03-16-94 Agenda and Packet AGENDA FILE
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 16, 1994, 7:30 P.M
CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DI.
5:30 P.M. DINNER
6:00 WORKSESSION - SIGN ORDINANCE
CALL TO ORDER
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Charlies James for a variance the City Code regarding the sign requirements for West Village Heights
Center, located on Lot 4, Block 1, West Village Heights 2nd Addition.
2. Concept Planned Unit Development to rezone 39 acres from A2, Agricultural Estate to PUD for 56
single family lots located south of Hwy. 5, east of Timberwood Estates, Heritage Development, RLK
Associates.
3. Amendment to the City Code regarding a requirement to submit computer aided graphics or models
for site plan reviews and subdivisions.
4. *Item Deleted.
NEW BUSINESS
5. Landscaping approval for Minnewashta Landings and located at the southeast corner of the intersection
of Hwy. 7 and Minnewashta Parkway.
OLD BUSINESS
6. Appointment of Planning Commissioner to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
ONGOING ITEMS
OPEN DISCUSSION
7. Discuss the draft of the Tree Ordinance.
ADJOURNMENT
NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 11:00 p.m. as outlined in official by-laws. We
will make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda. If, however, this does not appear
to be possible, the Chair person will notify those present and offer rescheduling options. Items thus pulled from
consideration will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting.
Item Deleted
4. Amendment to the City Code regarding seasonal/temporary sales, including Christmas trees, sidewalk
sales, etc.
-J .
CITY OF
CHANBILSSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner
DATE: February 23, 1993
SUBJ: New Sign Ordinance
Background
For well over two years, staff has been working on changes to the sign ordinance. The original
draft was developed with a subcommittee that included a member from the City Council,
Planning Commission, and two Chamber members. After their recommended changes were
incorporated into a draft ordinance, the Highway 5 Task Force and its subcommittee reviewed
the document. Their changes have also been made to the ordinance. After the Planning
Commission reviews and comments, the City Attorney will then review and codify the ordinance
in the city zoning ordinance. The City Council will then review the ordinance.
Analysis
Attached is the original issues paper for the sign ordinance as well as the proposed amended
ordinance. One issue that was closely examined was the relationship between the size of the
building and scale of the sign. This section, "In all districts," has been rewritten to include a
formula for the size of the sign and the square footage of the building. Scale relates to
freestanding and monument signs. Monument signs are limited to a maximum of 10 feet in
height with 80 square feet in sign area. Freestanding signs are limited to a maximum of 20 feet
with 80 square feet in sign area. Both of these maximums would be for buildings in excess of
100,000 square feet.
Since this ordinance was revised, staff revisited the requirements for wall signs. The formula for
wall signs allowed for an 80 square foot maximum. This formula did not meet the desired
Byerly's or the Target development. Because Target is a PUD, the sign square footage was
addressed in the PUD standards. The Target sign is 207 square feet. Byerly's is requesting two
wall signs; one is 431 square feet and the other is 304 square feet.
Planning Commission
February 23, 1994
Page 2
The proposed wall sign standards is based on the same ratio of 15 percent maximum of wall sign
area, with at a maximum of 80 square feet. There now is a hierarchy of wall sign area that
relates to the wall sign area of the building and the size of the sign, the maximum of 15 percent
is still in place. The factor that has changed is the maximum area of 80 square feet which has
been increased to 240 square feet.
Pictures have been added to the definition section. This should provide more clarity to the
definitions.
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Planning Commission review and make any changes necessary and
recommend the City Council adopt the amendment.
Attachments
1. Proposed Sign Ordinance.
2. Memo from Kate Aanenson dated January 10, 1992, Issue Paper/Sign Ordinance.
ARTICLE XXVI. SIGNS
DIVISION 1. GENERALLY
Sec. 20-1251. PURPOSE AND FINDINGS.
A. Purpose
The purpose of this sign ordinance is intended to establish an effective means of
communication in the city, maintain and enhance the aesthetic environment and the city's
ability to attract sources of economic development and growth, to improve pedestrian and
traffic safety, to minimize the possible adverse effect of signs on nearby public and
private property, and to enable the fair and consistent enforcement of these sign
regulations. It is the intent of this section, to promote the health, safety, general welfare,
aesthetics, and image of the community by regulating signs that are intended to
communicate to the public, and to use signs which meet the city's goals:
(1) establish standards which permit businesses a reasonable and equitable opportunity
to advertise;
(2) preserve and promote civic beauty, and prohibit signs which detract from this
objective because of size, shape, height, location, condition, cluttering or
illumination;
(3) ensure that signs do not create safety hazards.
(4) ensure that signs are designed, constructed, installed and maintained in a manner
that does not adversely impact public safety or unduly distract motorists;
(5) preserve and protect property values;
(6) ensure signs that are in proportion to the scale of, and are architecturally
compatible with the principal structures;
(7) limit temporary commercial signs and advertising displays which provide an
opportunity for grand opening and occasional sales events while restricting signs
which create continuous visual clutter and hazards at public right-of-way
intersections.
B. Findings
The City of Chanhassen finds it is necessary for the promotion and preservation of the
public health, safety, welfare and aesthetics of the community that the construction,
location, size and maintenance of signs be controlled. Further the city finds:
1. permanent and temporary signs have a direct impact on, and a relationship, to the —
image of the community;
2. the manner of installation, location and maintenance of signs affects the public —
health, safety, welfare and aesthetics of the community;
3. an opportunity for a viable identification of community business and institutions —
must be established;
4. the safety of motorists, cyclists, pedestrians and other users of public streets and —
property is affected by the number, size, location and appearance of signs that
unduly divert the attention of drivers;
5. installation of signs suspended from, projecting over, or placed on the tops of
buildings, walks or other structures may constitute a hazard during periods of high
winds and an obstacle to effective fire fighting and other emergency service; —
6. uncontrolled and unlimited signs adversely impact the image and aesthetic
attractiveness of the community and, thereby, undermine economic value and
growth;
7. uncontrolled and unlimited signs, particularly temporary signs, which are
commonly located within or adjacent to public right-of-way, or are located at
driveway/street intersections, result in roadside clutter and obstruction of views of _
oncoming traffic. This creates a hazard to drivers and pedestrians and also
adversely impacts a logical flow of information.
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.
2
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 20-29. No variance shall be granted by the City Council unless it has
received the affirmative vote of at least simple majority 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 physical 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.
Information may include such items as color and material samples.
3
(8) Receipt of sign permit fee.
(9) The Planning Director, upon the filing 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 city
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.
Sec. 20-1255. Signs allowed without permit.
The following signs are allowed without a permit:
(1) Political Campaign signs: Temporary political campaign signs are permitted
according to the following:
a. The size and height allowed shall be consistent with the underlying zoning
district.
b. The sign must contain the name of the person responsible for such sign,
and that person shall be responsible for its removal.
c. Such signs shall remain for no longer than ninety (90) days in any
calendar year.
d. Signs are not permitted in the public right-of-way.
e. Shall comply with the fair campaign practices act contained in the State
of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 211B.
f. The city shall have the right to remove and destroy signs not conforming
to this paragraph.
(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.
4 —
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 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) Community 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 forty (40) days in any calendar year.
(4) 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.
(5) Nameplate or integral signs not exceeding two (2) square feet per building and
does not include multi-tenant names.
(6) 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 until
the project is completed. 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 signs may not exceed twenty-four
(24) square feet in sign area.
(7) Signs of a public, non-commercial nature, informational erected by a
governmental entity or agency, including safety signs (O.S.H.A.), directional signs
to public facilities, trespassing signs, traffic signs, signs indicating scenic or
historical points of interest, memorial plaques and the like. Signs shall not exceed
sixteen (16) square feet.
5
(8) Rummage (garage) sale signs. Rummage sale signs shall be removed within two
(2) days after the end of the sale and shall not exceed four (4) 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 assess a fee in the amount established by resolution for each sign
removed by the city.
(9) 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, located in the City of Chanhassen, 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. —
g. Such signs shall be removed when the project being advertised is one
hundred (100) percent completed. In no case shall such signs be permitted
to exceed three (3) years. 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.
(10) 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.
6
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 within the same subdivision or
development as the building being advertised.
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 the building floor space which it is advertising, or
within twelve (12) months from the date a permit is issued,
whichever comes first.
6. Provide written permission of property owner.
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.
7
2. Only one (1) sign per intersection and one (1) sign per
development shall be permitted. Signs shall not be located in any
site distance triangle, measured thirty (30) feet from the point of
intersection of the property line.
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. Provide written permission of property owner to locate directional
sign on their property.
6. Such sign shall only be constructed out of maintenance free
materials and be non-illuminated.
7. 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.
8. Sign copy shall include the name of the subdivision and a direction
arrow only.
Sec. 20-1256. Permit for temporary sign, searchlights, banners, etc.
Temporary signs are permitted as follows:
1. Banners and portable signs shall not exceed 32 square feet and shall meet the
following standards:
a. a thirty (30) day display period to coincide with the grand opening of a
business or a new development (business park or shopping center), or a
business may display a banner on three occasions per calendar year with
a maximum 10-day display period for each occasion. Businesses within
a shopping center shall be limited one display per center and not one
display per business.
b. messages must relate to on-premise product or services, or any non-
commercial message; and
8
c. banners must be affixed to a principal structure which is owned or leased
by the business which the sign is advertising.
d. portable signs shall not be located in the public right-of- way.
e. sign permit issued by city.
2. Inflatable advertising devices are permitted according to the following:
a. for each site or center, two occasions per calendar year, with each occasion
not to exceed seven (7) days;
b. written authorization from the property owner or their designee must be
submitted with the sign permit application.
c. sign permit issued by city.
3. Flashing or blinking portable signs, stringers, and pennants are not permitted.
Sec. 20-1258. Legal Action.
If the City Planning Director or an administrative officer finds that any sign regulated by
this division is prohibited as to size, location, content, type, number, height or method of
construction; or erected without a permit first being granted to the installer of the sign to the
owner of the property upon which the sign has been erected or is improperly maintained, or is
in violation of any other provision of this chapter, he shall give written notice of such violation
to the owner or permittee thereof. If the permittee or owner fails to remove or alter the sign so
as to comply with the provisions set forth in this chapter within (10) calendar days following
receipt of said notice:
(1) Such signs shall be deemed to be nuisance and may be abated by the city in
proceeding taken under Minnesota Statues, Chapter 429, and the cost of
abatement, including administration expenses, may be levied as a special
assessment against the property upon which the sign is located;or
(2) Such permittee or owner may be prosecuted for violating this chapter and if
_ convicted shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Each day a violation exists shall
constitute a separate offense.
9
Sec. 20-1259. Prohibited signs.
The following signs are prohibited:
(1) 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.
(2) Motion signs and flashing signs, except time and temperature signs and barber
poles.
(3) Projecting signs, not including awning or canopies as defined in this ordinance.
(4) 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.
(5) Wall graphics and design treatments depicting corporate logos and company
symbols.
(6) Temporary signs or banners except as permitted in Section 20-1256.
(7) Signs which are placed or tacked on trees, fences, utility poles or in the public
right-of-way.
Sec. 20-1260. Nonconforming Signs.
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.
Excluding normal maintenance and repair, a non-conforming sign shall not be moved,
altered (including face changes) or enlarged unless it is brought into compliance with the sign
regulations.
10
Within 45 calendar days after vacation of an existing business, any on-site nonconforming
signs must be removed or brought into compliance by the property owner. An abandoned sign
may not regain any legal nonconforming status later, even if the original business reoccupies the
property.
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. Sign shall not block site distance triangle from
any private drive or access. Signs shall not be located in any site distance triangle
thirty (30) feet from the point of intersection of the property line.
(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.
(d) 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 construed
as traffic controls, such as "Stop," "Caution," "Warning," unless the sign is
intended to direct traffic on the premises.
(e) 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.
(f) 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.
(g) Window signs are prohibited.
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
immediately upon notification by the city.
11
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. 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 all submit a comprehensive sign plan
for approval by the Planning Commission and City Council.
Sec. 20-1268. Noncommercial speech.
Signs containing noncommercial speech are permitted anywhere that business signs are
permitted, subject to the same regulations applicable to such signs.
Sec. 20-1275. Construction Standards.
(a) A free standing sign or sign structure shall be 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.
(b) 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. Pole covers shall be a minimum height of 8 feet. 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.
e tas tin% 4,12186E
1 i i
12
(c) 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.
(d) 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.
Any canopy or awning sign shall have a minimum of an eight (8) foot clearance.
(e) 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. Illumination for a sign
or groups of signs shall not exceed '/i foot candle in brightness as measured at the
property line.
Sec. 20.1277. Cemetery signage.
Signage for a cemetery shall be processed as a conditional use permit in all districts.
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-2, RR, RSF, R-4, R-8, R-12 and
PUD 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 premises 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) Area Identification/Entrance signs. Only one (1) monument sign may be erected
on a lot, which shall not exceed twenty-four (24) square feet nor be more than
five feet high. Any such sign or monument shall be designed so that it is
_ maintenance free. The adjacent property owner or a Homeowners Association
shall be responsible for maintenance of the identification\entrance sign. 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.
13
Sec. 20-1302. Neighborhood Business, and Institutional Districts.
The following signs shall be allowed by permit in any OI, or BN Districts:
1. Multi-Tenant Building
(a) 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. Such sign shall be located at least ten (10)
feet from any property line and shall not exceed five (5) feet in height.
(b) Wall business sign. One (1) wall business sign shall be permitted per
street frontage for each business occupant within a building. 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.
Maximum Percentage Wall Area in Square Feet Maximum Square
of Wall Footage of Sign
15% 0-600 90
139c 601-1,200 156
11% 1,201-1,800 198
99c 1,801-2,400 216
79c 2,401-3,200 224
59c 3,201-4,500 230
39c 4.500 + 240
(c) Wall signs shall not include product advertising. Wall signs shall include
tenant identification, tenant logo, center name, or any combination of the
three.
2. Freestanding Tenant
(a) 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. Such sign shall be located at least ten (10)
feet from any property line and shall not exceed five (5) feet in height.
14
(b) 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 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, General Business Districts and Central Business District.
The following signs shall be allowed by permit in any BH, BG, CBD or BF District:
The following table lists the standards for freestanding and monument signs in the BH,
BG, CBD, or BF zone.
PYLON MONUMENT
Principal Height Sign size Height Sign Size
Structure (feet) (sq. ft.) (feet) (sq. ft.)
Greater than 20 80 10 80
100,000
50,000 - 18 64 10 64
100,000
10,000 - 15 64 8 36
50,000
Less than 15 36 8 24
10,000
1. Pylon business sign. One (1) pylon identification sign shall be permitted. This
sign may identify the name of the center of the major tenants. The height and
square footage of the sign shall be based on the square footage of the principal
structure as shown in the table. Such signs shall be located at least ten (10) feet
from any property line, and shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height.
2. Ground low profile business signs. One (1) ground low profile business sign shall
be permitted per each outlot or separate building pad that has street frontage. The
height and square footage of the sign shall be based on the table above. Such
signs shall be located at least 300 feet from any other pylon or ground sign and
at least ten (10) feet from any property line.
15
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 the square footage established in the
following table:
Maximum Percentage Wall Area in Square Feet Maximum Square
of Wall Footage of Sign
15% 0-600 90
13% 601-1,200 156
11% 1,201-1,800 198
9% 1,801-2,400 216
7% 2,401-3,200 224
5% 3,201-4,500 230
3% 4,500 + 240
A wall business sign may be mounted upon any wall of a principal building.
Sec. 20-1304. Industrial Office Park Signs.
The following signs shall be allowed by permit in any IOP District:
1. Pylon or ground low profile business signs. One (1) pylon or one (1) ground low
profile Industrial Office Park identification sign shall be permitted. A Pylon sign
shall not exceed eighty (80) square feet in sign area and shall not exceed twenty
(20) feet in height. A ground low profile may not exceed eighty (80) square feet
and eight (8) feet in height. Such sign shall be located at least ten (10) feet from
any property line.
2. Ground low profile business signs. One (1) ground low profile business sign shall
be permitted for each individual tenant. Such sign shall not exceed sixty-four (64)
square feet in sign display area nor be greater than five (5) feet in height. Such
sign shall be located at least ten (10) feet from any property line.
3. Wall business sign. One (1) wall business sign shall be permitted per street
frontaee for each business occupant within a building. The total of all wall
16
mounted sign display areas shall not exceed the square footage established in the
following table:
Maximum Percentage Wall Area in Square Feet Maximum Square
of Wall Footage of Sign
15% 0-600 90
13% 601-1,200 156
11% 1,201-1,800 198
9% 1,801-2,400 216
7% 2,401-3,200 224
5% 3,201-4,500 230
3% 4,500 + 240
4. Menu Board. One menu board sign per restaurant use is permitted with a drive-
through facility. Such sign shall not exceed 32 square feet in size nor greater than
8 feet in height. Such sign is permitted in addition to any other sign permitted in
the Zoning District.
Secs. 20-1306-20-1350. Reserved.
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 conducted, sold or offered upon the premises where such a sign is
located.
Sign, Awning means a temporary hood or cover
that projects from the wall of a building,
and which can be retracted, folded or collapsed
against the face of the supporting building.
Awning may extend in any required yard
17
setback a maximum of five (5) feet.
(2.6 feet in the supplementary regs)
Sign, Banner means a sign which is made out of a paper, cloth or plastic-like consistency,
affixed to a building, vehicle, poles, or other supporting structures by all four (4) corners.
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
1 r 1
identifies the names of specific businesses � 11 1
located in a shopping center, medical center IL 1
and professional office and which is located onAatt�` �'
the premises of the shopping center so identified. t•`
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 - Any sign that is affixed to a
projection or extension of a building or structure
of a building, erected in such as manner as to _
provide a shelter or cover over the approach to I
any entrance of a store, building or place of assembly. I li
plastic, or structural protective cover over a
door, entrance, window, or outdoor service area.
Sign, Changeable Copy, - a sign or portion thereof with characters, letters, or illustrations that
can be changed or rearranged without altering the face or the surface of the sign.
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.
TEAST -OT
Sign, Directional means a sign erected on ! Main Entrance• I
private property for the purpose of --
directing pedestrian or vehicular traffic
onto or about the property upon which such WEST Lf3r
Employee Parking
18 .r
sign is located, including signs marking
entrances and exits, circulation direction,
parking areas, and pickup and delivery areas.
Sign, Display Area means the area within a single - 1
continuous perimeter enclosing the extreme limits G
or the actual sign message surface, including any
structural elements outside the limits of each sign
forming an integral part of the sign. The stipulated
maximum sign display area for a sign refers to a --�
single facing.
r " t,
Sign, Festive Flag/Banner - a flag or - �r
banner constructed of cloth, canvas or
light fabric, that is hung from a light
pole. The flag/bannershall contain no
�
advertising except for cultural events, ��-
special holidays/seasons, etc.
Sign, Flag - any fabric banner used as a symbol of a government political subdivision or other
identity. Corporation flags shall not exceed 12 square feet and may be flown in tandem with the
= state or national flag. Large flags flown in high winds may cause a noise nuisance and are
subject to removal upon complaint.
Sign, Flashing means any directly or indirectly illuminated sign which exhibits changing natural
or artificial light or color effects by any means what so ever.
Sign,Freestanding/Pole/Pylon, means any non-movable sign not affixed to a building but 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.
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 low profile business means a I 1 ThJ MN..L
business sign affixed directly to the ground,
with the sign display area standing not
greater than two (2) feet above 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.
19
Sign, Home occupation means a sign containing only the name and occupation of a permitted
home occupation not to exceed 2 square feet. This is also a nameplate sign.
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.
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 constructed as
to be an integral portion of the building
of which it forms a part. = j
Sign, Integral Roof, means any sign
erected or constructed as an integral or
essentially integral part of a normal roof
structure of any design, such that no part - _ td`3allY
of the sign extends vertically above the
highest portion of the roof and such that - • _:_ -•_ _no part of the sign is separated from the . -I r===-- -
rest of the roof by a space of more than I„
six (6) inches.
Sign, 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. -
Sign, Menu Board means a sign that is used to advertise the product available 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.
Sign, Non-Conforming, a sign that does not conform to the requirements of this ordinance.
Sign, Off-Premise, an advertising sign which directs attention to a use, product, commodity or
services not related to the premises on which it is located.
20
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, Portable, means a sign designed so as to be movable from one (1) location to another, and
that is not permanently affixed to a building, structure, or the ground. Including but not limited
_ to, signs designed to be transported by means of wheels, sign converted to A-Frames, menu and
sandwich board signs, and signs attached to or painted on vehicles parked and visible from the
public right-of-way unless said vehicle is used in the normal day-to-day operations.
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, or craft show.
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.
..r{.,
Sign, Roof means a sign that is mounted on 1
411
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 • I
roof or the deck line of a building with a
1.111
mansard roof.
Sign, Temporary means a sign designed or
intended to be displayed for a short period
of time. This includes items such as banners, ` I
pennants, flags, beacons, sandwich, or —
balloons or other air or gas filled figures. • --- z - �.. K_
Sign, Wall means a sign attached to or
T erected against the wall of a building or
structure with the exposed face of the ---�—
p a/4 'i �.
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.
Wall signs shall not include productS „
advertising. Wall signs shall include ® ® ---_ - C
, E =
21
tenant identification, tenant logo, center
name, or any combination of the three.
Sign, Window means sign, pictures, symbols,
or combination thereof, designed to
communicate information about an activity, '
business, commodity, event, sale or service, �K
that is placed inside a window or upon the
window panes or glass and is visible from
the exterior of the window. /*
g:'piaiNuNsign.ord
`f-`li
22 —
CITY c F --
cii
EN
lir
11111:1!!
- 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
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
I's
t4: 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 .
1
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 physical 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.
Sec. 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 need 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, #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, #9, is a type of governmental agency
sign and should be combined with #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 assess 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
development as the building being advertised.
6 —
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.
CST: 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 .
(3 ) Motion signs and flashing signs, except time and
temperature signs and barber poles .
8
(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 off-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 .
COMMENT: Home occupations, whether a permitted or conditional
use, should receive a sign permit . Home occupation signs need to
9
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
be called Construction Standards and should state that all signs
10
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 .
COMMENT: The definition of maintenance needs to be 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
11
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 has changed. This section should be
amended to state that any canopy or awning sign should have a
minimum of an eight (8) foot clearance.
12
Sec . 20-1271 . Attachment to rocks, fences, etc . , interference with
utilities .
No signs, guy wires, 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 f 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 .
COMMENT: This section should be moved and combined with the new
section to be called construction standards, Section 20-1262 .
13
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)
square feet of sign display area, shall be permitted for
each major entrance into any residential development of
14
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 or 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
height . Such sign shall be located at least ten (10)
feet from any property line . In no case shall any lot
15
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
height . Such sign shall be located at least ten (10)
feet from any property line.
16 —
_ (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
maximum height for such sign shall be twenty (20) feet
and the total sign display area shall not exceed (80)
square feet .
17
(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 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 34 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
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
18 —
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 .
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
19
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 peLritted 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 .
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.
20
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 premises
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
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
a I ,
C I T Y 0 F PC DATE: 3/2/94
CHANHASSEN
4
CC DATE 3/3/16/9/16/9
��, i-�►� CASE #: 94-1 Sign Permit
(Variance)
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting a variance from the 80 square foot maximum
business wall sign and signage on non-street frontage as follows:
1. Byerly's: Permit the signage as proposed on the building elevation.
F West 78th Street signage: 5.7 percent of wall area totaling 431 square feet.
— Z 72 square feet: Open 24 Hours Fine Foods
Q 55 square feet: Wine Spirits
V 304 square feet: Byerly's
2. Byerly's: Permit the signage as proposed on the building elevation.
�-- -� Kerber Boulevard signage: 5.3 percent of wall totaling 376 square feet.
CL 3. Byerly's: Permit the signage as proposed on building elevation.
- a. West signage: 9 percent of wall area totaling 304 square feet.
Q 4. Retail Center:
West elevation: 9 percent of wall area maximum 320 square feet.
LOCATION: Northwest corner of Kerber Boulevard and West 78th Street.
Lot 4 and part of Lot 3, Block 1, West Village Heights 2nd Addition
APPLICANT: T. F. James Company (612) 828-9000
6640 Shady Oak Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
PRESENT ZONING: General Business, BG
ACREAGE: 13.11 Acres
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N - -12, High Density Residential, Proposed Oak Pond
vnhouses and West Village Townhouses
— W S - ' General Business; Target Store; West 78th Street
I- E - r i, Office & Institutional; City Hall; Kerber Boulevard
W - ' , General Business, vacant lots; Powers Boulevard
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Con: 11
James Company/Byerly's
Sign Permit (Variance)
February 24, 1994
Revised 3/8/94
Page 2
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Section 20-1303 of the city code permits a wall business sign of 15 percent of the building
wall area with a maximum of 80 square feet per business per street frontage. _
BACKGROUND
The applicant has previous applied for and received approval for an Interim Use Permit #93-2
to rough grade the site for development, Site Plan # 93-7 approving the layout of the
development for approximately 106,000 square feet of commercial and office space, and
Conditional Use Permit # 93-1 permitting two structures on one lot. As part of the site plan
approval, the applicant was required to come back to the city with a sign package proposal
for the entire site.
ANALYSIS
The following table compares the signage either proposed or approved as part of the
development against what would be permitted based on fifteen percent of wall area (wall area
and setbacks for each developments are as follows: Chanhassen Bowl - 4,220 square feet and
55 feet, Target - 8,450 square feet and 120 feet, Festival Foods - 5,434 square feet and 183
feet, Byerly's West 78th Street - 7,500 square feet and 335 feet, and Byerly's Kerber
Boulevard - 5,700 square feet and 115 feet).
Development Name Signage & % Wall 15 % of wall
Chanhassen Bowl 495 sq ft 11.7 633 sq ft
Target 207 sq ft 2.4 1268 sq ft
Festival Foods 262 sq ft 4.8 815 sq ft
Byerly's (West 78th) 431 sq ft 5.7 1125 sq ft
Byerly's (Kerber) 376 sq ft 6.6 855 sq ft
As can be seen from the table, the larger users in this area all either have or request signage
in excess of the 80 square feet permitted by code. If we take an average of the existing
signage for the larger commercial establishments in this immediate area, the city has
permitted an average of 6.3 percent of the wall area for signage. This would translate to a
sign area of 472 square feet and 359 square feet for the south and east elevations of Byerly's,
respectively. These numbers closely approximate the signage being requested by the
applicant. If we were to compare this to the standard of the Chanhassen Bowl, the signage
would be 878 and 667 square feet for the south and east elevations, respectively.
James Company/Byerly's
Sign Permit (Variance)
February 24, 1994
Revised 3/8/94
Page 3
Staff believes that the later standard would be excessive. However, there is merit to
providing an average of similar developments' sign area percentages as the guide for
permitting the signage on the Byerly's building. Based on this, staff would recommend that
the variance for the signage square footage proposed for Byerly's be approved.
In regards to the proposed signage on the west elevations of the building, staff cannot see any
justification for the sign on the west elevation of Byerly's. While this sign may be visible to
the general public prior to the development of the remainder of the center, the sign will only
be seen from the multi-family development to the north after the retail center is fully
developed. However, due to the site design that the city required of the developer which
created a business front on the west elevation of the retail center, staff could support the
provision of signage on this elevation provided code requirements and the provisions of this
variance are met.
The current code does not adequately address the larger retailers and therefore some relief
from the ordinance would be fair and equitable. The existing sign code is tailored to provide
signage for the average retail or office user who leases 800 to 1,000 square feet of space and
— may have a business wall area between 100 and 400 square feet with permitted signage
between 15 and 60 square feet. Staff believes that granting of a variance would be
appropriate in this instance given the larger size of the business building frontage, the greater
lot area, depth, and width, and the larger building setback being provided by the development.
Granting of the variance would also be consistent with the signage that has been permitted to
other large building users in the area.
FLNDINGS
Section 20-1253 of the City Code states that the city council, upon recommendation of the
planning commission, may grant a variance from the requirements of this article where it is
shown that by reason of typography 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 and intent of this article. Section 20-
58 states that the city council may grant variances only if th-, fr'lowing criteria are met:
.11
a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cr_ undue hardship. Undue
hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasWn}able use because of its size,
physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasoild_le use includes a use made by
a majority of comparable property within 500 feet 3.7-11.a The intent of this provision
is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to rc:.:, nize that there are pre-existing
James Company/Byerly's
Sign Permit (Variance)
February 24, 1994
Revised 3/8/94
Page 4
standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards
without departing downward from them meet this criteria. (Emphasis added)
Finding: The granting of a variance to the sign area is consistent with the signage
that has been approved for the Target Center, Market Square (both which were
acceptable as PUDs, but are located in a general business district), and Chanhassen
Bowl, all of which are located south of this development and which are comparable
properties. The Code does not appear to adequately address the larger building users
whose signage, while exceeding the existing code, would be scaled to their business
wall sizes; nor does it address developments which have larger setbacks than are
required under the zoning regulations and where the larger signage would be
proportioned to this additional setback. Larger scale retailers are not likely to be
repeated often in the Central Business District.
b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable,
generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. _
Finding: The conditions upon which this petition for a variance is based is not
applicable generally to other properties within the same zoning classification because
this property and the proposed development are larger and setback further than other
developments on similarly zoned property. This development is located on a lot that
exceeds the minimum BG lot area of 20,000 square feet twenty-eight times over
(571,071 square feet) and minimum lot width of 100 feet and lot depth of 150 feet by
factors of nine and four point six, approximately 927 and 693 feet, respectively. As
stated above, larger sign area is consistent with the signage permitted in adjacent
developments. Proportionately, this signage is smaller than the signage permitted at
the Chanhassen Bowl which is located on property zoned BG, General Business
District.
c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or
income potential of the parcel of land.
Finding: The purpose of this variance will allow the property owner to have signage
that is proportional to signage approved for similar development in the immediate
area. The purpose of the variance is not based upon a desire to increase the value or
income potential of the parcel of land, but to make the signage comparable to that
granted for the developments on the south side of West 78th Street.
James Company/Byerly's
Sign Permit (Variance)
February 24, 1994
Revised 3/8/94
Page 5
d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship.
Finding: The hardship created is due to the fact that City Code does not adequately
address larger building users nor developments that provide setbacks that are
substantially larger than those required by code. Proportionally, the proposed sign is
smaller than those allowed for smaller users based on the percentage of the wall area.
e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
— to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located.
Finding: The granting of the variance will not be detrimental or injurious to other
land or improvements in the neighborhood. Existing developments currently have
signage that is larger than permitted by code.
f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increases the
danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair
property values within the neighborhood.
Finding: The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to
adjacent property, substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, increase
the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, substantially diminish or impair property
_ values within the neighborhood. The signage that exceeds code requirements will be
on the face of the building and is consistent with signage approved for adjacent
development.
— RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the variance to the
sign ordinance for the West Village Center to permit a maximum of four hundred thirty-one
(431) square feet of sign area on the south elevation of Byerly's ( a variance of 351 luare
feet) and a maximum of three hundred seventy-six (376) square feet of signage on tr.. east
— elevation of Byerly's ( a variance of 296 square feet), approval of signage on the west
elevation of the retail center, and denial of the variances to permit signage on the we,
elevation of Byerly's. This approval is subject to the following conditions:
James Company/Byerly's
Sign Permit (Variance)
February 24, 1994
Revised 3/8/94
Page 6
1. Signage shall be individual block letters. No pan or panel signs shall be
permitted.
2. All signs require a separate permit.
3. The signage will have consistency throughout the development. Consistency in
signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights.
4. Only back-lit individual letter signs are permitted.
5. Individual letters may not exceed four (4) feet in height exclusive of the
Byerly's sign.
6. The signage for the remainder of the development shall comply with city
code."
Attachments:
1. Development Review Application —
2. Request for Variance Application Narrative
3. Area Location Map
4. Byerly's Elevation with Signage —
5. Pylon Sign Detail
6. Monument Sign Detail
7. Site Landscape Plan —
8. Applicant's Exterior Signage Calculations
9. Notice of Public Hearing
10. Notice Mailing List
11. Letter from B.C. "Jim" Burdick dated 2/22/94
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
— APPLICANT: CH l4 R' Ll E JA IES OWNER: T COM P
r -
U {� (ANA Cog pc f�A t.)
ADDRESS: IDG LIC S r `amup� IY OM R ADDRESS:
- SCI SOC
� l FR IE, , MN 34
TELEPHONE (Day time) %2 - 900C) TELEPHONE: FAX g29 -753
1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Subdivision •
2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Vacation of ROW/Easements
3. Grading.'Excavation Permit 13. X Variance SECTACK; 20 — I
so3pAZAc€gkPH (3)
4. Interim Use Permit 14. Wetland Alteration Permit
-- 5. Notification Signs 15. Zoning Appeal
6 Planned Unit Development 16. Zoning Ordinance Amendment
7. Rezoning 17. Filing Fees/Attomey Cost - (Collected after
approval of item)
8. Sign Permits 18. Consultant Fees
9. Sign Plan Review
— 10. Site Plan Review TOTAL FEE $ 75 co
A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must
included with the application.
Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted.
8'/" X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet.
• NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
PROJECT NAME gl SLI S US T v I L�A�E c jJTE
LOCATION t'U ITh SI D.E C- 7B71-1 Milli 3Bi'_ Bi J j iN'1V.b { T* S E.i--\'-°
LEGAL DESCRIPTION L-°T , g - I 1.)EST v I LJJceE HE10-4-
2 I.tL, A-i• DLTI i 1 C.tm o ) i'ti SS i\3 —
PRESENT ZONING hics-
REQUESTED ZONING
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION \'
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST GslvChl Dii S '►AGE N'--'M WEST 7V ( " -'16C PJ 1
—SiZE c* SKC'PPrNE C TE'2- (Gv GOC: t NCCi `s0 SQ. P-1.i MA-X• .0UMA-- SIZE iS Ai
�
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information—a
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the
Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. ,‘y
r
-withThis is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying --t-
with
all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party
whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of
ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the —
authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. 1/4..
C
I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further-2
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge. —L
C
I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recordec 77
against the title to the property for which the approvaL'permit is r±r;nted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's C
Office and t e Qriginal document returned to City Hall Records.
/r/(I./i&//(//11/( 7/7 -2-
Signatu p if Applic k-E-s/ _ date
TJX `P6t-Asirui :
Signature of Fee Owner Date Tram'
Application Received on ?,- . Fee Paid Receipt No. 1_1 '? 1 i
• The applicant should contact staff for a copy of tiv. sport which will be available on Friday prior to the -
meeting. tf not contacted, a copy of the report will 4. to the applicant's address.
T
,JAMES
REQUEST FOR VARIANCE
_ SIGN ORDINANCE
Section 20--1303
Subparagraph 3
"Business wall signs"
West Village Center is seeking a variance on just one of the two
criteria for wall signs . We can meet the 15% coverage standard
but the 80 sq. ft. maximum size is a hardship given the size of
the building and the distance from the streets. We believe that
this section of the code does not address the needs of today' s
large scale merchandisers .
This request is consistent with what was allowed for Target and
Market Square. The Target identification exceeds the 80 sq. ft.
maximum but an exemption was allowed as part of the PUD.
Granting this variance would actually bring our project into
conformity with the other commercial projects in our
neighborhood.
All wall signs on our project will be individual cut out letters
mounted against a brick background.
The proposed pylon and ground sign will be constructed of the
same brick used in West Village Center and will incorporate some
of the same design themes .
Respectfully Submitted,
(A:,4 i0Vidifri •
Charles Wm. James
_
F.. -
TF. James Company P.O. Box 24137 Minneapolis Minnesota 55424 (612) 828-9000
REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT
m /� ` T
IIJ i i
e m`� (:: ,.0$,,,,,
_
�' Z
w c` 1 Po"f"S 80
.,,,,,Aso t; U,cv.W
g� g I C o -
fi
M ,
---;-
a; I I 7 1-7 —.---1
EV
Z /
I
m nom► ------
r
. .... .:
t , or ..„
.
i z,.. A S —-—-H
_...... ,
,z , " ,
1
...„,
cl) ,
i1 < 1
,,„ /./. ir- -6-7-------i 1 i r
/ ,,, / wi
\i,
j I1 oz. I '
, , :-: 1I8 ..
r
, ,
r-J t i m
2 6
$i I
MONrEaEr OR i,:( ...„.... I LL- —-— i-
-----------------------1 23
i N i
MARKET SOUARE
aY I I I I —
,/ • r OQO g 1 I
,A Op0 o
TTt
F----�I i 1
I
y1-----
il1/ I
1(1
i
il
; QN
o L------� O O _D Or
11
OpOo I H___ !
I IxI I0 ]4( ' D
Pi
D ten_ .�.�
Z L�nE, .0
1 `
I I
- •
SENT BY:M I NNEAPOL IS ; 2-24-94 ;12:36PM ; ALB I NSON•S-, 612 937 5739;# 2
Wm
Nov ,
, . •'
II )
im ,. ..,
_ ,,, 1 iii ...:.:, ,
.., .._. . ..
z,. . ,.-g ,.
11.
7 i, 1
. • :
or -I. a
11
-. -
rn> .E
1
z 0 .; . ,, iq H
'
.I ! •....":.....,. • -•:, ,:_:_
N.1 -
c' •=_E
: :"e— • i._.• ,
' 1
— '
• I ,t: ' t t , 4 I lin , 3 . ::, -: 1!I ..-7 ' o
Z Z . i '..777,-- .;117 • , ,
M...I 1 ' ' ! 1 :.•:--71 .", E . le :!: . ' .-
11--al .
,. t...,„ , - .!-
„... 0. , ., L ...... • . ...L.: , .
, .•
yx ,,,..,. . , iii‘, ,
•;.,: .,,,,,,..„ .A •
, !.;li.:1 :. Ifq. .
, . . . ,:
, - -
.. ,,
' • ti , .•
ilaili\) ...411,..
' • 1-
,I I ;, i •
. . .o...?111111111
11
Woo ,.
— :It- • Mk ....,
i ,
11 • .1 1 ,
, D L
•
, • I
-
1 .
•
,
... . '
-.-4 1,,
,,
:„...Y t•,*-0 ./.: 11.,
4c .
4- • , •------tc: I
' •:i L t- ?,.' it
!I ! , -Ls•Tt. ___,.......,-, i,
•
t
..., !@ 11,. '! 0, •' .7 '
. '
''•:.',!q;;; 1 ,.
!. •-.1 1 ,
' 1 ! ' , --)40- ••
14611'-'>- ' t• ' 1 -
1,r, 1 "1'
;-. . . .. 1
_
7-.4 • 1
b-jC • ..
I • ,.. .
in : . •
i
-
R
''r .:l.' i•
, 1
I
p
i 1....1 :;•`•
t3
Mil 1 .•
•... I :-•-•
t • ,' :''
: -
mtv-m-i-c r ! . ,
:.4..
agaZ -III I
, .. ii 1 1
a 1/.,••r5
. 1 i ; 4 ,, ....
Um
, I
i 1. I A •
c___
i : ;
fi.g ,rf..' I •. I I .•'.7. ., „, : ,
15
m..... .11-, i:•., i i. I,..bam 1 1111 .:!
•F.--- : i. i 111,0: R , i .,' : .' •
MOP 1,i .--. it ; ,-.7 ... 1 Mt . . • . .,
i I'li,: ' , ::
•
EPP.
I- - - , • -.
a...Mi.:AYH •
.:'.
......
,4-7:5.:;:, .. . • . . , , = ...... = . I:
...._
1. • ,, , -t- rn
41— cc r•- 1100, , .
T Z lf. ..4 ..... 4 1
Xi5.tgA " - RI
r- RI I
P 0 —A
SA16%g E 7: mr-
A•z>1-- at — i 5 1 if. rr
•mm Al.-4 1 e .. -. -
, I i
i ir-----7" ,t•
.1---r-
0
z-
0 1 1 f t I
''S"T V I I_ LINF CI- N I L ° 6 HIGH NON-ILLUMINATED
1 BRASS OR BRONZE LETTERS -
i
■
■• _A
O ■ ILLUMINATED SIGN -
_— ^ �m PMS 286 BLUE
cn ---(vJ 2
_/ ,/ / / s u
I % %�I%/ _ /
o • •
♦�0r/N/r♦i. _ / -
•
i •� •
o
• •
■ • _
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ •
II •
■
■ II■ ■ I
CO r •
-I •: —
I
■
II ■
■
■ —
■
■
■
■
■
■
II. ,
w]-
- Sul
'-8" 4' —8' 1'-8"
Jr EV-0"
PYLON SIGN
SCALE: 1/2"= 1'— 0"
8,_0„
•
1'-8" ` 4-8' 1-8
- n --5I 111 I I11111 1
i,,
m Z -- ,
-- +C - ,
N , ,
C A --7 • ,
P.M , - — ,
,r;
. _ ,
, .
. )0., :
_ 0
Z _ T
-o
nil
w4-
[5ffi
N N
• l•
1-',_13' o: Awa
ci = t_
;o i1 v.i5
Z N = N=
0
..I- in N zi g
In 3
��
Z1o Zrwz
c IA r
N Z 11,
?5 T
r- N
2
t,
CO
CSAN.NO.17(POWERS BLVD
Z� ° v j! i!k
lO1o gg d =
m gg az0 in -35. aaa ai irm,�.;,; .
E n x. �s. ... —
Z D iFs i ies
• Z E• Ill t !� ! :x!1111:!=1R !� /!
ZZ $ �i CC (�`1t•I: .F'R ��?1111 /
8g 1,s
m-1 i c>. tnuillii
SSSiii 6'F. .t:Wri:: /I /is:
P!i
a i°ii -liji its;iciia 4D'
tlii; Eli tx-i i lEifli //#.7
74R I c O Xi Cc C,.I10 &'� O a '..
# Eli ;i' •it: l r <o.o<. !
1i !;_ __EE �� !/ o': a e� ,.
i s-41
S R! : i :}:i f I ' a �
!; '
rill iii
iii i / (it
o>>,04 —
Ci i
``� = �:�1' 11'. -
i /7:.
N \t, ,39 kL1
_ II : �
......-: 1, ; i,. • 11111 - 1. till
, . ,
,..„,
11 „ _
3rei
1 ,3., . „, III. E __
I f n'a!; I , , :::,,
1111
N <,,, ! I ' it II I 'il
COli_ -' F A, ,
Dr�`s!� 5 :A'-1 'm Acm6N n ,:ti i -
�e�3 �O�tio -" ,f, -- pig: !I ° 'llll rI I'I
vet j,gA�`> n>�; a; m I t' . riI 'L n1nii c.;,.
g 1
...Ad ���mmnz �^QQr uz�i r� a� I _� ..�
av ” i'z> g .gym-_
er,-> AIR p o� 1
Z y. ..f. „7,_r �'y 2 o0$f !,'' - v V t:l �..a.:t-�•e... - :•-,
1"' mm �� _ ; o'a' ! ,i I' �IINIIIII IIII{III�.9t§' - < �.I!I'I, !111!1',Hi HI I° E'_�__- _ �5- Alp/111 o -
r. 114. f; : y _-: �' ,►, �"
______ E ,4li KERBER BLVD
3¢i'8!U i§ qa. —
a-
14g$§i pc §"_s
a
tE
Exterior Signage Calculations
West Village Center
Chanhassen, Minnesota
Note: All exterior signs which identify tenants in the shopping center shall consist of
individual cut-out letters, however, for purposes of these calculations the signage is
measured by the exterior dimensions of an imaginary rectangle which would frame and
contain the cut-out letters.
South Elevation:
1. Byerly's has a south wall area of 7500 sq.ft. The signage proposed would total 431
sq.ft. or 5.5% of the total wall area. This is determined by using 36 total lineal feet of 24
inch letters (Open 24 Hours Fine Foods) , 22 feet of 30" letters ( Wine Spirits), and a
Byerly's logo of 304 sq.ft. Code would allow 1125 sq.ft. or 14 signs each containing 80 sq.ft.
2. The adjacent retail area has a south wall area of 7924 sq.ft. Code would allow 1188 sq.ft.
of signs or 15 signs at 80 sq.ft. We are proposing an 80 sq.ft. maximum for each sign and
will meet or exceed the code.
East Elevation of Byerly's:
Total wall area is 5700 sq.ft. and code would allow 855 sq.ft. of signage. We are proposing
376 sq.ft. of signage, which is just over 6% whereas code allows 15%.
West Elevation:
1. At Byerly's, the total wall area is 3372 sq.ft. We are proposing 3o1-1 sq.ft. which is
9 % of the total wall area.
2. The West elevation of the adjacent retail area consists of 320 sq.ft. total area.We are
proposing 32t sq.ft. of signs which will meet or exceed the code.
,,,;/: :\
,i ' ted..--•• -,i` t- �.' �dr
'_�i�fl ;a,r�E_ - 2--
' J�' 1 ref _ 4.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 1 ; :2- y , T R
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING :.�'�,. 55Ppm2 = - -
Wednesday, March 2, 1994 - 7:30 P.M. Location , 01- ; •� s' -4 _ il
City Hall Council Chambers2 _
690 Coulter Drive �;•;•:i':; `+='' v.-—zz 4'- f `
Project: West Village Heights Center r' BG - a ' 8D j —
Sign
Variance =i i - --pc-.
Developer: Charlie James _ - -nail; • G •; — ,
_ _____:_,_
1 110P
Location: Lot 4, Block 1, West Village _ , _ ' . j
Heights 2nd Addition :1:
�L AKE �iji SUSAN i Al - iiIPARK i,� c\ `-
Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in
your area. The applicant is requesting a variance to the City Code regarding the sign
requirements for West Village Heights Center, located on Lot 4, Block 1, West Village _
Heights 2nd Addition.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform _
you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this
project. During the meeting, the Planning Commission Chair will lead the public hearing
through the following steps: —
1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project.
2. The Developer will present plans on the project. —
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The
Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. —
Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please _
stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you
-:h to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob at 937-1900. If you choose to
mit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the Planning Department in _
..:avance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on February 17,.- _
'994. '
•1 2- —
1
West Village Partners Independent School Dist. Mithun Enterpr. Inc.
- 1443 Utica Ave. #240 1700 Highway 41 900 Wayzata Blvd.
Mpls., MN 55416-1571 Chaska, MN 55318 Wayzata, MN 55391
State Bank of Chanhassen Market Square Associates B.C. Burdick
680 78th Street 3503 Maplewood Circle 426 Lake Street
— Chanhassen, MN 55317 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
- Dayton Hudson Corp. Eckankar Dean Johnson Contruction
Dept. T-862 Box 27300 8984 Zachary Lane
777 Nicollet Mall New Hope, MN 55427 Maple Grove, MN 55369
Mpls., MN 55402
- Festival Foods
Bob King
7900 Market Blvd.
— Chanhassen, MN 55317
Principals In Minnesota's Fastest
Growing Area
Brian H. Burdick
B.C. "Jim" Burdick
426 Lake Street Excelsior, Minnesota 55331 (612) 474-5243
FAX (612) 474 7543
February 22, 1994
Chanhassen Planning Commission
Box 147 —
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: West Village Heights Center, Sign Variance
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Due to a pressing conflict we cannot be present at the March 2, 1994 —
meeting pertaining to the sign variance for the West Village Heights
Center.
It is our feelings that the presence of Byerly's will add a significant
amount of class to the City of Chanhassen. As neighboring property
owners we would like to ask that you look upon their request for a sign
variance in as favorable a manner as possible. —
Cordially yours,
C. "JIM" BURDICKS . BURIK
-
BCB/kml
, ___.
RECEI'JED
r E D -i 1994
:cess in business is purely a matter of luck.
don't believe us,just ask any of the losers." CITY OF CHANHASSEr
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
6. Marking of handicapped stalls as per the Building Official's letter dated January 31, 1994.
All voted in favor, except Ladd Conrad and Diane Harberts who were not present to
vote, and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CHARLIE JAMES FOR A VARIANCE TO THE CITY CODE REGARDING THE
SIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR WEST VILLAGE HEIGHTS CENTER, LOCATED ON
LOT 4, BLOCK 1, WEST VILLAGE HEIGHTS 2ND ADDITION.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: Any questions or comments for staff?
Ledvina: The situation on the west wall of the building, why. First of all, does that
represent, their request, does that represent a variance?
Generous: Yes.
Ledvina: Okay. So under normal situations, as far as the ordinance is concerned.
Generous: They would get no signage. It says street frontage.
Ledvina: They have to have street frontage, okay.
Generous: In reviewing this we looked at that and as part of the site plan we made them
create a business...on the west end of the retail center and that's why they're requesting that.
They want to have actual frontage for the building so when people park out front, they can
know that they're walking into the, engineering design...what have you.
Mancino: So we don't have street frontage there. Now according to what we have, Section
20-1303, it says for a wall business sign, it says one wall business sign shall be permitted per
street frontage for each business occupant within the building. So I'm looking here at the
south elevation and I see three difft: : .t signs. I see Fine Foods, Open 24 Hours, I see a
Byerly's sign and I see a Wine s- ; ' rits. And according to our ordinance, they're allowed
to have one sign.
Generous: Well the way we've been doing that is to aggregate the total square footage as it...
for that building.
5
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Mancino: But that's not one sign. There's still three signs. It's in three different spots.
Generous: It's in three different locations. But we've been treating it as if that, they have
their one sign. Instead of, they can stack all that information up in one spot, and if they met
the code requirements.
Mancino: If they meet 80 square feet.
Farmakes: Current code is 80 square feet.
Generous: Yes.
Farmakes: The point she's making is that there's auxillary information provided within that,
other than identifying the store. So the question is, if you allow that as a variance, not only
are you allowing a variance for the total cap of the signage name but you're allowing in
addition to that, Wines and Spirits. I think the precedent that was used was to allow the word
Pharmacy on Target. The question goes back, I think in the current sign ordinance that we'll
be reviewing, there was a comment on there about what constitutes additional advertising to a
sign. For instance, Cold Beer and Hot Dogs.
Mancino: Or Fresh Fruit. I mean what are we going to have on these buildings?
Farmakes: And where does that constitute an additional sign or in addition to or within that
cap? The criteria we seem to be using here is Target, which is a PUD correct?
Generous: Correct.
Mancino: And so is Market Square.
Farmakes: So is the criteria that what we gave them, we give Byerly's or what is the
objective?
Generous: Well to provide them an equitable relief for their signage is basically it. They
believe that they're doing the same thing as the other two developments. However they
don't, they just didn't do PUD. They're doing, meeting everything else in the code as far as,
they want to have comparable signs.
Mancino: Well they're doing more than some of the other developments. For instance,
they're going to have a 20 foot pylon sign right on 78th Street which is going to give them a
lot more visibility than any other commercial business on 78th. There is no pylon signs 20
6
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
feet high for Target on 78th. There's no 20 foot tall pylon sign for Market Square. For the
Chanhassen Bank, etc. So I think they have a lot of visibility with the pylon sign added to
what they've got.
Farmakes: The other criteria of a PUD is that the city gets something in return for allowing
an applicant to go over or get variances from existing city codes. I'm wondering what, it
would seem the purpose here is that Byerly's is an oversized building. Large 60,000 square
feet.
Scott: Well the total development's 109.
Farmakes: The original signage I think, Charlie that you had, wanting to know why there
was a cap in there. Percentage. The issue had to do with stores that are smaller getting over
sized signs that are as wide as the store front. Where you'd have a disproportionate amount
to where essentially the store is covered because of signs. The cap of 80 square feet I think
is pretty long standing, isn't it Ladd? That was on the existing ordinance.
Mancino: Well 80 is for the general business district. 65 is for the CBD so it's even smaller
in the central business district.
Farmakes: Yeah, but what I'm saying is that isn't part of the revision. We didn't reduce
that. That's been an historical cap. I guess a precedent was set then when Target was built.
Conrad: No, the bowling alley.
Farmakes: Filly's?
Conrad: Yeah. That's a huge sign. I think it's an ugly sign.
Farmakes: What criteria did they, that came under a PUD or was that conditional use or what
was that?
Conrad: That came under criteria of visibility from Highway 5 and I'm not sure how that
happened to tell you the truth. It sure fit within the 15% of wall area but it sure is over 80
square feet. So there are precedents. We obviously don't have an ordinance that treats
different sized buildings adequately. I think dwelling on the 80 square feet is sort of dwelling
on something that's not equitable.
Scott: Well I've got a question for you. In the findings section, we talk about that strict
compliance would cause a hardship. And under Section 20-58 it says that the City Council
7
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
may grant variances only if the following criteria are met and one of the them is the literal
enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship as defined as undue hardship means
if the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of size, fiscal surroundings, shape or
topography. And I don't particularly agree with that in this particular case. I think we would
all agree that the fact that there's a Byerly's in Chanhassen, it's a destination in and of itself.
Not like on Highway 61 where there's 7 car dealerships competing for mind share. So at
least in my particular view of the world, I wouldn't consider foisting this ordinance on
Byerly's to be creating any hardship whatsoever. And the other commissioners have talked
about some of the other issues but that's the one that kind of stuck in my mind. I had some
difficulty seeing why that would be a hardship. So I'd like you to develop that, maybe
educate me a little bit.
Farmakes: Well the comment that I'd like to make here before he answers that. I think Ladd
is right...several building fronts is what you're talking about here. The question that I was
looking at and maybe there isn't a precedent that's used for buildings of that scale. The cap
really didn't deal with buildings of that magnitude in this town. But part of the question that
Nancy seemed to start to answer is what in addition to that and how many do you duplicate?
Do you use part of the ordinance from the 80 cap and then if you enlarge the sign, do you
still use part of that allowing an additional amount of the signs? I don't have a problem —
personally with looking at that again to look at buildings of this scale. I don't have a
problem even that Byerly's is projecting to the highway by a larger sign of that scale but I
would question how many times it's duplicated and if for instance you have the same size
sign projecting to the east coming down 78th Street where you drive within a few hundred of
the building to get by it. I question that. Whether or not that needs to be duplicated again to
that scale. So that's my.
Scott: Okay. Are there any more comments? This is a public hearing. May I have a
motion to open the public hearing.
Mancino: So moved.
Scott: Actually we should hear from the applicant first. Excuse me. Mr. James.
Charlie James: Sorry I'm late this evening. I thought I was further on the agenda.
Scott: You're on time. You're here. Please state your name and your acidress.
Charlie James: Yes, my name is Charlie James. I'm with T.F. James Company of Eden
Prairie. I guess first of all I'd like to stress that the issue under discussion this evening is of
major, major importance to us and we're really here tonight because I believe of an ambiguity
8
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
in Section 20-1303, Subparagraph 3 of your current ordinance. And we can and will meet all
aspects of your current code on the entire project with the exception of the Byerly's logo.
The retail strip will be in conformity. We're not asking for anything there. The pylon that
you mentioned is totally in conformity with the ordinance plus I'll point out that Target's
pylon is 36 feet tall and contains 144 square feet of sign area where our's has 64 square feet
so their sign is 2 1/2 times as large as our sign area. 16 feet taller but we're not asking for
that. We'll live with your ordinance on that. The monument that's proposed is totally in
conformity with your ordinance and it was redrawn to be. And I guess we, when I read the
code and having had an analogous experience to this up in Forest Lake, Minnesota. They had
a code like this that said you could have so many square feet but no individual sign could be
bigger than, I forget what it was. It was something like this so we went through and said,
look it. Under your code we can put 70-80 square foot, or we can put 7-80 or whatever the
size square foot signs they are on the building but no one sign can be bigger than you know,
whatever it was. We can distribute this out but no individual sign can be as big as the sign
that we're proposing so potentially we could put 7-80 square foot signs or whatever it was,
and have 500 square feet. All we're asking for is 200 square feet. And they realized that
they had a problem in their ordinance and we were allowed to do what we wanted to do and
they since have changed their ordinance. And I have to say that when I read this ordinance
and coming from that experience, maybe that was too fresh in my mind but I will refer you
here to the wording in this and it says, under paragraph 3. First of all it says, they're
distinguishing here between the pylon and monument. First of all there's a mixture of the
plural and singular within this paragraph. It says, wall business signs. But then it says, one
wall business sign shall be permitted per street frontage. And then it says, the total of all
wall mounted sign area shall not exceed 15% of the total area of the building wall on which,
plural, the signs are mounted. And then it says, no individual sign shall exceed 80 square
feet. My reading of this, the mixture of the plural and the singular and the use of the word
individual is that the code was intended that no individual sign would be bigger than 80
square feet but that you were allowed the 15% of the wall area. There's that mixture of the
plural and singular here. I'll further refer you to the staff report that was written and
subsequently adopted by this body regarding the Target. Here's a picture by the way of their
36 foot high, 144 foot up here. That's 144. What we're talking is 64 square foot in our total
sign and they've got 144 feet just up here. This is in your staff report that was done for the
Target.
Farmakes: You're aware that the Target was a PUD?
Charlie James: Yes I am.
Farmakes: And that there's a difference in zoning.
9
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Charlie James: I'm very much aware of that. That's going to be a point I'm going to make.
Farmakes: Well you're comparing the two back and forth and I just want to make sure that
you knew that.
Charlie James: Right. And I'm going to address also the issue of, someone raised the issue
of the trade off and what are we getting here. Under the signage report that was done for
Target, again there's this ambiguity in your signage that says, findings. The staff is proposing
one free standing pole sign and on and on and then subparagraph 2. Wall signs are permitted
on no more than two street frontages. Then they say the total of all wall area sign display
areas shall not exceed 15% of the total wall area. Or of the total building wall upon which
the signs, plural, are mounted. So this is consistent I believe with our interpretation of what
the code is. So I don't want to be in a position here of being argumentative. What I'm
trying to suggest this evening is that you've got a problem with your code and that should be
addressed. And I don't want tonight, I don't want what we're presenting here tonight to be in
any way a precedent or maybe the more proper word is andecedent for what you're going to
be considering later this evening. What I would like is for you to look at what we're
proposing here for the Byerly's and look at this as a unique, individual case. It's not, let's
admit. We've got a problem with the ordinance. The ordinance is ambiguous. With Target
they talked about 15% of the total area of the building upon which the signs are mounted. So
let's get beyond that and can we just review this on a case by case basis of what we're trying
to do here and. Well we've got this. I guess within the context of what we're proposing here
and the scale of the building, I would submit that what we're proposing in the way of signage
here is not excessive and it is attractive. I think there's some other factors here that need to
be mentioned. I think one of the things that there were some numbers in the staff report that
were calculated in a different manner than which we calculated our numbers. We were told
that we had to draw a rectangle around the total area and I understand that when they
calculated the sign for instance for Festival, they did not do that. They kind of went around
the edge of that in preparing the square footages that were in your report. Again an ambiguity
here. We're penalized because first of all this is cursive and so if you throw a rectangle, you
have to go all the way up to the top here. That's how we were told you know that this thing
was figured. When in fact an argument could be made that you could just kind of outline
this sign area and this area in here being about approximately 16 feet, if we came over here
and then dropped down to this area which is about 8 feet, it becomes 200 square feet instead
of the 321 square feet that would be made if we basically put a border around the whole
thing. I understand that you're considering a new code. Unfortunately I was traveling and I
wasn't in a position to interact with staff and to comment on what they were proposing. I
guess we just simply can't abide with the later alternative in there. And I don't, I feel that
the table they came up with there, and those numbers are just as arbitrary as anything else. I
10
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
mean why 3%? Why 4%? I guess what I would prefer is that we address here tonight is to
look at what we're trying to prevent here and I don't think that what we're doing here, I have
a very strong vested interest in this being the best possible project and a lot of thought went
in to a lot of this and I guess what I would like is can we look at this particular project and
not rewrite the code around me. In other words, can we work with recognizing that we have
existing ambiguity here within the code and then say okay, Charlie. You get a variance from
that code. He's not asking for a variance in the pylon. He's not asking for a variance for the
monument. Those elements are less than what's been done elsewhere. I'm not asking for a
variance in the retail space but I'm asking for consideration for this particular layout. And I
guess as another thing I guess I'd say is, as I mentioned we're penalized because of the
cursive nature. It's not a neat block of their logo but also another aspect of this you have to
keep in mind is that their letters are blue. As a matter of fact, this whole element of the
building, so it's more or less size and proportion to accommodate the sign and the concern is
the visibility from Highway 5. Target's out there on Highway 5 and has the 36 foot high
whatever. And blue doesn't read well at night. So that's another factor that it's not a glaring
white or a yellow or a red. It's something that kind of softly dissipates into the night air so
that's a concern based on, this was input directly from the President of Byerly's based on
other locations that they've had and the studies that they've done on visibility of their signage
from distances. And that relates to what was said tonight about 65 square foot in the central
business district as opposed to 80 square feet in the highway and general business and I
again, I think that that's why the first alternative that was being proposed or rationale for
your consideration Ladd this evening is better because I think the reason that 65 square feet
downtown is because the buildings are close...and where the buildings are placed. And the
code when they referred to 65 square feet downtown, I think there was a recognition that the
buildings are placed closer to the curb there. That the cars are closer to the street. So I
think, and then as you get further out from town, you're distances away so I think that's part
of that rationale and I think that that rationale fits in better with what was the first alternative
here that was proposed this evening. But again, now I'm starting to discuss what you're
going to be considering here later this evening and I guess I wish we could focus on here.
As far as a PUD and what the City's getting in return here. I guess I'm emphasize again that
we worked with staff for over 6 months. Probably 7 or 8 months before we ever even came
to you folks and everything we tried to do here is consistent with everything on this side of
the street. City Hall's brick and has the same sort of, and the Fire Station, the post office, the
bank and so everything that we are doing here is kind of consistent with this side of the
street. We came in here originally. Target had 5% of their parking lot landscaped as part of
the PUD requirement when your code had nothing. We were told that that was something
that was going to be adopted as the law or code. The 5% of the parking lot. I came in here
right off the bat with 8% in our parking lot and we subsequently, thanks to Mr. Wing's input
and elsewhere, I think we ended up closer to 10%. And I think we're trying to bring a high
quality project here. A high standard of design. We've got $88,000.00 at last count in plant
11
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
material. Not the installation. Not the irrigation. Not the sod. Just in material in the bucket
on this job. Which is way far and above what's required. We came in here as a permitted
use on a permitted piece of property and we still tried to work with you all. And tried to
improve it and do better than what was required. The only variance that we were asking for
in that project was necessitated by your own Highway 5 corridor study that said that you
wanted a detached buildings and broken up. We've got a project here that's 600 feet long.
We tried to articulate the...Put a lot of money into different various elements. And the one
thing we need help on is the sign. So I guess it is important to us and I would respectfully
request that you look at this and look at it in terms of the total design of the project and grant
us some relief from the ambiguity of your code.
Scott: Good. Are there any comments or questions for the applicant from staff?
Commissioners?
Mancino: Charlie did you provide a drawing with an 80 square foot Byerly's so we could
see the difference?
Charlie James: I'm sorry.
Mancino: Did you provide staff with an 80 square foot Byerly's logo. One that would fit in
the ordinance so we could see the scale of an 80 square foot one in there?
Charlie James: No I didn't but I'll tell you, you've got a building 300 feet long here. That's
2 sheets of plywood. Okay, approximately. And as I said, this element, we read, when we
read the ordinance, we thought. What we're showing here is well below 15% of the wall
area so we thought there was this glitch or snaffu in your ordinance that, as I indicated
earlier, that we've run into elsewhere. So we thought well gee whiz. The 80 square feet
thing is obviously something that wasn't contemplated here but we're well below the 15% of
the total wall area here. What's shown here I believe in your report here.
Generous: Nancy, if you look at the Open 24 Hours and Fine Food section, that's almost 80
square feet. Between the two of them.
Mancino: Between the two of them?
Charlie James: It becomes miniscule and there's no point putting it on there because you
can't read it from the street. You know I mean this.
Mancino: Well the point of putting it on there is for us to be able to see the difference and
why it doesn't work.
12
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Charlie James: No I meant as far as 80, I'm sorry. Right now, our interpretation of the code
originally was that in any event we're allowed 15% of the total wall area. What we're
showing you right here is 5.5% of the wall area. So we didn't anticipate a problem. We
were asked by the President and CEO of Byerly's, has stayed out of many of my negotiations
with Mr. Meyers. I remember specifically the one time he stuck his head in the door was on
this issue of signage and this is a big deal with them because they've had problems with the
blue signs at night and they're open 24 hours and this sort of thing and it's a real hot spot
with him. And so in proportioning the building and everything, we designed some of these
elements to accommodate that. And it's not an after thought. It was a fore thought and it
was based on our misinterpretation of an ambiguous code. So I'm sorry, no we did not.
That's my typical long winded.
Farmakes: Your Edina location is how many square feet?
Charlie James: I'm sorry?
Farmakes: Your Edina location for Byerly's. How many square feet?
John Meyers: 18. St. Louis Park is 19. Ridgedale is probably 16.
Farmakes: How many signs in Edina do you have on the face front of the building?
John Meyers: On the face? This is what we have on most of the stores. We don't have,
some of the stores we have restaurant. Edina we don't have wine and spirits because we
don't have wine and spirits. Fine foods is something we're.
Farmakes: The primary sign of Byerly's, is that on the area facing, would that be 70th?
John Meyers: That store has, I don't know if that store has a sign on 70th.
Farmakes: I recall it just has one facing France. Byerly's.
John Meyers: No. No. There's supposed to be, I'm not sure how big the building is facing
south. There's a sign on the south side of that building. I'm not sure if there's one on the
north side.
Farmakes: Is there a frontage street there though?
Charlie James: I do know that.
13
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
John Meyers: What you see if you're coming north, if you're coming north.
Farmakes: Is that a monument or is that...?
John Meyers: No...
Charlie James: I do know that Mr. Harberts specifically said that one that is on Ridgedale is
larger than this one but it's mounted over here. They have this big wall on their drive thru so
they have a much higher wall area to mount it on. So actually the sign that's on Ridgedale is
larger but it was put over here and we didn't want to do that. We wanted to have these
arches here that, and they don't have that condition there. They don't have arches here. This
is a blank masonry wall.
John Meyers: Well we didn't want a blank wall there either. We wanted to put a feature in
that carries it through the whole center so when you put the feature in, you carry it through
the whole center...
Charlie James: We have a visual aid here. This is 10 by, this is 80 square feet.
Scott: No problem.
Charlie James: You love it right?
Mancino: We can still read it.
Farmakes: What is the accumulative amount of square footage you take in Byerly's and you
take in Wine and Spirits, Fine Foods, Open 24 Hours.
Charlie James: 431 square feet, or 5.5% of the wall area.
John Meyers: Of which, under the code, if we stuck with 15%. If we stuck with 15% and
just put Byerly's, Byerly's, Byerly's, Byerly's, Byerly's.
Farmakes: I understand that but the code has always had a cap on it so.
John Meyers: If you take 15%.
Farmakes: So to take part of an ordinance and you said the criteria is.
Charlie James: It says no individual sign but then as it...
14
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Farmakes: But it could be more than one sign.
Charlie James: Exactly.
Farmakes: Let me explain. It could be a logo. It could be logo and type. It could be Fine
Foods or Open 24 Hours. It could not even have the name of the store if it chose not to.
But there's a cap of the amount of square footage that can be used. It's up to the store owner
how he chooses to use that cap. Some stores wish to add additional information other than
their name. The question then becomes, is it an identification or an advertisement.
Charlie James: Well there's some argument to be made here that we have more than one use
in this building. We have the supermarket. We have the wine and spirits. We have a
restaurant. We have all these different businesses going on under one roof, which is
somewhat analogous to Target and Target having a pharmacy.
Farmakes: I understand your argument. I think that the bottom line is that you would like
that sign to be readable from Highway 5, correct?
John Meyers: Correct.
Farmakes: Okay. That is facing south. The elevation that we're looking at now. There's
additional signage being requested on the face fronts that face east and the other one you said
was not included or?
Mancino: The west one.
Farmakes: ...of what we started out with there on that elevation drawing.
Generous: It's in your packet. The bottom would be the west elevation.
Farmakes: Where it says 4 next to it?
Generous: Yes.
Farmakes: c.nd that's being withdrawn?
Generous: !yo, we're recommending that that not be approved.
Farmakes: That that not be there.
15
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Mancino: Because it doesn't, frontage is not on the street, right?
Farmakes: The purpose then of the monument sign then is. Is the question of signs I think
in relevance, one way to look at this is from what distance do you consider a sight line to be
adequate for your store. And I'm just looking at this from your point of view. You
obviously want to be read from Highway 17, Highway 5 and what is the purpose of the sign
to the east? How far is it that you would like to be seen?
John Meyers: The sign to the east?
Farmakes: Yes. It would be the sign west of City Hall.
John Meyers: You're really, at the point where you get to the stop light, at that point you'll
start to be able to see from the elevation, the one that you've got, from the intersection. Just
up off the road. You should start to be able to see this sign as you probably just get through
the intersection.
Farmakes: It would seem to me that the purpose of the sign, besides the sight lines being
different distances away say from Highway 5, because you have to be a certain distance
away. A minimum distance. Those cars are potentially going by at 50 mph. The one from
the east, somebody's coming by at 25 mph.
John Meyers: Hopefully.
Farmakes: Well, hopefully. It seems as if there's a different size of signs. What I'm trying
to get a handle on here, other than arguing the technicalities of your interpretation of the
ordinance. There are parts of the ordinance but whether we're looking at a different zone at
one time and half of a zone of another, I think there are some arguments to come back and
say that you're being selective in you're interpreting what applies to your store and what
doesn't In comparing Target, obviously you're aware, and you say you're aware that that's a
different zone and you understand that it's a PUD.
Charlie James: I do but what...building could have cost another $7.00 a square foot and
got....
Farmakes: ...I understand that.
Charlie James: I've got more landscaping than they do.
16
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Farmakes: I understand that but do you understand how ordinances are set up? We can't
willy nilly disregard part of an ordinance when we're discussing something and how we're
interpreting it. It doesn't mean that we can't relook at something to work something that
solves this problem. What I'm saying is that, based on your parts of your arguments that I
don't buy into personally but...
John Meyers: I don't understand what you're disagreeing over.
Farmakes: Comparing for instance the sizes that are allowed for Target. Target is a different
zone. And I know that both of you are fully well aware that there's a difference between
PUD and what you are applying for.
John Meyers: I'm not even arguing the Target sign.
Farmakes: Okay, but that's part of the argument that I've before me. In comparing, and I
understand the criteria that was used for Target. I'm not arguing the scale of the building and
some of the rationale that you're using. There however are some other things other than the
size of the sign for Byerly's sign here, the additional signage and how that accumulates and
how that is reflected to how other applicants are treated here. And we have to consider that
in how we handle this. And I think in the past, and said you acknowledged that, I think
that's how we have to treat this discussion. We have to do this fairly and I would admit and
agree that obviously when these older ordinances were put on the books, nobody envisioned
the buildings of this size coming in here. And primarily the cap and the percentage was to
keep small store fronts from becoming over sized. Where the entire wall of the building is a
sign. So far these huge buildings have been PUD's and have been handled as separate issues.
The signage. Where you're getting 100,000 square foot building and you're looking at the
signage issues as a PUD that can be handled as a separate issue. Your applying under
existing signage ordinances that apply to a small store. And if we have to hold them to that,
we also have to hold you to that irregardless of the size of the building.
Charlie James: But that's where the hardship comes in.
Farmakes: I understand the hardship and I understand the rationale for relooking at that
again. There's additional baggage on here though that I would like to discuss because this
also conflicts with some of the other issues that we have held other store owners to.
Applicants. In supplementing sigr,age with advertising. It goes beyond identification. There
is precedent I think for the Open 24 Hours. The Fine Foods, it seems to me that.
John Meyers: That's a trademark, just so you know. That's a trademark which the Byerly's
own. Which we used to use in the Twin Cities as we feel it's important to use out here
17
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
because we're going into a new market and trying to expand farther out.
Farmakes: I'm familiar with trademark law and I know that the words Fine Foods are not the
trademark.
John Meyers: The logic behind.
Farmakes: It could be added onto Byerly's but the words fine foods is a generic.
John Meyers: But part of the Byerly's name and actually it's trademark, one of those logos
is Byerly's Fine Foods.
Farmakes: Okay. And what I'm saying is, if Fine Foods was underneath Byerly's, that could
be construed as part of the trademark. Where it's several hundred feet away, one would have
to interrupt...
Charlie James: One of the designs had that and it was too cluttered.
John Meyers: We've done it on both sides but we had to make the facade even bigger in that
area which...defeats the purpose of what we're trying to do.
Mancino: It's a positioning line that goes with the name Byerly's.
John Meyers: Exactly.
Farmakes: Except it's not with the name Byerly's...And the question of Wines and Spirits,
I'm not sure how, I'm not sure how, does the city consider that a separate store?
Mancino: No it's not. It's part of Byerly's.
Farmakes: But legally, does it have to be a separate store? It holds a liquor license doesn't
it?
Charlie James: There's a part of the store where we're being required to close that off so it
can be.
John Meyers: Separate operating leases.
Charlie James: It will have it's own cash register. It has an entrance where during the times
that the supermarket is open you can go into the liquor store but when the hours are past for
18
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
a liquor store to be open, there's doors in there that close that off so you're not able to access
it. That shuts down. Those personnel leave.
John Meyers: It's no different than a liquor store inside a mall. I'll give you a perfect
example. Go down to TH 4 and TH 5, to Driskill's. You walk out of Driskill's store into
the mall space and the first tenant is the Eden Prairie municipal liquor. When you're inside
our store...stores is to make that side of the store basically a mall. You come into the store.
You go to the right. If you've been in Ridgedale, and you walk down a corridor. Down that
corridor is the post office. Down that corridor is ice cream. And down that corridor is the
restaurant. Down that corridor is the liquor store. I mean we opearte it separately.
Farmakes: It doesn't have a separate entrance...it only has separate entrance. Separate
checkout.
John Meyers: Right. You can't get into the Wine and Spirits shop and take it into the
store...
Mancino: But you can get into the Wine and Spirits through the Byerly's grocery store?
Charlie James: But only because they have parcel pick-up and you don't have to carry your
bags so you have to pay for your groceries there. Then you can walk into a separate opening,
into the liquor store and they have a separate personnel and separate check out there. But
once the State laws come into effect and they say you've got to be closed at 6:00 or whatever
it is, there are these bifold doors or whatever that seal that whole area off from the inside of
the store, plus the outside door is locked and that portion of the store is closed.
John Meyers: It's a separate legal entity as well. Somebody that operates the liquor store is
a separate entity from Byerly's.
Farmakes: How would the City interpret that? Is that a separate store?
Generous: The way they describe it, I believe it would be separate. As far as our review of
it, we aggregated everything as part of one wall, business wall.
Farmakes: Can you check on that. See how that would be interpretted.
Scott: I think what we need to do now is to ask for input from members of the public. Are
there any members here of the public who would like to speak on this particular issue?
Seeing none, I'd like to have a motion to close the public hearing please.
19
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Scott: Any comments from the commissioners. My initial comment here is that it seems like
we really don't have a good handle on what to do with this particular. Do you agree with
me? Based upon the ordinance that we have to deal with the issue at hand. Personally I'm
not comfortable acting on that at this point in time but if you all are, please speak up.
Conrad: I'm curious. What people think about visually is this offensive? What we're
looking at?
Farmakes: I personally don't think it's offensive but I think it is a weakness in our ordinance
in dealing with these size buildings. I don't know how many more of these we're going to
see.
Conrad: So if we could develop a sign ordinance that would allow that, would we all kind of
say, that's probably reasonable?
Mancino: No.
Farmakes: I think that there's a problem with the additional amount of signage. And how
we treat other applicants. That...
Conrad: So you're uncomfortable that they're saying wine and spirits would be too generic,
you wouldn't want to see that on other buildings?
Farmakes: If it's a separate entity, I think we talked about that with the hotel and does that
constitute a new business. Does new signage come into play? I think that's another issue of
weakness in our signage ordinance.
Conrad: Don't you feel that that's instructive though? Don't you think a food store is
different than restaurant?
Farmakes: Yes. I do. I think that there's a viable argument there. I don't think that it's too
much signage for the amount of square footage that we're talking about. But I do think that
there's precedent problems that if we ignore what currently is on the booxs, and how we treat
other people, that's going to create a problem.
Mancino: I'd like to build on that also and say, I mean what are we going to have a sign
people can say, open 7 days a week or open from 7:00 to 8:00? And that's where I'm having
20
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
a problem with the Open 24 Hours and Fine Foods. I don't have a problem with the Byerly's
and the Wine and Spirits because I think it is a different entity. My other concern is, as we
get bigger with these signs, proportionately to the building, are we just going to have box
buildings that act as billboards all over? And the signage on them is just going to read as a
big billboard. And is that what we want and is that what we want in our downtown? Do we
want signage in our downtown to be able to be read from all over? From a mile away. From
a half a mile away. I mean at what point.
Farmakes: Issues of scope and I think duplication. As I said before. I think that in looking
at advertising, the sign to be read from Highway 5 from a building of that scale, I would
think perhaps that's reasonable to an extent. However, the assignment for a read from
Highway 17, which is a different speed limit and 78th Street, which is also a different speed
limit, are two different assingments and I wouldn't see that sign duplicated three times. So
again I'm not sure what we hold the hotel development to. What we hold Market Square. I
realize some of these are PUD's and some of them are not. I think we have to define the
difference of what we're doing there because what we hold some of these smaller store
owners to, we should be consistent on how we approach that or enact an ordinance that deals
with this as part of the signage package that we're looking at here.
Scott: Jeff, where would you draw the line inbetween the "small store" and the Byerly's?
Farmakes: Well the city tries to do some of that on scale. However, I think this still needs
some work from the ordinance that we're looking at. The old signage ordinance also did
some scale work but it had the cap. It kept the 80 foot cap which I'm not sure how relevant
that was at the time. That they ever envisioned a 100,000 square foot building here.
Scott: How do you, based upon coming to some sort of a decision this evening, what are
your thoughts?
Farmakes: I think that perhaps we should get together with staff and discuss either how this
would be incorporated into the new ordinance or how it would be interpreted in the old. But
I think we should be consistent on how we handle this.
Scott: Okay.
Farmakes: This is asking to be inconsistent. I don't think what they're asking is
unreasonable if it can be done with how we've acted consistently in the past.
Scott: Would you like to make a motion to that effect?
21
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Farmakes: I'll make a motion to table this.
Scott: Okay.
Farmakes: Until that can be ascertained and until we get counseled but I think that this is
something that could be worked out. Where it is consistent, I think the potential to do that is
there.
Scott: Okay. So the motion on the floor is to table.
Mancino: Second.
Scott: It's moved and seconded. Is there any discussion?
Conrad: Yeah, a little bit. Charlie, if the Byerly's wasn't farmed in a square, how many
square feet would there be in that? Any idea? Are we talking.
Charlie James: Yes, I figured that out...This letter here, if we go from the very top to there
and out to here, that would be 6 x 16. That's 96 square feet. Then if we squared this area
off, this would be approximately 8 feet by 13 feet. The total is exactly 200 square feet. This
is 80 square feet right here and one of the reasons why I think we can prove that your
ordinance is making a mistake.
Conrad: I don't think, there's no question about that. No contest about that.
Charlie James: ...take a square footage of a wall. I mean think about it. If they're saying
15% or 80, just divide 80 square feet by .15 and that will tell you how big of a wall they
anticipated. It doesn't make any sense. And so I guess part of the problem here is, is that
I've got, if you are going to table this, I mean and then you're later on tonight, does that
mean I should stay around because you're going to talk about this ordinance? Or are you
going to table that new ordinance as well.
Scott: That's possible.
Conrad: That's a real possibility.
Charlie James: And the aspect of this is that I'm on kind of a situation where road
restrictions go on on Monday and we're going to be moving, trying to move equipment this
weekend onto the site. The scrapers and all that and I've got a situation here where Byerly's
isn't going to go ahead with this thing until they're comfortable, I mean this is Mr. Harberts'
22
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
hot spot, and this is not posturing just to...kind of thing so if you are going to table it, I know
that they have to come back for a liquor license and I know that, I guess is there some way
that, you've got. That's why I was suggesting earlier if we could just separate this for a
moment from the aspect of your code and say, that code's got a problem. Okay. We're not
trying to solve the problem around Charlie James or writing the code around Charlie James.
Scott: Unfortunately that's what's going to happen.
Charlie James: ...and there's 80 square feet and I guess our position is that we've gone far
and above on everything on this building for you.
Scott: Agreed. I agree with that.
Charlie James: And I just need your help on this.
Scott: Bob, can this be on the agenda. Do you think the necessary work can be done by
staff so this could be on the agenda in 2 weeks? Yes? Mr. James, what do you think about.
This is unfortunately when you're breaking ground and you pay the toll and this is, from what
I understand, is a series of these things for you and for this development. What we have here
is Bob Generous is willing to, this ordinance revised so we can take another look at it and
hopefully come to resolution in 2 weeks at our next meeting.
Krauss: Chairman Scott, what's the expectation though? What are we working this out for?
Scott: Well, I think we realize that the existing ordinance does not do what we need to do. I
mean from my particular standpoint, the Byerly's sign in and of itself I don't feel is out of
scale for the building. A subjective vision. I know that some of the issues that we do have
is when we start talking about Wine and Spirits, Fine Foods, Open 24 Hours. It becomes a
departure from traditional signage to more advertising. I think what we, at least my
understanding of the ordinance that we're going to be looking at later on this evening, is that
it does not do a good job of setting the guidelines for a building of that scale. And as far as
giving concise direction, I think what we need to do is to perhaps have a better bridge
inbetween what we have required other people in similar standard developments and making
this consistent with it.
Krauss: We have no similar standard developments processed under the normal zoning
ordinance. Target and Festival were both PUD's. Those are the only two of comparable size.
Mancino: Well there's Filly's. Isn't that the one that Ladd said was oversized.
23
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Krauss: Well Filly's is potentially an example that we might...in the future.
Mancino: But it's oversized? It's big?
Conrad: I think yeah. Really the problem is, this is not bad in my opinion. And I think
most people up here would say this is not bad. And I'm probably speaking, not speaking for
some but most. Therefore, the ordinance that I've seen you draft doesn't allow this. Okay.
That's the problem. Maybe we can allow this. Maybe I've got to figure out another way to
make this happen and maybe it's outlining the letters for 200 square feet and Charlie can
home tonight and, no, Let's work this out Charlie. You know that's my problem with the
ordinance right now. I'm seeing something that artistically is very nice. That is not
offensive. That I don't care if it's read from Highway 5 or from West 78th Street, it does a
nice job. I have to figure out how to make this legal in Chanhassen.
Scott: Yeah, that's the difficulty I think right there is that it looks nice but we can't use that
as our test. Looking nice can't be our ordinance. —
Conrad: Well unfortunately you can allow something 3 times bigger that's pretty than
something that's 1/3 as big that's ugly and we're combining aesthetics with size and that's
tough. There are very few City Councils or Planning Commissions can deal with that issue.
We have to and so again, I think that's what we have to struggle with to see how to make
this work but make it consistent. Really we haven't had problems with the signage ordinance
here. We really haven't. It's been pretty good for it's many flaws. The signage ordinance is
the big bugaboo in any city and you know that. It's 40 pages long and it's got all these
things and nobody understands it and everybody's got a problem with it. But over all, our's
has done an okay job for the last 10 years but now Charlie you are bringing some new stuff
to us and we've just got to figure it out and our job is to not screw Byerly's up and you up.
But on the other hand, our job is to say hey, we have to treat people fairly here and for us to
just say go ahead, do it is not responsible. You wouldn't, if you lived here, you wouldn't
want us to do that.
Harberts: But I think at the same time, when you look at the fact you have public policy and
what you don't want to happen is to have a policy that really restricts, I guess in my
perspective is somewhat Jurrasic with the times. And I think the test from my perspective is,
what's the impact on the community? What's the impact in terms of development and I have
to agree with you Ladd. I think it certainly is pleasing. It's balanced. It meets those type of
criteria that I think will affect the general public in terms of when they're coming down the
street. Is it nice or is it you know ugly? I certainly am very sensitive to the fact that we
have to be sure and not acting in an arbitrary way but being consistent and what I'd like to be
able to do tonight is not let public policy that's out of date somewhat, or deficient, slow down
24
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
progress. And I don't know if we can move it. I would rather see a decision made tonight
rather than tabling it when we don't even know what are we trying to get at in 2 weeks. I
mean we could be spinning our wheels in 2 weeks or 4 weeks.
Farmakes: But who's responsibility is that then? If we forward it. Is that avoiding what
we're supposed to be doing here?
Harberts: Well again I fall back to the frustration that it's a defect it seems in the policy and
what are we going to direct staff to do in 2 weeks? We're not going to change the ordinance.
But yet at the same time it's certainly, I think the general consensus is that it is restrictive.
That this is, that this does work for what we have here. And that's where the frustration here
is. We've got a piece that works but we have a policy that isn't with the times.
Farmakes: But it seems to me that there's some other issues involved here besides the
signage of Byerly's or the logo itself. The other issues are supplemental signage. Is that
advertising? Is the liquor store a separate store or not? Would that allow that to be treated
as a separate store?
Harberts: And from my perspective, I look at the entire project and what's the impact to the
community. In my opinion, I think it's pleasant. I think it's balanced. Given the size of the
development. And again, coming back to what's the intent of a public policy? Is it to be so
restrictive, so confining or is it to in a sense be able to help produce a product, an asset to the
community?
Farmakes: I understand that but if we ignore existing ordinances at will because we think
well that looks pretty good, we're creating a precedent that may come back to haunt us.
Harberts: And where's the frustration is for me Jeff. Is because perhaps that there needs to
be a change in our policy but again it's at the, it's the developer that's on the short side of
the stick so.
Mancino: Well we're asking the developer to wait for 2 weeks. Plus the fact we will be
reviewing a new sign ordinance tonight.
Farmakes: I don't have a problem with that. Any other developer that we've had in here,
and I think we've tried to treat fairly and get them back on the docket as fast as possible.
Harberts: What will we accomplish in 2 weeks? What will staff be able, I guess that's one
of the confusing parts that I have. What will staff bring back to us in 2 weeks that will make
the difference or is it just the discussion at the later point this evening about the new signage?
25
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Scott: I'd like to see, if we do table this particular item, that that would be tabled with some
specific direction for staff to come back with something that we can give us a tool that we
can apply fairly to this circumstance and others like it. Jeff, would that be accurate?
Farmakes: Yeah. I think so. I think that we need an interpretation that we, if we're going to
apply this as a variance, are we going to apply it to the 12 criteria that we use to grant
variances? I don't know if this would qualify under that. The issue of the wine and spirits,
of the supplemental signage beyond the word Byerly's, it would technically it's a variance.
We're granting a variance if we approve this.
Scott: We do have, we're discussing a motion that's on the floor to table.
Harberts: Mr. Chair?
Scott: Yes.
Harberts: Just for the record I want to go on record that I am of no relation to Mr. Harberts
of Byerly's. Truthfully. I think they checked that out before and I guess that can be
confirmed.
Scott: Yes, that is confirmed. Thank you for your comments. We have a motion on the
floor, are we, we closed discussion? Okay, let's vote.
Farmakes moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission table action on the
variance request for a sign permit for Byerly's at West Village Heights 2nd Addition
until the March 16, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. All voted in favor, except
Diane Harberts who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1.
Scott: Jeff could you, I don't know. Does staff have a direction as to what we want
accomplished?
Generous: Well partially but I'm going to wait until you discuss Kate's item later on and get
a little more. Because I have the idea...
Scott: And I think we all agree the intent is that physically what we see, actually is what we
like. What we like is very subjective. However, we just want to make sure we have some
specific numbers or something that we can utilize to make decisions. Have a better tool.
Farmakes: If we're granting a variance, I think every time we do that you have in there the
criteria that we use to grant variances. So if for some reason another option that we have, if
26
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
there's some reason that we're not able to give specific direction to staff or you can't come
up with something that fits "the Byerly's thing". Then what we need to do is to work out our
variance. Signage variance and maybe that's what we, maybe it's not an ordinance. Maybe
it's our variance criteria. So I think we have two options.
Harberts: It's of interest that we didn't attack this signage ordinance before this particular
piece.
Scott: Agreed. Normally since the public hearing has been closed but if you wish to say
something briefly.
Charlie James: I wanted to say one thing. If you're going to be considering this ordinance
later on this evening, one of the things you might want to consider, because someone raised
the issue of advertising, is go downtown. Is it Subway or is it Subway Sandwiches? Is it
MGM or is it MGM Wine and Spirits or liquor or whatever it is? Is it Festival, as we refer
to it in the industry or is it Festival Foods? So I mean there's a whole multi dimensional
thing there so.
Farmakes: Is it Holiday or is it Warm Snacks and Beer? You're right. It is a problem and
it's currently, under the current ordinance, subject to the manager of the store...
Scott: Okay. Thank you very much for your comments.
PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW TO REPLAT
OUTLOT A, MARKET SQUARE INTO LOT 1, BLOCK 1, MARKET SQUARE 2ND
ADDITION FOR THE LOCATION OF A WENDY'S RESTAURANT ON PROPERTY
ZONED CBD AND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WEST 78TH
STREET AND MARKET BOULEVARD, LOTUS REALTY SERVICES.
Public Present:
Name Address
Brad Johnson Lotus Realty Services
Vernelle Clayton Lotus Realty Services
Herb Bloomberg 7008 Dakota Avenue
Clayton Johnson Bloomberg Companies Inc.
Peter Beck 7900 Xerxes Avenue So., Mpls
Jurij Ozga Naperville, IL
Kevin Norby Landscape Architect
27
C I TY 0 F PC DATE: 3/16/94
CC DATE
•
� Y .
C H N H A S S E N • 3/28/94
�-� - CASE #: 94-1 PUD
By: Generous:v
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Applicant is requesting Conceptual Planned Unit Development to rezone 39.64
acres of property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate to PUD for a proposed fifty-
six (56) single-family lot development.
_ Z LOCATION: North of Twin Cities & Western Railroad tracks west of Bluff Creek and east
of Timberwood Estates and Stone Creek.
V
73 APPLICANT: Heritage Development
450 East County Road D
Little Canada, Minnesota 55117
— Q (612) 481-0017
PKESEIN 1 GUNINt : Agncultural tstate District, tit
ACREAGE: 39.64
DENSITY: Gross: 1.4 units per acre
Net: 2.1 units per acre
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N - A2, vacant
S - PUD-IOP, Chanhassen Business Center, Twin Cities & Western RR
Q E - IOP, vacant
W - RR & RSF, Timberwood Estates & Stone Creek
WATER AND SEWER: Available
— PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The northern two-thirds of the site consists of cultivated and pastured
farm land. The northern one-third of the site has severe topographic changes from a low of 900 feet
to a high of 960 feet. The property is bounded on the north and east by Bluff Creek. The southern
one-third of the side is wooded. A ravine which acts as a temporary stream traverses the southern
one-third of the project from west to east. Two wetlands are located on the property, one on the ease
and the other in the south. A transmission power line runs along the entire western limits of the site,
MWW1 LAND ITSE PIAN: Residential - Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 to 4.0 units per acreL
�
:4AAtattl:1ii •
,f IL a _- ;nn
IIII _tlUilliligs�111_/. • /i is
1).7
Illirt rir
il ._
i
iiitt , %Lira ` i
L._ IIdII _
.....,,,. ...„
.....
1�' . Ta _ ill AIM ,
S 1011111,_,
ilk',
NO
orpr
RteUM - .. rot� �r
.a n•�,. ._s•-mat1 y I,7 -NI,_,
IST•• ;C;.}.:-IIAL
,' 103". 006 to,
%I�I�IIIu.fJ ' •j ,..I.
Z ���_ ` ::::0. .e4 / Tc. 'ZiJL4. i
�� l � , � µit• ,•
tail �At ft.
AV 4
(C.R bi �� ani InL►�,%'•;J W���`:;,�.;
YY1N St VD. — .'/�i\�/ _ .'i.e'��_al`s: �v ' ,
g g �/ ' rilH 111 ►alt.'�•t►4•!t:.: _ilk
o % F °o 0 0 1 j:, .. mem— moi:.iii If, i+ C
0 %Si -7.21/118 is.IN ., * r —
. 8900
1- E \ q ga
. I V ligia•ot ii,
w• 9000
9100 _ Al lid., lc -
^ ti •`'Nf(fi
5,,,EN
9200 ,.1i
93•• ti
, ��,) -
9400 •
1
- -
r
9 '' I g
:i4 4 • /
9600
'
J -
I
�r
9 700mo
9 7 11 /4 ~
900
.0000
IOiOJ 11111110hhill4
"�RINe; 11FPT f
Heritage Development PUD
March 16, 1994
Page 2
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
The applicant is proposing a planned unit development consisting of 56 single-family homes
on 39.64 acres of land located in the central portion of the city on the west bank of Bluff
Creek north of the Twin Cities and Western Railroad tracks. The proposal provides lot areas
ranging from 12,000 square feet to 50,300 square feet (not including outlots) with an average
net lot area of 20,138 square feet. The intent of the development is to create a project that is
compatible with the natural elements of the area, specifically Bluff Creek, the ravine, the
wooded area, and the existing topography, as well as the existing developments to the west
and the future development to the north. Two existing wetland areas are located within the
development, one along Bluff Creek in the central portion of the project and the other in the
south adjacent to the railroad tracks.
This plat meets the minimum lot size requirements for a single family PUD but falls short of
= the preservation of site characteristics including topography, creeks and scenic views. Staff
supports a PUD for this site because it is designed with the flexibility the PUD allows.
Protection and enhancement of natural features should be provided. While the applicants are
asking for conceptual approval, there are numerous issues that need to be resolved or further
defined before this proposal could receive preliminary PUD approval. One of the most
important recommendations that the applicant needs to incorporate into the proposal is the
design components for Bluff Creek corridor. Staff is working to set up a "charrette" with Bill
Morrish, a member of the Planning Commission, Park and Recreation Commission and City
Council. The purpose of the charrette is to provide some design parameters for the segment
of Bluff Creek.
The timing on this project is similar to the Gateway/Opus development along Hwy. 5. In
both instances, we are asking the applicant to incorporate pending design elements into their
proposal before they receive preliminary approval.
The propose of the conceptual approval at this time is to provide the applicant a list of
recommendations that they need to complete before any additional reviews are to be
completed.
Staff believes this site warrants a single family PUD but this proposal needs to be further
developed. Staff is recommending conceptual approval with numerous recommendations for
the subdivision refinements.
SITE ANALYSIS
The northern two-thirds of the property are currently in an agricultural state with a wooded
— area in the southern one-third of the site. Within the southern area, adjacent to the Twin
Cities & Western Railroad line is a wetland/ponding area. The 39.64 acre parcel being
Heritage Development PUD
March 16, 1994
Page 3
submitted for review was formerly contained in a concept PUD submission for Chanhassen
Corporate Center. Bluff Creek is the easterly and northern border of the site. The property
has varied topography with over a 60 foot change in grade.
REZONING
Justification for Rezoning to PUD
The applicant is requesting to rezone 39.64 acres from A2, Agricultural Estate to PUD,
Planned Unit Development. The following review constitutes our evaluation of the PUD
request. The review criteria is taken from the intent section of the PUD Ordinance.
Section 20-501. Intent
Planned unit development 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 transfer 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 other, more standard zoning
districts. It will be the applicant's 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. —
Finding. The major site characteristics of this property are the large wetland complex
on the east, Bluff Creek to the north and east, a wooded area on the south, a second
wetland area on the south, a ravine that bisects the southern third of the project, and
some steep slopes. Through appropriate site design, these areas can be protected and
incorporated into open spaces, natural vistas, and project landscaping. The city is in —
the early stages of developing a plan for the Bluff Creek corridor. Bluff Creek has
been identified on the Comprehensive Plan as a linear park with the city's most recent
request for a LCMR grant. We are in the early stages of developing a plan for the —
corridor. Staff is attempting to put a design study together to identify critical issues
that should be incorporated into the design of developments along the corridor. Staff
is asking that the applicant incorporate these "elements" into the proposal for the nest
level of review.
Heritage Development PUD
March 16, 1994
Page 4
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.
Finding. Because of the wetland on the site, the steep slopes, Bluff Creek corridor,
and the ravine, all natural features that are important to preserve and protect, it would
_ be difficult if not impossible to develop this property as a traditional single family
subdivision and protect the natural features. The main natural feature is Bluff Creek.
3. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and
along significant corridors within the city will be encouraged.
Finding. The property to the east of the subject site is being developed as a
business/industrial park. The Chanhassen Corporate Center being proposed to the north
and northeast will include medium to high density multi-family or industrial. To the
west is Timberwood Estates a large lot development and Stone Creek a standard
single-family subdivision. This project can serve as a transition from the higher
densities and intensities of uses to the lower density development.
4. Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Finding. This area is designated for Residential - Low Density (Net density 1.2 to
4.0 units per acre) in the Chanhassen 2000 Land Use Plan. The proposed development
would be within the middle of this density range and is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
5. 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.
Finding. The Bluff Creek Corridor is designated for parks and open space in the
Comprehensive Plan. The city would like to create a trail system connecting north
and south Chanhassen using the Bluff Creek corridor. To the north of this site, the
city already owns a large section of the corridor. The Park and Recreation
Commission has not yet reviewed this plan. The Park and Recreation Director has
recommended that a trail be provided along the creek and a linear park encumbering
the entire Bluff Creek corridor. The plan proposes a trail along the western side of the
creek. This trail was addressed as a part of the Hwy. 5 corridor study. The trail will
cross the southern frontage road as well as Hwy. 5.
6. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate with the PUD.
Heritage Development PUD
March 16, 1994
Page 5
Finding. The price of the "for sale" units has not yet been determined. Sale prices
will be at market rate. —
7. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sightings
and the clustering of buildings and land uses.
Finding. The site is graded generally to take advantage of the natural ground
elevations. Through the use of the PUD, the city can vary code requirements to
enhance building siting and development design. Staff has concerns about some of the
grades on individual lots as well as some of the small ravines that dissect the site. _
Sensitivity to the natural topography needs to be incorporated into the design of the
subdivision. It appears that extensive earthwork will be necessary.
8. 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. _
Finding. The site will have access from Galpin Boulevard via Stone Creek Drive and
to the north via the future south Highway 5 collector road. Single-family residential
units generate an average of ten (10) trips per unit per day based on criteria obtained
from the institute of Traffic Engineers, Trip Generation Manual. The majority of the
traffic will come from the southern frontage road of Hwy. 5. Access to this road can
be gained from Galpin Boulevard or eventually Audubon Road.
There is a specific intent statement for the single family residential PUD. It states the
developer will be permitted flexibility in development standards in return for enhancing
environmental sensitivity beyond normal ordinance requirements and providing a higher
quality of development. The single family detached residential planned unit development
must also meet the following guidelines:
(b) Minimum Lot Size - The single family residential PUD allows lot sizes down to a
minimum of 11,000 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. 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, 30 feet deep. This area may not be encumbered by the required
home/deck pads or by wetland/drainage easements.
Finding. The proposal provides lot areas ranging from 12,000 square feet to 50,300
square feet (not including outlots) with an average net lot area of 20,138 square feet.
Heritage Development PUD
March 16, 1994
Page 6
The ability to create a variety of lot sizes allows us to provide natural open space and
protect significant natural features. Each lot will be required to accommodate a 60' x
40' building pad as well as a 12' x 12' deck without intruding into the required
setbacks.
(c) Minimum lot width at building setback: Ninety (90) feet.
Finding. All the lots meet this requirement.
(d) Minimum lot depth: One hundred (100) feet
Finding. All of the lots exceed the minimum 100 feet lot depth requirement.
(e) Minimum setbacks:
PUD exterior: thirty (30) feet
Front yard: thirty (30) feet
Rear yard: thirty (30) feet
Side yard: ten (10) feet
— Adjacent to arterial or collector roads, a fifty (50) foot setback shall be maintained.
Finding. The proposal provides ample lot areas to maintain all setbacks. There is
sufficient lot depth to meet the thirty (30) foot rear setback.
(f) Protection and preservation of natural features.
Finding. Development of this site through the PUD process is the most efficient way
for the city to preserve and protect natural features on the site.
g) 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.
Heritage Development PUD
March 16, 1994
Page 7
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) Tree preservation. Tree preservation is one 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.
Finding. The existing trees shall be protected to the maximum extent feasible as part
of the development. An approved landscaping budget will be a condition of final
platting. The parcel adjacent the railroad tracks will be dedicated and maintained as a
ponding area and planted with native vegetation.
h) 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.
Finding. Due to variety of lots sizes, it should be possible to provide a variety of
home types and designs to meet the needs of the residents. As the project progresses
through the PUD process, more detailed architectural details will be provided.
_ Heritage Development PUD
March 16, 1994
Page 8
Summary of Rezoning to PUD
Rezoning the property to PUD provides the applicant with flexibility but allows the city to
request additional improvements and the site's unique features can be better protected. The
flexibility in standards allow the disturbed areas to be further removed from the unique
features of the site. In return for the flexibility, the city is receiving:
Development that is consistent with Comprehensive Plan
Preservation of desirable site characteristics (trees, Bluff Creek corridor,
topographical features, wetlands and scenic views)
Traffic management and design techniques to reduce potential for traffic
conflicts
Improved pretreatment of storm water
- STREETS/ACCESS
Access to the site will be from the Stone Creek 4th Addition subdivision which is in the
process of final plat approval at this time. The Stone Creek 4th Addition plat is contingent
upon off-site stormwater facilities which are proposed within the Heritage Development.
Stone Creek 4th Addition will not be able to proceed without these stormwater drainage
improvements. Therefore, these projects are somewhat tied together. Street access, as
mentioned, will be through the Stone Creek 4th Addition and eventually reconnecting to the
proposed east/west frontage road which will service the school site. Construction of the
frontage road is scheduled for August, 1994 with completion scheduled for July, 1995. The
access street (Stone Creek Drive) which is considered a local collector is being constructed in
a portion of Stone Creek development. The standard section of street was built to 35 feet
wide back-to-back within a 60-foot wide right-of-way. Staff is recommending that this
typical street section be extended through the Heritage plat on up to the future frontage road.
Staff has reviewed the concept layout of the street alignment and would request modifications
along the north/south street at the "T" intersection. Staff believes that curvilinear streets
would be helpful to add aesthetics and character to the neighborhood as well as deter
speeding motorists. Staff believes that the north/south street (future Stone Creek Drive)
should be modified at the "T" intersection so as major movement of traffic would be
north/south with the minor movement on the dead-end cul-de-sac to the east.
Without the complete looping of Stone Creek Drive back out to Galpin Boulevard, Heritage
Development should not be able to proceed. Without the looped street this street alignment
becomes a very long cul-de-sac from Galpin Boulevard. Staff also believes it would be a
good idea to stipulate in the conditions of approval of the preliminary and final plat that the
applicant shall complete the street construction of the north/south street out to the frontage
Heritage Development PUD
March 16, 1994
Page 9
through the outlot within three years after the final plat is approved for this first phase to
insure that this road is connected in the future to avoid a dead-end street scenario.
Detailed construction plans for the street improvements will be required as a part of the final
plat submittal. The street construction plans shall be in accordance with the City's latest
edition of standard specifications and detail plates. Final construction drawings are subject to
staff review and formal City Council approval.
LANDSCAPING/TREE PRESERVATION
The applicant must prepare a tree survey of the site locating all significant trees. The tree
survey shall include the species, the diameter measured at 4.5 feet above ground, and the
condition of all significant, special, or damaged and diseased trees. In addition, a canopy
coverage calculation must be made. In developing the subdivision design, every effort should
be made to preserve existing trees. Where possible, the applicant should attempt to preserve
stands of trees in preference over individual trees. A woodland management plan shall be
prepared for the entire development.
The subdivision standards require one tree to be planted in the front yard of each home. The
PUD standards require that two overstory trees be provided in the rear yards of each lot.
Credit for preserved trees of six inches or larger caliper can be granted. As part of the
preliminary and final platting process, the applicant will be required to provide a detailed —
landscaping plan for the development.
WETLANDS
The City is committed to the protection and restoration of the Bluff Creek corridor and is in
the process of establishing a comprehensive watershed plan to protect the creek and the
corridor associated with it. This site incorporates the upper section of Bluff Creek and
includes one wetland that has a high potential for restoration.
Bluff Creek - An east and west branch of Bluff Creek come together at the northern part of
this proposed development and Bluff Creek continues to run north to south through the site.
The creek discharges into the Lower Minnesota River approximately three miles south of the
site. At the site, Bluff Creek can be classified as an intermittent reverine stream bed with an
unconsolidated bottom (Cowardin R4UB3). According to a preliminary wetland survey
completed by Westwood Professional Services, there are several type 1 and 2 palustrine
emergent and forested wetlands that occur within and adjacent to the channel. These
wetlands should be protected and restored as part of the Bluff Creek Corridor.
_ Heritage Development PUD
March 16, 1994
Page 10
This portion of Bluff Creek is not included in the Bluff protection areas of the City, and
therefore, the shoreland ordinance will not apply. The height between the toe and top of the
bluff is less than 25 feet and the slopes are less than 30 percent.
Wetland A15-11(1) - Approximately 4 acres of a temporarily/saturated palustrine emergent
wetland (Cowardin PEM1A/B; Circular 39, type 1/2 seasonally flooded basin/ inland fresh
meadow) is located along Bluff Creek in the lower 2/3 of the site. This wetland extends east
of the property and covers a total of approximately 12 acres. The City of Chanhassen has
classified this basin as an ag/urban wetland indicating that it has been impacted as a result of
agricultural practices. This wetland has a high potential for restoration as part of the Bluff
Creek watershed project that the City is commencing and may serve as banking for mitigation
in the process.
Wetland A15-15(1) - Approximately 0.7 of a seasonally flooded palustrine emergent wetland
(Cowardin PEMC; Circular 39, type 2 inland fresh meadow) is located in the southwest
corner of the site. The City of Chanhassen has classified this basin as an ag/urban wetland
indicating that it has been impacted as a result of agricultural practices. The quality of this
wetland, however, is better than some ag/urban wetlands with the diverse surrounding
topography and wooded areas. Although the City's SWMP plan identifies this as a water
quantity/quality pond, it is not recommended that this wetland be converted into a stormwater
holding pond.
Wetland Mitigation/Protection - There is an indication that some wetlands will be altered as a
result of the project. All wetlands should be staked, surveyed, and included on the grading
plan. The following information should also be provided on the grading plan and/or text
format:
1. Total amount of impact to each wetland
2. Total mitigation area(s) based on a 2:1 replacement ratio
3. Mitigation design plan
The City will review the project based on the requirements of the Wetland Conservation Act
(WCA) and the City's Wetland Ordinance as discussed below.
_ Whether a wetland is impacted or not, the City requires that a buffer strip be maintained
abutting all wetlands in order to protect the basin from the effects of fertilizers, chemicals,
sedimentation, and other runoff problems. The buffer strips are to be identified by permanent
monumentation provided by the city in order to inform the public of this protective measure.
The following table shows the city's setback limits for buffer strips and structures.
Heritage Development PUD
March 16, 1994
Page 11
Wetland Buffer Buffer Strip % Native Structure Average
Type Strip Minimum Vegetation in Setback from Setback from
Average Buffer Strip Outer Edge of Wetland
Width Buffer Strip Edge
Natural 10-30 ft 20 ft Entire 40 ft 60 ft
Ag/Urban 0-20 ft 10 ft Optional 40 ft 50 ft
Most likely, the City will require native vegetation landscaping within and around the buffer
strips of all wetlands. Recommendations will be discussed pending discussions on the Bluff
Creek watershed project.
Wetland Permitting Agencies
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources - Bluff Creek (Basin 209W) is shown on the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR) Protected Waters Inventory; and
therefore, this project must meet the MnDNR protected water requirements. If there is any
work performed below the established ordinary high water mark (OHW), a protected waters
permit application will have to be completed.
Army Corps of Engineers - The wetlands on the project site are within the permitting
jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) under Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act. The Corps has issued a nationwide Section 404 permit for up to a half acre of fill in
isolated wetlands without notification to the Corps and between a half acre and three acres in
such basins with predischarge notification [see 33 CFR 330.5 (a)(26)(ii)]. A permit —
application including mitigation plans will have to be completed and approved before fill or
excavation greater than one half acre can be performed on-site.
State Wetland Rules - Wetlands on the project site are within the permitting jurisdiction of
the State of Minnesota under the WCA. Responsibility for administering the provisions of
the WCA falls to the City of Chanhassen as the local governing unit (LGU). The WCA
dictates that restoration or creation of replacement wetlands only be considered after an
applicant has demonstrated that the impacts cannot be avoided, further minimized, corrected
or eliminated over time. This is similar to the requirements contained in the Corps rules.
Even if impacts can be reduced to under one half acre in order to obtain a Corps nationwide
permit, the City will still need to require the avoid-minimize-compensate sequence and the
provision of compensation wetland based on the WCA's replacement criteria. If the wetlands
are replaced in-kind (type for type), the mitigation ratio is 2:1. If the replacement is out of
kind, the replacement ratio will be determined by the LGU.
Heritage Development PUD
March 16, 1994
Page 12
City of Chanhassen's Wetland Ordinance - This project will have to meet the requirements
for the City's Wetland Ordinance. This includes establishing wetland boundaries, buffer
strips, mitigation areas, and proposed setbacks as stated in the City's Wetland Ordinance.
GRADING/DRAINAGE
The existing ground topography ranges from an elevation of 962.0 in the middle of the site
along the westerly property boundary (Lots 15 and 16) and slopes northerly and southwesterly
towards Bluff Creek and its tributaries. Due to the extreme elevation changes, staff believes
that extensive earthwork will be necessary to prepare the site for building pads and utility and
street construction. The applicant should attempt to retain the natural topographic features to
preserve the rolling terrain effect and drainage characteristics.
Stormwater calculations for predeveloped and post developed conditions must be supplied to
the City Engineer for review and approval. This includes a hydrologic analysis of 100-year
storms for ponding areas and 10-year storms for storm sewers. The grading plan should
include the normal and high water levels, and elevations of inlets and outlets. Stormwater
ponds on-site should be designed to William Walker's Phosphorus Removal by Urban Runoff
Detention Basins (Pondnet) standards.
The City is in the final approval stages of adopting a data intensive Surface Water
Management Plan (SWMP). The SWMP was developed to incorporate stormwater quantity,
stormwater quality, and wetlands and lakes into a comprehensive plan designed to allow
future development while protecting, preserving, and enhancing its water resources.
Pretreatment means the design shall meet William Walker's Phosphorus Removal by Urban
Runoff Detention Basins (Pondnet) standards.
The SWMP plan addresses the following issues:
1. A 2-cell stormwater quality/quantity pond is required on-site to address the runoff
from a cumulative drainage area of 824.3 acres. The SWMP makes use of the
ag/urban wetland (A15-11(1)) on-site, however, pretreatment will be necessary due to
the plans for the Bluff Creek corridor and the federal and state wetland permit
requirements. At this time direct runoff into a wetland is not allowed and would
require mitigation. We recommend that the pretreatment area be located at the
southwest corner of the ag/urban wetland (A15-11(1)).
2. The outlot in the northwest portion of the site will also require pretreatment in the
future. It is recommended that the area just north of the ag/urban wetland (A15-11(1))
be used for pretreatment of the future runoff at the time it is designed.
Heritage Development PUD
March 16, 1994
Page 13
3. The small wetland (A15-15(1)) in the southwest corner of the site was
designated/planned as a water quality pond for the Hans Hagen and Heritage
developments. This wetland receives stormwater runoff from the backyard areas of
Timberwood Estates as well as the future backyards of Stone Creek 4th Addition
through the means of an existing drainage ravine. To convert the small wetland (A15-
15(1)) into a stormwater management pond for Hans Hagen as well as the Heritage
development would require additional tree removal as well as further degrading of the
existing wetland. Staff feels that a better alternative would be to pipe the majority of
the stormwater from the streets and yards of Hans Hagen's development (Stone Creek
4th Addition) and the southerly one-half of the Heritage development to a new
stormwater quality/quantity pond to be developed over Lots 50, 51 and 52. One of the -
major constraints, however, with this alternative is crossing the Bluff Creek tributary
which flows through Lots 3 and 4, 54 and 55. Staff believes, though, with appropriate
street grades the storm sewer system could be designed to accommodate the trunk
storm water as previously described. The existing wetland shown as a pond on the
site plans could remain to retain the current drainage from Timberwood Estates and
future Stone Creek 4th Addition backyards.
Due to the extensive grade difference on the site we believe an additional stormwater
pond may be required in the general vicinity of Lots 23 and 24. In each one of these
cases it appears the storm sewers will need to be oversized to accommodate runoff
from outside of this development. As indicated, the City is in the process of
implementing the SWMP which requires the applicant to pay storm water quality and
quantity fees and trunk storm sewer charges as appropriate. In this situation it appears
the developer may be entitled to some credit or compensation if they provide the
necessary on-site stormwater quality and quantity improvements as outlined or
modified in the SWMP. The final determination will be reached upon review of the
storm drainage/ponding calculations.
EASEMENTS AND UTILITIES
As part of the City's Upper Bluff Creek trunk sanitary sewer and watermain project, sanitary
sewer and watermain have been extended to the southwesterly corner of the site. The City, in
conjunction with the development of the school site has approved a construction project to
extend trunk sewer and water facilities to the school site which is located north of
Timberwood Estates east of Galpin Boulevard. Sanitary sewer service for the site is proposed
to be extended through this development. If feasible from a construction standpoint, it would
be cost effective for both the City and the developer if this trunk sanitary sewer line could be
utilized to serve both as a lateral and a trunk benefit to the adjacent property. However, as
previously mentioned, due to the extensive grades on the site it may not be feasible to run the
trunk sanitary sewer along the proposed street alignment. This will be further investigated
during the grading and utility plan preparation process.
Heritage Development PUD
March 16, 1994
Page 14
All utility construction should be in accordance to the City's latest edition of standard
specifications and detail plates. Detailed construction drawings and specifications will be
required for submittal with final plat approval. The construction plans and specifications will
be subject to staff review and City Council approval.
In conjunction with the final platting process, the applicant will be required to enter into a
development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee
installation of the public improvements.
Staff has reviewed different alternatives to provide Timberwood Estates with sanitary sewer
service in the future. Staff has explored the possibility of extending the sewer line through
Stone Creek 4th Addition to Timberwood Drive. However, there are two low points on
Timberwood Drive where the sanitary sewer will actually be daylighted. Therefore, the other
alternative is to provide service to Timberwood Estates along the Bluff Creek tributary
corridor between Lots 3 and 4 (Heritage Development). Generally, this is the lowest area on
the development. In the future sanitary sewer would be proposed to be extended along the
Bluff Creek tributary which lies just north of Renaissance Court. This would give sufficient
elevation to serve the entire development of Timberwood Estates via a gravity system. Staff
will be recommending that the applicant provide a sewer service in the general location of
Lots 3 and 4 for future extension into Timberwood Estates.
PARKS/OPEN SPACE
The City of Chanhassen is in the beginning stages of preparing a proposal to develop and
begin implementing a comprehensive natural resource management plan in the Bluff Creek
Watershed that demonstrates prudent development can occur in harmony with protection and
restoration of natural systems and unique resources in an urbanizing watershed connected to
the Lower Minnesota River. Due to the timing of the proposed development, the City's
comments at this point are pending on the temporary design components that will be initiated
in the upcoming months. As part of this corridor design, the following issues will be
addressed.
s - The establishment of a linear park encumbering the entire Bluff Creek Corridor
including adjacent wetlands and areas/lands of significance to the corridor has been
identified as a top priority of the City's Comprehensive Recreation Plan.
A trail will be a part of this park.
The trail will pass under the Twin Cities and Western Railroad at a viaduct located at
the southern terminus of this concept plat.
Heritage Development PUD
March 16, 1994
Page 15
Public ownership of the entire creek corridor, including lands required for trail
construction, is desired.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Conceptual PUD of 39.64 acres of
property to create single-family development subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant incorporate design components from the proposed Bluff Creek
Watershed Plan that are being initiated in the upcoming month.
2. The proposed ponding area in the southern portion should be relocated to lessen
impact on wetlands, wooded areas and natural features.
3. All wetlands should be surveyed by a professional wetlands delineator, staked, and
included in the grading plan. Total amount of impacted acres to the wetland and a
proposed mitigation plan will also be required, if necessary.
4. The applicant should attempt to retain the natural topographic features to preserve the
rolling terrain effect and drainage characteristics with the final grading plan.
5. Pretreatment of the stormwater runoff before it discharges into the wetland is required.
The City recommends a pretreatment pond in the southwest corner of wetland A15-
11(1) (Lots 50, 51, and 52). When the rest of the property is developed an additional
pretreatment pond may be necessary just north of wetland A15-11(1).
6. Wetland A15-15(1) should remain and retain the current drainage from Timberwood
Estates and the future Stone Creek 4th Addition backyards.
7. The SWMP requires the applicant to pay stormwater quality/quantity fees and trunk
storm sewer charges as appropriate. The applicant may be entitled to some credit or
compensation if they provide the necessary on-site stormwater quality/quantity
improvements as outlined or modified in the SWMP. This will be determined upon
review of the storm drainage/ponding calculations.
8. The trunk sanitary sewer line be utilized to serve both a lateral and a trunk to benefit
the adjacent property (staff recommends that the applicant provide a sewer service in
the general location of lots 3 and 4 for future extension into Timberwood Estates).The _
best location for the sanitary sewer will be further investigated during the grading and
utility plan preparation process.
Heritage Development PUD
March 16, 1994
Page 16
9. The north/south street shall be extended through the outlot to connect to future
east/west frontage road within three years after the final plat is approved for the fust
phase.
10. Curvilinear streets are recommended to add aesthetics and character to the
neighborhood as well as deter speeding motorists.
11. The north/south street (future Stone Creek Drive)should be modified at the T-
_ intersection to provide major traffic movement from north to south and minor traffic
movement on the dead-end cul-de-sac to the east.
12. Detailed construction drawings and specifications will be required for submittal with
final plat approval. All street and utility construction should be in accordance to the
City's latest edition of standard specifications and detail plates.
13. Final construction drawings are subject to staff review and formal City Council
approval.
14. The applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and
provide the necessary financial security to guarantee installation of the public
improvements and conditions of approval.
15. Trail easements connecting the interior of the development with the bluff creek
corridor trail system will need to be developed.
16. The applicant should investigate the use of private driveways to serve up to four lots
from the proposed north-south local street in order to minimize impacts on wooded
areas and the wetlands.
17. The north south street should provide a sidewalk on the east side of the roadway to
match the typical cross section for Stone Creek Drive. This sidewalk will make the
roadway pedestrian friendly as well as permit school children to walk to the school
site once the future frontage road is constructed.
18. A tree survey must be prepared as part of the development review process. In
addition, a woodland management plan will be required as part of the platting process.
19. The applicant may wish to investigate the use of setback variances to accommodate
the siting of housing in the vicinity of wetlands or to preserve existed wooded or
topographical features on the site.
Heritage Development PUD
March 16, 1994
Page 17 _
20. Submit utility plans for review and approval. Fire hydrant spacing shall be 300 feet
maximum. —
21. Street names shall be submitted to the Fire Marshal for approval.
22. Submit turning radius dimensions to the Fire Marshal for review and approval."
ATTACHMENTS —
1. Development Review Application
2. Memo from Todd Hoffman dated 3/10/94 —
3. Memo from Diane Desotelle and Dave Hempel dated 3/9/94
4. Letter from Joe Richter, DNR Hydrologist dated 3/2/94
5. Memo from Mark Littfin dated 2/24/94 —
6. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List
7. Development Site Plan
FROM CITY OF CHANNPSSEH 06.07. 199 10: 20 P. 2
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
APPLICANT;
rg CtA(9e retpf OWNER, fire
ADDRESS: 4.9) Co • Rte Th ADDRESS: 54 ('r
(e /ki4 i
TELEPHONE (Day time) 463/—CC 17' TELEPHONE:
1. . Comprehensive Pian Amendment 11.x_ Subdivision
2. Conditional Use Perms 12. Vacation of ROW/Easements
3. Grading/Excavation Permit 13. Variance
4. Interim Use Permit 14._ Wetland Alteration Permit
6. Notification Signs 16.___ Zoning Appeal
Planned Untt Development 16. Zoning Ordinance Amendment
— 7. Rezoning 17. Fping Fees/Attorney Cost • (Collected after
approval of hem)
8. Sign Permits 18. Consultant Fees
9. _ Sign Plan Review111111111111111111111111111111
10, Site Plan Review * TOTAL FEE _ '156.
A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property mui�t
included with the application. T
•
Twenty-six lull sizes copies of the plans must be submitted.
i <
. L
$1/2' X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet.
* NOTE -When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
FPC" C. ___ ! jr , i' o _j F.
PROJECT NAME 13(tT 1� c eL�l. ' • ."14.
LOCATION S f ATr/4-J-ii D
LEGAL DESCRIPTION A TTkr .t r)
PRESENT ZONING Sr gipo Rn.;.r Res,
REQUESTED ZONING U Sr,le.Y1 '
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION
'•UESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION
REAS_.N FOR THIS REQUEST l��eicrrertCIF cS y/e FCn i, L-ois
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or dearly printed and must be accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the
Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
This Is to certify that ! am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying _
wit!, all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed In my name and I am the party
v+ • the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of
c . •:hip (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the
a:.nh;r.; .d person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
i --.yself Informed of the deadlines for submission of materie.i and the progress of this application. I further
unders.,..:)., that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and Information I have submitted are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge.
I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be Invalid unless they are recorded
against the title to the property for which the approve permit Is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's
Office and he original d ument returned to = i Records.
fit. 0/0"f
Signature o Applicant Date
- gnature of Fee Owner Date
_ThisDO /�
Application Received on "/ 7" y� Fee Paid 75' _ Receipt No. —7 if 7.)--
This
application will be considered by the Planning Commission/Board of Adjustments and Appeals on
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
WI I 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bob Generous, Planner II
FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director
DATE: March 10, 1994
SUBJ: Concept PUD Submission, Heritage Development Single Family Subdivision
The above referenced concept plan was filed with the Planning Department on February 17, 1994.
The timing of this submission did not allow this item to be scheduled for review by the Park and
Recreation Commission on February 22, 1994. The commission will formally review this
concept PUD on Tuesday, March 22, 1994. I can preface this review with some brief comments
in regard to the Bluff Creek Corridor.
The establishment of a linear park encumbering the entire Bluff Creek Corridor including
adjacent wetlands and areas/lands of significance to the corridor has been identified as a
top priority of the City's Comprehensive Recreation Plan.
A trail will be a part of this park.
The trail will pass under the Twin Cities and Western Railroad at a viaduct located at the
southern terminus of this concept plat.
- Public ownership of the entire creek corridor, including lands required for trail
construction, is desired.
In that I have not had the opportunity to meet with the applicant, I will not comment specifically
on the concept plan. Formal comments will be forwarded to you upon meeting with the applicant
and after Park and Recreation Commission review.
pc: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner
Park and Recreation Commission
Heritage Development
RLK Associates
CITYOF 04,01 CHANHASSEN
_
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bob Generous, Planner II
FROM: Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator _
Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer
DATE: March 9, 1994
SUBJ: Heritage Development Conceptual Plan - South of Trunk Highway 5 and East
of Timberwood Estates - File No. 94-6 LUR
Upon review of the concept site plan for Heritage Development dated February 16, 1994 —
prepared by RLK Associates, we offer the following comments:
Natural Resources _
The City of Chanhassen is in the beginning stages of preparing a proposal to develop and
begin implementing a comprehensive natural resource management plan in the Bluff Creek —
Watershed that demonstrates prudent development can occur in harmony with protection and
restoration of natural systems and unique resources in an urbanizing watershed connected to
the Lower Minnesota River. Due to the timing of the proposed development, the City's
comments at this point are pending on the temporary design components that will be initiated
in the upcoming months ahead.
Wetlands
The City is committed to the protection and restoration of the Bluff Creek corridor and is in
the process of establishing a comprehensive watershed plan to protect the creek and the
corridor associated with it. This site incorporates the upper section of Bluff Creek and _
includes one wetland that has a high potential for restoration.
Bluff Creek - An east and west branch of Bluff Creek come together at the northern part of _
this proposed development and Bluff Creek continues to run north to south through the site.
The creek discharges into the Lower Minnesota River approximately three miles south of the
site. At the site, Bluff Creek can be classified as an intermittent riverine stream bed with an _
Bob Generous
March 9, 1994
Page 2
unconsolidated bottom (Cowardin R4UB3). According to a preliminary wetland survey
completed by Westwood Professional Services, there are several type 1 and 2 palustrine
emergent and forested wetlands that occur within and adjacent to the channel. These
wetlands should be protected and restored as part of the Bluff Creek Corridor.
This portion of Bluff Creek is not included in the Bluff protection areas of the City, and
therefore, the shoreland ordinance will not apply. The height between the toe and top of the
bluff is less than 25 feet and the slopes are less than 30 percent.
Wetland A15-11(1) - Approximately 4 acres of a temporarily/saturated palustrine emergent
wetland (Cowardin PEMIAB; Circular 39, type 1/2 seasonally flooded basin/ inland fresh
meadow) is located along Bluff Creek in the lower 2/3 of the site. This wetland extends east
of the property and covers a total of approximately 12 acres. The City of Chanhassen has
classified this basin as an ag/urban wetland indicating that it has been impacted as a result of
agricultural practices. This wetland has a high potential for restoration as part of the Bluff
Creek watershed project that the City is commencing and may serve as banking for mitigation
in the process.
Wetland A15-15(1) - Approximately 0.7 of a seasonally flooded palustrine emergent wetland
(Cowardin PEMC; Circular 39, type 2 inland fresh meadow) is located in the southwest
corner of the site. The City of Chanhassen has classified this basin as an ag/urban wetland
indicating that it has been impacted as a result of agricultural practices. The quality of this
wetland, however, is better than some ag/urban wetlands with the diverse surrounding
topography and wooded areas. Although the City's SWMP plan identifies this as a water
quantity/quality pond, it is not recommended that this wetland be converted into a stormwater
holding pond.
Wetland Mitigation/Protection - There is an indication that some wetlands will be altered as a
result of the project. All wetlands should be staked, surveyed, and included on the grading
plan. The following information should also be provided on the grading plan and/or text
format:
1. Total amount of impact to each wetland
= 2. Total mitigation area(s) based on a 2:1 replacement ratio
3. Mitigation design plan
The City will review the project based on the requirements of the Wetland Conservation Act
(WCA) and the City's Wetland Ordinance as discussed below.
Whether a wetland is impacted or not, the City requires that a buffer strip be maintained
abutting all wetlands in order to protect the basin from the effects of fertilizers, chemicals,
Bob Generous
March 9, 1994
Page 3 —
sedimentation, and other runoff problems. The buffer strips are to be identified by permanent —
monumentation provided by the city in order to inform the public of this protective measure.
The following table shows the city's setback limits for buffer strips and structures.
Wetland Buffer Buffer Strip %Nadve Structure Average
Type Strip Minimum Vegetation in Setback from Setback from _
Average Buffer Strip Outer Edge of Wetland Edge
Width Buffer Strip
Natural 10-30 ft 20 ft Entire 40 ft 60 ft —
Ag/Urban 0-20 ft 10 ft Optional 40 ft 50 ft
Most likely, the City will require native vegetation landscaping within and around the buffer
strips of all wetlands. Recommendations will be discussed pending discussions on the Bluff
Creek watershed project. —
Wetland Permitting Agencies
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources - Bluff Creek (Basin 209W) is shown on the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR) Protected Waters Inventory; and
therefore, this project must meet the MnDNR protected water requirements. If there is any —
work performed below the established ordinary high water mark (OHW), a protected waters
permit application will have to be completed.
Army Corps of Engineers - The wetlands on the project site are within the permitting
jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) under Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act. The Corps has issued a nationwide Section 404 permit for up to a half acre of fill in
isolated wetlands without notification to the Corps and between a half acre and three acres in
such basins with predischarge notification [see 33 CFR 330.5 (a)(26)(ii)]. A permit _
application including mitigation plans will have to be completed and approved before fill or
excavation greater than one half acre can be performed on-site.
State Wetland Rules - Wetlands on the project site are within the permitting jurisdiction of
the State of Minnesota under the WCA. Responsibility for administering the provisions of the
WCA falls to the City of Chanhassen as the local governing unit (LGU). The WCA dictates _
that restoration or creation of replacement wetlands only be considered after an applicant has
demonstrated that the impacts cannot be avoided, further minimized, corrected or eliminated
over time. This is similar to the requirements contained in the Corps rules. Even if impacts
can be reduced to under one half acre in order to obtain a Corps nationwide permit, the City
will still need to require the avoid-minimize-compensate sequence and the provision of
compensation wetland based on the WCA's replacement criteria. If the wetlands are replaced —
Bob Generous
March 9, 1994
Page 4
in-kind (type for type), the mitgation ratio is 2:1. If the replacement is out of kind, the
replacement ratio will be determined by the LGU.
City of Chanhassen's Wetland Ordinance - This project will have to meet the requirements for
the City's Wetland Ordinance. This includes establishing wetland boundaries, buffer strips,
mitigation areas, and proposed setbacks as stated in the City's Wetland Ordinance.
Grading/Drainage
The existing ground topography ranges from an elevation of 962.0 in the middle of the site
along the westerly property boundary (Lots 15 and 16) and slopes northerly and southwesterly
towards Bluff Creek and its tributaries. Due to the extreme elevation changes, staff believes
that extensive earthwork will be necessary to prepare the site for building pads and utility and
street construction. The applicant should attempt to retain the natural topographic features to
preserve the rolling terrain effect and drainage characteristics.
Stormwater calculations for predeveloped and post developed conditions must be supplied to
the City Engineer for review and approval. This includes a hydrologic analysis of 100-year
storms for ponding areas and 10-year storms for storm sewers. The grading plan should
- include the normal and high water levels, and elevations of inlets and outlets. Stormwater
ponds on-site should be designed to William Walker's Phosphorus Removal by Urban Runoff
Detention Basins (Pondnet) standards.
The City is in the final approval stages of adopting a data intensive Surface Water
Management Plan (SWMP). The SWMP was developed to incorporate stormwater quantity,
stormwater quality, and wetlands and lakes into a comprehensive plan designed to allow
future development while protecting, preserving, and enhancing its water resources.
Pretreatment means the design shall meet William Walker's Phosphorus Removal by Urban
Runoff Detention Basins (Pondnet) standards.
The SWMP plan addresses the following issues:
1. A 2-cell stormwater quality/quantity pond is required on-site to address the runoff
from a cumulative drainage area of 824.3 acres. The SWMP makes use of the
ag/urban wetland (A15-11(1)) on-site, however, pretreatment will be necessary due to
the plans for the Bluff Creek corridor and the federal and state wetland permit
_ requirements. At this time direct runoff into a wetland is not allowed and would
require mitigation. We recommend that the pretreatment area be located at the
southwest corner of the ag/urban wetland (A15-11(1)).
2. The outlot in the northwest portion of the site will also require pretreatment in the
Bob Generous
March 9, 1994
Page 5
future. It is recommended that the area just north of the ag/urban wetland (A15-11(1))
be used for pretreatment of the future runoff at the time it is designed.
3. The small wetland (A15-15(1)) in the southwest corner of the site was
designated/planned as a water quality pond for the Hans Hagen and Heritage
developments. This wetland receives stormwater runoff from the backyard areas of
Timberwood Estates as well as the future backyards of Stone Creek 4th Addition
through the means of an existing drainage ravine. To convert the small wetland (A15-
15(1)) into a stormwater management pond for Hans Hagen as well as the Heritage
development would require additional tree removal as well as further degrading of the
existing wetland. Staff feels that a better alternative would be to pipe the majority of
the stormwater from the streets and yards of Hans Hagen's development (Stone Creek _
4th Addition) and the southerly one-half of the Heritage development to a new
stormwater quality/quantity pond to be developed over Lots 50, 51 and 52. One of the
major constraints, however, with this alternative is crossing the Bluff Creek tributary _
which flows through Lots 3 and 4, 54 and 55. Staff believes, though, with appropriate
street grades the storm sewer system could be designed to accommodate the trunk
storm water as previously described. The existing wetland shown as a pond on the
site plans could remain to retain the current drainage from Timberwood Estates and
future Stone Creek 4th Addition backyards.
Due to the extensive grade difference on the site we believe an additional stormwater
pond may be required in the general vicinity of Loss 23 and 24. In each one of these
cases it appears the storm sewers will need to be oversized to accommodate runoff
from outside of this development. As indicated, the City is in the process of
implementing the SWMP which requires the applicant to pay storm water quality and
quantity fees and trunk storm sewer charges as appropriate. In this situation it appears
the developer may be entitled to some credit or compensation if they provide the
necessary on-site stormwater quality and quantity improvements as outlined or
modified in the SWMP. The final determination will be reached upon review of the
storm drainage/ponding calculations.
Utilities
As part of the City's Upper Bluff Creek trunk sanitary sewer and watermain project, sanitary
sewer and watermain have been extended to the southwesterly corner of the site. The City, in
conjunction with the development of the school site has approved a construction project to
extend trunk sewer and water facilities to the school site which is located north of
Timberwood Estates east of Galpin Boulevard. Sanitary sewer service for the site is proposed
to be extended through this development. If feasible from a construction standpoint, it would
be cost effective for both the City and the developer if this trunk sanitary sewer line could be
Bob Generous
March 9, 1994
Page 6
utilized to serve both as a lateral and a trunk benefit to the adjacent property. However, as
previously mentioned, due to the extensive grades on the site it may not be feasible to run the
trunk sanitary sewer along the proposed street alignment. This will be further investigated
during the grading and utility plan preparation process.
All utility construction should be in accordance to the City's latest edition of standard
specifications and detail plates. Detailed construction drawings and specifications will be
required for submittal with final plat approval. The construction plans and specifications will
be subject to staff review and City Council approval.
In conjunction with the final platting process, the applicant will be required to enter into a
development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee
installation of the public improvements.
Staff has reviewed different alternatives to provide Timberwood Estates with sanitary sewer
service in the future. Staff has explored the possibility of extending the sewer line through
Stone Creek 4th Addition to Timberwood Drive. However, there are two low points on
Timberwood Drive where the sanitary sewer will actually be daylighted. Therefore, the other
alternative is to provide service to Timberwood Estates along the Bluff Creek tributary
— corridor between Lots 3 and 4 (Heritage Development). Generally, this is the lowest area on
the development. In the future sanitary sewer would be proposed to be extended along the
Bluff Creek tributary which lies just north of Renaissance Court. This would give sufficient
elevation to serve the entire development of Timberwood Estates via a gravity system. Staff
will be recommending that the applicant provide a sewer service in the general location of
Lots 3 and 4 for future extension into Timberwood Estates.
Sti ets
Access to the site will be from the Stone Creek 4th Addition subdivision which is in the
process of final plat approval at this time. The Stone Creek 4th Addition plat is contingent
upon off-site stormwater facilities which are proposed within the Heritage Development.
Stone Creek 4th Addition will not be able to proceed without these stormwater drainage
improvements. Therefore, these projects are somewhat tied together. Street access, as
mentioned, will be through the Stone Creek 4th Addition and eventually reconnecting to the
proposed east/west frontage road which will service the school site. The access street (Stone
Creek Drive) which is considered a local collector is being constructed in a portion of Stone
Creek development. The standard section of street was built to 35 feet wide back-to-back
within a 60-foot wide right-of-way. Staff is recommending that this typical street section be
extended through the Heritage plat on up to the future frontage road.
Staff has reviewed the concept layout of the street alignment and would request modifications
Bob Generous
March 9, 1994
Page 7
along the north/south street at the T intersection. Staff believes that curvilinear streets would
be helpful to add aesthetics and character to the neighborhood as well as deter speeding
motorists. Staff believes that the north/south street (future Stone Creek Drive) should be
modified at the T intersection so as major movement of traffic would be north/south with the
minor movement on the dead-end cul-de-sac to the east.
Without the complete looping of Stone Creek Drive back out to Galpin Boulevard, Heritage
Development should not be able to proceed. Without the looped street this street alignment
becomes a very lone cul-de-sac from Galpin Boulevard. Staff also believes it would be a
good idea to stipulate in the conditions of approval of the preliminary and final plat that the —
applicant shall complete the street construction of the north/south street out to the frontage
through the outlot within three years after the final plat is approved for this first phase to
insure that this road is connected in the future to avoid a dead-end street scenario.
Detailed construction plans for the street improvements will be required as a part of the final
plat submittal. The street construction plans shall be in accordance with the City's latest
edition of standard specifications and detail plates. Final construction drawings are subject to
staff review and formal City Council approval.
Recommended Conditions of Approval
1. The City's recommendations are pending on the design components for the Bluff Creek
Watershed Plan that are being initiated in the upcoming months.
2. The proposed ponding area in the southern portion should be moved since this has
been determined to be a wetland surrounded by trees and rolling terrain.
3. All wetlands should be surveyed by a professional wetlands delineator, staked, and
included in the grading plan. Total amount of impacted acres to the wetland and a
proposed mitigation plan will also be required, if necessary.
4. The applicant should attempt to retain the natural topographic features to preserve the
rolling terrain effect and drainage characteristics.
5. Pretreatment of the stormwater runoff before it discharges into the wetland is required.
The City recommends a pretreatment pond in the southwest corner of wetland A15-
11(1) (Lots 50, 51, and 52). When the rest of the property is developed an additional
pretreatment pond may be necessary just north of wetland A15-11(1).
6. The majority of the stormwater from the streets and yards of Hans Hagen's
development will have to be routed to the pretreatment pond discussed in number 5.
Bob Generous
March 9, 1994
Page 8
7. Wetland A15-15(1) should remain and retain the current drainage from Timberwood
Estates and the future Stone Creek 4th Addition backyards.
8. The SWMP requires the applicant to pay stormwater quality/quantity fees and trunk
storm sewer charges as appropriate. The applicant may be entitled to some credit or
compensation if they provide the necessary on-site stormwater quality/quantity
improvements as outlined or modified in the SWMP. This will be determined upon
review of the storm drainage/ponding calculations.
9. The trunk sanitary sewer line be utilized to serve both a lateral and a trunk to benefit
the adjacent property (staff recommends that the applicant provide a sewer service in
the general location of lots 3 and 4 for future extension into Timberwood Estates).The
best location for the sanitary sewer will be further investigated during the grading and
utility plan preparation process.
10. The typical street section be extended through the heritage plat on up to the future
frontage road within three years after the final plat is approved for the first phase.
11. Curvilinear streets are recommended to add aesthetics and character to the
neighborhood as well as deter speeding motorists.
12. The north/south street (future Stone Creek Drive)should be modified at the T-
- intersection to provide major traffic movement from north to south and minor traffic
movement on the dead-end cul-de-sac to the east.
13. Detailed construction drawings and specifications will be required for submittal with
final plat approval. All street and utility construction should be in accordance to the
City's latest edition of standard specifications and detail plates.
14. Final construction drawings are subject to staff review and formal City Council
approval.
15. The applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and
provide the necessary financial security to guarantee installation of the public
improvements.
ktm
c: Charles Folch, City Engineer
g 4ng',cliane',planning`.hentage cp
STATE OF
liiJ-kS1 ZOO
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
PHONEMETRO WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106
/ /2-7910 PILE yNR
March 2 , 1994
Ms. Kathryn Aanenson, Senior Planner
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
RE: HERITAGE SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION, LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL,
BLUFF CREEK, CITY OF CHANHASSEN, CARVER COUNTY, (CITY CASE #94-1
PUD)
Dear Ms. Aanenson:
We have reviewed the site plans (received February 24 , 1994) for the above-
referenced project (Section 15, T116N-R23W) and have the following comments
to offer:
1. Bluff Creek, a Public Water, is on the proposed site. Any activity
below the top of the bank of the channel of Bluff Creek (including
stormwater outfalls) which alters the course, current or cross-section
of Public Waters/Wetlands is under the jurisdiction of the DNR and may
require a DNR permit.
2 . It appears that the stormwater is routed through settling basins, which
is good. We would object to having the stormwater routed directly to
Bluff Creek.
3 . There should be some type of dedicated easement, covenant or deed
restriction for the properties adjacent to the wetland areas. This
would help to ensure that property owners are aware that the city and
the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers have jurisdiction over the areas and
that the wetlands cannot be altered without appropriate permits.
4 . The 100-year flood elevation of Bluff Creek is mentioned in the proposal
submission, which is good. All the work that is done for this project
must comply with applicable floodplain regulations of both the city and
the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District.
5. Bluff Creek has a shoreland classification of Tributary. The
shoreland district extends 300 feet from the top of the bank, or
the width of the floodplain, which ever is greater. The
development must be consistent with the city shoreland management
regulations. In particular you should note:
a. Portions of the northern half of the project area appear to contain
bluffs (i . e. , slopes that average 30 percent or greater and rise 25
feet above the top of the bank of the channel of Bluff Creek. The -
bluffs should not be disturbed and all structures shoild be setback
at least 30 feet from the top of the bluff.
x :' 19!4
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER CITY OF CHArh,y:::.'`,y
Ms. Kathryn Aanenson, Senior Planner
March 2 , 1994
Page 2
b. Other portions of the project area contain steep slopes.
Topographic alterations should be minimized in these areas.
c. The vegetation and topography should be retained in a natural
state in the shore and bluff impact zones. The minimum shore
impact zone is a 25-foot strip along both sides of the creek.
The bluff impact zone is an area within 20 feet of the top of
the bluff. See state shoreland management guidelines for more
details on what can be allowed in the impact zones.
d. The structures in the development should be screened from view from
Bluff Creek using topography, existing vegetation, color, and other
means approved by the city.
6. Appropriate erosion control measures should be taken during the
construction period. The Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and
Sediment Control Planning Handbook (Board of Water & Soil Resources and
Association of Metropolitan Soil and Water Conservation Districts)
guidelines, or their equivalent, should be followed.
7 . If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10, 000 gallons per day
or 1 million gallons per year, the contractor will need to obtain a DNR
appropriations permit. You are advised that it typically takes
approximately 60 days to process the permit application.
8 . It appears there are wetlands on the site that are not under DNR
jurisdiction. The U. S. Corps of Engineers (Gary Elftmann @ 290-5355)
should be consulted regarding pertinent federal regulations for
activities in wetlands. In addition, impacts to these wetlands must be
evaluated in accordance with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act of
1991.
9 . If construction activities disturb more than five acres of land, the
contractor must apply for a stormwater permit from the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (Scott Thompson @ 296-7203) .
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me at
772-7910 should you have any questions regarding these comments.
Sincerely,
Joe Richter
Hydrologist
c: Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed
Gary Elftmann, U. S. Corps of Engineers
City of Chanhassen Shoreland File
City of Chanhassen Floodplain File
C I TY 0 F
CIIANIIASSEN
- 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 —
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner
FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal
DATE: February 24, 1994 —
SUBJ: Timberwood Estates - 56 Single Family Lots _
Heritage Development
Planning Case: 94-1 PUD
I have reviewed the site plan dated 2/16/94, and have the following requirements:
1. Submit utility plans for review and approval. Fire hydrant maximum spacing
shall be 300 feet.
2. Street names shall be submitted to the Fire Marshal for approval.
3. Submit turning radius dimensions to the Fire Marshal for review and approval. —
MMIC.
j /40
sib A.,
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A
Wednesday,
FRIPIN:
MARCH 16, 1994 •
7:30 P.M. 4161\I /4 ,
City Hall Council Chambers g
690 Coulter Drive ��R .%
-- ..
Project: Heritage Developmentvim,.l, -.itr�
ireizty
.-
7 .
Developer: RLK Associates I, 4 14.,?
fr.... ��„� ' ; �.�, i
T ,L
��,, / I I•� 1111
Location: So. of Hwy. 5 and East of �,',.1j, - �• :•.'' r
4) `�o ist isle ,/I/fllea. , T, _
Timberwood Estates -4.;:r;774:16,' _ I 111111e
/ S Vi
i,/--' "\ PARK riEtillll
.,„.,,,,,, .'s
,-.2,- gt ;v, i.'.eII 1 ..L.
Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in
your area. The applicant is proposing a Concept Planned Unit Development to rezone 39
acres from A2, Agricultural Estate to PUD and preliminary plat of 56 single family lots
located south of Hwy. 5, east of Timberwood Estates, Heritage Development.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform
you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this
project. During the meeting, the Planning Commission Chair will lead the public hearing
through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project.
2. The Developer will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The
Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council.
Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please
stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you
wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Kate at 937-1900, ext. 118. If you
choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the Planning Department
in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on March 3,
4?
1994. ,q
3 '
McGlynn Bakeries, Inc.
c/o Grand Met Tax Dept. Shamrock Property Partners J.P.'s Links Inc.
MS: 1843 7350 Commerce Lane c/o John Przymus
200 S. 6th St. Fridley, MN 55432 642 Santa Vera Drive
Minneapolis, MN 55402 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Conway T. Lars Michael J. Gorra Chan-Land Partners
4952 Emerson Ave. So. 1680 Arboretum Dr. 200 Hwy. 13 W.
Minneapolis, MN 55409 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Burnsville, MN 55337
Betty O'Shaughnessy Dale F. & Marcia Wanninger Lawrence & F. Raser
1000 Hesse Farm Rd. 8170 Galpin Blvd. 8210 Galpin Blvd.
Chaska, MN 55318 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Merle D. & Jane Volk Richard Hartung & Wallace Otto Larry & Elizabeth Vandeveire
16925 Co. Rd. 40 400 Oak St. S. 4890 C. Rd. 10 E.
Carver, MN 55315 Waconia, MN 55387 Chaska, MN 55318
Jay C. Dolejsi Audobon I Limited Partnership Mitchel & Mary Krause —
6961 CHaparral Ln. c/o Lars Akerberg 2380 Timberwood Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 P.O. Box 158 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chaska, MN 55318
James L. & Linda J. Leirdahl Mark & J. Taintor Layton & Linda Zellman
2350 Timberwood Dr. 7481 Saratoga Drive 2290 Timberwood Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Curtis & Janice Olson Gregory & J. Maaxum Mark J. Foster & Karen S. Olsso.,
1961 130th Ln. 7480 Longview Cir. 8020 Acorn Ln.
Coon Rapids, MN 55448 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Richard D. & Marry Frasch David Gestach Richard M. Czeck
8000 Acorn Ln. 8001 Acorn Ln. 8011 Acorn Ln.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317-9662 Chanhassen, MN 55317
James & Debra Ann Lano Stephen McCurry & Sracey R. Rickert &
2060 Oakwood Rdg. Bridget Haefner Michelle Rheault
Chanhassen, MN 55317 16780 North Manor Rd. 2040 Oakwood Rdg.
Eden Prairie, MN 55345 Chanhassen, Mn 55317
Alva Bruce & Kristina Johnson James & Colleen Dockendorf James & Joann Jancik
2051 Oakwood Rdg. 2061 Oakwood Rdg. 19000 Stratford Rd. #301
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Minnetonka, MN 55345
David & Gail McCollum Agha Thir Khan & Stanley & Christine Rud
2048 Timberwood Dr. Patricia Khan 2030 Renaissance Ct.
— Chanhassen, MN 55317 2040 Renaissance Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
— Robert & Roberta Lawson Gerard & Bonnie Murkpwski William & Lana Miller
2041 Renaissance Ct. 2051 Renaissance Ct. 8121 Pinewood Cir.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
_James & Bonita Roeder Gregory & Jill Perrill Craig & Mary Harrington
8108 Pinewood Cir. 2102 Timberwood Dr. 8140 Maplewood Ter.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
NARRATIVE DOCUMENT
39+ Acre
Heritage Development
Single Family Subdivision
CONCEPT P.U.D. SUBNIISSION
February 16, 1994
Prepared For:
CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA
— Developer:
HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
Prepared By:
RLK Associates, Ltd.
922 Mainstreet
Hopkins, MN 55343
(612) 933-0972
CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
SUBMITTAL FOR THE 39 ACRE
HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT
56 UNIT SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION
February 16, 1994
Introduction
In the western part of the City of Chanhassen on the south side of Highway 5 and east of the —
Timberwood Estates subdivision is a 39± acre parcel referred to as the Heritage Single Family
Subdivision. The general boundaries for this property are the west tributary of Bluff Creek to
the north, the main channel of Bluff Creek to the east, the Twin City and Western railroad to
the south and the Hans Hagen single family subdivision known as Stone Creek and
Timberwood Estates to the west. Directly to the north and northeast is the property known as
the Chanhassen Corporate Center. The 39± acre parcel being submitted by Heritage _
Development at this time was formerly contained in the December 6, 1993 Concept PUD
submission for the Chanhassen Corporate Center. The single family proposed for this 39 acre
parcel is consistent with the comprehensive guide plan and zoning ordinance. Due to this —
Heritage Development began the review process ahead of the Chanhassen Corporate Center. It
is anticipated the CCC will be resubmitting the concept PUD plan within the next month.
Goals of the Project
Heritage Development's decision to submit this Concept PUD proposal will allow the City and
developer the opportunity to review the proposal prior to a preliminary plat submission. This —
area of Chanhassen is guided for single family residential and with the Bluff Creek, a protected
waterway, it is important to identify the critical issues of land use, for both the public and
private interests. It is Heritages desire to create a pleasing and site sensitive development. —
Through the PUD process the issues of park dedication, trail placement, ponding locations and
subdivision layout will be resolved prior to the preliminary plat submission.
This PUD has the following objectives:
1. To create a subdivision development with an average lot size of 20,138 square feet that are —
compatible with adjacent properties and land uses;
2. To protect Bluff Creek and its tributaries as open space and landscape corridors within the
development;
3. To create a public utility, ponding, roadway and trail system within the 39 acres that works —
and is integrated with adjacent properties;
4. Coordinate the grading of the site with the trunk line sanitary sewer extension for
implementation in 1994.
t —
PUD Submittal
This submittal is for a (general) Concept PUD review. Pursuant to Sec. 20-517 of the City's
_ ordinance the "general concept plan for a PUD" allows a developer to submit a plan to the City
showing the basic intent and the general nature of the entire development.
This submittal includes the following information:
1. Application for development review (concept PUD);
2. Written consent of all fee title property owners within the PUD;
3. Narrative;
4. Legal description of property proposed for PUD designation;
5. Twenty-six plan sheets showing the overall development plan and area specific development
plans showing the following information:
a. identification of each lot size and lot width;
b. general location of major streets;
c. general location and extent of public and common open space;
6. Fee of$750 for the PUD submittal.
7. Reduced plan at 81/2" x 11 with transparencies.
The property owner list and legal description to be utilized for this PUD submittal have
previously been submitted in the December 6, 1993 Chanhassen Corporate Center
Development.
Heritage Development Company will be the principal developer for the 39 acre site. Mr. John
Dobbs will serve as the principal contact with the City of Chanhassen on this development.
Heritage Development and Mr. Dobbs have extensive experience in producing quality single
family residential development throughout the Twin Cities area.
Site planning, surveying, civil engineering and landscape architecture services will be provided
by RLK Associates, Ltd. John Dietrich and Jeannene Krone will serve as the principal contacts
for these issues.
Project Description
The project area is located south and west of Bluff Creek is oriented on a north/south axis and
occupies approximately 39 acres. Currently the north and east property line is the center line
of Bluff Creek. The property is currently in an agricultural state for the majority of the site
with a wooded area on the south central portion and a lowland/future ponding area on the
southern most portion of the site adjacent to the Twin Cities and western railroad.
2
North of the 39 acre site is an 8 acre site identified as an outlot on the attached drawing. The
outlot is not proposed to be developed at this time. Eventually the roadway servicing the 39
acre residential subdivision will connect to the East/West Frontage Road north of the 8 acre —
outlot and initially with the Hans Hagen development.
The PUD process offers an opportunity to design a site in a manner that achieves a more —
creative use of the land while easing the constraints and restrictions of normal zoning district
standards. The result is that the development plan may be more sensitive to the specific
features of the site and more responsive to adjacent land uses. The following section describes
some of the more important design features associated with the Heritage subdivision and how
the proposed PUD is consistent with the City's review criteria.
1. Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive —
environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creek, wetlands, lakes
and scenic views.
It is anticipated that grading will be completed to achieve an earthwork balance (cut and fill)
arrangement on the site. There are some steep slopes, and mature trees along portions of the
creek. These areas will be protected during the grading and development processes. The intent
of the development is to incorporate the existing vegetation and open space corridors for the
creeks and steep slopes into a high visibility and integral landscape component of the site
design. The wetland areas, both the 100 year flood plain and National Wetland inventory map —
areas are identified.
The City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan identifies the Bluff Creek Main Channel as protected —
open space. The proposed development plan identifies a 100 foot open space corridor on each
side of Bluff Creek (total of 200 feet). This corridor will also include a public trail system.
The first 50 feet adjacent to the creek are proposed to be dedicated to the City for park —
dedication purposes. Additionally the seasonal creek flowing from the Timberwood Estates will
be preserved in its natural condition.
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.
The development proposal will allow for the more efficient use of the land and provide the City
with a more logical and cost efficient approach for the timing and phasing of public
improvements. For example, the development site is sufficiently large to allow for the planning
of a single, comprehensive stormwater drainage system that will maximize the effectiveness of —
nutrient removal while reducing the City's long-term maintenance costs.
The proposed development will also assist the City in the timing and phasing of trunk utilities
and the east\west collector roadway system to serve the proposed development and the
development proposals of adjacent properties.
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. —
3
Prior to City approval, a final set of Preliminary and Final Plat documents will be submitted to
the City. As they are developed, each lot and subarea of the property will be submitted to the
City of Chanhassen for formal review of building plans, landscaping, signage, and lighting in
_ order to be in compliance with the City guidelines. The approved PUD documents will
establish firm guidelines to ensure that the site is developed in a consistent and well planned
manner.
The Heritage site design is meant to complement the characteristics of the existing property.
The design will be commensurate with a residential development. Impervious surface coverage
and building densities are below the minimum standards established as part of the City's
—' development code. The average lot square footage, open space corridors, landscape areas,
ponding access and lowland protection areas exceed typical zoning regulations and standards.
The single-family residential area will be designed to complement the Timberwood Addition
and enhance the Bluff Creek area. The City of Chanhassen is proposing a recreational trail to
run the entire length of Bluff Creek from T.H. 5 to Lyman Blvd. The trail would be a
combination of bituminous and\or crushed aggregate.
4. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and
along significant corridors within the City.
The single-family residential development has been designed to complement the existing
Timberwood Estates and the Hans Hagen Development.
Bluff Creek is being treated as a protected water course on both the main channel and its
tributary. In order to protect the stream banks and promote water quality, grading activities are
anticipated to be restricted.
5. Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The comprehensive plan has guided this areal for single family residential development. The
current zoning of A2 also is consistent with the proposed development.
6. Parks and open space.
Bluff Creek is proposed to be a linear park with a City maintained trail system. The first 50'
from the creek centerline is proposed to be dedicated to the City for park purposes. Wetland
areas identified will also remain in open space. The creation of additional public open space
will be consistent with the park and open, and trail plans.
7. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate within the PUD.
The proposed housing subdivision will be offered for sale at market rate prices, consistent with
the single family homes currently selling within Chanhassen.
8. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sightings
and the clustering of buildings and land uses.
The proposed design has minimized the number of cul-de-sacs while maintaining the natural
features of the site. All homes will be constructed to meet City Standards for insulation and R
Value.
4
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. —
The internal road system will connect the Stone Creek Development and Heritage to the future
east/west collector. The roadway system is an integral component to the residential collector _
street system in Chanhassen.
5
•
1 . � ® ®
: '� ��✓' �7`• 011
'''' MI 1 Atit60, -
li g
, flu 1 ; %is hi,
op., .,..„ :..
_ . . ,(i.- ,ss is. I• 'ir ___ -+y,/ I -
ii r •
1 E 1; .,\ J
i g 11- il, i 'le; c� ti- ` �ri
att
1
''''' 1 I j)..."-lijoar . ..
�__.. ..` •! IIIU111111IIIIIIIIIIIIII111111 HhII 9111111 i
574-1;41'"-V.r im ti I I I I\ \ __,___;._..
��� �, a.4. '1 .11:71
UUHIII I 1 1 I 1 ill`Ii IIr , \ \ \ �I 11111111, it}�IIIFIIF ��i I
- �0tilt*ll k' ' j. '" l 5— NI"'
11 n�IL
' lull I i
1 � � 111i ii , 1 1
I ; :' ffI' d: mrllnnJ;lllll;lll k.li .
_ 1 orifi , .-1--.. 06,
- , �: '► � I I,III�IIk�� [of Illi
�,I'� �,
1 ht. .� ,r I, �� � 1:- �!►�1 I j,
11 . N 74 J, I ,_ ,_ . pow fl .j 71.11 /i."" , ISI '
% 'V7 i , 1 I ^ s +1111 Ill 111111/12 1.111l� i1 i
0� til'- -;' �� 1
-- 1 440:',.)4).,,/A./: �. i it li � I -1111 i1111 1,1
_ '—'--:-•7 )) .).;„. V.--"P4-fil. C.'-'..' ...,.. l'\4. Ti-711.11 '-''''''441 [IT 'i!
r > , -,; /;� ,—I . 1 I,IIIIt. ,
Ili
1 � lii � '.'— `�� c U U� Iltl •
/, ii r e a
- •S-. -N \-
'` ` il -\ 1
`, Q I.L • - 1r ) 1111111 ' IIIIIIIIA II11 !�,�, . � �. .
� ` �� - 7.,..lik�
41
-
)\\
0 -.'Nji. 1411,a.,.,• ,-, 1
‘1 \'''.:r-t-- filltia.-:17'i : / .,
- .( - . *6-.) ' \.'t : 1 :V 1114 il .r-,/ \
\\t_____ Iii LI_i_1 I. A. '
\ , il)t.,7s).4"11)1(.........\•-, \.
i , _....--\\N
- ;11i...: \
114
_ _ 1 cA•foi __.,..%
1/1411; 16ir NI, TIIIMIllit* „.,,.. .Iiiiik,
i -414111 j 011/// ..,...../-----tra._, '\. _____,________,_______
(_\ __j c________2_, /: ,,,l k , ---Aci ) 1
a
-
) c ------ --... ,\7•
I
3,
.,
4
CITY of
04
ili CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner
Bob Generous, Planner II
DATE: March 10, 1994
— SUBJ: Code Amendment for Computer Generated Images for Subdivisions and Site Plans
Background
As per the Planning Commission request, staff has prepared a code amendment for the
requirement of photo imaging. This will be a requirement for subdivisions as well as site plans.
The amendment will be placed in two sections of the City Code. The photo imaging should
_ provide the level of detail that was provided with the photos of the ISTEA pedestrian bridge.
These photos enhanced the city's ability to analyze not only the size and scale of the bridge, but
also the visual presence of the bridge and its impact on surrounding development.
Enclosed is information from Macromedia Technologies explaining about computer graphics and
the different formats that can be presented. Staff is recommending photocomposite or artistic
renderings that depict the visual impact.
Recommendation
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the code
amendment to require computer generated images for subdivisions and site plans as shown in the
attached amendment.
Attachments
1. Code amendment
2. Information from Macromedia Technologies
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 18 AND 20 OF THE
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE,
CONCERNING SUBDIVISION DATA REQUIREMENTS
AND SITE PLAN ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS:
Section 1. Section 18-40 (4) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to add
subsection m.:
(4) Supplementary information:
m. Computer generated photocomposite images or artistic renderings which depict
the visual impact of the proposed development's design, landscaping, street
layout, signage, pedestrian ways, lighting, buildings, or other details that affect
land use within the city shall be submitted. Such images and renderings shall
be from key vantage points and provide a perspective of the proposed
development from abutting properties, less intensive land uses, and/or from
entryway locations. Appropriate levels of resolution for the visualization shall
be used from flat shading for massing studies and preliminary design to —
photorealistic imaging for final design.
Section 2. Section 20-109 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to add —
subsection, o:
Sec. 20-109. Architectural standards.
(o) Computer generated photocomposite images or artistic renderings which depict
the visual impact of the proposed development's design, landscaping, street —
layout, signage, pedestrian ways, lighting, buildings, or other details that affect
land use within the city shall be submitted. Such images and renderings shall
be from key vantage points and provide a perspective of the proposed
development from abutting properties, less intensive land uses, and/or from
entryway locations. Photorealistic imaging or renderings are the appropriate
level of resolution.
03/01/94 09:32 LT I ER PLAZA NO. OC:1 1103
I VA
MACROMEDIA
— Technologies ,Incorporated
A Computer Graphics Primer
introduction
Most people cannot Imagine what the interior and exterior of structures will look like
before they are built, Some of these people are the same people that are making
critical structural and financial decisions from plans they do not understand,
Macromedia Technologies Incorporated has developed a unique line of visualization
products that can save people and organizations significant amounts of time and
money by allowing them to see and tour through unbuilt structures,
This paper is a brief description of some of what is possible with computer
visualization in relation to the built environment. It Is intended to describe some of the
terms and techniques commonly used In the computer graphic business.
3-Dimensional Computer Generated Models
A 3-dimensional computer generated model is a digital model which can be created
from a variety of input data. This data can Include, but is not limited to; a sketch on
paper, site plans, topographic maps, GIS files, blueprints, elevation drawings, or CAD
files. The computer model is responsive to any proposed design changes.
Presentation Formats
A 3-dimensional computer model is Interactive with a wide array of presentation
mediums, or formats. Because the computer model has been created digitally it can
be stored or presented on any available medium. These can include:
Photographic prints (sized from 3x5 inches up to mural size)
VHS video cassette (for both still transfers and animations)
Overhead transparencies
35mm presentation slides
Interactive C-D disk
4.590 c),nit Trail ■ Faaan.MN 55122 ■ (A191 rs23_11s7c
0=4:77 GALT I ER PLAZA raO. :_: 004
Computer Renderings
A computer rendering is an image created from any position or perspective within or
around the computer model. Rendering a computer model into a image is the process
the computer uses to take digital information and create an image which we
understand as a visual representation of the proposed structure or development.
Photocomposite Images
A photocomposite is an image that takes a computer model and places it within a
photograph of a proposed site. We normally refer to these as "Photorealistic Images"
since it is practically impossible to tell that the structure or development in the
photograph is a computer image and not the real thing. It Is Imperative that
professional photographs be taken from precise locations using certain techniques.
This assures perfect perspective meshing of both the photograph and the computer
rendering of the structure or development.
Animations
An animation is normally produced on a VHS video cassette. Animations are a series
of still images taken of the computer model and shown at 30 frames per second. The
net effect Is the illusion of motion or movement through or around the computer model.
This technique is very effective when showing Intricate parts of the computer model at
certain perspectives that can only be achieved using this technique. Other possible
applications of this technology are; tours through unbuilt structures, massing studies,
and evaluation of performance standards for interchanges, bridges, or other traffic
pattern areas.
Levels of Resolution
A 3-dimensional computer model can be rendered and output at various levels of
resolution. These options can be applied to fill the needs of the persons who are
analyzing a proposed development. Different levels of resolution are available for
each of the presentation formats discribed earlier.
Flat Shading A level of resolution that utilizes basic colors to form the shape of a
proposed structure. There is no texture on the computer model.
Flat shading is a cost effective level of resolution used for;
massing studies, preliminary designs, or any time a detailed
rendering is not required.
Textured A level of resolution that applies textures, and colors to the model.
It has light sources and casts shadows. It is approaching
photorealism.
03'01/94 09:33 6ALTIEP PLAZA NO. 001 005
Photorealism A level of resolution that when output onto photographic print
material is practically impossible to distinguish from a real
photograph.
Conclusion
Macromedia Technologies Inc. visualizations' are applied at many of the various
stages of project management. They can help clients review design alternatives and
make final presentations. In municipal applications they can be critical to a unified
understanding by all decision makers of complex development plans. In public forums
Macromedia graphics convey complex ideas to large and diverse audiences quickly
and distinctly. For residential development they can make the difference between a
sale and no sale. Call us if you need more information or this extremely effective
communication approach.
This material has been prepared by:
Macromedia Technologies Inc.
4590 Scott Trail
Eagan, MN 55122
Ph. (612) 683-0579
.„:,_:-......144:-- 1, 1-- 7 66 i. \‘. 1
°- • /
£ r � i7. `/
• dr-
u_._,
$.. a
k s
C
_ ;
o - < • Q • q F
` > Z = • r I
e %111
g':',..,' tt.:......_. a - Qi-' vi
U w • S 1 1
' ' Nci ip err,- G
r:
/il
Z ili
� :-,-l1
:�
/ , . .
` f�� /___ • i .r!
ilat
sem .,ta-, : ;,.„. 0 ...--.
- • m d r. v HO • 01
. . . ( _...__‘ CL L7
,11— 2.6 z . 9 ill/ V I
•
..i _ S r f N i.� V y ° to �'
° •• L.o '[002 ,ertn •
_ t... A ° £O� 0.3 c0
o m `/ R • o 0
ea
• a 47ya, eoEc '�' .a
/ R^ a, 00
� °>,� go, Ec',� Earn •
ta.is O II.N y cu O •y'O y S.%
:1 r � p�po � � y �=
Ga, E= R a. art ; .E ; ) Ili 111-
Q 60
i • 0.'0 • /!
V y
1-i4a
/ •
3 4-osc o o i•p %a g a,;/- - ' • I
�° ° c o c 1 £'., "
iii �.� - = c° v,= 0 0of i=1,0
;m a- a`,—''@ ° =rte ° a l f 1
45._
o.0.3-a a4 . a�.o v 0 5
•
` __ _
1 -_w Ow a• 3 r � O ▪ to m-¢� y C
J Z t0 to _ I. >,00�s .y..6V, y�� v fa Z
r J Z `r 0.+N. > '6, T. �/ y la. fa
CTo V t� fSin„V� �� .
I G �, ea 00f VV r. �! O a+ y y O
' O R Ow E d / / L Q,�� C X000 �en�
_ fl''C^�', a 1 M �., iIi
o q v ;c a. 0 O EI
' J O p C Q 7/7 N y V >,,L •E a, 0-4 �'
J V to a. C c N 4 a, n,•-J O ,�y v y C to , a1 i
•
a•3 ° ate, m �' / W a• cc. x'�J flffl 'ti •ola>1 '5'•aG Q Q !I F 'ca, o >•j F,
Z O y.... e J sil -� f-: 7 ti. C
tr).E.:4• 3., E q
t.) c = '1 •E 1,
Z Z = Icy, to v( Q.r�Oo, �.:,' c � � ORa
D 2' • v 0 • o �/ °, r u.E <�-•°"3 V. 's > E
Q ay yam_ � r� � uRO��`y�",,•, 1��N'uya, E
>LU 00� c ° 3 V ;y Kv� 7 -0CV
— c4, y_ >, F.// •tp,1Evi � Cw I- cE � D. to
2 0 E R ela a7, U aoE v A cu a
; , < RI .. 6• .0 L / ,� o a.'co to lDav a>, 0,) to
.111
v W •
•
I Z J • ,
•
_ i
..%
N_ D
D co
D
(.1) �. •
a •
NMy • •
•
..•;...V •
.nJ • .•4,V 1
u •
•
AO":
I 0 fa,
p•
iz '\ J •
0 •.- • •
Q 1 • - •
• • •
•
•
— NOI1VW21OdNI 321OW 21O
9£c6-£99(Z19)XVI 6LSo-£89(Z19)
ZZtcc h ' a'ti N°DS%St
paaeiod.ioDuI saiBoiouupal
VICI3WOUOVVi
Mrs
,. ., /I la I
1. 1.1111111
L'O V^ c 7+ re ' _ G .:...=3'='= V r T. C -ti-':c
o-L... ti `sem. �_ L_S. C•. �y • C o.eeaa ti .6J ..0 C .y P h
C7 ,, a . >',C `v o 2'�, = o a, c '> _
<� acz Ev 3 s :: g6,E .- °J > ac .4� s
• a
ea R C .` c i r R o, 7 i= ` U c 35„_ 4 I= i o 5
-� I. E .; { �, ` t ,a' 3 ��- I.z DC 11. O A ea C = � . ) m o
- ee v `a, g v'C - R p_uCi eta ea '44, E ea I! o,
U c T c L.- o U c 0 en V.. 0‘.4 y >',.- c c a > tri I C
a_aa,, ... ot� tim,, E - ... mtt, iaL.. o 'v r`- >'s >, IP( ; - nm
t L C✓...
r.. ��y �.O G re io
a 40 �� 0 Or c > a, a+� > 00 > R 'C II
y r m O
O=.R C Q'3 E C oc a +% m•
C aria Q•s a - c o7 . 0 0
► ^1] m , 3 c = 'ir, c A Da C 6, G 3 c eo ^ 6, C '= zh-
`c_
c a, c_c -p 'v• u; a, • :°s V 7 rt 1 t
IL
.O -— be
• -- .- >' oaQ.'ca•_ 2 a. >. a, s
ce a, E „;.1'4, -,-, m- c.c.ti'fl c c Oc 'C uIII ; I h
1.3
C: c ' c— ` abyQe E- EisH•• °Cv Q -a8pemap ao
c G c r 1-ir.J t•. 6. u1 G D
< m c c Q` 0 ti N t w C a c C ea OC N Z C etsc I-•
3 m
". rC.. '•- c o'> 7 t o c c C. ea c ea C cy a, c > :: •0 >, O
4.
Z 7? G.r 0-.7, C, d C y u G 3 G d to - , e
U•OccF 7 E C c C lis a, v a, ti C z+.° 44; 'a, pL C 7 r
be HUiih
cv ; v • W ee z V =C W . 2 ifi 6� >, q ` v ¢L
CITY OF
i
CHANHASSEN
01. 1,..
e . 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
lb
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Kate Aanenson, Senior
DATE: March 10, 1994
SUBJ: Landscaping Plan for Minnewashta Landings
Background
_ At their last meeting on March 2, 1994, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the
Minnewashta Landings subdivision. One of the conditions of approval was that a landscaping
plan be approved by the Planning Commission before the preliminary plat proceeds to the City
- Council. Additional landscaping was requested.
The applicant has prepared a landscaping plan as well as a plan showing the tree removal.
Analysis
— At the public hearing, the neighbors were concerned about the amount of tree removal prior to
the platting of the subdivision. Tree removal was reported to the city and a stop work order was
placed on the property on June 3, 1993. It is the city ordinance, as well as the DNR
requirements, not to clear cut trees.
The city subdivision ordinance requires placement of one tree per lot being created in addition
to streetscape along the collectors, Highway 7 and Minnewashta Parkway. The applicant has
prepared a tree survey. The survey does not show trees prior to the stop work order given in
June, 1993. A letter from a neighbor, Charles Zweig, states that he believes that there were 173
trees removed from this property prior to the subdivision submittal. He states that all trees
removed were over 6" in diameter. The ordinance states that for tree preservation, trees are
measured at 4' in height and that are 6" in diameter shall be considered for preservation. Mr.
Zweig does not state where the diameter was measured.
Staff is aware that trees were cut down. At this time, there is only one way the city could
resolve Mr. Zweig's concern and that is to cite Mr. Dun for violation of the city code for tree
Planning Commission
March 10, 1994
Page 2
removal. Rather than take that approach, staff had asked the applicant to provide some additional
trees to make a good faith effort to replace some trees taken without city approval. The applicant
has provided one tree per lot The city could waive this requirement if the applicant can
demonstrate that a suitable tree having a maximum diameter of 211" for deciduous and 6' for
evergreen.
Of the 26 lots in this subdivision, only 13 have no trees. Therefore, a minimum of 13 trees need
to be provided. The applicant has provided 26 deciduous/1 per lot, plus 7 evergreens on Lots
8 and 9, Block 2 for screening (see tree list attachment).
Twenty-six 6' evergreens are proposed on the berm along Hwy. 7. In addition, there will be a
6' wood fence. The fence will require a separate building permit.
The applicant proposes no streetscape for Minnewashta Parkway. There are numerous trees left
in this area and with the existing grade berming may not be necessary. Staff recommends
additional conifers (evergreens) be placed in the back of Lots 1-4, Block 1.
The City Attorney has stated that since the tree canopy approach as being proposed in the new
ordinance has not yet been adopted, we cannot apply it to this subdivision. Staff did review the
canopy approach using the proposed formula and the applicant came fairly close to meeting this
criteria of maintaining a canopy coverage.
The applicant is proposing to remove a maximum of 35-38 trees and will be replaced with 50.
This does not include additional trees along Minnewashta Parkway. If the Planning Commission
wishes to cite Mr. Durr for tree removal prior to a proposed subdivision, staff would ask the City —
Attorney to follow-up on that. Otherwise it may be appropriate to ask the applicant to provide
additional landscaping on the 13 lots proposed as they are only providing one tree per lot.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the landscaping and tree removal plan as -
shown on the landscaping plan dated March 10, 1994, and subject to the following conditions:
1. A minimum of 4 conifers be placed on Lots 1-4, Block 1 on Minnewashta Parkway.
2. Additional trees be placed in the 13 lots where only one tree per lot is proposed. They
shall be placed on Lots 6-16, Block 1 and Lots 10 and 11, Block 2.
3. The wood fence along Minnewashta Parkway requires a separate permit.
Planning Commission
March 10, 1994
Page 3
— ATTACHMENTS
1. Landscaping list.
2. Letter from Charles Zweig.
3. Stop work order.
4. Planning Commission minutes dated March 2, 1994.
ATTACHMENT #1
Trees to be Removed with Site Grading _
19" cedar
40" maple —
28" maple
27" maple
12" cedar —
20" cedar
24" spruce
2-6" spruce —
34" maple
7" elm
7" apple —
8" ash
32" calalpa
Subtotal 14 —
Tree Loss With Home Placement
Block 1 _
Lot 1 (1) 6" elm, (1) 15" spruce and (1) 11" spruce
Lot 4 (7-8) 14-20" spruce
Block 2
Lot 2 (1) 21" and (1) 34" box elder (possibility to save both) _
Lot 5 (1) 36" oak and (1) 12" box elder
Lot 6 (1) 9" and (1) 11" ash
Lot 7 (1) 6" ash _
Lot 8 (1) 13"cottonwood
Subtotal 21-24
Total Possible Tree Loss 35-38 trees
Trees to be Replaced
(27) 22" diameter ash and maple —
1 tree per lot
(26) 6" high spruce or pine
(7) 6" spruce or pine
50 Total replacement trees
3601 Ironwood Rd .
Excelsior , Mn. 55331
Dear Commissioner :
Last Wednesday, March 2 , I was unable to attend the meeting
where partial approval of the Durr development took place.
Since then I have heard much of what went on at that meeting
and find myself concerned about two issues relating to the
same subject - trees .
On March 8th I walked the Durr property and took inventory
of the trees that were removed by Mr . Durr last fall . The
total number of trees cut down that were approximately 6
inches or greater in diameter was 173. At least half of
those trees were within 300 feet of the Lake Minnewashta
shoreline. While counting those trees I was careful not
to count those stumps that appeared to be from dead trees .
The trees , as you should be aware, were removed without city
approval . At last weeks meeting I understand that city
councilman Richard Wing spoke and stated that) although the
trees were removed without following city ordinances , only
trees of little value were removed . I disagree .
There are two issues here . First, softwood and hardwood
trees both have biological and esthetic value near a lake
shore . Second, city ordinances concerning tree removal
should be adhered to.
After lengthy discussion with the Minnesota DNR, I am convinced
that when lakeshore developement is concerned all trees are
"good" trees . They are good for protecting the lakes ecosystem
and they are instrumental in screening structures when viewed
from the lake .
The majority of the homes on the north shore of Lake Minnewashta
are set back 200 to 300 feet from the shoreline following a
natural plateau. The proposed development will place eight
houses well below the plateau only 75 feet from the shoreline .
The existing plateau will then be graded to make room for a
road and additional houses . If this is done it is essential
that there be considerable natural screening of the houses
closest to the lake.
There can only be one reason why Mr. Durr had the underbrush
and many trees removed without city approval . He was afraid
the city would be too restrictive . This leads me to the
second issue I mentioned earlier .
The city ordinance concerning tree removal is rediculous .
It allows a private land owner to remove as many trees as —
he likes , but a land developer must have city approval to
do so. This then becomes a "no brainer . " A developer simply
purchases land as a private owner and then alters vegation
anyway he pleases . Later he comes to the city and says he has
decided to become a land developer . Does this kind of ordinance
make any sense? I think not .
What then am I asking of the Planning Commission? First,
hold Mr . Durr accountable for the trees he has removed .
Second , see to it that the city rewrites the ordinance concerning —
tree removal .
There is very little lakeshore left to build on surrounding —
Lake Minnewashta . I beg you to do your utmost to preserve
and protect it .
Very truly yours ,
Richard L. Zweig
. •
sTo p '
' NOT - PROCEED
4 /0 41 0-)1 / inPie
$ tVv► �_
1
Location ��� �i �✓1 ct%��5.�
Date Inspector -t(3
DO NOT REMOVE THIS TAG
City of Chanhassen
937-1900
- Contact __ - -1 / O ' / - Dept.
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Scott: So what we'll be doing is dealing with our sign ordinance at our next meeting. Okay.
In 2 weeks.
PUBLIC HEARING:
KENNETH DURR FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 19.7 ACRES INTO
27 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 7 AND
MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, MINNEWASHTA LANDINGS.
Public Present:
Name Address
Gary Carlson 3831 West 62nd Street _
Mary Colleran 6560 Minnewashta Parkway
Kevin Ellsworth 9601 Flatlock Trail
Tom Wright 3611 Ironwood
Zoe Bros 6631 Minnewashta Parkway
Donna Hoelke 3621 Ironwood Road
Ann Zweig 3601 Ironwood Road —
Steve Emmings 6350 Greenbriar Avenue
Rick Sathre 150 So. Broadway, Wayzata
Kenneth Dun Applicant —
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: Okay, questions or comments for staff.
Harberts: Did those green things. —
Aanenson: The islands.
Harberts: Yeah, thanks. It's been a long day. Are all three of them proposed, or four. Four
proposed to save significant trees? All of them? Or some of them just decorative.
Aanenson: I'll let Rick answer that.
Rick Sathre: When I speak I'll answer your questions. Unless you're really wanted to know.
69 —
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Harberts: Oh, tell me now. Thank you.
Rick Sathre: At the entrance we had saved a spruce tree in the island. The other islands
would be to add greenery that isn't there.
Harberts: Oh, so that would be decorative?
Rick Sathre: Yeah.
Harberts: Oh, I thought I was reading a maple tree.
Aanenson: The first entrance will save trees.
Rick Sathre: There's a nice spruce tree here.
Mancino: I'll ask landscaping questions. I think there's a lot that isn't here that we normally
do get on a landscape.
Scott: That we need.
Mancino: That I don't feel comfortable passing without getting it.
Aanenson: I think what Rick and I talked about is these people have been waiting a long
time. Before Rick goes through it, maybe give them an opportunity to speak.
Scott: Okay. Because he'll want to take their comments into consideration. Okay. Are
there any other questions or comments for staff?
Farmakes: The issue that you raised on the cul-de-sac as Oudot B? Currently it shows, it
kind of looks like it shows like there's a road there currently. That it meets up on another
adjacent piece of property.
Aanenson: Right. That's where the existing Ironwood is right now. There's four homes off
of that private drive. What we're saying is that these homes will now have access through
this subdivision and this will be incorporated into their plat.
—
Rick Sathre: Plus a new driveway.
Farmakes: That was my question. Does it meet up then with an existing road?
70
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Rick Sathre: Yes. That road is existing. _
Aanenson: Well it's a private drive.
Rick Sathre: On this drive, this is a new driveway that ties into the existing driveway
through to the homes of these people. —
Farmakes: That is a private drive then to the adjacent piece of property?
Aanenson: Yes.
Rick Sathre: They own, yes. It is a private drive now that would be rerouted. —
Farmakes: Is that also a single entrance? Do they have access?
Aanenson: They direct access onto Highway 7.
Scott: Yeah, now. —
Aanenson: Right now. Through this we're bringing two subdivisions getting over to the
light, eventual light on Minnewashta Parkway.
Farmakes: So that then would meet our side ordinance then?
Scott: No.
Aanenson: Well what we're saying.
Scott: Yeah, it's 900 and some feet.
Farmakes: Well but they'll have two entrances.
Aanenson: No.
Scott: Ironwood is going to be vacated and then the 4 homes to the west, or to the east, their _
only access, ingress and egress will be coming through what's called Outlot B out to
Minnewashta so they're going to lose their direct access to Highway 7.
Mancino: So it's going to be along cul-de-sac.
71
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
— Scott: Yeah, I think it's 953 feet or something. I don't know what it is but it's.
Aanenson: It's 1,320.
Scott: Okay.
— Mancino: Kate, can any of those houses, those 4 houses. I walked over there. It's
wonderful, lovely area. Can any of them further subdivide so that there would be more than
4 houses over there?
Aanenson: I think all of the lots...
Mancino: That would be my concern.
_ Aanenson: The other issue right now, you'd have to amend the city ordinance because they're
still kind of off of a private drive issue...so you only have 4 homes off of that private drive so
that's kind of...
Mancino: Good.
Scott: Any other comments or questions for staff?
Farmakes: Do we use the criteria then, as I understand in reading the report, that the criteria
_ then for a variance?
Aanenson: For a cul-de-sac length?
Farmakes: Yes.
— Aanenson: There isn't, we looked at recommendation for 600 or 700 feet and there isn't
anything in the ordinance. What we do is rely on the Fire Marshal's review of that.
— Farmakes: Okay. I thought we had 600 feet or something.
Scott: We did.
Farmakes: It never did pass?
Scott: We passed it onto the City Council. I remember it well. That was like the first
meeting in January.
72
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Farmakes: It was actually an existing ordinance, wasn't it?
Conrad: It was 600. 600 was the old one.
Farmakes: But I think the old one was never passed onto Council, was it?
Conrad: No, the 600 was there.
Scott: We passed it on.
Conrad: But then I thought we changed it.
Mancino: I do too. I don't think we ever came to a conclusion. —
Farmakes: Well I still, it would not qualify, if we did not pass the ordinance, it would
qualify as a variance. —
Aanenson: I don't think there's a requirement of a minimum right now. Or maximum,
excuse me. We try to tie them up when we can...and it works well. Provide a safer entrance. —
Mancino: Than off of Highway 7.
Aanenson: Correct.
Farmakes: Well yeah. It has criteria that the normal development doesn't. It's a highway —
boxed on one side and a lake on another. If we passed that for that reason, I guess I'd like to
know that there's criteria for that. Although it might not be an official variance but there is a
public safety issue either way. —
Scott: Well I know that was our major concern at the meeting where we discussed the
variance, or discussed the ordinance shortening the maximum for cul-de-sacs. Are there —
additional comments or questions for staff at this time? Seeing none, would the applicant or
their representative care to speak, and please identify yourself.
Rick Sathre: Yes Chairman Scott, I'm Rick Sathre. I'm an engineer and planner with
Sathre-Berquist in Wayzata. I'd like to hold my comments and let the neighbors speak first _
because then maybe they can go home. And I'm going to be here anyway so if you don't
mind, I'd defer to them first and then I'll come back and I've got a few comments.
Scott: Sure, that's fine. Then what we'll do is we'll open the public hearing. Can I have a
73
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
motion to do so please?
Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was open.
Scott: At this late hour we're going to be using Bob's Rules of Order so the public hearing
is not open. Please state your name and if anyone would like to address us, please do.
Tom Wright: My name is Tom Wright. I live at 3611 Ironwood Road. I'm one of the four
homeowners. We've got two others here this evening. We've met with Rick and Ken Durr a
couple of times since this project has evolved. I think we've looked at it pretty carefully.
One of our concerns has been the access onto Highway 7. We've been pretty happy the way
we are with a private road but there's always been the concern on the access to Highway 7.
This eliminates that concern. There's a lot of very positive things about this development.
Maybe first choice for us would be to leave the land raw as it is but that's not going to
happen. Second choice, the way this lays out is, and they can speak for themselves, but us I
think we're all generally very supportive of it. We like the way it lays out. We like the
landscaping that's been done. We like the effect that it has on the overall environment so we
are supportive. We know a change of our access over to Minnewashta Parkway, we think on
balance that's a plus and so that's my comments.
Scott: Okay, thank you sir. Would anybody else like to address the Planning Commission?
Donna Hoelke: My name is Donna Hoelke. I live at 3621 Ironwood Road with my husband
Dave who had to leave. A couple of comments and then a question for the Commission.
_ First I'd like to echo the things that Tom said. That we are, inasmuch as we'd probably like
to leave the land as it is, if we are going to have a development that this by and large this
looks like a good layout for us. One of the concerns that we have, we're on the first property
here on the east side of the development. Our property goes on Lot 8, 9, 10 and 11. We're
450 feet deep there. Currently as we understand it, there's no ordinance through the City of
Chanhassen which would preclude where building a home would be in relation to our's. Our
home is about midway in our lot which would put us about here. If a home on Lot 8 is built
at the 75 foot setback, that's going to, as far as we're concerned, that has a pretty big impact
on our panoramic view of the lake. We bought the home understanding that the land would
eventually be developed but I know at least in our neighborhood, as each of the homes were
built, there was a lot of care taken in not obstructing the existing home's views. There are
other cities in the area, Minnetrista has city ordinances that says you can put a home up, you
have to build it at least equal or behind any existing homes. So I know that's something
we've expressed to Ken and I don't know where he's gone with that but that's a serious
concern of our's. We bought the home and enjoy the view and would like to maintain that.
74
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
The other concern that we had, we think about this development and the question I wanted to
pose to the commission is, what is the responsibility of the commission to insure the
environmental impacts of this on the lake. I heard a lot of discussions tonight about whether
there's going to be 3 trees or 5 trees in a parking lot and what the window coverings are
going to look like and I've looked at the lake and the quality of life that it provides to my
family and the community and how do you insure that there's not a big impact to the
ecosystem and the whole quality of the lake.
Scott: Well I think, and I'll take a stab at this and I know one of our engineering staff is
here. Is that there's a couple of things and I believe it has to do with our surface water
management policy which is something that is pretty far ahead of what a lot of other cities
do. Not all but most. One of the items is a setback from the lake. Obviously because of an
impervious surface such as a driveway or something, we want to make sure that there's ample
vegetation inbetween the property and the lake so that we don't have a runoff problem or an
erosion problem. The second thing is that you'll notice that there are several retention ponds
on the property which are basically designed to convey runoff from these impervious surfaces
and as Director Aanenson was mentioning, conveying that runoff into the street through storm
sewers to those ponds and then the purpose of those ponds is basically to settle out any
particular matter, phosphate reduction and so forth. Also, in a lot of cases we try to preserve
as much vegetation as we can because obviously that has a positive impact. And I'm sure I
have left out some other issues and items if you'd care to amplify on the ones that I've
touched on. —
Hempel: ...covered quite a bit of it. I'll just add a little bit more on the water quality aspect
of it with these settlement ponds which are proposed. We're looking at altering now maybe
further as part of our surface water management plan...designed for water quality around the
state. That we are nearing approval here in March...
Harberts: Didn't Chanhassen Dave, kind of were the role models or really led the cause with
regard to that what the State is looking at? Wasn't Paul?
Hempel: Yeah, the City of Eagan has now already entered into it but we're.
Harberts: But we were really out ahead of the curve on this one.
Hempel: Right. That's correct.
Harberts: So we've talked about this a lot so and I know Paul was involved quite
extensively. But it certainly is an issue that we're all very sensitive to so you certainly raise a _
good point.
75
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
— Scott: Kate is there, I mean I don't have my code book in front of me but is there anything
on our books that has to do with having similar or equal setbacks of adjoining residential
properties?
Aanenson: No, we don't.
— Donna Hoelke: Do you know if there's been any precedence set in Chanhassen? I know
there have been in surrounding communities.
Aanenson: No.
Mancino: So what are the setbacks that this development has to abide by?
Scott: Well there's 75 feet.
Aanenson: What you have to realize, is what we were just talking about with some of these
lots along this southern side. They've got that steep slope and we're already trying to get
them up higher. Push them closer to the street so we have that positive grade to get them
into the storm sewer system. That's a tough lot as far as development in itself.
Donna Hoelke: To that extent I mean, these homes down here would have no impact. It
would not be obstructing our view. It's really Lot 8 and probably to a lesser extent Lot 7.
And should this really be two lots or should it be one lot. What can be done for placement
_ of the home...
Scott: I guess for the benefit of the Planning Commissioners, could you kind of point to
— where your home is. It looks like that white spot on the right hand side is pretty much your
lot?
— Donna Hoelice: Yeah. Well, I think Lot 8's about 200 feet deep and our property goes about
450 feet deep. We're about halfway inbetween so probably just the beginning of Lot 9 there.
— Mancino: But you're way over on your western lot line.
Donna Hoelke: Pardon me?
Mancino: Your house is way over.
Scott: How far over?
76
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Donna Hoelke: We had to obtain a variance to put the addition on the house.
Scott: Relative to that blank spot here, how far over is your home from?
Donna Hoelke: We're like 5 feet from the lot line.
Scott: Oh! 5 feet from this lot line or that lot line? Oh, I'm sorry. Okay, thank you.
Farmakes: To the south of your property, does it run to the lake?
Donna Hoelke: Yes. It will go from almost from the Outlot B all the way to the lake. It's
450 feet deep so.
Scott: So you're just right in the back yard.
Farmakes: Which way does your house face? Does it face east and west? _
Donna Hoelke: It faces south.
Farmakes: Or it faces south. So you have a view of the lake.
Donna Hoelke: I have a panoramic view right now. —
Farmakes: By panoramic do you mean 180 degrees?
Donna Hoelke: Right. I can't see any other homes from my house right now. And
depending upon, I understand in talking to Rick and Ken that these aren't necessarily what
the houses are going to look like. They're quite wooded and...foster some discussion here on —
whether or not the city should look at an ordinance.
Farmakes: There's a fair amount of trees between the Lot 8 and 9? —
Donna Hoelke: It looks like that...
Farmakes: Is your home behind that grove of trees or in front of them?
Donna Hoelke: It's, the grove of trees is right here. It's probably about on the lot line.
We're right here.
Rick Sathre: There's a tree line along the common boundary too.
77 —
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
:Farmakes: The trees but not the lot...
Donna Hoelke: They look like they're spruce but..
Scott: Any other questions or comments? Okay, do you have anything else that you'd like to
mention?
Donna Hoelke: Ah no. Just that that's a concern and as I said, there are other communities
that...or certain angles...
Scott: Okay, thank you very much for your comment. Yes ma'am.
Ann Zweig: My name is Ann Zweig. My address is 3601 Ironwood Road and I'm the fourth
house in this neighborhood. As Donna pointed out, her house is here. There are four houses
that are all along and I want to echo what Donna said. We're all set back quite a distance.
She's 200, her house is 200 feet back from the lake and my house is about 300 feet back
— from the lake so this house here changes the alignment dramatically from the pre-existing
homes in the area. It doesn't really affect my view but so you get an understanding that this
is a high ridge, this right here, that will be changed. It will be graded and I'm sure that
ridge...is probably going to change that grading. My main concern tonight is, I'd like some
clarification on what Outlot A will be, and I know that's not the discussion today but I want
to verify that that is just beachlot use and it's not overnight boat.
Harberts: Oh she's been around.
Scott: I was going to say, since we've been stepping outside our boundaries left and right
this evening, Councilman Wing.
Ann Zweig: I understand it's one dock with 3 boats on it.
Scott: Well you probably also know that there is a beachlot next to Outlot A and we're very
familiar with Schmid's Acres. As a matter of fact, there's a resident here who represents that
organization. Okay, help me out Kate. You can't build a building on an outlot?
Aanenson: Well no. They can come in for a conditional use.
Scott: Okay, conditional use but.
Aanenson: It's a separate process.
78
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Harberts: But there's no guarantees.
Scott: No, there's no guarantee and a beachlot is a conditional use anyway. So, if you could
perhaps, what's the worst case scenario? —
Aanenson: The maximum they could put on there, I mean if they want to put a gazebo, an
outhouse, they could do that under a conditional use. The maximum based on the square
footage would be one dock with moorings for 3 boats overnight. Swimming beach, picnic
tables.
Scott: Okay, which is as I recall, now on the Schmid's Acres.
Aanenson: A dock with no overnight mooring. —
Scott: Okay and that's because it's 50 foot wide versus Outlot A is?
Aanenson: Well what it was was based on historical use.
Scott: Historical use? Okay. —
Ann Zweig: Is overnight mooring for one night? Or who regulates that?
Conrad: It's forever.
Ann Zweig: Oh it's forever.
Aanenson: For the season.
Ann Zweig: Okay. My other question is...information that I've gotten from your office said
that a DNR study be done on that shoreline. And I wonder how that could be done if the
shoreline has already been destroyed. I guess my question is, do you as City Council, that —
there was some weeds, some cattails there that have been poisoned and I'd like to know what
the city policy is on that. If it's already been hit, or who authorized that pulling of those
weeds and what the repercussions could be if it wasn't authorized?
Aanenson: We were made aware of it. We called DNR. Below the ordinary high mark is _
their jurisdiction. They went out. Yes it was. They couldn't validate who did it. It's up to
the DNR to prosecute. All we did was turn it over to the appropriate jurisdiction. It's our
understanding they need a permit to do that sort of thing but it's up to them to try to build a
case on that. We tried to find out what we could and we were unable to obtain information
79
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
on that.
— Ann Zweig: And my other concern is, on the same line is, that there were some, when that
lot was cleared, I don't think any permission was gathered. We also called on that when we
— came home one day and saw that the lot was already cleared. What are the city guidelines on
that?
— Aanenson: We were also made aware of that...2 years ago.
Ann Zweig: No, that was just this last fall.
Aanenson: Not this fall, the fall before.
— Farmakes: Are you confusing it with the lot adjacent to it where they went ahead and they
plowed their own access?
— Aanenson: No, that's Schmid's Acres.
Farmakes: That's what I'm saying.
Hempel: This lot here they cleared a lot of the underbrush.
Scott: Outlot A?
Hempel: No, all three of these parcels.
Ann Zweig: All three of the...When we called the city there were guidelines given that there
were only supposed to be certain sized trees that are cut and bigger ones were cut.
Scott: Excuse me, I'm still unclear on which lots we're talking about here.
Ann Zweig: The whole lot.
— Scott: The whole plat?
Ann Zweig: Yes.
Farmakes: So all the beachlot.
80
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Ann Zweig: No, the beachlot really hasn't been cleared.
Aanenson: We're talking about this whole plat. The three underlying parcels. The whole
plat.
Ann Zweig: What was primarily clear cut was all this in here. I'm sure some of it was cut
down here but they didn't take big trees down here. They took bigger trees up there.
Farmakes: Part of the Shoreline ordinance though, there's a setback line that shows that.
Mancino: But that is a good question. I mean I've seen those trees. They're parallel to
Highway 7.
Ann Zweig: Yeah, they're all cut down and...
Mancino: It's like they're being ready to be burned or whatever or for somebody to pick up. _
What do we have about clear cutting? We have an ordinance that says no clear cutting don't
we?
Ann Zweig: And it limits the size of the tree. And my question is, I mean it's too late for
this development because they've already gone ahead and done it but what's the city going to
do for other developments? To stop developers from coming in prior to proposing... —
Farmakes: We can. As I understand it, it's an ordinance. If they did that, it's a violation of
that ordinance. —
Ann Zweig: That's my question then.
Mancino: Can they get fined?
Farmakes: I'm not aware that anybody violated the ordinance. —
Ann Zweig: City officials turned it in because when we called there they said that city
officials had gone by and stopped it. Put a stop work order on it. —
Harberts: That may be more of an administrative question that would have to be answered _
between 8:00 and 5:00 in case it needs an interpretation from the Attorney or from the City
Manager. But as I understand, there is an ordinance. If it applies to this case, I don't know
if we're prepared to be able to respond to you but I think it's a question that perhaps staff _
might be able to investigate and look to the administrative process. Or you might want to
81
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
talk to Todd Gerhardt, the Assistant City Manager. We can't answer that. It's a real good
question but I don't think any of us are prepared to respond.
Farmakes: There are ordinances regarding that.
Harberts: Interesting though, yeah.
Conrad: But that's when you turn it into a subdivision. If it is just one lot before, you can
take down, if you want to take your trees down on your lot Jeff, you can.
Ann Zweig: But if they're on the lake, you can't.
Conrad: Not that I know of.
Farmakes: You can't within 75 feet of the shoreline you cannot, not without a permit from
DNR.
— Conrad: Yeah but the clear cutting or the taking down was not there.
Farmakes: Are you talking about farther up on the hill?
Conrad: Yeah.
Mancino: But you can't clear cut?
Conrad: Sure you can.
Harberts: It's your own land.
—
Mancino: I don't think you can.
Farmakes: There's an ordinance in.
Ann Zweig: It's done on this one. I just want you to be aware of that.
Scott: I think we're getting a code book citation here.
_ Harberts: Is this appropriate right now?
Scott: If it's quick. If it's quick.
82
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Ann Zweig: The other thing I want to add is that I am very happy to have access through
Outlot B to go this way. I think it's very dangerous for us to continue the Ironwood access
onto Highway 7. So that part of the development I like.
Scott: Good. Well thank you for your comments.
Mancino: And we'll follow up.
Scott: Okay. Does anybody else wish to.
Richard Wing: This is a late hour.
Scott: Can you identify yourself please?
Richard Wing: Richard Wing...Minnewashta Heights. Can I make a totally irrelevant, non
rationale statement at this late hour?
Scott: Please do. I encourage that.
Richard Wing: This is really refreshing to be standing here with this development on my
west side compared to the development going in to the east side that we dealt with Monday
night. The neighbors and Spinnaker and trying to maximize it. This is the first time in my 4
years on the City Council that there isn't a single lot close to 15,000 square feet and it's
really a delight to see some land being left open and the quality of the development coming
in and space and density that we can live with. It's going to be developed and I think
that...on everybody's behalf and putting a quality development in. They could have come in
with this 15,000 square foot and then we'd have to listen to staff and the PUD arguments you
know down to 11,000. They could have gotten 50 lots in there if they tried so this, I
think...I'm real happy with that access for Ironwood. That's really I think a plus for our
future also. But welcome. I think also on the issue of trees, I just wanted to comment. It
was clear cut. I think it was maybe done illegally but I was really sensitive about that and
what I did notice was what went was mostly scrub and some of the bigger trees were real
scrubby. I've been over there stealing trees prior to you owning it when the other folks had it
and I couldn't find a tree to steal off of it anymore. ...the issue of trees on other properties, I
think when you talk about very worth while trees, I think we've had some stands of trees in
this city that were significant but on that property, in walking it yesterday, for myself
personally and I was a homeowner, I couldn't find a handful of trees that I would save and
you know how...I am on trees. There's just a few pines and there's limited this and limited
that and a couple maples but for the most part, pretty limited wooded on that plan so it's not
an area that I would be desparate on. I'd like to see maybe him come in with some
83
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
landscaping and perhaps add a few trees of a good variety for those that he takes out
because...but what we take out...I'm concerned about is maybe we strong arm him a little bit
to get a few more of the other... Thank you.
Scott: Thank you sir. Would anybody else like to speak at the public hearing?
Gary Carlson: Just quickly. Gary Carlson. I live at 3891 West 62nd and I use the access
that's on the south edge of Ken's property. And the way they've handled that pond down
there on Lot A is very good because that is the lowest lot on that whole piece of property and
the sewer drains to a big union on that property which proves it's the lowest lot on this whole
piece of property is Lot A. So ponding there is a good idea and it's very well laid out and I
hope to see it come to a rapid fruition. This whole development looks really good from our
point of view. Thank you.
Scott: Okay, thank you sir. Would anybody else like to address the Planning Commission?
Okay, could I have a motion to close the public hearing please?
Mancino moved, Harberts seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
— Scott: What we'd like to do is continue the applicant's presentation. There you go Mr.
Satire.
Rick Sathre: Thank you and thank you very much for pronouncing my name correctly.
Scott: Oh I wrote the phonetic spelling down on the plans so it has nothing to do with my
memory.
Rick Sathre: Well I appreciate it. I've heard it a lot of different ways and as most of you on
the commission probably have been mispronounced. Well, I guess I've got a couple more
graphics to show you. One of them shows, I tried to very early represent Donna's house, and
I don't know if it's really right but it will give you a little idea of where the Hoelke's live.
This is a copy of an early sketch that we had done for the property and I guess the significant
things that are different about it that you'll notice is at this time when we did the sketch we
didn't have the outlot through so the Ironwood access hadn't switched yet. This is what we
met the neighbors with when we first started talking. At that time this was the layout so
what changed this then was they punched the outlot through here and we've reconfigured
some of the lot lines, including the one that would be between Lot 8 and 9. So anyway, this
is approximately where Hoelke's live. Their house is tight up against this west line. As we
were discussing earlier, there's a line of spruce trees that come east/west here and there's a
84
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
pretty significant, a nice tree line between this property on Hoelke's that comes right down
this line. An old fence line or, it's a nice demarkation line between the two properties. And
I guess the issue is, the houses in this corner are going to impact some on the view. I guess
we can't do much about it unless we stayed way back from the lake. This is how we've
actually modified the plan. This lot line being more east and west and following a line of
spruce trees that's significant and we want to save. The placement of the home is just a
representation. We don't know if the house is going to sit there or farther north or farther
west or farther east but one thing we do know is we're not going to violate the setback to the
lakeshore. But somewhere in this nice buildable area we would propose to put a home. That
lot is so close to Hoelke's, it's 31,000 square feet I think. So it's, that by ordinance that lot
should be 20,000 square feet. We've oversized it by about 50%. Which still doesn't speak to
their issue, which is their view. The staff had raised the issued about the eastern cul-de-sac
and the access to the Ironwood neighbors let's call them. This driveway coming out and
whether this island should be there. We'd like to put the islands in the cul-de-sacs because
we want to plant. Ken's very serious about establishing a real upscale neighborhood. A
really nice neighborhood and we want to add as much greenery and plantings as is practical,
which means we'd be planting evergreens on the berm, bringing them in where they're
needed and in the middle of the cul-de-sacs there would be plantings placed. Trees placed in
those islands. So we're, Dave Hempel has an issue, a valid issue. When these people come
and go, the neighbors come and go through the driveway, are they going to go this way
around the island or are they going to cut across this way. I don't know but if the island
isn't there, they could chose the path of their choosing also. So whether we put the island
there or not, I guess they'll.
Harberts: Doesn't that argument also hold true though for someone that lives here. Are they
going to go out like this or are they going to go around?
Rick Sathre: Exactly. Whether the island's there or not, you know they're either going to go
the right way or they're going to cheat on it. But the thing. that we do know about the island
is, when we plant a 6, 8, 10 foot high evergreen tree or a nice deciduous tree in that island,
it's going to start to break the view. When you drive in the street you don't see this whole
house in the background and the people, this homeowner doesn't see this house fully. That
island in the street breaks that view and it just softens the neighborhood. That's why we're
doing those things.
Harberts: Have you thought then as to talking with staff as to the salt resistent type trees that
really are limited to go in there? I mean you're talking a lot of salt potential.
Rick Sathre: We would tend to plant towards the middle of that. The island would be 20
feet across, the way we've designed it. The trees that, they're planted towards the middle.
85
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
They're going to get some of that salt spray.
Harberts: Who'd take responsibility for pruning or if they die or something?
Rick Sathre: Well the homeowners association would own the beachlot and was responsible
for that maintenance plus the islands. And the entrance monumentation and all the little nice
features that will go into the project.
Scott: Mr. Sathre, just a question. What do those green cross hatches mean, if anything?
Rick Sathre: All I was trying to do is represent the greenery that would be yard. As opposed
to driveways that are coming out here, here, here and here and here. Kind of a poor attempt
at.
Richard Wing: ...I can't believe that even the standard Ford engines from the Fire
Department could make that curb cut and there's a couple houses back in there we'd clearly
like to have access to the aerial. And I'd like to protect the islands. My choice is to have
the islands but we've got to have a sizeable curb cut there to get those, any type of fire
equipment in there. I think that's got to be.
Rick Sathre: Raised.
Richard Wing: Yeah. I think that we want to access it with the aerial without a doubt and
the aerial would be real limiting. It would mandate the removal of the island or it's a real
sizeable curb cut.
Hempel: That's correct. That's one of the things that was pointed out. For emergency
vehicles is another reason. Another reason, I can't tell you the number of complaints we've
received this winter with a normal snowfall about cul-de-sac plowing. There's no place to
put it when you have all these driveways. With this situation here, Outlot B's going to have
a 20 foot wide driveway coming out and the remaining lots there are potentially all...it really
limits the green space and snow storage and so forth in this cul-de-sac. The idea with the
island actually will reduce a little bit of the snow but on the other hand when you put a tree
in there and an evergreen's 20 foot across, in 20 years that evergreen will be 25 foot. It will
actually be curb to curb. It will look beautiful but with all the salt and so forth... Another
issue I'd like to bring up about the islands is that it's, I think we should get some direction or
some, maybe some liability agreement that has to be waived on behalf of the homeowners
association as the islands will create additional liability for the city. If somebody gets hurt,
accidents and so forth. So they're really not for traffic safety purposes. They're purely for
aesthetics, landscaping, and so forth so it's something to think about.
86
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Harberts: Well I thought the discussion we had, it was my understanding that center islands
would be allowed if it was saving significant trees or something so that's what I recall. I
thought that was in the same night we discussed 600 feet for the cul-de-sac. Lost that one.
Rick Sathre: I think you're absolutely right to try to...significant trees and we're hoping to -
create something...
Harberts: Well yeah, from a public safety perspective, I don't think the middle of the road is
the place to do it. So you know where I'm going on this one.
Rick Sathre: I do and I knew where Dave was going with it too and you know, the public
works guys want to do their job and get it done and I don't blame them a bit. What we're
trying to do is maybe at cross purposes with that. We're trying to create a better living
environment. Our goals are lofty but you know, maybe it's a pain in the butt. You know
you've been modifying the main street of town, from the way it originally got planted but the
idea of the median in town is nice too. It has to work with the traffic flow and it didn't work
so good initially but then you learn and you're doing it better and we want to find that right
level of what makes sense too. But this neighborhood will have relatively little traffic
compared to say the downtown median. We want it viewed by the neighborhood as much as
we can.
Scott: Okay. Any questions, additional questions or comments for the applicant?
Farmakes: I have a quick question. Nothing to do with the road on this issue, I'm just
curious. What is the price range of these houses? What you're looking at for the marketing.
Rick Sathre: It's nothing we can tell you with certainty. Expensive.
Scott: He said $80,000.00 to $100,000.00 a lot.
Ken Dun: I missed the question, I'm sorry.
Rick Sathre: How much would the range of the home prices? What do you think the least
expensive home could be?
Ken Durr: Oh my, I don't know the least expensive. I know the Street of Dreams people
want to do the event there in the summer, or early summer of '95. If that occurs, those
homes would be at least $700,000.00.
Scott: Good, any other? Any other questions or comments of the applicant?
87 -
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Rick Sathre: I guess Mr. Chairman and members of the commission. As I read through the
recommendations I had a few comments and I hoped that you modify, Kate suggested a
couple modifications and I would hope that you would allow us in number 17 to retain our
median at that intersection even though we recognize the need to redesign it. And Dave is
very opposed to it and so I guess we're in cross purposes with it. We'd like to leave the
median at the intersection of Landings Court and Landings Drive. We won't argue this with
you but we have a problem with, or question I guess for the City Council on number 20
about whether or not there should be, the subdivision should pay the additional assessments
for Minnewashta Parkway. In number 21 of the recommendations, staff has asked for
additional right-of-way for Minnewashta Parkway and I feel I must show you that issue.
We'll take it up with the Council as well that we, the preliminary plat shows a small
additional right-of-way dedication for Minnewashta Parkway. When the road was relocated
and widened, the plans, the construction plans showed this. I don't know how to orient this
for you exactly but maybe like that. This is Highway 7. This is Church Road across the
highway. This is new Minnewashta Parkway. The yellow and the red lines are the existing
right-of-way. This is Ken Durr's property here. Okay, in order to get the intersection to be
across from each other, instead of the way it used to be, and make it a little safer, the city
approached Ken and said, we want to run the road right up tight against this property line so
that we can come in at right angles better. And he said okay, fine. The intent was to have
the curb right up against the property line. Well, mistakes happen. On the ground, actually
what happened was the road ended up on his property a little bit and so our preliminary plat
shows the dedication of a triangle of land that would get the road back into the right-of-way,
or back on the city's property. And Ken's happy to do that but the staff has asked for an
additional piece of land, the strip of land so that the city would own 33 feet from the center
of the road. Clearly not the intent when the road was built or upgraded and we would like
the commission to recommend approval of the plat as we have drafted it which would give
you enough land to get the road back in the right-of-way but not give you the extra land.
Ledvina: What was the error in the construction? How many feet?
Rick Sathre: Oh I'd say the curb probably ended up about 5 or 6 feet from where it was
meant to be. Not the end of the world but...So we would like you to strike number 21 or
substitute that staff, that the Planning Commission recommends the plat be approved as is for
Minnewashta Parkway. I guess a point of clarification on 23 Kate mentions a cross easement
agreement should be done between the Ironwood neighbors and Ken. What he actually
intends is to exchange the track D from, that they own now. The Ironwood access to TH 7
would be deeded to him and he would deed that Outlot B. So they would, either Wright's or
_ the neighbors as a whole would actually own Outlot B rather than just an easement over it.
They would have fee title to it. I guess the last thing I'd say and I'm sorry I've been so
wordy but in the park and trail fees. We would request that the city only charge us for the
88
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
24 additional building sites that are being created. And there were 3 homes there to begin
with. There's some question over whether we would end up having to pay park and trail fees
for all 27 lots or whether it should only be the 24 additional lots that are being created that
we're asking for.
Scott: Were, I guess were those, do you know if those homes are, are those the homes that
are not there anymore?
Rick Sathre: Two are down and one is...
Scott: Were we collecting park and rec fees when those homes were built?
Aanenson: No we're not. The replat, that's something that they understand they need to
argue with the Council...
Rick Sathre: It's not an issue for you really.
Scott: Okay. I read the staff report and I thought hey, okay. Good.
Rick Sathre: But I appreciate your time. Thank you.
Scott: Anything else? Good. Would anybody else like to speak as part of the public hearing
on this issue? Mr. Durr? Actually this is the applicant's.
Ken Durr: I'm Ken Durr. I'd just like to, on the median and the cul-de-sacs. I feel for the
type of neighborhood that we wish to develop that they add really greatly to the effect of
being able to get additional green, additional plantings. We plan on doing a lot of plantings.
Bringing in a lot of evergreens and other good trees in. Neighborhoods that we have worked
in, in Edina we have developed that. I know the city there at first was not too keen on the
islands in the cul-de-sacs but we have the homeowners association take responsibility of the
care of those and has been absolutely no problem at all. They're maintained beautifully by
the residents, the homeowners association. I would expect that would be the case here. But
they do add a great deal of aesthetic appeal and I feel value to the property. Instead of
looking out on a big mass of 80 feet of blacktop, having it broken with some green in the
middle is entirely a different effect from all of those homes on the cul-de-sac. And
particularly the cul-de-sac where the Ironwood residents will be entering. We're now going
to have an additional roadway coming into that and it will help to break up that. We want to
accommodate them but on the other hand, if we don't have some plantings in there to break
that island up, break up the site of all these driveways, is going to further devalue the
properties around that cul-de-sac. So I would strongly urge you to consider the aesthetics of
89
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
the area. Thanks.
Scott: Good. Would anybody else like to speak at the public hearing?
Resident: I just have a question. How big are those medians?
Ken Dun: 20 feet.
Scott: Okay. Can I have a motion to close the public hearing?
Mancino moved, Harberts seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Hempel: Did you want any response back to.
Mancino: Like recommendation number 17.
Scott: How about as part of our comments you can ask him if he has any.
Mancino: Dave, do you have any comments on the medians and you know, I'm very much
in favor of them. I see them in Edina. I have acquaintances that live there and they're
wonderful in the cul-de-sacs and work well. So I'm a big believer in them and they do kind
of cut up the asphalt. The whole asphalt of the cul-de-sac.
Hempel: I will agree with you there. They do look nice. We've seen more and more...but
we're adapting to them. But they're not right in every situation. This one, the very easterly
one with emergency vehicles getting into the private driveway. If we can facilitate them with
the turning radius, it probably will work then. The median on Landings Court, here is
actually Landings Drive. That, the way it's shown on the construction plans or the plat, it's
really conducive to a free right turn. No stop, no yield or anything. It's just, you're out
there. We would like to have a little more sense of order, even though it is a very low
volume street. We understand that but it's really, the way it's laid out you're going to
promote additional...
Mancino: And can you work with the applicant to change that?
Hempel: I believe we could but I've earlier stressed to the applicant that I didn't feel it was
_ appropriate for this type of intersection to have a median. It is appropriate off of major
collector type streets. We have them off of Kerber. We have them off Powers. Coming onto
proposed TH 41, Lundgren's will have them proposed. Those situations are appropriate to
90
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
have entrance monumentation type sign for it but not at every intersection. It's over doing it
a bit and from a liability standpoint and traffic standpoint, I think we don't need it. As far as _
the Minnewashta Parkway assessments. That methodology for those assessments was refined
for the area. Each parcel then took access off of Minnewashta Parkway because that's
essentially the only north/south street in the area for the adjacent property to utilize and they
all benefit from them. This parcel does too benefit from the upgrading of Minnewashta
Parkway. That's how we're assessing our condition here that they should be assessed their
fair share as well.
Scott: Excuse me Dave, the people who are on Ironwood now, are they going to get assessed
for Minnewashta Parkway upgrade since they're...
Hempel: That's a good question. Being that they had previous access out to Highway 7 and
as a result of this development they're altering their access. I guess I...recommend that they
be assessed for it.
Scott: I'm sorry.
Hempel: I did not recommend it.
Scott: Did not recommend it, okay. I suppose that's an issue that I'm sure the residents
would appreciate an answer on. I'm sorry, go ahead.
Hempel: As far as condition number 21 with regards to the right-of-way. Whenever a
subdivision comes in, the city typically has an opportunity to obtain the necessary right-of-
way for the subdivision that we feel is necessary for the development. It is unfortunate
apparently Minnewashta Parkway was graded and the appropriate easements weren't pursued
at that time to acquire it. One thought maybe was the land, that they did just enough
construction, a temporary easement. Build the roadway knowing well that the plat would be
coming forth at some day and they could dedicate right-of-way at that time. Other
subdivisions up and down Minnewashta Parkway all have dedicated their fair share of 33 foot
right-of-way so this would not be an uncommon or an undue burden I guess asking this
additional dedication. With regards to item, condition 23. I think it's staff intent to...ingress
and egress rights for those private property owners along Ironwood. So if there's a different
way that Mr. Durr will be trading outlots with the residents...fulfills our needs to get the
access for the residents.
Scott: Let me ask you a question then. If Outlot B is going to be deeded to the residents,
the Ironwood residents, are they going to be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of
that street?
91
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Hempel: That's true. That's correct. It will be a private street and have to be maintained,
similiar to what Ironwood is now.
Scott: Oh okay. So it'd be a similar situation. Okay.
Aanenson: Actually Dick Wing asked that question before he left. If we were to improve
that road and made it a public project, then they'd be assessed. So what we're doing just
leaving it the way they are but what we're trying to do is provide a safer access.
Scott: So financially it's a zero sum game?
Aanenson: Yes.
Scott: Okay.
Hempel: There is one valid point though. One of the neighbors mentioned about future
subdividing. A private drive ordinance only allows 4 homes on a private driveway. So
— unless there's another private driveway out to the east, or no parcels subdivide, they're
essentially, they can't do anything further without a public street and the outlot that they're
dedicating here is not wide enough to extend the public street on. A public street right-of-
- way is 60 feet wide.
Scott: And based upon the comments I think we're hearing from those residents, they would
prefer not to have that subdivided anyway so perhaps that's good.
Mancino: Kate, what about a trail system? Do we have a trail system up Minnewashta on
that east side?
Aanenson: The only trail system that Todd had mentioned was the possibility along Highway
7. I believe on the Parkway, I guess that's on the fire station side. On the other side of
Minnewashta Parkway.
Mancino: I think I said this earlier that I felt that the landscaping was rather incomplete what
we have in front of us. Meaning that a survey has been done. I differ a little bit from Dick
in that there are a lot of spruces on the property when I walked it that are dead and that
won't be around for much longer. But on the south side of the property, which faces the,
which abuts the lake and which is down on the same level as the lake, there are some
wonderful, significant trees down there and I would like to see some sort of a conservation
easement Kate for that area so that those trees are kept. They will help erosion. They'll help
you know so sedimentation won't move down into the lake, etc, etc. So I'd like to see some
92
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
specifics on what trees will be remaining and if we can do a conservation easement so they
can't be taken down.
Aanenson: They do have a plan. What we didn't do is articulate that. I think you're right,
we missed that on the condition but the lots that probably have the most significant, as we
mentioned, are up on this ridge line up in here which covers Lots 5 and 6. If you turn that
sheet of your plan, it shows... Otherwise I think there's...significant trees. But their largest
trees, as I pointed out in the report, there's some very large cottonwoods down here and you
have some maples up in here.
Mancino: Some big oaks.
Aanenson: Yeah, right. Significant. But basically, all these down here along the lakeshore
are being left. Again, there's some cedars that are being, some of these may be...but I think
we could put something in there about the conservation easement.
Mancino: And any sort of custom grading that would need to happen to keep those trees or
retaining walls or whatever it takes.
Aanenson: We do know some areas that possibly, as noted in the staff report, that possibly
some tree wells along in this area where those maples are adjacent to Minnewashta Parkway.
That's something that Dave and I had talked to Rick about and some of the other areas where
adjacent to the lake there may be some additional tree wells that need to be placed to save
some trees. But we're not sure how this is going to be graded. I'm still trying to resolve that
issue. Whether it be graded all at once or...individual parcels.
Hempel: Condition number 2 kind of covers that. We'll work with Mr. Satire on that.
Which lots will actually be custom graded because there are some trees that the applicant —
wishes to save. There's some large walnut trees out there and a couple lots will be custom
graded but most of the lots more than likely will be mass graded. Probably overall
subdivision grading.
Aanenson: So I think what we need to do if that's a big concern, is to say we need...snow
fence be placed...
Mancino: And be very specific on where the conservation easement is.
Aanenson: Then the other thing that he did identify in the staff report is that we do need
specifics about what this landscaping's going to be and our ordinance does require
landscaping. There is some trees that will be saved but we do require streetscape along
93
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
collector streets so that hasn't been.
Mancino: Well and on collectors, not only is it streetscaping but it's berming also that needs
to be done and I would like to see some sort of boulevard plantings on these inside. Instead
of doing you know, I think that these are going to be substantial quality houses. They're
going to have their own good landscaping plans but I think that we could use some of the
you know the 1 tree, 2 trees per lot and use some of those as boulevard plantings in this
particular subdivision that I think will help. But it will probably have extensive landscaping.
I just can't tell that yet.
Aanenson: Condition 26 is the one that adds the landscaping plans. You could say as well
as a streetscape you want to see berming along that.
Scott: Any other comments from the commissioners?
Harberts: Also, I'm going to support staff's recommendations with regard to the medians. I
think from a public safety perspective that's got to be one of your priorities. I've seen them.
I think the medians look nice. They probably will add to value but I think there has to be a
stronger value given to public safety as priority.
Scott: Okay. Any other comments?
Conrad: Ah yes. Dave, in terms of a second access. You feel we don't need to keep a
second access on a 1,700 foot cul-de-sac?
Hempel: It goes against what I usually put into these subdivision reviews but this really is a
boxed in subdivision from Highway 7 to the north, the lake to the south and existing residents
to the east. We have similar streets to the north in Gary Carlson's Minnewashta Highlands.
And then the other streets on the west side. Linden Circle, which is probably the same length
and those are the same scenario where they're boxed in by Highway 7 on one side and
similar constraints on the other and...viable secondary access.
Conrad: So we are vacating. I'm not necessarily for the secondary access but there is a
vacated street. Aren't we vacating the street?
Hempel: No we're not.
Conrad: What are we doing?
94
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Hempel: It's a private driveway access for the residents of Ironwood and MnDot has also
expressed some concerns of removing that along Highway 7.
Conrad: For emergency vehicles you wouldn't want that as an access? That's really my —
main point. For emergency vehicles with break away, whatever, you don't want that to be
available?
Scott: Say again.
Conrad: We have a private drive. —
Scott: Yes.
Conrad: And it is available for emergency vehicles. This is a 1,700 foot cul-de-sac. I'm
playing on a side of this thing that I normally don't play because I like long cul-de-sacs. But
I get real confused by whether we're concerned with emergency, second emergency access to
a site. We have one here. We could get an emergency vehicle through the private drive if
we keep it, if we some easements through there. With a break away or whatever. Now
again, I am not an expert. I just challenge staff on this stuff and if they way we don't need —
it, that's fine with me. But it is there right now.
Scott: I always think of the wintertime when it's not going to be plowed. —
Conrad: Maybe you've got it for 7 months.
Scott: Okay, which is fair enough. Fair enough.
Conrad: But again, I raise that point Dave. I don't care. You folks are the experts and I'm —
not.
Hempel: I think I'd like to defer that one to public safety maybe for review and see what —
their reply would be for that.
Conrad: We get real confused. —
Scott: Any other comments?
Conrad: Yeah. Lot 8.
Rick Sathre: Do you want me to add to that?
95
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Conrad: No. It's late. I've got to get out of here. Lot 8. I keep looking at that from the
standpoint of the neighbors. I don't know how to solve that problem. I think there should be
a lot there. I think there should be a house there. I think it's a fair development. I think the
lot sizes are big. I don't know that we can really solve vistas by moving it back 10 feet, 20
feet. It is, based on the situation and how close the neighbor is to the lot line, I don't really
see a solution other than vegetation or whatever. So the only solution I can come up with
there is, the vistas aren't going to be there. They flat aren't going to be there. I don't see
any way that, I know we've never changed anything. We don't have an ordinance to protect
the neighbors. The neighbors went there for the vista but unfortunately this is what happens.
What we can do however is make sure there is some screening to help a little bit but I really
don't see any stipulations on the developer that this can help anybody. Really. If a vista it
goes by one, I just don't think we can make any impact here so that was my comment on that
particular one. My comment on the center islands. You know I love center islands as long
as I know somebody's going to maintain them and if that's worked into the agreement for the
association, that's fine. But I really question the one on the, for the folks going on that cul-
- de-sac going towards Ironwood. I just don't know how that's going to work for emergency
vehicles going through there. It doesn't look like it works. It sure works in the other cul-de-
sac. I sure would support the center island there. The median at least in the first, is that a
median going up to the first cul-de-sac? Boy, I sure don't want one there. And then out onto
Minnewashta, although somebody could persuade me on there.
Aanenson: That one does save a tree.
Scott: There'll get an entrance monument.
Conrad: You know if it's, I could be moved one way or another on that one. I think Dave's
got a good point. They're valid issues that he raises. They really are. However, it's part of
this, if the community's taking care of it, I guess we still have a safety problem. I don't
know. That's it.
Scott: Good. Yes sir.
Ledvina: One of the conditions of this development relates to the variances from the flag lot
setbacks and I see essentially just a couple of lines on that in terms of the staff report. I
guess as I read that, as it relates to the trees, tree preservation, various setback from the storm
water ponds, and take a look at the lots that are involved and also the features that we're
talking about and I guess I'm not convinced that those represent valid reasons for granting
that setback. Bob had a good format when we reviewed the variance for the sign ordinance.
He went through the 6 requirements that a variance must meet and I think we should do that
on all variances that we see so I would like to see a little more rigorous analysis of a variance
96
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
as it relates to the criteria and the specific site conditions.
Scott: Are you in support of the staff's recommendation?
Ledvina: Overall. Yeah overall. It's going to be a very nice development. I guess just
echoing a little bit the concern for long cul-de-sacs. We had a lot of discussion on that and I
thought we passed an ordinance on this but maybe not, still the concerns still are there as it
relates to safety. And I think you raise a good point with that. That other private drive.
Scott: Okay, good. Ron. You're on the spot.
Nutting: I'm still new at this. I don't have a lot of comments.
Scott: That could be a good answer.
Nutting: I guess on the one point that I'm hearing them say is in regards to the median and
specifically the one at Outlot B. And I'm hearing the comments and I agree with the
comments so it really just gets down to the question the question of, can there be a median
and can it also meet the safety or emergency vehicle requirements for that. And if it can, _
then I see no reason to disallow it entirely. Maybe it needs to be modified. Maybe the size a
little different, you know whatever. So that's my only substantive comment.
Scott: Good. Anybody else?
Farmakes: I have no further comments. —
Scott: Okay. Nancy, you're okay? The only concern that I have, I guess there's two things
I'd like to see is, would be to have some, as I already mentioned, having some additional —
vegetation added along the lot line. The back side of 9 and 10. Possibly 8. For the benefit
of the neighbor next door. And one of the things I had difficulty understanding and this is
some specific direction for staff is that I would believe that the other commissioners would
like to see this any time we have a preliminary plat, we absolutely have to have the building
pad and streetscape and utilities overlaid with the significant vegetation. And also, I think it
would be very helpful to see the existing canopy. I mean we have docks. We have one of
these things.
Aanenson: ...and that's the problem we had with Lake Susan. I think the canopy...
Scott: Well in an aerial. An aerial takes care of that.
97
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Mancino: Which our new tree preservation ordinance will address.
Aanenson: Because what we found is, people are putting the foundation right next to a 40
inch or 26 or whatever caliper and it's basically you're underneath the canopy and you can't
save it so it's misrepresenting that.
Scott: Well see, that's the, I mean generally I'm in favor of this. I'm not going to go over
some of the public safety issues but personally I can't pass this on to the next level unless I
can see that overlay and see what the actual impact is. And I think for the record, I think our
first test case for that was Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition and we took that very seriously.
We got the right tools and I think we made some good recommendations that were followed
up on. So personally before I can get serious about passing this on, I need to see what's
really going to happen here.
Aanenson: Okay. That's what this sheet represents.
Scott: Which sheet is that? Is that in the packet?
Aanenson: Yeah...it's got all the utilities plus, what we did was provide...
Mancino: Yeah, we can't tell which ones will be removed. Which ones were staying.
Which ones would be removed and we didn't get to see the landscape berming.
Aanenson: I agree, yeah.
Scott: I don't know how that impacts. This doesn't mean anything to me because I don't
know how that impacts. But anyway, that's my comments. Can we have a motion?
Mancino: So would you like to see it come back with those things?
Scott: I would but I'd like to entertain a motion. I'd like to have someone make a motion.
Conrad: I'll try. It's probably going to take some friendly amendments on this because I
haven't written down what everybody had said. I'm making a recommendation that the
_ Planning Commission recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat Subdivision #94-1,
Minnewashta Landings for 27 single family lots as shown on the plans dated February 9,
1994 subject to the conditions in the staff report with the following changes. Item number
17, item 17 stands. Item 21 stands. Kate, you made some changes.
Aanenson: Yeah, on number 13. On 13 it would be the house pads on Lot 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6
98
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
of Block 2.
Conrad: Okay, I accept the staff recommendation. You added.
Aanenson: Number 27.
Conrad: 27 for park and rec assessment. We will take your recommendation for that at this —
time. Item number 28. Where vegetation would be placed on the back of Lots 8 and 9 to
screen to the best extent possible the neighbors to the east. That City staff review emergency
access practicality using the vacated driveway to Highway 7. _
Mancino: Friendly amendment here. Cul-de-sac center island liability that Dave brought up.
Conrad: Yeah, I don't know. How do we want to say that Dave?
Harberts: Eliminate them and then we're okay. _
Scott: The homeowners association will be the sole reliable entity for.
Harberts: I think that needs to be subject to review by the attorney before you make a
statement like that.
Scott: No, we're making recommendations. We don't make decisions.
Hempel: Maybe I can just throw my two cents in there. Maybe how the condition should —
read is like the City Attorney's office address the liability issue with regards to cul-de-sac...
maybe prepare at least a liability agreement or something to that effect.
Harberts: And also I think that statement should also include the review and comment by
public safety with regard to the medians, all medians being proposed.
Scott: Friendly?
Conrad: That's okay if you understand it.
Harberts: I want public safety to go in there and say that this is okay for us. This is okay _
for us or this isn't.
Scott: Are you talking about the medians?
99 —
— Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Conrad: I'm going to add a new.
— Harberts: Twist?
Conrad: Yeah.
Harberts: I want public safety to support.
—
Conrad: Okay, I'll take care of that. Kate the number 30 will, if we can have the liability
issue explored. Number 31 is to maintain the islands unless public safety can demonstrate
that the island on Landings Drive prohibits safe access for emergency vehicles and private
vehicles. Anything else?
_ Nutting: Does that mean if this prohibits access, that it's eliminated or that it can be
modified?
Harberts: Let public safety decide that.
Conrad: Yeah, I don't know. I don't care at this time.
Scott: Should be utilized where necessary to preserve significant.
_ Conrad: Yeah, absolutely. Conservation easements should be utilized where necessary to
preserve significant vegetation.
— Scott: Okay Kate, can I ask you a question. Do you need to add a condition that Outlot B
will be conveyed to the residents?
— Aanenson: What I was going to do...Rick had stated, we'll just change that condition to say
that it was.
— Rick Satire: Outlot B will be deeded to the owners of Tract D in exchange for deed to the
development for Tract D.
— Aanenson: Yeah, that would modify number 23. Instead of cross access easement I'll just
say, exchange for Tract D for Outlot B.
Scott: Okay, any other friendly amendments?
Harberts: I'll second it.
100
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Scott: All those in favor say.
Mancino: Discussion?
Scott: Discussion, excuse me.
Mancino: Question for you Kate. I agree with everything that's been said but I would like to —
see it back again just to see the landscaping part of it and the conservation easement. So can
we put that into the amendment or into the recommendation or do we have to get the whole
thing back again? _
Conrad: Well we really would have to table it.
Harberts: Well, the motion's on the table.
Conrad: Well no, my motion is to pass it. Not to see it again. _
Mancino: Then I have to say no. If I want to see it back again.
Scott: And we'll just vote on it and see what happens. Any other discussion?
Conrad: Because you want to see it. —
Scott: Specifically the.
Aanenson: The landscaping.
Mancino: And because every site plan that comes in, I want that to be part of our process. —
Because I want to establish some structure about what we want to see and,I mean this would
be the first one that we haven't.
Scott: Yeah. That was my concern as well.
Mancino: I mean we have set a precedent of making sure and even you've asked for it. _
Which trees are going to be removed. Which ones are going to be saved.
Scott: Inventories.
Mancino: It's a key value to our community right now and just to let it go without even _
looking at anything, I know the night is late but.
101 _
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Harberts: A conservation easement won't do that?
Scott: No. Because we don't know what's coming. A conservation easement does not do
anything for trees that are going to be removed because of streets, utilities, and potential
building pads so. I've got the same hang up.
Mancino: And we didn't get to have any remarks on the burning and the, because Highway
7 is a busy highway and the collector.
Conrad: So you feel that you want to see, they have to do it. I totally agree with what
you're saying, although I made a motion, but. If you just want to see what staff is doing or
what.
Mancino: Sure, so we can give.
Conrad: Because there aren't specific, good enough guidelines?
Mancino: Yeah, I mean conservation easement's a little broad.
Scott: That's not proactive. Conservation easement. That's what's left. That's how you
save what's left over after the streets and so forth have been in.
Mancino: And I think it's a significant area where, because it abuts a lake.
Scott: Kate?
Aanenson: I just asked the applicant...not go to Council until the landscaping plan goes with
it?...We won't forward it onto the Council until the landscaping is complete and that keeps
them on track for the 28th.
Scott: Yeah. I don't think we have any, I haven't heard any issues, substantial issues with
the development per se and my thought is.
Aanenson: ...have their landscaping plan at the next meeting. Just look at that instead of
opening up...
Harberts: So it can still go forward if the thing would pass because we would have the
opportunity to go back to the landscaping?
Aanenson: Well what you're going to say is that your recommendation, if you want to make
102
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
that number 33. That that not go to Council until the landscaping plan and the tree survey is
completed. And if they come in and we get that in here on the 14th, then that will keep them
on track for the 28th.
Scott: So we add that condition. We have a motion on the floor.
Harberts: Well that's a friendly amendment isn't it?
Scott: It's a friendly amendment but if we recommend approval, then that baby goes to the
City Council.
Harberts: But if 33 is a friendly amendment, then that slows it down.
Ledvina: Yeah but we don't see the subdivision back again.
Aanenson: Right. You just look at the landscape plan. But what you're saying is that the
plat can't go forward to the City Council until the landscaping comes to you.
Conrad: Which is okay.
Scott: Okay, so let's, do we have any other discussion by the way?
Conrad moved, Harberts seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval
of preliminary plat for Subdivision #94-1, Minnewashta. Landings, for 27 single family
lots as shown on the plans dated February 9, 1994, and subject to the following
conditions:
1. Upon completion, the developer shall dedicate to the City the utility and street
improvements within the public right-of-way and drainage and utility easements for
permanent ownership.
2. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-
mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of site grading
unless the City's Best Management Practice Handbook planting dates dictate otherwise.
All disturbed areas with slopes of 3:1 or greater shall be restored with sod or seed and
wood-fiber blanket.
3. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest
edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility
plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval.
103
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
4. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies,
i.e. Watershed District, MWCC, Health Department, PCA, DNR, Army Corps of
Engineers and MnDOT and comply with their conditions of approval.
5. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the
necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development
contract.
6. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10-year storm event
and provide ponding calculations for retention ponds in accordance with the City's
Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve.
7. Fire hydrants shall be incorporated per the Fire Marshal's recommendations. Fire
hydrants shall placed a maximum of 300 feet apart.
8. The applicant shall submit to the City soil boring information and include a drain tile
system in accordance with the construction plans.
9. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all
utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a
minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for access for maintenance
of the ponding areas.
10. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance
with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). The plan shall be
submitted to the City for review and formal approval
11. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way.
12. The lowest exposed floor or opening elevation of the rambler house located on Lot 12,
Block 1 should be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100-year high water level. This
may raise the house elevation to 971 or greater requiring a very steep driveway. Staff
recommends the applicant re-evaluate this and include exterior draintile around the
house foundation. The draintile shall be connected to the proposed storm sewer along
the property line.
13. The house pads on Lots 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6, Block 2 south of Landings Dr., along the
lake, should be a minimum of one foot above the road elevation. All low points
should be located between lots to route overlandflow around the houses. Also, catch
basins should be located at the low point between homes to help route surface flow
104
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
away from lots.
14. The proposed stormwater ponds must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet and
no more than 3:1 thereafter for safety and water quality purposes.
15. The driveway entrance for Ironwood needs to be removed from the Highway 7 right-
of-way. In addition, a drainage culvert will be necessary to maintain the neighborhood
drainage from the east of this development into the easterly proposed pond.
16. Existing wells and/or septic systems will have to be properly abandoned.
17. Landings Court intersection should be redesigned to be perpendicular with Landings
Drive and the median deleted.
18. The alignment of Landings Drive and Minnewashta Parkway should be refined to
provide more of a perpendicular intersection in accordance with the City's ordinance.
19. All lots shall take direct access from the interior streets and not Minnewashta Parkway
or Highway 7. —
20. The applicant shall be responsible for 20 additional Minnewashta Parkway assessments
units. The rate per unit is $760.00.
21. Staff recommends that the final plat be adjusted to dedicate a total width of 33 feet of
right-of-way from the center of existing Minnewashta Parkway along Lots 4, 5 and 6,
Block 1.
22. The final grading plan shall be revised to reflect proposed grading on Lots 1 through
8, Block 2.
