundation. You will be advised before your state foresters office early in the
Mail the completed application to February 15 whether your community application process for technical advice
your state forester along with all re- qualifies for TREE CITY USA and assistance in meeting the standards
quested supportive material no later recognition. of a good community forestry program.
— I "FREE CFI - l SA Standards I
STANDARD 1:A Tree Board or Department condition of each tree are noted 0 e. healthy.needs pruning.should be
A tree board is a group of concernec citizens, usually volunteer. removed.etc.)and the inventory data is summarized in a written report
charged by ordinance to develop and administer a comprehensive for presentation and approval by the city council.The report should be
— community tree management program for the care of trees on public an objective analysis of the present state of the urban forest with
property.Tree boards usually function with the aid of professional recommendations for future management.The essential.ongoing
foresters. In communities with a population of more than 10,000.city activity for the care of trees along streets,in parks.and in other public
forestry departments with salaried employees are often feasible.These places is the community forestry program.The annual work plan
— departments may or may not be supported by advisory boards or should address planting,watering and fertilizing,dead and hazardous
administrative commissions. tree removal,safety and fine pruning,and insect and disease control.
STANDARD 2:A Community Tree Ordinance To be named as a TREE CITY USA,a town or city must annually
The community tree ordinance needs to designate the tree board spend at least$2 per capita for its annual community forestry program.
or department and give them the responsibility for writing and Consider all funds spent for tree care— budget for street tree
— implementing the annual community forestry work plan. The ordinance department or board,park department's tree expenditures,dead tree
should determine public tree care policies for planting, maintenance, removal,etc.
and removals. Ideally.the city tree ordinance will make provisions for -Note:Si per capita will be accepted through 1990.
establishing and updating a list of recommended street tree species to STANDARD 4:An Arbor Day Observance and Proclamation
_ be planted with spacing and location requirements.A sample tree An Arbor Day observance can be simple and brief or an all-day or
ordinance may be obtained by writing The National Arbor all-week observance.A proclamation issued by the mayor must
Day Foundation. accompany the observance and declare the observance of Arbor Day
STANDARD 3:A Community Forestry Program with an Annual in your community.You can obtain a free"Celebrate Arbor Day!"
Budget of at least S2 per capita' packet by writing The National Arbor Day Foundation.Along with ideas
— Many communities begin their program by taking an inventory of for celebrating the holiday,the packet contains a sample proclamation.
the trees growing on public property.The species,location,and
. U
I
ell'.
TREE CITY USA
I Application
I
r4 `yl. < e' 3:'ai '.iF,ir , •rit. -` :':-?A''S'-".yf..54:„:2',f7.474111 Y' 7
I � qty! _ ;r �;s _ • ,w • .4-1
- .f- . . 4..c.
i• , _ 4 ! a*b., .. �''" Yj : P '• tk•. 3c r `• '�-'?�."tii"'-'�'• .�j<,'.�' :
•`s • / PA $^.,:5'..-3;..
.�:.. --7.-4-_,.Y_ .•��i -Y ` ; , •
.1
f.
1 - ,..-, ...*. ,,._.t,
. ' .i imp.,..- _ - dio •... . .
1 _.� _
r: f . 7.::.:._.,:- , .r. .. . .
•
Vis{
i ' +
I ....,,.......-•••7- -•••'..1,-- -IT,7-7•.
_ r
•
;Y. '4,1 :7:••••'....",•: •jam�r..1.2., 1..•,e,. K. • Y r
Shy. <J• a P• .� ', • f3K •_' • • t/ .] .
•
- - ` _ `` hit' , • -
< r
�.,!'�..F LSt Fe ..- v) 4.. -K Kt ��
-f--..,5:',.i....:- u 4
w
;mac• _ '7' CV •
'�.. . - ^ rr_
•
I
The National Arbor Day Foundation
100 Arbor Avenue, Nebraska City, Nebraska 68410
div
CITY OF
EN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Don Ashworth, City Manager
DATE: December 9, 1991
SUBJ: Commission Appointments:
Park and Recreation Commission
V2-. Planning Commission
The City Council interviewed six of the seven scheduled candidates
for the vacant Planning and Park and Recreation Commission
positions on Monday, December 2 . Joe Scott and Matthew Ledvina
were unable to attend on December 2 and were rescheduled for 7 : 00
p.m. on December 9. Since the date of setting the original
schedule, Joe Scott has asked that his application be deleted from
further consideration. Mr. Walt Thompson, originally scheduled for
December 2 , was unexpectedly called out of town on business last
_ Monday. He has asked to be rescheduled to December 9 and we have
moved him into Joe Scott' s time frame.
Assuming that the City Council completed the interview process
earlier this evening, it is recommended that the Council proceed
with selecting 5 persons for the Planning Commission (including 4
current members who have asked for reappointment) , and two persons
to the Park and Recreation Commission.
k_Q-J
‘11 41, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER