Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
06-15-20 Agenda and Packet
AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISS FILE WEDNESDAY,JUNE 15, 1994, 7:30 P CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTEI 6:00-7:30 p.m. Work session - Shoreland Regulations/Surface Water Management Program CALL TO ORDER OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Amendment to City Code Section 20-904 (c) regarding a time limit for an accessory structure to be removed after the primary structure has been removed or destroyed. 2. A conditional use permit to allow multiple buildings on the same lot (Section 20-902) in a PUD District and site plan review for a 280 square foot telephone switching building located on Lot 1, Block 2, Chanhassen Business Center, Sprint/United Telephone of Minnesota. 3. Preliminary plat to subdivide 35.83 acres of property into 38 single family lots with variances to the shoreland regulations for minimum lot sizes,n located on property zoned RSF, Residential Single Family and located north of Kings Road and west of Minnewashta Parkway, The Oaks at Minnewashta, Harstad Companies. 4. An interim use permit to allow screened outdoor storage in the BF, Fringe Business District and located at 10500 Great Plains Boulevard, Admiral Waste Management. 5. *Item Deleted. 6. Coffman Development Company to rezone 17.6 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family and preliminary plat to subdivide 17.6 acres of property into 23 single family lots with wetland setback variances and side yard setback variances on the flag lots, located at 1420 and 1430 Lake Lucy Road, Shadow Ridge (Harvey/O'Brien). 7. A Conceptual and Preliminary Planned Unit Development to rezone 89.59 acres of property zoned A2, — Agricultural Estate to PUD and preliminary plat to create 34 blocks and 3 outlots for a 166 unit residential development comprised of 34 buildings of either 2, 3, 4, 6, or 8 units in each. The units are two story, slab on grade construction with attached one or two car garages. The property is located in the southwest corner of the intersection of Hwy. 5 and Galpin Boulevard, Autumn Ridge, Good Value Homes, Inc. (Betty O'Shaughnessy property). APPROVAL OF MINUTES CITY COUNCIL UPDATE ONGOING ITEMS OPEN DISCUSSION 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 5. Roman Roos for a preliminary plat to replat Outlot C into Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center 2nd Addition and one outlot, and a site plan review of a 17,824 square foot building for office/manufacture/ warehouse on property zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development and located on Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center 2nd Addition, Custom Laminations Unlimited. CITYOF 111*‘H 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, Planning Director K� Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator DATE: June 8, 1994 SUBJ: Shoreland Ordinance Please find enclosed a draft of the Shoreland Ordinance for your review. In January 1991, the City was notified by DNR that they had two years to adopt a new shoreland management ordinance consistent with statewide standards. A draft of the ordinance was first submitted to the DNR in May 1993. DNR extended the due date until June 2, 1994 due to a series of time delays including City staff turnover and DNR review time. Attached is the DNR letter granting temporary ordinance approval until comments are received from neighboring communities through the DNR notification process and the City sends it through the formal hearing process. In general, the ordinance is very similar to the State's Shoreland Ordinance. The City has been very progressive with natural resource protection and preservation, and was therefore able to adopt some flexibility in accordance with existing ordinance guidelines. For example, the DNR is allowing the City to reduce the single family residential non-riparian sewered lots to 15,000 square feet instead of the recommend 20,000 square feet. The City has also been allowed to have more impervious surface area in the industrial zones on Lake Susan and in the multi-family residential zones. The definition of Bluff has been changed to match the DNR's definition and is now more conservative and applicable city-wide. In order to be in compliance with the State Statutes, the City should adopt the ordinance by the end of July 1994. The public hearing will be scheduled for July 6, 1994. City Council will then review the ordinance at the July 25, 1994 meeting for adoption. Attachment: Letter from DNR dated 6/8/94. g tieng'dianelshoreld\shoreord.fp IINF: METE: i PEG I[N TEL :612-772-7977 Jun 0* 94 13 : 14 No .00? P .0) STATE OF DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES METRO WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106 PHONE NC, 772-7910 FILE NO June 8 , 1994 Ms. Dianne Desotelle - City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 _. Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RE: STATUS OF UPDATED SHORELAND MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS, CITY OF CHANHASSEN, CARVER COUNTY Dear Ms. Desotelle: We understand that the city of Chanhassen's proposed schedule for getting the updated Shoreland Management Regulations adopted includes a Planning Commission work session on June 15th (where the Commission will make their recommendation to the Council) , and the public hearing at a City Council meeting by the end of July 1994 . The city of Chanhassen is far enough along in the process that we do not feel it is necessary to officially extend the contract between Chanhassen and the DNR that included an expiration date of June 2 , 1994 . This is based on a good faith understanding that it is the intent of the city to adopt and the DNR to approve the draft updated shoreland ordinance by the end of July 1994, or soon thereafter. We do need to allow communities with adjoining shoreland areas a 30-day opportunity to comment on the City of Chanhassen's flexibility request. As we discussed, I will send a draft of the letter I intend to send to your neighboring communities in time for the Planning Commission meeting on June 15th. We can then take any modifications recommended by the Planning Commission into account and send the letters to the communities in time to have comments, if any, for the City Council meeting. Since the city has incorporated (or is in the process of incorporating) all the points I have noted that needed to be added or modified, I do not anticipate any problem with the city of Chanhassen's proposed updated Shoreland Management Regulations receiving DNR approval. Please contact me at 772-7910 should you have questions. Sincerely, Cell Strauss Area Hydrologist c: Ed Fick, Shoreland Hydrologist CITY OF CHANHf. SEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE REPEALING THE INTERIM SHORELAND CONTROL ORDINANCE AND ADOPTING NEW SHORELAND MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: Section 1. Chanhassen City Code Sections 20-476, 20-477 and 20-478 are hereby repealed in their entirety. Section 2 . Chanhassen City Code Sections 20-1 is amended by adding the following definitions: "Boathouse" means a structure designed and used solely for the storage of boats or boating equipment. "Building line" means a line parallel to a lot line or the ordinary high water level at the required setback beyond which a structure may not extend. "Commissioner" means the commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources. "Deck" means a horizontal, unenclosed platform with or _ without attached railings, seats, trellises, or other features, attached or functionally related to a principal use or site. - "Hardship" means the same as that term is defined in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462 . "Intensive vegetation clearing" means the complete removal of trees or shrubs in a contiguous patch, strip, row, or block. "Semipublic use" means the use of land by a private, nonprofit organization to provide a public service that is ordinarily open to some persons outside the regular constituency of the organization. "Sensitive resource management" means the preservation and management of areas unsuitable for development in their natural state due to constraints such as shallow soils over groundwater or bedrock, highly erosive or expansive soils, 15330 05/31/94 steep slopes, susceptibility to flooding, or occurrence of flora or fauna in need of special protection. "Sewage treatment system" means a septic tank and soil absorption system or other individual or cluster type sewage treatment system as described and regulated in Chapter 19 , Article IV of the city code. "Sewer system" means pipelines or conduits, pumping stations, and force main, and all other construction, devices, appliances, or appurtenances used for conducting sewage or industrial waste or other wastes to a point of ultimate disposal. "Shore impact zone" means land located between the ordinary high water level of a public water and a line parallel to it at a setback of 50 percent of the structure setback. "Shoreland" means land located within the following distances from public waters: 1, 000 feet from the ordinary high water level of a lake, pond, or flowage; and 300 feet from a river or stream, or the landward extent of a floodplain designated by ordinance on a river or stream, whichever is greater. The limits of shorelands may be reduced whenever the waters involved are bounded by topographic divides which extend landward from the waters for lesser distances and when approved by the commissioner. "Significant historic site" means any archaeological site, standing structure, or other property that meets the criteria for eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places or is listed in the State Register of Historic Sites, or is determined to be an unplatted cemetery that falls under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, section 307 . 08 . A historic site meets these criteria if it is presently listed on either register or if it is determined to meet the qualifications for listing after review by the Minnesota state archaeologist or the director of the Minnesota Historical Society. All unplatted cemeteries are automatically considered to be significant historic sites. "Steep slope" means land where agricultural activity or development is either not recommended or described as poorly suited due to slope steepness and the site's soil characteristics, as mapped and described in available county soil surveys or other technical reports, unless appropriate design and construction techniques and farming practices are used in accordance with the provisions of this ordinance. Where specific information is not available, steep slopes are lands having average slopes over 12 percent, as measured 15330 05/31/94 -2- over horizontal distances of 50 feet or more, that are not bluffs. "Water-oriented accessory structure or facility" means a small , above ground building or other improvement, except stairways, fences, docks, and retaining walls, which, because of the relationship of its use to a surface water feature, reasonably needs to be located closer to public waters than the normal structure setback. Examples of such structures and facilities include boathouses, gazebos, screen houses, fish houses, pump houses, and detached decks. Section 3 . Chanhassen City Code § 20-1 is amended by redefining the following terms as set forth below: "Building height" means the vertical distance between the highest adjoining ground level at the building or ten feet above the lowest ground level, whichever is lower, and the highest point of a flat roof or average height of the highest of the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof. _ "Lot width" means the shortest distance between lot lines measured at the midpoint of the building line. "Ordinary high water mark or level" means the boundary of public waters and wetlands, and shall be an elevation delineating the highest water level which has been maintained for a sufficient period of time to leave evidence upon the landscape, commonly that point where the natural vegetation changes from predominantly aquatic to predominantly terrestrial. For watercourses, the ordinary high water level is the elevation of the top of the bank of the channel . for reservoirs and flowages, the ordinary high water level is the operating elevation of the normal summer pool . Section 4 . Chanhassen City Code Chapter 20 is amended by adding the following sections which shall be captioned "Article _ VII -- Shoreland Management District" : SECTION 20-476 - STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION AND POLICY (a) Statutory Authorization. This article is adopted pursuant to the authorization and policies contained in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 105, Minnesota Regulations, Parts 6120. 2500 - 6120. 3900, and the planning and zoning enabling legislation in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462 . (b) Policy. The uncontrolled use of shorelands of Chanhassen affects the public health, safety and general welfare 15330 05/31/94 -3- not only by contributing to pollution of public waters, but also by impairing the local tax base. Therefore, it is in the best interests of the public health, safety and welfare to provide for the wise subdivision, use and development of shorelands of public waters. The Legislature of Minnesota has delegated responsibility to local governments of the state to regulate the subdivision, use and development of the shorelands of public waters and thus preserve and enhance the quality of surface waters, conserve the economic and natural environmental values of shorelands, and provide for the wise use of waters and related land resources. This responsibility is hereby recognized by Chanhassen. SECTION 20-477 - GENERAL PROVISIONS (a) Jurisdiction. The provisions of this article shall apply to the shorelands of the public waters as classified in Section 20-478 of this article. Pursuant to Minnesota Regulations, parts 6120 . 2500 - 6120. 3900, no lake, pond, or flowage less than 10 acres in size is exempt from this ordinance. A body of water created by a private user where there was no previous shoreland is exempt from this article. (b) Compliance. The use of any shoreland of public waters; the size and shape of lots; the use, size, type and location of structures on lots; the installation and maintenance of water supply and waste treatment systems, the grading and filling of any shoreland area; the cutting of shoreland vegetation; and the subdivision of land shall be in full compliance with the terms of this article and other applicable regulations. (c) Enforcement. The Planning Director is responsible for the administration and enforcement of this article. Any violation of the provisions of this article or failure to comply with any of its requirements (including violations of conditions and safeguards established in connection with grants of variances or conditional uses) shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be punishable as defined by law. (d) Interpretation. In their interpretation and application,the provisions of this article shall be held to be minimum requirements and shall be liberally construed in favor of the City and shall not be deemed a limitation or repeal of any other powers granted by State Statutes. (e) Severability. If any section, clause, provision, or portion of this article is adjudged unconstitutional or invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this article shall not be affected thereby. 15330 05/31/94 -4- (f) Abrogation and Greater Restrictions. It is not intended by this article to repeal, abrogate, or impair any existing easements, covenants, or deed restrictions. However, where this article imposes greater restrictions, the provisions of this article shall prevail. All other articles inconsistent with this article are hereby repealed to the extent of the inconsistency only. SECTION 20-478 - ADMINISTRATION (a) Permits. A permit authorizing an addition to an existing structure shall stipulate that an identified nonconforming sewage treatment system shall be reconstructed or replaced in accordance with the provisions of this article. (b) Variances. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals or City Counsel shall hear and decide requests for variances in accordance with the rules that it has adopted for the conduct of business. When a variance is approved after the Department of Natural Resources has formally recommended denial in the hearing record, the notification of the approved variance required in Subsection (c) herein shall also include the summary of the public record/testimony and the findings of facts and conclusions which supported the issuance of the variance. For existing developments, the application for variance shall clearly demonstrate whether a conforming sewage treatment system is present for the intended use of the property. The variance, if issued, shall require reconstruction of a nonconforming sewage treatment system. (c) Notifications to the Department of Natural Resources. Copies of all notices of any public hearings to consider variances, amendments, or conditional uses under local shoreland management controls shall be sent to the commissioner's designated representative and postmarked at least ten days before the hearings. Notices of hearings to consider proposed subdivisions/plats shall include copies of the subdivision/plat. A copy of approved amendments and subdivisions/plats, and final decisions granting variances or conditional uses under local shoreland management controls shall be sent to the commissioner's designated representative and postmarked within ten days of final action. SECTION 20-479 - SHORELAND CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM AND LAND USE DISTRICTS (a) Shoreland Classification System. The public waters of Chanhassen have been classified below consistent with the criteria found in Minnesota Regulations, Part 6120. 3300, and the Protected Waters Inventory Map for Carver/Hennepin County, Minnesota. 15330 05/31/94 -5- CRMF BELL , KNUTSON , SCOTT & FUCHS , P . R Jun 8 ,94 17 : 07 No 0 1 F r_ (b) The shoreland area for the waterbodies listed below shall be as defined in Section 20-1 and as shown on the Official Zoning Map. (c) Lakes. (1) Natural Environmental Lakes Inventory I . D. # Harrison 10-8W Rice Lake 27-132P Rice Marsh Lake 10-1P St. Joe 10-11P Silver 27-136P (2) Recreational Development Lakes Inventory I.D.# Ann 10-12P Christmas 27-137P Hazeltine 10-14P Lotus 10-6P Lucy 10-7P Minnewashta 10-9P Riley 10-2P Susan 10-13P Virginia 10-15P (d) Rivers and Streams. (1) Agricultural: Minnesota River - from West City Boundary to East City Boundary (2) Tributary Streams: Bluff Creek - from Basin 10-209W to Basin 27-132P (Rice Lake) Lake Ann (10-12P) to Lake Susan (10-13P) Lake Susan (10-13P) to Rice Marsh Lake (10-1P) Lake Minnewashta (10-9P) to Lake Virginia (10-15P) Purgatory Creek - from Lotus Lake (10-6P) to East City Boundary All protected watercourses in Chanhassen shown on the Protected Waters Inventory Map for Carver County, a copy of which is hereby adopted by reference, not given a classification herein shall be considered "Tributary". SECTION 20-480 - ZONING AND WATER SUPPLY/SANITARY PROVISIONS (a) Lot Area and Width Standards. The lot area (in square feet) and lot width standards (in feet) for single, duplex, 15330 05/31/94 -6- :NUTSON , SCOTT & FUCHS , P .A Jun S ,94 17 :07 No . 010 P .03 triplex and quad residential lots created after the date of enactment of this ordinance for the lake and river/stream classification are as follows: (1) Sewered Lakes - Natural Environment: Riparian Lots Nonriparian Lots Area Width Area Width Single 40,000 125 15, 000 90 Duplex 70, 000 225 35, 000 180 Triplex 100,000 325 52 , 000 270 Quad 130, 000 425 65, 000 360 (2) Sewered Lakes - Recreational Development: Riparian Lots Nonriparian Lots Area Width Area Width Single 20, 000 75 15, 000 75 Duplex 35, 000 135 26, 000 135 Triplex 50, 000 195 38, 000 190 Quad 65, 000 255 49, 000 245 (3) River/Stream Lot Width Standards. There is no minimum lot size requirements for rivers and streams . The lot width standards for single, duplex, triplex and quad residential developments for the six river/stream classifications are as follows: Tributary No Agricultural Sewer Sewer Single 150 100 75 Duplex 225 150 115 Triplex 300 200 150 Quad 375 250 190 (4) Additional Special Provisions. Residential subdivisions with dwelling unit densities exceeding those in the tables in subsections (1) , (2) and (3) can only be allowed if designed and approved as residential planned unit developments. Only land above the ordinary high water level of public waters shall be used to meet lot area standards, and lot width standards 15330 05/31/94 -7- shall be met at both the ordinary high water level and at the building line. The sewer lot area dimensions in subsections (1) , (2) and (3) can only be used if publicly owned sewer system service is available to the property. SECTION 20-481 - PLACEMENT, DESIGN, AND HEIGHT OF STRUCTURE (a) Placement of Structures on Lots. When more than one setback applies to a site, structures and facilities shall be located to meet all setbacks. Where structures exist on the adjoining lots on both sides of a proposed building site, structure setbacks may be altered without a variance to conform to the adjoining setbacks from the ordinary high water level, provided the proposed building site is not located in a shore impact zone or in a bluff impact zone. Structures and on-site sewage treatment systems shall be setback (in feet) from the ordinary high water level as follows: Classes of Structures Sewage Treatment Public Waters Unsewered Sewered System Lakes Natural Environment 150 150 150 Recreational Development 100 75 75 Rivers Agricultural & Tributary 100 50 75 One water-oriented accessory structure designed in accordance with Section 20-482 (c) (2) of this article may be setback a minimum distance of ten (10) feet from the ordinary high water level . (b) Additional Structure Setbacks. The following additional structure setbacks apply, regardless of the classification of the waterbody. Setback From: Setback (in feet) (1) top of bluff; 30 (2) unplatted cemetery; 50 15330 05/31/94 -8- (3) right-of-way line of 50 federal, state, or county highway; and (4) right-of-way line of 20 town road, public street, or other roads or streets not classified. (c) Bluff Impact Zones. Structures and accessory facilities, except stairways and landings, shall not be placed within bluff impact zones. (d) Non-residential Uses Without Water-oriented NeL s. Uses without water-oriented needs shall be located on lots or parcels without public waters frontage, or, if located on lots or parcels with public waters frontage, shall either be set back double the normal ordinary high water level setback or be substantially screened from view from the water by vegetation or topography, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions. (e) Design Criteria for Structures. (1) High Water Elevations. Structures shall be placed _ in accordance with any floodplain regulations applicable to the site. Where these controls do not exist, the elevation to which the lowest floor, including basement, is placed or flood- - proofed shall be determined as follows: a. for lakes, by placing the lowest floor at a level at least three feet above the highest known water level, or three feet above the crdinary high water level, whichever is higher; b. for rivers and streams, by placing the lowest floor at least three feet above the flood of record, if data are available. If data. are not available, by placing the lowest floor at least three feet above the ordinary high water level, or by conducting a technical evaluation to determine effects of proposed construction upon flood stages and flood flaws and to establish a flood protection elevation. Under all three approaches, technical evaluations shall be done by a qualified engineer or hydrologist consistent with parts 6120. 5000 to 6120. 6200 governing the management of flood plain areas. If more than one approach is used, the highest flood 15330 05/31/94 -9- protection elevation determined shall be used for placing structures and other facilities; and c. water-oriented accessory structures may have the lowest floor placed lower than the elevation determined in this item if the structure is construed of flood-resistant materials to the elevation, electrical and mechanical equipment is placed above the elevation and, if long duration flooding is anticipated, the structure is built to withstand ice action and wind-driven waves and debris. (2) Water-oriented Accessory Structures. Each lot may have one water-oriented accessory structure not meeting the normal structure setback in Section 20-481 (a) if this water-oriented accessory structure complies with the following provisions: a. the structure or facility shall not exceed i^"''..c_ ten feet in height, exclusive of safety rails, and cannot occupy an area greater than .1 250 square feet. Detached decks shall not exceed eight feet above grade at any point. b. the setback of the structure or facility from the ordinary high water level shall be at least ten feet; c. the structure or facility shall be treated to reduce visibility as viewed from public waters and adjacent shorelands by vegetation, topography, increased setbacks or color, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions; d. the roof may be used as a deck with safety rails, but shall not be enclosed or used as a storage area; e. the structure or facility shall not be designed or used for human habitation and shall not contain water supply or sewage treatment facilities; and f. as an alternative for general development and recreational development waterbodies, water- oriented accessory structures used solely for watercraft storage, and including storage of 15330 05/31/94 -10- related boating and water-oriented sporting equipment, may occupy an area of up to 400 square feet provided the maximum width of the structure is 20 feet as measured parallel to the configuration of the shoreline. (3) Stairway, Lifts and Landings. Stairways and lifts are the preferred alternative to major topographic alterations for achieving access up and down bluffs and steep slopes to shore areas. Stairways and lifts shall meet the following design requirements: a. stairways and lifts shall not exceed four feet in width on residential lots. Wider stairways may be used for commercial properties, public open-space recreational properties, and planned unit developments; b. landings for stairways and lifts on residential lots shall not exceed 32 square feet in area. Landings larger than 32 square feet may be used for commercial properties, public open-space recreational properties, and planned unit developments; c. canopies or roofs are not allowed on stairways, lifts, or landings ; • d. stairways, lifts, and landings may be either constructed above the ground on posts or _ pilings, or placed into the ground, provided they are designed and build in a manner that ensures control of soil erosion; e. stairways, lifts, and landings shall be located in the most visually inconspicuous portions of lots, as viewed from the surface of the public water assuming summer, leaf-on conditions, whenever practical ; and f. facilities such as ramps, lifts, or mobility paths for physically handicapped persons are also allowed for achieving access to shore areas, provided that the dimensional and performance standards of subitems (a) to (e) are complied with in addition to the requirements of Minnesota Regulations, Chapter 1340. 15330 05/31/94 -11- (4) Significant Historic Sites. No structure shall be placed on a significant historic site in a manner that affects the values of the site unless adequate information about the site has been removed and documented in a public repository. (5) Steep Slopes. The Planning Director shall evaluate possible soil erosion impacts and development visibility from public waters before issuing a permit for construction of sewage treatment systems, roads, driveways, structures, or other improvements on steep slopes. When determined necessary, conditions shall be attached to issued permits to prevent erosion and to preserve existing vegetation screening of structures, vehicles, and other facilities as viewed from the surface of public waters, assuming summer, leaf-on vegetation. (f) Height of Structures. All structures in residential districts, except churches and nonresidential agricultural structures, shall not exceed 35 feet in height. SECTION 20-482 - SHORELAND ALTERATIONS (a) Generally. Alterations of vegetation and topography shall be regulated to prevent erosion into public waters, fix nutrients, preserve shoreland aesthetics, preserve historic values, prevent bank slumping, and protect fish and wildlife habitat. (b) Vegetation Alterations. (1) Vegetation alteration necessary for the construction of structures and sewage treatment systems and the construction of roads and parking areas regulated by Section 20-484 of this article are exempt from the following vegetation alteration standards. (2) Removal or alteration of vegetation is allowed subject to the following standards: a. Intensive vegetation clearing within the shore and bluff impact zones and on steep slopes is not allowed. Intensive vegetation clearing for forest land conversion to another use outside of these areas is allowable if permitted as part of a development approved by the city council as a conditional use if an erosion control and 15330 05/31/94 -12- sedimentation plan is developed and approved by the soil and water conservation district in which the property is located. b. In shore and bluff impact zones and on steep slopes, limited clearing of trees and shrubs and cutting, pruning, and trimming of trees is allowed to provide a view of the water from the principal dwelling site and to accommodate the placement of stairways and landings, picnic areas, access paths, livestock watering areas, beach and watercraft access areas, and permitted water- oriented accessory structures or facilities, provided that: i. the screening of structures, vehicles, _ or other facilities as viewed from the water, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions, is not substantially reduced; ii . along rivers, existing shading of water surfaces is preserved; and iii. the above provisions are not applicable to the removal of trees, limbs, or branches that are dead, diseased, or pose safety hazards. SECTION 20-483 - TOPOGRAPHIC ALTERATIONS/GRADING AND FILLING Connections to Public Waters. Excavations where the intended purpose is connection to a public water, such as boat slips, canals, lagoons, and harbors, shall be controlled by this Article and Section 7 , Article III. Permission for excavations may be given only after the commissioner has approved the proposed connection to public waters. SECTION 20-484 - PLACEMENT AND DESIGN OF ROADS, DRIVEWAYS, AND PARKING AREAS (a) Public and private roads and parking areas shall be designed to take advantage of natural vegetation and topography to achieve maximum screening from view from public waters. documentation shall be provided by a qualified individual that all roads and parking areas are designed and constructed to minimize and control erosion to public waters consistent with the field office technical guides of the local soil and water conservation district, or other applicable technical materials. 15330 05/31/94 -13- CHMF BELL , [HUTSON , SCOTT & FUCHS , F . H Jun 8 . 94 17 : 0.8, No . 010 (b) Roads, driveways, and parking areas shall meet structure setbacks and shall not be placed within bluff and shore impact zones, when other reasonable and feasible placement alternatives exist. If no alternatives exist, they may be placed with these areas, and shall be designed to minimize adverse impacts. (c) Public and watercraft access ramps, approach roads, and access-related parking areas may be placed within shore impact zones provided the vegetative screening and erosion control conditions of this subpart are met. SECTION 20-48S - STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Impervious surface coverage of lots shall not exceed 25 percent of the lot area, except as follows: (a) Thirty-five percent (35%) for medium/high density residential zones; and (b) Seventy percent (70%) in industrial zones within the Lake Susan shoreland district. SECTION 20-486 -- SEWAGE TREATMENT Any premises used for human occupancy shall be provided with an adequate method of sewage treatment, as follows: (a) On-site sewage treatment systems shall be set back from the ordinary high water level in accordance with the setbacks contained in Section 20-481 (a) of this article. (b) A nonconforming sewage treatment system shall be upgraded, at a minimum, at any time a permit or variance of any type is required for any improvement on, or use of, the property. For the purposes of this provision, a sewage treatment system shall not be considered nonconforming if the only deficiency is the sewage treatment system's improper setback from the ordinary high water level . (c) The Chanhassen City Council has by formal resolution notified the commissioner of its program to identify nonconforming sewage treatment systems. Chanhassen will require upgrading or replacement of any nonconforming system identified by this program within a reasonable period of time which will not exceed two years. Sewage systems installed according to all applicable local shoreland management standards adopted under Minnesota Statutes, section 105. 485, in effect at the time of installation may be considered as conforming unless they are determined to be failing, except that systems using cesspools, leaching pits, seepage pits, or other deep disposal methods, or 15530 05/31/94 -14- CAv= BELL , f:NUT_ft . SCOTT & FUCHS , P .A Jun 8 ,94 17 :09 No .010 P .05 systems with less soil treatment area separation above ground water than required by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's Chapter 7080 for design of on-site sewage treatment systems, shall be considered nonconforming. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED this day of 1994, by the City Council of the C t� y of Chanhassen. ATTEST: Don Ashworth, Clerk/Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on , 1994) . 1S330 05/31/94 -15- CITYOF CHANHASSEN' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission TT FROM: Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator] D Kate Aanenson, Planning Director fes` Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer��� [ DATE: June 9, 1994 SUBJ: Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) Approval History of the City's SWMP In September of 1990, The City Council adopted the Surface Water Management Utility Fee (Ordinance 132). The first priority of the City after establishing the utility fee, was to generate a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP). In August 1991 the SWMP task _ force was formed. The task force included representatives from the City Council, Planning Commission, City Staff, and representatives of the citizens of Chanhassen. The purpose of the task force was to provide guidance to the City in formulating the foals and _ policies that will result in the successful implementation of the SWMP. A large component of the plat was to inventory all of the City's wetlands and storm water ponds. Preliminary and final reviews of the SWMP were conducted in 1993. The final SWMP was completed in February 1994. Final SWMP The City of Chanhassen's SWMP incorporates stormwater quantity, stormwater quality, and wetlands and lakes into a dynamic plan. The SWMP was designed into two components. Part I is the stormwater resources management section including: 1. Information on regulations. 2. Recommendations and implementation plans. 3. Cost analysis and financing alternatives. SWMP Approval June 9, 1994 Page 2 4. Capital improvement program with a city-wide prioritization system for stormwater quality improvements. 5. Education program recommendations. Part II is the technical section including: 1. City-wide stormwater quantity model and map to be updated as changes are racb 2. City-wide stormwater quality model and maps to be updated as changes are mai 3. Inventory of wetlands for planning purposes. 4. Lake water quality assessment and modeling with monitoring recommendations. 5. Storm sewer trunk fees and ponding costs for both water quantity and water quality. The SWMP has been designed to be modified as the city develops and improvement projects are completed. A capitol improvements program has been included with a prioritization list of projects. The SWMP also includes a monitoring program to get a handle on the short and long term effects on the areas water resources. The stormwater quantity and quality can be altered and various options tested by city staff and/or an approved consultant. Water Quantity/Quality Fees The SWMP has established fees associated with water quantity and water quality improvements to help finance improvement projects. These fees use an average city-wide rate for each different land use. The discussion associated with the establishment of these fees is in Part I Chapters H and III. Numerous developments are under going the review _ process and where these SWMP fees will begin to be generated. The City recommends that the SWMP be approved as soon as possible so we can begin to generate funding for improvement projects. State and Federal Wetlands Permitting The SWMP was designed to use ag/urban wetlands, where necessary, for stormwater ponding in order to preserve and protect downstream natural wetlands and ultimately the City's lakes. Although the City has approved the use of these wetlands based on wetland functions designated in the wetland ordinance, the state and federal regulatory agencies associated with the Clean Water Acts section 404 (filling and excavating of wetlands) and 401 (water quality to wetlands) do not approve of these actions. The City is in the process of negotiating the SWMP so that it meets their approval. The City is the first to establish a SWMP that integrates wetlands, and therefore, we are in many ways a test for future plans to come for the state and federal agencies. Ultimately, we hope to be able to permit the whole plan rather than each project as we try to tackle them. In order to do this the City will have to compromise on the definition of wetland functions. This SWMP Approval June 9, 1994 Page 3 may mean that the plan will have to be more conservative and call for additional stormwater quality treatment before it is discharged into the existing wetlands. Currently, the City is still requiring pre-treatment before discharge to any wetland until this issue is resolved. Staff is prepared to review the components of the plan during the work session on Wednesday, June 15, 1994. We have tentatively set a public hearing for the July 6, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. ktm g:kng\diane`swm p`swmp.fp CITY of CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 S MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II DATE: May 31, 1994 SUBJ: Zoning Ordinance Amendment, Amending Section 20-904 (c) concerning Accessory Structures The current ordinance regulating accessory structures prohibits the construction of an accessory structure without a main building. However, it does not address the continued existence of an accessory structure if the main building has been demolished or removed. For example, if a parcel had a residence and a detached garage and the residence was destroyed, then the current ordinance would permit the garage to continue, creating a nonconforming, grandfathered situation. The proposed amendment, drafted by the city attorney, would remedy this situation by allowing the property owner to either build a main structure or remove the accessory structure within 12 months after the discontinuance of the main building or use, and preventing the establishment of legal nonconforming situations. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section 20-904 (c) as shown in Attachment #1." ATTACHMENTS 1. Proposed Ordinance Amendment submitted by City Attorney on May 20, 1994. CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CONCERNING ACCESSORY STRUCTURES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 20-904(c) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read: (c) For parcels with less than three (3) acres in any residential or _ agricultural district, no accessory structure or use shall be erected, constructed, or commenced prior to the erection, construction, or commencement of the principal permitted structure or use, but may be erected or commenced simultaneously. If the principal structure or use is subsequently removed, destroyed, or discontinued, the accessory structure or use must be removed or discontinued within twelve(12). _ months. Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1994, by the City _ Council of the City of Chanhassen. ATTEST: Don Ashworth, Clerk/Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on , 1994). 15083 05/20/94 C I T Y O F P.C. DATE: 6-15-94 C.C. DATE: 7-11-94 � CASE: 94-3 Site Plan 94-3 CUP \�I Y ` BY: Al-Jaff STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: 1) Site Plan Review for a 288 square foot Central Switch Annex for Sprint/United Telephone of Minnesota 2) Conditional Use Permit to Allow multiple buildings on the same lot V LOCATION: Lot 1, Block 2, Chanhassen Business Center. North of the National Weather Forecast Office Building,West of Audubon Road and Lake Susan Hills Subdivision and north of Bluff Creek Estates Subdivision. 0.. APPLICANT : Sprint/United Telephone of Minnesota Chanhassen Venture LTD 343 82nd Street 400 East Randolph #500B Chaska, MN 55318 Chicago, IL 60601 PRESENT ZONLNG: PUD/IOP Planned Unit Development/Industrial Office Park ACREAGE: A 3,539 Square Foot Easement over 9.92 Acres kite Dy p! Adret,gtt w Pr- ADJACENT ZONING11101161 AND LAND USE: N - PUD-IOP Vacant lett - v- -- S - RSF Bluff Creek Estates Subdivision Date ajbmhted to commission Q E - PUD-Residential Lake Susan Hills (7-1`;- 9 4 W - PUD-IOP Office r Dote Submitted to Council WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site W PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The site is located in the Chanhassen Business Center. This F- site contains the National Weather Forecast Office which is currently under construction. The site drops in elevation to the southwest. 2000 LAND USE: Office/Industrial Sprint/United Telephone of Minnesota June 15, 1994 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is proposing to construct a Central Switch Annex for Sprint/United Telephone of Minnesota. The telephone station is an instrumental component for the functions of the National Weather Forecast Service Station and is required to be within close proximity of it. The site is located north of the National Weather Forecast Office Building, west of Audubon Road and Lake Susan Hills West subdivision and north of Bluff Creek Estates subdivision. The lot area of the National Weather Forecast Service site is 9.92 acres. Sprint/United Telephone of Minnesota has obtained a 3,539 square foot easement over the 9.92 acre site for the construction of the Central Switch Annex building. The site is located in a Planned Unit Development Industrial Office Park District. Access to the site is obtained via Lake Drive West. The site plan is very simple and a straight forward request. The proposed Central Switch Annex building will utilize nutmeg colored brick, an identical material to that approved to be used on the National Weather Forecast Office building. All rooftop equipment will be screened by a typical flashing metal parapet wall similar to the one approved on the National Weather Forecast Office Building. Two parking spaces for vehicles are proposed to be located to the southwest of the Central Switch Annex building. Vehicles will only be parked there while repair/maintenance functions are being performed. The site landscaping needs more attention. A variety of trees and bushes must be used, rather than the two types proposed on the plans. There are two HVAC units along the west elevation of the building. We are recommending that a meandering berm of 2 to 3 feet in height and a mixture of evergreens and overstory trees be located along the northwesterly edge of the site. Staff regards the project as a reasonable use of the land. Based upon the foregoing, staff is recommending approval of the site plan, without variances, and conditional use permit requests for this proposal with conditions outlined in the staff report. BACKGROUND In February of 1993, Ryan Construction Company gained final approval for 94 acres for an office/industrial park. Approvals also included development standards for the Chanhassen Business Park, as well as the final plat. Two lots were approved with the final plat; one lot for the National Weather Service and the other lot for the Chanhassen Congregation for the Jehovah Witness Church. This building proposal will share the National Weather Service site to build on. Sprint/United Telephone of Minnesota June 15, 994 Page 3 GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE The under construction National Weather Service Office site is situated on Lot 1, Block 2, Chanhassen Business Center. The proposed Central Switching Annex will be located on the same lot as the National Weather Service Office, north of the National Weather Forecast Office Building, west of Audubon Road and Lake Susan Hills Subdivision and north of Bluff Creek Estates Subdivision. Access to the site is gained off of Lake Drive West. The National Weather Forecast Office Building and the Central Switching Annex buildings will be sharing a common driveway. An easement is being granted in favor of the Central Switching Annex to allow the National Weather Service and Central Switching Annex buildings to share a common site and a driveway access. The proposed Central Switching Annex building of 288 square feet will be located to the northwest of the under construction National Weather Service building. Two parking spaces will be located to the southwest of the proposed Central Switching Annex. There is not a full time employee for this facility. The two spaces are provided for individuals performing maintenance work on the facility. There are two HVAC units that will be visible from Lake Drive West. Staff is recommending a meandering berm with a variety of evergreens and overstory trees be used to screen the HVAC units from views. The Central Switching Annex building, is proposed to be located 18.87 feet from the north, 500 feet from the east, 370 from the south, and 55 feet from the west property line. Materials used on the Central Switching Annex building will be identical to the National Weather Forecast Office building's nutmeg brick, and a typical flashing metal parapet. Any roof top equipment should be screened with the parapet wall. PARKING/INTERIOR CIRCULATION The city's parking ordinance does not address parking requirements for a utility building. As indicated earlier in the report, there will not be any full time employees at the Central Switching Annex building. The spaces are there for those who need to perform maintenance work on the building. This facility will be sharing a driveway access with the National Weather Service Office which will limit the number of any additional curbcuts. LANDSCAPING The landscaping plan is simple. The applicant is providing a combination of two Rocky Mountain Juniper trees and five Blue Pfitzer Spreading Juniper. Staff is recommending additional evergreen and overstory trees be added west of the proposed building to screen the HVAC units located on the west elevation. There is also a cross connect box which needs to be screened. Staff has discussed the screening issue with the applicant. The applicant agreed with staff's suggestion and stated that he will modify the plans to reflect this change. Sprint/United Telephone of Minnesota June 15, 1994 Page 4 LIGHTING Lighting locations have not been illustrated on the plans. Only shielded fixtures are allowed and the applicant shall demonstrate that there is no more than 1/2 foot candles of light at the property line as required by ordinance. A detailed lighting plan should be submitted when building permits are requested. SIGNAGE The applicant has not submitted a signage plan. Staff believes that signage is not necessary. GRADING AND DRAINAGE Grading for the structure appears consistent with the overall National Weather Station grading plan. PUBLIC UTILITIES No sanitary sewer or water is required for this improvement. EROSION CONTROL All disturbed areas shall be sodded within two weeks after receipt of the Certificate of Occupancy. COMPLIANCE TABLE - IOP DISTRICT Ordinance Central Switching Annex Building Height 2 stories 1 story Building Setback N-10' E-30' N-19' E-500' S-30' W-30' S-370' W-55' Parking stalls NA 2 stalls Parking Setback N-0' E-25' N-40' E-500' S-25' W-25' S-350' W-55' Hard surface 70% 27.15% Coverage Lot Area 1 acre 9.92 acres Sprint/United Telephone of Minnesota June 15, 1994 Page 5 PARK AND TRAIL DEDICATION FEES Fees were paid when the National Weather Service Office applied for a building permit. No additional fees are required. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Multiple principal buildings on a single lot are permitted as a conditional use. The following constitutes our review of this proposal against conditional use permit standards. GENERAL ISSUANCE STANDARDS 1. Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or city. FINDING - The site is zoned PUD-IOP. The proposed use will not create any significant or unexpected impacts from this use. The telephone station is an instrumental component for the functions of the National Weather Forecast Service Station. 2. Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter. FUNDING - The proposed use would be consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan. The use is also in compliance with the PUD-IOP standards as discussed in the site plan/architecture section. 3. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. FINDING - The proposed Central Switching Annex will utilize the same type and color of brick used on the National Weather Service Office building. All equipment will be screened by either landscaping or a parapet wall. It will be located in the industrial district and as such, is fully consistent with this site. 4. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. FLN'DING - There will be no measurable impacts to the existing or planned neighboring uses. Sprint/United Telephone of Minnesota June 15, 1994 Page 6 5. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services,including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. FINDPNG - Full city services are available to this site. No sanitary sewer or water is required for this improvement. 6. Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. FINDING - There are no projected needs for public facilities and services that staff is aware of. 7. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash. FLtiDING - This site will not create adverse impacts to persons,property or the general welfare of the area. S. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. FINDING - There will be no traffic impacts to any area. There will be occasional trips by an employee or two to perform maintenance work. 9. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. FINDING - The development of this site will not result in the loss of any features. 10. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area. FINDING - The site plan is well designed to provide adequate landscaping and buffering from adjoining properties. The building is to be built of brick that will match the National Weather Service Office building. 11. Will not depreciate surrounding property values. Sprint/United Telephone of Minnesota June 15, 1994 Page 7 FINDING - The site is being used for a utility type of operation which is consistent with its designation. It will not depreciate surrounding property values. 12. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article. FINDING - There are no standards for two principle buildings located on a single lot. Based upon the foregoing findings, staff is recommending that the conditional use permit be approved with appropriate conditions. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: I. SITE PLAN REVIEW "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review #94-3 as shown on the site plan received May 5, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide a meandering berm with landscaping to screen the HVAC and cross connect box. The applicant shall also provide staff with a detailed cost estimate of landscaping to be used in calculating the required financial guarantees. These guarantees must be posted prior to building permit issuance. 2. The applicant shall enter into a site plan development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping. 3. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted." II. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit#94-3 subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with conditions of site plan and plat approval.." ATTACHMENTS 1. Plans received May 5, 1994. EASEMENT AGREEMENT THIS EASEMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made as of the day of , 1994, by and between Chanhassen Venture, Ltd., an Illinois corporation ("CVL"), and United Telephone Company of Minnesota, a Minnesota corporation ("United"). RECITALS: • WHEREAS, CVL is the owner of that certain real property located in the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, that is legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto (the "CVL Parcel"); and WHEREAS, CVL desires to grant, and United desires to accept, an easement in gross over the CVL Parcel to construct and operate a telephone communications facility, all in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Easement Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, for valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as set forth below: 1. Definitions. In addition to the words and phrases defined elsewhere in this Agreement, the following words and phrases shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise: "Access Easement Area" shall refer to that portion of the CVL Parcel that is legally described in Exhibit B attached hereto. "Building Easement Area" shall refer to that portion of the CVL Parcel that is legally described in Exhibit C attached hereto. "Communications Facility" shall refer to a one-story block building and related telephone communications equipment together with a chain link fence to be located around the perimeter of the Building Easement Area. "Driveway Costs" shall refer to all expenses reasonably incurred by the Owner of the CVL Parcel in connection with the maintenance, snowplowing, repair and replacement of the driveway serving the CVL Parcel, including the part on which the Access Easement Area is located. "Owner" and "Owners" shall refer to CVL and to any Person now or hereafter holding an interest in the CVL Parcel. F:\DOC\GML\11863 •"11,--1.4.s=►" :id- 'R i.r 1"s_ :r . 4?'+e •�+_ •:. -�'vr,',4•• L:...�' . T; :••�'. '�- . - ' ?-__ . "Person" shall refer to individuals, partnerships, joint ventures, corporations, trusts, unincorporated associations and any other form of private, public or governmental entity, or any one or more of them, as the context may require. "Plans and Specifications" shall mean those plans and specifications prepared by dated for the construction of the Communications Facility. "Taxes" shall refer to all real estate taxes, installments of special assessments and other governmental charges in the nature of a real estate tax, from time to time levied against the CVL Parcel. "Temporary Construction Easement Area" shall refer to that portion of the CVL Parcel that is located contiguous to and within ten (10) feet of the boundary of the Building Easement Area. "USA" shall refer to the United States of America. "United's Proportionate Share Respecting Driveway Costs" shall mean %. "United's Proportionate Share Respecting Taxes" shall mean %. 2. Building Easement. (a) Grant. CVL hereby grants to United an exclusive easement to be used solely for the construction, operation, maintenance, repair, and replacement of the Communications Facility within, under and across the Building Easement Area. (b) Construction. Construction of the Communications Facility shall be performed as follows: (i) in substantial conformity with the Plans and Specifications, (ii) with due diligence in a good and workmanlike manner, using first class materials; (iii) in full cooperation with the Owner and in compliance with reasonable directions given to United by the Owner or its contractor to the extent necessary to prevent any interference with the construction of the USA facility and other improvements being constructed on the CVL Parcel; and (iv) in accordance with all applicable laws, ordinances, rules and regulations of all governmental authorities or agencies having jurisdiction. Prior to commencement of the construction of the Communications Facility, United shall deliver to the Owner a copy of all proposed construction contracts therefor. All contracts shall be with responsible contractors. Such contracts and contractors shall be subject to the approval of the Owner, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. In addition to any other reason for which the Owner may withhold approval of the contract, it may do so if the proposed contract (i) does not provide that the contractor waives its right to file a mechanic's lien against the CVL Parcel; (ii) does not require that all the contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers and their subcontractors and suppliers will be required to agree not F.\DOC\G.' \11863 -2- tl �='•� '=�'if`+!!" �-r: �.rt�^'i.'T�i,�*:4s-:r$'Pail:.`-tJ• 7,.'::'.•-?+!'A-V.`-t�_{s..{w :s:�Y`Y:�,.?i a:rc�,it:�.f.�:s�'s=.-ate-. ..�t. ,{�',�£__,2.�!. to file mechanic's liens against the CVL Parcel; (iii) does not make the Owner a third-party beneficiary to the contract and provide that no material changes may be made thereto without the prior written approval of the Owner; or (iv) does not provide that the contractor shall obtain and maintain, throughout the period of construction, liability insurance naming Owner as additional insured, in form and amount satisfactory to Owner. United shall be solely responsible for obtaining, at its cost, any and all necessary governmental permits and approvals with regard to the construction of the Communications Facility. United accepts the Building Easement Area in an AS-IS, WHERE-IS condition without representation or warranty by CVL. United shall be solely responsible for all costs and expenses incurred in connection with the construction of the Communications Facility. (c) Maintenance and Use. The Communications Facility shall be operated and maintained in a first-class manner. No vehicles or equipment shall be stored outside of the building included within the Communications Facility and no debris or rubbish will be permitted to collect upon any portion of the Building Easement Area. Parking on the Building Easement Area shall be limited to parking of United vehicles only. Any signage which United desires to maintain in the Building Easement Area shall be subject to the Owner's approval, granted or withheld in its sole discretion. United shall at all times operate and maintain the Communications Facility and use the Building Easement Area and Access Easement Area in a manner which does not interfere with the use of the CVL Parcel by the USA. In the event of damage to the Communications Facility, United shall, within ninety (90) days following the occurrence of such damage either: (i) repair and restore the Communications Facility to substantially the condition existing prior to the occurrence of the damage; or (ii) raze the Communications Facility, removing all debris, equipment and materials from the CVL Parcel Building Easement Area and any other affected areas of the CVL Parcel. Subject to the release provision of Section 8 hereof and except with respect to acts or occurrences caused by the negligence or intentional conduct of the Owner, United shall indemnify and hold Owner harmless from and against any and all actions, causes of action, suits, losses, liabilities, and damages and expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising in connection with the construction, operation, maintenance, repair and replacement of the Communications Facility or United's use of the Building Easement Area, the Access Easement Area or the Temporary Construction Easement Area. 3. Access Easement. CVL hereby grants to United a non-exclusive easement over and across the Access Easement Area for the sole purposes of pedestrian and vehicular ingress and egress to and from the Building Easement Area. Owner shall be responsible for maintaining and snowplowing the Access Easement Area. 4. Temporary Construction Easement. CVL hereby grants to United a temporary, non-exclusive easement over and across the Temporary Construction Easement Area for the sole purposes of constructing the Communications Facility upon the Building Easement Area. Such temporary construction easement shall terminate upon the earlier of the following: (a) completion of construction of the Communications Facility; and (b) , 1994. F:\DOC\G!%II.\11863 -3- . .}'- .� -'''f�2l:w .c'•:rtr:Y�Nom:M'S i • '.+X4"ti ...di'. .ice ._ :Y}_-.. "J7'W M-5-%As Sw.S\'e **Jur.;A:1- rt.r i-4i='.i..'.L'S.�... J;•- i. Upon such termination, United shall restore the Temporary Construction Easement Area to substantially the condition existing prior to United's use thereof. 5. Payment of Expenses. (a) United shall pay to Owner United's Proportionate Share Respecting Driveway Costs, as invoiced from time to time by Owner, within thirty (30) days following receipt of an invoice therefor. (b) United shall pay to Owner United's Proportionate Share Respecting Taxes, as invoiced from time to time by Owner, within thirty (30) days following receipt of an invoice therefore. . _ (c) United shall pay all costs and expenses related to the operation, maintenance, repair and replacement of the Communications Facility. United shall have no authority expressed or implied, to create or place any lien or encumbrance of any nature upon the interest of Owner in the CVL Parcel, including a lien of those who may furnish materials or perform labor for construction, repair or replacement of the Communications Facility, and each such claim shall affect and each such lien shall attach to, if at all, only the easement — granted to United by this Agreement. United will not permit any mechanic's lien or liens affecting Owner or its mortgagee's interest in the CVL Parcel to be placed upon the CVL Parcel or any portion thereof arising out of any action or claimed action by United and in case of the filing of any such lien, United shall promptly pay same. If any such lien shall remain in force and effect for twenty (20) days after written notice thereof from Owner to United, Owner shall have the right and privilege of paying and discharging the same or any portion thereof without — inquiry as to the validity thereof, and any amount so paid, including expenses and interest, shall be paid to Owner immediately on rendition of a bill therefore. Notwithstanding the foregoing, United shall have the right to contest any such lien in good faith and with all due diligence so long as any such contest, or action taken in connection therewith, protects the interest of Owner and Owner's mortgagee in the CVL Parcel, and Owner and any such mortgagee are, by expiration of said twenty (20)-day period, furnished such protection, security, bond and indemnification against any loss, liability, cost or expense related to any such lien and the contest thereof as are satisfactory to Owner and any such mortgagee. Notwithstanding the foregoing or any other provision of this Agreement to the contrary, in the event that United fails to cure a breach by United in the performance of its obligations under this Paragraph 5(c) within forty-five (45) days following receipt of written notice thereof from Owner, Owner shall be entitled to terminate this Agreement and the easements and covenants created hereunder by delivery of written notice to United, whereupon United shall execute and deliver to Owner such documentation in recordable form as may be necessary to document said termination. Notwithstanding the foregoing, United's obligation to indemnify Owner and Owner's mortgagee against the foregoing costs and liabilities, and United's obligation to deliver such documentation shall survive termination. 6. [intentionally omitted] F.1DOC\GM\11863 -4- i'3'�•:r� +lY:�=i.•' - : 4.1ezr!�r :ir."xr-iYR.aa`.' • 7. Duration. (a) Except as expressly provided herein to the contrary, this Agreement and each covenant and easement created hereby shall be perpetual in duration unless otherwise terminated or amended. (b) In the event that United ceases to operate the Communications Facility, or a replacement thereto, on the Building Easement Area for a consecutive twenty-four (24)- month period, United shall be deemed to have abandoned its rights under this Agreement and Owner shall be entitled to terminate this Agreement by delivery of written notice to United; provided, however, if United, within sixty (60) days following receipt of such notice recommences operation of the Communications Facility, such notice shall not terminate this Agreement. Upon termination of the Agreement, United shall execute and deliver to Owner such reasonable documentation, in recordable form, as may be delivered to United by Owner documenting the termination of this Agreement. Upon termination of this Agreement, whether pursuant to this Paragraph 7(b) or Paragraph 5(c), United shall remove the Communications Facility from the Building Easement Area and restore the Building Easement Area to substantially the condition that existed prior to the construction of the Communications Facility. 8. Insurance. United shall obtain and maintain at all times: (a) all-risk property insurance in an amount not less than the cost of demolition and removal of the improvements located on the Building Easement Area; and (b) general liability insurance applying to the use of the Building Easement Area and the Access Easement Area by United and its Permittees. Such insurance shall have a combined single limit of liability of at least $1,000,000 per occurrence and a general aggregate limit of at least $2,000,000, and all such policies shall: (i) be written to apply to bodily injury, property damage and personal injury losses; (ii) be endorsed to name the Owner and any first mortgagee of the CVL Parcel as an additional insured(s); and (iii) be primary and not excess or contributing to any other insurance as may be available to the additional insured(s). All insurance required to be maintained by United shall be issued by insurance companies authorized to conduct insurance business in the State of Minnesota. Each policy or certificate of insurance evidencing the insurance requirements set forth herein shall be delivered to Owner upon United's receipt of written request therefore. No such policy shall be subject to cancellation without at least thirty (30) days prior written notice from the insurer to Owner. In the event that United fails to procure and/or maintain the insurance required by this Paragraph F.1DOC\G.f.\11863 -5- i 1 -:,i.•_- --Ya.( - - -_:. .L'..: ' �3`r'.:s�a :Aai1= 'S?'���`L:i. 8, Owner may procure such insurance in accordance with the procedure described in Paragraph 13.2 hereof. United and Owner release the other from any liability, and waive any claims, for any loss or damage insurable by "all-risk" property insurance. 9. Legal Effect. Each of the easements created by this Agreement are easements in gross, granted to United only, and together with all other rights and obligations of United hereunder, may not be transferred, assigned or encumbered unless United obtains the prior written consent of Owner thereto. Each covenant obligating or benefitting Owner contained in this Agreement: (a) constitutes a covenant running with the land; (b) binds every Owner now having or hereafter acquiring an interest in any portion of the CVL Parcel; and (c) will inure to the benefit of Owner and Owner's successors, assigns and mortgagees. On conveyance of all or any part of the fee title to the CVL Parcel, the grantee, by accepting such conveyance, will thereby become a new party to, and be bound by, this Agreement. On such assumption by a grantee and the giving of notice thereof, the conveying Owner will thereafter be released from any obligation under this Agreement arising thereafter with respect to the portion of the CVL Parcel so conveyed. United agrees, on the written request of the conveying Owner, to execute and deliver any appropriate documents or assurances to evidence such release. 10. No Dedication. Nothing contained in this Agreement will be deemed to constitute a gift, grant or dedication of any portion of the CVL Parcel to the general public or for any public purpose whatsoever, it being the intention of the parties that this Agreement will be strictly limited to the private use of United and the Owner and their respective Permittees. This Agreement is intended to benefit United and the Owner and the Owner's successors, assigns and mortgagees and is not intended to make any person which is not an Owner or United a third-party beneficiary hereunder or to give any such person any rights hereunder. 11. Amendment. Except as provided in Subparagraphs 5(c) or 7(b) above, this Agreement and any provision herein contained may be terminated, extended, modified or amended, only with the express written consent of United and all of the Owners of the real property included within the CVL Parcel. No amendment, modification, extension or termination of this Agreement will affect the rights of the holder of any mortgage constituting a lien on any portion of the CVL Parcel unless such mortgagee consents to the same, nor will any amendment, modification, extension or termination be effective against any mortgagee subsequent to such mortgagee acquiring title to a portion of the CVL Parcel by foreclosure or deed in lieu of foreclosure, unless the mortgagee has so consented in writing. No tenant, licensee or other person having only a possessory interest in the improvements constructed on the CVL Parcel will be required to join in the execution of, or consent to, any action of United and the Owners taken pursuant to this Agreement. 12. Condemnation. In the event the whole, or any part, of the CVL Parcel is taken for any public or quasi-public use under any governmental law, ordinance or regulation, or by right of eminent domain, or by private purchase in lieu thereof, United will not share in any _ award, compensation or other payment made by reason of the taking of a portion of the CVL Parcel which is subject to an easement or covenant benefitting United, and such award, F:\DOC\GIrff.111863 '• F `7s---..7�.��.slr�.-.��.�+► -6- sta'.vl: • 11't :,• -< t .. .. compensation or other payment will belong entirely to the Owner of that portion of the CVL Parcel which is taken, and such Owner will have no further liability to United for the loss of such easements or covenants, or portion thereof, located on the property so taken. 13. Default; Remedies. The provisions of this Agreement shall be enforced as follows: 13.1 Injunctive Relief. In the event of any violation or threatened violation by Owner or United of any of the provisions of this Agreement, in addition to the right to collect damages, Owner and United will each have the right to enjoin such violation or threatened violation in a court of competent jurisdiction. Prior to the commencement of any such action, written notice of the violation will be given to the party claimed to have committed such violation. 13.2 Self-Help. In the event Owner or United fails to perform any of the provisions of this Agreement, Owner or United, as the case may be, will have the right, without being obligated to do so, to enter upon the easement areas hereby created and perform the obligations of the defaulting party hereunder; provided, however, that written notice of such intention, specifying the nature of the alleged default and the actions to be performed, has been given to the defaulting party not less than ten (10) days prior to the commencement of such action or not less than twenty-four (24) hours prior to such commencement if, in the reasonable judgment of the party giving notice, such default is of an emergency nature. During such ten (10)-day or twenty-four (24)-hour period, as the case may be, the defaulting party will have the right to perform or commence performance of action appropriate to remedy such default, and provided such action is diligently carried to completion, the right of such other party to perform the obligation of the defaulting party will terminate. If a party elects to perform the action to have been performed by a defaulting party, on completion of such action, or from time to time, if the action is of a continuing nature, an itemized statement of the costs thereof will be submitted to the defaulting party and the amount thereof will be immediately due and payable by the defaulting party, which amount will bear interest at the rate of three percent (3%) above the rate announced by Norwest Bank Minnesota, National Association, as its prime rate as the same may fluctuate from time to time per annum until paid. 13.3 Force Majeure. If performance of any action by Owner or United is prevented or delayed by act of God, war, labor disputes or other cause beyond the reasonable control of the party responsible for such performance, the time for the performance of such action will be extended for the period that such action is delayed or prevented by such cause. 14. Miscellaneous. It is further declared as follows: F:ADOC\GML\11863 -7- int.1 !*4.4 a thoe f-slte eE:°_ t `.'!4''!#.m....t4-410ter*i1.::-'-tc.= `+t7i.•.'4 _`s,..-i�_';'!'�•! •?:'±5: ti �i=.;,"+ s< i'- +�1�=.n.Si.:;`Aik � 14.1 Notices. Any notice required herein shall be in writing and shall be deemed effective and received (a) upon personal delivery; (b) five (5) days after deposit in the United States mail, certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid; or (c) one (1) business day after deposit with a national overnight air courier, fees prepaid, to the Owners at the following addresses: To CVL: Chanhassen Venture, Ltd. 400 East Randolph, Suite 500B Chicago, IL 60601 Attn: John F. Kretchmar To United: United Telephone Company of Minnesota Either party may designate an additional or another address upon giving notice to the other party pursuant to this paragraph. For the purposes of this paragraph, "business day" shall mean a day which is not a Saturday, a Sunday or a legal holiday of the United _. States of America. 14.2 Attorney's Fees. If Owner or United institutes any action or proceeding against the other relating to the provisions of this Agreement or any default hereunder, the unsuccessful party in such action or proceeding will reimburse the party who is the prevailing party therein for the reasonable expenses of attorney's fees and disbursements incurred by the successful Owner. 14.3 Waiver of Default. No waiver of any default by Owner or United will be implied from the failure by any other party to take any action in respect of such default. No express waiver of any default will affect any default or extend any period of time for performance other than as specified in such express waiver. One or more waivers of any default in the performance of any provision of this Agreement will not be deemed a waiver of any subsequent default in the performance of the same provision or any other provision. The consent to or approval of any act or request by Owner or United will not be deemed to waive or render unnecessary the consent to or approval of any subsequent similar act or request. The rights and remedies provided by this Agreement are cumulative and no right or remedy will be exclusive of any other, or of any other right or remedy, at law or in equity, which Owner or United might otherwise have by virtue of a default under this Agreement, and the exercise of any right or remedy by Owner or _ United will not impair such party's standing to exercise any other right or remedy. 14.4 No Partnership. Nothing contained in this Agreement and no action by Owner _ and/or United will be deemed or construed by the Owner, United or by any third person 1 — F:1DOC\GML111863 _g_ 1.• F''k2C .+... itA4100,44 *41-'5at ALT#, ''►... -' :. f:'•:.1,-Aw,i_/:4l.s L •"��vr,?a:"�-`I' to create the relationship of Flacipal and agent, or a partnership, or a joint venture, or any association between Owner and United. 14.5 Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is, to any extent, declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement (or the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those in respect of which the determination of invalidity or unenforceability was made) will not be affected thereby and each provision of this Agreement will be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. 14.6 Governing Law. This Agreement will be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. 14.7 Captions. The captions of the paragraphs of this Agreement are for convenience only and are not intended to affect the interpretation or construction of the provisions herein contained. - 14.8 Time. Time is of the essence of this Agreement. 14.9 Binding Effect. The provisions of this Agreement will be binding on United, its permitted successors or assigns and the Owner and its successors, assigns, and mortgagees to the extent herein provided. 15. Attorney's Fees. United agrees to pay Owner all attorney's fees incurred by Owner in connection with the preparation of this Easement Agreement, which payment shall be made concurrent with the execution of this Easement Agreement. F:\DOC\GML\11863 -9- - 9_• .. .. _ .,a}.., a.`F^--yy�.� (L2'^t' M.• -t:. •a t. d''.-.c d r•:;•sa.0 ;�; .� ..•i':•r. 'LF•�`-4.1{� .s.� S __ ���" ___- ��•ai��i6++iM:Vis'.'�i"��' � - IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Easement Agreement has been executed effective as of the date first above written. CHANHASSEN VENTURE, LTD. By: Its: UNITED TELEPHONE COMPANY OF MINNESOTA By: Its: F:DOM MIA1,663 —10— l: '.' e-.l�;ri-� '' ati'.le. ,c,i r^��. ii-u... +.£ •t• .. -r3_, • <-.-"+�` ro'- *#-s� tt:,..... -.r;T�'. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) _ ) ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of , 1994, by , the of Chanhassen Venture, Ltd., an Illinois corporation, on behalf of the corporation. — Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ) — The foregoing was acknowledged before me this _ day of , 1994, by United Telephone Company of Minnesota, a Minnesota corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public This instrument was drafted by: FABYANSKE, SVOBODA, WESTRA, _ DAVIS & HART, P.A. 920 Second Avenue South, Suitc 1100 Minneapolis, MN 55402 — (612) 338-0115 F:1DOC\G'.r4.111863 -11- 1 - .. �.-- EDIT A Legal Descriptio!Lof CYL Parcel Lot One (1), Block Two (2), Chanhassen Business Center, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles, Carver County, Minnesota. F.\DOCb3ML111163 EXHIBIT 13 Legal Description of Access Easement Area Commencing at the Northeasterly corner of said Lot One(1), Block Two (2), Chanhassen Business Center, thence South 45°18'45" West, along the northwesterly line of said of Lot One (1), Block Two (2), a distance of 70.87 feet to the point of beginning of the ingress and egress easement to be described; thence continue South 45°18'45" West a distance of 24.00 feet; thence South 44°50'58" East a distance of 100.00 feet; thence North 45°18'45" East a distance of 24.00 feet; thence North 44°50'58" West a distance of 100.00 feet to the point of beginning. P:\DOCSOML\11863 EXHIBIT C Lc&al])escriptioii of Building Easement Area Commencing at the northeast corner of said Lot One (1), Block Two (2), Chanhassen Business Center; thence South 44050'58" East, along the northeasterly lot line of said Lot One (1), Block Two (2), a distance of 50.00 feet, to the point of beginning of the easement to be described; thence continue South 44°50'58" East a distance of 50.00 feet; thence South 45°18'45" West a distance of 70.87 feet; thence North 44°50'58" West a distance of 50.00 feet; thence North 45°18'45" East a distance of 70.87 feet to the point of beginning. F:1D()MCN9,111863 CONSENT OF MORTGAGEE The undersigned, mortgagee of the CVL Parcel, hereby consents to the foregoing — Easement Agreement. Dated: NATIONAL CITY BANK OF MINNEAPOLIS By: Its: — STATE OF ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing was acknowledged before me this _ day of , 1994, by , the of National City Bank of Minneapolis, a national banking association, on behalf of the national banking association. Notary Public F.\DOC\GMI..\11863 •, .cA. ''�.`a=•i�.+.sr:' �i lF`..�•1f:��'�i.F^u�wktn�iP.0t.t�`.-4�•. c_ �ii'�": .f�h:.,.' ,.Y��F'►1'i ► Atif!!L:.e'�.>`A•�Y=. _�: CHANHASSEN VENTURE, LTD. ;,y 400 EAST RANDOLPH #500B ♦iet,, 19 470 CHICAGO IL 60601 �e41 Phone: (312) 751-1600 May g S, 1994 City of Chanhassen Atm: Kate Aanenson 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Lot 1, Block 2, Chanhassen Business Center Carver County, Minnesota Dear Ms. Aanenson: Chanhassen Venture, Ltd., owner of the above-referenced property, hereby consents to the application of Sprint/United Telephone of Minnesota for a conditional use permit allowing the construction of Sprint's proposed communication facility on the above-referenced property; provided, however, that by this consent Chanhassen Venture, Ltd. does not agree to pay any costs, fees or expenses that may arise in connection with such application, the payment of which shall be the responsibility of United Telephone, and does not agree or consent to the recording or filing of any agreement, resolution or other instrument against the above-referenced property without its express prior written consent thereto. Please do not hesitate to call me or our attorney, Charles Carpenter (333-0115), in the event you have any questions regarding the foregoing or otherwise. Very truly yours, CHANHASSEN VENTURE, LTD. John F. Kretchmar CeA CMA P.A. CMA P.A. Bruce M. Carlson,MA Northwestern Building Water Gardens Place Patrick G. Blees,AIA 219 North Second Street, Suite 301 100 East 15th Street, Suite 105 Timothy E. Palmquist, AIA Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401-1454 Fort Worth, Texas 76102-6500 Stephen A. Nordgaard,AIA Office (612)338-6677 Office (817) 877-0044 Fax (612)338-2995 Fax (817) 877-0418 June 2, 1994 Ms. Sharmin Al-Jaff CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 Colter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Sprint/United Telephone CSA Dear Ms. Al-Jaff: Thank you for taking the time to review the Sprint/United Telephone submittal with me yesterday. I appreciate your explanations of the City of Chanhassen's standards and I will ensure that the elements you suggested are included in our presentation on June 15 , 1994. Included you will find a copy of our submittal cover letter for your reference. Also enclosed is a signed Development Review Application and a signed letter from the Fee Owner. If any further information is needed or if you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, C.M. ARCHITECTURE, P.A. /. - / Philip J . Briggs PJB;jmj Enclosures • CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: SPRINT/UNITED TELEPHONE OF MINNESOTA OWNER: CHANHASSEN VENTaRF I Tn ADDRESS: 343 82ND STREET ADDRESS: 400 EAST gANDn! PH icnaR CHASKA, MN 55418 CHICAGO, IL 60601 - TELEPHONE (Day time) 913)791-4508 TELEPHONE: (312)751-1600 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW/Easements Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance 3. Grading/Excavation Permit 13. Wetland Alteration Permit 4. Interim Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal 5. Planned Unit Development 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. Rezoning 7. Sign Permits 8. X Sign Plan Review Notification Signs 9. Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost" $100 CUP/SPRNACNAFVWAP $400 Minor SUB/Metes & Bounds 10. Subdivision TOTAL FEE $ 760.00* 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. SW' 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. -- Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract PROJECT NAME CHASKA AUDUBON C.S.A. LOCATION LAKE DRIVE WEST LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT ONE, BLOCK TWO CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER PRESENT ZONING I.0•P I.O.P. REQUESTED ZONING N/A • PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION N/A REASON FOR THIS REQUEST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 2 STRllCTlIPFON ONE 1 nT SITE PI AN APPROVAL byall information This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must eaccompanied awith theo and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application,1yyoule to shoulddr conferapplic with Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements app Y tion. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the of arty whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy p 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. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further 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. 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 approval/permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's Office and the original document returned to City Hall Records. ..5-/q/54"q Signature of Applicant Date Signature of Fee Owner Date Application Received on Fee Paid Receipt No. The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. if not contacted, a copy of the report will be malted to the applicant's address. CITY O F PC DATE: Ma 18, 1994 3 Y CII June 15, ';94 CC DATE: July 11, 1994 CASE #: 93-11 SUB STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 35.83 Acres into 44 38 Single Family Lots and a Neighborhood Park .. . .. . . . . __ .'. --- - - - Z Q — 0 LOCATION: North of Kings Road, west of Minnewashta Parkway to the Victoria City Limits - APPLICANT: Harstad Companies Steve Johnston 2191 Silver Lake Road Loucks and Associates Q New Brighton, MN 55112 7200 Hemlock Lane Maple Grove, MN 55369 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family ACREAGE: 35.83 acres (gross) 17.74 acres (net) DENSITY: 1.2 4-§ units/acre gross 2.48 2.11 units/acre net ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - RSF, Single Family S - RSF, Single Family Q E - RSF, Single Family W - Victoria Q WATER AND SEWER: Available to the Site 11.1 PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The site has a varied topography with the high point running I-_ north and south through the center of the plat. There is a — significant stand of trees in the northwest corner of the site. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential u D c- Lo��-( J e A• IThCART B M/ HTA gg A7- HTS AIRK ltiver .aoo '�wA �M►F'�!•1 7�%,..•i= CC{. 41101111111-� 0'A�41' •11■n. .'' '"e_ t A s.0o .... i t , 1,..� =r- `4„..------- 1w ,` ,.„4,iip tom" r ' 1 -• . / "- •...- �� !fir aur IIIII1 Nip, hr. i zatis. AN FIELD .. 9 . �Iw-.t4) /!r"-'- -_.— \Iln��g fIr ,. 141 PAR �� 4h.S,l,_�, � pAfjl r — .1.• r�- = i!!!':, ,c---- .�` LAK£ ; _ \ - \�, r r sloo !� . Lima. �' LAKE ` 7 �rElo +�p'a'A MINNEWASNTAA '%1 .fon ////EFI . 'I' ' irni�� _ p ronrAc • 7v a000 Ila , r . ,t Ilk -'-'74.--' l PARK illF� - ♦r[ gm Ire TOOgb- - . i v -- C .�t`��/r �GGww!! I c r - % _� �,. .84' ' At • `1400 �,. 8iii _/�' .` 1 ©A Aimeto '.'..., i 7•00 _�� �..� - 1 0 *MEI ■.' 71100 7100 IP. \ A Q .4.4 i ._ "" L P11-. 41 .200 OP Tr4[A _ \IDIO - '� •- I er--- .1..4*."S' \ .,� , piny. .400 �! :1: I b. I — u00 N\'I e t • —/ KOO Y 6 F B ' (CO 11) Harstad Companies May 18, 1993 June 15, 1994 Page 2 PROPOSAL SUMMARY Harstad Companies is requesting approval to plat 35.38 acres of property into 44 44 lots an 8 44- acre park and one outlot. The property is located north of Kings Road and south of the Stratford Ridge Subdivision and the Hallgren property. There are three underlying parcels in the proposed subdivision: Ziegler, Wenzel and Headla. This property is currently zoned Residential Single Family (RSF). The City of Victoria borders the western limits of the subdivision and Lake Minnewashta borders the eastern property limits. Harstad Development proposed a subdivision for 57 lots in February, 1994. This subdivision request was denied by the Planning Commission. The applicant had requested that the City Council table action on this subdivision request and allow them the opportunity to resolve the design issues with this plat. The new plat dated May 1, 1994 has been substantially revised and to reflect the design issues raised with the previous plats. This plat was tabled by the Planning Commission at their meeting on May 18, 1994. Since that meeting, the plat has been revised to include 6 additional lots. Not all of the lots meet the 20,000 square foot minimum. There are 5 lots that are partially within the 1,000 foot Shoreland District that are under 20,000 square feet. The DNR has stated that as long as the lot average in the Shoreland District is over 20,000 square feet, the plat meets the intent of the ordinance and they would recommend approval. The minimum lot size average in the district is 20,870 square feet with 125 foot frontage. The other change in the plat includes the reduction in the size of the park from 11 acres to 8 acres and the relocation of the storm water pond to the back of Lots 2-6, Block 3. The revised plat goes further on preserving existing topography and natural features. One of the issues with the previous plat was the location of the park. This subdivision includes an 8 4.4- acre park located on the corner of Kings road and Minnewashta Parkway. The staff finds the design of the subdivision superior to the previous one submitted by Harstad Development. The engineer has delineated the wetland and field checked the shoreland jurisdiction line. The line is now located further to the north than the previous plats for this area. Thus, there are more lots with the 20,000 square foot minimum requirement. In addition, the lots proposed to be south of Kings Road are unbuildable based on delineation of the wetland. One issue of concern is the amount of tree loss with the subdivision. Staff is recommending compliance with the new woodland management plan to replace tree loss during construction. Another issue which has been partially resolved is the right-of-way for Kings Road. The applicant is proposing to dedicate 50 feet of right-of-way, the additional 10' will be acquired from the south when that property subdivides. Harstad Companies May 18, 1993 June 15, 1994 Page 3 Staff is recommended changing the street layouts in the northeast corner of the subdivision. Access has been meds-to-be provided to the Hallgren, Wenzel and Headla properties acc-well • - - -. - - - .- - • .. • . .- - _. •- - . .. : via the extension of White Oak Lane. Staff is recommending approval of the preliminary plat with minor changes. BACKGROUND - Proposed Plat Harstad Companies is requesting to plat 35.83 acres of property into 44 34 lots. The property is located north of Kings Road and south of the Stratford Ridge Subdivision and the Hallgren property. There are three underlying parcels in the proposed subdivision: Ziegler, Wenzel and Headla. This property is currently zoned Residential Single Family (RSF). The City of Victoria borders the western limits of the subdivision and Lake Minnewashta borders the eastern property limits. A portion of the Ziegler property is located south of Kings Road. This parcel is 199 feet wide and approximately 500 feet deep, and a large portion of this property is undeveloped because of wetlands. The developer's engineer has delineated the wetland edge. Staff finds that this property is unbuildable based on the front yard and wetland setback requirements. All adjacent zoning to this site is RSF except for the land in Victoria which is zoned rural density, or 1 unit per ten acres. There are no wetlands on the site except for the wetland adjacent to Lake St. Joe which affects one lot which staff is indicating as unbuildable. There are three large parcels adjacent to this development, the Headla, Hallgren and Wenzel properties. Future access to these parcels needs to be considered as a part of this plat. _ The site has a varied topography, changing in elevation over 40 feet. The high point of the site runs north and south through the center of the parcel. The site is primarily grass with a few scattered trees. There is a mature stand of trees located on the northwest corner of the site. The subdivision includes 44 3& building lots, an 8 44 acre park and an outlot. Outlot A is located south of Kings Road and is unbuildable due to the wetland setback requirements. The 8 -14 acre park is located at the corner of Kings Road and Minnewashta Parkway. Phase - II of the plat includes 4 lots that have access via Kings Road. This portion of the road will not be developed. Until there is a public street built to city standards, these 4 lots shall remain as an outlot. • .. . . ... - . . -- . - .. :. . ... ' - - --- - • - - • - - - • . - . . . . . A portion of the park (l/ acre) is located east of Minnewashta Parkway. This lake frontage area is not large enough to qualify for a recreational beachlot. The minimum standards for a beachlot are 200 feet of lake frontage with 30,000 square feet of lot area. The Park and Recreation Commission is recommending that this area be used for swimming only. Harstad Companies May 18, 1993 June 15, 1994 Page 4 Lake St. Joe is just to the south of Kings Road. The lake has been designated as a Natural Environmental Lake by the DNR. Compliance with the Shoreland Regulations would mandate that all lots within 1,000 feet of the shoreland must have an average minimum of 20,000 square feet with an average 125-foot lot width (Sec. 20-477[b]). The RSF standards, which is the underlying zoning, requires all lots to be a minimum of 15,000 square feet with a front yard lot width of 90 feet for the front yard. The Shoreland 1000 foot jurisdiction line has been delineated for this subdivision. There are 22 lots that fall within the Shoreland Regulations. All lots meet the Shoreland Regulations. Bill Thibault, the Planning Consultant with the City of Victoria, has reviewed the previous subdivision and made the following comments: Kings Road should be extended, and if it is not, the provision for a road running north and south along the westerly property line should be considered. Staff has reviewed this request and believes it is not feasible due to the wetland that exists west of this development. At this time, Kings Road is proposed to be extended to intersect with Country Oaks Road to act as the local collector street for this subdivision. LANDSCAPING/FREE PRESERVATION There is a significant stand of trees located in the northwest corner of the plat, just south of the Hallgren property. Staff had recommended that a tree survey (Sec. 18-40, [2f]) be submitted with the plat. The survey identifies the majority of the trees are maple and oaks with the largest being 36 inch caliper for each species. There are some ash, box elder, and basswood scattered through the area. "-- - . . - - . - - - - subdivision to provide for sewer flows. The applicant's engineer has redesigned the sanitary sewer to serve this area and employed the use of a private driveway. This enables the grades to be left alone in the northwest corner of the site, thus, saving the trees. - - - - - - - - • - .. Staff has applied the new woodland management plan to the subdivision section 18.61(d)(2). The total area development (not including park land) of the plat is 24.83 acres. The total canopy cover is approximately 4.5 acres. The applicant base line canopy is 20% 4$'sb. The applicant is required to maintain 25%. therefore, An addition of 5% 7% of canopy is required to be replaced. This equates to 52 additional trees. Because the subdivision proposes to take out trees that would have met the canopy coverage, the developer is required to prepare a woodland management plan. The replacement plan must designate an area at Harstad Companies May 18, 1993 June 15, 1994 Page 5 least 11/2 times the removed canopy coverage area that shall be planted with replacement trees for those removed. This results in 60 additional trees to be planted. Staff is recommending that the applicant prepare a woodland management plat. At a minimum of the 112 -1--3Q trees required for replacement, 2 trees per lot should be required. The remaining trees could be placed in a streetscape plan or in a newly created wooded area. Streetscape, as per the city's landscaping ordinance, shall be required along Minnewashta Parkway and Kings Road (Sec. 18-61[5]). The majority of the streetscape will be accomplished with the development of the park. GRADING & DRAINAGE The city half-section maps indicated a 33-foot wide right-of-way for Kings Road. However, after further research by the city attorney's office, it appears the city has not been conveyed the necessary right-of-way as shown on the half-section maps. The city attorney's office has advised in cases such as this where the existing gravel road has been maintained (i.e. snow plowing, grading, etc.) by the city for over six years, the public right-of-way for Kings Road generally be limited to the travelled portion of the land along with the shoulder or any land utilized as support for public right-of-way. In this situation, Kings Road has been maintained by the city for over the six-year period. The width of Kings Road varies from 20 feet to 23 feet, thus limiting the public right-of-way use to this area. The existing roadway meanders back and forth within the 33-foot wide strip of proposed right-of-way. At the west end of Kings Road the roadway is entirely outside the 33-foot right-of-way. The applicant is proposing to dedicate 50 feet of right-of-way north of the existing gravel road (Kings Road) between Minnewashta Parkway and Country Oaks Road and 30 feet of right-of-way west of Country Oaks Road to the city limits. Staff has compromised the 60-foot wide right-of-way along Kings Road at this time since the 50-foot wide right-of-way proposed exceeds what would typically be required along a shared or common street. Normally the city would only require dedication of half the right-of-way which would have been 30 feet when the parcels to the south subdivide. At that time, the city can require dedication of the additional 10 feet of right-of-way. The preliminary grading plan proposes to grade a majority of the site. Due to the size of the parcel and substandard Kings Road, it is anticipated that the applicant will proceed with two phases. . : •. ' - . . -••: _ : :. :, The grading of Kings Road appears to be reduced significantly. - . . . -! -- . . • . .. - - . . .. .. • . • ... Staff recommends that the street grades be adjusted in an effort to m -ze disruptionthe .. . ... - - - - - - -- . . . . . . . , '. . - . - - • . . This was accomplished by increasing the street grades up to 10%. The grading plans do not indicate the grading limits or impact to the parcel south of Kings Road. The applicant's Harstad Companies May 18, 1993 June 15, 1994 Page 6 engineer has indicated to staff the grading would be limited to within the right-of-way except where the storm sewer is extended to Lake St. Joe. The proposed street grades range from 0.50% to 10% 7.0% which exceeds meet the city's requirements; however, in an effort to minimize tree loss, we believe it is warranted. The city has allowed up to 10% street grades in an effort to minimize grading and tree removal. Consideration has been fire given to Kings Road street grades in an effort to reduce impact to the properties to the south. As proposed, At this time, slope or construction easements appear will not to be necessary from the properties to the south. White Oak Lane is proposed to be filled up to 14 feet to maintain storm drainage to the east. . .: . . . . -- .- The developer's engineer has to redesign this White Oak Lane cul-de-sac in an effort to reduce grading and tree loss by use of a private driveway at the end as well as redesigning the sanitary sewer service. "- . . • • - - -- - - . .. . . _.. DRAINAGE AREAS The City has prepared a SWMP that is in the final stages of formal adoption. The SWMP will serve as a tool to protect, preserve, and enhance its water resources. The plan identifies the stormwater quantity and quality improvements from a regional perspective necessary to allow future development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In general, the water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100 year design storm interval for ponding and a 10 year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. Detailed runoff and ponding calculations will be required as a part _ of the final review process. The water quality portion of the plan uses William Walker Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate condition model has been developed at each drainage area based on projected future land use, and therefore, different sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies. The site is divided into two drainage subdistricts with the westerly one quarter of the site draining west into wetlands located within the City of Victoria. These wetlands are part of the Lake St. Joe basin and drain into Lake St. Joe from the west. Currently, the city's subdivision ordinance requires that the surface water discharge rate from the subdivision be retained at the pre-developed runoff rate for a 100-year, 24-hour storm event. The storm drainage plan should also be analyzed by the applicant's engineer in order to meet the city's Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP). The SWMP calls for a sediment and nutrient pond in the south central portion of the site to pretreat approximately 16.5 acres of runoff (SWMP drainage area LM A7.4). Ponding must meet Walker's Pondnet Runoff Pollution (NURP) standards before it is discharged off-site. Ponding locations are flexible, however, the city prefers that the number of ponds be kept to a minimum for maintenance purposes. The applicant's engineer has supplied detailed SteFFA sewer Harstad Companies May 18, 1993 June 15, 1994 Page 7 . . . • . ! - -. ---- • . Storm water calculations for the sediment and nutrient ponds need to be submitted for review and approval in conjunction with the final plat submittal. The plans propose a series of catch basins to convey storm water runoff generated from the streets and lots within the development to a series of ponds. One regional pond is located just west of en the park site. A smaller pond will is also be needed proposed on the park site southeast of the regional pond. This pond is necessary to collect runoff from Kings Road due to elevation differences between the two drainage areas. Two other small ponds are proposed at the end of Red Oak Lane. Staff has requested the applicant's engineer to consolidate these two ponds into one. The ponds should be designed with 4:1 slopes overall or 10:1 slopes for the first 10 feet with 3:1 slopes thereafter for safety and water quality purposes. The final design of all -beth ponding areas shall be determined prior to final platting. - ' - . •- . • . -- - • . • . A. .0' Y. • • • • . . . • . ... ' a. . • . - - . . - . ... • • --- - . •- _ - - • . .. .. .. . - . .. .. ' .. - -- -- -- I. . • . . . . The city has had some discussions with the applicant's engineer regarding the upgrade and funding of Kings Road. Since the majority of frontage along Kings Road will be adjacent to the parkland, the city could consider a 429 improvement project for the upgrade of Kings Road. It would be the city's intent to assess only the benefitting parcels along the north side of Kings Road between Minnewashta Parkway and the proposed street, Country Oaks Road, at this time. In the future as the parcels to the south and west develop and connect to municipal sewer and water, they would be charged connection and hookup fees accordingly. It is staff's understanding the applicant would be responsible for 100% of the cost of constructing Kings Road adjacent the development approximately 225, feet plus 50% of the cost of Kings Road east of Lot 7, Block 2 and 50% of the costs of the lift station. In order to initiate the 429 improvement project, the applicant would need to petition the city to consider authorizing this project. Since technically there are only the two benefitting properties, if the applicant waives their rights to a public hearing and assessment hearing, the process could be expedited and constructed yet this summer/fall. Without the upgrade of Kings Road between Minnewashta Parkway and Country Oaks Road, this development is premature from an access standpoint and should be denied. UTILITIES The site is capable of being serviced by municipal sanitary sewer and water by extending utilities from Minnewashta Parkway along Kings Road. The plans have Harstad Companies May 18, 1993 June 15, 1994 Page 8 been revised in an effort to limit grading and tree loss along Kings Road. The sewer line is now proposed to intersect the parkland. A lift station is also proposed at the westerly end of Kings Road. In conjunction with the upgrade of Kings Road, sanitary sewer and water lines would be constructed as well. Stubouts would be provided as well along Kings Road for the adjacent undeveloped parcels to the , south a. . There are two existing homes lying south of Kings Road that will be within 150 feet of the proposed sanitary sewer line (Borris & Scott/Morgan). Pursuant to city ordinance, these homes will be required to connect to the sanitary sewer line within 12 months from the time the lines become operational. Staff believes that these homes should be required to connect to the lines in accordance to city ordinance due to environmental reasons and close proximity to Lake St. Joe. However, these affected properties could request the city council grant them a variance to the ordinance. These property owners will be required to pay a connection charge to the city of which a portion mayshould be refunded to the applicant for installation of the utilities. The exact amount to be refunded will be determined based on construction bids and the feasibility study for upgrading Kings Road. Upon quick review of the utility layout, it appears that fire hydrant placement will need to be revised. Fire hydrant spacing should be in accordance with the city's fire marshal recommendations. Typically, fire hydrants are spaced 300 feet apart. Detailed construction plans and specifications for the street and utility improvements will be required for review by staff and City Council approval in conjunction with final plat approval. The street and utility improvement shall be constructed in accordance with the city's latest edition of the Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. 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. As with other typical city developments, the moisture content in the soil is relatively high and the city has employed the use of draintile behind the curbs for improving both road sub-base drainage as well as providing a discharge point for household sump pumps. The applicant should be aware that the city will be requiring with the street and utility construction to include a draintile system. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and drainage areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. The city will also require that all ponding areas be designed to provide access for maintenance equipment. The design shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer. Harstad Companies May 18, 1993 June 15, 1994 Page 9 EROSION CONTROL The grading plan does provide minimal erosion control measures (Type I); however, adjacent to all wetland areas the erosion control fence should be Type III. All site restoration and erosion control measures shall be in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. Additional erosion control measures will be required during the new home construction process. STREETS Access to the development is proposed via Kings Road which is a narrow gravel roadway between 20 to 23 feet wide. Kings Road is proposed to be upgraded to urban standards to adequately address traffic and ordinance requirements (Sec. 18-57[b]). The city's urban — standards consist of a 31-foot wide back-to-back bituminous street section with concrete curb and gutter. According to the ordinance, right-of-way shall be 60 feet wide. On Kings Road, the applicant is proposing to dedicate 50 feet of the normally required right-of-way which is more than the city would normally require under this circumstance. The 33 feet of right-of- way is not acceptable. The site will eventually be connected into existing Country Oaks Road to the north once the Hallgren parcel develops. On the east exists a combination of parcels (Headla/Wenzel) which could be further subdivided. Access to the Headla/Wenzel parcels is being considered at this time through Stratford Lane. However, the Headla parcel which abuts Stratford Lane is only constructed for approximately 250 feet west of Minnewashta Parkway. When Stratford Ridge — was platted an Outlot B was created for future extension and deeded to the Stratford Ridge Homeowners Association versus the city. Ms. Hallgren gains access to her property through/over this outlot. -- - . - . :. : - . . - - . . - - .. •.' - - - parcels. One option would be to create a "T" intersection en Stratford Lane and loop a future e • . - parcel (see Attachment #1). The residents in Stratford Ridge have expressed very strong The applicant has redesigned White Oak Lane per staff's recommendation and extended White Oak Lane east to the Wenzel parcel with the intention of a future cul-de-sac and the Headla parcel would have two lots adjacent Stratford Lane and the remaining parcel served via a private driveway. Until White Oak Lane is extended into the Wenzel parcel, a temporary cul-de-sac should be provided. A temporary turnaround easement will be required for the area outside the right-of-way. In any event, access to the surrounding .•• - .. . .- .:: - -:. Staff has expressed these options to Mr. Headla who preferred the extension of White Oak Lane to the Wenzel parcel. This option also gives the applicant Harstad Companies May 18, 1993 June 15, 1994 Page 10 White Oak Lane, west of Country Oaks Road, was shortened and a private driveway proposed to serve the last four lots. The driveway is proposed at 20 feet wide. A 30 foot wide easement for access and maintenance will also need to be provided. Approximately one-half of the necessary right-of-way along Stratford Lane Kings Road west of Country Oaks Road is proposed to be dedicated (30 feet). Unless StratfordLane Kings Road right-of-way is increased and the street constructed to meet city requirements (60 feet), Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 4 must be platted as outlots. The city will not issue building permits — for Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 4, Block 1 untilStratford Lane Kings Road is constructed to its full width and the entire width (60 feet) of right-of-way has been dedicated to the city. Until this is done, these lots shall be platted as an outlot. Access to the lots shall be from the interior streets versus Kings Road except Lots 1, 2, 3 and-3 4, Block 1 which is proposed with Phase II. Staff has some concerns with this future phase along Kings Road. Staff's concerns are the cost to upgrade Kings Road to an urban street section. The cost to upgrade the street may exceed the assessable benefit to these lots. The applicant should be required to provide the city with a security escrow to cover their fair share of the construction to upgrade that section of Kings Road lying west of Country Oaks Road or a conveyance placed on the deed that these lots will be responsible for 50% of the upgrade to Kings Road west of Country Oaks Road. The cost may be estimated based on the costs of upgrading the portion c:- Kings Road east of Country Oaks Road. Country Oaks Road, north of the Hallgren parcel, was constructed with a 6' wide bituminous trail. Staff requests the applicant include a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk along the east side of Country Oaks Road to provide continuity. The intersection of Country Oaks Road and Kings Road has deficient sight distance. The applicant's engineer should shift the intersection westerly and/or modify street grades to improve and meet MnDOT's sight distance requirements. PARK AND RECREATION On January 25, 1994, the Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the previously proposed Harstad Subdivision proposed for consideration of park and trail development. The northwestern portion of the city had been identified as park deficient by the City's Comprehensive Plan. As the previous applicant's (Heritage) subdivision development evolved, the city retained Hoisington-Koegler Group to draft park studies for three defined areas on the plat. A park site, 10 acres in size, was selected for the southeast corner of the site. This proposal was submitted to the Park and Recreation Commission. At their meeting, the Park and Recreation Commission made the following recommendation: PARK: It is recommended that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend the City Council approve the subdivision concept site plan as presented, with the inclusion of acquisition of lakeshore property. The acquisition of the park to be accomplished through park dedication (approximately 1.62 acres) and purchase (approximately 6.5 Harstad Companies May 18, 1993 June 15, 1994 Page 11 acres) contingent upon City Council approval. Full fee credit is to be granted as a part of these negotiations. TRAIL: It is recommended that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend the City Council require as a condition of approval of the proposed Harstad Subdivision a 20-foot trail easement connecting to the proposed Country Oaks Road with the park. The applicant shall be compensated for such construction through the reduction of trail fees with the remainder of the trail fees to be assessed as per city ordinance. The revised plat has the park reduced to 8 acres in size. A portion of the property being — proposed for park purposes includes property located east of Minnewashta Parkway. This property is approximately .50 acres. The property is very narrow and has approximately 500 feet of shoreline. The Park and Recreation Director, is recommending that this area be included as a part of the park, to be maintained as a small, low impact swimming beach, City Code does not allow the applicant to utilize this area as a recreational beachlot. By taking ownership, both the new development and existing neighbors benefit. - The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed this most recent subdivision from Harstad at their May 24, 1994 meeting. Y- - . •. . . . . - -- - - - - . . . . . . The commission supported the preliminary plat approval of the park at the location shown. They will discuss further development of the park at their next meeting on June 28, 1994. COMPLIANCE TABLE Block 1 Lot Area Street Frontage Lot Depth (20,000 s.f. required) (125' Required) 125' Required) Lot 1 20,216 21,914 125 4-69 125 133 Lot 2 20,161 -2071-36 125 -l-54 125 133 Lot 3 20,063 20,625 147 125 137 4-64 Lot 4 20,191 20,621 140 125 143 165 Lot 5 21,055 20,436 136 125 145 4-7 Block 1 Lot Area(15,000 s.f. Street Frontage Lot Depth required) (90' Required) 125' Required) Harstad Companies _ May 18, 1993 June 15, 1994 Page 12 Lot 6 20,154 31,817 90 166 4-7S Lot 7 17,989 31,572 90 161 440 Lot 8 22,702 15,741 90 147 155 Lot 9 16,978 15,757 105 138 430 Block 1 Lot Area(20,000 s.f. Street Frontage Lot Depth required) (125' Required) 125' Required) Lot 10 20,559 -20,900 138 125 148 4-60 Lot 11 20,360 20;000 125 163 4.60 Lot 12 23,206 0 125 -1-1-3/20-8182 4-84 Lot 13 25,974 21,400 112 -1-48 180 151 Lot 14 20,025 125 134 161 -4-50 Block 1 Lot Area(15,000 s.f. Street Frontage Lot Depth required) (90' Required) 125' Required) Lot 15 15, 160 15,000 101 400 150 Lot 16 15,000 95 400 156 440 Lot 17 15,040 95 105 158 4-44 Lot 18 15,007 15,021 90 -97- 175 4-42- Lot 19 19,123 25,656 90 150 434 Lot 20 15,022 27,275 107 40 141 434 Lot 21 19,074 16,712 136 -90 140 434 Lot 22 29,699 15,028- 136 102 220 444 Lot 23 25,630 4.5;000 140 400 216 150 Lot 24 17,304 -4-5000 90 -100 174 4-50 Lot 25 15,033 45;000 90 400 143 430 Lot 26 15,001 15000 100 150 Lot 27 15,001 15,114 100 102 150 Lot 28 15,001 100 150 Harstad Companies May 18, 1993 June 15, 1994 Page 13 Lot 29 15,001 100 150 Block 2 Lot Area Street Frontage Lot Depth (20,000 s.f. required) (125' Required) 125' Required) Lot 1 20,387 133 154 Lot 2 20,165 131 154 Lot 3 20,014 129 154 Lot 4 20,175 125 154 Lot 5 20,571 130 141 Lot 6 20,482 148 138 Lot 7 20,601 159 143 Lot 8 20,080 153 147 Block 3 Lot Area(15,000 s.f. Street Frontage Lot Depth required) (90' Required) 125' Required) Lot 1 16,990 113 150 Lot 2 15,302 100 165 Lot 3 18,679 99 195 Lot 4 18,451 90 205 Phase II Block 1 Lot Area Street F (20,000 s.f. required) Lot 1 20,155 113 165 Lot 2 20,881 113 133 Lot 3 21,280 133 133 Harstad Companies May 18, 1993 June 15, 1994 Page 14 FINDINGS 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential Single Family District lot dimension and area requirements. No variances are being requested. Staff is proposing access via a private drive for four lots off of White Oak Lane. The DNR supports the averaging of the lot sizes and frontages in the Shoreland District. 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable plans. The proposed density of the development is consistent with the comprehensive plan. 3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development. The conditions of the staff report should mitigate all vegetation, soil and storm water issues. 4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure as part of the improvements required of the subdivision. 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding: Staff is requesting the applicant provide a woodland management plan. This plan should preserve the integrity of the woodland canopy. 6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record. Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements. 7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. Harstad Companies May 18, 1993 June 15, 1994 — Page 15 b. Lack of adequate roads. — c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. Finding: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban infrastructure and is located within the Metropolitan Urban Services Area (MUSA) line. Kings Road will have to be built to city urban standards between Minnewashta Parkway and Country Oaks Road in order for this subdivision to go forward. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: — "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat #93-11 to subdivide 35.83 acres into 44 single family lots as shown on the plans dated May 31, 1994, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Upon completion, the developer shall dedicate to the City the utilities and street within all public right-of-way and drainage and utility easements for permanent ownership. Maintenance access routes shall be provided to all storm water ponding. The routes are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 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 completing site grading unless the City's Best Management Practice Handbook planting dates dictate otherwise. All areas disturbed 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 Detailed Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. — 4. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory • agencies (i.e. Watershed District, MWCC, Health Department, DNR) 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. No building permits shall be issued for Lots 1, 2, 3 and-3 4, Block 1 (phase II) until the full 60-foot wide right-of-way on Kings Road is dedicated Harstad Companies May 18, 1993 June 15, 1994 Page 16 to the City and the street is constructed to urban standards. This area shall be platted as an outlot until the full street is dedicated and built. 7. The applicant shall escrow with the City their fair share of the cost to extend Kings Road west of Country Oaks Road or a conveyance placed on the deed that these lots will be responsible for 50% of the cost to upgrade Kings Road west of Country Oaks Road. -- 8. The applicant shall provide revised detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10-year storm event and provide ponding calculations in accordance with the City's ordinance for the city engineer to review and approval based on the approved final set of grading - and drainage plans. The grading plan shall be revised to incorporate storm water retention ponds in accordance to the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 9. Fire hydrants shall be incorporated per the City Fire Marshal's recommendations. Fire hydrants shall placed a maximum of 300 feet apart. 10. The applicant shall have soil borings performed on the site and submit a soils report to the City for review. 11. All lots shall be prohibited to take direct access from Kings Road except for Phase II. 12. 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 shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. 13. • - . - . - . - - •- - - - - ... - -• - - - • of the Stratford Lane access. A temporary cul-de-sac should be constructed at the end of White Oak Lane east of Country Oaks Road. The applicant shall dedicate to the city a temporary turnaround easement for construction of the turnaround outside the right-of-way. 14. A portion of the utility connection fees the City collects from the property owners south of Kings Road shall may be refunded to the applicant. The exact refund reimbursement will be determined based on actual construction costs for the installation of the utilities. These property owners will be required to pay a connection charge to the City. 15. The applicant/builder shall provide, at the time of building permit applicant, a tree removal plan and grading plan for all wooded lots, specifically Lots 22 through 27 -26 through 24, Block 1. Harstad Companies May 18, 1993 June 15, 1994 Page 17 16. The street grades shall be adjusted in an effort to minimize disruption to the adjacent parcels or employ other means to reduce grading limits, i.e. retaining walls. The City has allowed up to 10% street grades in an effort to minimize grading and tree removal. .- . . .. - - • - . .:- - . easements will be necessary from the properties to the south. A 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk shall be constructed along the east side of Country Oaks Lane and the north side of Kings Road in conjunction with the overall site improvements. 17. - - . . - - - - _ •. . .. - et. - . - -- . . • The private driveway at the end of White Oak Lane shall be designed and constructed in accordance to the city's private driveway ordinance (20 ft. wide, 7 ton design and 30 foot wide easement). 18. : . - . . . .J" . - .. : : - - . -- ... • - line within 12 months from the time the lines become operations. 19. The applicant may qualify for a credit towards the applicant's storm water trunk quantity fees. These trunk quantity fees should be applied to this development as outlined in the SWMP and/or modified accordingly pending adoption by the City Council. The applicant shall escrow with the city the applicable SWMP fees until such time as the City Council adopts the Surface Water Management Plan. 20. The City will be requiring the inclusion of a drain tile system with the street and utility construction. 21. Additional erosion control measures will be required during the new home construction process. 22. A woodland management plan be prepared as per city ordinance Section 18.61(d). 23. -- • - .. . . . .- . . -. : _ . The intersection of Country Oaks Road shall be shifted westerly to improve sight distance in accordance to MnDOT's design criteria. 24. The acreage of park shall be determined by the Park and Recreation Commission. 25. Compliance with the conditions of the Building Official noted in memo dated January 21, 1994. Harstad Companies May 18, 1993 June 15, 1994 Page 18 26. Preliminary plat approval shall be subject to Kings Road being built between Minnewashta Parkway and Country Oaks Road to the city's urban standards whether done by the applicant or city improvement project. — ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter from Morgan/Scott 2. Hearing notice 3. Preliminary plat dated May 31, 1994. 1111f Et;witrW41 ,, sa 1 199 -- C T7' GF a-:r Susan E. Morgan Linda A. Scott 4031 Kings Road Excelsior , Mn 55331 474-7365 5/27/94 Kate Aanenson City of Chanhassen, Planning Director — 609 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, Mn. 55317 Dear Kate , As residents living along Kings Road in the area across — from the intended park, there are two requests we would like satisfied before the development begins . They are as follows : 1 . ) We would like a statement , in writing, from both the — developer and the City of Chanhassen, guaranteeing that the 8 red cedar trees and 1 maple on our north property line ( the park ' s south property line) not be disturbed during road construction or utility placement . — 2 . ) Again, in writing , a statement guaranteeing that the city and the developer will not allow drainage from the north of Kings Road run across our property into Lake St . Joe, at any time during or after construction. We would be happy to have the statements drawn up . Will the City of Chanhassen and the Harstad Company be willing — to sign them? l coc-71--Zc�G _ - Please let us know. d/ Sincerely, ,/Cl/t )W7c14.-1-' ?!5;— cc : Chanhassen City Council Members Harstad Company Chanhassen Park Commission Chanhassen City Planning Commission Members -- Susan E. Morgan Linda A. Scott 4031 Kings Road Excelsior, Mn 55331 474-7365 5/25/94 Kate Aanenson City of Chanhassen, Planning Director 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen , Mn 55317 -' Dear Kate , This letter was going to be a request for variance in hooking up to city water and sewer along Kings Road, however, we discovered we have no factual information on which to base this request . As a result , this letter is a request for information on which to base our decision for variance . We would like the planning commission to provide us with the following information prior to the next meeting on June 15th , concerning the Harstad Development . 1 . Is the developer paying for the development of Kings Road in total? 2 . Is the city of Chanhassen paying for the development of the portion of Kings Road that fronts the park area? 3 . In a meeting of Kings Road residents and with the Harstad Development ' s engineer on 5/25/94 , the engineer mentioned the utilities (water and sewer) may not run along Kings Road , but may be taken further north of Kings Road . In that case , will water and sewer no longer be available to the residents currently living along Kings Road? Or does that mean that the City of Chanhassen will run their own utilities along Kings Road? 4 . Please explain the following: A. Stub-in of water and sewer How far into residents property? How much does it cost? Does a resident pay for it in one lump sum or '— is it built into a tax assessment? r�: ( 2) 4 . ( cont ' d) Please explain the following: B . Full hook-up of water and sewer at time of development How far into residents property? Who pays for the installation, hook-up fee , and reconstruction of torn-up lawn, etc? Pay for it as one lump sum or is it built into a tax assessment? How much does it cost? Who pays for the abandonment of the old septic? C . In both the scenarios of stub-in and full hook-up how are undeveloped parcels handled? D . What are costs of hook-up a year or two after initial development? — We realize that these are a lot of questions , however, they — must be answered in order for us to continue our pursuit of a variance . If there is another source for the answers please let us know. — We appreciate your time and consideration in answering our questions . I 'm sure you' ll agree that a decision based on facts and research is a sound decision. In addition, having this information up-front , will help eliminate any surprises for the commission and the residents . We await your response . Thank you ! Sincerely, cc : Chanhassen Planning Commission Members Harstad De - . .ment — Chanhassen City Council Mem• - - CITYOF CHANI1ASSEN - r 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 May 27, 1994 Dear Property Owner: This letter is to inform you that the following item was scheduled for June 1, 1994 Planning Commission meeting but has been rescheduled to the June 15, 1994, 7:30 p.m. Planning Commission meeting: Harstad Companies to subdivide 35.83 acres of property into 38 single family lots located on property zoned RSF, Residential Single Family and located north of Kings Road and west of Minnewashta Parkway, The Oaks at Minnewashta. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 937-1900 extension 118. Sincerely, CuthrlArY`- a/N(000%-i Kathryn R. Aanenson Planning Director KA:v i / /sr- 7;' L.(:!' .r ,r ,, v. � t., , ClY •.• 7,- / r 4.;m�i:��T, ' : )1 a dip Brea :!1��:� = LAK ! NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING t 1'-• OAKS ���,l ROAD ►.�� •�+ � M / N N E w .4 f4 r!__ // •�t F PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING • . y Wednesday, JUNE 1, 1994 7:30 P.M. renis .AD Vii\ - —. City Hall Council Chambers ` t k, - . 690 Coulter Drive ° •H ? II _v = CAKE ' �. � Project: The Oaks at Minnewashta :7. < roM Nowt,/ !� v Developer: Harstad Companies r c:�-- NW i 1 . , 4 -. Location: North of Kings Road, West of Minnewashta t 1; ` Parkway Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. Harstad Companies is proposing to subdivide 35.83 acres of property into 38 single family lots located on property zoned RSF, Residential Single Family and located north of Kings Road and west of Minnewashta Parkway. 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 has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on May 12, 1994. GARY & NADINE NELSON RALPH & P. KARCZEWSKI WARREN & JANET RTETZ 7048 RED CEDAR COVE 7054 RED CEDAR COVE 7058 RED CEDAR COVE EXCELSIOR MN 55317 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DAVID & A. PRILLAMAN COY & SANDRA SHELBY ROBERT & JUDY ROYER -7064 RED CEDR COVE 7068 RED CEDAR COVE 7074 RED CEDAR COVE EXCELSIOR MN 55317 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JOHN & SARAH MANEY BERNARD & ALYCE FULLER DONALD & B. BI IERMANN 7078 RED CEDAR COVE 7075 RED CEDAR COVE 7085 RED CEDAR COVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 LOUIS/LUANN GUTHMUELLER TIMOTHY J. FISHER RED CEDAR COVE TWNHOUSE 7095 RED CEDAR COVE 7099 RED CEDAR COVE P.O. BOX 181 _EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 -KEVIN & CYNTHIS CUDDIHY ALLIN & SHIRLEY KARTS ROBERT & DEBRA PIROLLI 3900 STRATFORD RIDGE 3920 STRATFORD RIDGE 3940 STRATFORD RIDGE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JEFFREY & JANICE ADAMS W. SCOTT MORROW & BARTON WELLS 3960 STRATFORD RIDGE CYNTIA M. HOUSE 4000 STRATFORD RIDGE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 3980 STRATFORD RIDGE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT TERRY & BONNIE LABATT KEITH & KATHRYN BEDFORD _4001 STRATFORD RIDGE 3981 STRATFORD RIDGE 3961 STRATFORD RIDGE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 WILLIAM J. MUNIG CHARLES & C. CRUICKSHANK DOUGLAS & JANET REICHERT 6850 STRATFORD RIDGE 3921 STRATFORD RIDGE 3901 STRATFORD RIDGE -EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT HAROLD & ELAINE TAYLOR KEVIN & SUELLYN TRITZ 3881 STRATFORD RIDGE 3861 STRATFORD RIDGE 3851 STRATFORD RIDGE RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 -STRATFORD RIDGE HOA MARK & JULIE GRUBE CRAIG & LINDA MACK C/O KEITH F. BEDFORD 3931 COUNTRY OAKS DRIVE 3941 COUNTRY OAKS DRIVE 3961 STRATFORD RIDGE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 -EXCELSIOR MN 55331 LOREN H. BEAUDOIN BRUCE & JENNIFER LINN TODD & FRANCIS BOYCE 133 SPRING VALLEY CIRCLE 4001 COUNTRY OAKS DRIVE 4011 COUNTRY OAKS DRIVE - EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 LOREN L. BENSON & JEROME M. BACH LEE & JUANITA HARVEY BARBARA B. WILSON C/O NORWEST BANK, TRUSTEE 7120 KINGS ROAD 7050 KINGS ROAD 6TH MARQUETTE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55479-0046 JEFFRY H. HALLGREN & JENNIFER J. HALLGREN KRISTIN & JERRY KORTGARD MICHELLE GEORGE 375 HIGHWAY 7 3901 GLENDALE DRIVE 355 HIGHWAY 7 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 - EXCELSIOR MN 55331 LINDA A SCOTT & LOWELL & J. CARLSON DAVID & MARGARET BORRIS - SUSAN E. MORGAN R. 1 BOX 822A 4071 KINGS ROAD 4031 KINGS ROAD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 - JOHN P. BAUMTROG STATE OF MINNESOTA DARYL & DEBRA KIRT - 7141 MINNEWASHTA PKWY DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION 7600 SOUTH SHORE DRIVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 METRO SQUARE BUILDING CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ST. PAUL MN 55101 MARK & DONNA MALINOWSKI JAMES & ARLENE CONNOR HOLY CROSS LUTHERAN 7250 MINNEWASHTA PKWY 3901 RED CEDAR POINT ROAD CHURCH OF MINNESOTA _ EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 4151 HIGHWAY 7 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 LEE ANDERSON JOANN HALLGREN JAMES & R. BOYLAN PLEASANT ACRES HOA 6860 MINNEWASHTA PKWY. 6760 MINNEWASHTA PKWY. RT. 1 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 - EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JAMES & JEFFREY KERTSON KENNETH & DUANE E. LUND RLK ASSOCIATES 6810 MINNEWASHTA PKWY 395 HIGHWAY 7 922 MAIN STREET EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 HOPKINS MN 55343 ROBERT MOREHOUSE DAVID HEADLA TERRY FORBORD - 4410 HIGHWAY 25 6870 MINNEWASHTA PKWY LUNDGREN BROS. WATERTOWN MN 55388 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 935 EAST WAYZATA BLVD. WAYZATA, MN 55391 - LARRY WENZEL 6900 MINNEWASHTA PKWY - EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Ledvina moved, Nutting seconded that the Planning Commission table action on Preliminary Plat #93-25 and Rezoning #94-1 for Patrick Minger so that the plan can be revised to meet staff's and Planning Commission's recommendations. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: HARSTAD COMPANIES TO SUBDIVIDE 35.83 ACRES OF PROPERTY INTO 38 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED NORTH OF KINGS ROAD AND WEST OF MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, THE OAKS AT MLNNEWASHTA. Public Present: Name Address Steve Johnston Loucks and Associates B. Fuller 1075 Red Cedar Cove Terry & Bonnie Labatt 2981 Stratford Ridge Keith Bedford 3961 Stratford Ridge Dave Headla 6870 Minnewashta Parkway Kevin Cuddihy 3900 Stratford Ridge Lowell & Janet Carlson 4100 Kings Road Margie Borris 4071 Kings Road Susan Morgan 4031 Kings Road Linda Scott 4031 Kings Road Larry Wenzel 6900 Minnewashta Parkway Bill Munig 6850 Stratford Ridge Harold Taylor 3861 Stratford Ridge Allin Karels 3920 Stratford Ridge Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Questions or comments for staff. Okay. Would the applicant like to speak? Steve Johnston: Thank you Mr. Chairman. My name is Steve Johnston. I'm an engineer with Loucks and Associates. We're located in Maple Grove. We represent the applicant _ tonight. They were unable to attend because...We have reviewed the staff recommendations and...I don't believe there's any problems with any of the conditions that were placed upon the development and...recommendations. But I'd just like to point out one thing, if I could on 24 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 the grading...grading contract out just so you don't get the wrong impression of what we're trying to do...The difficulty that we've had and the situation...is that we had a trade off. We could either save the majority of the trees in Lots 22, 23, and 24 by setting the grades at an elevation to best serve those lots. Or we could lower the street down and save more trees on the end of the cul-de-sac. The decision was made that we'd keep the cul-de-sac up, saving the trees on those lots. With staff's suggestion to go to a private drive for those last 4 lots, I think we can do both. We can do the cul-de-sac up higher and we can drop the grade off then and lower some of these down hopefully preserving more of the trees. The requirement for 130 trees be planted on the site...is acceptable to the applicant and we will provide a plan to replace those trees on the site. A clarification that we'd like though to get, it appears that we would be allowed to place those trees within our site and not necessarily out along Kings Road and Minnewashta Parkway... Aanenson: Correct. That's what we're saying. You come back with a specific plan. Our ordinance requires 1 tree per lot. What we're saying is instead of just doing 1...put them in one lot or put them in where you can cluster them. I think that's an advantage to go back and get another canopy instead of just doing... Steve Johnston: We'll take a look at that and bring those options. The other question I have had to do with the, it's unclear from the staff report regarding the utilities on Kings Road. Specifically to get the utilities at the park property. Is the park department participating in the cost of the utilities?... (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) Margie Borris: My name is Margie Borris. I'm that little thing by the driveway on Kings Road. That little thing is 2 1/2 acres. Okay. We looked for lots from Maple Grove to Shakopee to find the rural area that we could relax in. Have our privacy, among other things. It's a safe area. People come and walk down our little road. I noticed that in her little tree plan that she forgot to mention I have a stand of 10 red cedar trees on the other side of Kings Road, which we own. Not just the road area. We own 5, every one of those are 5 feet from the other side of the road. Okay. And from what I understand you can only take the area that is being currently used as a road. Okay. And also that stand of trees shoots up on a bank that's about 8 feet high. It has been a wind break for all these years. It's a privacy barrier, and I'm sorry but the creed of the 80's has just spilled all over Chanhassen in 1994. It is almost disgusting. We had a rural area. It's been...If I have to become a hog farmer and put my pans in that front yard, I will. I'm just about up to here. Now you're going to tell me that we're going to spend $20,000.00 to hook up to your utilities. To tear up my yard. Tear up my basement, and who's going to pay for it? I've got 12 months? This is your guiding. This is the guided area that you were talking about. You just changed your mind 25 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 on what the areas are like? The City of Eden Prairie has just got some press about these kind of plannings. The over development of a community. Granted this is a better plan that what we've seen before but you don't have to live on it. We do. We moved out there for a reason. We spent our money out there for a reason. We don't live in slums out there. These are not old, I mean the Scott's and I, which are the ones that you're talking about adding these new things to, those are new homes. I mean and you're talking about all these extra — things you're looking for. How very wonderful. We've heard some prices about what this land was sold for. Or what the asking price is and I also know what they sold the lots for in that Stratford area. $45,000.00 was the minimum so there's a lot of money trading hands and what's happening is the existing people just take it in the shorts, which is a very nice way of putting that. The drainage thing, I'm glad you took a look at it this time because it was by- passed several times. But I will not, I don't know if you'll build a house over to that one side because my house is in the center of that lot which is going to put that new road right in front of my house. Take down my wind break. That little area there that was originally, that was supposed to be moved to the park. Those row of houses that are on the east. I can't read the name of the road. Country Oaks Road. That was going to be part of park development. Now...but that is the only sliding hill in that area. It's the only sliding hill on the west side of Lake Minnewashta. And you know, you talked about this...you don't come down the road and see the trees that arch over. I mean grant you they're not maybe oaks or anything but red cedars are not common. And when did they rezone this area? Nobody told _ us anything. Nobody sent us a letter that said we're going to guide this or whatever you call that thing. I'm serious about becoming a hog farmer. We can have animals on our property because of existing grandfathering, and I will do it. We need something. some consideration for us. Not just the developers. Not just for people that are selling their property. That's going to be developed, yes. But think about it. I want to know who's paying for my hook- up. Does anybody have an answer? Scott: Dave. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, maybe I can address that. She can certainly appeal the commission and the staff report to the City Council has the ultimate decision. They may look at waiving that until your septic system fails...first do an inspection of your existing system and make sure it's functioning properly. That's ultimately up to the City Council. It is an ordinance so it does take action by the City Council to amend. As far as the cost associated with that, for sewer and water hook-up, the connection charge, you're probably looking in the ballpark of about $5,000.00 to $5,500.00. Margie Borris: Does that include breaking up of my foundation? Hempel: Well. 26 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Margie Borris: No. That's the hook-up to it. Hempel: That's the hook-up charge. Margie Borris: That doesn't include what you're going to dig through the yard to put in the site. And who's going to fix my lawn? Hempel: That would be part of the property owner's responsibility. — Margie Borris: Oh yeah. Hempel: As far as the connection charges, they could be assessed against the property. Margie Borris: My husband's in construction and he tells me it's close to $20,000.00. For the entire hook-up. To repair all the stuff. That's not pocket change. That is not pocket change. We recently got assessed for all the work that was done on Minnewashta Parkway and they were telling us, because we had the larger lots, we had to pay more, which we did. — We didn't get the benefits of these new retaining walls or any of that stuff. I don't care. And yet you sit there and you tell us, okay well we're going to charge you more because you have the bigger lots. You can drive a driveway, I suppose we could put a driveway over my drainfield and build a house down at the lower level, which is below the high water mark, but nobody gets back to me on that either. I paid my assessment, by the way. Scott: Excuse me ma'am. Specifically the points that you would like us to consider are, I've heard a lot of things and I'm personally kind of losing track but if you can specific zero in on the most significant ones, that would help me understand. Margie Borris: My trees. My red cedar trees that are sitting on 5 feet across the other side of the road for my privacy. But one of them, the main reason we took this area was the privacy and the safety and now you're going to be adding, probably 2 cars per household. I would assume that's the average these days. Some have more. And there's 38 lots. Or 37 — lots as it sits right now. So there's going to be 60 some more cars and they're going to be splitting now between that Stratford and Kings Road. If you want to dink around with this stupid road, put the road on the property that's being developed or where the park is being — developed...Kings Road that we have right now. Then we can keep our trees and whatever is out there but I'd really, I'm not happy about this hook-up thing. There's the Ziegler's, they have their money. They're gone. They're in Colorado. They could care less what you do with their property. They just want the dollars and let's go. Scott: Okay. Do you have any. — 27 — Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Margie Borris: The idea of, I mean we got a lot of grief about trying to build a house on 2 1/2 acres when we built in 1986. A lot of grief and now, and you're saying that now you've got 20 some thousand square feet. How does that compare to an acre? Like the other people before us were all talking about, you're crowding us out. You're crowding us out. You're crowding us out. Where's the planning in this? What if you make those 1 acre lots? Somebody will buy those if they want that peace and quiet. I went from a corporation to a small business to get rid of that hassle and rat race. My home is a safe, quiet place. There are now so many deer being pushed towards us because we have the last of the big land. Every day you can take a walk and you'll run into a deer near dusk. We've got Lake St. Joe behind us. It's supposed to be a protected wetland. They're already planning to develop on the other side of that. There's nothing left. Scott: So your specific concerns have to do with the roadway and the impact that that's going to have on the trees. Number two is because of the proximity of the proposed roadway to your house, the hook-up requirement to the utilities. Traffic on the road. Margie Borris: Among other things, yeah. Scott: Okay. We just want to make sure that we can specifically understand the points that you have so. We appreciate you for taking your time to come down and we encourage that because that's why we have public hearings. Margie Borris: I know. I've been to several of them. Scott: Keep coming. Thank you ma'am. Would anybody else like to speak? Yes ma'am. Sue Morgan: My name is Sue Morgan and I live at 4031 Kings Road, which is this property right there. There are several concerns that I have about the way the road is going to be moved. It was my assumption, is it Kate? That the road is going to be moving closer to us rather than going this way? Aanenson: It's moving to the north. Sue Morgan: It's moving to the north? So we have existing like 8 or 9-90 year old cedar trees that are here so they would stay where they're at? They wouldn't be encroached upon? Hempel: It depends on where they are. The utility installation, the trench... Sue Morgan: Okay. When we purchased this land...we had the DNR come out and evaluate the trees on our property to help us decide which ones we should keep, the value of them and 28 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 to help us plan where the house was going to go because we wanted to maintain that type of treed area here. As I mentioned they're like 90 year old red cedar trees that we will keep. I _ don't know what that means to you but we will keep them. And then also on this part of the property, we have 8 acres here. There is a ravine that drops about 25 feet, 30 feet from the road and there is water that runs from over in this pasture area, under the road and through _ our property into Lake St. Joe, which is down in here. We had some concerns last year because this is a natural environment lake and we were concerned because of development. These people using Chemlawn. Using whatever they need to use on their lawns. That _ water's going to carry stuff into Lake St. Joe. Is that ravine going to be rerouted or is that going to be closed off or what happens with that if they put a pond in the ground? Hempel: That's correct. That location there is proposed for a storm water quality pond for treatment of storm water runoff generated from the additional development. It will pick up surface drainage from streets and lawns and pond it into the pond for treatment and then will — overflow to the storm sewer system down Kings Road and towards Lake St. Joe is an outlot. Sue Morgan: This way? Hempel: Right in that area...down to St. Joe after being treated. — Sue Morgan: Okay. So it's not going to flow through our property any longer, is that what you're saying? — Hempel: That's correct. It will be rerouted. Sue Morgan: Do you know how that's going to affect Lake St. Joe by shutting this off? I don't know if this supports Lake St. Joe with aquatic life. With wildlife. Hempel: It will have to be rerouted...it will end up in Lake St. Joe approximately 300-400 feet east. — Sue Morgan: Okay. What happens to this existing culvert that's there now? Does it just get blocked off? _ Hempel: That would most likely be removed for the utility installation to be installed. Sue Morgan: Okay. Also when we purchased this land more than 4 years ago, we were forced by the City of Chanhassen to put in a mound system. I don't know if you're all familiar with a mound system but because this land was natural environment lake, we weren't — 29 _ Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 able to put in a regular septic system. That mound system cost us over $7,900.00 whereas we could have put in a regular septic system for $2,000.00 to $3,000.00. We will not hook up to water and sewer until that mound system fails. I don't know what that means to you people but we're not going to go into hock just because you want to force us into city water and sewer. You already forced us into $7,900.00 we didn't have to spend. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, I can address that. Again, if you'd like to appeal to the City Council...way to proceed. City water is not required unless the well goes bad...but the septic system is a requirement per the ordinance. It is in an effort to help from an environmental standpoint... Sue Morgan: So what...? Hempel: So you can appeal the decision or the condition that we stated to the City Council _ as it proceeds to the next level. Requesting that they give you a variance from that condition... Scott: What's the precedent because I know that we run into this quite a bit. How, and I'm not going to ask you for percentages, but does that, are variances like that granted in instances such as, recent purchase of that particular, inspection of that particular system. Is that a criteria that carries a lot of weight with the City Council? Or is it all over the board? Hempel: It's pretty well all over the board. It really depends on the condition of that homeowner's septic system. Somebody will go out, a qualified person will go out and evaluate the system and see that it's functioning properly... Scott: Okay. And that's what I'm trying to do here. If anybody else here has got that concern, is to at least start thinking. If this development does go in and you are faced with the issue of connecting to city services, that'd be something that you'd all want to consider and make sure that you know what's coming. Dollar and cents wise but I would think that would make sense to me that the City Council would look at that because it wouldn't make a lot of sense to have someone who's just invested the money within a couple of years and we won't go into the life of systems and so forth but what other issues do you have? Sue Morgan: The other is the trees. If the trees need to be taken out, how are they going to be replaced. I guess they will be replaced. You said...We have 9 red cedar trees. You had mentioned earlier that... Steve Johnston: I'm not sure Mr. Chairman if you want me to address that. 30 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Scott: Well I know that the comment was made that for trees that are taken out of the development, that we're encouraging with our new tree ordinance to have them clustered so we'd have perhaps 2 in each lot. But what we're talking about here are trees that are going to be removed due to utilities and roads. And let me just ask you a question. If the road is moving north, the reason why these trees are going out is, is it utilities? Because I'm thinking if these utilities are being brought in to serve the development, why aren't we running the utilities on the other side of the road? Hempel: Well it's a combination of utility installation and you're also grading for the road. The road will be actually north of the existing Kings Road. The City Attorney has reviewed the city's rights with regards to Kings Road. We're able to show maintenance of that road within the last, over the last 10 years and we were granted a reservation, or an easement essentially for use of that roadway system and where a portion of the ditch has been plowed or drainage standpoint maintained I guess. They do have a valid point. Maybe working with _ the applicant or the park department in trying to provide a landscape plan in this area if these trees were, or most likely going to be removed as a part of this development. Be replaced. Scott: So the tree removal, since we don't really have the benefit of seeing that on our plans, I mean I'm just going from what I remember of going through the site. But the trees that are going to be, are proposed to be lost on the south side of Kings Road are being lost because of either (a) the road itself, (b) the utilities or (a) and (b)? Hempel: I would say a combination of the two. - Scott: The utilities are running south of the road? Hempel: It would be running down the center of the 50 foot right-of-way that's being dedicated with this new plat. Scott: Okay, so these utilities are going under the road? Hempel: That's correct. Scott: Okay. And I won't ask you about why we can't do that on the previous issue because we're not talking about that now. Okay. Sue Morgan: Also, how will this development or the hook-up to the water and utilities, whatever, affect the other...subdivisions on property? We're what, allotted 3? We only live on one but there's two others. So if we hook up to the septic and water, how does that affect us as far as...? - 31 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Hempel: If you subdivide your property you would have to pay connection charges for those additional lots as well. It's probably going to be actually cheaper than having to drill your own well or do your own septic or mound system. Sue Morgan: And do you know what is proposed for a holding or...that little outlot? What it's going to look like... Hempel: Maybe the applicant...could address that. I believe you refer to it as the outlot, as Outlot A...on that site so the rest of it is... Sue Morgan: But if there's runoff from the north side of the road under the road to the south side, there's got to be some opening for that runoff to go into. Hempel: That's true. There would be a storm sewer extended south of Kings Road through that parcel and discharged... Sue Morgan: And the city would run it through... Hempel: The City would maintain it... Sue Morgan: That's all I have. Thank you. Scott: Good. Yes sir. Lowell Carlson: Lowell Carlson, Kings Road. I don't understand the road here. Not only on my property but everybody else's. Let's start from the property up on, where the property _ begins and the road...There will be nothing taken off of me or them because that's the way we've got it set up. Instead of furnishing part of our property to develop this property, what are we saying? Hempel: Well it's a change in constructing this road. The right-of-way, most of it is being dedicated with this new subdivision of Harstad's. 50 feet of right-of-way's being proposed. It includes up to the south end of the gravel road out there right now. The roadway would be set within that 50 foot right-of-way. In the future when you come and subdivide at that time, the city's going to ask that you dedicate an additional 10 feet of road right-of-way. Lowell Carlson: Has anybody ever seen my plot of the road or the property line that we own in here where the property stakes are? Are we furnishing part of this property to help this development develop? So when we develop our's, we'll be short? ...my property see goes way down here by...and it's way on the north side of the road. 32 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Aanenson: They went out and staked the existing, the southerly right-of-way of that road. Lowell Carlson: Okay, so it will start on the north side of that stake, on my property stake, and go north, right? Hempel: There will be no road constructed west of that intersection that you see right here. Lowell Carlson: Well right here, right where my property starts right here, we're back in the first tract. We're the last tract to the north. My property stake is out in the road right there. Hempel: The plan that you have before you shows the south property line of that subdivision. That will be your north property line. Lowell Carlson: Just south of the road? Aanenson: Yes. Lowell Carlson: So my 6 acres, you're going to start, so when you develop your property you guys come and say hey, you ain't got enough to develop your land because now you're short. You ain't got 6 acres no more. We had to take some for this road over here because this guys needs it for there and you ain't got enough down there. You took some of the curb there and that curb, my property stake starts right there and cuts this up. That corner right there is a deluxe piece of property...squaring this corner off the way it's supposed to be or. Hempel: At the time that you come and develop, that corner would be discussed. Lowell Carlson: Well I hear you that right now if that road is going to be, as far as I don't know what we're going to spend doing this. But we're at least going to gain our own property. That survey has read for years and years that our survey of our property. You're not stealing no more from me. And we're done someplace, they want, pretty soon you're going to have 3 acres left. But when the Minnewashta Parkway come in they said I've got 8 units in there. Who surveyed it and told me I got room enough to put 8 units and be big enough to qualify for 8 houses on that piece of property? Has anybody? Hempel: What they did to determine that...they figured out how much acreage you had. 8 acres or whatever it was. Or 6 acres and they used the factor of 1.7 units per acre. They figure you should be able to develop on your parcel. That was over the whole Minnewashta Parkway area. That was the factor that was used to determine how many units you would be able to develop. You'll maybe only develop one. 33 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Lowell Carlson: Now they stole a piece off of here. This road is on the south edge, no way. According to the stake. You can go by the property stake. You move that road on that property to develop it so we end up with our right acreage. Hempel: What the plat is dedicating Mr. Carlson is 30 feet of their property for future right- of-way. The gravel road actually lies south of their 30 feet. So when you come and further subdivide your parcel, you're going to be asked to dedicate the other 30 feet for a total of 60 feet. Lowell Carlson: It will be right on my doorstep, like...up on Minnewashta Parkway. Hempel: I'm not familiar with the location I guess of your house in there but the road would be centered in that 60 foot strip. Scott: I guess what I'd recommend is having a. Lowell Carlson: ...for years and years. All it was was a horse trail and they said well, Chanhassen's maintained that road all these years. For 7 years. Carlson and Chanhassen have maintained that road for all these years. So...whoever develops this land, my neighbors, whatever, they're stealing part of the property...as far as I'm concerned because...lot is. He _ can't be...sell the land or the property. They've got a lot stake on every piece of property around here. Can you walk over and take a chunk off of this one and chunk off of that one and say hey, good enough or what can you do? Scott: Mr. Carlson, I guess what my suggestion would be, is if you do have some plans, which it sounds like you do, to subdivide your property at some future date, would be to meet with city staff and then they'll be in a better position to talk specifically about, and maybe it's going to require a trip out to your property, but I think that's probably a better way to do that. They'd have the specific information at their finger tips to help you understand precisely what's going on because we're talking about red or orange lines on an overhead and I know, I'd have difficulty understanding what I'd be getting into if I were in your situation based upon that. Lowell Carlson: Well we've been in court for about 10 years. Over a building. And we've got it settled that we're off the property line and...set back from the building we're going to build now finally. It's on it's way. So we're set back from a property stake. Where my property stake is 25 and 50 back to the road, and that's where we're going to be. They say that the road is going to come back here and go in that building too? Scott: I can't answer that question. 34 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Lowell Carlson: It's so loused up that...development, how far is the sewer and water going to run? Come into our property. Where is it going? At least have some kind of. Hempel: Mr. Chairman let me address that. It is proposed to eventually extend sewer and water all the way down to, is it the curve. Lowell Carlson: Down to this here? Hempel: And dead end it there. Lowell Carlson: Are they putting a lift station to pump it up on top of this hill and go back down or what are they planning on doing? Hempel: The sewer will be...intersection of Country Oaks Road and Kings Road. It will be — serviced through gravity. That westerly edge of the curb and street. From there on it may... Lowell Carlson: If the thing will get that close to my house, I want to put a deeper foundation if they're going that deep to that lift station. Hempel: We have to go over the plans sometime in the office to make sure we're adequately going to be able serve your parcel. Scott: Yeah, that's alright. Are there some other people who would like to speak at the public hearing, if I may? Margie Borris: ...Mr. Carlson about losing his property? — Scott: Yeah, excuse me. Mr. Carlson, okay. Yes ma'am. Margie Borris: We're getting taxed at so many square feet in our...and if you lose the square footage of the road and the 5 feet on the north side of the road, which belongs to each one of us as we go along down Kings Road. So you're going to take the road plus the part that would be all the across the width of the property. So we're all going to lose several hundreds to thousands of feet of our property. Are we also going to get property, like he said, resurveyed? That we now go to a smaller lot and pay less taxes? Scott: Those are issues that we don't address here. I think there seems to be a lot of concern as to what's going to happen. Perhaps, would you mind drawing a drawing up there so that everybody that's concerned about right-of-ways, you can say if your property line is here, the road goes here. Right-of-way is here. If you decide to subdivide 30 feet here, etc, etc. I 35 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 _ think that's a lot of the property owners have that question. I think we can deal with all of them fairly surgically, if you would. Hempel: Okay. Right now Kings Road is a gravel road that kind of meanders down to the south property line. But based on the drawings I was looking at, something like that and then meanders even further south. What this subdivision is doing is dedicating 50 feet of right-of- - way, actually on the north side of Kings Road. The road will then be built basically centered within this 50 foot right-of-way. Resident: Excuse me, you just drew a line both north and south... Scott: It looks a dimensional arrow for the 50 feet. Hempel: Right. That heavy black line is actually the north property line, all the way along there. The gravel road actually lies south of that. The right-of-way that is being dedicated is north of that. The new street will be centered within that 50 foot right-of-way. The gravel. Ledvina: Excuse me Dave. What's the width of the street? Hempel: The new street will be 31 feet back to back. Curb to curb. That's a standard urban section. Scott: So basically that 30 feet is going to be in, and the street is going to go within the 50 feet and as of right now the property owners have not lost anything. They have not gained anything. That's going to impact, because of the utilities and the street construction, that's going to impact trees. I mean that's an issue that they should be concerned with but as far as any change to their boundaries. Any change to their property size acreage, zero impact. Hempel: That's correct. Scott: Okay, does everybody understand that? Sue Morgan: No. See the only problem is, there's some legalities and I think that that's the issue. Not so much property. The actual where the road is. But there's legalities because I don't know if our deed says anything about ownership of the road or how we get into the road but Margie's and Carlson's does. There's some ownership of that property because Kings Road was originally just put in there by plow horses just to get back to the fields. So the road was never really a city road. So these people own some of that land. So what he's saying is, there's still some legalities that haven't been figured on all the lot lines as to...from the gravel and whatever but still there's some legalities that have to be resolved. 36 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Scott: Yeah, and that's I guess what we're doing here is we're collecting feedback on these issues and there are going to be some other avenues to discuss that. That's not something that we're going to recommend but what I'm thinking here, since this seems to be the bone of contention and I think it's important that everybody understand what's happening and if it has to do with taxation, I mean this is not the forum. Future development. That's not the forum. I mean you need to talk to city staff about that but if you could continue, because I think it's important for people to know what's going on here. Hempel: Sure. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Again, the gravel road that's out there will eventually be abandoned with a new road built. And driveways would then be connected to the new street. Scott: Now when that happens then, so if, would that be a vacation of part of Kings Road that would revert to the property owner? Hempel: There would be no vacation involved because there's nothing in writing that the city has an easement over it. We've acquired the rights to use it with adverse possession of maintaining it for all these years. Scott: Okay. So when you're talking about the, so the road ownership, actually there's no change. The people own it. It was an easement to the city. Okay. Hempel: Eventually if you further subdivide your property at some time, then the city would request an additional 10 feet of right-of-way to dedicate the total of 60 feet. The road won't change. The road will still be there where it's going to be built, or proposed to be. Scott: Okay. Are we all tracking with this? Lowell Carlson: Not really. This stuff you dedicated as right-of-way, who's dedicating it? Hempel: The Harstad's development. The applicants of this development. Lowell Carlson: Because where's he dedicating it from? Is he dedicating it from the north side of the road and he's going to go in 50 feet into that property? Hempel: He's going from your north property line. From your property line or his south property line... Lowell Carlson: 50 feet deep. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 — Scott: It's all contained in their property. It does not affect you. Lowell Carlson: So when this thing moves over, let's see that would be, well let's say that's — their property. Where are we? Their property line. Hempel: This is the 50 feet area here. Then as you go beyond this property and get in front — of here, the right-of-way is being reduced down to 30 feet because we're not constructing the road beyond this point. So it would remain a gravel road. — Lowell Carlson: And you're going along with sewer and water at this particular time down there? — Hempel: I don't believe we are going any further at this time...Those homes are a future phase. It's shown on this as a preliminary plat. The final plat will not plat those at this time. They'll be remaining as an outlot. Cannot be built on until they are platted. Margie Borris: But they don't have to hook up and we do? You can't build on them? Scott: Yeah. They will. Margie Borris: There will be at some time. Hempel: There will be at some time and at that time the road will have to be upgraded so sewer and water also can be extended in front of those parcels...so it's going to remain a — vacant piece of property. These parcels right here will remain as an open space. They will be replatted... Lowell Carlson: Is this sewer and water coming up...in there or where is it going? Hempel: That's correct. Sewer and water will be brought from Minnewashta Parkway, up the new road, up to the intersection and then brought into the subdivision. Lowell Carlson: Okay what about, is there going to be curb and gutter, blacktop and storm sewer and the whole works going up to the point then also at this particular time? — Hempel: That's correct. Up to this point. Lowell Carlson: And it gets assessed back to, what portion of it will probably be paid by the — people that live on this side, on the south side? 38 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Hempel: There will be no assessments for the street or storm sewer. There will be future assessments, what we call a connection charge when you want to hook up, or need to hook up to the sewer and water lines. But at this time there will be no assessments to those property owners to the south. Lowell Carlson: For instance if I owned this property right here and it was coming by at this particular time and I wanted to subdivide this out, could I have a stub running to that one at no extra charge? — Hempel: They would put in stubs at this time but with the understanding that they would be reimbursed by the City. When the city collects a connection charge from those properties for — hooking up. Lowell Carlson: Okay, that's... — Margie Borris: When they're building this road, how are we going to get to work? That's the only exit we have to Minnewashta Parkway. — Hempel: That's correct. That will take some coordination. It's not uncommon for a lot of construction...similar to the downtown businesses. We kept the downtown businesses going while we reconstructed downtown. Margie Borris: Are you going to put us all in a hotel? — Scott: Probably not. Okay. Excuse me, Mr. Carlson. I'm just saying, if you have a, if you've got some plans to subdivide your property, it'd probably be a real good use of your time and the city staff's time to speak specifically about your parcel and talk about stubs and reimbursements and potential future assessments. It sounds like it's a project you're quite interested. Lowell Carlson: Well my Metropolitan Sewer friend, my brother lives down here. At that time the send box for the Metropolitan Sewer, now it's $800.00 or whatever... Scott: Build now. Develop now. Beat the rush. Okay, good. Is there anybody else that would like to speak at the public hearing? Linda Scott: I'm Linda Scott. I live at 4031 Kings Road and one of the things that kind of — struck me when I sat down tonight and I heard this plan, I mean we just got the drawing in the mail like last Thursday and it's the first I had heard that anything was even going forward since the last time we were here when it got, we thought it got denied. And I looked at it — 39 _ Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 and I thought, well this looks like a much better plan. It seems to deal with things better that were concerns at the time. And then I was sitting here and I heard these things about the, when the road comes through, that we are likely to lose these trees and I don't know if any of you have been, drive out Kings Road but our house is very close to the road and right now we have a buffer that is a very sharp drop off to the road. It's about 4 112 to 5 feet tall. And right on the edge of that are all these huge old cedar trees. And if those go, the hill goes, suddenly we're totally exposed to the road. I moved out here with a natural environment lake in my back yard, protected from the road and I'm not naive thinking that development won't come but that whole property is vacant, or will be. And I don't see any reason why it can't be done so that it doesn't disturb anything that when people who already live there have and have tended and part of the reasons that we bought the property is that we bought you know, he's saying the road won't affect it but if, I mean these trees are right on the edge of the road. Anything past the edge of the gravel is going to kill those trees and they're not replaceable in my lifetime or any that's here's lifetime. And so it concerns me a great deal and I think about what happened on Minnewashta Parkway and these crumby old huge maple trees, which are beautiful in the fall but they're not beautiful the rest of the year, were saved to make it difficult for all these boat owners to get their boats down the ramp because Minnewashta Parkway got diverted by that. I just see some inconsistencies that really bother me. And when I hear about the concern for the trees that are existing on the property that's being developed, and I don't think there's one tree out there that's nearly as old as any cedar trees that we have. I do also have some concerns about the sewer business but that's been fairly clarified that that will happen sometime in the future and approach the City Council, did you say on that? But I think all of us, you know like people who's property is being developed or don't live there yet. They don't even know what it looks like. They don't know what they'll be losing if all of the right-of-way is on the north side of the road and not infringing on our property or taking trees. And make that a legal battle if it comes to it. I think it's unfortunate that these things just keep getting sort of popped on us. We come here and here about all these plans that affect us and no one will ever come directly to us and talk to us about it and explain how the road's going to work. We see these little stakes out there and it's like control point. I wonder what a control point is and I see little stakes staking out the edge of the wetland and stuff but it's almost like a big secret or something. I don't know how to get more involved. I know before I had spoken to you in person. I have spoken to — one of the city engineers in person. But when I saw this plan it looked, where the pond was, so it didn't concern me too much until I got here tonight and...my stomach dropped out when I heard I might lose those trees because they're very beautiful. Another aspect, Sue mentioned where we have drainage that now goes through our property. Where the road is, it's a really steep drop off and I'm not sure what the plans are there. I would really like to _ know specifically how this plan will affect my property because it's my property and any changes to it impacts me and how I think about it and how I feel about it. 40 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Scott: Good, thank you very much. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, if I could just make one point. In some projects like this which you know really impact neighborhoods and that, it's not uncommon to hold a neighborhood meeting between the applicant and the neighbors out there. Scott: Has that happened? Hempel: I believe that...from the applicant's engineer, that that would be a doable process here and maybe could shed some more light on the residents. What action will take place out there. — Scott: Okay. Does anybody else wish to speak at the public hearing with new information? Larry Wenzel: Yeah, I'm Larry Wenzel, 6900 Minnewashta Parkway. Would you put up that little drawing? The only thing that I, I have a concern where they penned in the cul-de- sac going from the west to the east and the balance of our property, the most feasible way to develop the rest of that land if it were to be developed and I'd just like to state that there might be other options other than that...I'm not sure. That leaves 2 houses to gain 5 lots which might not make an awful lot of economic sense. The City has to assess 6 lots on the — front as far as the street on Minnewashta Parkway is concerned. I don't think they could fit in there anyway but I just think that alternate concept certainly should be looked at. Scott: Okay, thank you. Anyone else? Kevin Cuddihy: I'm Kevin Cuddihy, 3900 Stratford. I'm just curious as to what's going to be submitted to the City Council. Is this plan here going to be redrawn as we see it here? Future development as compared to the one that's been up most of the evening. Primarily these three lots being pushed back. Aanenson: This is what the applicant is proposing. Part of our job is to look at the surrounding properties. As Mr. Wenzel has indicated...via a private drive. Mr. Headla who has indicated that he wants to subdivide his property in the future. We certainly recognize that someday the Hallgren property will also be subdivided. It was always intended for Stratford to go through and as it turns out now, the way it was, the easement is given to the homeowners association. In looking at this portion of the Hallgren property being a cul-de- sac possibly...We're recommending that the option, the other option with the cul-de-sac — serving the Wenzel property...probably be most desirable. We're just putting that forward as the staff's recommendation and having the option if it should develop. Whether or not the Planning Commission supports that or the City Council. Again, it depends on too, as far as — 41 — Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 what the Park Commission is recommending. We're just showing that there's a possibility that they can...more lots. You know whether that happens. Certainly this is what they understand...But right now we feel that this proposal is probably the best way to do it. This would be our, the staff's first choice. Certainly there are other options. To have this road go through. I mean you have...that's an option. That's not our desire to have a private drive. Certainly that's obviously an option or have Headla get access off of Stratford Lane and have the street be cut down instead of showing, that certainly is another option too. That wouldn't be our first choice. This would be our first choice as far as access and future development. That's what we'd be looking for this plat. Scott: Okay. Kevin Cuddihy: I'd just like to do something a little bit different and say, I think this... recommend is my first choice as well. Just speaking for 3900 Stratford. That this would be a first choice as well. Scott: Okay, thank you sir. Anyone else? Dave Headla: Dave Headla, 6870 Minnewashta Parkway. I'd like to address the two ladies and their concern about red cedars. We lost a tremendous amount in that area. We had an awful lot of them at one time. And what I'd like to see you do is just save the big cedars. They don't go. They are not going to be touched. Find another way to solve the problem. I think there's, I'm not sure of the size of some of these. I know conifers can be moved a lot easier than the cedars. I think we ought to see if we can't move the other red cedars someplace for these ladies if they so choose or be convenient for them. But I sure hate to see us lose any more trees, the red cedars. Scott: Okay, thank you sir. Anyone else? Bill Munig: Bill Munig, 6850 Stratford. I'd just like to encourage you to vote for this little amendment that they got up there to access the, I know that Mr. Headla would like to have future access to subdivide his land there and I understand it's restricted coming off of Minnewashta Parkway. Like he said, by putting that up there you're going to greatly reduce the number of triple fronted lots that would be in Stratford and over in the Hallgren property. And since I do live in one of those triple fronted lots, I'd like to vigorously encourage you to go with this plan allowing the extra cul-de-sac and moving those other 3 lots further to the north. If you vote for that, you'd be greatly enhancing my quality of life. Thank you. Scott: Okay, would any residents like to, yes sir. 42 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Harold Taylor: My name is Harold Taylor. I'm at 3861 Stratford Ridge. I think this plan is far superior to the last couple that we saw. I think most of our concerns was the traffic and the trees. I don't know anything about red cedars but if it takes 100 years to get one, it seems like it ought to be worth something. Do whatever is necessary. I guess I do have a question as far as the parks...as far as they like this plan or don't like this plan. What _ happens to the outlot as far as the beach area? What type of uses... Aanenson: That's going to all be discussed at the park meeting on May 24th. I think what _ they looked at...is that would just be maybe an area to dock boats or anything like that, just a beach area... Harold Taylor: Does the developer have a plan or has he submitted a plan? Aanenson: No, the city will take it as a park lot. So it will be in the city's. — Harold Taylor: Okay. And at that time the city will decide what type of park facilities it will have? — Aanenson: Correct. The Park Commission makes that decision. Harold Taylor: Okay, thank you very much. Allin Karels: My name is Allin Karels, 3920 Stratford. The plan that's up there, my concern would be increased traffic going down Stratford. But the plan that's there now would not feed all of the traffic through Stratford, is that my understanding? _ Aanenson: Right. Right now the only access still that would go down would be Mrs. Hallgren who still has a 33 feet right-of-way. When that property's developed, then it would touch these lots. So you'd have lots that... Allin Karels: So it wouldn't feed all 50 cars down that, from the development? Aanenson: That's not the intent, no. The intent is to go back onto Kings Way. Eventually when these streets tie up, Country Oaks Drive is going to be open to the north towards Highway 7. Allin Karels: I obviously would prefer this just to keep the traffic, the speed of traffic, which is our, which is my concern also, on Stratford. So I'd certainly be supportive of staff's suggestion. 43 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Scott: Good, thank you. Keith Bedford: Keith Bedford. I live at 3961 Stratford Ridge. The second...reflects back to what people refer to as Stratford Lane proposed. I, in visiting with Mr. Headla, understand his need for the extra 30 feet...to have them to cul-de-sac him and to have this issue settled at this time. I would be very much against any increased traffic on Stratford Lane. I think it would have a devastating affect on the marketability of those properties because they are close to Stratford Lane now. It's been reported in the City of Shorewood that each new house generates approximately 7...traffics a day. So if we have 50 lots times 7, and Stratford Lane did go through, that would be the main feeder onto Minnewashta Parkway and because of the decrease in value of those properties, I would be very much against it. Thank you. Scott: Thank you. Yes ma'am. Excuse me. Lowell Carlson: Is that, who ends up with the beach part of it on that particular? Is that part of Chanhassen? Aanenson: The City of Chanhassen. Scott: Yep, the City of Chanhassen. Yes ma'am. Janet Carlson: I'm Janet Carlson. I live at 4131 Kings Road. How many openings we were wondering into the park will there be out onto Kings Road? Aanenson: That's something for the Park Commission to decide... Janet Carlson: Okay, and those...make a comment on, as far as the upkeep on the road. We should keep track of how many times the city blades that road and how many times Lowell Carlson blades that road. You'd be amazed. We've done it 7 times this year and the city's done it once. It's a mess. Scott: Any other comments? Can I have a motion to close the public hearing please? Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Ledvina: I want to talk about trees. I understand the value of the trees and I don't know, is there a possibility that those trees can be moved? I mean if you're talking about a 100 year old tree, I would imagine so. 44 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Margie Borris: We tried to get some moved and if the truck is over 6 inches, they said it couldn't be done and they're all over 6 inches. — Ledvina: Okay. Aanenson: ...trees on the survey, it's hard to speculate on a lot of things. I think what Dave suggested is that the engineer meet on site and we certainly...tree ordinance. We try to meet on site and work out this. I think at this point, they didn't show up on the tree survey — because they weren't on their property but the trench will obviously impact that. I think that's something we'll have to meet out in the field to try to see if there's a solution. Ledvina: Do you have a recommendation on that then? Aanenson: Well that they work with the applicant's engineer to go out on the field and see — what we can do. See what the options are. Ledvina: As it relates to what we have in front of us? — Aanenson: Yes. I think the condition would be that we work to save the trees. Ledvina: Dave, is that possible given the grade that we're looking at? I mean the grade, the street grade that we have is fairly straight forward in terms of. — Hempel: The...pretty good street grade through there too. I would say it's 5 or 10...to match the contours out there. Match the existing properties. It would be helpful to see the — placement of the trees...They are north of the gravel driveway and the gravel driveway is all being disturbed as part of the new. Ledvina: So let me understand this. The trees that are going to be lost now, are they on the developer's property? Hempel: That's a question that probably should be addressed by the applicant. That can be shown on surveys. On a survey... Ledvina: Okay. I guess I see that as a very significant thing and I don't know exactly if that precludes our acting on it tonight. I can't speak for the other commissioners but-Let me take a look at some of the other things and I'll just set that aside...The Outlot A...is there a — residence on Outlot A? Or what are those? Are there buildings there? Resident: Those are...barns. Or sheds. — 45 — Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Ledvina: So there's no development that occurs whatsoever on Outlot A? Aanenson: ...engineer to save the wetland and basically we've determined that to meet...some kind of wetland setback and natural environment. Previously they had to...two lots but we always felt they were questionable... Ledvina: Okay. Well yeah, I want to say initially here that I feel the plan is much better than what we previously saw and I think the developer has tried to work with the parcel quite a bit. I understand that the residents concern with the trees and those are some things that I'm sure he is dealing with probably for the first time tonight. So but overall I like the street layout. I'd support the staff recommendation as it relates to the connection or the streets or connections with other parcels. The surface water ponding area now, this is property that's going to be owned by the developer? Is that correct? Aanenson: Well we asked that it be put in an outlot. Are you talking about on the park property? Ledvina: Right, right. Aanenson: Yeah. We'd be taking... Hempel: That's correct. Originally it was proposed as parkland. What we're saying it should be dedicated as an outlot. Ledvina: Okay. Well, the reason I ask is, this is, this looks to be a very large ponding area and I'm certainly all for having a pond that's going to work and do the job but I don't know what the total area here is that this pond will serve but it appears overly large and if that's subtracts from usable park property, I wouldn't want to see that. Because I don't know what's going to go in here but if we can make sure that what's laid out there in it's final form is reasonable and not necessarily oversized. We need it functional, yes but not oversized such that we're essentially wasting park space. Dave on condition number 16. You say that the city has allowed up to 10% street grades, etc. Consideration should be — given to Kings Road street grades in an effort to reduce impacts to the properties to the south. What are you thinking there? Are you talking about modifying the grade of Kings Road there? Hempel: Yes. That's the intent is that we would allow them to increase the street grade, if that would help reduce the impact to the properties to the south, then we would be in full support of that. 46 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Ledvina: Okay. That's the extent of my comments Mr. Chair. Scott: Okay, Ladd. Conrad: It's a far better plan than we've seen. I live it. I think the neighbors have brought _ up some valid points. There should be a neighborhood meeting. Without a doubt. The comments, the surprise. We hear that all the time and I think, the way to solve that is a neighborhood meeting. Hard to feel like you're fighting a developer with the money that they — have or stand to gain and hopefully we can bridge that little gap with a developer talking to you a little bit more. I do need a tree survey on Kings Road. Absolutely, positively. Can't review this without seeing it. It's a big deal. Hook-up costs and those other things. You've — got to follow those through. We don't do that here. Thank goodness but you can, you're going to need a variance. There's a reason for hooking up. It's a protection yet they're also, we do know that septics, that mound systems and septic systems can function very validly so, without polluting so, but the ordinance says you hook up. So you'll have to follow that through. Don't consider you telling us that tonight solves the problem. It doesn't. That's it. I think staff did a good job again and I think the developer has done some nice things. I — think it's starting to fit a little bit better. But I guess I need it back. Scott: Okay, Matt. Ledvina: Yeah, I would agree with that. I think the tree issue is very significant and I want to know what's actually coming out as a result of the road development. I want to know who owns the trees and how, if this things goes through, they'll be compensated for that if they can so. Scott: Good, Ron. Nutting: I'll echo those comments. Trees are a significant issue. Short of just putting it as part of condition 16, minimize disruption...not removing the trees. I think there's probably some issues that I've heard about who owns them so let's get it back with that. I didn't see _ the original plan. I wasn't here but I'll take the comments of the other commissioners and that it is an improvement over the past. I didn't have too much. I don't have a whole lot of other comments at this time. — Scott: Okay, good. I don't have anything to add. The other commissioners have touched upon what I'm concerned with. I would like to thank the residents for coming in, as well as the applicant. That's an important part of the process and I think that a lot of people feel that the city kind of does what they do and never tells anybody and if perhaps some of you feel that that's the case, that's certainly not the intent. But it is important that you're here and as — 47 — Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 we said, we make recommendations to the City Council. They make the final decisions. Since in my mind I believe that this property will be developed sometime and it will have an impact on your hooking up to city services, I would suggest that right now you become as familiar as possible with that ordinance. The process to get a variance and all of the City Council members have got their telephone numbers in the phone book, except for one as I recall, but you can get those from City Hall. There's nothing wrong with calling and lobbying so I'd encourage you to do that on any issue. My thoughts, I'd like to see this again. The directions are quite clear from the other commissioners so I'd like to ask for a motion please. Steve Johnston: Could I address the commission please? Scott: No. Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission table preliminary plat, Case # 93-11. Conrad: I second that. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that the issue be tabled. Is there any discussion? Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded to table action on the Preliminary Plat #93-11 for Harstad Companies. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Scott: We'd like to see this as soon as possible so it looks like June 1st. Okay, thank you all very much for coming. PUBLIC HEARING: CITY CODE SECTION 18-57, STREETS, BY AMENDING (0.) TO INCLUDE STANDARDS FOR PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS SERVING R4, R8, R12, AND R16 AND NON-RESIDENTIAL USES. Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item and stated that because of a change, the public hearing would have to be re-published. Scott: That kind of brings up an impervious surface issue. Where we get dueling ordinances. I think if we're talking about an R-12 or an R-16, so that's, if there's any direction. I just don't want to get in a situation where we're focusing on a particular issue and we kind of forget about what's going to happen with another ordinance and then we get a development and we have, and then all of a sudden the development gets held up because of you know, 48 CITY OF !' CIIA7HA! 1P.C. DATE: 6-15-94 \1 C.C.C.C. DATF• 7-11-94 CASE: 94-1 IUP ��� BY: Al-Jaff STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Interim Use Permit to provide Outdoor Storage for Commercial Dumpsters F- Z LOCATION: North and adjacent to Highway 212 and east and adjacent to Highway Q 101. Address: 10500 Great Plains Boulevard 0 JAPPLICANT : Admiral Waste Management, Inc. Mr. Patrick Blood and Ms. Nancy Lee Q. 714 West 3rd Avenue Q Shakopee, MN, MN 55379 PRESENT ZONLNG: BF, Fringe Business District ACREAGE: 13.27 acres ADJACENT ZONLNG AND LAND USE: N - A-2; large lot single family residential and abandoned Railroad Right-of-Way S - A-2; Minnesota River Valley E - BF; Vacant commercial (previously sold used cars) Q W - BF; existing Brooks Motel SEWER AND WATER: Services are not available to the site. a SITE CHARACTERISTICS: 1.1.1 The site is undeveloped and contains the footings of a demolished farm house. Vegetation is concentrated along the parameters of the site. The center of the site is void of vegetation. There is a Natural Wetland located along the south edge of the site. There is an intermittent stream located to the southeast of the site which drains into the Minnesota River Valley (Wildlife Refuge). 2000 LAND USE: Commercial Admiral Waste Management June 15, 1994 Page 2 PROPOSAL SUMMARY The applicant is requesting an Interim Use Permit to store commercial dumpsters on property zoned BF; Fringe Business District. The site is located north and adjacent to Highway 212 and east and adjacent to Highway 101. Access to the site is gained off of Hwy 101. There are no proposed structures on the site with the exception of an opaque fence proposed along the south edge of the site to provide screening for the dumpsters. Detailed plans for the fence have not been submitted. City ordinances also require that landscaping be used in conjunction with fencing. There is existing vegetation on the site; however, it does an inadequate job of screening the site from views off of Hwy 212. There are some existing violations on the site that staff discovered while visiting the site to prepare this staff report. There is a large number of tires, some furniture and appliances dumped in a drainage swale located southeast of the site. The area is shaded by trees, providing ideal mosquito breading grounds. The water flowing through this swale feeds into the Minnesota River Wildlife Refuge located south of the site and Hwy 212. Compost materials have also been dumped on the site. Commercial composting is not a permitted use in the city. The applicant shall discontinue bringing compost material to the site and clean up the existing materials dumped on the site. Staff is recommending approval of this application with conditions outlined in the staff report. BACKGROUND On February 8, 1988, the City Council approved a Conditional Use Permit for a Contractors Yard on this site. Conditional Use Permits expire within one year unless substantial work/construction has taken place on the site. The applicants had delayed their construction of the improvements due to anticipated changes in their operation specifically for recycling. On February 27, 1989, the same application appeared before the City Council for an extension. The City Council moved to deny the extension. On November 30, 1993, staff responded to a complaint regarding outdoor storage of dumpsters on the applicant's property. Staff counted approximately 50 dumpsters and noticed compost material hauled onto the site. Staff sent the applicant a letter informing them that the outdoor storage taking place on their property located at 10500 Great Plains Boulevard is illegal. We also stated that all fifty dumpsters must be removed from the site by December 17, 1993. We advised the applicants that no further dumping of compost materials be permitted, and any such materials currently located on the site must be removed. Admiral Waste Management _ June 15, 1994 Page 3 Staff, the applicant's attorney, and the city attorney began meeting to resolve this issue in December of 1993. An agreement was finally reached as shown in attachment #3. As a result of this agreement and to fulfill its conditions, the applicant is making this application. On May 5, 1994, staff visited the site again. We noticed 58 dumpsters, which we viewed as an increase to the original count. The applicant sent a letter stating that they have not added any new dumpsters. On May 19, 1994, staff visited the site and documented the serial numbers of all dumpsters on site. There was a total of 58 dumpsters. On that same day, we discovered a large number of tires. We were unable to count them. They were dumped in a drainage swale in a pile. We also discovered the furniture and appliances dumped in the same location. INTERIM USE PERMIT The applicant is requesting an Interim Use permit for the outdoor storage of commercial dumpsters. The purpose and intent of an IUP, as defined in Sec. 20-381 of the zoning ordinance, is to allow a use for a brief period of time until a permanent location is obtained or while the permanent location is under construction, and to allow a use that is presently acceptable but that with anticipated development will not be acceptable in the future. Sec. 20-383. of the Zoning Ordinance lists the following criteria for issuance standards: A. Meets the standards of a conditional use permit as outlined in section 20-232 of the City Code. The following constitutes our review of this proposal against conditional use permit standards. GENERAL ISSUANCE STANDARDS 1. Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or city. FLNDING - The site is zoned BF. The proposed use will not create any significant or unexpected impacts from this use if screened properly; no dumping of compost or miscellaneous material will occur. All dumping shall occur in the approved dumpsters only. 2. Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter. Admiral Waste Management June 15, 1994 Page 4 FINDING - The proposed use would be consistent with the City Zoning Ordinance. We will be making recommendations to address the screening of dumpsters to ensure they are not visible from Hwy 212. 3. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. FINDING - The site is located adjacent to a major highway and a collector road. It is in the Fringe Business district. The site does not have access to sewer and water, thus there are limited types of commercial uses permitted within this zone. An outdoor storage facility is fully consistent with this site as long as it is appropriately screened. 4. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. FINDING - There will be no measurable impacts to the existing or planned neighboring uses. This use will be screened from the surrounding area with the exception of the property located to the north of the site and on top of a bluff. It is impossible to screen the dumpsters from the northerly view, short of constructing a storage building and storing the dumpsters inside it. 5. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. FINDING - The site will not require sewer and water. Access to the site is gained via Hwy 101. It is capable of handling the access needs of this proposal. The applicant should obtain an access permit from MnDOT and comply with their conditions. 6. Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. FINDING - There are no projected needs for public facilities and services that staff is aware of. 7. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare Admiral Waste Management _ June 15, 1994 Page 5 because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash. FINDING - This site will not create adverse impacts to persons, property or the general welfare of the area as long as there is compliance with the conditions of approval. Hours of operation and orientation of the storage area will be regulated under the conditions of approval. We are recommending that the tires, appliances, furniture, and compost material be removed from the site. 8. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. FINDING - The site is visible from a major highway and is accessible from Hwy 101. The number of trips to the site will depend on demand for dumpsters. There will be no direct traffic impacts to any area residential neighborhood. The applicant must obtain an access permit from MnDOT and comply with their conditions. 9. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. FINDING - The development of this site will not result in the loss of any features once screening of the site is implemented properly and removal of the tires, compost materials, and appliances has taken place. 10. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area. FINDING - The applicant must provide adequate landscaping and buffering from adjoining properties to make the site compatible. 11. Will not depreciate surrounding property values. FINDING- Berming and additional landscaping of the site will be required as a condition of approval. This added element will improve the appearance _ of the area. It will not depreciate surrounding property values. 12. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article. FINDING - The following is our review of conditions of approval and appropriate findings: Admiral Waste Management June 15, 1994 Page 6 a. All outdoor storage must be completely screened with one-hundred percent opaque fence or landscaped screen. FLNDING - As a condition of approval, the applicant must submit a landscaping/ screening plan. B. Conforms to the zoning regulations, is the second issuance standard for an NP. Outdoor storage is permitted under the BF district as an Interim Use Permit. This allows the Planning Commission and City Council to attach conditions to the proposal. Sec. 20-1180 of the Zoning Ordinance addresses screening for visual impacts. Outdoor storage is required to be screened from all public views by a combination of fences, walls, earth berms, hedges or other landscaping materials. The applicant must submit a detailed screening plan for review and approval. C. The use is allowed as an interim use in the zoning district. The use is listed as an interim use in the BF district. D. The date of event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty. Staff is proposing that the use be terminated after one year of inclusion of the site within the Municipal Urban Service Area or if conditions of approval have been violated, whichever comes first. E. The use will not impose additional costs on the public if it is necessary for the public to take the property in the future. The proposed use will not impose any additional costs on the public. F. The user agrees to any conditions that the city council deems appropriate for permission of the use. The City Council can attach any conditions they deem appropriate. Based upon the foregoing findings, staff is recommending that the interim use permit be approved with appropriate conditions. Admiral Waste Management June 15, 1994 Page 7 STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1. Submit a detailed landscaping screening plan with grades showing the location of the dumpsters in relation to the proposed and existing screening materials for approval. Approved plans shall be implemented no later than September 15, 1994. 2. Hours of operation shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday only (work on Sundays and holidays not permitted). 3. There shall be no outdoor speaker system. 4. The applicant shall obtain an access permit from the Minnesota Department of Transportation and shall comply with all conditions of the permit. 5. All compost materials, tires, appliances, and furniture shall be removed from the site and disposed of properly. Removal of the materials shall be completed no later than July 15, 1994. 6. There shall be no more than 58 dumpsters stored on the site. Only dumpsters may be stored on the site. All material stored on the site shall only be located in the dumpsters. 7. There shall be a yearly review of this site to ensure compliance. 8. The use shall be terminated after one year of inclusion of the site within the Municipal Urban Service Area or if conditions of approval have been violated, whichever comes first. ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter from Sharmin Al-Jaff dated November 30, 1993. 2. Letter from William Griffith, applicant's attorney, dated January 11, 1994. 3. Agreement to suspend prosecution. 4. Letter from William Griffith, applicant's attorney, dated May 12, 1994. 5. Letter from Nancy Lee dated May 12, 1994. 6. Application submitted April 28, 1994. 7. Staff report and City Council minutes dated February 27, 1989. Dumpsters inventory on the Admiral Waste Site - 1. 34270 2. 30785 3. 28587 - 4. 30788 5. 28586 6. 30786 - 7. 32481 8. 28128 9. 25959 - 10. NO NUMBER 11. 25553 12. 27307 13. 30251 14. 39634 15. 34533 16. 39633 17. 39720 _ 18. 39381 19. 35269 20. 34535 - 21. 30295 22. 39851 23. 30249 - 24. NO NUMBER 25. 31886 26. 31632 - 27. 32550 28. 30248 29. 39382 - 30. 39660 31. 29541 32. 39632 - 33. 33462 34. 29542 35. 31885 36. 39849 37. 34106 38. 318-4 39. 34102 40. 30250 41. 30296 42. 39380 43. 341-- 44. 39850 45. 34101 46. 34534 47. NO NUMBER 48. 23648 49. NO NUMBER 50. 43031 51. 32465 52. NO NUMBER - 53. NO NUMBER 54. 25630 55. 39670 - 56. 31631 57. NO NUMBER 58. 31227 CITY TF f 115 CRANIA' SSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 • November 30, 1993 Admiral Waste Management, Inc. Attn: Mr. Patrick Blood and Ms. Nancy Lee P. O. Box 377 Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear Mr. Blood and Ms. Lee: This letter is to inform you that the outdoor storage taking place on your property located at 10500 Great Plains Boulevard is illegal. All dumpsters (approximately 50) must be removed from the site by December 17, 1993. Also, no further dumping of compost materials shall be permitted, and any such materials currently located on the site must be removed. I am enclosing a copy of the Outdoor Storage Ordinance for your information. Your anticipated cooperation is appreciated. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Sharmin Al-Jaff Planner I SA:v Enclosure pc: Paul Krauss, Planning Director Bob Zydowsky, Public Safety Officer ZONING § 20-911 b. The wood stack is not infested with rodents. c. The wood is not kept in a front yard. (6) Continued storage of boats,all-terrain vehicles and snowmobiles may be stored in the side or rear yard behind the required front setback. (7) Outside storage of tires is prohibited. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 13, 12-15-86) Sec. 20-910. Storage of recreation vehicles. Recreational vehicles may be parked or stored in a residential or agricultural district provided the following conditions are met: (1) No more than one (1) recreational vehicle may be parked or stored outside on a residential lot. Additional recreational vehicles may be kept within an enclosed structure which otherwise conforms to the zoning requirements of the district. (2) Recreational vehicles must be maintained in a clean, well-kept, operable condition. - (3) Recreational vehicles shall be mobile and shall not be permanently affixed in the ground in a manner that would prevent removal. (4) Recreational vehicles may be parked or stored only on the rear or side yard behind the required front yard setback. The parking or storage of recreational vehicles on the rear or side yard, as permitted herein, may be on surfaced or unsurfaced areas. (5) Recreational vehicles may be stored on a lot without regard to the location on the lot for the sole and express purpose of loading and unloading for a period not to exceed twenty-four(24)hours. (6) Unmounted slide-in pickup campers must be stored no higher than twenty(20)inches above the ground and must be securely supported at least at four(4)corners by solid support blocks or support mechanisms. (7) Recreational vehicles may not be occupied or used for living, sleeping or housekeep- - ing purposes,for not more than seven(7)consecutive days. (8) Except for routine maintenance or during emergency conditions when power supply is disrupted, the operation of a recreational vehicle power generator plant shall not be permitted in residential districts. Routine maintenance periods shall not exceed sixty (60) minutes per month. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 14, 12-15-86) Sec. 20-911. Accessory fuel storage tanks. An accessory fuel storage tank is permitted in any zoning district. Fuel storage tanks shall be located in the buildable area of the lot or the rear yard, subject to fire code regula- Supp.No. 5 1234.1 Q h ' � Y 1 - JAMES P.LARKIN LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY& LINDGREN, Lm. MICHAEL B.LEBARON ROBERT L.HOFFMAN GREGORY E.KORSTAD JACK F.DALY ATTORNEYS AT L A W GARY A.VAN CLEVE• D.KENNETH UNDGREN DANIEL L.BOWLES GERALD H.FRIEDEL/ TODD M.VLATKOVICH ALLAN E.MUWGAN TIMOTHY J.MdAANUS JAMES C.ERICKSONr- �; <%►Y TIMOTHY J.KEANE EDWARD J.DRISCOLL 1600 NORWEST FINANCIAL CENTER t ' ALAN M.ANDERSON GENE N.FULLER A �I ` t� DONNA L.ROBACK JOHN D.FULLMER 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH MICHAEL W.SCHLEY ROBERT E.BOYLE USA A.GRAY FRANK I.HARVEY BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55431-11941C24 i ' GARY A.RENNEKE CHARLES S.MODELL �' , '� CHRISTOPHER J.HARRISTHAL CHRISTOPHER J.DIETZEN TELEPHONE (612) 835-3800 MICHAEL A ROBERTSON JOHN R.BEATTE UNDA H.FISHER FAX(6121 896-3333BRUCE J.DOUGLAS M ;!'7Niv THOMAS P.STOLTAN C 1 �r ( ri riSHANNONK.PAR=8RIDGE WIWAM C.GRIFFITH,JR. MICHAEL C.JACKMAN JOHN J.STEFFENHAGEN JOHN E.DIEHL DANIEL W.VOSS — JON S.SWIERZEWSKi MARK A.RURIK THOMAS J.FLYNN JOHN R.HILL JAMES P.QUINN THOMAS J.SEYMOUR TODD I FREEMAN MICHAEL J.SMITH PETER K.BECK VIUS R.RIDE JEROME H.KAHNKE DWIGHT N.HOLMBO GERALD L.SECK FREDERICK K.HAUSER in _ JOHN B.LUNDQUIST MARY E.VOS DAYLE NOLAN CIUBERTD• LARRY D.MARTIN THOMAS B.HUMPHREY,JR. JANE E.BREMER JOHN A.COTTER• RENEE L.TOENGES BEATRICE A.ROTHWEILER MARCY R.KREISMAN PAUL S.PLUNKETT MARIEL E.PIILOLA ALAN L.KILDOW KATHLEEN M.NEWMAN OF COUNSEL WENDELL R.ANDERSON JOSEPH GITIS •ALSO ADMITTED IN WISCONSIN January 11 , 1994 Mr. Roger Knutson City Attorney VIA FACSIMILE — Campbell , Knutson, Scott & Fuchs AND U.S. MAIL 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, Minnesota 55121 Ms . Sharmin Al-Jaff City of Chanhassen VIA FACSIMILE P.O. Box 147 AND U.S. MAIL 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RE: Response of Admiral Waste Management, Inc . , Regarding Use of Property at 10500 Great Plains Boulevard, Chanhassen, Minnesota Our File No: 18737-00 Dear Mr. Knutson and Ms . Al-Jaff: We represent Admiral Waste Management, Inc. (Admiral Waste) , the owner of the above-referenced property in the City of Chanhassen (the Property) . As we discussed in our meeting with you on December 14, 1993 , we have reviewed the record, City Code, and applicable law to prepare a response on behalf of Admiral Waste. Based upon our review, we are of the opinion that our client has certain property rights to use the Property for outside storage. However, the owners of Admiral Waste have indicated that they would like to work with the City of Chanhassen (the City) to resolve the long-term use of the Property consistent with City Code. It is the experience of Admiral Waste that under the current Business Fringe (BF) zoning of the Property, there is little or no reasonable use to which the Property can be put. Therefore, either the current use must be continued or a new use allowed. LARHIN, HOFFMAN, DAL,Y& LINDGREN, LTD. Mr. Roger Knutson - Ms . Sharmin Al-Jaff January 11, 1994 Page 2 FACTUAL BACKGROUND On October 20 , 1987, City Planner, Barbara Dacy, provided the - following response to the owners of Admiral Waste: You asked me whether or not six empty trash dumpsters could be stored on your property on a temporary basis until conclusion of the conditional use permit process for a contractor' s yard. This is to confirm that you may store no more than six dumpsters on your property if the following conditions are met : 1 . The dumpsters shall be clean and shall not contain refuse . 2 . You must complete the conditional use permit process prior to July 1, 1988 . 3 . The dumpsters must be stored inside a building or completely screened from view from abutting streets (TH 101 and TH 212) . On December 28, 1987, Admiral Waste made application to the City for approval of a conditional use permit for use of the property as a contractor' s yard as then allowed in the BF zoning district . In that application the owner stated: "We would presently like to use the property as is . " City staff prepared a staff report dated January 20 , - 1988 , recommending approval of a conditional use permit for a contractor' s yard. The staff report described the request as "a conditional use permit approval for operation of a contractor' s yard - on 13 acres of property located adjacent to TH 101 and TH 212 . =e applicant proposes to store garbage trucks and dumpsters on site and have a small office area for dispatch purposes. Admiral Waste serves cities in the southwest area. " The Chanhassen City Code defines a contractor' s yard to mean: [A] ny area or use of land where vehicles, equipment, and/or construction materials and supplies commonly used by building, excavation, roadway construction, landscaping, and similar contractors are stored or serviced. A contractor' s yard includes both areas of outside storage and areas confined LARKIN, HoFFMAN, DALY& LINDGREN, LTD. Mr. Roger Knutson Ms . Sharmin Al-Jaff January 11, 1994 Page 3 within a completely enclosed building used in conjunction with a contractor' s business . Chanhassen City Code, § 20- 1 (emphasis added) . The dumpsters located on the Property have been described as "outside storage" by City staff and are equipment generally used by construction contractors . On February 8, 1988 , the Chanhassen City Council approved a conditional use permit for a contractor' s yard on 13 acres and a wetland alteration permit to construct within 200 feet of a Class A wetland. On February 27 , 1989 , the Chanhassen City Council considered and denied a request by Admiral Waste for an extension of the conditional use permit for a contractor ' s yard. The staff report dated February 1, 1989 , notes : The applicants have submitted a letter requesting a one year extension on the conditional use permit for a contractor' s yard located at the northeast corner of TH 212 and TH 101 . This permit was issued last February, 1988 . The applicants had delayed construction of the improvements due to anticipated changes in their operation specifically for recycling. The minutes of the City Council meeting dated February 27 , 1989 , note that staff stated that "the conditional use permit had a one year limitation to put in the improvements and none of those improvements have been done on the property. " However, review of the conditional use permit indicates no such restriction. (See conditional use permit dated February 8 , 1998, and filed of record as Document No. 95439 , on April 26, 1988 . ) On November 30, 1993 , City Planner Sharmin Al-Jaff sent a letter to Admiral Waste which contained the following statement : This letter is to inform you that the outdoor storage taking place on your property located at 10500 Great Plains Boulevard is illegal . All dumpsters (approximately 50) must be removed from the site by December 17, 1993 . Also, no further dumping of compost material shall be permitted, and any such materials currently located on this site must be removed. LARIGN, HOFFMAN, DALY& LINDGREN, LTD. Mr. Roger Knutson - Ms . Sharmin Al-Jaff January 11, 1994 Page 4 DISCUSSION A. Admiral Waste ' s Use of the Property Is Consistent With the Conditional Use Permit Granted on February 8, 1988 . The City has no authority to terminate the conditional use permit granted to Admiral Waste, and thus, no basis to prohibit uses allowed under it . Section 462 .3595, relating to conditional use permits, is part of the municipal land use planning authority found in §§ 462 . 351 to 462 . 365 . This statute confers, in express terms, authority which, prior to its enactment in 1982 , was found to be implicit in § 462 . 357, subd. 1 . See Zylka v. City of Crystal, 167 N.W.2d 45 (Minn. 1969) , which also discussed this kind of planning device: Provisions such as the one contained in defendant city' s ordinance providing for special use permits, sometimes called "special exception permits" or "conditional use permits, " were introduced in the zoning ordinances as flexibility devices . They are designed to meet the problem which arises where certain uses, although generally compatible with the basic use classification of a particular zone, should not be permitted to be located as a matter of right in every area included within the zone because of hazards inherent in the use itself or special problems which its proposed location may present. By this device, certain uses (e.g. gasoline service stations, electric substations, hospitals, schools, churches, country clubs, and the like) which may be considered essentially desirable to the community, but which would not be authorized generally in a particular zone because of considerations such as current and anticipated _ traffic congestion, population density, noise, effect on adjoining land values, or other considerations involving public health, safety, or general welfare, may be permitted upon a proposed site depending upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case. _. Id. at 48-49 (footnote omitted) . Consistent with the foregoing description of this planning device, § 462 . 3595 provides for the designation of certain land uses as conditional uses which may be approved by a showing that the standards LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY& LINDGREN, LTD. Mr. Roger Knutson Ms . Sharmin Al-Jaff January 11, 1994 Page 5 and criteria stated in the ordinance will be satisfied (subdivision 1) and, further, that a permit for such a use shall remain in effect so long as the conditions agreed upon are observed (subdivision 3) . It seems clear that an ordinance which would allow a municipality to terminate such a permit regardless of whether or not the conditions agreed upon were observed would be in direct conflict with the statute and, as such, beyond the power of the municipality to enact or enforce. Moreover, it would sanction a procedure tantamount to the arbitrary denial of permits referred to in Zylka: While the administrating body, be it the council itself or a planning commission to which power to act is delegated, has broad discretionary power to deny an application for a special use permit, it cannot do so arbitrarily. A denial would be arbitrary, for example, if it was established that all of the standards specified by the ordinance as a condition to granting the permit have been met . Id. at 49 (footnote omitted) . It appears from the record of the City Council meeting of February 27, 1989 that the City Council simply changed its mind and did not want the use to continue. For instance, Councilman Johnson stated, "I think we made a mistake a year ago by calling this a contractor' s yard. " Once a use is legally established, such as outdoor storage of contractor' s equipment, it is the essence of arbitrary action to attempt to remove it or prohibit it. Even a nonconforming use has the right to continue until destroyed or removed by the property owner. Courts have rejected time limitations in the issuance of conditional use permits . The "conditions upon which the permits may be issued are to be tied to the ' standards and criteria' set forth in the ordinance. The time limitations do not fall within the attendant scope of the ' standards and criteria' to which the statute eludes . " See, for instance, Scott v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, Etc. , 451 N.Y.S .2d 499 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982) . That terminology refers, instead, to the norms laid down by the ordinance to assure that particular uses will not be detrimental to public health, safety or general welfare in the areas in which they are allowed. So long as the considerations are satisfied, the permit must , by the terms of the statute, remain in effect and cannot be issued for limited duration. 59a-32 Op. Att 'y Gen. 9 (1990) . See 3 Anderson, American Law of Zoning and Planning, § 15 . 31, p. 161 (a town board may not impose conditions unrelated to the use of the land) . Moreover, where the legislature has intended to authorize the issuance of time limited use permits, it has made that LARHIN, HOFFMAN, DALY& LINDGREN, LTD. Mr. Roger Knutson - Ms. Sharmin Al-Jaff January 11, 1994 Page 6 intent quite clear. See Minn. Stat. § 462 .3597 relating to interim uses which allows a temporary use of property until a particular date or occurrence . This conclusion is consistent with conditional use - permit cases . The court in Dege v. City of Maplewood, 416 N.W. 2d 854 , 855-56 (Minn. Ct . App. 1987) held that a conditional use permit remains in effect until its provisions are violated. The court in State Ex Rel Neighbors Orq. , Etc. , v. Dotty, 396 N.W.2d 55, 59 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986) , held likewise (a conditional use permit continues until its provisions are violated) . See also Scott County Lumber v. City of Shakopee, 417 N.W.2d 721, 727 (Minn. Ct . App. 1988) . - Both courts were careful to distinguish a conditional use permit from a business license. Deqe pointed out that a permit is not a personal license, but attaches and runs with the land. Dege, 416 N.W.2d _ at 856 . The Dotty court held similarly (zoning imposes restrictions on the use of the land itself which attach to and run with the land) . Dotty, 396 N.W. 2d at 59 . This is significant because a city can use a business license to regulate and control a company, and therefore can - choose not to renew a business license. Rose Cliff Landscape Nursery v. Rosemount, 467 N.W.2d 641, 643 (Minn. Ct . App. 1991) . Conversely, a city cannot legislate a business out of existence through a change - in zoning ordinances, Apple Valley Red-E Mix v. City of St . Louis Park, 359 N.W. 2d 313 (Minn. Ct . App. 1984) , and uses existing at the time of the adverse zoning change must be permitted to remain or be eliminated by eminent domain. Hopper v. City of St . Paul, 353 N.W.2d 139 , 140 (Minn. 1984) . Thus, by analogy, if the City cannot eliminate a business which was a conforming use prior to the adverse zone change, it cannot eliminate a business by terminating its conditional - use permit when the conditions agreed upon are being observed. The issue at hand is whether Admiral Waste began using the Property as a contractor ' s yard consistent with the conditional use permit issued by the City. As stated, Admiral Waste began storing empty dumpsters on the property soon after it received permission to do so by letter dated October 20, 1987. Its application two months later indicated - that, " [w] e would presently like to use the property as is . . . " (i.e. , to store empty dumpsters) . The staff report, dated February 20, 1988 , states that the applicant proposes to store "garbage trucks and - dumpsters on site . . . . " Finally, the conditional use for a contractor' s yard includes both "areas of outdoor storage and areas confined within a completely enclosed building . . . . " City Code, § 20-1. It is our strong opinion, based upon review of the record and the City Code, that Admiral Waste has been using the Property consistent with - the conditional use permit since it was issued February 8, 1988 . The LARKIN, HOFFMAN 1)ALY & LINDGREN, LTD. Mr. Roger Knutson Ms . Sharmin Al-Jaff January 11, 1994 Page 7 conditional use permit contains 28 conditions to which the permit is subject . A close review of the conditions indicates that most, if not all , of the conditions relate to construction of a building or related improvements . However, none of the conditions prohibit use of the Property for outdoor storage. Further, the permit does not require construction of the building or provide for expiration within one year if the improvements are not constructed. Therefore, use of the Property for outdoor storage of dumpsters is not in violation of the permit nor is it inconsistent with the permit . City Code § 20-236 provides : If substantial construction has not taken place within one (1) year of the day on which the conditional use permit was granted, the permit is void except that, on application, the counsel , after receiving recommendation from the Planning Commission, may extend the permit for such additional period as it deems - appropriate . If the conditional use is discontinued for six (6) months , the conditional use permit shall become void. This provision of City Code would apply if in fact substantial construction were required to use the Property consistent with the conditional use permit . However, as we have stated, the Property has been used consistent with the permit since it was issued, notwithstanding the fact that the building construction did not occur. It is clear that there are a number of land uses permitted by the City Code which do not require the construction of specific building improvements (e.g. , agricultural use, public parks and open spaces, certain home occupations, recreational facilities, outdoor storage, utility services , garden centers, outdoor display of merchandise for sale, communication towers, contracting yards, lumber yards, and related uses) . In short, Admiral Waste is using the Property as allowed by the conditional use permit. B. The Business Fringe District Is Unduly Restrictive Because It Contains No Permitted Uses . It is our contention that the City' s BF zoning district is invalid because it is unduly restrictive. State courts may hold a zoning restriction invalid as a matter of substantive due process when it is found to be unduly restrictive or excessive in view of its purpose, or when the regulatory burden imposed on an owner far outweighs any possible public benefit involved. 1 Rathkopf, The Law of Zoning and Planning, § 3 . 