23. An exchange between Tract D for Outlot B will be established for the use of Outlot
B by the residents of Ironwood.
24. Lot 7, Block 2 needs to have a 90 foot lot width.
25. Variance from the side yard setback to 10 feet on flag lots located on Lots 11 and 16,
Block 1 and Lot 8, Block 2.
26. Landscaping plans for the larger berm along Hwy. 7, as well as streetscape along
Minnewashta Parkway needs to be provided."
105
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
27. Park and trail fees in lieu of parkland dedication and trail construction at the
rate in force at the time of building permit application with one-third of the park
and trail fees paid at the time of final plat.
28. Where vegetation would be placed on the back of Lots 8 and 9 to screen to the
best extent possible the neighbors to the east.
29. That City staff review emergency access practicality using the vacated driveway
to Highway 7.
30. The City Attorney will investigate the issue of liability on the medians and islands
in cul-de-sacs.
31. Maintain the islands unless public safety can demonstrate that the island on
Landings Drive prohibits safe access for emergency vehicles and private vehicles.
32. Conservation easements should be utilized where necessary to preserve significant
vegetation.
33. This item will not go onto the City Council until a landscaping plan and tree
survey has been reviewed by the Planning Commission.
All voted in favor, except Matt Ledvina who opposed, and the motion carried with a
vote of 6 to 1.
Scott: And your reasoning sir?
Ledvina: Well I guess, I think we're treating the variances pretty lightly here. I think it's a
real substantial thing. I don't know, we talk about precedence so many times in terms of
these things and variances aren't things you give out.
Aanenson: ...a code amendment to the flag lot variances because for some reason it's 20 feet
and we've never understood why. That's one Paul brought in from Minnetonka...But you're
right, until it's changed it's a variance.
Ledvina: And the other thing that I thought we'd have more discussion on relates to the
length of the cul-de-sac.
106
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Scott: Which Ladd touched on for public safety purposes.
Ledvina; I understand.
Scott: Perhaps then as a comment, since we've voted on this. It would be optional for the -"
applicant, or be optional, what we'd like to have is have city staff prepare that kind of
variance analysis so at least, I mean we've already voted on it but at least we'd like to take a
look at it. Okay.
Mancino: Yeah, and I didn't understand under those two, the Lot 8, Block 2. I mean it
didn't make sense.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER MODIFICATION NO. 13 TO REDEVELOPMENT AND TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS FOR DOWNTOWN CHANHASSEN.
Todd Gerhardt presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: I've got a question on the construction of I guess for public improvements we've got
$450,000.00 of TIF money. For the construction of the pedestrian bridge and did we not get
a, I mean that looks like the total cost of that bridge.
Gerhardt: The bridge is approximately $700,000.00.
Scott: $700,000.00 and that includes land acquisition?
Gerhardt: Yes. Land acquisition is going to be roughly about $35,000.00. —
Scott: Okay. And how much money did we get from, for ISTEA? $375? $350?
Gerhardt: $280.
Scott: Okay. And then administration for $750,000.00. What's that? —
Gerhardt: 6% of all the public improvements. Costs up and above. It's just an estimate for
consultants, staff time and that. It's typically around 6%. —
Scott: Okay so for staff time, isn't staff time paid out of salaries?
107
CITY 4F
0r CHANHASSEN
s' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
— FROM: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner
DATE: March 10, 1994
SUBJ: Commissioner to Serve on the Board of Adjustments and Appeals
The City Council has requested that the Planning Commission give consideration to selecting a
member to serve on the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. The Board meets on Monday
evenings. This would require an additional meeting, although they meet periodically. In
speaking with the City Attorney, there are a couple of ways to select a member. One way would
be to have a member of the Planning Commission serve as a regular member of the board or the
Planning Commission member that would be attending the City Council meeting as the liaison
could serve for that meeting.
If there is no interest from the Planning Commission to serve on the Board of Adjustments, staff
could advertise for another permanent member for the Board.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is asking that the Planning Commission give consideration to serving on the Board.
— CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 2, 1994
Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Matt Ledvina, Joe Scott, Nancy Mancino, Ron Nutting, Jeff
Farmakes, Ladd Conrad and Diane Harberts
— STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner; Bob Generous, Planner II; Sharmin Al-
Jaff, Planner I; Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer; Paul Krauss, Planning Director; and Todd
Gerhardt, Asst. City Manager
Chairman Scott introduced the newest member of the Planning Commission, Ron Nutting.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CHANHASSEN KINGDOM HALL FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR 3,800 SQUARE
— FOOT CHURCH TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON AN 87,113 SQUARE FOOT PARCEL
LOCATED ON LOT 1, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER, LOCATED
SOUTH OF THE CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL AND PACIFIC RAILROAD
_ AND WEST OF AUDUBON ROAD.
Public Present:
Name Address
Gordon & Betty Jayne Fraser 6982 Edgebrook Place
Martin R. Andreasen 19330 Vine Ridge Road
— Joshua P. Rissell 17301 Duck Lake Trail, Eden Prairie
Phillip & Linda Koskela 17301 Duck Lake Trail, Eden Prairie
Pearl Rogneby 15901 South Eden Drive, Eden Prairie
— Mary & Dave Gustafson 110924 Von Hertzen, Chaska
Gary Harju 5985 Mill Street, Excelsior
Steve Kern 6540 Devonshire Drive
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: Are there any comments or questions to staff from the Planning Commissioners?
Mancino: I'll have some questions after the applicant.
—
Scott: Okay. Seeing none, we'd like to hear from the applicant or their representative. Yes
sir, and please state your name and your address.
— 1
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Steve Kern: Good evening. My name is Steve Kern, 6540 Devonshire Drive in Chanhassen,
Minnesota. As of 2 weeks ago we made note of points brought out by the Planning
Commission and we've added some change. What we made note of was on the drawing
concerning that berm area, had more grading in that area to put in some...where we're going
to be putting some of those lindens and the mounded so they'll be above the snow line. And
we'll...with some a second row of green evergreens within that same garden area. We kind
of drew them in this area here and have a crazy 8 shape. And the other areas, the two ends, _
instead of having the Black Hills spruce up on the north end and then the monument at the
other end, which we put around some...spreaders around the monument. I think we'll also
have some other shrubbery...So we've got some green around the monument...requested,
maybe not at the meeting but by staff to move the monument sign back 2 1/2 feet so there
will be better visual for people pulling out of the driveway so that adjustment is made on that
drawing. And the note...rip rap, it's been recommended that we use the sheet drainage over
the sod so that's made note of. And then we did make note also of the 11 city trees that we
will, as is noted here, stagger our lindens between the city trees as noted along the boulevard
there so we have a proper visual balance. Also I've made note that the handicap parking
concern, so rather than finding a way to draw the signs themselves and just made note right
in there of the code where it said the MSPC...handicap sign...make sure that that's covered.
If I could answer any questions. —
Scott: Are there any questions for the applicant from commissioners?
Mancino: Yeah. I just had a few. First of all thanks for the revisions to the landscape plan.
I notice here that you have on the berm, on the east side of the berm you have garden. What
does that mean?
Steve Kern: In a sense that's bringing in those evergreens. To move those and so on...have
either some chips and mulch and also a lot of small crushed stone to make up some of the
garden...we're going to make kind of a bordered garden effect with I think a crazy 8 shape
like this and kind of starting up over the hill a little bit over the berm.
Mancino: Great. Have you, on the list, the planning schedule list, have you added your
mugo pines and your arborvitae?
Steve Kern: Yes.
Mancino: Are they also on the list and how many and how big?
Steve Kern: Yes. As this list goes down and then M, N, 0, P and Q covered the...a verbal
discussion made about shrubberies around the building and we wanted to actually put a list
2
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
there so we got 6 and 7 of the mock orange and purple...and there's some Carlisle Buckthorne
going around the building. Along with what was already there. And then the Sierra
spreaders 6 pieces around the monument. A couple more of white plum birch on the corner
of the parking lot by the driveway right here. And then we added to the list, the numbers
went up for the other concerns where now there's, let's see. Item number G...And then yes,
the mugo pines did not get listed I believe only because they want to be out there and
arrange. There could be 3, there might be 6 that would be appropriate. We weren't sure how
many but you can be assured that's in there.
Mancino: Okay, and the arborvitae too?
Steve Kern: Yes. We're making note within that garden area there's going to be an adequate
amount to fill that space but we weren't sure how many to put in there.
Mancino: That's fine.
Scott: Okay. Any other comments or questions for the applicant? Hearing none, thank you
very much. This is a public hearing. Can we have a motion to open the public hearing
please?
Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was opened.
Scott: Is there anyone in attendance for this particular issue, item number 1. Chanhassen
Kingdom Hall. Yes sir. Okay, feel free to ask questions or give your input if you would
like.
Resident: Just here in support.
Scott: Okay. Let the record show that there's no one that wishes to speak at the public
hearing.
Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Scott: Any comments prior to making a motion on this particular item?
Ledvina: I don't have any additional comments. This is essentially the third time the
Commission has seen the plan and I think we've pretty much worked out the concerns as it
related to the land use and the parking. The collector street. Proximity to the collector street,
3
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
etc so I would support the proposal subject to the conditions listed in the staff report.
Scott: Okay, good. Any other comments? Can I have a motion please?
Ledvina: I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the site plan for the —
Jehovah Witness congregation SPR #92-5 as shown on the plans and subject to the conditions
identified in the staff report.
Scott: Is there a second?
Mancino: Second.
Lethina moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval
of the site plan for the Jehovah Witness congregation SPR #92-5 as shown on the plans
and subject to the following conditions:
1. B612 or equivalent concrete curb and gutter shall be installed in all parking lot and
driveway areas with the exception of where the drainage outlets in the northwesterly
portions of the parking areas adjacent to the railroad tracks. The parking lots shall be
designed to promote sheet drainage across the parking lot areas. Depending on the side
slopes of the drainageway, rip rap may or may not be required. If rip rap is not required,
then the drainage swale shall be sodded. Final determination will be made by the City _
Engineer after review and approval of the side grading plan.
2. The driveway curb cut on Audubon Road shall be constructed with a concrete driveway _
apron in accordance with city detail plate no. 5207 (Attachment No. 1).
3. The applicant shall submit for review and approval a site plan with the pre and post site —
contours across the lot. The parking lot shall be designed so it drains in three directions
with the high point located at the intersection of the driveway and the easterly and
southerly parking lots. —
4. Erosion control measures shall be employed in accordance with the City's Best
Management Practice Handbook. Access points to the site shall be limited to the
proposed curb cut on Audubon Road. A gravel construction entrance shall be provided
and maintained until the parking lots and driveway have been paved.
5. A. separate permit is required for the sign.
4
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
6. Marking of handicapped stalls as per the Building Official's letter dated January 31, 1994.
All voted in favor, except Ladd Conrad and Diane Harberts who were not present to
vote, and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CHARLIE JAMES FOR A VARIANCE TO THE CITY CODE REGARDING THE
SIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR WEST VILLAGE HEIGHTS CENTER, LOCATED ON
LOT 4, BLOCK 1, WEST VILLAGE HEIGHTS 2ND ADDITION.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: Any questions or comments for staff?
Ledvina: The situation on the west wall of the building, why. First of all, does that
represent, their request, does that represent a variance?
Generous: Yes.
Ledvina: Okay. So under normal situations, as far as the ordinance is concerned.
Generous: They would get no signage. It says street frontage.
Ledvina: They have to have street frontage, okay.
Generous: In reviewing this we looked at that and as part of the site plan we made them
create a business...on the west end of the retail center and that's why they're requesting that.
They want to have actual frontage for the building so when people park out front, they can
know that they're walking into the, engineering design...what have you.
Mancino: So we don't have street frontage there. Now according to what we have, Section
20-1303, it says for a wall business sign, it says one wall business sign shall be permitted per
street frontage for each business occupant within the building. So I'm looking here at the
south elevation and I see three different signs. I see Fine Foods, Open 24 Hours, I see a
Byerly's sign and I see a Wine and Spirits. And according to our ordinance, they're allowed
to have one sign.
Generous: Well the way we've been doing that is to aggregate the total square footage as it...
for that building.
5
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Mancino: But that's not one sign. There's still three signs. It's in three different spots.
Generous: It's in three different locations. But we've been treating it as if that, they have
their one sign. Instead of, they can stack all that information up in one spot, and if they met
the code requirements. —
Mancino: If they meet 80 square feet.
Farmakes: Current code is 80 square feet.
Generous: Yes.
Farmakes: The point she's making is that there's auxiliary information provided within that,
other than identifying the store. So the question is, if you allow that as a variance, not only _
are you allowing a variance for the total cap of the signage name but you're allowing in
addition to that, Wines and Spirits. I think the precedent that was used was to allow the word
Pharmacy on Target. The question goes back, I think in the current sign ordinance that we'll —
be reviewing, there was a comment on there about what constitutes additional advertising to a
sign. For instance, Cold Beer and Hot Dogs. —
Mancino: Or Fresh Fruit. I mean what are we going to have on these buildings?
Farmakes: And where does that constitute an additional sign or in addition to or within that
cap? The criteria we seem to be using here is Target, which is a PUD correct?
Generous: Correct.
Mancino: And so is Market Square. _
Farmakes: So is the criteria that what we gave them, we give Byerly's or what is the
objective? —
Generous: Well to provide them an equitable relief for their signage is basically it. They
believe that they're doing the same thing as the other two developments. However they _
don't, they just didn't do PUD. They're doing, meeting everything else in the code as far as,
they want to have comparable signs.
Mancino: Well they're doing more than some of the other developments. For instance,
they're going to have a 20 foot pylon sign right on 78th Street which is going to give them a
lot more visibility than any other commercial business on 78th. There is no pylon signs 20 _
6 —
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
feet high for Target on 78th. There's no 20 foot tall pylon sign for Market Square. For the
Chanhassen Bank, etc. So I think they have a lot of visibility with the pylon sign added to
what they've got.
Farmakes: The other criteria of a PUD is that the city gets something in return for allowing
an applicant to go over or get variances from existing city codes. I'm wondering what, it
would seem the purpose here is that Byerly's is an oversized building. Large 60,000 square
feet.
Scott: Well the total development's 109.
Farmakes: The original signage I think, Charlie that you had, wanting to know why there
was a cap in there. Percentage. The issue had to do with stores that are smaller getting over
sized signs that are as wide as the store front. Where you'd have a disproportionate amount
to where essentially the store is covered because of signs. The cap of 80 square feet I think
is pretty long standing, isn't it Ladd? That was on the existing ordinance.
Mancino: Well 80 is for the general business district. 65 is for the CBD so it's even smaller
in the central business district.
Farmakes: Yeah, but what I'm saying is that isn't part of the revision. We didn't reduce
that. That's been an historical cap. I guess a precedent was set then when Target was built.
Conrad: No, the bowling alley.
Farmakes: Filly's?
Conrad: Yeah. That's a huge sign. I think it's an ugly sign.
Farmakes: What criteria did they, that came under a PUD or was that conditional use or what
was that?
Conrad: That came under criteria of visibility from Highway 5 and I'm not sure how that
happened to tell you the truth. It sure fit within the 15% of wall area but it sure is over 80
square feet. So there are precedents. We obviously don't have an ordinance that treats
different sized buildings adequately. I think dwelling on the 80 square feet is sort of dwelling
on something that's not equitable.
Scott: Well I've got a question for you. In the findings section, we talk about that strict
compliance would cause a hardship. And under Section 20-58 it says that the City Council
7
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
may grant variances only if the following criteria are met and one of the them is the literal
enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship as defined as undue hardship means
if the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of size, fiscal surroundings, shape or
topography. And I don't particularly agree with that in this particular case. I think we would
all agree that the fact that there's a Byerly's in Chanhassen., it's a destination in and of itself.
Not like on Highway 61 where there's 7 car dealerships competing for mind share. So at
least in my particular view of the world, I wouldn't consider foisting this ordinance on
Byerly's to be creating any hardship whatsoever. And the other commissioners have talked
about some of the other issues but that's the one that kind of stuck in my mind. I had some
difficulty seeing why that would be a hardship. So I'd like you to develop that, maybe
educate me a little bit.
Farmakes: Well the comment that I'd like to make here before he answers that. I think Ladd
is right...several building fronts is what you're talking about here. The question that I was
looking at and maybe there isn't a precedent that's used for buildings of that scale. The cap
really didn't deal with buildings of that magnitude in this town. But part of the question that
Nancy seemed to start to answer is what in addition to that and how many do you duplicate?
Do you use part of the ordinance from the 80 cap and then if you enlarge the sign, do you
still use part of that allowing an additional amount of the signs? I don't have a problem
personally with looking at that again to look at buildings of this scale. I don't have a
problem even that Byerly's is projecting to the highway by a larger sign of that scale but I
would question how many times it's duplicated and if for instance you have the same size
sign projecting to the east coming down 78th Street where you drive within a few hundred of
the building to get by it. I question that. Whether or not that needs to be duplicated again to
that scale. So that's my.
Scott: Okay. Are there any more comments? This is a public hearing. May I have a
motion to open the public hearing.
Mancino: So moved.
Scott: Actually we should hear from the applicant first. Excuse me. Mr. James.
Charlie James: Sorry I'm late this evening. I thought I was further on the agenda.
Scott: You're on time. You're here. Please state your name and your address.
Charlie James: Yes, my name is Charlie James. I'm with T.F. James Company of Eden
Prairie. I guess first of all I'd like to stress that the issue under discussion this evening is of
major, major importance to us and we're really here tonight because I believe of an ambiguity
8
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
in Section 20-1303, Subparagraph 3 of your current ordinance. And we can and will meet all
aspects of your current code on the entire project with the exception of the Byerly's logo.
The retail strip will be in conformity. We're not asking for anything there. The pylon that
you mentioned is totally in conformity with the ordinance plus I'll point out that Target's
pylon is 36 feet tall and contains 144 square feet of sign area where our's has 64 square feet
so their sign is 2 1/2 times as large as our sign area. 16 feet taller but we're not asking for
that. We'll live with your ordinance on that. The monument that's proposed is totally in
conformity with your ordinance and it was redrawn to be. And I guess we, when I read the
code and having had an analogous experience to this up in Forest Lake, Minnesota. They had
a code like this that said you could have so many square feet but no individual sign could be
bigger than, I forget what it was. It was something like this so we went through and said,
look it. Under your code we can put 70-80 square foot, or we can put 7-80 or whatever the
size square foot signs they are on the building but no one sign can be bigger than you know,
whatever it was. We can distribute this out but no individual sign can be as big as the sign
that we're proposing so potentially we could put 7-80 square foot signs or whatever it was,
and have 500 square feet. All we're asking for is 200 square feet. And they realized that
they had a problem in their ordinance and we were allowed to do what we wanted to do and
they since have changed their ordinance. And I have to say that when I read this ordinance
and coming from that experience, maybe that was too fresh in my mind but I will refer you
here to the wording in this and it says, under paragraph 3. First of all it says, they're
distinguishing here between the pylon and monument. First of all there's a mixture of the
plural and singular within this paragraph. It says, wall business signs. But then it says, one
wall business sign shall be permitted per street frontage. And then it says, the total of all
wall mounted sign area shall not exceed 15% of the total area of the building wall on which,
plural, the signs are mounted. And then it says, no individual sign shall exceed 80 square
feet. My reading of this, the mixture of the plural and the singular and the use of the word
individual is that the code was intended that no individual sign would be bigger than 80
square feet but that you were allowed the 15% of the wall area. There's that mixture of the
plural and singular here. I'll further refer you to the staff report that was written and
subsequently adopted by this body regarding the Target. Here's a picture by the way of their
36 foot high, 144 foot up here. That's 144. What we're talking is 64 square foot in our total
_ sign and they've got 144 feet just up here. This is in your staff report that was done for the
Target.
Farmakes: You're aware that the Target was a PUD?
Charlie James: Yes I am.
Farmakes: And that there's a difference in zoning.
9
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Charlie James: I'm very much aware of that. That's going to be a point I'm going to make.
Farmakes: Well you're comparing the two back and forth and I just want to make sure that
you knew that.
Charlie James: Right. And I'm going to address also the issue of, someone raised the issue
of the trade off and what are we getting here. Under the signage report that was done for —
Target, again there's this ambiguity in your signage that says, findings. The staff is proposing
one free standing pole sign and on and on and then subparagraph 2. Wall signs are permitted
on no more than two street frontages. Then they say the total of all wall area sign display
areas shall not exceed 15�Ic of the total wall area. Or of the total building wall upon which
the signs, plural, are mounted. So this is consistent I believe with our interpretation of what
the code is. So I don't want to be in a position here of being argumentative. What I'm
trying to suggest this evening is that you've got a problem with your code and that should be
addressed. And I don't want tonight, I don't want what we're presenting here tonight to be in
any way a precedent or maybe the more proper word is andecedent for what you're going to
be considering later this evening. What I would like is for you to look at what we're
proposing here for the Byerly's and look at this as a unique, individual case. It's not, let's
admit. We've got a problem with the ordinance. The ordinance is ambiguous. With Target
they talked about 15% of the total area of the building upon which the signs are mounted. So
let's get beyond that and can we just review this on a case by case basis of what we're trying _
to do here and. Well we've got this. I guess within the context of what we're proposing here
and the scale of the building, I would submit that what we're proposing in the way of signage
here is not excessive and it is attractive. I think there's some other factors here that need to _
be mentioned. I think one of the things that there were some numbers in the staff report that
were calculated in a different manner than which we calculated our numbers. We were told
that we had to draw a rectangle around the total area and I understand that when they
calculated the sign for instance for Festival, they did not do that. They kind of went around
the edge of that in preparing the square footages that were in your report. Again an ambiguity
here. We're penalized because first of all this is cursive and so if you throw a rectangle, you
have to go all the way up to the top here. That's how we were told you know that this thing
was figured. When in fact an argument could be made that you could just kind of outline
this sign area and this area in here being about approximately 16 feet, if we came over here
and then dropped down to this area which is about 8 feet, it becomes 200 square feet instead
of the 321 square feet that would be made if we basically put a border around the whole
thing. I understand that you're considering a new code. Unfortunately I was traveling and I —
wasn't in a position to interact with staff and to comment on what they were proposing. I
guess we just simply can't abide with the later alternative in there. And I don't, I feel that
the table they came up with there, and those numbers are just as arbitrary as anything else. I
10 —
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
mean why 3%? Why 4%? I guess what I would prefer is that we address here tonight is to
look at what we're trying to prevent here and I don't think that what we're doing here, I have
a very strong vested interest in this being the best possible project and a lot of thought went
in to a lot of this and I guess what I would like is can we look at this particular project and
not rewrite the code around me. In other words, can we work with recognizing that we have
existing ambiguity here within the code and then say okay, Charlie. You get a variance from
that code. He's not asking for a variance in the pylon. He's not asking for a variance for the
monument. Those elements are less than what's been done elsewhere. I'm not asking for a
variance in the retail space but I'm asking for consideration for this particular layout. And I
guess as another thing I guess I'd say is, as I mentioned we're penalized because of the
cursive nature. It's not a neat block of their logo but also another aspect of this you have to
keep in mind is that their letters are blue. As a matter of fact, this whole element of the
building, so it's more or less size and proportion to accommodate the sign and the concern is
the visibility from Highway 5. Target's out there on Highway 5 and has the 36 foot high
whatever. And blue doesn't read well at night. So that's another factor that it's not a glaring
white or a yellow or a red. It's something that kind of softly dissipates into the night air so
that's a concern based on, this was input directly from the President of Byerly's based on
other locations that they've had and the studies that they've done on visibility of their signage
from distances. And that relates to what was said tonight about 65 square foot in the central
business district as opposed to 80 square feet in the highway and general business and I
again, I think that that's why the first alternative that was being proposed or rationale for
your consideration Ladd this evening is better because I think the reason that 65 square feet
downtown is because the buildings are close...and where the buildings are placed. And the
code when they referred to 65 square feet downtown, I think there was a recognition that the
buildings are placed closer to the curb there. That the cars are closer to the street. So I
think, and then as you get further out from town, you're distances away so I think that's part
of that rationale and I think that that rationale fits in better with what was the first alternative
here that was proposed this evening. But again, now I'm starting to discuss what you're
going to be considering here later this evening and I guess I wish we could focus on here.
As far as a PUD and what the City's getting in return here. I guess I'm emphasize again that
we worked with staff for over 6 months. Probably 7 or 8 months before we ever even came
to you folks and everything we tried to do here is consistent with everything on this side of
the street. City Hall's brick and has the same sort of, and the Fire Station, the post office, the
bank and so everything that we are doing here is kind of consistent with this side of the
_ street. We came in here originally. Target had 5% of their parking lot landscaped as part of
the PUD requirement when your code had nothing. We were told that that was something
that was going to be adopted as the law or code. The 5% of the parking lot. I came in here
right off the bat with 8% in our parking lot and we subsequently, thanks to Mr. Wing's input
and elsewhere, I think we ended up closer to 10%. And I think we're trying to bring a high
quality project here. A high standard of design. We've got $88,000.00 at last count in plant
11
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
material. Not the installation. Not the irrigation. Not the sod. Just in material in the bucket
on this job. Which is way far and above what's required. We came in here as a permitted
use on a permitted piece of property and we still tried to work with you all. And tried to
improve it and do better than what was required. The only variance that we were asking for _
in that project was necessitated by your own Highway 5 corridor study that said that you
wanted a detached buildings and broken up. We've got a project here that's 600 feet long.
We tried to articulate the...Put a lot of money into different various elements. And the one —
thing we need help on is the sign. So I guess it is important to us and I would respectfully
request that you look at this and look at it in terms of the total design of the project and grant
us some relief from the ambiguity of your code. _
Scott: Good. Are there any comments or questions for the applicant from staff?
Commissioners?
Mancino: Charlie did you provide a drawing with an 80 square foot Byerly's so we could
see the difference?
Charlie James: I'm sorry.
Mancino: Did you provide staff with an 80 square foot Byerly's logo. One that would fit in
the ordinance so we could see the scale of an 80 square foot one in there?
Charlie James: No I didn't but I'll tell you, you've got a building 300 feet long here. That's
2 sheets of plywood. Okay, approximately. And as I said, this element, we read, when we
read the ordinance, we thought. What we're showing here is well below 15% of the wall
area so we thought there was this glitch or snaffu in your ordinance that, as I indicated
earlier, that we've run into elsewhere. So we thought well gee whiz. The 80 square feet
thing is obviously something that wasn't contemplated here but we're well below the 15% of
the total wall area here. What's shown here I believe in your report here.
Generous: Nancy, if you look at the Open 24 Hours and Fine Food section, that's almost 80 —
square feet. Between the two of them.
Mancino: Between the two of them?
Charlie James: It becomes miniscule and there's no point putting it on there because you _
can't read it from the street. You know I mean this.
Mancino: Well the point of putting it on there is for us to be able to see the difference and
why it doesn't work.
12
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Charlie James: No I meant as far as 80, I'm sorry. Right now, our interpretation of the code
originally was that in any event we're allowed 15% of the total wall area. What we're
showing you right here is 5.5% of the wall area. So we didn't anticipate a problem. We
were asked by the President and CEO of Byerly's, has stayed out of many of my negotiations
with Mr. Meyers. I remember specifically the one time he stuck his head in the door was on
_ this issue of signage and this is a big deal with them because they've had problems with the
blue signs at night and they're open 24 hours and this sort of thing and it's a real hot spot
with him. And so in proportioning the building and everything, we designed some of these
elements to accommodate that. And it's not an after thought. It was a fore thought and it
was based on our misinterpretation of an ambiguous code. So I'm sorry, no we did not.
That's my typical long winded.
Farmakes: Your Edina location is how many square feet?
Charlie James: I'm sorry?
Farmakes: Your Edina location for Byerly's. How many square feet?
John Meyers: 18. St. Louis Park is 19. Ridgedale is probably 16.
Farmakes: How many signs in Edina do you have on the face front of the building?
John Meyers: On the face? This is what we have on most of the stores. We don't have,
-- some of the stores we have restaurant. Edina we don't have wine and spirits because we
don't have wine and spirits. Fine foods is something we're.
Farmakes: The primary sign of Byerly's, is that on the area facing, would that be 70th?
John Meyers: That store has, I don't know if that store has a sign on 70th.
Farmakes: I recall it just has one facing France. Byerly's.
John Meyers: No. No. There's supposed to be, I'm not sure how big the building is facing
south. There's a sign on the south side of that building. I'm not sure if there's one on the
north side.
Farmakes: Is there a frontage street there though?
Charlie James: I do know that.
13
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
John Meyers: What you see if you're coming north, if you're coming north.
Farmakes: Is that a monument or is that...?
John Meyers: No...
Charlie James: I do know that Mr. Harberts specifically said that one that is on Ridgedale is
larger than this one but it's mounted over here. They have this big wall on their drive thru so
they have a much higher wall area to mount it on. So actually the sign that's on Ridgedale is
larger but it was put over here and we didn't want to do that. We wanted to have these
arches here that, and they don't have that condition there. They don't have arches here. This
is a blank masonry wall.
John Meyers: Well we didn't want a blank wall there either. We wanted to put a feature in
that carries it through the whole center so when you put the feature in, you carry it through
the whole center... —
Charlie James: We have a visual aid here. This is 10 by, this is 80 square feet.
Scott: No problem.
Charlie James: You love it right? —
Mancino: We can still read it.
Farmakes: What is the accumulative amount of square footage you take in Byerly's and you
take in Wine and Spirits, Fine Foods, Open 24 Hours.
Charlie James: 431 square feet, or 5.5% of the wall area.
John Meyers: Of which, under the code, if we stuck with 15%. If we stuck with 15% and
just put Byerly's, Byerly's, Byerly's, Byerly's, Byerly's.
Farmakes: I understand that but the code has always had a cap on it so. —
John Meyers: If you take 15%.
Farmakes: So to take part of an ordinance and you said the criteria is.
Charlie James: It says no individual sign but then as it... _
14
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Farmakes: But it could be more than one sign.
Charlie James: Exactly.
Farmakes: Let me explain. It could be a logo. It could be logo and type. It could be Fine
Foods or Open 24 Hours. It could not even have the name of the store if it chose not to.
But there's a cap of the amount of square footage that can be used. It's up to the store owner
how he chooses to use that cap. Some stores wish to add additional information other than
their name. The question then becomes, is it an identification or an advertisement.
Charlie James: Well there's some argument to be made here that we have more than one use
in this building. We have the supermarket. We have the wine and spirits. We have a
restaurant. We have all these different businesses going on under one roof, which is
somewhat analogous to Target and Target having a pharmacy.
Farmakes: I understand your argument. I think that the bottom line is that you would like
that sign to be readable from Highway 5, correct?
John Meyers: Correct.
Farmakes: Okay. That is facing south. The elevation that we're looking at now. There's
additional signage being requested on the face fronts that face east and the other one you said
was not included or?
Mancino: The west one.
Farmakes: ...of what we started out with there on that elevation drawing.
Generous: It's in your packet. The bottom would be the west elevation.
Farmakes: Where it says 4 next to it?
Generous: Yes.
Farmakes: And that's being withdrawn?
Generous: No, we're recommending that that not be approved.
Farmakes: That that not be there.
15
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Mancino: Because it doesn't, frontage is not on the street, right?
Farmakes: The purpose then of the monument sign then is. Is the question of signs I think
in relevance, one way to look at this is from what distance do you consider a sight line to be
adequate for your store. And I'm just looking at this from your point of view. You —
obviously want to be read from Highway 17, Highway 5 and what is the purpose of the sign
to the east? How far is it that you would like to be seen?
John Meyers: The sign to the east?
Farmakes: Yes. It would be the sign west of City Hall.
John Meyers: You're really, at the point where you get to the stop light, at that point you'll —
start to be able to see from the elevation, the one that you've got, from the intersection. Just
up off the road. You should start to be able to see this sign as you probably just get through
the intersection.
Farmakes: It would seem to me that the purpose of the sign, besides the sight lines being
different distances away say from Highway 5, because you have to be a certain distance —
away. A minimum distance. Those cars are potentially going by at 50 mph. The one from
the east, somebody's coming by at 25 mph.
John Meyers: Hopefully.
Farmakes: Well, hopefully. It seems as if there's a different size of signs. What I'm trying
to get a handle on here, other than arguing the technicalities of your interpretation of the
ordinance. There are parts of the ordinance but whether we're looking at a different zone at
one time and half of a zone of another, I think there are some arguments to come back and —
say that you're being selective in you're interpreting what applies to your store and what
doesn't. In comparing Target, obviously you're aware, and you say you're aware that that's a
different zone and you understand that it's a PUD.
Charlie James: I do but what...building could have cost another $7.00 a square foot and
got....
Farmakes: ...I understand that. _
Charlie James: I'veg of more landscaping than they do.
16 —
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Farmakes: I understand that but do you understand how ordinances are set up? We can't
willy nilly disregard part of an ordinance when we're discussing something and how we're
interpreting it. It doesn't mean that we can't relook at something to work something that
solves this problem. What I'm saying is that, based on your parts of your arguments that I
don't buy into personally but...
John Meyers: I don't understand what you're disagreeing over.
_ Farmakes: Comparing for instance the sizes that are allowed for Target. Target is a different
zone. And I know that both of you are fully well aware that there's a difference between
PUD and what you are applying for.
John Meyers: I'm not even arguing the Target sign.
Farmakes: Okay, but that's part of the argument that I've before me. In comparing, and I
understand the criteria that was used for Target. I'm not arguing the scale of the building and
some of the rationale that you're using. There however are some other things other than the
size of the sign for Byerly's sign here, the additional signage and how that accumulates and
how that is reflected to how other applicants are treated here. And we have to consider that
in how we handle this. And I think in the past, and said you acknowledged that, I think
that's how we have to treat this discussion. We have to do this fairly and I would admit and
agree that obviously when these older ordinances were put on the books, nobody envisioned
the buildings of this size coming in here. And primarily the cap and the percentage was to
keep small store fronts from becoming over sized. Where the entire wall of the building is a
sign. So far these huge buildings have been PUD's and have been handled as separate issues.
The signage. Where you're getting 100,000 square foot building and you're looking at the
signage issues as a PUD that can be handled as a separate issue. Your applying under
existing signage ordinances that apply to a small store. And if we have to hold them to that,
we also have to hold you to that irregardless of the size of the building.
Charlie James: But that's where the hardship comes in.
Farmakes: I understand the hardship and I understand the rationale for relooking at that
again. There's additional baggage on here though that I would like to discuss because this
also conflicts with some of the other issues that we have held other store owners to.
Applicants. In supplementing signage with advertising. It goes beyond identification. There
is precedent I think for the Open 24 Hours. The Fine Foods, it seems to me that.
John Meyers: That's a trademark, just so you know. That's a trademark which the Byerly's
own. Which we used to use in the Twin Cities as we feel it's important to use out here
17
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
because we're going into a new market and trying to expand farther out.
Farmakes: I'm familiar with trademark law and I know that the words Fine Foods are not the
trademark.
John Meyers: The logic behind.
Farmakes: It could be added onto Byerly's but the words fine foods is a generic.
John Meyers: But part of the Byerly's name and actually it's trademark, one of those logos _
is Byerly's Fine Foods.
Farmakes: Okay. And what I'm saying is, if Fine Foods was underneath Byerly's, that could _
be construed as part of the trademark. Where it's several hundred feet away, one would have
to interrupt...
Charlie James: One of the designs had that and it was too cluttered.
John Meyers: We've done it on both sides but we had to make the facade even bigger in that _
area which...defeats the purpose of what we're trying to do.
Mancino: It's a positioning line that goes with the name Byerly's. —
John Meyers: Exactly.
Farmakes: Except it's not with the name Byerly's...And the question of Wines and Spirits,
I'm not sure how, I'm not sure how, does the city consider that a separate store?
Mancino: No it's not. It's part of Byerly's.
Farmakes: But legally, does it have to be a separate store? It holds a liquor license doesn't —
it?
Charlie James: There's a part of the store where we're being required to close that off so it
can be.
John Meyers: Separate operating leases.
Charlie James: It will have it's own cash register. It has an entrance where during the times _
that the supermarket is open you can go into the liquor store but when the hours are past for
18
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
a liquor store to be open, there's doors in there that close that off so you're not able to access
it. That shuts down. Those personnel leave.
John Meyers: It's no different than a liquor store inside a mall. I'll give you a perfect
example. Go down to TH 4 and TH 5, to Driskill's. You walk out of Driskill's store into
the mall space and the first tenant is the Eden Prairie municipal liquor. When you're inside
our store...stores is to make that side of the store basically a mall. You come into the store.
You go to the right. If you've been in Ridgedale, and you walk down a corridor. Down that
corridor is the post office. Down that corridor is ice cream. And down that corridor is the
restaurant. Down that corridor is the liquor store. I mean we opearte it separately.
Farmakes: It doesn't have a separate entrance...it only has separate entrance. Separate
checkout.
John Meyers: Right. You can't get into the Wine and Spirits shop and take it into the
store...
Mancino: But you can get into the Wine and Spirits through the Byerly's grocery store?
Charlie James: But only because they have parcel pick-up and you don't have to carry your
bags so you have to pay for your groceries there. Then you can walk into a separate opening,
into the liquor store and they have a separate personnel and separate check out there. But
once the State laws come into effect and they say you've got to be closed at 6:00 or whatever
it is, there are these bifold doors or whatever that seal that whole area off from the inside of
the store, plus the outside door is locked and that portion of the store is closed.
John Meyers: It's a separate legal entity as well. Somebody that operates the liquor store is
a separate entity from Byerly's.
Farmakes: How would the City interpret that? Is that a separate store?
Generous: The way they describe it, I believe it would be separate. As far as our review of
it, we aggregated everything as part of one wall, business wall.
Farmakes: Can you check on that. See how that would be interpretted.
Scott: I think what we need to do now is to ask for input from members of the public. Are
there any members here of the public who would like to speak on this particular issue?
Seeing none, I'd like to have a motion to close the public hearing please.
19
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. —
Scott: Any comments from the commissioners. My initial comment here is that it seems like
we really don't have a good handle on what to do with this particular. Do you agree with —
me? Based upon the ordinance that we have to deal with the issue at hand. Personally I'm
not comfortable acting on that at this point in time but if you all are, please speak up. —
Conrad: I'm curious. What people think about visually is this offensive? What we're
looking at? —
Farmakes: I personally don't think it's offensive but I think it is a weakness in our ordinance
in dealing with these size buildings. I don't know how many more of these we're going to _
see.
Conrad: So if we could develop a sign ordinance that would allow that, would we all kind of _
say, that's probably reasonable?
Mancino: No. —
Farmakes: I think that there's a problem with the additional amount of signage. And how
we treat other applicants. That... —
Conrad: So you're uncomfortable that they're saying wine and spirits would be too generic,
you wouldn't want to see that on other buildings? —
Farmakes: If it's a separate entity, I think we talked about that with the hotel and does that
constitute a new business. Does new signage come into play? I think that's another issue of —
weakness in our signage ordinance.
Conrad: Don't you feel that that's instructive though? Don't you think a food store is —
different than restaurant?
Farmakes: Yes. I do. I think that there's a viable argument there. I don't think that it's too —
much signage for the amount of square footage that we're talking about. But I do think that
there's precedent problems that if we ignore what currently is on the books, and how we treat _
other people, that's going to create a problem.
Mancino: I'd like to build on that also and say, I mean what are we going to have a sign _
people can say, open 7 days a week or open from 7:00 to 8:00? And that's where I'm having
20
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
a problem with the Open 24 Hours and Fine Foods. I don't have a problem with the Byerly's
and the Wine and Spirits because I think it is a different entity. My other concern is, as we
get bigger with these signs, proportionately to the building, are we just going to have box
buildings that act as billboards all over? And the signage on them is just going to read as a
big billboard. And is that what we want and is that what we want in our downtown? Do we
want signage in our downtown to be able to be read from all over? From a mile away. From
a half a mile away. I mean at what point.
Farmakes: Issues of scope and I think duplication. As I said before. I think that in looking
at advertising, the sign to be read from Highway 5 from a building of that scale, I would
think perhaps that's reasonable to an extent. However, the assignment for a read from
— Highway 17, which is a different speed limit and 78th Street, which is also a different speed
limit, are two different assingments and I wouldn't see that sign duplicated three times. So
again I'm not sure what we hold the hotel development to. What we hold Market Square. I
realize some of these are PUD's and some of them are not. I think we have to define the
difference of what we're doing there because what we hold some of these smaller store
owners to, we should be consistent on how we approach that or enact an ordinance that deals
with this as part of the signage package that we're looking at here.
Scott: Jeff, where would you draw the line inbetween the "small store" and the Byerly's?
Farmakes: Well the city tries to do some of that on scale. However, I think this still needs
some work from the ordinance that we're looking at. The old signage ordinance also did
some scale work but it had the cap. It kept the 80 foot cap which I'm not sure how relevant
that was at the time. That they ever envisioned a 100,000 square foot building here.
Scott: How do you, based upon coming to some sort of a decision this evening, what are
your thoughts?
Farmakes: I think that perhaps we should get together with staff and discuss either how this
would be incorporated into the new ordinance or how it would be interpreted in the old. But
I think we should be consistent on how we handle this.
Scott: Okay.
Farmakes: This is asking to be inconsistent. I don't think what they're asking is
unreasonable if it can be done with how we've acted consistently in the past.
Scott: Would you like to make a motion to that effect?
21
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Farmakes: I'll make a motion to table this.
Scott: Okay.
Farmakes: Until that can be ascertained and until we get counseled but I think that this is
something that could be worked out. Where it is consistent, I think the potential to do that is
there.
Scott: Okay. So the motion on the floor is to table.
Mancino: Second.
Scott: It's moved and seconded. Is there any discussion?
Conrad: Yeah, a little bit. Charlie, if the Byerly's wasn't farmed in a square, how many
square feet would there be in that? Any idea? Are we talking. _
Charlie James: Yes, I figured that out...This letter here, if we go from the very top to there
and out to here, that would be 6 x 16. That's 96 square feet. Then if we squared this area _
off, this would be approximately 8 feet by 13 feet. The total is exactly 200 square feet. This
is 80 square feet right here and one of the reasons why I think we can prove that your
ordinance is making a mistake. --
Conrad: I don't think, there's no question about that. No contest about that.
Charlie James: ...take a square footage of a wall. I mean think about it. If they're saying
15% or 80, just divide 80 square feet by .15 and that will tell you how big of a wall they
anticipated. It doesn't make any sense. And so I guess part of the problem here is, is that
I've got, if you are going to table this, I mean and then you're later on tonight, does that
mean I should stay around because you're going to talk about this ordinance? Or are you
going to table that new ordinance as well.
Scott: That's possible.
Conrad: That's a real possibility.
Charlie James: And the aspect of this is that I'm on kind of a situation where road
restrictions go on on Monday and we're going to be moving, trying to move equipment this
weekend onto the site. The scrapers and all that and I've got a situation here where Byerly's
isn't going to go ahead with this thing until they're comfortable, I mean this is Mr. Harberts'
22
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
hot spot, and this is not posturing just to...kind of thing so if you are going to table it, I know
that they have to come back for a liquor license and I know that, I guess is there some way
_ that, you've got. That's why I was suggesting earlier if we could just separate this for a
moment from the aspect of your code and say, that code's got a problem. Okay. We're not
trying to solve the problem around Charlie James or writing the code around Charlie James.
Scott: Unfortunately that's what's going to happen.
Charlie James: ...and there's 80 square feet and I guess our position is that we've gone far
and above on everything on this building for you.
Scott: Agreed. I agree with that.
Charlie James: And I just need your help on this.
Scott: Bob, can this be on the agenda. Do you think the necessary work can be done by
staff so this could be on the agenda in 2 weeks? Yes? Mr. James, what do you think about.
This is unfortunately when you're breaking ground and you pay the toll and this is, from what
I understand, is a series of these things for you and for this development. What we have here
is Bob Generous is willing to, this ordinance revised so we can take another look at it and
hopefully come to resolution in 2 weeks at our next meeting.
Krauss: Chairman Scott, what's the expectation though? What are we working this out for?
Scott: Well, I think we realize that the existing ordinance does not do what we need to do. I
mean from my particular standpoint, the Byerly's sign in and of itself I don't feel is out of
scale for the building. A subjective vision. I know that some of the issues that we do have
is when we start talking about Wine and Spirits, Fine Foods, Open 24 Hours. It becomes a
_ departure from traditional signage to more advertising. I think what we, at least my
understanding of the ordinance that we're going to be looking at later on this evening, is that
it does not do a good job of setting the guidelines for a building of that scale. And as far as
_ giving concise direction, I think what we need to do is to perhaps have a better bridge
inbetween what we have required other people in similar standard developments and making
this consistent with it.
Krauss: We have no similar standard developments processed under the normal zoning
ordinance. Target and Festival were both PUD's. Those are the only two of comparable size.
Mancino: Well there's Filly's. Isn't that the one that Ladd said was oversized.
23
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Krauss: Well Filly's is potentially an example that we might...in the future.
Mancino: But it's oversized? It's big?
Conrad: I think yeah. Really the problem is, this is not bad in my opinion. And I think
most people up here would say this is not bad. And I'm probably speaking, not speaking for
some but most. Therefore, the ordinance that I've seen you draft doesn't allow this. Okay.
That's the problem. Maybe we can allow this. Maybe I've got to figure out another way to
make this happen and maybe it's outlining the letters for 200 square feet and Charlie can
home tonight and, no. Let's work this out Charlie. You know that's my problem with the
ordinance right now. I'm seeing something that artistically is very nice. That is not
offensive. That I don't care if it's read from Highway 5 or from West 78th Street, it does a
nice job. I have to figure out how to make this legal in Chanhassen.
Scott: Yeah, that's the difficulty I think right there is that it looks nice but we can't use that
as our test. Looking nice can't be our ordinance.
Conrad: Well unfortunately you can allow something 3 times bigger that's pretty than
something that's 1/3 as big that's ugly and we're combining aesthetics with size and that's
tough. There are very few City Councils or Planning Commissions can deal with that issue.
We have to and so again, I think that's what we have to struggle with to see how to make
this work but make it consistent. Really we haven't had problems with the signage ordinance
here. We really haven't. It's been pretty good for it's many flaws. The signage ordinance is
the big bugaboo in any city and you know that. It's 40 pages long and it's got all these
things and nobody understands it and everybody's got a problem with it. But over all, our's
has done an okay job for the last 10 years but now Charlie you are bringing some new stuff
to us and we've just got to figure it out and our job is to not screw Byerly's up and you up.
But on the other hand, our job is to say hey, we have to treat people fairly here and for us to —
just say go ahead, do it is not responsible. You wouldn't, if you lived here, you wouldn't
want us to do that.
Harberts: But I think at the same time, when you look at the fact you have public policy and
what you don't want to happen is to have a policy that really restricts, I guess in my
perspective is somewhat Jurrasic with the times. And I think the test from my perspective is,
what's the impact on the community? What's the impact in terms of development and I have
to agree with you Ladd. I think it certainly is pleasing. It's balanced. It meets those type of
criteria that I think will affect the general public in terms of when they're coming down the
street. Is it nice or is it you know ugly? I certainly am very sensitive to the fact that we
have to be sure and not acting in an arbitrary way but being consistent and what I'd like to be
able to do tonight is not let public policy that's out of date somewhat, or deficient, slow down
24
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
progress. And I don't know if we can move it. I would rather see a decision made tonight
rather than tabling it when we don't even know what are we trying to get at in 2 weeks. I
mean we could be spinning our wheels in 2 weeks or 4 weeks.
Farmakes: But who's responsibility is that then? If we forward it. Is that avoiding what
_ we're supposed to be doing here?
Harberts: Well again I fall back to the frustration that it's a defect it seems in the policy and
what are we going to direct staff to do in 2 weeks? We're not going to change the ordinance.
But yet at the same time it's certainly, I think the general consensus is that it is restrictive.
That this is, that this does work for what we have here. And that's where the frustration here
is. We've got a piece that works but we have a policy that isn't with the times.
Farmakes: But it seems to me that there's some other issues involved here besides the
- signage of Byerly's or the logo itself. The other issues are supplemental signage. Is that
advertising? Is the liquor store a separate store or not? Would that allow that to be treated
as a separate store?
Harberts: And from my perspective, I look at the entire project and what's the impact to the
community. In my opinion, I think it's pleasant. I think it's balanced. Given the size of the
development. And again, coming back to what's the intent of a public policy? Is it to be so
restrictive, so confining or is it to in a sense be able to help produce a product, an asset to the
community?
Farmakes: I understand that but if we ignore existing ordinances at will because we think
well that looks pretty good, we're creating a precedent that may come back to haunt us.
Harberts: And where's the frustration is for me Jeff. Is because perhaps that there needs to
be a change in our policy but again it's at the, it's the developer that's on the short side of
the stick so.
_ Mancino: Well we're asking the developer to wait for 2 weeks. Plus the fact we will be
reviewing a new sign ordinance tonight.
Farmakes: I don't have a problem with that. Any other developer that we've had in here,
and I think we've tried to treat fairly and get them back on the docket as fast as possible.
Harberts: What will we accomplish in 2 weeks? What will staff be able, I guess that's one
of the confusing parts that I have. What will staff bring back to us in 2 weeks that will make
the difference or is it just the discussion at the later point this evening about the new signage?
25
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Scott: I'd like to see, if we do table this particular item, that that would be tabled with some
specific direction for staff to come back with something that we can give us a tool that we
can apply fairly to this circumstance and others like it. Jeff, would that be accurate?
Farmakes: Yeah. I think so. I think that we need an interpretation that we, if we're going to
apply this as a variance, are we going to apply it to the 12 criteria that we use to grant
variances? I don't know if this would qualify under that. The issue of the wine and spirits,
of the supplemental signage beyond the word Byerly's, it would technically it's a variance.
We're granting a variance if we approve this.
Scott: We do have, we're discussing a motion that's on the floor to table.
Harberts: Mr. Chair?
Scott: Yes.
Harberts: Just for the record I want to go on record that I am of no relation to Mr. Harberts
of Byerly's. Truthfully. I think they checked that out before and I guess that can be
confirmed.
Scott: Yes, that is confirmed. Thank you for your comments. We have a motion on the
floor, are we, we closed discussion? Okay, let's vote.
Farmakes moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission table action on the
variance request for a sign permit for Byerly's at West Village Heights 2nd Addition
until the March 16, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. All voted in favor, except
Diane Harberts who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1.
Scott: Jeff could you, I don't know. Does staff have a direction as to what we want
accomplished?
Generous: Well partially but I'm going to wait until you discuss Kate's item later on and get
a little more. Because I have the idea...
Scott: And I think we all agree the intent is that physically what we see, actually is what we
like. What we like is very subjective. However, we just want to make sure we have some
specific numbers or something that we can utilize to make decisions. Have a better tool.
Farmakes: If we're granting a variance, I think every time we do that you have in there the
criteria that we use to grant variances. So if for some reason another option that we have, if
26
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
there's some reason that we're not able to give specific direction to staff or you can't come
up with something that fits "the Byerly's thing". Then what we need to do is to work out our
variance. Signage variance and maybe that's what we, maybe it's not an ordinance. Maybe
it's our variance criteria. So I think we have two options.
— Harberts: It's of interest that we didn't attack this signage ordinance before this particular
piece.
Scott: Agreed. Normally since the public hearing has been closed but if you wish to say
something briefly.
Charlie James: I wanted to say one thing. If you're going to be considering this ordinance
later on this evening, one of the things you might want to consider, because someone raised
the issue of advertising, is go downtown. Is it Subway or is it Subway Sandwiches? Is it
MGM or is it MGM Wine and Spirits or liquor or whatever it is? Is it Festival, as we refer
to it in the industry or is it Festival Foods? So I mean there's a whole multi dimensional
thing there so.
Farmakes: Is it Holiday or is it Warm Snacks and Beer? You're right. It is a problem and
it's currently, under the current ordinance, subject to the manager of the store...
Scott: Okay. Thank you very much for your comments.
PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW TO REPLAT
OUTLOT A, MARKET SQUARE INTO LOT 1, BLOCK 1, MARKET SQUARE 2ND
ADDITION FOR THE LOCATION OF A WENDY'S RESTAURANT ON PROPERTY
ZONED CBD AND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WEST 78TH
STREET AND MARKET BOULEVARD, LOTUS REALTY SERVICES.
Public Present:
Name Address
Brad Johnson Lotus Realty Services
Vernelle Clayton Lotus Realty Services
Herb Bloomberg 7008 Dakota Avenue
Clayton Johnson Bloomberg Companies Inc.
Peter Beck 7900 Xerxes Avenue So., Mpls
Jurij Ozga Naperville, IL
Kevin Norby Landscape Architect
27
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Harberts: I just want to ask a question first. It's my understanding that the city owns this
piece of property. —
Scott: The HRA does.
Harberts: Or the HRA does.
Scott: That is correct.
Harberts: Well, the HRA, which is a different entity by Statute. Is the city interested in
having, is the city interested in selling this piece of property to have this development occur
on this piece of land?
Krauss: There have been some discussions about that but the fact is, is that there's a
purchase or a repurchase agreement I guess...
Harberts: Does the city have the intention of selling this piece of property in order for this
development to occur?
Krauss: There are questions that have been raised regarding that and it's ultimately going to
be a decision of the HRA.
Harberts: When will they consider that?
Krauss: But I should state that that has really little or no bearing on what you as a zoning, _
planning and zoning commission do with a site plan that's before you.
Harberts: Oh I agree Paul. —
Krauss: The fact of city ownership. The fact that someone along the line, other elements of
the city may decide to sell it or not to sell it or use it for something else is not what's before
you. What's before you is the site plan.
Harberts: I agree with Paul on that but my only concern here is that, are we spinning our —
wheels?
Krauss: Well yeah, I can't answer that. I really don't know how it's going to turn out. But —'
you as a Planning Commission are empowered to review projects based upon in place PUD
agreements. Based upon the zoning ordinance. Based upon the Comprehensive Plan. That's
28 —
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
it. Whether or not the HRA elects to or elects to do something else with it, is really their
decision.
Mancino: So anybody can come up in front of us with a site plan on any land, whether it's
going to be sold or not, and just say we want you to review this site plan?
Krauss: Anybody who has a legitimate interest in a piece of ground.
Scott: What's a legitimate interest? How do you define that? They're interested in doing
something.
Krauss: Well they have a purchase agreement or they own it outright and in this case they
have an agreement to repurchase the land. I mean this goes back to an in place PUD
agreement that's been around for 4 1/2 years.
Harberts: I have to agree with Paul in terms of what is before us this evening is to
concentrate on the site plan that's before us. My only frustration is understanding what the
background events are. I'm a little, maybe a little bit disappointed that we as a Planning
Commission, and maybe this is just one of those flukes, one of those weaknesses, and the
purpose of a Planning Commission that we're spending our time, perhaps spending our time
on a project that has so much controversy, so much who knows what direction this is going to
go, that I believe we have better things to do with our time and so I agree with you Paul and
I may be speaking out of turn a little bit but I'm just, I think we have better things to do and
I don't know if there's an opportunity to clearly define that projects that come before us have
some legitimacy in one way or the other so we can spend our time more effectively for the
city.
Krauss: Well I'd say first of all we're holding this project to the same standards of
legitimacy as we do with any other in terms of it being a legitimate interest to bring a project
before you. I don't know how that other issue's going to turn out. I appreciate the concerns
that you have in spinning your wheels, as you describe it, but then again you've spun your
wheels for two meetings on the Centex townhome project and that died for reasons beyond
the purview of the Planning Commission. Those things happen.
Mancino: Yeah but the city didn't...
Krauss: No.
Scott: I happened to be in, I know Commissioner Mancino was at the City Council meeting
4 weeks ago. I was at the one on Monday night. This issue was discussed very specifically
29
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
and major questions were raised at that level. Do we want to retain this as city property for a
public project? Centex obviously didn't have that sort of exposure and I don't know, I'd
have to defer to some of the commissioners that have more tenure than I do but do you, have
you seen a project of this type that got to this point where the city was involved with the
property? Has owned it. —
Farmakes: The criteria that I've used in the past is the more the city is a partner in these
projects, the more negotiation position it has and that becomes a gray area. Now whether or —
not we should be involved with that, it seems to me that in particular if the City Council asks
these questions, that's part of our charge. To investigate what those questions are. And
especially if they get into the areas of interpretative things such as architecture or how this —
affects the city in general. Those aren't quite the same as saying, whether or not you're
meeting the height requirement. —
Krauss: If we go back to the history of the site, the Planning Commission had no problems
approving the Americana Bank proposal on the same property. It was in the same context. It —
was still owned by the city.
Farmakes: There were problems with the building as I recall. —
Krauss: But you approved it. It was redesigned certainly and I think you were the major
focus of that discussion. —
Farmakes: Well yeah. I don't see any difference though in what is the reason this wasn't
approved at the last meeting. Or excuse me, not approved. Continued for some other reasons
that I recall but the public hearing was actually continued.
Mancino: On the American Bank, was there a task force that was looking over the whole —
downtown to decide about land use?
Krauss: No there wasn't at the time but I would argue that what a task force does or doesn't —
do, unless there's a moratorium involved, what somebody may or may not do in the future
cannot color your decisions based upon your review of the zoning ordinance. That gets into
pretty dangerous territory. You can't make the rules up as you go along and when you do
that, you run into some legal problems, which is why we often counsel...Commissioner
Harberts, you raise an interesting question. Is the Planning Commission out in front of this
one and is that the place for you to be. The fact is, 5 years ago I recall there was a great —
deal of consternation, Steve Emmings was in the room a second ago. He may well
remember. Ladd I'm sure remembers. That the HRA was driving projects and the Planning
Commission got them second. And there was a great deal of frustration with the Planning —
30 —
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Commission that projects were already in the pipeline. And we reversed that process largely
at your request because we thought it made sense for the Planning Commission to be in the
_ driver's seat. Now this is one of those rare instances where it may backfire a little bit but
that's how that happens.
_ Harberts: Well like I said Paul, I don't disagree with you in terms of what our charge here
is. What our purpose is. It just, like I said, it's somewhat disappointing and somewhat
frustrating given the large amount of pieces that go through us here when there clearly seems
to be some discussion in terms of what you should occur at the site because it's a focal point
to the community. Because we have this 2000 year task force. Those type of pieces.
Krauss: Well, what you may consider though is, I think you have a responsibility under the
zoning ordinance, under the infamous PUD agreement, to make some kind of a judgment in
that context. If you have, and I understand that you do have, other concerns that should be
brought before the City Council and the HRA, or to the Vision 2002 committee, fine. You
make one set of actions on this proposal based upon what's in place now and send along a
second set of recommendations of what you think should happen in the other context. But
the idea of somewhat arbitrarily saying well, because there are things that are happening
outside this, we don't think it's necessarily a good idea. Therefore we continued this. That's
not really a valid use of your authority.
Harberts: And you know to be fair too, I guess you know I get a little bent out of shape
when public policy seems to in a sense tweak the developers or tweak the public when in a
sense we should be more in a partnership. And like I said, maybe I'm speaking out of turn a
little bit on this issue but like I said, I agree with you. Our charge is certainly to look at the
site plans and again I would just share that same comment with my colleagues here. That
that's what's before us rather than what do we think is a good use of this area. That certainly
will come into play here but you know we do have a charge here.
Mancino: But that's part of planning, deciding what's a good use of an area of land use. I
mean'that's what we're supposed to be doing. Not just reviewing site plans but as an overall
land use, is this a good land use.
Conrad: Well tonight this is a legal use. If it's not, somebody has to tell the City Council
it's not but tonight it is and we really can't change zoning.
Farmakes: The question is, as I recall at the last meeting, is the content of what goes in there
and not the criteria that it's an office retail. But what it is that goes in there.
Conrad: It's reviewing a PUD.
31
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Farmakes: We've had other applicants come in here with the concepts who didn't technically
own the property so it's not, I don't see it as a problem or a waste of time for us to do this —
now. I think this is part of the process. I don't see it necessarily as a partnership but as a
system of checks and balances of what we're doing here and hopefully in the end you get _
different representations of different interests in these type of things and hopefully the
community comes out ahead in the end. There are commercial interests in this property and
there are community interests in this property and I think that the system as it's set up is a _
good one. And allows for the other checks and balances to take place.
Conrad: Absolutely but when the applicant came in here with the rest of Market Square they —
said, we didn't say is there going to be a library there? We didn't. We knew full well this
was going to be retail commercial so that's how, you know there was no deception about that
and we didn't raise any issues with that. Any. _
Krauss: No. I mean it was wide open.
Conrad: So at that time, at that time if we had a problem.
Mancino: So you were expecting fast food and retail. —
Conrad: We didn't expect anything but I think the applicant talked about retail and talked
about food. —
Scott: Well a public hearing on this particular item has been continued from last time so if
someone would like to address the Planning Commission, please step forward. Maybe from a —
staff report standpoint, talk about anything that has changed. Specifically what has changed
since the last time.
Sharmin Al-Jaff gave a staff report update at this point.
Scott: Any questions or comments for staff?
Ledvina: Just one thing. Is the traffic circulation in terms of the alignment of that egress, is
that addressed in the report or would that have to be added as a condition?
Al-Jaff: It's not addressed in the report. Dave might want to answer that question. You had _
the meeting with...this morning.
Hempel: It was recently created as early as 8:05 this morning so no update has been placed _
in your items for you this evening so it would be appropriate to put something in to make
32
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
revisions to the plan.
Mancino: Sharmin, what does that do to the number of parking spaces that are required?
Al-Jaff: What you might look here, you'll be able to make up so you will end up with the
_ same number of spaces because. Well this, we could probably add 4 spaces here and you
would be losing 3 spaces with the first. But I think it would be a wash. You have a total of
91 parking spaces. The ordinance requires 89.
Mancino: So you still have the same number of intersections there. You would just
straighten out the line.
Al-Jaff: Correct.
— Mancino: So it wouldn't eliminate.
Al-Jaff: You would still have 5 intersections but they won't be center.
Hempel: Actually you still have 4 intersections.
— Mancino: 1, 2, 3, 4. But you have incoming traffic too from that. North, south. The main
entryway. The north one.
— Hempel: Sharmin, would you please put the overhead back on.
Scott: Any other questions or comments?
Farmakes: This site plan that we have seen, north elevations and west and east show no
signage...duplication south elevation to the north?
Al-Jaff: I'm sorry, I couldn't hear that.
— Farmakes: The north elevation and the west elevation and the east elevation show no
signage. The north elevation, east and west be a duplication of the signage that we see in the
south elevation?
Al-Jaff: No. It would be limited to the north and south only.
Farmakes: Alright, so the north elevation that we see currently would be a duplication then
of what is currently is shown on the south.
33
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Al-Jaff: Correct.
Scott: I think what we'll do, since the public hearing is continued, I think what we'll do is
we'll continue that public hearing and then if the applicant would like to speak as part of the
public hearing, make a presentation. That's fine. If other members of the public would like
to do so, all we ask is that you step in front and state your name and address and state your
case. So who would like to begin? I'm sure someone would like to speak.
Vernelle Clayton: One of the things that has occurred...is in our effort to quickly turn around
a response to their request, sort of at the same time that the reports are going out, you're —
getting reports that say one thing and then pictures of something in an envelope that look like
something else. This is the very latest of...in response to my conversation with Dave this
morning. I think I'll show you this rather than if you have, if you want to know what
happened before we have sort of a chronology of things here and we do have what came
immediately before that which was a site plan that we incorporated one...since the last
meeting but until I met with Dave, we didn't want to incorporate those changes on the site _
plan. After we met with Dave we incorporated those changes on the landscape plan so if you
want that...as far as getting an overall idea of what it's looking like. So that's what we have
before you now. And as Sharmin explained...actually 5 exits into this corner. Now we have
the 4 with this one off to the side...Can you see it? I guess the other changes are...we had
made earlier...So before we move off the site plan and over to the landscape plan, I'll give
you an opportunity to ask questions if you'd like. _
Mancino: I have a question for Dave. I'd like to hear his comments on, you've gone
through the drive thru. You're stopped and you're going to exit. You're just going to go
through the middle of all that traffic? Do you see where I mean? Now you stopped right
there, the end and you want to exit on that northern, yeah. And go straight. Tell me about
traffic and traffic safety there and who knows when to stop where and how many people do
you have to look at and all that kind of stuff.
Hempel: First of all parking lots are difficult in the first place to make safe but the site has —
very tight configurations. The buildings and the parking lots and so forth like that. To add a
drive thru with the circulation, to even try and bring out a point that's trying to give the most
ease of access to get in and out of the site. With the drive thru like this, you're avoiding the —
additional traffic movements in the retail parking lot...to bring that more out into the location
for quicker access to the site. The turning, the second type of movement out of the driveway
would be backing a car out of the parked stalls on the west side of Wendy's and proceed —
north is basically no different than that.
Farmakes: Would it make more sense to widen the area, the exit from Wendy's. Put an —
34 —
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
island between the two so you didn't have the converging in the same spot from the office
building and the fast food?
Vernelle Clayton: I'm sorry. Say that again.
Farmakes: I don't know anything about traffic allocation designs on how you're doing that.
I can see where sort of the cars are all being angled to the same point in that parking lot and
what I'm wondering is, if your finger, if you just bring it straight down. Just straight down
from the parking lot from that fast food lane there.
Vernelle Clayton: Here?
Farmakes: Yeah. Just bring it straight down and keep on going with it. Keep on going.
Vemelle Clayton: We've talked about that too and I've been...we originally had the exit here.
More like here and you wanted it lined up with across here. This would be fine with us if it
would come out here.
Hempel: Right. That was part of the existing parking lot on the other side which serves
Subway and the rest of the Market Square has these existing islands here which dictate the
access point or openings for traffic flow across the intersection here. Ideally, yes. That
would be great if we could continue one movement right off the road. But you've got
constraints such as the parking here where you don't have that on this side. We're not able
to mirror.
Farmakes: Well how many parking spots do you lose then though?
Hempel: This, and you'd essentially have to reconfigure the opposite side of the street as
well. You would have offset points coming out onto your access road. That's the problem
with that situation.
Farmakes: You wouldn't necessarily drive from the parking lot into Wendy's? A straight
vertical line though wasn't it?
Vernelle Clayton: Are you saying why is it important that they be across from each other?
Mancino: Yeah.
Farmakes: No. Why is it important that the access from that parking lot drive across the
thru road into Wendy's? It doesn't seem to me to be the same destination. Wouldn't the
35
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
majority of the traffic come through the thru road? The road that goes north and south to
access the property. —
Hempel: Right. This would be the major access feeder for this whole site for the shopping
center. The major access to Wendy's would be the most southerly one. —
Farmakes: Right. I mean...people leaving to the middle area there. The majority of them
entering to the right. My point is, I would assume you wouldn't have very many of them —
driving across from the opposite parking lot. That would be driving north, east and west.
Vernelle Clayton: He doesn't think there are going to be many people coming from here. —
Farmakes: Right. So what I'm saying is. _
Vernelle Clayton: So why can't we have this down here and then they'll be going out here
or down here anyway. _
Hempel: I see.
Farmakes: I don't know that. I'm assuming that somebody with traffic patterns.
John: If I can try to answer what I think was the problem. Is this roadway is one of the _
main entrances to Market Square shopping center so in theory it would have more traffic at a
higher speed. People would tend to drive through the main entrance to get to wherever
they're going. --
Farmakes: It's 25 mph, right?
John: Right. But their...they have a right to continue. Even though I was there this
evening and it seems like the road stops at every intersection. However, that would be one of
the main entrances, just like this is one of the main entrances into the shopping center. So —
from a traffic perspective, you would prefer to have, whatever decisions have to be made,
happen in this area before you would get on the main entrance roadway. So that's what I
think staff was trying to achieve and I didn't want to have any confusion at that intersection. —
So they wanted to have this line up with the passageway and the parking lot across the way
so there wouldn't be any confusion in that area. The car would come up here. Stop and
make a turn if they wanted to proceed across there... —
Farmakes: I can see what you're talking about. If a car comes, travels let's see that would
be to the east, or west. It's coming down after getting their hamburger and they come to the —
36 —
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
access road and look north and south to see if there's any traffic coming and go out to the
lane of traffic. If they turn to the north where the 4 access points sort of come together there,
they would sort of have to do a 360 to see exactly what was coming at them.
John: No, not really because to understand the flow, what you don't see over here is the
stop signs. So when you come out of the drive thru. Pick up your product. You come to
this point you stop. Same thing coming from this part of the parking lot.
Farmakes: But you have to look right and left...intersection again. Look right and left again.
Turn. Look to your left and then come down to the access road.
John: But just remember, that traffic's not even going 25 mph. You're basically idling.
You're coming out, a way out of a parking lot.
Farmakes: But it's a drive thru.
John: You're not going at the speeds someone would be going on an entrance road. And
from a traffic perspective, you're looking to say, we want to make all the resolutions or
decisions happen on the lot. On the site plan before you get into what would be the regular
thoroughfare.
Hempel: One other thing I'd like to add is, this access point here, that's a pretty heavily
traveled one. It's the one that takes you behind Subway and out the back way of the west
exit or entrance on Market Square as well. So it is, it's more heavily used than either one of
those two.
Farmakes: But what I'm saying is, that doesn't mean that they couldn't drive straight across
and the entrance would still be there. I'm talking actually about two ways to leave that
property. One would be to enter where it currently is now, wanting to come straight down
leaving Wendy's, which is probably only going to be departures I assume. But I'm just
looking at that from a consumer's standpoint. I have no expertise on that whatsoever. And
to me that doesn't.
John: From Wendy's perspective we would not have a preference. However, I can see
from your staff making decisions here, where people are traveling slow. So it's easier to
stop.
Farmakes: From being a consumer, driving in these parking lots, those multi entrances where
you have several angles coming together, is usually where I have my problems in parking
lots.
37
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Hempel: It's similar to McDonald's drive thru that you have now currently. —
Farmakes: Kind of a free for all at some particular exit.
Hempel: At some point you do with most drive thru's. This gives you an opportunity to go
either direction where this one you're limited to going one way on and more congestion in
this area competing with traffic for the retail site. I agree, it's not a perfect parking lot —
configuration but dealing with what we have on the other side of the street. With the access
points. I felt it's probably the most.
Mancino: Dave, on a scale of 1 to 10, how hazardous is it? I mean would you design, I
mean starting from scratch, something like that?
Hempel: That's a tough question.
Mancino: Well you're evaluating public safety all the time. —
Hempel: On that size of a parking lot, it's difficult with a mall...those traffic generates all of
the uses. That's a pretty heavily traveled roadway. What helps here is it's a right-in/right-out —
only or it would even be worse traffic. But I guess I'd probably rate it at 7. 6 or 7.
Mancino: Okay. A question for you. Can an 18 wheeler go in, drop off supplies, food, —
everything else and make those turns to the Wendy's in the parking lot? Can they do the
radius turns?
Hempel: I would say they'd be able to maneuver at this intersection. I guess I would
question that over there.
Vernelle Clayton: Did we decide they could get around there or did we decide you weren't
going to be using them much?
Jurij Ozga: Yes, we oriented them around the building, yes.
Mancino: Because I know we had problems with the entryway into Market Square off of
Market Boulevard.
Jurij Ozga: Yeah, we have roughly 22 feet here. We did look at...that configuration...Usually
deliveries are made before the restaurant's open so there's no cars.
Mancino: Yeah. I'm just wondering if they can actually make the turns. Getting in.
38
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Scott: Any other questions or comments for the applicant?
Vernelle Clayton: We have here a boat and pick-up and a boat.
Harberts: I'm sorry.
Vernelle Clayton: A pick-up and a boat goes around too.
Harberts: But is it a Suburban?
Vernelle Clayton: Well, I had to make it more fun to make a pick-up so anyway.
Harberts: The radius worked?
Vernelle Clayton: It worked. We're essentially then done with the site questions that you
have of us on the site plan?
Scott: Yes.
Vernelle Clayton: Alright. Listen, if you think of other questions we can come back to it but
we wanted to get back to elevations. A little discussion of what we did for changes on
elevations...
Kevin Norby: Since the last time we looked at this, again there were a couple of changes.
We tried to address Nancy's concern about pedestrian safety and crossing parking lots and
we've extended the sidewalks on either side of the building here to directly incorporate the
concrete pavement in the parking lot. That will help designate...indicating a pedestrian
crosswalk. The other area we looked at was this utility corridor and I've got a...Basically
what we did was try to cluster those utility boxes and provide access to them from a central
courtyard. What do you call it. We then screen them from the adjoining roads with various
plant material, roughly 5 to 7 feet tall. Some of that materials is evergreens. A little bit is
deciduous so we think it's a year round sort of screening. We would probably need an
easement dedicated for putting those utilities in that location. Basically beyond that the
planting plan hasn't changed unless you've got questions.
Mancino: Kevin, one of the requests I think Sharmin made was on the south side she
requested 5 trees and you added 3. You have a space there.
Al-Jaff: 5 in addition to what was there originally.
39
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Mancino: Okay. Has that been done? Was there a reason not to?
Kevin Norby: Well we discussed that at the last meeting and I thought the way we left that,
there was some concern about the viability of the plant material in that particular location and
we tried to put plant material that we thought would take the salt and the heat. It's a fairly —
narrow area with traffic moving and snowplows moving a lot of snow into that area. You'll
have a lot of salt residue. This is exactly the same plan you saw last time with that regard.
Mancino: Okay. Then refresh my memory a little bit. Are any of the perimeter plantings
trees inside the parking lot or perimeter plantings conifers? Besides what's around the utility.
Kevin Norby: No. There are a couple here that are actually inside of that right-of-way. It
would be considered interior I suppose but they're really part of an exterior sort of planting.
Those are not.
Mancino: Any particular reason? Because I know when we drafted our new preservation _
ordinance, we asked for 20% be conifers.
Kevin Norby: It was a matter of space limitations. Wanting to use something we thought
was appropriate. We thought they could be best used along the perimeter to provide
buffering. The sort of spaces that were typically given here, along the building are anywhere
from maybe 3 feet to 10 feet wide and we're talking about putting a conifer in there that's —
got a spread of 15 to 30 feet. We didn't think that was appropriate.
Mancino: Gotch ya. Then people couldn't walk around it.
Kevin Norby: Right.
Scott: Dave.
Hempel: I just had one question, or actually two questions. Has NSP been consulted with —
relocating these boxes, if it's even feasible?
Vernelle Clayton: Yes. I called...
Hempel: I know the city has a traffic controller at that intersection as well for the timing of
the traffic signals at the intersection and I have some reservations on how much that can be
moved.
Vernelle Clayton: I think we were hoping we might be able to build that into the line...
40 —
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Kevin Norby: It's currently shown in the location with the rest of them here but there's been
some discussion and of course we want to talk with you about this but actually incorporating
it here as adjacent to or as a part of that monument.
Hempel: One last question I guess as far as if the boxes are moved down to that location as
proposed, I would assume that NSP would be given right of entry or access easement or
something because I don't think there's going to be an access to it from Market Boulevard.
— Kevin Norby: This drawing I gave you would provide access from the, basically from the
Wendy's site. And we'd maintain the 10 foot access corridor.
Mancino: Kevin, can you also refresh my memory on the south side of the office retail
building. Is there going to be any planting, any planters, any welcoming green space there?
Kevin Norby: There are some spaces there. I'm not sure that you can see them from there
but along the entire perimeter of the building with the exception of where the doors are. In
lieu of providing planter boxes like at Market Square in front of Lawn and Sports and Guy's
and those places, we felt that, I felt that those would complicate the circulation. They create
some awkward situations as far as trying to plant them and maintain plant material. So I've
proposed planting strips along the entire perimeter of that building.
Mancino: About how wide?
Kevin Norby: I think we've got them at 30 inches.
Mancino: Okay. And will there be sprinklers to maintain themselves or drip system or
something?
Kevin Norby: My understanding is that the whole site will be irrigated, including the
planters.
Scott: Any other?
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, if I could ask one more question. As far as the monument of that
corner, what's the height of that monument sign?
Vernelle Clayton: What is it Sharmin? You have it on that drawing.
Al-Jaff: 12 feet 10 inches.
41
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Hempel: I'm just a little concerned, would that monument fall into our sight triangle.
Al-Jaff: No. I measured that.
Hempel: Okay, thanks.
Farmakes: Aren't we hearing from Wendy's? —
Scott: Maybe next.
Vernelle Clayton: We had, we will talk a little bit about the materials that we're going to be
using next. And also put up the boards on which you have the elevations for the new plan of
the retail office building. You saw it on the overhead. I think the TV may be a little clearer
on this and I also have some sketches. Ink drawings which will give you a little bit of depth
perception. One of the things that you asked for was a chance to see what the materials look
like and so Bill, our architect by the way, I should explain...This is the choice of brick that —
Bill selected and it's...It's got, we discussed the fact that the corner, the buildings near the
corner have a rosy cast as does this building and certainly the Country Suites motel. So this
is picking up on that and this is a piece of the break off block that would...There are a couple —
of remaining elements that tie in with Market Square. One is the break off block all the way
across the bottom. All the way around and then the other is just this kind of hint of...This is
a sample of the asphalt shingle for the roof. —
Farmakes: That would be gray, not green?
Vemelle Clayton: I'm sorry.
Farmakes: Those now would be changed to gray, not green? —
Vernelle Clayton: Right. We kind of heard you say you weren't too happy with the green
and we feel that this style of building, because it's a little less dramatic, that it probably needs
the subtlety of the more muted colors. These are the colors, the Market Square colors. I'll
just put them up here. This is the green and these are the pink colors. This is the green
tile...
Mancino: Where is the green?
Vernelle Clayton: The green, the metal, the coping around the building at Market Square is
this color. The roof, the pitch...the pitch on the top of the monument signs are the colors.
There are little insets of tiles here and there on the gabled portions and that's the green.
42
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Probably more of the green we're talking about though...and this, if you consider this as the
way the building might look at night and this is the way it might look during the day.
_ There's a fair amount of glass and I think it will be quite dramatic at night with the lights on
through the arched windows and doors. During the day then you'll see this is...for this trim.
The windows is the burgundy so that will be kind of the hint of the tie-in's to the awnings
over the windows at Market Square. The windows here will have a burgundy. And I think
those will pick up the brick. This will give you I think a little better feeling of the depth of
the building and the way these plans work and just jutting out here 2 feet and then back in
and out here 2 feet and back in and...cutting in the corners. This is, she has outlined these as
a sign band...
Mancino: Would there be any wall lighting? I know you have it over at Market Square. It
looks like a different feel. I see you having different light in the Market Square but I just
wondered if you had gotten to that degree and picked out.
Vernelle Clayton: We haven't.
Farmakes: The gabled areas with the larger window space, is that reflective material or is
that transparent?
Vernelle Clayton: This is...currently as glass.
Farmakes: See thru glass, it's not.
Vernelle Clayton: Right. Right.
Farmakes: Currently our window display ordinance for PUD, what is the issue for tenant
display in the windows? Is there a percentage allotted or what?
Al-Jaff: It's not addressed. They may not display. You're referring to signage?
Farmakes: I'm talking about window spaces. You know when they tape up 15% off of
shoes. Currently in the PUD for instance, MGM. Their entire wall, window space area is
taped up with temporary signage. What would be, what we would be seeing there. What are
the restrictions of what we would be seeing. The north elevation and the.
Al-Jaff: That no window signage take place at all.
Mancino: Yeah, we would make that a condition. We could make that a condition?
43
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Al-Jaff: Yes. This is something that weren't addressed originally in the PUD agreement.
Mancino: Okay yeah. I'd like to see that not duplicated, either at Wendy's or here.
Farmakes: Are the large window areas part of retail space? Or is that a through...The large
window areas, are those part of the retail actual square footage in the interior or is that a walk
thru area or what? —
Vernelle Clayton: Right behind the window...directly behind the window you would see
people sitting at desks working... —
Farmakes: Well if it's office retail, one way or the other, it potentially could be somebody at
their desk or somebody at a counter selling video tapes. So the large window areas that you —
see, the two of them in each north and south elevation and one in the west and east elevation,
do you see through to the actual retail space or is that like a walk thru hallway?
Vernelle Clayton: No, that's right...
—
Farmakes: What do you envision the problems that you would see for retail if the window
spacing there was reflective and not transparent?
Vernelle Clayton: It would be devastating.
Farmakes: For? _
Vernelle Clayton: They need to be able to see in for retail. That's the whole idea of being
in an area with a big window. _
Harberts: I would have a concern from a public safety perspective. If you can't see in, there
could be some type of robbery or something that may occur so I would just lend my _
comments in that area.
Farmakes: Yeah, there are office buildings however that have reflective windows and the —
question I had, is the retail level, the question of goods, the question of goods being portrayed
pretty close to the street here in the main drag of Chanhassen, the question would be, how
that would be applied. It's a pretty big window space. I question the definition of whether I —
put my 15% off of shoes in the window or just push my wooden shoes up within a foot of
the window with the 15% off.
44 —
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Mancino: Yeah, that's a good question because so many people use their front windows as
display. Have their mannequins or whatever.
Farmakes: There's nothing wrong with that.
Vernelle Clayton: That's the whole idea.
Farmakes: I don't think that there's any intrinsicately wrong with that. This is a commercial
area but what I'm saying is that, do we leave that type of application either to the PUD or
restriction. Deal with that in the ordinance or do we leave that up to the store manager? I'm
not saying it should be excluded. I'm just saying it be considered as part of the signage. It
seems to me that the signage itself is pretty moderate, what we would term moderate.
Scott: Okay, any other questions or comments? Okay, what do you have next?
Vemelle Clayton: Okay. I would like to introduce a couple of folks, and I learned two
things after reading the Minutes last time. One is that I need to articulate a little better and
the other is, it's a good idea to spell names from time...We have John...from Wendy's and
you read the name wrong...and next time we'll have Jurij Ozga and that one is Jurij Ozga.
John, would you like to come up and talk a little bit again about Wendy's? We have one
member that wasn't here last time and a new member.
John: As was discussed the last time, the reason Wendy's likes the area is that our market is
that we strive to go after the market that's a little more upscale. A little more white collar.
A little more upper income than some of our competitors. For that reason we design our
building to fit into areas such as the downtown area of Chanhassen, office complexes. We
try to use materials that are much more subdued and a little more amenable to that type of a
background. Incidentally, Wendy's will use the same materials that the office retail space
_ will use. So we'll use the same brick and Jurij has a picture up here. We'll have a little
relief over there that will be that gray taupe color...so from a market perspective, the
Chanhassen market is the perfect market for us. Our interior of our stores, once again to
appeal to a more upscale environment. We use carpeting on our floors in the dining area.
We have free standing movable chairs and tables to attract the more adult and more upscale
clientele once we gotten to that. Our signage is red or subdued. We use either red letters or
white letters. We prefer the red letters. They're our standard. From a perspective of the
drive thru, questions were asked, would our drive thru accommodate an RV van with towing
a boat. Again, we've calculated the radius and the width of the drive thru. We not only
provide for a drive thru lane but also a by-pass lane, which is different than our major
competitors have done...in your village and they don't provide for a by-pass lane. So for that
reason we will accommodate the RV van with the boat. Some of our marketing, we like to
45
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
get involved in the community. To get involved in marketing. Local marketing and
advertising that supports civic activities such as Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Junior League clubs, —
different types. Perhaps there's a local promotion where you buy a hamburger, fries and soda
and perhaps we contribute so much money for each combination...purchased. What else? In
terms of our menu board. There was a question about that last time as to the size and when
we looked at your proposed new ordinance, sign ordinance, the size of our menu board that's
located on the drive thru is actually smaller than what we could in theory have as a menu
board. It's substantially smaller. I think you allow something like 8 feet in height and our's
in about 5 1/2 feet in height. Jurij, you have a picture of it. In terms of stacking. We
recommend 6 cars of stacking, and we do provide that on our site plan. 6 cars of stacking
would actually bring you up to this area here. If for some reason, someone raised the —
question, what if your operations was absolutely awful. You had the worst day in Wendy's
history, we could actually provide for another 12 cars up to this point. It's not ideal. That is
not something that we would propose would ever be the norm. We find that in our —
operations, 6 cars is more than enough for us. The drive thru is designed with having two
windows. The reason for that is in a perfect operation situation we could accommodate up to
4 cars every 5 minutes. Now that isn't, in the business that we have, we'd like that business —
but we don't have that business. But if we were having a time demonstration to see how fast
can you handle that type of a drive thru business, you could handle it that fast. And the
reason for that is it's a two step process. Some of you may be familiar with that...to have
two drive thru windows. The first drive thru window you pay for your products. Say order
your product at the menu board, then you move to the next stage which is where you pay for
the product and then pick up your product at the second drive thru window. What that does
is it allows for faster movement of the vehicle process so you don't have someone at one
window saying I'm ordering and then pay for it. I've got to look for my money. Get my
wallet out and then also deal with the products so it's a three step and it makes that
movement flow a lot easier. Jurij could address perhaps the design elements as to some of
the materials and the look.
Jurij Ozga: From the previous meeting we made revisions in our elevations. On each side
we have taken off the doors and put in a side...Also we include a facia...facing Market
Boulevard. So this facia would be the same type that we have here and this is the...fmish. It
will be a copper finish with...brick.
Mancino: Oh, on the mansard part?
Jurij Ozga: Yes. —
Farmakes: The trim that we discussed last time, what color is the trim that we discussed last
time?
46 —
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Jurij Ozga: The trim, I have changed as requested. A bronze. I've illuminated the red band.
However, I would, it gets to be...not going with a red band, I would prefer to go with the
burgundy which would tie into the shopping center.
Farmakes: So it would be similar to the awnings?
Jurij Ozga: Yes.
Farmakes: So it will be a combination of red. The green material, is that bronze and
burgundy that's currently on the Market Square I?
Jurij Ozga: Correct. Basically what would happen is we have that bronze parapet taking the
red...
Scott: ...please go ahead. Sorry for the interruption.
Farmakes: This is the bronze sample that you just showed?
Jurij Ozga: Right. The red would be burgundy and then we have a beige.
_ Farmakes: And then this would be burgundy?
Jurij Ozga: Ah yes. And the only red would be the letters.
Farmakes: And the difference that we would see here is that this part of the sign would be...
Mancino: And what's the square footage of the signage?
Jurij Ozga: The square foot of that sign is, let's see. It's about 24 square feet.
Farmakes: I have a question. Did staff, when you discussed this issue and we talked, we had
this discussion before...interpretation of the word compatibility. It takes two directions that
we've got. One is the same as and the other one is pieces out of adjacent buildings. I was
wondering, obviously in discussing colors, and say for this instance you're talking about
picking up the trim. The style of the buildings are slightly different but you're picking up
some of the colors. Gray for instance of the brick. Was the intent of the ordinance, and I
wasn't here at the time of the ordinance. Was the intent of the ordinance to replicate a
development to the extent that you have an extension of that development when you're
talking about the verbiage. The way that it's set up. That that's a good thing. I wasn't
aware in our discussion the last time that this was going to come back. That the base color
47
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
was going to be gray and then the other buildings were going to be gray and so on. I was
wondering what your thinking was on that direction. Motivation for that. —
Al-Jaff: Well, as far as compatibility, I think what the ordinance was trying to get at is you
won't have a Victorian building next to a modem building. You would have some element of —
compatibility in style, design, materials. As far as why it was changed, I believe that the
materials, it was often said that during the last meeting that the quality of the materials
weren't what you were looking for. —
Farmakes: I was talking about the coloration. Duplicating gray...That was staff's input or
you came back with that or how? -'
John: No. At our last public hearing meeting, it was recommended by all of you that we
were striving to blend the colors of Market Square more than the other three colors and what
was recommended to us was to try to use materials and colors that would try to blend in, so
it would blend in with the whole four corners, was the recommendation. And how that arose
was when we showed you the colored picture of the Wendy's, so you could get an idea of...
the members that were here liked the use of those materials in the building.
Farmakes: I guess the interpretation of the word compatible. That's the hang up.
John: I think they were trying to blend in color scheme and you made a few
recommendations as to office buildings. About some other office building down the street
which is...down the street and so that's what we tried to incorporate into this.
Vemelle Clayton: Probably the only documentation that would have for compatibility, it
could be the design of the buildings that were designed and...at the time to be built on Lots 2
and 3. And take a look at them. Everything...interpretation of design. But if you look at
them, they aren't just like the shopping center for example. So that's the only thing of record
that gives clues.
Farmakes: What I'm trying to ascertain with my question is that there's really two
ordinances that contain this. One is the one for the PUD and there's an overlay downtown
comment that deals with this also and I still haven't even set up in my own mind exactly —
what it means and what's best for Chanhassen in regards to how that's interpreted. Whether
compatible means same quality as. Same architectural style as. Same color as. It seems to
be kind of interpreted as we go along depending on which version of what developer comes
in or how they feel to compete is going on that piece. In the future I think we should maybe
clarify that a little bit because I think there's some confusion even in the interpretation of the
city... —
48 —
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Mancino: What does compatibility mean?
Farmakes: Well I don't think it's bad that you have different types of architecture. It gives a
city some flavor and the issue of compatibility is that there's obviously some things that don't
fit in at all. I don't think that's the issue here so don't hang on my comments but you can
make a boring city that way. You can make a company town that way. It might look like a
military thing where everything's the same color and everything looks the same exactly. You
still can have differences in architecture and have them go together. Anyway.
Scott: Do the commissioners require any other information from the applicants at this time?
No?
Al-Jaff: There is one thing that was mentioned a few minutes ago when we...and that was in
regard to the roof top equipment...
Jurij Ozga: ...lining up our roof top units with this treatment. And that's from the standpoint
of proportion of how high we'd go with this type of treatment and...proper ventilation. The
other option I have this option. We have...
Scott: So the roof top equipment would in essence be no higher than the top of the dormer.
Is that what you're saying?
Jurij Ozga: ...this is higher. It's above the roof top units.
Scott: Say again please?
Jurij Ozga: This treatment is higher than the roof top units.
Scott: Oh okay. Thank you.
Al-Jaff: With this option, the roof top equipment would be guaranteed to be screened. I
questioned the elevation of Highway 5 in relationship to this building and I don't have an
answer for you.
Mancino: Can we get a perspective. A simulated perspective.
Al-Jaff: From TH 5?
Mancino: Yeah, from Highway 5 to see exactly what we're going to see in both buildings.
49
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Scott: Okay. Unfortunately that item was tabled.
Mancino: At your TH 7 and TH 101 Wendy's you have a satellite dish on the top. Now
would that work with the other roof treatment, because it needs to be open I assume to allow.
Jurij Ozga: Yes. That's another issue...This type of screening I have no problem.
Mancino: So you're saying on the other one. —
Jurij Ozga: See this one is, if the satellite dish goes in, it would be visible.
Mancino: But if we said you couldn't have anything that was visible, you couldn't put a
satellite dish on there.
Jurij Ozga: Then you'd have to go with...
Mancino: Is that even workable for you?
Jurij Ozga: A satellite dish. _
Mancino: Not having one.
Jurij Ozga: Well yeah. We'll have to go with a different type of music system. In other
words, instead of having a satellite, we will have to have tapes...This would be no problem
doing this... —
Farmakes: How do you wish to refer to those? Are there option numbers on there?
Jurij Ozga: Yeah, this is Option B.
Farmakes: And Option A then would be the other. —
Scott: Any other comments? Okay, do we need any more information on the project? No.
Great, thank you very much. This is a public hearing. If there are other members of the —
public who would like to comment on this particular proposal, please do so. And all we ask
is that you state your name and your address. Go ahead.
Brad Johnson: Brad Johnson, 7425 Frontier Trail. I just thought I would comment that one
of the things that we've been working on on this corner for about 4 1/2 years is that we
probably have a fast food type of a restaurant. We've got people from Dairy Queen, Taco —
50 —
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Bell, which we turned down because of conflicting with somebody else in our center. One of
the reasons we were kind of excited about Wendy's, which has been just displayed, is they're
flexible. We were really worried that materials and things like that they would not be able to
meet any type of a criteria that you set. I think they've demonstrated between last meeting
and this meeting, they certainly have demonstrated to us throughout the entire process with
them that they have the flexibility and are trying to fit into the community and so they're
fulfilling that. I think you should give them some credit for that. The reason we have the
two type of roof types simply is, there's at least one person on the HRA that sort of likes
peaked roofs and we're not saying that's good or bad but I guess you did set a precedent with
the Byerly's. There is no...so we maybe don't need to them there but I think we're flexible.
I think they pointed out that the row of air conditioning equipment, you know we have to...
some place and the worst place to have them is on the ground because they look over at our
building on the professional building where you have everything on the ground and you have
to have a big screened in area off to the right on the side of the building because you
_ couldn't put it anyplace else. ...and I'm also, the architect...must have spent 4 or 5 days
changing quickly the design. I've never seen a design change so dramatically as far as the
office building is concerned. I think they've done a very good job of trying to meet the
compatibility probably from quality...than Market Square simply because we're using a brick.
But I wanted to thank Wendy's for their efforts.
Scott: Good. Would anybody else like to address the Planning Commission?
Harberts moved, Farmakes seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
(Joe Scott's comments were distorted on the tape and hard to understand.)
Scott: Comments? Well I'll start. I'm just going to briefly reiterate some comments that I
made last time. City of Chanhassen takes very seriously...it's citizen committees...spent quite
a bit of time assisting us at the Planning Commission as well as the City Council in
determining how buildings, land use and so forth will...My particular feeling is that this item
should be tabled until we get input from the 2002 people...So that's the extent of my
comments. Anybody else?
Ledvina: Sharmin, I had a question. Is there going to be a pylon sign?
Al-Jaff: No.
Ledvina: Okay. I didn't think so but I just wanted to make sure that wasn't the case because
I saw that in the photograph.
51
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Al-Jaff: The only sign they are entitled to would be identical to what is at Market Square
right now. There are two existing signs. A third one would have to be identical to it out —
there. And then they have the wall signs.
Ledvina: Okay. I just wanted to finish up my comments. In terms of the architectural —
options that we saw for Wendy's, I would support Option A, which was the one that was
previously presented. It provides a bit more novelty to this type of building. I think it's a
nice way of setting it apart. As far as the office building is concerned, I think that the —
improvements that have been made are pretty dramatic and I'm not an architect but I like
what I see in terms of the changes that have been made. I think we're definitely going in the
right direction here so I would support that. I guess that's the extent of my comments. —
Conrad: Just two thoughts. One, I like the changes on the building, especially the corner
building on Edina. I think that's attractive. Two, Joe I'm curious what you think that
delaying for the Vision 2002 will accomplish.
Scott: Well I think the important part of it is, we have this group of individuals who have
been tasked with giving us some input as to what they would like to see in the downtown
area. There is, this is really the first real time specific application for that particular group. I
think it's, and I know that Mr. Gerhardt could speak to this as well as Mr. Wing who have
been involved. Is that I think that group has come along from the standpoint of being
citizens who were not particularly clear as to what their charter was, to now starting to form
some sort of a cohesive group and this is a very significant location in the city. It basically,
it's pretty much the center point, the focal point of our city at this point in time, and I think
that we should give them an opportunity to give us some input on, in a real time basis, prior _
to making a decision on this. I think it's a good opportunity and we have this group. I think
we should gather some of their input as well, and that's my feeling on that particular issue.
What we will get out of it I think is some citizen input and from people who aren't —
necessarily parts of commissions. Who don't necessarily have a vested interest in the
property itself and that's one of the things I was very clear at the first meeting that I was at
with this group is that each table was asked to select a spokesperson but it couldn't be a
member of city staff. It couldn't be anybody on a commission. They were very, very careful
about getting people who have a fresh input and really don't know all that much about how
things work. So those are my thoughts. —
Conrad: And because it's your opinion this land is, could be put to different use based on
that input? —
Scott: Possibly. But I don't know what the input is. And they really have been asked.
They've been asked, what are the boundaries of the central business district. They have put -'
52 —
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
together a statement of intent. That it has to do with being pedestrian friendly. To be
something that enhances the quality of the central business district but they really haven't
been asked a specific question such as what do you think should be here. So this I think will
give them an opportunity to deal with something that is very, very specific. It's here and
now and I think it's an excellent opportunity for that group of people to do that.
Farmakes: Are you suggesting that the option is open to rezone the property?
Scott: No. No. But I think it's an opportunity. There are a number of different uses that
are applicable to this particular property and my thought is, is that this is.
Farmakes: Other than what it's currently zoned for or what it's zoned for?
Scott: What it's zoned for within the existing zoning. And I think it's a good opportunity
for that group of people to give some input. And that's basically the extent of my comment
on that. Public hearing has been closed.
Vernelle Clayton: I understand but we didn't know this would be discussed. You were told
that it should not be a consideration so I'd just like a chance to add a little bit on that.
Scott: Well the public hearing has been closed. Excuse me. I think we have an opportunity
for some organized citizen input. I think we should take that opportunity.
Mancino: I have a question for you. A question for all of us. You're referring to the
Highway 5 and we certainly did look at some zoning issues and land use issues on Highway
5. We did next to the Arboretum on the north side of TH 41. Or on the west side of TH 41
there and we sought to change some land use designations.
Farmakes: The point here made by the applicant, the point here made by city staff, as I
understand it, is that the city has a performance contract, an obligation of which the zonement
for this is in place. What exactly goes on there is somewhat flexible within that zonement.
Whether or not it's a realty company or whether or not it's a video store. Currently under
that agreement, as I understand it, that option is up to the whoever wishes to rent it. Within
the restrictions that we have for that PUD agreement. And it seems to me that if you
envision that, as I said, it could be a law firm or it could be a video store. I'm not sure if
this is an agreement that was made 5 1/2 years ago. I'm not sure within that agreement that
has been made, if not having been to those meetings that you're talking about. I'm not, you
_ know I've heard and read some things but I haven't been fortunate enough to be able to go to
the 2002 Vision. But I'm not sure how much of that is up for.
53
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Mancino: Jeff, it hasn't been brought up to rezoning. I mean that hasn't been a question.
That hasn't been where the thinking is going at all, that I've heard in the Vision 2002. At
this point.
Farmakes: As I understand and as I, Ladd you were here when they got into that. The one _
question that I had and I was going to bring up in my comments was, you have a specific
piece of property. That property is either considered one lot or it's considered two lots.
From a developmental standpoint. If you have a free standing building like you have now -
outside of the main building, where you have two lots. One is a permitted commercial use
and the other is office retail. I'm not sure specifically if they could be interchanged or not in
those lots in the agreement but versus putting one building on the whole piece of property.
Or one development on the whole piece of property. I'm sill not clear in my own mind
exactly what those options are on this developmental plan or whether or not that is an option
to be looked at. If the city does not wish to pursue putting a fast food operation and they -
consider it not to be compatible with using the compatibility issue of downtown development,
one of the two ordinances, what else goes there? What other free standing small amount of
square footage is going to survive as a free standing building? If it's not a fast food and I'm -
having a hard time coming up with something that amount of square footage that's going to
be viable as a destination. So that was my concern on just the general site plan. I had some
other comments here. Should I go through my comments or are we kind of jumping around -
back and forth but I don't know if you wanted to discuss that further. If that works into your
concept issue of what that's being used for or not.
Mancino: I don't have a use but I was going to say that if you didn't do fast food, you
would certainly have a much bigger building that you could put there because you wouldn't
need the drive thru, etc area. So that the building could be, whether it be a book store or
something else that could go there. It could be a family restaurant. It wouldn't be fast food.
You could do something like that. Go ahead.
Farmakes: Are those the things that are being discussed?
Mancino: They haven't even started that specific yet.
Conrad: And that's a little bit what worries me. You know I don't think they're, that group
is looking at that and I guess I'm part of that group. I wasn't there at the last meeting but I
don't know that they're chartered to go out and come back and say this is the type of retail
we want on that northeast corner of Market Square, you know. They could say we want a -
library there. That's a different issue altogether but tonight that's not an issue I think we're
dealing with. And therefore the issue is what's in front of you and if the task force and the
City Council wants to propose not selling it back or offering more money, that's a different -
54
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
issue than what we're looking at. We're looking at Market Square and what's permitted.
Farmakes: I would tend to agree with you on that.
Conrad: You know. If I thought that that group was out there and specifically thinking about
this stuff, it might be worth while waiting for some input but I don't, you know, it's been
operating for 4 months or 6 months and I guess I just don't know that it's got this as an
objective. That it's going to come in in 2 weeks so I guess I don't have, I'm going to close
my comments on that one. I just don't think it's worth while postponing for that. Their
input can come to the City Council but I think we should react to what's in front of us
tonight.
Harberts: I have a technical question for staff. Since this is going to be, I don't know what
the word is. From Outlot A into Lot 1, Block 1. Changed I guess. Is the impervious surface
guidelines still being met? I don't know if, I reviewed the numbers. Do they exceed 70%?
Since it's moving into a lot. You know does that change it?
Al-Jaff: It's a PUD. It doesn't have a hard surface coverage.
Harberts: Minimum or maximum?
Al-Jaff: Minimum or maximum.
Harberts: Okay. Just wondered.
Mancino: Going back to Ladd's question. Todd, can you talk to what the Vision 2002, what
their mandate is and what to come up with. Will they be addressing this particular corner?
And do a site analysis of it. Is that part of what the Hoisington Group is going to be doing
with that committee?
Gerhardt: The meeting that's coming up in March, it's the ad hoc committee. Really when
_ the larger Vision 2002 group gets together will be in April. The ad hoc committee was trying
to narrow down more a vision statement for what the downtown really consists of. And what
the Vision 2002 group were going to do, and still will do, is to take any vacant land and say
this is what would be appropriate for that land. But you know as pieces come in and develop
you know holding up developments for that, I don't think we get into legal issues so. But we
were going to do some visual elements on the vacant pieces of land. Proposed stop lights and
that.
Mancino: If this were vacant, would this be one of those corners that you would do some
55
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
planning on?
Gerhardt: Sure.
Mancino: Okay. Is the City Council open to any sort of moratorium to wait for this? —
Gerhardt: I don't feel comfortable talking for the City Council. I think the direction that
Sharmin and Kate have given you on this, to review it and try to make a decision on what
you've got and move with it. If that is that you can't make a decision, pass it onto Council.
I mean we have to go through the process with this.
Farmakes: It would seem to me that if we have this contractual agreement to be interpreted,
whatever is interpreted between city's lawyers and who the contract is with, that that's out of
our hands. That they have whatever options that they wish to use to control the property,
that's really not for us to comment on.
Scott: Well the question was asked what the City Council's position is and we have —
Councilman Wing here. If you'd like to give us some input, we'd certainly appreciate it.
Councilman Wing: At this point I wouldn't even be willing to offer my own personal
opinion.
Scott: Thank you for that input.
Harberts: Let me just kind of add a couple of comments. You know personally I sit here
and I recognize the principles or the vision that's trying to De established for the city, which I
support with regard to being pedestrian oriented. And I think that this piece of land would
certainly benefit the community in some way but when I look at again the charge that we _
have before us tonight, in terms of what our role is, I would have to, this is what we're here
to do tonight. I offer my comments that I like the color schemes. The blending. I have a
real tough problem yet with the circulation. Traffic pattern circulation. I think it's too tight.
I deal with circulation in my job day to day and I'm just not very comfortable with it and
that's really the only piece that I'm uncomfortable. I think it would be a good draw for the
mall. It's a mall right? Shopping center, thank you. I think it would certainly enhance the
viability. It would certainly in a sense be attractive to members of the community in terms of
the goods that will be offered. You know with regards to traffic circulation, I guess I'm just
uncomfortable because I don't know what would be in that office/commercial site. We could
have something that would be in demand for traffic at the same peak time perhaps as
Wendy's. Maybe that's an assumption. That's what I'm uncomfortable with with regard to
traffic. That's basically my comments. -
56 -
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Scott: Do you have a suggestion as to how to ease that issue or just making a statement?
Harberts: I'm just making a statement. Again, I definitely support what you're saying Joe
with regard to you know, how many opportunities do we let go in terms of trying to structure
things or plan things that would really compliment the community. But I think we have an
obligation to, I think it was said earlier. This is a bonafide site plan and our purpose is to
look at this bonafide site plan. The frustration comes in with, Nancy you're right, with
regard to planning. But I guess looking at the content of this, I guess I'm just having a tough
time with the traffic patterns. Circulation.
Scott: Any other comments?
Farmakes: I'd like to make some comments. First comment would be, I don't have a
problem with us discussing detail or even outside of the ordinance. Some of these issues that
we have discussed in the last, previous meeting and this meeting. Where I expand my
comments I think or my comment base is if the city owns the property or the city has an
interest, I feel an obligation to go as far as I can, even up to including getting my hands
slapped. Getting into areas that are inappropriate outside of those that are legal...But I do feel
that if this was a straight application coming in and met the ordinances. For instance I use an
example of a building I didn't like, the Rapid Oil Change over there. That wasn't a PUD. It
met the ordinances. It virtually you couldn't oppose it even though you didn't like it. I don't
think it was an asset to the community that that went up but there was nothing that could be
done about it. These type of developments are different birds I think and it seems to me an
obligation of what we're doing here is that we represent the community in this situation. Or
we try to. In trying to enhance what is put in. Now whether or not we get it or not, I think
we're part of the overall equation of that. Whether city staff negotiates that or City Council
does, I think that we need to put in that input. The final decision does not rest with us and if
it doesn't go outside of the legal contract or obligation, and particular when a community is
in financial partnership, I think we should...as far as we can to have input into that. And I'll
use an example of what we receive out of that. I think that we got a better building out of
Target because of that. I think that we've gotten a better building here than we're starting
with. Than what we had and I think our community benefits from that. You know going
back to this specific building, because I know we have other business to do here. I'm just
going to critique these buildings as I see them. I'll start out with the Wendy's. I prefer
Option A as it looks and I'm not sure that we should be doing the same color schemes for all
these free standing buildings. I'm concerned, and have been concerned for quite a while that
our interpretation of compatibility not be looked at the same as. That we wind up with 3
blocks of gray buildings or that it be interpreted as an extension with absolutely the same
architectural details and so on and I can understand where some of the applicants, they get
confused with what we're talking about and how we treat that. I don't have a problem when
57
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
I look at the quality of the building, say the Chanhassen Bank, or the Country Suites and so
on. Those are dissimilar architectural styles. I see, when I see the word personally of
compatibility, I see quality of building. Cost per square foot and so on. If something is
made, if it weren't plastic, it may have the square foot cost but it really doesn't belong I think
in the downtown area. So it's somewhat a gray area and subject to interpretation and it's —
hard to put into an ordinance. But I'd like for Wendy's, this seems to me to be a nice
Wendy's. I mean it's pretty compatible. It's pretty modern in how it's being proposed.
Whether or not a fast food type operation goes there I think is something left up to the Vision
2000 or the City Council or whether or not they want to see that there. I'm not convinced
that that shouldn't go more over by CR 17 and TH 5. However, I don't apply the same
importance to that piece of property as I do to the office retail section. I think that that area
is pretty pivotable and screened somewhat, if particular screening of the mall area from
whatever the city does with the block. The city park area across the way here that they're
looking at doing. In looking at the office retail section, I would be concerned about a couple —
things. One would be the window display areas and how that's enhanced. I would not be
adverse to allowing the applicant to have some display to the south elevation where the
parking is. That's turned into the parking lot area and that type of flexibility is a good thing
for retail as long as it's a moderate amount, or even allowing to put a stack of hair care
bottles or something up by the front if they're a hair care place or something. It gives them
some flexibility and it is a commercial area. I am concerned how that would be abused
however on the area north. Or it would be the elevation to the north and to the east in
particular. There is no really traffic coming in from that direction so it's not as if you're
stopping...coming by or walking along the side of the build:.ng and they're going to come in.
As I interpret the traffic pattern, there is none there. That I can see along 78th to the east of
Market Boulevard. The traffic and access would be from the south. Now I don't know if
you want to entertain something like that or if you're banning it overall but as I said
before...14 foot display. I'm not trying to be anti business there. What I'm trying to do is
achieve what we're looking for, for a moderate amount of signage that fits into what we're _
doing overall in downtown and allowing flexibility to retailers without letting it get
overboard. Where it trashes up the street area. I think that the quality of the building that
we've seen come back is an improvement. Quality of the materials and so on. Somewhat in
looking at it, I think that it probably fits the bill of some of what we've talked about. I
personally think that they get buildings too linear and too long but it does incorporate some
of the things that we've talked about and the window treatments of some of the materials.
Failing that, or just looking at the building as it is, the wainscoting that comes down below
with that brick, I'd like to see some houndstooth limestone or something that incorporates in
some of the other elements that would be going in downtown. The window treatments I think
are a major improvement over what they were. ...and so on and that sort of thing. That does
give it some character. The long linear area at the top of the roof is what I'm talking about.
It's just a total, there's nothing breaking it up but the problem of critiquing these type of
58
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
things and the applicant hearing that critique is that they start out with a building. They hear
critiques so they move a couple things around and then another committee says, well move
this or add this here. Pretty soon you wind up with a willoby of a building. What I was
hoping to see or hoping to pass on, and I don't know if I would hold this up for that, but
what I would like to pass on to the City Council is that they consider, discuss with the HRA
a building of some architectural merit there. That goes beyond that. A commercial, what
you'd expect to see with the retail but you do see it with some business office type buildings.
It, to me perhaps is getting away from the overall zone flexibility offered in that contract and
_ I'm not a lawyer and I'm not going to discuss that any more than that. I think that's
something for the Council to look at seriously. Whether or not as owners of the land that's
what they would like to see. Looking at this solely as a retail, this is an improvement over
what we've seen. I don't know if it's maximized the potential of what it could be.
Mancino: Jeff, can I ask you a question just so I'm understanding what you're saying. And
that is, would you like to see it, one of the best quality architectural buildings that I think we
have in the city is the Chanhassen Bank and it has a very contemporary architectural feel to
me. Do you.
Farmakes: The question is, would I like to see that there?
Mancino: No. Or this more contemporary. Having more contemporary.
Farmakes: No. It's not the style of architecture. I go back to compatibility and I don't think
we should get into that can of worms where we say that this should be a Georgian building
here because I happen to like that. I'm looking at this, I'm seeing this incorporates some of
the things in general terms of architectural discussion that we talked about. It has some
shading, some detailing. It uses a better quality of materials than wood clapboard. And I
think that when you build a city, 100 years ago you used to come by. The buildings were all
made of wood...city developing and if you came by and it's made of brick. You know our
great grandfathers came by and they built buildings with brick like our church down here
because that meant something. That meant that was permanent. It was, you know you built a
brick house for you wife, that meant something. And in looking at some of these things and
look at the commercial aspects that are involved with this, that's a whole separate game from
what I think some of the things we're looking for here. We're looking to build a city that's
_ going to be here a while and that's different from what's trying to be achieved from the
applicant. They're looking for a successful commercial building. They're going to have
flexibility. They're going to rent to a tenant that's going to be in and maybe out in 3 to 5
years and so somewhere in the middle there is, it seems to me from experience here, is what
will go up there. The question is, how you can critique it. This is a specific plan or you
could say show me another building. I happen to feel that maybe we could get, maybe look
59
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
at another concept on that particular...but I'm comfortable with passing this on and letting that
discussion take place at the city level because it seems to me the comment that Ladd made is
correct. This is part of a PUD that's been in place for 5 1/2 years and there already is some
commitments laid out here and how those are hashed out, it seems to me maybe it should be
hashed out with the owners of the property and the applicant. Of how they wish to pursue _
that.
Mancino: So you don't see it our responsibility. You want: to see a second rendering of the
different style building, doing it here.
Farmakes: I would recommend that but I would not, I think that this issue of this application, _
the fact that it's an old zonement and an old agreement, that that should be probably dealt
with first as to what direction we should get back from that. I would recommend that the
city make that as part of their discussion of what type of quality building they want to see -
there and I think that if the flexibility that it's going to be commercial is not good enough.
It's going to be business retail or retail business, that that flexibility's going to be there. If
it's going to be more retail, you're going to have less of a square foot because you're not
going to get retail in there that's paying $1,000.00 a square foot for rental space. So those
are hard questions to ask and we can sit here and discuss whether or not we're getting
houndstooth brick or flat brick or something, that's a little bit more detailed than the -
fundamental question that's out there.
Scott: Ron, do you have a comment?
Nutting: Were there any bets as to when I'd say my first words?
Scott: You're on the spot now.
Nutting: I haven't had the benefit of the previous discussions and I can't say whether this
looks better than the last time. I do like Option A better than Option B. I think the issue,
echoed by Ladd and Diane and I'm hearing it in different pieces and different approaches of _
philosophies but I think we need to deal with what's here cn the table as opposed to deferring
to the Vision 2002 and looking for something that may not be out there. For some period of
time. We've got to deal with what's on the table.
Scott: I think we've heard from everybody. You're welcome to make the.
Mancino: I just have one last comment, and it's not a big ,deal. This is for Vision 2002.
This is for HRA. This is for City Council. And I won't, and I couldn't articulate as well as
Jeff just did so I agree with him on the office retail building. I would love to see a second -
60
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
option and see actually different architectural options for that building. On the fast food, the
Wendy's. I think Wendy's has been just great. I don't feel that the traffic circulation is
worked out. I just don't see a drive up window or a fast food being there for land use
purposes. I think we'll have terrific traffic problems there so I am not for that at all.
Scott: Okay. Can we have a motion?
Ledvina: I'll give it a shot here. I recommend that the Planning Commission approve the
site plan for the Edina Realty and Wendy's Case No. 89-2 PUD as shown on the site plans
dated December 6th. Well that's not correct. Can you help me with that Sharmin?
Al-Jaff: The date is March 2, 1994.
Ledvina: Okay, dated March 2, 1994 subject to the conditions identified in the staff report
with the following additions. Adding number 7(e) as it relates to the signage. The cost for
relocation of the utility boxes for signage shall be paid by the applicant. Adding a 7(f). No
wall signage shall occur over the pitched roof element of the office retail building. Adding
7(g). No window signage is allowed for the north and east frontage of the office retail
building. And the rest of the conditions as per the staff report.
Farmakes: Can I make an amendment on 9?
Ledvina: Sure.
Farmakes: To the last one on 9. South elevation of Wendy's building shall incorporate metal
trim and... Can we incorporate the trim as specified in the notes by the applicant for the
buildings. I believe it's bronze...
Ledvina: Okay. I would also revise number 9. The last point of number 9. South elevation
- of the Wendy's building shall incorporate the trim components as discussed in the meeting
this evening.
Scott: And I just want to ask you a question. Do you want to specify which roof option, A
or B?
Ledvina: Well we could do that certainly.
Scott: No, that's up to you.
Ledvina: Well okay. And adding a condition 17. Identifying the preference for Option A as
61
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
it relates to the architecture for the Wendy's building.
Scott: Can I have a second?
Conrad: Second. —
Scott: Okay, it's been moved and seconded that we accept the staff report with the.
Farmakes: Can I ask a question of Ladd before we vote?
Scott: I was going to say, just make it part of the discussion. But you can take it now.
Farmakes: If we forward this or approve this as it is, based on the recommendation, how do
we add to it some of the issues that I talked about in discussion? Do we make that part of _
the ordinance? Do we do that as a separate issue?
Conrad: I think you make the motion and then you add on some comments. Direction that
you give staff to communicate.
Farmakes: Do we do that as a separate motion then? —
Conrad: You could do it as a motion or just as a footnote. I guess what you're trying to do
is make it a significant comment, so however you want to do that. —
Farmakes: Well I do think that there's some significant things that have to be answered here
from the Council in direction. We can evaluate this plan and I'm not quite sure how I'm —
going to vote on this just yet. I'm racing in my mind. Philosophically I'm not sure if we're
going beyond what the contractual agreement is on that if they develop that at that use. As
that use. So I've read the lawyer's interpretation of where that property is at. I'm not sure it —
quite answers my question other than to say who owns the property. And it kind of seems to
me that that's an answer that has to come back down if we want to get into further discussion
or...something that we're not seeing at this point.
Scott: Is that the discussion of the motion? Is that acceptable? I should say it's been moved
and seconded that we accept the staff report recommendation with the conditions as so stated.
Is there any additional discussion?
Mancino: So everybody's willing to accept the traffic circulation?
Farmakes: I was willing to support your motion of revising the traffic issue. I'm not sure if _
62
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
I have enough expertise to know what the alternative is.
Mancino: I just know it doesn't work the way it is and I wouldn't pass it the way it is.
Ledvina: Do you want to add a friendly amendment to stipulation resolution of the traffic
circulation? I mean you're delegating that, if you.
Mancino: Well my recommendation would be to not have the drive up window and not have
the problem with the traffic circulation because they tried it 2 or 3 different ways already and
unless they can come up with, I don't know how. So my recommendation would be not
having a drive up window.
Scott: Would you accept that as?
Ledvina: No, I wouldn't accept that.
Harberts: Call the question.
Scott: All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye? Could we have a roll call vote
on the aye's please.
Farmakes: Before, I didn't hear the.
Mancino: He would not accept the friendly amendment.
Farmakes: So it's parking as it stands now.
Scott: With drive up. We can just have a show of hands so we can get it on the public
record then.
Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to approve
the Site for Edina Realty and Wendy's (#89-2 PUD) as shown on the site plan dated
March 2, 1994 as amended. Ledvina, Conrad and Nutting voted in favor. The rest
opposed. The motion failed with a vote of 3 to 4.
Scott: The motion does not pass, 4 to 3.
Harberts: I just want to go on record, my problem is the traffic pattern. So that's what my
problem is.
63
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Scott: So, I'd like for another motion please.
Harberts: Well, I don't know. Do we need another motion or does it just go to City
Council?
Scott: It goes to City Council, okay.
Conrad: No, no. The motion failed. We need a motion that passes. _
Scott: Okay. A motion please.
Harberts: I'll make a motion that we deny the Site Plan Review and Subdivision application
for the purpose of constructing a Wendy's and an office retail building based on traffic
pattern configuration needs to be improved. I think we're setting ourselves up for a big —
failure there.
Scott: Well I won't make a motion here. Are we looking, perhaps would we do something
that is very surgical as that we, the Planning Commission denies this particular application. It
will then go to the City Council and then the application can follow the issue. Does that
work?
Harberts: Yes.
Farmakes: That's fine with me. —
Mancino: It works with me.
Scott: Okay. Can I have a motion please?
Harberts: I think I did.
Scott: Well, do it again. _
Mancino: I heard that we deny.
Harberts: Well I move that we deny the application for the purpose of constructing a
Wendy's and an office retail building based on the site plan presented and I'm qualifying that
by saying, I have a, I'm very uncomfortable with the traffic pattern. That's what my key
element is.
Scott: Okay. —
64
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Farmakes: Should we add our other concerns to that? In the form of a communication or?
Scott: I think that'd be appropriate. If we're recommending denial based upon these issues.
That's direction to city staff and the applicant as well as to the City Council.
_ Mancino: And I would just add to that, to Diane, to clarify created by I think the drive up
window.
Harberts: Well and I don't know. I couldn't agree to the drive up window because is there
an opportunity to reconfigure or reduce or something that could still incorporate the drive up
window but it's the access points.
Mancino: I'm just saying right now it's created by that. Now whether they.
Harberts: Well I don't know if that's true or not.
Mancino: Oh, okay.
Harberts: I don't know if that's true. I'm just looking at the, I recognize from staff's
perspective, lining exits up. Entrances up but I just think, that was my previous comment at
the last meeting that I just thought there was too much going on in that small area and so I'm
just, that's why I move denial. And as I said, I certainly support what's being proposed but
it's just the traffic patterns.
Scott: Okay.
— Al-Jaff: Could we throw a suggestion out here? Dave just suggested that maybe what we
could do is.
Scott: No. I think what we'll do is let's vote on this motion and we'll move it along. I
don't think we can be traffic experts in 15 seconds. So would you mind restating your
motion please. At least for me, if for no one else.
Harberts: I move denial of the site plan and subdivision application for purposes of
_ constructing a Wendy's and an office retail building and I'm qualifying that motion based on
I'm very uncomfortable with the traffic pattern circulation. And I'll see if there's a second
and then I'll add some discussion.
Scott: Okay. It's been moved that we deny the site plan. Is there a second?
65
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Farmakes: I'd like to add to that motion if I could. A couple of the issues that I think
should be added to that for response from City Council. The issue of should that property
have one or two buildings on it. Should the issue of fast food area coming into the
downtown, on 78th and Market. Is that the correct position for that sort of thing. The other
is the quality of the building architecturally on the corner of Market and 78th. At what level -
does that leave retail and enter business use and the viability of that to the Market Square
development.
Mancino: I second.
Scott: Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we deny the site plan due to traffic -
circulation. The question of whether or two buildings shou.d be on the site. Whether fast
food should be located there. Architectural quality and then a feeling of not being quite sure
when it's retail and when it's commercial. As to exactly what the use of that property is
going to be. You could probably do a better.
Farmakes: I think that says it. If you're looking for clarification. I think that it needs to be
clarified in discussion. There's a point where they leave viability. Where it's no longer
viable as a retail. They can't rent out the spaces for that. And it becomes an office building.
Are we looking for more architecture. In other words, they're going to pay more for square
foot for it. It seems to me that that's something that has to be harangued between the owner
of the property and the person who's putting up the building. And I'm not sure we have
the...
Scott: Okay. SO it's been moved and seconded and discussion. I'll open discussion.
Harberts: My understanding is that the applicant will have the opportunity to perhaps work
with staff and take a new suggestion, a new plan for traffic circulation to the Council.
Scott: Correct. They can, that will be following their issue. Any other discussion? Okay,
can I have a motion to close discussion please?
Mancino moved, Harberts seconded to close discussion.
Harberts moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial of
the Site Plan for Edina Realty and Wendy's (#89-2 PUD) as shown on the site plan
dated March 2, 1994 due to poor traffic circulation, whether there should be one or two
buildings on that site, architecture, and retail and commercial use questions. All voted
in favor of the motion, except Conrad, Ledvina and Nutting who opposed, and the
motion carried with a vote of 4 to 3.
66
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Scott: Okay. The site plan has been denied. This goes to the City Council.
Al-Jaff: On the 14th.
Scott: 14th? Perhaps that's not enough time for the applicant.
Al-Jaff: Well Vernelle...
Vernelle Clayton: That's plenty of time.
Aanenson: There's still another.
Scott: I'm sorry, you're right. The outlot. The replat of Outlot A, Market Square to Lot 1,
Block 1, Market Square 2nd Addition. 41,193 square foot lot.
Mancino: How does that happen? What do we do with this?
Scott: Yeah, is this one from column A and one from column B? Are they both a package?
I would think if we denied number 1, that acting on number 2.
Aanenson: They're making a formal replat so you have so many days to process that
application...
Scott: Okay. Is this something that we can make a motion on right now?
Ledvina: I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the replat of Outlot
A, Market Square to Lot 1, Block 1, Market Square 2nd Addition as shown on the plat
subject to the conditions identified in the staff report.
Harberts: Second.
Scott: It's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion?
Ledvina moved, Harberts seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval
of the replat of Outlot A, Market Square to Lot 1, Block 1, Market Square 2nd
Addition, as shown on the plat with the following conditions:
1. Park and trail dedication fees shall be paid at the time building permits are requested.
2. Provide the following easements:
67
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
a. Standard drainage and utility easements around the perimeter of the lot.
b. Cross access easements need to be provided over the northeasterly driveway. _
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
_
Mancino: I don't think I understand what you just did. Does that have anything to do with if
you want to put one building on both lots? I mean let's say the City Council decides they
want, well it doesn't matter. They can change it anyway. _
Scott: Yeah, the only comment I would have is if the most important of the two is obviously
number one and if denial of number one makes our approval of number 2 insignificant for —
some reason, which may be that's what happened, I think the direction is, the only reason we
had acted upon this is that your suggestion.
Harberts: And I had understood that it was kind of an administrative oversight.
Aanenson: The first time. —
Scott: But this in no way should lessen the impact of our action on the first item. I don't
know how it would but. —
Al-Jaff: When you approve the subdivision, now if you wanted one building on both sites,
you're going to have to replat this into a single lot. —
Mancino: Okay than I don't, excuse me I withdraw my. I won't.
Audience: Too late.
Vernelle Clayton: This already is two parcels. You're just...the one.
Harberts: I think we've made the motion and it's been seconded and it's passed. _
Mancino: I was just getting clarification on what we did pass.
_
Harberts: I think it moves up to the Council at this point.
Scott: Yeah, correct. Let's take a 5 minute break. _
AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE REGARDING THE SIGN ORDINANCE
SECTION. —
68 _
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
— Scott: So what we'll be doing is dealing with our sign ordinance at our next meeting. Okay.
In 2 weeks.
PUBLIC HEARING:
KENNETH DURR FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 19.7 ACRES INTO
27 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 7 AND
MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, MINNEWASHTA LANDINGS.
Public Present:
Name Address
Gary Carlson 3831 West 62nd Street
Mary Colleran 6560 Minnewashta Parkway
_ Kevin Ellsworth 9601 Flatlock Trail
Tom Wright 3611 Ironwood
Zoe Bros 6631 Minnewashta Parkway
— Donna Hoelke 3621 Ironwood Road
Ann Zweig 3601 Ironwood Road
Steve Emmings 6350 Greenbriar Avenue
— Rick Sathre 150 So. Broadway, Wayzata
Kenneth Durr Applicant
— Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: Okay, questions or comments for staff.
Harberts: Did those green things.
Aanenson: The islands.
Harberts: Yeah, thanks. It's been a long day. Are all three of them proposed, or four. Four
proposed to save significant trees? All of them? Or some of them just decorative.
Aanenson: I'll let Rick answer that.
Rick Sathre: When I speak I'll answer your questions. Unless you're really wanted to know.
69
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Harberts: Oh, tell me now. Thank you.
Rick Sathre: At the entrance we had saved a spruce tree in the island. The other islands
would be to add greenery that isn't there.
Harberts: Oh, so that would be decorative?
Rick Sathre: Yeah. —
Harberts: Oh, I thought I was reading a maple tree.
Aanenson: The first entrance will save trees.
Rick Sathre: There's a nice spruce tree here. —
Mancino: I'll ask landscaping questions. I think there's a lot that isn't here that we normally
do get on a landscape. —
Scott: That we need.
Mancino: That I don't feel comfortable passing without getting it.
Aanenson: I think what Rick and I talked about is these people have been waiting a long —
time. Before Rick goes through it, maybe give them an opportunity to speak.
Scott: Okay. Because he'll want to take their comments into consideration. Okay. Are
there any other questions or comments for staff?
Farmakes: The issue that you raised on the cul-de-sac as Outlot B? Currently it shows, it —
kind of looks like it shows like there's a road there currently. That it meets up on another
adjacent piece of property.
Aanenson: Right. That's where the existing Ironwood is right now. There's four homes off
of that private drive. What we're saying is that these homes will now have access through _
this subdivision and this will be incorporated into their plat.
Rick Sathre: Plus a new driveway. _
Farmakes: That was my question. Does it meet up then with an existing road?
70
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Rick Sathre: Yes. That road is existing.
Aanenson: Well it's a private drive.
Rick Sathre: On this drive, this is a new driveway that ties into the existing driveway
through to the homes of these people.
Farmakes: That is a private drive then to the adjacent piece of property?
Aanenson: Yes.
Rick Sathre: They own, yes. It is a private drive now that would be rerouted.
Farmakes: Is that also a single entrance? Do they have access?
Aanenson: They direct access onto Highway 7.
Scott: Yeah, now.
Aanenson: Right now. Through this we're bringing two subdivisions getting over to the
light, eventual light on Minnewashta Parkway.
Farmakes: So that then would meet our side ordinance then?
Scott: No.
Aanenson: Well what we're saying.
Scott: Yeah, it's 900 and some feet.
Farmakes: Well but they'll have two entrances.
Aanenson: No.
Scott: Ironwood is going to be vacated and then the 4 homes to the west, or to the east, their
only access, ingress and egress will be coming through what's called Outlot B out to
Minnewashta so they're going to lose their direct access to Highway 7.
Mancino: So it's going to be along cul-de-sac.
71
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Scott: Yeah, I think it's 953 feet or something. I don't know what it is but it's.
Aanenson: It's 1,320.
Scott: Okay.
Mancino: Kate, can any of those houses, those 4 houses. I walked over there. It's
wonderful, lovely area. Can any of them further subdivide so that there would be more than —
4 houses over there?
Aanenson: I think all of the lots...
Mancino: That would be my concern.
Aanenson: The other issue right now, you'd have to amend the city ordinance because they're
still kind of off of a private drive issue...so you only have 4 homes off of that private drive so
that's kind of... —
Mancino: Good.
Scott: Any other comments or questions for staff?
Farmakes: Do we use the criteria then, as I understand in reading the report, that the criteria
then for a variance?
Aanenson: For a cul-de-sac length?
Farmakes: Yes. —
Aanenson: There isn't, we looked at recommendation for 600 or 700 feet and there isn't
anything in the ordinance. What we do is rely on the Fire Marshal's review of that. —
Farmakes: Okay. I thought we had 600 feet or something.
Scott: We did.
Farmakes: It never did pass? —
Scott: We passed it onto the City Council. I remember it well. That was like the first
meeting in January.
72 —
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Farmakes: It was actually an existing ordinance, wasn't it?
Conrad: It was 600. 600 was the old one.
Farmakes: But I think the old one was never passed onto Council, was it?
Conrad: No, the 600 was there.
Scott: We passed it on.
Conrad: But then I thought we changed it.
Mancino: I do too. I don't think we ever came to a conclusion.
Farmakes: Well I still, it would not qualify, if we did not pass the ordinance, it would
qualify as a variance.
Aanenson: I don't think there's a requirement of a minimum right now. Or maximum,
excuse me. We try to tie them up when we can...and it works well. Provide a safer entrance.
Mancino: Than off of Highway 7.
Aanenson: Correct.
Farmakes: Well yeah. It has criteria that the normal development doesn't. It's a highway
boxed on one side and a lake on another. If we passed that for that reason, I guess I'd like to
know that there's criteria for that. Although it might not be an official variance but there is a
public safety issue either way.
Scott: Well I know that was our major concern at the meeting where we discussed the
variance, or discussed the ordinance shortening the maximum for cul-de-sacs. Are there
additional comments or questions for staff at this time? Seeing none, would the applicant or
their representative care to speak, and please identify yourself.
Rick Sathre: Yes Chairman Scott, I'm Rick Sathre. I'm an engineer and planner with
Sathre-Berquist in Wayzata. I'd like to hold my comments and let the neighbors speak first
because then maybe they can go home. And I'm going to be here anyway so if you don't
mind, I'd defer to them first and then I'll come back and I've got a few comments.
Scott: Sure, that's fine. Then what we'll do is we'll open the public hearing. Can I have a
73
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
motion to do so please?
Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was open.
Scott: At this late hour we're going to be using Bob's Rules of Order so the public hearing
is not open. Please state your name and if anyone would like to address us, please do.
Tom Wright: My name is Tom Wright. I live at 3611 Ironwood Road. I'm one of the four
homeowners. We've got two others here this evening. We've met with Rick and Ken Durr a
couple of times since this project has evolved. I think we've looked at it pretty carefully.
One of our concerns has been the access onto Highway 7. We've been pretty happy the way
we are with a private road but there's always been the concern on the access to Highway 7.
This eliminates that concern. There's a lot of very positive things about this development. —
Maybe first choice for us would be to leave the land raw as it is but that's not going to
happen. Second choice, the way this lays out is, and they can speak for themselves, but us I
think we're all generally very supportive of it. We like the way it lays out. We like the —
landscaping that's been done. We like the effect that it has on the overall environment so we
are supportive. We know a change of our access over to Minnewashta Parkway, we think on
balance that's a plus and so that's my comments.
Scott: Okay, thank you sir. Would anybody else like to address the Planning Commission?
Donna Hoelke: My name is Donna Hoelke. I live at 3621 Ironwood Road with my husband
Dave who had to leave. A couple of comments and then a question for the Commission.
First I'd like to echo the things that Tom said. That we are, inasmuch as we'd probably like
to leave the land as it is, if we are going to have a development that this by and large this
looks like a good layout for us. One of the concerns that we have, we're on the first property
here on the east side of the development. Our property goes on Lot 8, 9, 10 and 11. We're
450 feet deep there. Currently as we understand it, there's no ordinance through the City of
Chanhassen which would preclude where building a home would be in relation to our's. Our
home is about midway in our lot which would put us about here. If a home on Lot 8 is built
at the 75 foot setback, that's going to, as far as we're concerned, that has a pretty big impact
on our panoramic view of the lake. We bought the home understanding that the land would
eventually be developed but I know at least in our neighborhood, as each of the homes were
built, there was a lot of care taken in not obstructing the existing home's views. There are
other cities in the area, Minnetrista has city ordinances that says you can put a home up, you
have to build it at least equal or behind any existing homes. So I know that's something
we've expressed to Ken and I don't know where he's gone with that but that's a serious
concern of our's. We bought the home and enjoy the view and would like to maintain that.
74
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
The other concern that we had, we think about this development and the question I wanted to
pose to the commission is, what is the responsibility of the commission to insure the
environmental impacts of this on the lake. I heard a lot of discussions tonight about whether
there's going to be 3 trees or 5 trees in a parking lot and what the window coverings are
going to look like and I've looked at the lake and the quality of life that it provides to my
family and the community and how do you insure that there's not a big impact to the
ecosystem and the whole quality of the lake.
Scott: Well I think, and I'll take a stab at this and I know one of our engineering staff is
here. Is that there's a couple of things and I believe it has to do with our surface water
management policy which is something that is pretty far ahead of what a lot of other cities
do. Not all but most. One of the items is a setback from the lake. Obviously because of an
impervious surface such as a driveway or something, we want to make sure that there's ample
vegetation inbetween the property and the lake so that we don't have a runoff problem or an
erosion problem. The second thing is that you'll notice that there are several retention ponds
on the property which are basically designed to convey runoff from these impervious surfaces
and as Director Aanenson was mentioning, conveying that runoff into the street through storm
sewers to those ponds and then the purpose of those ponds is basically to settle out any
particular matter, phosphate reduction and so forth. Also, in a lot of cases we try to preserve
as much vegetation as we can because obviously that has a positive impact. And I'm sure I
have left out some other issues and items if you'd care to amplify on the ones that I've
touched on.
Hempel: ...covered quite a bit of it. I'll just add a little bit more on the water quality aspect
of it with these settlement ponds which are proposed. We're looking at altering now maybe
further as part of our surface water management plan...designed for water quality around the
state. That we are nearing approval here in March...
Harberts: Didn't Chanhassen Dave, kind of were the role models or really led the cause with
regard to that what the State is looking at? Wasn't Paul?
Hempel: Yeah, the City of Eagan has now already entered into it but we're.
Harberts: But we were really out ahead of the curve on this one.
Hempel: Right. That's correct.
Harberts: So we've talked about this a lot so and I know Paul was involved quite
extensively. But it certainly is an issue that we're all very sensitive to so you certainly raise a
good point.
75
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Scott: Kate is there, I mean I don't have my code book in front of me but is there anything
on our books that has to do with having similar or equal setbacks of adjoining residential —
properties?
Aanenson: No, we don't.
Donna Hoelke: Do you know if there's been any precedence set in Chanhassen? I know
there have been in surrounding communities.
Aanenson: No.
Mancino: So what are the setbacks that this development has to abide by?
Scott: Well there's 75 feet.
Aanenson: What you have to realize, is what we were just talking about with some of these
lots along this southern side. They've got that steep slope and we're already trying to get
them up higher. Push them closer to the street so we have that positive grade to get them
into the storm sewer system. That's a tough lot as far as development in itself.
Donna Hoelke: To that extent I mean, these homes down here would have no impact. It
would not be obstructing our view. It's really Lot 8 and probably to a lesser extent Lot 7.
And should this really be two lots or should it be one lot. What can be done for placement
of the home...
Scott: I guess for the benefit of the Planning Commissioners, could you kind of point to
where your home is. It looks like that white spot on the right hand side is pretty much your
lot?
Donna Hoelke: Yeah. Well, I think Lot 8's about 200 feet deep and our property goes about
450 feet deep. We're about halfway inbetween so probably just the beginning of Lot 9 there. —
Mancino: But you're way over on your western lot line.
Donna Hoelke: Pardon me?
Mancino: Your house is way over.
Scott: How far over?
76 —
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Donna Hoelke: We had to obtain a variance to put the addition on the house.
Scott: Relative to that blank spot here, how far over is your home from?
Donna Hoelke: We're like 5 feet from the lot line.
Scott: Oh! 5 feet from this lot line or that lot line? Oh, I'm sorry. Okay, thank you.
Farmakes: To the south of your property, does it run to the lake?
Donna Hoelke: Yes. It will go from almost from the Outlot B all the way to the lake. It's
450 feet deep so.
Scott: So you're just right in the back yard.
Farmakes: Which way does your house face? Does it face east and west?
Donna Hoelke: It faces south.
Farmakes: Or it faces south. So you have a view of the lake.
Donna Hoelke: I have a panoramic view right now.
Farmakes: By panoramic do you mean 180 degrees?
Donna Hoelke: Right. I can't see any other homes from my house right now. And
depending upon, I understand in talking to Rick and Ken that these aren't necessarily what
the houses are going to look like. They're quite wooded and...foster some discussion here on
whether or not the city should look at an ordinance.
Farmakes: There's a fair amount of trees between the Lot 8 and 9?
Donna Hoelke: It looks like that...
Farmakes: Is your home behind that grove of trees or in front of them?
Donna Hoelke: It's, the grove of trees is right here. It's probably about on the lot line.
We're right here.
Rick Sathre: There's a tree line along the common boundary too.
77
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 —
Farmakes: The trees but not the lot...
Donna Hoelke: They look like they're spruce but...
Scott: Any other questions or comments? Okay, do you have anything else that you'd like to
mention?
Donna Hoelke: Ah no. Just that that's a concern and as I said, there are other communities
that...or certain angles...
Scott: Okay, thank you very much for your comment. Yes ma'am.
Ann Zweig: My name is Ann Zweig. My address is 3601 Ironwood Road and I'm the fourth —
house in this neighborhood. As Donna pointed out, her house is here. There are four houses
that are all along and I want to echo what Donna said. We're all set back quite a distance.
She's 200, her house is 200 feet back from the lake and my house is about 300 feet back
from the lake so this house here changes the alignment dramatically from the pre-existing
homes in the area. It doesn't really affect my view but so you get an understanding that this
is a high ridge, this right here, that will be changed. It will be graded and I'm sure that
ridge...is probably going to change that grading. My main concern tonight is, I'd like some
clarification on what Outlot A will be, and I know that's not the discussion today but I want
to verify that that is just beachlot use and it's not overnight boat.
Harberts: Oh she's been around.
Scott: I was going to say, since we've been stepping outside our boundaries left and right
this evening, Councilman Wing.
Ann Zweig: I understand it's one dock with 3 boats on it.
Scott: Well you probably also know that there is a beachlot next to Outlot A and we're very
familiar with Schmid's Acres. As a matter of fact, there's a resident here who represents that
organization. Okay, help me out Kate. You can't build a building on an outlot?
Aanenson: Well no. They can come in for a conditional use.
Scott: Okay, conditional use but.
Aanenson: It's a separate process. —
78
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
—
Harberts: But there's no guarantees.
Scott: No, there's no guarantee and a beachlot is a conditional use anyway. So, if you could
perhaps, what's the worst case scenario?
Aanenson: The maximum they could put on there, I mean if they want to put a gazebo, an
outhouse, they could do that under a conditional use. The maximum based on the square
footage would be one dock with moorings for 3 boats overnight. Swimming beach, picnic
tables.
Scott: Okay, which is as I recall, now on the Schmid's Acres.
Aanenson: A dock with no overnight mooring.
— Scott: Okay and that's because it's 50 foot wide versus Outlot A is?
Aanenson: Well what it was was based on historical use.
Scott: Historical use? Okay.
— Ann Zweig: Is overnight mooring for one night? Or who regulates that?
Conrad: It's forever.
Ann Zweig: Oh it's forever.
Aanenson: For the season.
Ann Zweig: Okay. My other question is...information that I've gotten from your office said
that a DNR study be done on that shoreline. And I wonder how that could be done if the
shoreline has already been destroyed. I guess my question is, do you as City Council, that
there was some weeds, some cattails there that have been poisoned and I'd like to know what
the city policy is on that. If it's already been hit, or who authorized that pulling of those
weeds and what the repercussions could be if it wasn't authorized?
Aanenson: We were made aware of it. We called DNR. Below the ordinary high mark is
their jurisdiction. They went out. Yes it was. They couldn't validate who did it. It's up to
the DNR to prosecute. All we did was turn it over to the appropriate jurisdiction. It's our
understanding they need a permit to do that sort of thing but it's up to them to try to build a
case on that. We tried to find out what we could and we were unable to obtain information
79
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
on that.
Ann Zweig: And my other concern is, on the same line is, that there were some, when that
lot was cleared, I don't think any permission was gathered. We also called on that when we
came home one day and saw that the lot was already cleared. What are the city guidelines on
that?
Aanenson: We were also made aware of that...2 years ago.
Ann Zweig: No, that was just this last fall. —
Aanenson: Not this fall, the fall before.
Farmakes: Are you confusing it with the lot adjacent to it where they went ahead and they
plowed their own access?
Aanenson: No, that's Schmid's Acres.
Farmakes: That's what I'm saying.
Hempel: This lot here they cleared a lot of the underbrush. _
Scott: Outlot A?
Hempel: No, all three of these parcels.
Ann Zweig: All three of the...When we called the city there were guidelines given that there _
were only supposed to be certain sized trees that are cut and bigger ones were cut.
Scott: Excuse me, I'm still unclear on which lots we're talking about here.
Ann Zweig: The whole lot.
Scott: The whole plat?
Ann Zweig: Yes. —
Farmakes: So all the beachlot.
80 —
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
— Ann Zweig: No, the beachlot really hasn't been cleared.
Aanenson: We're talking about this whole plat. The three underlying parcels. The whole
— plat.
Ann Zweig: What was primarily clear cut was all this in here. I'm sure some of it was cut
down here but they didn't take big trees down here. They took bigger trees up there.
Farmakes: Part of the Shoreline ordinance though, there's a setback line that shows that.
Mancino: But that is a good question. I mean I've seen those trees. They're parallel to
Highway 7.
Ann Zweig: Yeah, they're all cut down and...
Mancino: It's like they're being ready to be burned or whatever or for somebody to pick up.
What do we have about clear cutting? We have an ordinance that says no clear cutting don't
we?
Ann Zweig: And it limits the size of the tree. And my question is, I mean it's too late for
this development because they've already gone ahead and done it but what's the city going to
do for other developments? To stop developers from coming in prior to proposing...
— Farmakes: We can. As I understand it, it's an ordinance. If they did that, it's a violation of
that ordinance.
— Ann Zweig: That's my question then.
Mancino: Can they get fined?
Farmakes: I'm not aware that anybody violated the ordinance.
— Ann Zweig: City officials turned it in because when we called there they said that city
officials had gone by and stopped it. Put a stop work order on it.
— Harberts: That may be more of an administrative question that would have to be answered
between 8:00 and 5:00 in case it needs an interpretation from the Attorney or from the City
Manager. But as I understand, there is an ordinance. If it applies to this case, I don't know
if we're prepared to be able to respond to you but I think it's a question that perhaps staff
might be able to investigate and look to the administrative process. Or you might want to
81
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
talk to Todd Gerhardt, the Assistant City Manager. We can't answer that. It's a real good
question but I don't think any of us are prepared to respond. —
Farmakes: There are ordinances regarding that.
Harberts: Interesting though, yeah.
Conrad: But that's when you turn it into a subdivision. If it is just one lot before, you can —
take down, if you want to take your trees down on your lot Jeff, you can.
Ann Zweig: But if they're on the lake, you can't. —
Conrad: Not that I know of.
Farmakes: You can't within 75 feet of the shoreline you cannot, not without a permit from
DNR.
Conrad: Yeah but the clear cutting or the taking down was not there.
—
Farmakes: Are you talking about farther up on the hill?
Conrad: Yeah.
Mancino: But you can't clear cut?
Conrad: Sure you can.
Harberts: It's your own land. —
Mancino: I don't think you can.
Farmakes: There's an ordinance in.
Ann Zweig: It's done on this one. I just want you to be aware of that. —
Scott: I think we're getting a code book citation here.
Harberts: Is this appropriate right now?
Scott: If it's quick. If it's quick. —
82 —
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Ann Zweig: The other thing I want to add is that I am very happy to have access through
Outlot B to go this way. I think it's very dangerous for us to continue the Ironwood access
onto Highway 7. So that part of the development I like.
Scott: Good. Well thank you for your comments.
Mancino: And we'll follow up.
Scott: Okay. Does anybody else wish to.
Richard Wing: This is a late hour.
Scott: Can you identify yourself please?
Richard Wing: Richard Wing...Minnewashta Heights. Can I make a totally irrelevant, non
rationale statement at this late hour?
Scott: Please do. I encourage that.
Richard Wing: This is really refreshing to be standing here with this development on my
west side compared to the development going in to the east side that we dealt with Monday
night. The neighbors and Spinnaker and trying to maximize it. This is the first time in my 4
years on the City Council that there isn't a single lot close to 15,000 square feet and it's
really a delight to see some land being left open and the quality of the development coming
in and space and density that we can live with. It's going to be developed and I think
that...on everybody's behalf and putting a quality development in. They could have come in
with this 15,000 square foot and then we'd have to listen to staff and the PUD arguments you
know down to 11,000. They could have gotten 50 lots in there if they tried so this, I
think...I'm real happy with that access for Ironwood. That's really I think a plus for our
future also. But welcome. I think also on the issue of trees, I just wanted to comment. It
was clear cut. I think it was maybe done illegally but I was really sensitive about that and
what I did notice was what went was mostly scrub and some of the bigger trees were real
scrubby. I've been over there stealing trees prior to you owning it when the other folks had it
and I couldn't find a tree to steal off of it anymore. ...the issue of trees on other properties, I
think when you talk about very worth while trees, I think we've had some stands of trees in
this city that were significant but on that property, in walking it yesterday, for myself
personally and I was a homeowner, I couldn't find a handful of trees that I would save and
you know how...I am on trees. There's just a few pines and there's limited this and limited
that and a couple maples but for the most part, pretty limited wooded on that plan so it's not
an area that I would be desparate on. I'd like to see maybe him come in with some
83
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
landscaping and perhaps add a few trees of a good variety for those that he takes out
because...but what we take out...I'm concerned about is maybe we strong arm him a little bit
to get a few more of the other... Thank you.
Scott: Thank you sir. Would anybody else like to speak at the public hearing?
Gary Carlson: Just quickly. Gary Carlson. I live at 3891 West 62nd and I use the access
that's on the south edge of Ken's property. And the way they've handled that pond down
there on Lot A is very good because that is the lowest lot on that whole piece of property and
the sewer drains to a big union on that property which proves it's the lowest lot on this whole
piece of property is Lot A. So ponding there is a good idea and it's very well laid out and I
hope to see it come to a rapid fruition. This whole development looks really good from our
point of view. Thank you.
Scott: Okay, thank you sir. Would anybody else like to address the Planning Commission?
Okay, could I have a motion to close the public hearing please?
Mancino moved, Harberts seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Scott: What we'd like to do is continue the applicant's presentation. There you go Mr.
Sathre.
Rick Sathre: Thank you and thank you very much for pronouncing my name correctly.
Scott: Oh I wrote the phonetic spelling down on the plans so it has nothing to do with my
memory.
Rick Sathre: Well I appreciate it. I've heard it a lot of different ways and as most of you on
the commission probably have been mispronounced. Well, I guess I've got a couple more
graphics to show you. One of them shows, I tried to very early represent Donna's house, and
I don't know if it's really right but it will give you a little idea of where the Hoelke's live.
This is a copy of an early sketch that we had done for the property and I guess the significant
things that are different about it that you'll notice is at this time when we did the sketch we -
didn't have the outlot through so the Ironwood access hadn't switched yet. This is what we
met the neighbors with when we first started talking. At that time this was the layout so
what changed this then was they punched the outlot through here and we've reconfigured -
some of the lot lines, including the one that would be between Lot 8 and 9. So anyway, this
is approximately where Hoelke's live. Their house is tight up against this west line. As we
were discussing earlier, there's a line of spruce trees that come east/west here and there's a
84
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
pretty significant, a nice tree line between this property on Hoelke's that comes right down
this line. An old fence line or, it's a nice demarkation line between the two properties. And
I guess the issue is, the houses in this corner are going to impact some on the view. I guess
we can't do much about it unless we stayed way back from the lake. This is how we've
actually modified the plan. This lot line being more east and west and following a line of
spruce trees that's significant and we want to save. The placement of the home is just a
representation. We don't know if the house is going to sit there or farther north or farther
west or farther east but one thing we do know is we're not going to violate the setback to the
lakeshore. But somewhere in this nice buildable area we would propose to put a home. That
lot is so close to Hoelke's, it's 31,000 square feet I think. So it's, that by ordinance that lot
should be 20,000 square feet. We've oversized it by about 50%. Which still doesn't speak to
their issue, which is their view. The staff had raised the issued about the eastern cul-de-sac
and the access to the Ironwood neighbors let's call them. This driveway coming out and
whether this island should be there. We'd like to put the islands in the cul-de-sacs because
we want to plant. Ken's very serious about establishing a real upscale neighborhood. A
really nice neighborhood and we want to add as much greenery and plantings as is practical,
which means we'd be planting evergreens on the berm, bringing them in where they're
needed and in the middle of the cul-de-sacs there would be plantings placed. Trees placed in
those islands. So we're, Dave Hempel has an issue, a valid issue. When these people come
and go, the neighbors come and go through the driveway, are they going to go this way
around the island or are they going to cut across this way. I don't know but if the island
isn't there, they could chose the path of their choosing also. So whether we put the island
there or not, I guess they'll.
Harberts: Doesn't that argument also hold true though for someone that lives here. Are they
going to go out like this or are they going to go around?
Rick Sathre: Exactly. Whether the island's there or not, you know they're either going to go
the right way or they're going to cheat on it. But the thing that we do know about the island
is, when we plant a 6, 8, 10 foot high evergreen tree or a nice deciduous tree in that island,
it's going to start to break the view. When you drive in the street you don't see this whole
house in the background and the people, this homeowner doesn't see this house fully. That
island in the street breaks that view and it just softens the neighborhood. That's why we're
doing those things.
Harberts: Have you thought then as to talking with staff as to the salt resistent type trees that
really are limited to go in there? I mean you're talking a lot of salt potential.
Rick Sathre: We would tend to plant towards the middle of that. The island would be 20
feet across, the way we've designed it. The trees that, they're planted towards the middle.
85
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
They're going to get some of that salt spray.
Harberts: Who'd take responsibility for pruning or if they die or something?
Rick Sathre: Well the homeowners association would own the beachlot and was responsible
for that maintenance plus the islands. And the entrance monumentation and all the little nice
features that will go into the project.
Scott: Mr. Sathre, just a question. What do those green cross hatches mean, if anything?
Rick Sathre: All I was trying to do is represent the greenery that would be yard. As opposed
to driveways that are coming out here, here, here and here and here. Kind of a poor attempt
at.
Richard Wing: ...I can't believe that even the standard Ford engines from the Fire
Department could make that curb cut and there's a couple houses back in there we'd clearly
like to have access to the aerial. And I'd like to protect the islands. My choice is to have
the islands but we've got to have a sizeable curb cut there to get those, any type of fire
equipment in there. I think that's got to be.
Rick Sathre: Raised.
Richard Wing: Yeah. I think that we want to access it with the aerial without a doubt and
the aerial would be real limiting. It would mandate the removal of the island or it's a real
sizeable curb cut.
Hempel: That's correct. That's one of the things that was pointed out. For emergency
vehicles is another reason. Another reason, I can't tell you the number of complaints we've
received this winter with a normal snowfall about cul-de-sac plowing. There's no place to
put it when you have all these driveways. With this situation here, Outlot B's going to have
a 20 foot wide driveway coming out and the remaining lots. there are potentially all...it really
limits the green space and snow storage and so forth in this cul-de-sac. The idea with the
island actually will reduce a little bit of the snow but on the other hand when you put a tree
in there and an evergreen's 20 foot across, in 20 years that evergreen will be 25 foot. It will
actually be curb to curb. It will look beautiful but with all the salt and so forth... Another
issue I'd like to bring up about the islands is that it's, I think we should get some direction or
some, maybe some liability agreement that has to be waived on behalf of the homeowners —
association as the islands will create additional liability for the city. If somebody gets hurt,
accidents and so forth. So they're really not for traffic safety purposes. They're purely for
aesthetics, landscaping, and so forth so it's something to think about.
86
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Harberts: Well I thought the discussion we had, it was my understanding that center islands
would be allowed if it was saving significant trees or something so that's what I recall. I
thought that was in the same night we discussed 600 feet for the cul-de-sac. Lost that one.
Rick Sathre: I think you're absolutely right to try to...significant trees and we're hoping to
create something...
Harberts: Well yeah, from a public safety perspective, I don't think the middle of the road is
the place to do it. So you know where I'm going on this one.
Rick Sathre: I do and I knew where Dave was going with it too and you know, the public
works guys want to do their job and get it done and I don't blame them a bit. What we're
trying to do is maybe at cross purposes with that. We're trying to create a better living
environment. Our goals are lofty but you know, maybe it's a pain in the butt. You know
you've been modifying the main street of town, from the way it originally got planted but the
idea of the median in town is nice too. It has to work with the traffic flow and it didn't work
so good initially but then you learn and you're doing it better and we want to find that right
level of what makes sense too. But this neighborhood will have relatively little traffic
compared to say the downtown median. We want it viewed by the neighborhood as much as
we can.
Scott: Okay. Any questions, additional questions or comments for the applicant?
— Farmakes: I have a quick question. Nothing to do with the road on this issue, I'm just
curious. What is the price range of these houses? What you're looking at for the marketing.
- Rick Sathre: It's nothing we can tell you with certainty. Expensive.
Scott: He said $80,000.00 to $100,000.00 a lot.
Ken Durr: I missed the question, I'm sorry.
Rick Sathre: How much would the range of the home prices? What do you think the least
expensive home could be?
Ken Durr: Oh my, I don't know the least expensive. I know the Street of Dreams people
want to do the event there in the summer, or early summer of '95. If that occurs, those
homes would be at least $700,000.00.
Scott: Good, any other? Any other questions or comments of the applicant?
87
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Rick Sathre: I guess Mr. Chairman and members of the commission. As I read through the
recommendations I had a few comments and I hoped that you modify, Kate suggested a
couple modifications and I would hope that you would allow us in number 17 to retain our
median at that intersection even though we recognize the need to redesign it. And Dave is
very opposed to it and so I guess we're in cross purposes with it. We'd like to leave the
median at the intersection of Landings Court and Landings Drive. We won't argue this with
you but we have a problem with, or question I guess for the City Council on number 20
about whether or not there should be, the subdivision should pay the additional assessments
for Minnewashta Parkway. In number 21 of the recommerdations, staff has asked for
additional right-of-way for Minnewashta Parkway and I feel I must show you that issue.
We'll take it up with the Council as well that we, the preliminary plat shows a small -
additional right-of-way dedication for Minnewashta Parkway. When the road was relocated
and widened, the plans, the construction plans showed this. I don't know how to orient this
for you exactly but maybe like that. This is Highway 7. This is Church Road across the
highway. This is new Minnewashta Parkway. The yellow and the red lines are the existing
right-of-way. This is Ken Durr's property here. Okay, in order to get the intersection to be
across from each other, instead of the way it used to be, and make it a little safer, the city
approached Ken and said, we want to run the road right up tight against this property line so
that we can come in at right angles better. And he said okay, fine. The intent was to have
the curb right up against the property line. Well, mistakes happen. On the ground, actually
what happened was the road ended up on his property a little bit and so our preliminary plat
shows the dedication of a triangle of land that would get the road back into the right-of-way,
or back on the city's property. And Ken's happy to do that but the staff has asked for an
additional piece of land, the strip of land so that the city would own 33 feet from the center
of the road. Clearly not the intent when the road was built or upgraded and we would like
the commission to recommend approval of the plat as we have drafted it which would give
you enough land to get the road back in the right-of-way but not give you the extra land.
Ledvina: What was the error in the construction? How many feet?
Rick Sathre: Oh I'd say the curb probably ended up about 5 or 6 feet from where it was
meant to be. Not the end of the world but...So we would like you to strike number 21 or
substitute that staff, that the Planning Commission recommends the plat be approved as is for
Minnewashta Parkway. I guess a point of clarification on 23 Kate mentions a cross easement
agreement should be done between the Ironwood neighbors and Ken. What he actually
intends is to exchange the track D from, that they own now. The Ironwood access to TH 7
would be deeded to him and he would deed that Outlot B. So they would, either Wright's or
the neighbors as a whole would actually own Outlot B rather than just an easement over it.
They would have fee title to it. I guess the last thing I'd say and I'm sorry I've been so
wordy but in the park and trail fees. We would request that the city only charge us for the
88 -
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
24 additional building sites that are being created. And there were 3 homes there to begin
with. There's some question over whether we would end up having to pay park and trail fees
for all 27 lots or whether it should only be the 24 additional lots that are being created that
we're asking for.
Scott: Were, I guess were those, do you know if those homes are, are those the homes that
are not there anymore?
Rick Sathre: Two are down and one is...
Scott: Were we collecting park and rec fees when those homes were built?
Aanenson: No we're not. The replat, that's something that they understand they need to
argue with the Council...
Rick Sathre: It's not an issue for you really.
Scott: Okay. I read the staff report and I thought hey, okay. Good.
Rick Sathre: But I appreciate your time. Thank you.
Scott: Anything else? Good. Would anybody else like to speak as part of the public hearing
on this issue? Mr. Durr? Actually this is the applicant's.
Ken Durr: I'm Ken Durr. I'd just like to, on the median and the cul-de-sacs. I feel for the
type of neighborhood that we wish to develop that they add really greatly to the effect of
being able to get additional green, additional plantings. We plan on doing a lot of plantings.
Bringing in a lot of evergreens and other good trees in. Neighborhoods that we have worked
in, in Edina we have developed that. I know the city there at first was not too keen on the
islands in the cul-de-sacs but we have the homeowners association take responsibility of the
care of those and has been absolutely no problem at all. They're maintained beautifully by
the residents, the homeowners association. I would expect that would be the case here. But
they do add a great deal of aesthetic appeal and I feel value to the property. Instead of
looking out on a big mass of 80 feet of blacktop, having it broken with some green in the
middle is entirely a different effect from all of those homes on the cul-de-sac. And
particularly the cul-de-sac where the Ironwood residents will be entering. We're now going
to have an additional roadway coming into that and it will help to break up that. We want to
accommodate them but on the other hand, if we don't have some plantings in there to break
that island up, break up the site of all these driveways, is going to further devalue the
properties around that cul-de-sac. So I would strongly urge you to consider the aesthetics of
89
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
the area. Thanks.
Scott: Good. Would anybody else like to speak at the public hearing?
Resident: I just have a question. How big are those medians? —
Ken Durr: 20 feet.
Scott: Okay. Can I have a motion to close the public hearing?
Mancino moved, Harberts seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Hempel: Did you want any response back to. —
Mancino: Like recommendation number 17.
Scott: How about as part of our comments you can ask him if he has any.
Mancino: Dave, do you have any comments on the medians and you know, I'm very much —
in favor of them. I see them in Edina. I have acquaintances that live there and they're
wonderful in the cul-de-sacs and work well. So I'm a big believer in them and they do kind
of cut up the asphalt. The whole asphalt of the cul-de-sac.
Hempel: I will agree with you there. They do look nice. We've seen more and more...but
we're adapting to them. But they're not right in every situation. This one, the very easterly
one with emergency vehicles getting into the private driveway. If we can facilitate them with
the turning radius, it probably will work then. The median on Landings Court, here is
actually Landings Drive. That, the way it's shown on the construction plans or the plat, it's
really conducive to a free right turn. No stop, no yield or anything. It's just, you're out
there. We would like to have a little more sense of order, even though it is a very low —
volume street. We understand that but it's really, the way it's laid out you're going to
promote additional...
Mancino: And can you work with the applicant to change that?
Hempel: I believe we could but I've earlier stressed to the applicant that I didn't feel it was —
appropriate for this type of intersection to have a median. It is appropriate off of major
collector type streets. We have them off of Kerber. We have them off Powers. Coming onto
proposed TH 41, Lundgren's will have them proposed. Those situations are appropriate to —
90 —
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
have entrance monumentation type sign for it but not at every intersection. It's over doing it
a bit and from a liability standpoint and traffic standpoint, I think we don't need it. As far as
the Minnewashta Parkway assessments. That methodology for those assessments was refined
for the area. Each parcel then took access off of Minnewashta Parkway because that's
essentially the only north/south street in the area for the adjacent property to utilize and they
all benefit from them. This parcel does too benefit from the upgrading of Minnewashta
Parkway. That's how we're assessing our condition here that they should be assessed their
fair share as well.
Scott: Excuse me Dave, the people who are on Ironwood now, are they going to get assessed
for Minnewashta Parkway upgrade since they're...
Hempel: That's a good question. Being that they had previous access out to Highway 7 and
as a result of this development they're altering their access, I guess I...recommend that they
be assessed for it.
Scott: I'm sorry.
Hempel: I did not recommend it.
Scott: Did not recommend it, okay. I suppose that's an issue that I'm sure the residents
would appreciate an answer on. I'm sorry, go ahead.
Hempel: As far as condition number 21 with regards to the right-of-way. Whenever a
subdivision comes in, the city typically has an opportunity to obtain the necessary right-of-
way for the subdivision that we feel is necessary for the development. It is unfortunate
apparently Minnewashta Parkway was graded and the appropriate easements weren't pursued
at that time to acquire it. One thought maybe was the land, that they did just enough
construction, a temporary easement. Build the roadway knowing well that the plat would be
coming forth at some day and they could dedicate right-of-way at that time. Other
subdivisions up and down Minnewashta Parkway all have dedicated their fair share of 33 foot
right-of-way so this would not be an uncommon or an undue burden I guess asking this
additional dedication. With regards to item, condition 23. I think it's staff intent to...ingress
and egress rights for those private property owners along Ironwood. So if there's a different
way that Mr. Durr will be trading outlots with the residents...fulfills our needs to get the
access for the residents.
Scott: Let me ask you a question then. If Outlot B is going to be deeded to the residents,
the Ironwood residents, are they going to be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of
that street?
91
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Hempel: That's true. That's correct. It will be a private street and have to be maintained,
similiar to what Ironwood is now. —
Scott: Oh okay. So it'd be a similar situation. Okay.
Aanenson: Actually Dick Wing asked that question before he left. If we were to improve
that road and made it a public project, then they'd be assessed. So what we're doing just
leaving it the way they are but what we're trying to do is provide a safer access. —
Scott: So financially it's a zero sum game?
Aanenson: Yes.
Scott: Okay. —
Hempel: There is one valid point though. One of the neighbors mentioned about future
subdividing. A private drive ordinance only allows 4 homes on a private driveway. So —
unless there's another private driveway out to the east, or no parcels subdivide, they're
essentially, they can't do anything further without a public street and the outlot that they're
dedicating here is not wide enough to extend the public street on. A public street right-of-
way
is 60 feet wide.
Scott: And based upon the comments I think we're hearing from those residents, they would —
prefer not to have that subdivided anyway so perhaps that's good.
Mancino: Kate, what about a trail system? Do we have a trail system up Minnewashta on
that east side?
Aanenson: The only trail system that Todd had mentioned was the possibility along Highway
7. I believe on the Parkway, I guess that's on the fire station side. On the other side of
Minnewashta Parkway.
Mancino: I think I said this earlier that I felt that the landscaping was rather incomplete what
we have in front of us. Meaning that a survey has been done. I differ a little bit from Dick _
in that there are a lot of spruces on the property when I walked it that are dead and that
won't be around for much longer. But on the south side of the property, which faces the,
which abuts the lake and which is down on the same level as the lake, there are some —
wonderful, significant trees down there and I would like to see some sort of a conservation
easement Kate for that area so that those trees are kept. They will help erosion. They'll help
you know so sedimentation won't move down into the lake, etc, etc. So I'd like to see some —
92 _
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
specifics on what trees will be remaining and if we can do a conservation easement so they
can't be taken down.
Aanenson: They do have a plan. What we didn't do is articulate that. I think you're right,
we missed that on the condition but the lots that probably have the most significant, as we
mentioned, are up on this ridge line up in here which covers Lots 5 and 6. If you turn that
sheet of your plan, it shows... Otherwise I think there's...significant trees. But their largest
trees, as I pointed out in the report, there's some very large cottonwoods down here and you
have some maples up in here.
Mancino: Some big oaks.
Aanenson: Yeah, right. Significant. But basically, all these down here along the lakeshore
are being left. Again, there's some cedars that are being, some of these may be...but I think
we could put something in there about the conservation easement.
Mancino: And any sort of custom grading that would need to happen to keep those trees or
retaining walls or whatever it takes.
Aanenson: We do know some areas that possibly, as noted in the staff report, that possibly
some tree wells along in this area where those maples are adjacent to Minnewashta Parkway.
That's something that Dave and I had talked to Rick about and some of the other areas where
adjacent to the lake there may be some additional tree wells that need to be placed to save
some trees. But we're not sure how this is going to be graded. I'm still trying to resolve that
issue. Whether it be graded all at once or...individual parcels.
Hempel: Condition number 2 kind of covers that. We'll work with Mr. Sathre on that.
Which lots will actually be custom graded because there are some trees that the applicant
wishes to save. There's some large walnut trees out there and a couple lots will be custom
graded but most of the lots more than likely will be mass graded. Probably overall
subdivision grading.
Aanenson: So I think what we need to do if that's a big concern, is to say we need...snow
fence be placed...
Mancino: And be very specific on where the conservation easement is.
Aanenson: Then the other thing that he did identify in the staff report is that we do need
specifics about what this landscaping's going to be and our ordinance does require
landscaping. There is some trees that will be saved but we do require streetscape along
93
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
collector streets so that hasn't been.
Mancino: Well and on collectors, not only is it streetscaping but it's berming also that needs
to be done and I would like to see some sort of boulevard plantings on these inside. Instead _
of doing you know, I think that these are going to be substantial quality houses. They're
going to have their own good landscaping plans but I think that we could use some of the
you know the 1 tree, 2 trees per lot and use some of those as boulevard plantings in this —
particular subdivision that I think will help. But it will probably have extensive landscaping.
I just can't tell that yet.
Aanenson: Condition 26 is the one that adds the landscaping plans. You could say as well
as a streetscape you want to see benning along that.
Scott: Any other comments from the commissioners?
Harberts: Also, I'm going to support staff's recommendations with regard to the medians. I —
think from a public safety perspective that's got to be one of your priorities. I've seen them.
I think the medians look nice. They probably will add to value but I think there has to be a
stronger value given to public safety as priority. —
Scott: Okay. Any other comments?
Conrad: Ah yes. Dave, in terms of a second access. You feel we don't need to keep a
second access on a 1,700 foot cul-de-sac?
Hempel: It goes against what I usually put into these subdivision reviews but this really is a
boxed in subdivision from Highway 7 to the north, the lake to the south and existing residents _
to the east. We have similar streets to the north in Gary Carlson's Minnewashta Highlands.
And then the other streets on the west side. Linden Circle, which is probably the same length
and those are the same scenario where they're boxed in by Highway 7 on one side and _
similar constraints on the other and...viable secondary access.
Conrad: So we are vacating. I'm not necessarily for the secondary access but there is a _
vacated street. Aren't we vacating the street?
Hempel: No we're not. —
Conrad: What are we doing?
94 _
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Hempel: It's a private driveway access for the residents of Ironwood and MnDot has also
expressed some concerns of removing that along Highway 7.
Conrad: For emergency vehicles you wouldn't want that as an access? That's really my
main point. For emergency vehicles with break away, whatever, you don't want that to be
available?
Scott: Say again.
Conrad: We have a private drive.
Scott: Yes.
Conrad: And it is available for emergency vehicles. This is a 1,700 foot cul-de-sac. I'm
playing on a side of this thing that I normally don't play because I like long cul-de-sacs. But
I get real confused by whether we're concerned with emergency, second emergency access to
a site. We have one here. We could get an emergency vehicle through the private drive if
we keep it, if we some easements through there. With a break away or whatever. Now
again, I am not an expert. I just challenge staff on this stuff and if they way we don't need
it, that's fine with me. But it is there right now.
Scott: I always think of the wintertime when it's not going to be plowed.
Conrad: Maybe you've got it for 7 months.
Scott: Okay, which is fair enough. Fair enough.
Conrad: But again, I raise that point Dave. I don't care. You folks are the experts and I'm
not.
Hempel: I think I'd like to defer that one to public safety maybe for review and see what
their reply would be for that.
Conrad: We get real confused.
Scott: Any other comments?
Conrad: Yeah. Lot 8.
Rick Sathre: Do you want me to add to that?
95
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Conrad: No. It's late. I've got to get out of here. Lot 8. I keep looking at that from the
standpoint of the neighbors. I don't know how to solve that problem. I think there should be
a lot there. I think there should be a house there. I think it's a fair development. I think the
lot sizes are big. I don't know that we can really solve vistas by moving it back 10 feet, 20
feet. It is, based on the situation and how close the neighbor is to the lot line, I don't really
see a solution other than vegetation or whatever. So the only solution I can come up with
there is, the vistas aren't going to be there. They flat aren't going to be there. I don't see
any way that, I know we've never changed anything. We don't have an ordinance to protect
the neighbors. The neighbors went there for the vista but unfortunately this is what happens.
What we can do however is make sure there is some screening to help a little bit but I really
don't see any stipulations on the developer that this can help anybody. Really. If a vista it
goes by one, I just don't think we can make any impact here so that was my comment on that
particular one. My comment on the center islands. You know I love center islands as long
as I know somebody's going to maintain them and if that's worked into the agreement for the
association, that's fine. But I really question the one on the, for the folks going on that cul-
de-sac going towards Ironwood. I just don't know how that's going to work for emergency
vehicles going through there. It doesn't look like it works. It sure works in the other cul-de-
sac. I sure would support the center island there. The median at least in the first, is that a
median going up to the first cul-de-sac? Boy, I sure don't want one there. And then out onto
Minnewashta, although somebody could persuade me on there.
Aanenson: That one does save a tree.
Scott: There'll get an entrance monument.
Conrad: You know if it's, I could be moved one way or another on that one. I think Dave's
got a good point. They're valid issues that he raises. They really are. However, it's part of
this, if the community's taking care of it, I guess we still have a safety problem. I don't
know. That's it.
Scott: Good. Yes sir. —
Ledvina: One of the conditions of this development relates to the variances from the flag lot
setbacks and I see essentially just a couple of lines on that in terms of the staff report. I
guess as I read that, as it relates to the trees, tree preservation, various setback from the storm
water ponds, and take a look at the lots that are involved and also the features that we're
talking about and I guess I'm not convinced that those represent valid reasons for granting
that setback. Bob had a good format when we reviewed the variance for the sign ordinance.
He went through the 6 requirements that a variance must meet and I think we should do that
on all variances that we see so I would like to see a little more rigorous analysis of a variance
96
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
as it relates to the criteria and the specific site conditions.
Scott: Are you in support of the staff's recommendation?
Ledvina: Overall. Yeah overall. It's going to be a very nice development. I guess just
echoing a little bit the concern for long cul-de-sacs. We had a lot of discussion on that and I
thought we passed an ordinance on this but maybe not, still the concerns still are there as it
relates to safety. And I think you raise a good point with that. That other private drive.
Scott: Okay, good. Ron. You're on the spot.
Nutting: I'm still new at this. I don't have a lot of comments.
Scott: That could be a good answer.
Nutting: I guess on the one point that I'm hearing them say is in regards to the median and
specifically the one at Outlot B. And I'm hearing the comments and I agree with the
comments so it really just gets down to the question the question of, can there be a median
and can it also meet the safety or emergency vehicle requirements for that. And if it can,
then I see no reason to disallow it entirely. Maybe it needs to be modified. Maybe the size a
little different, you know whatever. So that's my only substantive comment.
Scott: Good. Anybody else?
Farmakes: I have no further comments.
Scott: Okay. Nancy, you're okay? The only concern that I have, I guess there's two things
I'd like to see is, would be to have some, as I already mentioned, having some additional
vegetation added along the lot line. The back side of 9 and 10. Possibly 8. For the benefit
of the neighbor next door. And one of the things I had difficulty understanding and this is
some specific direction for staff is that I would believe that the other commissioners would
like to see this any time we have a preliminary plat, we absolutely have to have the building
pad and streetscape and utilities overlaid with the significant vegetation. And also, I think it
would be very helpful to see the existing canopy. I mean we have docks. We have one of
these things.
Aanenson: ...and that's the problem we had with Lake Susan. I think the canopy...
Scott: Well in an aerial. An aerial takes care of that.
97
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Mancino: Which our new tree preservation ordinance will address.
Aanenson: Because what we found is, people are putting the foundation right next to a 40
inch or 26 or whatever caliper and it's basically you're underneath the canopy and you can't
save it so it's misrepresenting that. —
Scott: Well see, that's the, I mean generally I'm in favor of this. I'm not going to go over
some of the public safety issues but personally I can't pass this on to the next level unless I —
can see that overlay and see what the actual impact is. And I think for the record, I think our
first test case for that was Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition and we took that very seriously.
We got the right tools and I think we made some good recommendations that were followed —
up on. So personally before I can get serious about passing this on, I need to see what's
really going to happen here.
Aanenson: Okay. That's what this sheet represents.
Scott: Which sheet is that? Is that in the packet? —
Aanenson: Yeah...it's got all the utilities plus, what we did was provide...
Mancino: Yeah, we can't tell which ones will be removed. Which ones were staying.
Which ones would be removed and we didn't get to see the landscape berming.
Aanenson: I agree, yeah.
Scott: I don't know how that impacts. This doesn't mean anything to me because I don't —
know how that impacts. But anyway, that's my comments. Can we have a motion?
Mancino: So would you like to see it come back with those things?
Scott: I would but I'd like to entertain a motion. I'd like to have someone make a motion.
Conrad: I'll try. It's probably going to take some friendly amendments on this because I
haven't written down what everybody had said. I'm making a recommendation that the _
Planning Commission recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat Subdivision #94-1,
Minnewashta Landings for 27 single family lots as shown on the plans dated February 9,
1994 subject to the conditions in the staff report with the following changes. Item number —
17, item 17 stands. Item 21 stands. Kate, you made some changes.
Aanenson: Yeah, on number 13. On 13 it would be the house pads on Lot 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 —
98 _
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
of Block 2.
Conrad: Okay, I accept the staff recommendation. You added.
Aanenson: Number 27.
Conrad: 27 for park and rec assessment. We will take your recommendation for that at this
time. Item number 28. Where vegetation would be placed on the back of Lots 8 and 9 to
screen to the best extent possible the neighbors to the east. That City staff review emergency
access practicality using the vacated driveway to Highway 7.
Mancino: Friendly amendment here. Cul-de-sac center island liability that Dave brought up.
Conrad: Yeah, I don't know. How do we want to say that Dave?
Harberts: Eliminate them and then we're okay.
Scott: The homeowners association will be the sole reliable entity for.
Harberts: I think that needs to be subject to review by the attorney before you make a
statement like that.
Scott: No, we're making recommendations. We don't make decisions.
Hempel: Maybe I can just throw my two cents in there. Maybe how the condition should
read is like the City Attorney's office address the liability issue with regards to cul-de-sac...
maybe prepare at least a liability agreement or something to that effect.
Harberts: And also I think that statement should also include the review and comment by
public safety with regard to the medians, all medians being proposed.
Scott: Friendly?
Conrad: That's okay if you understand it.
Harberts: I want public safety to go in there and say that this is okay for us. This is okay
for us or this isn't.
Scott: Are you talking about the medians?
99
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Conrad: I'm going to add a new.
Harberts: Twist?
Conrad: Yeah. _
Harberts: I want public safety to support.
Conrad: Okay, I'll take care of that. Kate the number 30 will, if we can have the liability
issue explored. Number 31 is to maintain the islands unless public safety can demonstrate
that the island on Landings Drive prohibits safe access for emergency vehicles and private —
vehicles. Anything else?
Nutting: Does that mean if this prohibits access, that it's eliminated or that it can be —
modified?
Harberts: Let public safety decide that. —
Conrad: Yeah, I don't know. I don't care at this time.
Scott: Should be utilized where necessary to preserve significant.
—
Conrad: Yeah, absolutely. Conservation easements should be utilized where necessary to
preserve significant vegetation.
Scott: Okay Kate, can I ask you a question. Do you need to add a condition that Outlot B
will be conveyed to the residents?
Aanenson: What I was going to do...Rick had stated, we'll just change that condition to say
that it was.
Rick Satire: Outlot B will be deeded to the owners of Tract D in exchange for deed to the
development for Tract D.
Aanenson: Yeah, that would modify number 23. Instead of cross access easement I'll just
say, exchange for Tract D for Outlot B.
Scott: Okay, any other friendly amendments?
Harberts: I'll second it. —
100 _
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Scott: All those in favor say.
Mancino: Discussion?
Scott: Discussion, excuse me.
Mancino: Question for you Kate. I agree with everything that's been said but I would like to
see it back again just to see the landscaping part of it and the conservation easement. So can
we put that into the amendment or into the recommendation or do we have to get the whole
thing back again?
Conrad: Well we really would have to table it.
Harberts: Well, the motion's on the table.
Conrad: Well no, my motion is to pass it. Not to see it again.
Mancino: Then I have to say no. If I want to see it back again.
Scott: And we'll just vote on it and see what happens. Any other discussion?
Conrad: Because you want to see it.
Scott: Specifically the.
Aanenson: The landscaping.
Mancino: And because every site plan that comes in, I want that to be part of our process.
Because I want to establish some structure about what we want to see and,I mean this would
be the first one that we haven't.
Scott: Yeah. That was my concern as well.
Mancino: I mean we have set a precedent of making sure and even you've asked for it.
Which trees are going to be removed. Which ones are going to be saved.
Scott: Inventories.
Mancino: It's a key value to our community right now and just to let it go without even
looking at anything, I know the night is late but.
101
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Harberts: A conservation easement won't do that?
Scott: No. Because we don't know what's coming. A conservation easement does not do
anything for trees that are going to be removed because of streets, utilities, and potential
building pads so. I've got the same hang up. —
Mancino: And we didn't get to have any remarks on the berming and the, because Highway
7 is a busy highway and the collector. —
Conrad: So you feel that you want to see, they have to do it. I totally agree with what
you're saying, although I made a motion, but. If you just want to see what staff is doing or —
what.
Mancino: Sure, so we can give. —
Conrad: Because there aren't specific, good enough guidelines?
Mancino: Yeah, I mean conservation easement's a little broad.
Scott: That's not proactive. Conservation easement. That's what's left. That's how you
save what's left over after the streets and so forth have been in.
Mancino: And I think it's a significant area where, because it abuts a lake.
Scott: Kate?
Aanenson: I just asked the applicant...not go to Council until the landscaping plan goes with
it?...We won't forward it onto the Council until the landscaping is complete and that keeps _
them on track for the 28th.
Scott: Yeah. I don't think we have any, I haven't heard any issues, substantial issues with
the development per se and my thought is.
Aanenson: ...have their landscaping plan at the next meeting. Just look at that instead of —.
opening up...
Harberts: So it can still go forward if the thing would pass because we would have the —
opportunity to go back to the landscaping?
Aanenson: Well what you're going to say is that your recommendation, if you want to make
102 —
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
that number 33. That that not go to Council until the landscaping plan and the tree survey is
completed. And if they come in and we get that in here on the 14th, then that will keep them
on track for the 28th.
Scott: So we add that condition. We have a motion on the floor.
Harberts: Well that's a friendly amendment isn't it?
Scott: It's a friendly amendment but if we recommend approval, then that baby goes to the
City Council.
Harberts: But if 33 is a friendly amendment, then that slows it down.
Ledvina: Yeah but we don't see the subdivision back again.
Aanenson: Right. You just look at the landscape plan. But what you're saying is that the
plat can't go forward to the City Council until the landscaping comes to you.
Conrad: Which is okay.
Scott: Okay, so let's, do we have any other discussion by the way?
Conrad moved, Harberts seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval
of preliminary plat for Subdivision #94-1, Minnewashta Landings, for 27 single family
lots as shown on the plans dated February 9, 1994, and subject to the following
conditions:
1. Upon completion, the developer shall dedicate to the City the utility and street
improvements within the public right-of-way and drainage and utility easements for
permanent ownership.
2. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-
- mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of site grading
unless the City's Best Management Practice Handbook planting dates dictate otherwise.
All disturbed areas with slopes of 3:1 or greater shall be restored with sod or seed and
wood-fiber blanket.
3. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest
edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility
plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval.
103
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
4. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies,
i.e. Watershed District, MWCC, Health Department, PCA, DNR, Army Corps of —
Engineers and MnDOT and comply with their conditions of approval.
5. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the
necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development
contract.
6. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10-year storm event
and provide ponding calculations for retention ponds in accordance with the City's
Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve.
7. Fire hydrants shall be incorporated per the Fire Marshal's recommendations. Fire
hydrants shall placed a maximum of 300 feet apart.
8. The applicant shall submit to the City soil boring information and include a drain tile
system in accordance with the construction plans.
9. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all
utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a
minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for access for maintenance
of the ponding areas. _
10. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance
with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). The plan shall be
submitted to the City for review and formal approval
11. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way.
12. The lowest exposed floor or opening elevation of the rambler house located on Lot 12,
Block 1 should be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100-year high water level. This
may raise the house elevation to 971 or greater requiring a very steep driveway. Staff
recommends the applicant re-evaluate this and include exterior draintile around the
house foundation. The draintile shall be connected to the proposed storm sewer along
the property line.
13. The house pads on Lots 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6, Block 2 south of Landings Dr., along the
lake, should be a minimum of one foot above the road elevation. All low points
should be located between lots to route overlandflow around the houses. Also, catch
basins should be located at the low point between homes to help route surface flow
104 —
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
away from lots.
14. The proposed stormwater ponds must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet and
no more than 3:1 thereafter for safety and water quality purposes.
15. The driveway entrance for Ironwood needs to be removed from the Highway 7 right-
- of-way. In addition, a drainage culvert will be necessary to maintain the neighborhood
drainage from the east of this development into the easterly proposed pond.
16. Existing wells and/or septic systems will have to be properly abandoned.
17. Landings Court intersection should be redesigned to be perpendicular with Landings
Drive and the median deleted.
18. The alignment of Landings Drive and Minnewashta Parkway should be refined to
provide more of a perpendicular intersection in accordance with the City's ordinance.
19. All lots shall take direct access from the interior streets and not Minnewashta Parkway
or Highway 7.
20. The applicant shall be responsible for 20 additional Minnewashta Parkway assessments
units. The rate per unit is $760.00.
21. Staff recommends that the final plat be adjusted to dedicate a total width of 33 feet of
right-of-way from the center of existing Minnewashta Parkway along Lots 4, 5 and 6,
Block 1.
22. The final grading plan shall be revised to reflect proposed grading on Lots 1 through
8, Block 2.
23. An exchange between Tract D for Outlot B will be established for the use of Outlot
B by the residents of Ironwood.
24. Lot 7, Block 2 needs to have a 90 foot lot width.
25. Variance from the side yard setback to 10 feet on flag lots located on Lots 11 and 16,
Block 1 and Lot 8, Block 2.
26. Landscaping plans for the larger berm along Hwy. 7, as well as streetscape along
Minnewashta Parkway needs to be provided."
105
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
27. Park and trail fees in lieu of parkland dedication and trail construction at the
rate in force at the time of building permit application with one-third of the park
and trail fees paid at the time of final plat.
28. Where vegetation would be placed on the back of Lots 8 and 9 to screen to the
best extent possible the neighbors to the east.
29. That City staff review emergency access practicality using the vacated driveway
to Highway 7.
30. The City Attorney will investigate the issue of liability on the medians and islands
in cul-de-sacs.
31. Maintain the islands unless public safety can demonstrate that the island on
Landings Drive prohibits safe access for emergency vehicles and private vehicles.
32. Conservation easements should be utilized where necessary to preserve significant
vegetation.
33. This item will not go onto the City Council until a landscaping plan and tree
survey has been reviewed by the Planning Commission.
All voted in favor, except Matt Ledvina who opposed, and the motion carried with a
vote of 6 to 1.
Scott: And your reasoning sir?
Ledvina: Well I guess, I think we're treating the variances pretty lightly here. I think it's a
real substantial thing. I don't know, we talk about precedence so many times in terms of
these things and variances aren't things you give out.
Aanenson: ...a code amendment to the flag lot variances because for some reason it's 20 feet
and we've never understood why. That's one Paul brought in from Minnetonka...But you're
right, until it's changed it's a variance.
Ledvina: And the other thing that I thought we'd have more discussion on relates to the
length of the cul-de-sac.
106 -
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Scott: Which Ladd touched on for public safety purposes.
Ledvina; I understand.
Scott: Perhaps then as a comment, since we've voted on this. It would be optional for the
applicant, or be optional, what we'd like to have is have city staff prepare that kind of
variance analysis so at least, I mean we've already voted on it but at least we'd like to take a
look at it. Okay.
Mancino: Yeah, and I didn't understand under those two, the Lot 8, Block 2. I mean it
didn't make sense.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER MODIFICATION NO. 13 TO REDEVELOPMENT AND TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS FOR DOWNTOWN CHANHASSEN.
_ Todd Gerhardt presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: I've got a question on the construction of I guess for public improvements we've got
— $450,000.00 of TIF money. For the construction of the pedestrian bridge and did we not get
a, I mean that looks like the total cost of that bridge.
— Gerhardt: The bridge is approximately $700,000.00.
Scott: $700,000.00 and that includes land acquisition?
Gerhardt: Yes. Land acquisition is going to be roughly about $35,000.00.
— Scott: Okay. And how much money did we get from, for ISTEA? $375? $350?
Gerhardt: $280.
Scott: Okay. And then administration for $750,000.00. What's that?
Gerhardt: 6% of all the public improvements. Costs up and above. It's just an estimate for
consultants, staff time and that. It's typically around 6%.
Scott: Okay so for staff time, isn't staff time paid out of salaries?
107
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 —
Gerhardt: No. You still have to highlight my time involved with the pedestrian bridge. Paul
Krauss' time. Kate's time. There's a percentage of employees that are paid out of tax —
increment so you could have...has probably worked on the front end of it almost 100%. So
it's just a rough estimate.
Scott: So as the, do TIF dollars go to the city to pick up the salary? Let's say Paul spends
50% of his time. Let's say Paul gets $100,000.00 a year. He spends 50% of his time
working on TIF related stuff. City of Chanhassen is paying him $100,000.00 a year. —
Because he spent 50% of his time, does the city of Chanhassen get reimbursed for $50,000.00
of his time because he's spending his time working on tax increment stuff? Is that why, how
this works? I'm just trying to understand why TIF dollars would be paying for city staff,
who are already getting paid.
Gerhardt: It's a sophisticated computer system that we have and in there it breaks out where —
different funds or salaries come out of. So it pulls money out of each of those funds. So
right now the, Paul's time is paid out of the HRA budget. 50% of that. So and the rest
comes out of the Planning department's budget. 50%. So when he gets a check, they just —
draw off of my HRA budget and pay for Paul's salary.
Scott: So they're just allocating the expense? Okay.
Gerhardt: And in here we've just got to highlight 30%...In our estimate 6% of the total
public improvement projects.
Scott: And so with the, including the State Highway 101 up to Town Line Road, is that
because Highway 101 is kind of an orphan of MnDot and we're changing the boundaries so
we can ues TIF dollars to upgrade it so, okay.
Mancino: Will all that tax revenue go into TIF?
Gerhardt: No. This is just a boundary...
Ledvina: You can spend it but you can't collect it.
Gerhardt: ...where you're collecting on that. You cannot change that boundary. So it still
retains on there where the tax increment boundary. The little squares highlight the existing
project areas. And the solid black line... —
Scott: Okay. I've beaten to death what I wanted to do. Any other questions or comments?
Can I have a motion please? —
108 —
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Harberts: I'll move approval that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council
approval of resolution that is attached to the staff report finding Modification No. 13 to the
Redevelopment and Tax Increment Financing Plans consistent with the city's comprehensive
plan.
Scott: Is there a second?
Mancino: Second.
Harberts moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission approve the
resolution that is attached to the staff report (Attachment #3) finding Modification No.
13 to the Redevelopment and Tax Increment Financing Plans consistent with the city's
comprehensive plan. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING:
AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE TO BRING THE WETLAND ORDINANCE
INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Mancino: But it doesn't really say that. It says greater than or equal to 1:1 but not
exceeding 2:1.
Aanenson: Well this is out of the...ordinance of the State law and so that's what the State
law language has to read.
Mancino: So that means 2:1.
Aanenson: But in layman's terms.
Scott: No.
Mancino: But that doesn't mean 2:1. It means between 1:1 and 2:1.
Scott: That means 1.1 to 1 or something. That's not double mitigation.
Ledvina: But not exceeding 2:1.
Mancino: I have gotten the impression that, and I hadn't read anything that it was 2:1 now
109
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
but it isn't.
Scott: Is there any reason why we can't be, why we can't say that this means mitigation of
2:1 will be required? I mean I think it's pretty silly to have this kind of language in there if
it means you do 1.01 to 1 and that's it. That ain't 2:1. If we're serious about it, we should —
change that.
Ledvina: But we don't necessarily want to limit them to 2:1 as a maximum. They could do —
5:1. What's wrong with that?
Harberts: So you're saying a minimum of 2:1? —
Scott: No.
Ledvina: Or I mean a maximum.
Mancino: Yeah, maybe it's a minimum of 2:1.
Ledvina: Or not saying that. I agree that in most applications it's a 1:1 mitigation. But what
this says is it's not exceeding 2:1 which means that the maximum.
Aanenson: This is Diane's summary though. What you have to do is read it out of the —
ordinance...
Mancino: So Matt you would like to see, not having a maximum of 2:1?
Ledvina: Yeah. Why take the upper ceiling off.
Mancino: And maybe a minimum should be 2:1.
Harberts: Well if you look on page 3 Matt, Section 7. It says mitigation will be performed
at a ratio required by State law.
Aanenson: Right, there you go. —
Harberts: Does that take care of it?
Scott: But what's the State law? Is the State law what we see there? That's not 2:1.
Aanenson: We're getting hung up on Diane's summary comments. I think what we need to
110 —
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
do is leave her comments...I think what Diane's saying is that's kind of how the lay people
are interpreting right now 2:1 but the State, what it says in the ordinance that we're adopting,
that Diane pointed out, is mitigation shall be as followed by State law. Go by Roger's.
Mancino: Can you be more aggressive than State law?
Harberts: I think you'd have to have some very strong rationale. Otherwise you're going to
be exactly consistently defending it.
Aanenson: There's a criteria that it has to be placed on site...
Ledvina: And we are reducing the setback from 150 to 75 feet.
Aanenson: Correct.
Ledvina: For septic.
Aanenson: Right. Yeah, because it wasn't consistent with the house setback and you
allowed the house to go 75 feet. But then we said for the septic they had to be 150 so for
some reason, when we looked at, that was originally in the wetland ordinance and when we
rewrote it, of course we just left it in without thinking about what it came up to down the
line...
Ledvina: Okay.
Scott: Well, are we ready for a motion?
Mancino: I move that we accept, that we approve, that we adopt the proposed amendment to
the Wetland Protection Ordinance.
Harberts: Second.
Mancino moved, Harberts seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to adopt
the proposed amendments to the Wetland Protection Ordinance. All voted in favor and
the motion carried unanimously.
Scott: Now can I congratulate you on your appointment? I'd like to, on behalf of the
Planning Commission congratulate Kate Aanenson as being appointed our new Planning
Director and since Paul is not yet cold in his grave, I didn't want to do this at the beginning
of the meeting. But anyway, and I'm pretty excited too about Paul's. I had a chance to talk
111
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
to the Human Resources person from Aurora I think it's called, and I did my best to dissuade
her from hiring him but obviously others had gotten there before.
Ledvina: Aurora, is that?
Aanenson: Auburn.
Scott: Auburn. It's a town of about 35,000, near Seattle and Paul's got family out there and I —
guess his parents are going to relocate to that area. But anyway, are there any Administrative
things that we need to, because I know everybody would like to get out of here.
Aanenson: I just wanted to touch on, you were at the meeting Joe. On Monday night the
City Council, you'll see Spinnaker's Wharf back. They tabled it. They wanted to see... What
they decided on that is they felt it should go the traditional subdivision. Either coming in
with the PUD with the 11,000 square foot minimum...which is already in place, or doing just
a standard subdivision.
Scott: And the direction was quite clear from the, they got kind of tied up in some ancillary
stuff but I just made a quick comment and just said the reason why we sent it up is not that
we didn't know what to do with it. We wanted some direction from them. Did they want to
see 5,000 square foot minimum lots or 11,000? And we wanted direction if they wanted to
change the ordinance. But they didn't and that's why it's back.
Farmakes: By the way, this is the Boyer development. I was at the open houses here which
are the ones that they had in Minnetonka. It's a $400,000.00 house. On 5,000 square feet.
Harberts: And were they selling?
Farmakes: Only one was left.
Scott: There's a market for it.
Aanenson: And the other one was the Harstad one that you saw on Minnewashta and Kings
Road. They also, the applicant did meet with us a couple days prior to the City Council
meeting and he's leaning toward the direction that we had recommended.
Mancino: Oh the park? —
Aanenson: With the park and the lot sizes and the reconfiguration so he asked that it be
tabled instead of denied. You'll be seeing that back. --
112 —
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Farmakes: Are you going to get to the Minutes?
Scott: Yeah. So this is our Administrative Section here. Anything?
Mancino: What are they doing on Highway 5?
Aanenson: It's going to the City Council on the 28th. They'll be holding a public hearing.
And I don't think at that time they'll, oh. What happens is I have two expiration terms in '94
and one in '95. Diane and Nancy and Joe so I was going to let you draw.
Mancino: No we have them. They're up on our thing. I have a list.
Scott: Really, what's mine?
Mancino: We've got our expiration dates.
Aanenson: Oh you do? Could you let us know.
Mancino: Yes.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Scott noted the Minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting dated February 16, 1994 as amended by Jeff Farmakes on page 50, line
12. Changing the words "right attractive" to "bright attractant".
Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 1:05 a.m.
Submitted by Paul Krauss
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
113
ril
0
CITY OF
o,
...___ ,,
01 CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
— �►
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Bob Generous, Planner II
_ DATE: March 10, 1994
SUBJ: Tree Preservation Ordinance
BACKGROUND
— In drafting the revision to the tree preservation ordinance, the Tree Board attempted to draft
an ordinance that provides for the protection of a large proportion of existing trees while at
the same time permitting flexibility for the property owners and developers to design and
develop their property. We also tried to get away from a strictly punitive ordinance by
providing incentives and rewards for the preservation of trees within a development.
ANALYSIS
The draft ordinance attempts to move away from looking at the individual tree and to have
developers and the city concentrate on stands of trees and the forested areas. Additionally,
we tried to establish some guidelines and standards for the reforestation of barren properties.
_ Finally, we tried to provide disincentives for developers to remove viable stands of trees
through replacement penalties if existing canopy coverage was removed in excess of that
permitted under the ordinance.
In order to facilitate tree preservation, the ordinance requires tree surveys earlier in the
development review process. This requirement allows the developer and the city to get a
better understanding of the wooded aspects of a property before any development lines are
drawn. Additionally, the ordinance requires the developer to create a woodland management
plan for the entire project as a way to get the developer thinking about tree preservation as a
_ primary part of the development design. Not only will the plan provide specific preservation
criteria for the project, but it must also articulate the philosophy and reasoning behind the
woodland management plan.
Planning Commission
March 10, 1994
Page 2 —
In order to assist in the review of the ordinance, I am attaching copies of how canopy area
and tree survey and woodland management plans might be presented. In this instance, I will —
be using the Trotters Ridge Subdivision as an example.
1. Base canopy coverage must be determined. This can be accomplished through either —
aerial photography or site inspection. In the case of Trotters Ridge, the base canopy
coverage is 24.6 acres. Based on a total site area of 32.5 acres, this corresponds to a
baseline canopy coverage percentage of 75.5 percent. —
2. Canopy Retention Requirements are then calculated. Given a 75.5 percent canopy
coverage and a low density residential land use designation, the post development
canopy coverage requirement is 46 percent or 14.95 acres of canopy area. To meet
this requirement, the developer may remove up to 29.5 percent (9.65 acres) of the
existing canopy coverage in developing the property including all building areas, —
driveways, and roadways.
3. The developer then tries to work the design to meet this goal. If it can be met with
the existing tree canopy remaining intact, then there are no additional planting
requirements. If the design is such that over 9.65 acres of canopy area are removed, —
then the canopy area being removed in excess of 9.65 acres is replaced on an area
basis of 1.5 to 1. Within the replacement area, 40 trees per acre must be planted.
4. The developer creates a woodland management plan for the development. This plan
designates areas to be dedicated as conservation easements for tree protection. It also
provides areas to be used for tree replacement and reforestation. This plan would be _
included as part of the landscaping plan required of all developments including the
number, size, and species of tree that are to be planted.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission should provide input to proposed ordinance prior to holding a —
public hearing.
Attachments: —
1. Tree Preservation Ordinance
2. Canopy Coverage Map _
3. Tree Plan
•
12/08/93
12/20/93 •416,
1/21/94
2/2/94
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 18 AND 20 OF THE
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
Declaration of policy and purpose
It is a policy of the City of Chanhassen to protect the integrity of the natural
environment through the preservation, protection, and planting of trees. The city finds that
trees provide many benefits including: stabilization of the soil by the prevention of erosion
and sedimentation, reduction of storm water runoff and the costs associated therewith,
improvement of air quality, reduction of noise pollution, control of urban heat island effect,
protection and increase of property values, protection of privacy, energy conservation through
natural insulation, control of drainage and restoration of denuded soil subsequent to
construction and grading, protection from severe weather, providing habitat for birds and
other wildlife, conservation and enhancement of the city's physical and aesthetic environment,
reforestation of open lands, and general protection and enhancement of the quality of life and
general welfare of the city.
It is therefore the purpose of this ordinance to provide regulations related to the
cutting, removal, or killing of trees on construction and development sites and to ensure the
protection and preservation of the natural environment and beauty of the City of Chanhassen.
The City Council of the City of Chanhassen ordains:
Section 1. Subdivisions: Section 18.61(d), Landscaping and tree preservation requirements is
amended by adding the following:
(d) The following standards shall be used in evaluating subdivisions
(1) Prior to the submittal of development plans, a tree survey of the s'` shall
be prepared. This survey shall include the species, DBH size, condition,
location of all significant, special, damaged or diseased trees on site. All
significant special, damaged or diseased trees shall be tagged and identified
by number on the survey. A delineation of the existing canopy coverage
1
12/08/93
12/20/93
1/21/94
2/2/94
area(s) which outlines all areas covered by tree canopy shall be included as
part of the survey. Additionally, all damaged and diseased trees shall be
cataloged with the nature and extend of any damage or disease specified.
(a) Based on this survey and either site observation and measurement
or aerial photograph interpretation, the following shall be
calculated:
1) Base line Canopy coverage (i.e. percent of site covered by
tree canopy)
2) Canopy Retention Requirements, calculated as follows:
The following table shall be used to determine the minimum amount of woodland
canopy coverage that must be maintained or provided on-site as part of the
development. It shall represent the minimum canopy coverage, consisting of existing
tree canopy andior the specified reforestation or replacement trees required for the site,
at the time of complete development of the site. Existing wetland areas located on site
shall be excluded from the calculation of site area in the determination of required site
coverage. If a forested area is to be dedicated to the City for park land, then this area
shall not be included in the base line canopy coverage area calculation nor shall it count
towards the minimum canopy coverage for the site.
Base Line Canopy Coverage
Comprehensive Plan
Designation
80 - 100% 60 - 79% 40 - 59% 20 - 39% 19%
or less
Commercial/Industrial 28% 25% 20% 14% 10%
High Density Residential 35% 30% 25% 20% 15%
Medium Density 40% 35% 30% 25% 20%
Residential
Low Density Residential 55% 46% 35% 30% 25%
Large Lot Residential 68% 56% 43% 35% 25%
2
12/08/93
12/20/93
1/21/94
2/2/94
Example:
For low density residential development with a base line canopy coverage of 65
percent, the minimum preserved or reforested canopy coverage would be 46
percent.
Retention standards shall give priority to retaining stands of trees and undisturbed wooded
lands over individual specimen trees that will be incorporated into the development. No
more than ten (10) percent of the canopy retention requirement may be met by an
individual tree that is not included within a designated woodland area.
For developments that do not meet the minimum canopy coverage, the developer shall be
required to develop a reforestation plan to bring the total canopy coverage up to the
minimum requirement. Where existing woodlands are removed or there is a loss of trees
that would otherwise be used to meet the canopy coverage retention requirement, the
developer shall develop a woodland replacement plan. The replacement plan must
designate an area at least 1.2 times the surface area of the removed canopy coverage area
that shall be planted with replacement trees for those removed. These plans shall locate
addition trees either as a continuation of existing stands of trees that are to be preserved or
create new stands of trees in desirable locations such as along roadway corridors, on the
north and west perimeters of the development, in common open areas, or adjacent to park
facilities. Plant materials must be supplied on a per-acre basis and must meet the
following criteria:
1) forty (40) trees per acre
2) must be a tree from the approved list of desirable species (preference given
for trees designated as native)
3) no more than one-third (1/3) of the trees may be from any one tree species
4) trees shall average 2 1/2 inch caliper and be a minimum of 1 1/2 inch caliper
5) not less than twenty percent (20%) of the trees shall be conifers
6) conifer trees shall average seven (7) feet and shall be a minimum of six (6)
feet in height
7) plant materials used for the reforestation shall be of a similar species as
vegetation found on site
8) trees shall be used that are appropriate to the soil conditions found on site
9) trees shall be from certified nursery stock as defined and controlled by
Minnesota Statute Sections 18.44 through 18.61, the Plant Pest Act.
3
12/08/93
12/20/93
1/21/94
2/2/94
(2) To the extent practical, site design shall preserve significant woodland areas and special
trees. Special priority for tree preservation shall be given to areas within flood
plains, wetlands, stream corridors, wooded slopes, and along collector and arterial
roadway corridors. To facilitate this, a woodland management plan, which may
include preservation, reforestation, and replacement elements, shall be formulated
by the developer as one component of the development proposal. The woodland
management plan shall be prepared and signed by a registered landscape architect,
licensed forester, or other professional approved by the city. This plan shall
include the following information:
a. Tree survey
b. Designated woodland areas
c. Location and size of replacement/reforestation tree planting areas
d. List of all replacement trees including species, caliper, and plantin;
method
e. Methods of tree protection
f. Location of all protective fencing
g. Special construction methods to be utilized
h. Location of all retaining walls
i. Statement explaining why replacement trees are necessary
j. Rationale for selection of replacement/reforestation trees
(3) The applicant must demonstrate that suitable home sites exist on each lot by
describing a 60' x 60' building pad (which includes deck area) without intruding -
into required setbacks and easements.
(4) Minimizing the tree loss should be achieved by any combination of the following:
a. realignment of streets, utilities and lot lines
b. consideration of alternative utility configurations such as the use of ejector
pumps, force mains, or revised home elevations to minimize grading
c. reductions in street width and right-of-way and increase in street grade up to
10% when the applicant can demonstrate that significant tree preservation i
directly related to the modification
d. use of private drives in lieu of public streets
e. variation in street radius and design speed
f. modified grading plans
4
12/08/93
12/20/93
1/21/94
2/2/94
g. within PUDs, the City Council may consider waiving minimum lot area
requirements and/or density transfers as long as it can be demonstrated by
— the applicant, that tree preservation can be enhanced. In no case shall
overall project densities exceed what is allowed by the Comprehensive Plan.
The greater the level of preservation, the greater flexibility will be considered
by the city.
h. within PUDs, variations to building setback lines provided a minimum twenty
(20) foot building separation is maintained between buildings on adjacent lots.
The setback variations shall be established and recorded as part of the plat
approval.
(5) Trees designated for preservation shall be protected by snow fences with clearly marked
signage specifying that the area is off limits for construction activities, or other means
acceptable to the city, prior to land preparation or construction activities. ece
In place and inspected prior to the start of grading activity. Protective barriers must be
located at twelve (12) times the tree diameter at DBH from the base of the tree, the
critical root zone, and must remain in place until all construction activities are
terminated. No equipment, chemicals, soil deposits, or construction materials shall
be placed within the protective barriers. Any understory trees and natural
vegetation should be preserved within the boundaries of the protective areas. Where
this protection area cannot be maintained or would otherwise render lots
undevelopable, an alternate protection, mitigation or tree replacement plan may be
considered and approved by the city. This plan may include the use of retaining
walls, installation of aeration systems, requirement for post construction deep root
fertilization and soil aeration, or construction vehicle ramp systems.
(6) At the city's discretion, conservation easements will be may be required to protect
designated tree preservation areas. Such easements shall be permanently marked and
signed as a conservation area with monumentation acceptable to the City. In
residential subdivisions, a monument is required for each lot. In other situations, a
monument is required for each three hundred (300) linear feet of tree conservation
area. Within designated woodland areas, the City shall encourage the use of
indigenous grasses and plant species to more closely resemble a natural area.
Home owners associations shall be responsible for the maintenance of vegetation in
common areas. Individual property owners shall be responsible for the maintenance
of vegetation on their property. The planting of native trees in excess of those
required by this ordinance is permitted within the designated woodland area.
5
12/08/93
12/20/93
1/21/94
2/2/94
(7) During the removal process, trees shall be removed so as to prevent blocking of public -
rights-of-way or interfering with overhead utility lines.
(8) The removal of diseased and damaged trees is permissible only if they cannot be saved. -
These trees shall not be counted when computing the base line tree canopy
coverage.
(10) If any protected significant trees are removed or killed or there is a loss of trees as
the result of construction activities, the city requires replacement at the rate of two
(2) caliper inches per each inch of DBH of the removed, killed, or lost trees. The
replacement trees shall be at least two and a half (2 1/2) inches caliper and will be
species that conform to the List of Desirable Tree Species for Planting in
Chanhassen. No more than one-third (1/3) of the trees may be from any one tree -
species. Other species or sizes may be used as replacement trees subject to approvE
by the City. Alternately, if a developer removes trees within a protected area, the
canopy coverage area shall be calculated for that area and a replacement area 1.5 -
times the canopy coverage area that was removed shall be planted. Plant materials
shall be supplied on a per-acre basis using the following criteria: forty (40) trees
per acre, trees from list of desirable tree species, no more than one-third (1/3) of -
trees from any one tree species, average 2 1/2 inch caliper with a minimum 1 1/2
inch caliper, a similar species as vegetation existing on site, and appropriate to the
soil conditions. Any replacement trees that can not be planted on the original site -
due to space restrictions shall be planted on city property at locations to be
determined by the city_ Replacement-o€ =- -- - =- - - - - - -required on a caliper inch by caliper inch ix • . • •• • - = - - , - • • '-
(11) Financial guarantees acceptable to the city shall be required to ensure compliance with
this section . _ . ••- . - _ - • -
Section 2. Section 20-1, Definitions, of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding the
following definitions:
Caliper means diameter measured at six (6) inches above ground.
!ea
-- Canopy coverage shall mean the area on a horizontal plane that is located under the
crowns of all the trees on the site.
6
12/08/93
12/20/93
1/21/94
2/2/94
Critical root zone means an area twelve (12) times the tree diameter at DBH measured
from the base of the tree.
DBH means diameter measured at breast height (4.5 feet above the ground).
Designated woodland area means an area within a development that has been designated
in the woodland management plan as a tree preservation, reforestation or replacement
planting area.
Loss of trees means that any of the following may have happened:
a. Grade change or land alteration, whether temporary or permanent, of greater
than one (1) foot, measured vertically from the existing grade, affecting forty (40)
percent (as measured on a horizontal plane) or more of a tree's critical root zone; or
b. Utility construction resulting in the cutting of forty (40) percent or more of the
tree's roots within the critical root zone; or
c. Mechanical injury to the tree trunk causing loss of more than forty (40) percent
of the bark; or
d. Compaction to ninety (90) percent of standard proctor to a depth of six (6)
inches or more of forty (40) percent or more of the surface of the soil within the
tree's critical root zone; or
e. The pruning of a tree which eliminates forty (40) percent or more of the canopy
area of a tree; or
f. The complete removal of a tree.
Significant Tree means any healthy tree species measuring twelve (12) inches or more
DBH; Or any healthy coniferous tree measuring twelve (12) feet in height or more.
Special trees mean any large broadleaf trees at least 30 inches DBH, any large conifer trees
a� st 20 inches DBH, any medium broadleaf trees at least 20 inches DBH, any small
br: ;ileaf trees at least 12 inches DBH, rare or unusual tree species, or trees of exceptional
quality.
Tre: trunk means the stem portion of a tree from the base to the first branch thereof.
7
12/08/93
12/20/93
1/21/94
2/2/94
Woodlands shall mean any groupings of significant trees with a canopy coverage of one (1)
acre or more, any groupings of 10 or more substantial trees, or any grouping of trees with
at least one (1) special tree and where 25 percent or more of other trees are significant
trees.
List of Desirable Tree Species for Planting in Chanhassen means the following list of tree species.
List of Desirable Tree Species for Planting in Chanhassen
Key to notations used: N = Native; Suitable for reforestation/replacement plantings
DT = Relatively tolerant to drought or dry sites
Size: (in terms of expected mature height)
L = Large (over 50 feet)
M = Medium (between 25 to 50 feet)
S = Small (less than 25 feet
Broadleaf Species Size Notes
Amur Maple S Shade tolerant.
Acer ginnala
Norway Maple M-L Protect from sunscald.
Acer platanoides
Red Maple M N Protect from sunscald.
Acer rubrum Grows best on moist,
acid soils.
Sugar Maple L N Protect from sunscald.
Acer saccharum Prefers moist, well-
drained soils.
•
Ohio Buckeye M
Aesculus glabra
River birch M Relatively tolerant of
Betula nigra wet sites
8
12/08/93
12/20/93
1/21/94
2/2/94
Shagbark Hickory L DT
Carya ovata
Northern Catalpa M-L DT
Catalpa speciosa
Hackberry L N DT
Cellis occidentalis
Hawthorn S DT Thornless varieties
Crataegus spp. available
Russian Olive S DT Protect from sunscald
Elaeagnus angustifolia
Ginkgo M Plant only male trees
Ginkgo biloba
Honeylocust M-L Protect from sunscald.
Gleditsia triacanthos Thornless varieties are
popular
Kentucky Coffeetree L DT
Gymnocladus dioicus
Black Walnut L N
Juglans nigra
Flowering Crabapple S Many varieties
Malus spp. available; check for
disease resistance;
protect from sunscald
Ironwood M N Found only under
Ostrya virginiana shade of other trees
Amur Corktree S DT
Phellodendron amurense
Aspen M N
Populus tremuloides
9
12/08/93
12/20/93
1/21/94
2/2/94
Black Cherry M N
Prunus serotina
White Oak L N
Quercus alba
Swamp White Oak L N Relatively tolerant of
Quercus bicolor wet sites
Bur Oak L N DT
Quercus macrocarpa
Red Oak L N Fastest growing oak
Quercus rubra
Black Locust L DT
Robinia pseudoacacia
Mountain Ash M Protect from sunscald
Sorbus spp.
Japanese Tree Lilac S
Syringa reticulata
American Linden L N A.K.A Basswood;
Tilia americana Relatively tolerant of
wet sites
Littleleaf Linden M
Tilia cordata
CONIFERS
Balsam Fir M N Relatively tolerant of
Abies balsamea :yet sites. Shade
tolerant.
White Fir M DT
Abies concolor
10
12/08/93
12/20/93
1/21/94
2/2/94
Tamarack M Tolerant of wet sites.
Larix laricina Only conifer that drops
its needles each year
Norway Spruce L
Picea abies
Black Hills Spruce M
Picea glauca densata
White Spruce L N
Picea glauca
Colorado Spruce M
Picea pungens
Austrian Pine L
Pinus nigra
Red Pine L N DT State tree; A.K.A.
Pinus resinosa Norway pine
White Pine L N
Pinus strobus
Scotch Pine M
Pinus sylvestris
American Arborvitae S N
Thuja occidentalis
Note: Other tree species may be utilized as part of the development subject to city approval.
Section 3. LANDSCAPING AND TREE REMOVAL: Section 20-1178 (c) is amended by
adding the following:
(c) The following standards shall be used in evaluating subdivisions and site plans:
(N.B. This section repeats (1) through (1f) above.)
11
. ,
,
" ,- 1 p . -, x •..
i 'c.' -• . '' .•• . " ' . ,
., • - •
i -,-."---• ri..; --i,./,'-.4-, • .f.- • 'A--- •
.,>
j,• .:,,..,44 ,.. ,•...f; • ' -- 0'..7.1,:,-..".4. cL•.. a','• 41r - .."
. • ..71# it, .."i' "..' ' .' .:,
• e Ls-
..* . .4 :• 4-, i.- ". 0. , . --. ' , -i•, '3'4". ; •"... _
-. •
... , ‘,l',.y ..;;" . c-. 'ili , ..4 . • .- •., .s.‘
-:.•.-'
,
'-.-',-. ,.l• 4• '' ' ••/ ,..!, •• Iti'. • •"e ..',cr. ''„ r: : F-4,r-t •• ""••
il
..••• °.. ' 1•-..4 • ', .4 le.. -.. • - e.. .‘l-li; '$c ' °F 'A' '4/"."..
, r_ if):.24:••••-4 - ;-- _s . ..., '"I'a' -' v' '.. '• 4.- -: . , -- -'3,1-'•,-4:- s?•#•->. .. - - -,-:' ,I,1 .,,er'
'1 /=-..';•-/ 4. , ." .1 4. • 1,..-,„ , -•14 ..- ).if
.. 1
-
.., - ' 4 • -.,
... , .
.):Ptr. ...' ' - ''‘.. 4•' : • z- ,
• -.• -• ' 11'. il-le* ' ".• *• . 41' "ik •,• '• ' •
. ,
• . • .
„ ... . m• !,•---
.•
. • #„r ,
1. -. .- . -, , .3. r'' ,.f.{Y. . ...'t -.> ..'1'.. " ...1 ,..."-Ait ...,,,•-• -- ,- .1:-..:-:. 'if
. •
.--i. - . 4• t• ". ,...;,- , ' -.%•'`'•.`•i', ' • ;ri A..• _ . - ,• • '' '.., ff• „,,-.-•-1;•#' 4‘-'r '.4-% ' " ' ',. , - '- • •..f.• •
- s 4-1. • .••••. 1. -.'.1; 4. ",v.- ' '4.7, '..; .•-
,. . .
-,-;•Jra ,,,..i...", -f, •;-{..1 r 0.. .L.:. , , .. . ,
. 1 • • • ir•••• .. ,*- ,-.. k " • ."'"
•
-- - ' -.'-''. .--- - ••ViAllir?' ': e.4°• • •_ .ithe-, .., .•. '": 4 ii‘". '.-r• . • - -- -.-. ,
, -* • , ,... „
m.`
-" ''''..iiii•A...4.;1.1rur•., :- .••g--, ..• ..-
- • .174p-1 .41651 1..- ....-f:'•:. s.' C•j.. . % : -'" . -=1 -. './'ice . ' '•.`?. : :-' "
.. . -. . _
• -41r•r", • - 11.Nti- .
< If
, ' '1. ' ... • 1., . - , .11,••44-1162 i i:)- .,1i..• .If • •.-" *_,-: •_1 i -'• ' • • ,.•:, „•.‘ .it.4.- 11! ---
(,-.4, -,-• .. ,
. - A•••• •4), , . #11...'!i• ' '
'le.Yr '.. . .4 . ... .77 f ... .; ./....,... .. . •_, ,. ,v;- ..., ,..........,:. ,. --,. . . a-.1 4,-1.
4 • 4.>:-;_ -4.. . •-'-‘ ' . - - -. -3' • lt.` %.•',/' T i e ': "'4.
,.1.',W-• f•?, ,i•0- - ...1' 1". -; ......,
17:-- ‘01.1`-* , • , . . , -.. -.F,•'..c....•,' - ' Ip' .' <c'''• • • .• .' •••••"'-
.. - - i - ,,,..... jc.• ., ••• i ,:.. • •.,(...„1.,, . . 2 ...,. . • - , • -. , .• ..;• , • a• .-.., - .7,11,
. l• ••,-2 `., .' "",•-:.• .-.,,,
1:.' ' •/' .",• .a r'.4 - 1, ..: , ',L.,'
',le.:. ,,,' - - .. .• •'. . . -, -. ' . •*; • •-'7 4... 'i`'„. .r. , i.ei
1 a !,• , • - , - - 1-. -
• ,. . ..s :•,.?
. !it ' '.'
, .
,,, •',( •-,- • , ,„„,„,.. ',..;„4,..4. , ,
• I.
.- -:- .• --, , „.;;..- IP' ' .. .„ " %. -1:4- . tr it --,,,,
„., • •••'''''-. '.
. .4 ,„ ei; /- 0' stgl .t: : ,_ , . ' :• -J.',, • -41.• 1,,- ,,•._ i', - : •t.' . •„,'.•41*140„..„_-, --
:C-,. . `. • • /. 'i- . ' , • .. ..- , ' !•'Ag,-_, .-517-, ;:.',,"`
-;.4. .4. ......4.•4.•-.0),V • , /....., . „ .
:-%- • . • IP - :8;‘....:4,-/' . • -1 }•...e•
..- -•,, :,. I .• 4 •iiper,,. i•• . "?...:- - , •
- : ‘.0 ..r,•- • • 1•••••Iii,' '•• -1.1?-1._ : ..;f•-„44;:t.•:.: - . • :-:*--,.:lc !:•-•"-- •
.../ -li ? ... :' : A 't • ' • '
-ii ••.,•. . . . .•*"-)t i • • • 1, i . : •'. •r 2. ,
-- / 4 . ---st. ' ,•-- - -• -,•:. •
, . • %,% • 1.--%.- " -i.1_. --
,. ..--• '-,:ii, '- ,_ - '-' :'- ;3'.'ri. ••- • , • -
•
•-..* ,-. - ---- 4.. V•,7,',:•- `,.,„ -•-.*„,„ .
I
_. .."‘• :•„ - i 11.4 ,., •"".••• -.. ,„ „...
, ,; ....
, ,
. -•
• -- ,
• , • c. ','
' •t-. - ...••; -' 3t...- ••rt • ' -,.. ...,":•• ' - - ..,. ....... •-..: -- . :,...;• ., 'k."•:,'• _ _-.4* , .„•• ' _ _;• '"-• ::.,-..i.-•* .
. . ' / ••• "1 _
a . . -• ' ..-1 f A!'...v.‘" - ,-• •. _= . • "-.'
. ..
• -.. - ',...t. _
k•
- - i V; ".., „- . -, .--c. •••• .1 1" -....1: w.•-•' ;‘,•• . . • • .-• - -•-• ;:----;_ `,,...•*1.-- ,4- •• ..,, - "44-- detelltr* ' -'
• -< . - ve ‘,1 ..";,,c,,• • -. ... • .....
- _. .. -ik. .-•-•.• 4 -rt-.0' ' V' t ' • ;#71„„c. -...- , 3 r#11-.' - ' -• . •- .- . '-'-• -- - -.-..or-
,c ...- • ... ,-:..
•-•,,uk...... ,
,--• lix de /' -1 4P- '.•' - .- • ' --
• . ,. .-,.,, .,- .
-(,. '!.1.;-'' ' ''. • -... ,
-' k• IL-...."* .-si".. • .
.,..-,..,1.. it •,'‘,*, .4', ,..2:r ; . 4f;* '' dir'• # • *114.....: . '0 II' . . :,..'...."-: „-.--. , .. •
.. ,0•00,_s gito
ill
-4. •
, __ .;yc‘f$ ..
• • - fit' • 4,4„ of •
,, ...,- - -.t,...... -irr. 7,, .-,7,.... . t. r •..• .;
. I ,
...0„.„..,-.....:- - •11-•-..4• •:I%..f.r•k j,......--4.-,.-' .•• '31
-... 1.--_,...... ,. .:-,-- •-•-•%'-`-. „v'' A
.- . .
.--- -- , ii-,- ..,..,,,)i,;,,, f) :.- -,-. .....-.,-.,.! i • --. - 4...,;):. -- _: -. '..-...- • -- _ :.!,:.t•-se,
dee:- ....1 ' _ .• • .. - . . ; , •=7 ..gi , , .. , "...',... . ,:, ,. •. '„ ........„....:;,. •-4,...„ ..,7,--,`„,!...,1:‘,..44...
. . • - ,..---' -. . ' ,- ' 1 irp.124.--0- -• • '.-,-..'.• , • • ' - ^: i,l...,.-.: " .....: ._.,..' '' .::,---"' • ••• -
-- , - !WI"fr:iir".. .• .....;''? i' . • , -
* •- • - ir- ' '''eLl..) . '111311:11;f:'''' .4 r',. -•••- '• 1 . • . '- - . _
c.'. •:. • . i'-f4-)• • 1-5.--._. -, '' 4."' 14•.,- ;10.:4•.;;;• f .-Y.', ... . -'t - - , ' , „ .:,•'_. -"f„-..g..•.:,,,"*.,71.1._,-„•,. -
,...•,..,•,,-.. ....2.-.t-4,7,--1711t.• ._. , ..1 ti..g.7,...• . •-•• ••ors,- "* •
• .'..:-.71-s,,i" .:-!"-,..L.r.;: .• - 1 - ev-.. . ../. • /.. - • N. ...: • •' .,
• • • ...- • • : f 1- if:, 4 -. •-•••4.- •• : -. •...r_ L. .4„.
' '--....";.-ni ...rig-. . 1. •'• '31L3,646 i• -
•
, .1 . .1164.2c,"A.... ••• ...., s
•••Al: li . I ,
7 t '' • ' , 'It tf 0 - .•..**. *ke-4. -: 4:•4'.1•--. i *.---i.c -9.-1',;,.- c :•-..6,%. 3,. .4
A. .. ..,,, ..... ,r• , •'11 r--• fi-Ort. ,I;.: ,• 4-v. • t.• • • '•-....-..,110, , ,...e,'t - '.--...--4•` . ' ?•.' • ... '7.--... :-.
- • :4' - ' •- ..it „ ,...,'1.?•,--...• _- _ , .....
...4.-
i.,11. Mitk.• • •.k.. . 4 „ . i- .-. . _ -, . . .- . .f- - ...-•
f,'• ...,.,.. ---- -.-k, .-,, 4:. -
..
- . . . . .
. A . ••-• -•-. - •..-._ •. - 4.• i- • •' •_ "1,.-i,_•.-• '
_ . Are 4 c.• .•... - . -:•
•Z, - - •,- - • •.
. ,... ,.. -,
•-- r .1,••••„,,,i _,..w.7 ..._ .
-, . .i•
-• 7.
F
YZ./- • • IF'' -- " ,•Ar lgv•• .• - _ -I .
- ,fratfil iaje• , =*--• 4:I.- • • I Was-•
-
• :.-:..-• • •
- -• - -- ,,- „
• .• -_ -- , ., - : •
<-1'• 50:-.-eir•• -1! ---,e,i . __ _,..a . _...S,.._ic.i, 4- „ ..1 .- -,.. ,
..0., „,-.• ,_-•:, ±i .... ewx. 1114Lariftw.c...,;#•- i : ' . • -. . . . .
:•:.%; • ' 4....t.-,.,r, • , ' "...orl,! .,
r '4
- '' - '-i t , •• •Irvil., , ,, - •.." ." ' ,,...-
. --, • -0,-•,.• r • ' _ -- 2
: .
. _
4#0 4. ., r .• ..„..„;,:, _ e.,
q.,.....,P_.. ..-,,....
4.:7. . .
.:`-... .. . - P4u03t_,t'41..-'. -•c.:•'.•- --• :;;1,-;ri_.,.,,.
_r-., t
- t' ivibitt.,
7- -.-
-
,
..••
\ \\\ `-.--- ...,.. ,_---N ) 1 , ----, ) 1 2 c - — -\-`q11\-
•
y J ,,• '..it.,‘\\t\1 / i- ,,, \/ice//mo //.
1 l// �0. \iii��iii/
4P40.////// i J i i a \•••, I Wb
// /// ' f//-/,,,-, %��
' - ///1 rim. iiir2 1:..) i - 1.1 'f. ,
, .,„„.; /5,,i2x)r ,,---,-. "_-_-_____------y
I ( k \-111.1-W. I/I : ifiaiii 0/ ..,
ill ttc,/,{ x11 / ft / -
1 ;t / /,,, ..., - -1. \, ,Iiiilp 7.,, , .....1 \ \ 4/) iffit i , / 4 ,..:, Jr
... : øJ : _ 1
1 • (.:..., sir / ti___.
, \„-__ ,. ,
. .
1 ) \\ lif \' ',.' r , ._ " ixiv 1
-_-_) , vi, t, ,, _1_,,.. 4, i . ..initiri" h i
\,: i. - J ( A' 1
sai
• --z--. ...,ere..., ijk.;\ \Ili/ / ii .. I t 6
1 ;'
Gs L 'r ri- ; . 1.1%1 1
�-
I
t
••••••••5- _ •'..4..."7.,>T/4////)0", 1
: :_-_--=!--f' -7—, ..._:_-_ _z..7 ...,--to-irey i/ i I_
.a,..::-,: --.,-...)) .ii 6/II/ l ( L .,. /:9/ ,"/*/
c--�—ter=_
e j _
:Q •e
Li 1
+ et. : U
ntriE--
. • .
(tI1t
—
' iI,.it 111;+1
-`— _
:ii::g
E
—z
a'• •'•' :) James R.Hill,Inc. TROTTERS RIDGE JAMES DEVELOPMENT CO. .. .
_ _ - - � •• • — .:(.Int(K.1....t�r• •••'...ems.• 'e•.>.• MIEUMMAwT TIME/LAM
C... M. ........_ ...� C
ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION
PLANNING COMMISSION TERMS
Three Year Terms
NAME APPOINTMENT DATE TERM EXPIRES
Nancy Manci ho 1/11/93 12/31/95
Ronald Nutting 2/14/94 12/31/96
Ladd Conrad 2/2/81 12/31/94
Diane Harberts 1/11/93 12/31/94
Joe Scott 1/11/93 12/31/94
Jeffrey Farmakes 1/1/91 12/31/96
Matthew Ledvina 1/1/92 12/31/95
3/1994
CL 7c (- c Y (A
.-h C
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETLNG
OF THE
BOARD OF MANAGERS
OF THE
RILEY-PURGATORY-BLUFF CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
February 2, 1994
The regular meeting of the Board of Managers of the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek
Watershed District was called to order at 7:00 p.m., on January 12, 1994, by Chairman Fiskness
at the Eden Prairie City Offices, Eden Prairie, Minnesota.
Managers present: Peterson, Scribner, Fiskness, Rahr and Forster
Absent: None
Also present: Board Advisors, Robert Obermeyer and Raymond Haik.
_ The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 12, 1994 were reviewed. Following
discussion, it was moved by Rahr, seconded by Scribner, that the Minutes be approved with the
following correction:
Page 5, 9l 3, 2nd line: the word "meeting" should be stricken.
Upon vote, the Minutes were approved as corrected.
CORRESPONDENCE
• A communication from the County of Hennepin requesting a certification on bond
indebtedness as of December 31, 1993.
• A communication from the County of Carver requesting a certification on bond
'nd�btedness of the District as -of December 31, 1993.
_- LIVVVLVV\� J
• A communication from Business Agency, Inc. outlining alternatives for public official
bond coverage.
• A communication from the City of Eden Prairie regarding Watershed District participation
in the Earth Day Environmental Fair scheduled for April 23, 1994.
• A communication from James R. Hill, Inc., the Engineers for the Bearpath project, with
accompanying correspondence from Summit Envirosolutions and Braun Intertec describing
r
12 4
002/18033370 2/8/94
the procedures for inspection and monitoring of construction in the vicinity of the
Cranberry Bog.
PERMITS
A. Permit #94-03: Bent Creek Woods - Site Grading; Grading and land alternation
permit: Eden Prairie
The Engineer reviewed the plans, recommended permit conditions, wetland act
compliance measures, erosion control, and covenant conditions. Following discussion,
it was moved by Peterson, seconded by Rahr, that the site grading permit be issued in
accordance with the Engineer's recommendations. Upon vote, the motion carried.
B. Permit #94-04: Summerfield; Site Grading; Grading and land alteration permit:
Eden Prairie
The Engineer reviewed the plans including compliance with the Wetland Conservation
Act. Following discussion of the notice and procedural requirements of the Wetland Act
permanent rules, it was moved by Rahr, seconded by Forster, do defer action on the
permit application pending receipt of additional information. Upon vote, the motion
carried.
C. Permit#94-05: Chanhassen Elementary School; Grading and land alteration permit:
Chanhassen
The Engineer reported on the revisions to the plan. Following discussion, it was moved
by Rahr. seconded by Forster, do defer action on the permit application pending receipt
of additional information. Upon vote, the motion carried.
D. Permit #94-06: Yuma Drive/Canterbury Circle Storm Sewer Improvements;
Grading and land alteration permit: Chanhassen
The Engineer reviewed the plan and recommended permit conditions. Diane Desotclle
of the City of Chanhassen reported on the delay in o'Dtaining ..ht Corp of Army Engineers
permit. The Managers reviewed the permit extension procedures. Following discussion,
it was moved by Scribner, seconded by Rahr, that the permit be issued in accordance with
the Engineer's recommendation. Upon vote, the motion carried.
002/18033370 2/8/94 2
E. MDNR Chapter 105 Work in Protected Waters Permit Installation of Rip-rap on
Red Rock Lake at 8621 Red Oak Drive: Eden Prairie
The Engineer reviewed the bank protection work and proposed recommendations to the
DNR. Following discussion, it was moved by Rahr, seconded by Forster, that the
Engineer's recommendations be received and forwarded to the Department of Natural
Resources. Upon vote, the motion carried.
TREASURER'S REPORT
The Treasurer's Report was submitted,a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part
of the Minutes by reference. Following review, it was moved by Scribner, seconded by Rahr,
to receive the report and pay the bills. Upon vote, the motion carried.
The Treasurer discussed the Business Agency, Inc. recommendations for public official
bond coverage. Following review of the present position schedule L nd and a proposed public
official blanket bond alternative, it was moved by Peterson, seconded by Rahr, to accept the
recommendation of the insurance agency and secure additional public official blanket bond
coverage in the amount of $25,000 coverage per Manager, with an additional $25,000 coverage
on the Treasurer. Upon vote, the motion carried.
The Managers inquired of the Attorney regarding additional insurance coverage to deal
with violations of the Public Open Meeting law. The Attorney was requested to obtain additional
information for consideration by the Managers.
ENGINEER'S REPORT
Plans Submitted to the District for Preliminary Review. None.
Project Submitted to the District that do not Require Permits. None.
Bearpath Project. The Engineer reviewed the procedures for supervision of the sanitary sewer
construction in the vicinity of the Cranberry Bog. He discussed the permit conditions that require
an on-site inspection. John Vogelbacher was present on behalf of the Sienna Corporation. There
followed a discussion of the procedures and the importance of inspection during the construction
to ensure correction of problems and the protection of the Cranberry Bog. Following review of
the procedures, it was moved by Rahr, seconded by Forster, to direct the Engineer to respond to
the Bearpath project plan for supervision of the sanitary sewer construction and that notice be
given to the City of Eden Prairie, that the District Engineer of any water problems encountered
and the proposed action to insure that the sanitary sewer construction does not impact the
Cranberry Bog water level. Upon vote, the motion carried.
002/18033370 218/94 3
Staring Lake Outlet/Purgatory Creek Recreation Area Basic Water Management Proiect. The
Engineer reported on the meetings with city and state officials and the completion of final plans.
The present schedule of the Minnesota Department of Highways calls for construction of
Technology Drive in February 1995, with Highway 212 construction scheduled in 1996. The
Engineer reviewed a procedure whereby a comprehensive plan and combined permit applications
would be submitted to the permitting agencies identifying the projects of the State Highway
Department, the City and the Watershed District. The MDOT staff is coordinating the mapping
and plan preparation. The Attorney stated that ownership and other examinations of the
properties impacted would be deferred pending completion of the permit applications.
Bluff Creek Property Purchase from Control Credit, Inc. The Attorney reported on the _
negotiations of the Purchase Agreement with Steve Rowland. It appeared that Mr. Rowland is
not the owner but the property was held by Credit Control, Inc. and Raymond E. Dana, President.
The Attorney reviewed the changes in the draft purchase agreement,including the representations
as to placement of fill on the property. He discussed the filling of the area by the State of
Minnesota. County of Carver or the City of Chanhassen, terms regarding payment,environmental
audits and certifications. Following review, it was moved by Scribner, seconded by Rahr, to
authorize the President and Secretary to execute an agreement for the purchase of 5.07 acres of
Bluff Creek lands from Credit Control, Inc., with an initial clown payment of$5,000, and $20,000
payable at closing on April 1, 1994, with the balance of $50,000 payable over two years with
interest at the rate of 8% per annum.
Paul Krauss, the Director of Planning for the City of Chanhassen, and Diane Desotelle,
Chanhassen's Water Resources Coordinator, stated the desire of Chanhassen City Council and
Officials to work with the Watershed District on the acquisition of the properties. There followed
a discussion concerning the importance of protecting critical corridor areas and valley lands of
the Bluff Creek Watershed District. The Managers repeated their desire to work with the City
in developing a comprehensive plan for the Bluff Creek Watershed. Following discussion, upon
vote. the motion was carried.
Status of Construction Projects. No problems were reported.
ATTORNEY'S REPORT
The Attorney reviewed the Wetland Conservation Act and permit procedures required by
the permanent rules. He discussed the Attorney General's Opinion to the Board of Water and
Soil Resources and reviewed the costs involved in administering the Wetland Conservation Act
as the responsible local governmental unit.. The Managers discussed the ongoing 509 Plan
preparation. Following discussion, it was agreed that these issues would be on the agenda for
the annual planning meeting scheduled for Saturday, February 12, at 8:00 a.m., at the office of
the Engineer.
002/18033370 22/8/94 4
UNFLNISHED BUSINESS
Carver County Boundary Adjustment. The Attorney reported on the revised boundary description
to reflect adjustments following the subdivision of the undeveloped properties. The Attorney was
to determine whether the boundary could be administratively adjusted without the necessity of
a petition public hearing and findings.
State Legislative Matters. Manager Peterson discussed the Hennepin County legislative program
calling County handling of water management. He discussed th, Minnesota Association of
Watershed District's video entitled "Once and Future Waters" to illustrate the work and programs
of the Watershed Districts and the possibility of securing sponsors to enable the video to be
shown on all the cable networks.
NEW BUSINESS
The Managers discussed the State's Association Legislative Breakfast scheduled for
March 9. The Chairman was requested to extend a personal letter of invitation to District
legislators.
Manager Rahr inquired concerning the heavy metals analysis by the Watershed District
and the Lake Riley measurements by the Department of Natural Resources.
The Engineer reported on the replacement of signs of identifying the Creeks. The
Engineer was directed to arrange for the replacement of the signs with the assistance of the City
of Eden Prairie.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Managers, it was moved by Rahr,
seconded by Scribner, that the meeting be adjourned. Upon vote, the motion carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Frederick Rahr
Acting Secretary
002118033370 2//94 5