04, p. 3-22 . State courts, either explicitly or implicitly, tend to hold that due process requires some "real and LAR IN, HOFFMAN, DALY& LINDGREN, LTD. Mr. Roger Knutson Ms . Sharmin Al-Jaff January 11, 1994 Page 8 substantial relationship" to a legitimate public purpose for regulation to be valid. While in theory this due process standard is similar to the "minimum rationality" test, in its actual application - state courts tend to give less deference to legislative judgment and hold invalid zoning restrictions only tangentially related to the public welfare or found to be unduly oppressive, fundamentally unfair, or over-inclusive or under-inclusive in their impact . See Girvan v. County of LeSuer, 232 N.W. 2d 888 (Minn. 1975) . A number of state courts have applied an "unduly restrictive or excessive" test in analyzing the due process validity of zoning restrictions . See, e.g. , Hitchman v. Township of Oakland, 45 N.W.2d 306 (Mich. 1951) (minimum lot size requirements excessive in view of _ purpose to be furthered) ; State v. Baker, 405 A.2d 368 (N.J. 1979) (local regulation could be less intrusive and still accomplish purpose of protecting family charter or neighborhood) ; MacNeil v. Town of Avon, 435 N. E. 2d 1043 (Mass. 1982) (zoning ordinance may be held unreasonable as applied when due to peculiarities of parcel, its application is unnecessary to accomplish public purpose for regulation) ; Sheerr v. Evesham Township, 445 A.2d 46 (N.J. 1982) - (zoning ordinance may be held excessive and unreasonable in view of its purpose) ; and Cast v. Zoning Hearing Bd. , 453 A.2d 69 (Penn. 1982) (zoning ordinance may be held unreasonable and invalid if severity of impact on owner is not justified by regulatory purpose) . As stated by the Superior Court of New Jersey in J.D. Constr. Corp. v. Board of Adjustment , 290 A.2d 452, 455 (N.J. 1972) (emphasis added) : Substantive due process demands that zoning powers, like all police power, must be reasonably exercised. A zoning regulation must not be unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious . The means selected must have a real and substantial relation to the object sought to be obtained. The regulation must be reasonably calculated to meet the evil and not exceed the public need or substantially effect uses which do not have the offensive character - of those which have caused the problem sought to be ameliorated. The regulation must not impress unnecessary and excessive restrictions on the use of private property [citations omitted) . The Chanhassen City Code contains 15 general zoning districts . Each and every district, except the BF district, contains a listing of "permitted uses . " Under the law of zoning, permitted uses are those uses that are allowed as a matter of right, subject only to site plan - review. This is consistent with the description of conditional uses LARHIN, HOFFMAN, DALY& LINDGREN, LTD. Mr. Roger Knutson Ms . Sharmin Al-Jaff January 11, 1994 Page 9 found in the landmark case of Zylka v. City of Crystal, 167 N.W.2d 45 (Minn. 1969) . (See supra . . . although generally compatible with the basic use classification of a particular zone, should not be permitted to be located as a matter of right in every area included within the zone because of hazards inherent in the use itself or special problems which its proposed location may present . Id. at 48-49 . ) This description of conditional uses necessarily implies that there will be certain uses "permitted to be located as a matter of right" in every zoning district . Minnesota courts have acknowledged that zoning is in derogation of property rights and should, therefore, be strictly construed in favor of the property owner. See Frank' s Nursery, Inc . v. City of Roseville, 295 N.W.2d 604 (Minn. 1980) . It is a fundamental construction of zoning law that every parcel of property will have some use to which it can be put as a matter of right . That is not the case in the BF zoning district . The provisions of the BF district are "unduly restrictive" because they allow no permitted uses, and provide only a narrow list of conditional uses . Our client purchased the property to be used consistent with the BF zoning district and applied for a conditional use permit in 1987 . Admiral Waste spent money on consultant fees, survey work, and time and effort in the City approval process . Again, the next year Admiral Waste spent time, effort, and money in attempting to obtain City Council approval for extension of the conditional use permit, which we now believe was unnecessary. Admiral Waste continues to pay property taxes on the Property, and maintains the Property. The unduly restrictive nature of the BF zoning district along with the City Council reversal has worked an unreasonable hardship on Admiral Waste leaving the property owners little or no reasonable use of the Property. CONCLUSION Admiral Waste has made a considerable investment in the City approval process to use its Property consistent with the City Code. It has been using its property since 1988 consistent with the conditional use permit issued by the City. Outdoor storage of dumpsters is within the definition of a "contractor' s yard" which is the allowed use of the Property under the conditional use permit. Nothing contained in the permit requires the construction of buildings on the Property or causes the permit to expire if buildings are not constructed. Further, the lack of permitted uses in the BF district is unduly restrictive and works an unreasonable hardship on the Property owners because it leaves little or no reasonable use of the Property. Finally, as a result of the 1989 City Council reversal, Admiral Waste lost out to other companies in early establishment of recycling LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY& LINDGREN, LTD. Mr. Roger Knutson Ms . Sharmin Al-Jaff January 11, 1994 Page 10 services . This resulted in substantial lost profits for Admiral Waste. — Having set out our client ' s legal position, we would strongly encourage discussion with the City staff regarding the appropriate long-term use of the Property, possible rezoning, or other remedies which would render the Property usable. Please call me so we can begin these discussions . Sincerely, William C. Griffith, Jr. , for LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd. cc : Nancy Lee Patrick Blood Don Ashworth Paul Krauss Bob Zydowski WCG:CA5a STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF CARVER FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT CASE TYPE: Criminal Court File No. State of Minnesota (City of Chanhassen) , Plaintiff, vs. AGREEMENT TO SUSPEND PROSECUTION Admiral Waste, Inc. , Defendant. Pursuant to Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 27 . 05, the State agrees to suspend prosecution of this case until March 20, 1995, or until such earlier time as this agreement is terminated under Subdivision 4 of said Rule. In consideration of this suspension, defendant hereby waives the right to speedy trial and further agrees to comply fully with the following conditions during the period prosecution is suspended: 1. Defendant must begin removing containers from 10500 Great Plains Boulevard, Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota ("Subject Property" ) by April 15, 1994 . 2 . Defendant agrees to remove the containers which are most visible from Highway 212 first. The most visible containers are in the row furthest from Highway 212 , and on the eastern end of the row. 3 . All containers must be completely removed from the Subject Property by July 31, 1994 , except as allowed in §7 of this Agreement. 4 . Defendant may apply for an Interim Use Permit ("IUP") to allow containers to remain on the Subject Property. The City will use its best efforts to process the application as quickly as possible. 5. If Defendant applies for an IUP by May 1, 1994 , the Defendant may continue to store up to ten (10) containers on the Subject Property after July 31, 1994 . 6 . If an IUP is granted, continued storage of containers on the Subject Property will be allowed only as provided in the IUP. 7 . If Defendant files an application for an IUP by May 1, 1994 , and the City Council has not rendered a final decision on the application by July 31, 1994, then up to ten (10) containers 13389 may remain on the Subject Property until the City Council renders its final decision. 8 . If Defendant's application is denied before June 30, 1994 , Defendant must completely remove all containers from the Subject Property by July 31, 1994 . 9 . If Defendant's application is denied after June 30, 1994 , Defendant must completely remove all containers from the Subject Property within thirty (30) days of the City Council meeting at which the final decision was made. Dated: � �� DEFENDANT: Admiral Waste, Inc. By: Nancy L e By: Patrick Blood Its c).��� °� Dated: ,� LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. BY: /,l'/ a / " -/4;,/;r_ W*11-fah C. Griffith, Jr. Attorneys for Defendant 1500 Norwest Financial Center 7900 Xerxes Avenue South Bloomington, MN 55431 (612) 835-3800 Attorney ID No. 193343 Dated: oetA44, liglf CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUC P.A. By: Elliott B. Kn=, h Prosecuting A ney 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, MN 55121 (612) 452-5000 Attorney ID No. 168130 13389 05/16,'94 13:34 '8`612 452 5550 CAMPBELL R'N'L'TS01 44-) CSAN. :1f7-t OUit003 SJi3/q JAMESP.LARKN LAR.LILN, HOFFMAN, DALY& LINDGREN, LTD. DANIEL. >)IOWLEF ROBER•L.HOFFMAN TIMOTHY J.MrMANUG D.KENNETLY ATTORNEYS AT LAW TIMOTHY D.KENNITM LNDGREN OEAAL.D H.FAIEDE:L A4AN M.ANDERSON AL:MI E MU;LCAN DONNA L.ROIAGK MICMAC,W.$RLEY J AMES G.ERIOKBON URA A.GRAY GENECOLVN. J D.T'uCOLL 1600 NORWEST FINANCIAL CENTER GARY A.REMAKE GENE 0 FULL.M CMPOSTDFHER J.HMRIITHAL — ROBE T. .SOY ER 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH MICMAC.A.ROYERTEON PRANK E.IOYLE BRUCE J.DOVGLAs HANK 1.NARYEY BLOOMINGTON,MINNESOTA 66431.1194 SHANNON K.MRCAMMRDCE CHEIET0HAR=W MODELL WILIJAM C.CR'FFITH,JR. CHRIEk IEC"I DIErzEI'I TELEPHONE 1131211336-31300 E JCra J,RTEEFcEN.ADEN wo A. P ER FAX 1812)868.3333 DANIEL W.VOcz JOHN R.HILL c TNOM►S SptTMAN MISR J.COYLE MICHAEL C.JACKMNJ MICHAEL J.7MiTM JOHN E.D:EHL VILA R.INDE THOMAS F ▪ '.,SWIWTWSRI DwIGHT N.HC UMBO T OJ. LYNN ANF.►CRRIN JAMES F.DUMI AN M.MEYER TODD 1.FREEMAN PETER c..CCK .K FREDERICK HAUSER u: J EROME H. LARRY D.MARTIN• L. MARY E.K K.RECK JANE E.BREMER JOHN I.LVNCOUKT RENEE L.TOENGEF DAYLE NOLAN• MARCY N.KREIBMAN THOMAS I.rTP•HUMPHREY.JR. MAMCL E.FRLOLA JOHN A.GOTTENDAMON E.tGHRA NA MANIC(A.ROTMwE1LER STEPHEN J.KAMN9KI PAUL R.ILUNKETT ALAN L KILDOW OFCOMBEL KATHLEEN M.NEWMAN WENDC.I R.ANDERSON MI_nACL I.LEBARON OTSU: GREGORY E.KCE MARE TAD MARK A.MAW GARY A.VAN CLEVE' 'ALSO AOMETTED a W gCONNR+— May 12, 1994 Elliott B. Knetsch, Esq. -` Campbell , Knutson, Scott & Fuchs, P.A. VIA FACSIMILE 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve — Eagan, MN 55121 RE: City of Chanhassen v Admiral Waste, Inc. Our File No. 18, 737-02 Dear Elliott: I have enclosed a letter from Nancy Lee to me regarding City staff 's suggestion that the number of containers has increased since the November 30, 1993, notice letter to Admiral Waste Management, Inc. Ms. Lee is unequivocal in her statement that no containers have been added and, in fact, at least two have been removed since that date. As you noted, Ms. Al-Jaf 's letter of November 30, 1993, identified — "approximately 50" dumpsters on the property. It is certainly possible that there has been some confusion in her initial and subsequent counts of the containers . — In any case, our client remains committed to fulfilling its agreement with the City regarding the containers. I hope this resolves this issue. — S -r-ly, W 1 ' -• C. Griffith, Jr. , for LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd. WCG:PG9s Enclosure cc: Nancy Lee — JAMES P.LARKIN LARKIN, HOFFMA1`I DALY& LINDGREN, LTD. DANIEL L.BOWLES — ROBERT L.HOFFMAN TIMOTHY J.MEMANUS JACK F.DALY ATTORNEYS A T L O W ALAN TIMOTHY J.KEANE D.KENNETH NDGREN ALAN M.ANDERSON DLI GERALD H.FRIEDELL DONNA L.RORACK ALLAN E MUWGAN MICHAEL W.SCHLEY JAMES C.ERICKSON USA A.GRAY EDWARD J.DRISCOLL 1500 NORWEST FINANCIAL CENTER GARY A.RENNEKE GENE N.FULLER CHRISTOPHER J.HARRISTHAL JOHN D.FULLMER 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH MICHAEL A.ROBERTSON ROBERT E.BOYLE BRUCE J.DOUGLAS FRANK I.HARVEY BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55431-1194 SHANNON K.McCN.IBRIDGE CHARLES S MODELL WILUAM C.GRIFFITH,JR. CHRISTOPHER J.DIETZEN TELEPHONE (812) 635.3600 JOHN J.STEFFENHAGEN JOHN R.BEATTIE DANIEL W.VOSS LINDA H.FISHER FAX (612) 896-3333 JOHN R.HILL THOMAS P.STOLTMAN PETER J.J SMI MICHAEL C.JACKMAN MICHAEL .{1.1TH JOHN E.DIEHL JON S.SWIERZEWSKI VILA R.INDE DWIGHT N.HOLMBO THOMAS J.FLYNN ANDREW F.PERRIN JAMES P.QUINN ANN M.MEYER TODD I.FREEMAN FREDERICK K.HAUSER III PETER K.BECK MARY E.VOS JEROME H.KAHNKE LARRY D.MARTN GERALD L.BECK JOHN B.LUNDOWST JANE E.BREMER LIENEE L TDENGES DAYLE NOLAN• MARCY R.KREISMAN THOMAS B.HUMPHREY,JR. MARIEL E.►IILOLA JOHN A.COTTER• DAMON E.SCHRAMM BEATRICE A.ROTHWEILER PAUL B.PLUNKETT STEPHEN J.KAMINSKI ALAN L.KILDOW OF COUNSEL KATHLEEN M.NEWMAN WENOELL R.ANDERSON MICHAEL B LEBARON GREGORY E.KORSTAD JOSEPH GITIS GARY A.VAN CLEVE• MARK A.RURIK •ALSO ADMITTED IN WISCONSIN April 29 , 1994 Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I - City of Chanhassen HAND DELIVERED City Hall - PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317-0147 RE: Interim Use Permit (IUP) of Admiral Waste Management to Allow Screened Outdoor Storage in the BF Zoning District for Property Located at 10500 Great Plains Blvd, Chanhassen, MN Our File No. 16, 737-02 Dear Ms . Al-Jaff : Enclosed please find the above-referenced application for an IUP pursuant to Section 20-775 (3) regarding screened outdoor storage and interim use in the BF District. This submittal is in satisfaction of paragraph 5 of that certain Agreement to Suspend Prosecution dated March 30, 1994 . Accordingly, we enclose the following materials provided by Admiral Waste Management (the Property Owner) : 1. Completed Application form. - 2 . Application fee in the amount of $400 . 00 . 3 . Evidence of ownership or interest in property. 4 . Location map, including the area immediately adjacent to the subject property. - 5 . List of property owners and addresses within 500 feet of the property boundary. - 6. Property survey and reductions indicating the location of required screening in the form of an opaque fence. LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY& LINDGREN, LTD. Sharmin Al-Jaff April 29 , 1994 Page 2 I have confirmed our proposed submittal with Elliott Knetsch. If you have any questions regarding this submittal, please call me or Nancy Lee at 496-3053 . Thank you for your assistance in processing this matter. Sincerely, • William C. Griffith, Jr. , for LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd. WCG: PB8sg Enclosures cc: Nancy Lee Patrick Blood Elliott Knetsch, Esq. 05.16.94 13:35 'x`612 452 5550 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 444 CHAN. CITY HALL Q003%003 ”/Ii/g4 10:56 $ 612 496 0107 ADMIRAL WASTE P.e2 5- ADMIRAL - ADMIF:AL WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC. P.D. iux 377 Shakopee, MN. 553799 496-3053 May 12, 1994 Bill Griffith Larkin, Hoffman. Daly !. Lindgren! LTD. 1500 Narwemt Financial Center 7900 Xerxes Avenue South HIonmir►gtc.n, MN. 55432 Bill Griffith, You have advised us that City of Chanhassen staff has counted 58 containers on our property in Chanhassen and has stated that this ;.:> an increase in the number first identified in November '993. This letter is tr, advises you that wee have not placed any new containers c.n the property since we received notice from the City 1at;t year . In fact, at least two containers have been removed since that time. We have made an agreement with the City and plan to adhere to it . 5i rtcere'ely. Nancy Lee --� Vice President CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: k"'a,-cx..xcl cs�o d A��1C`l � OWNER: % cf\ ADDRESS: -1 l� ADDRESS: t�KC P1=E. 111ti . es TELEPHONE (Day time) AC ( TELEPHONE: 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW/Easements 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance 3. Grading'Excavation Permit 13. Wetland Alteration Permit 4. / Interim Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal 5. Planned Unit Development 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. Rezoning 7. Sign Permits 8. Sign Plan Review Notffication Signs 9. Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost" $100 CUP/SPRNACNAPJWAP $400 Minor SUB/Metes & Bounds 10. Subdivision TOTAL FEE $ 4Cc 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 submttted. 81/2" 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. " Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract PROJECT NAME LOCATION \C 5 P,-At iys awn LEGAL DESCRIPTION SES-3(n - 1c)ACAS Cocom Lc i SL�V - - -uJ - 4- _ tJ _‘-{ C" TAT int _ At rprIrm k/4 Cc? SCOT T4 S OtJ t T O F \.L) PRESENT ZONING 3F -ICZ— REQUESTED ZONING PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION - REASON FOR THIS REQUEST i£��`�j�l i�1c. SU��G ��-►-C :SCS f�G� �� C� x-75 (4 Mlf5=F1 - This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly 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 I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying 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 agreenv.-1), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further 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. 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 approval/permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's - Office and the original document returned to City Hall Records. Signature of ApplicarL Date Signature of Fee Owner Date Application Received on Fee Paid Receipt No. The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. t 1 690 COULTER DR.•P.O.BOX 147 RECEIPT CITY OF CSANHASSEN HONE:(612)937-19N0.055317 h... 49060 • t , ,1r� .,, 1--LATE V/�� RECEIVED OF f--eine uL.4 (�1 • 1--L its C .h ATE �j — / DESCRIPTION PERM/LIC. AMOUNT FUND SOURCE OBJ. PROG. 1 1 l /,/i,'/S/J�� � CHECK% CASH❑ TOTAL AMOUNT !" �00 DEPUTY TREASURER r - • C klb Post-tt=brand tax transmittal memo 7671 l'or pages. - -_ - �� {� POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE Phone a Fax?, _ ?37- 63'72_ POLICY NUMBER 4~ _-- 442-053373 SCHEDULE A 5 Amount of Insurance: : Filet), CT-644 - ig. Pieuiium: Dare of Policy: October 7, 1987 at 2:30 p.m. g1. Name of Insured= 'Xii! State Bank of Chanhassen , its successors and/or assigns. 11! a — 2. The estate or interest in the land described in this Schedule ald white is encumbered by the insured mortgage is IE fee simple and is at Date of Policy vened in.: - gPatrick Blood and Nancy Lee. i;' rm 3. The rrortg~ge,herein referred to as the insured mortgage, and the assignments thereof,if any, are described as fuIloas: 1r �/ j. . Mortgage, dated October 6 , 1987, filed October 7 , 1987 as Document No. — k 90803 made by Patrick W. Blood and Nancy J. Lee, es single persons to I?, State Bank of Chanhassen, to secure 1 , - IE; 1y — 4_ The land referred to in this policy is described as set forth in the insured mortgage, is situated in the County of (_! � ; Scott , State of Minnesota and is idcntii �ti - . as follows= `ted is — c: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof. f� I: �. — ti• it r; . !Ii Countersigned: I' Ahtho - Officer or Agent - — _ :=--:_._— =. _ _ PA 1 ± .r r�As,.,,uco t our Pa-,- 1.10111i iotrn rna loinf.0 ORIGINAL • - -- jOrVTh6NWEALTH - IAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY ARG obi G:in-ww File No. CT-644 Policy No. 817-645342 EXHIBIT "A" continued And EXCEPT that part of said Government Lot 4 lying easterly of the following described line: Commencing at the West Quarter corner of said section ; thence South along an extension of the west line of said Government Lot 4 , a distance of 14. 65 feet ; thence northeasterly deflecting to the left 106°21 ' 30" , a distance of 1487 . 40 feet to the actual point of beginning of the line to be described; thence northwesterly deflecting to the left 89'15 ' to the south line of said Chicago and North Western Railway Company and said line there terminating. • —I • • COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY ARgianceGrouptkAingsCompany File No. CT-644 Policy No. 817-645342 EXHIBIT "A" continued And EXCEPT that part of said Government Lot 4 lying easterly of the following described line: Commencing at the West Quarter corner of said secticn ; thence South along an extension of the west line of said Government Lot 4, a distance of 14.65 feet ; thence northeasterly deflecting to the left 106°21 ' 30", a distance of 1487 . 40 feet to the actual point of beginning of the line to be described; thence northwesterly deflecting to the left 89' 15' to the south line of said Chicago and North Western Railway Company and said line there terminating . • • • • ---•• •—• .eoNTINuwrort-a PART) "Ct/`tnf6F • t ,41., ACD t✓ � i L' t tA. - .ki u, "* —/ I lot = ' ' �St.": (1~ r a . • 1,10 '( FAR�y 0.* s . i 01A ti.w 1 h. Rift R77 t • v "„ ,*- - ?.0 ' . 0 ;• le4 . 0; G :. 0 . • !; ,, •,, CHANHASSI N \ I 1980 POP 6,354 s+ 111• — , ti iiiii*** 4 .it A , 0, ..ti tII� SCOTT li / Ail 444. GI� 41-- t 111!1 apt — . .,may., i` �/ 011 i ' , ` 9r Court10.1 wow q. . _• . ��, r."- ..../114,,ortriklICLI rIA-acia0 : _T-.:_zt:4;:;-.---,- -_iso- ta , !i,i%4 )1-. : . .. :,, •si: • 10 ---', , . 11101111110112 .1 0- ( . Jig lelati 791110315 1 A. \IWI ft* .ft /' gooIii �� ...:•,.,-.."-',A.`,. /// f aillifi StAiEa) i 0tilslitril •- /..1 egillidlEg WV117901 IIP 11E10-t... w um /4 1:3 . ..... dillifirilti! ' 0 „ 1f ,`n L Daus E; / illAt SME. 43. ISO. it. �•� - 3 �� +ti AVE. Ili.- A E NOTICE OF PUBLIC wocFgridmit� HEARING ``- PLANNING COMMISSION /VW MEETING = - �_�? �� -(\I' Wednesday, JUNE 15, 1994 r ,.� ��.1� at 7:30 p.m. IIIL r A \------i�` —(l \; : City Hall Council Chambers j 690 Coulter Drive f`;1 I Project: Interim Use Permit Developer: Admiral Waste Management t �c Gs .9 cli _ Location: 10500 Great Plains Blvd. T 1 F 4. — Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicant is requesting an interim use permit to allow screened outdoor storage in the BF, Fringe Business District and located at 10500 Great Plains Boulevard, Admiral Waste Management. 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 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 Sharmin at 937-1900, ext. 120. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the 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 June 2, 1994. (� C1 ROGER & B. J. MICHAEL SORENSON ALLEN R. ROTHE O'SHAUGHNESSY RT. 2, BOX i87K 750 VOGELSBURG TRAIL 1000 HESSE FARM ROAD BELLE PLAINE MN 56011 CHASKA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318 DEBRA L. WENDORF NORMAN & K. MONROE STATE OF MINNESOTA 740 VOGELSBURG TRAIL 565 LAKOTA LANE DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION CHASKA MN 55318 BOX 115 METRO SQUARE BLDG. _ CHASKA MN 55318 ST. PAUL MN 55101 SKIP S. COOK JOHN MALZAHN CONTROL CREDIT INC. - 15506 VILLAGE WOODS DR. 10551 GRT. PLAINS BLVD. 7841 WAYZATA BLVD. #200 EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55433 CHASKA MN 55318 MPLS MN 55426 USA FISH & WILDLIFE SUPERAMERICA GROUP INC. MAYNARD C. HAPPE FED. BLDG. FORT SNELLING P.O. BOX 14000 495 LAKOTA LANE ST. PAUL MN 5111 LEXINGTON KY 40512 CHASKA MN 55318 VERNE & SUSAN SEVERSON BERT A. & B. NOTERMAN ROBERT DRURY 675 LAKOTA LANE 812 CO. RD. 78 E. 575 FLYING CLOUD DR CHASKA MN 55318 SHAKOPEE MN 55379 P.O. BOX 193 _ SHAKOPEE MN 55379 JACK BRAMBILLA CHESTER & BETTY TEICH - 550 VALLEY PARK DR. 825 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 CHASKA MN 55318 • 1. � y . � hi Vk I 1 • _ o Ici • .1 i .: II : , I it 1/44 _ I ' 1/4 ti 1 • ; •1 1 r + 1, I\ . . ‘ ‘ . // ; \ / , / 11 1 1 1 I •. ` , 1 1 , • ` � 1 , , 1, I •I •• . 'f •• 1 I �' 1 • 1 , , ,• 1' 1 I 411 .'1.4.1111111. Ar-a. , 1 a 1, ;; •^ 'j Ill 1& __, 4 �diiiita� 1 / I 1 • I I(� ., 'i 1 d t r V � fst• V v , . ,;$ . 11) I,ItS I • •' I 41 r4 . e 1. I .4- :: ..,,,, . • t , • ',"; i I—7.... al e4, •t t,1..,1•s., R k „ - ..,z, •: . , , --,7.! . ..v.- I (,), _,:. ,:. ....:;. . .,, ., . , . . ,4,.. . s, , ,,•gir. 4 ••• 4 N. . ,I..i. :t.,, . . . , • \— .8- : i t. 110§NN, .f.ik' I k : tk it% 4 g „ 44.i„i...'„ .- :., -•. 5 • ; i ' 1:;,,i ... 6.411 SileilfelNI` 't• IV,' ' elm) a, 1 k%;Til:-.:1:'4 ..;i 4,--..1 i i.• •'. • - -- 4 i„ , 1. • %‘VAIS ! . : . r co ii; i_ .......... • n .....s.'kiA‘,--t .. — . \ ,*4.,to • • , ).. .40....' i . ti • i , ”e so • • n / A ,..:,..1 ' 4P ..of, ,, r'1} 41..-; .I N rTp Jr "T•A n I CI.MS 0 V' /4/ "A. ,-•:•;i,.;.. .I.v..3%-, 1 1 J • Oil I.wi 044.:/ .. .1',;` � . • I i •••I i,_ I it `F'} , . 1 ,•n: ., 1 / s•ldfit'•1, IN , —...N;•••1. ..... * • VA I 1 LA I ',. pip Mt 1 •k' '‘: •'' , # /- - M 1 : I til , . ,;4 ./ . 1 ..::,,r4v se* „ , ., izi: I //. WT. i \ .‘ . 1• I 11 %O. •1 , , 1 O. . 4'6 SC 1 • 1 , 1 •Ill.' rf• Ir � O. Viii � ,'. �.j�i:_� l,''.1 . I. ! 1 X11 •'./17. .1., �' • / • - 1 l • 1 ., , a 3. 1: '''-`; : ..../. ..' .. ..ill's-44s,, - '.%.7..,i'.% - i ,...o. :.'r;, •'.4,1 -t-f•'.•14.1''.• ,f ".4, .,t. A‘'. '... 1 IN i.„4,..#:..h.4.. 14, 'it '''''.. •••., \ . ; i..! • : . \: • ; KN ` • v • 1y. , , .i. kof ; : ; � ` et R.M 1 ' \ • . I \ ! 1 • , I � : 1 � In '".-. • •• V re8 :1 1 1 f •T , • 1 %t: 1 lliii1.%1 . e 4 I ' ii ir • ../ a 1 • ' 1 , • � .t. • Ito / "+ 1 • • • -t .. • . A ...4!•).i-', i-• .4,-.1,.-'ill : • , - * % , , ii re=•__:._-.. . , v --;••‘•, `;' '1`;• 1 1.1 ' 1 11 I i 04 �'� — • 1it `':-`. `.. `) • 1 •. L. 1 ar„II' �' Isle 1 \y i • \ '•'•'• J ' '''"'"City Council Meeting - F uary 27, 1989 they've moved out so this was going to be our second contractor's yard that had a garbage hauling business in it. R & W Sanitation down in Merle Volk's property and they subsequently have moved out so this would be the only one. Councilman Boyt: I would suggest Tom, to answer your question, that the best thing to do with this is to refer it to the Planning Commission with the directive to identify locations in the city that would be appropriate to this type of business. I would think that would be of some priority. Councilman Workman: I guess in looking through the packet, let me get maybe some answers from Nancy. Would you possibly be coming back to the Council and Planning Commission once you have figured out what exactly is going to be happening with this piece of property in regards to recycling? Would you be coming back possibly for another attempt? Nancy Lee: You mean if there was not an extension granted? Councilman Workman: Right. Nancy Lee: Yes. Councilman Workman: I guess in looking through this and I realize you guys did pass it and it was a traffic problem, I have probably driven through that area longer than anybody in the room being from this area pretty much all my life down in Chaska and that is the way, so for at least 28 years, that is the way that area has been down there and I referred to it last time as ugly town. It's not pretty down there but I suspect that in another 28 years we'll still have an SA. We'll still have cold storage. We'll still have a car lot and we'll still have everything else down there and for us to think that perhaps this is going to be made into agricultural and used for a wheat field or something, that doesn't make sense. Again, I'm not ignoring the safety problems in the area or the aesthetics of the neighbors to the north. I guess I'm not quite sure what has changed in a year other than cities are now clamoring to do recycling. I received some calls this wrck in regards to the fact that the fact they don't think we're moving ahead fast enough on recycling. We have some business people who would like to get, one man's trash in another man's gold mine I guess and so _ they want to do business in that regard. They're moving ahead. They've waited because the nature of the business is changing and now they're being told they can't do business so what do we tell the folks that have property down there? That they're going to have to plant clover on that or nothing. When I fully expect that the businesses that are down there, I don't know if the Travel I is going to open up again or not but those businesses are going to remain there anyway. Councilman Johnson: I don't disagree with where you're coming from. This is still business fringe and contractor's yards are approved in business fringe. The question comes here is two fold. I think we made a mistake a year ago by calling this a contractor's yard. I think part of the reasoning, you always give a reason for a mistake, you probably show you a mistake is a mistake, was that we already had approved, or the previous Council had already approved a contractor's yard at that point. It is a bad intersection right there below the bridge. k17_7 Councilman Workman: Is that cold storage a contractor's yard? 8 City Council Meeting • .ebruary 27, 1989 Councilman Johnson: No, but they're also permitted in a business fringe. Business fringe allows quite a few different things. One of which is contractor's yards. Cold storage is one. In fact we've got two cold storage - areas in there. I think we allow gasoline stations without car washes. The hotel is a non-conforming use. I believe the restaurant is a non-conforming use. I've got the rules right here. Councilman Boyt: I think one of the things that's changed in the year Tom is that there was something about this situation that didn't make it feasible for a year. One of the things is that in the conditions, the 28 conditions, there are some like a holding tank will be installed which are going to represent a fair amount of expense. From my particular standpoint, turning this down doesn't hinge upon the definition of a contractor's yard because I hope we're in the process of redefining that. My particular one hinges upon, I know that I don't want the increased traffic that I would project from making it a recyli.ng center. If I'm going to vote against that, why should I encourage people to put an investment in here to do something that's going to lead to that? So from my standpoint, this was a tough decision a year ago. I disagreed with a couple people on the Planning Commission because I thought the traffic would be light and we needed this somewhere in town. I think the better way to deal with it is find out where's the right location for this sort of thing. I kind of doubt it's the business park but who knows. Let's find the right location. Let's zone those sorts of locations so this can go in it and do it right. Why put it in an area, I don't think anybody's going to go down there and turn that into farmland. Obviously not but we're telling these people you've got to remove the existing structures. You've got to build catch basins. You've got to put in holding tanks. It's going to make it look better if they do this. That's one thing they have going for them. I just don't think it's a place where we want to encourage additional traffic. Mayor Chiniel: I feel basically you're right in what you're saying Bill. I think that once the dollar investment is there, they're going to be there for a long time. I still have the feeling that this basically still is not, this kind of business is not a contractor's yard business. I'd like to see us do a study to see if there is somehow that we can accommodate something. Everyone produces the solid waste that they put out in their cans. Once a week they pick it up, not realizing where it goes or even care where it goes. I know that they're - providing a kind of service to the community that's needed so I see where maybe we should review this to see what the possibilities are for where this could be accommodate within the city, if it can, and pursue it from that aspect. For the existing site, as I see it, I feel that this site is not the best for the traffic aspect as well as still not fitting into that contractor's yard definition. Councilman Workman: Can we then reject this and then perhaps I can propose that we, as the City perhaps work with Admiral Waste, perhaps other trash haulers to look into the subject of where and how we can do this and then perhaps even - waiting for Admiral Waste to come back perhaps with another proposal on the same piece of property which might be more appealing taking into account traffic, etc.. I think they've kind of taken that in. I know it was discussed a year ago. It didn't sound like there was going to be that much traffic. I think you agreed Jay but perhaps leaving the door open for then to possibly use the property for which they intended but to find the solutions within the city to do - 9 City Council Meeting - F, _uary 27, 1989 that. Recycling and trash, these kinds of businesses aren't the most appealing businesses in the world but we can't keep telling Eden Prairie or Savage or whoever to keep taking them either. So if we could get a nice looking, well cared for facility within the city for these people to do business, I think it would be worth a lot to work with that. Councilman Johnson: I don't totally agree that they're an eye sore, you didn't say eye sore but that they're not appealing. I've worked in several recycling facilities and from the outside you'd think they're any other industry. Reuter over in Eden Prairie, you look at it, it's a beautiful building there. Everything's done inside and they process where here we're just talki.hg basically a truck shop for them. I think what we did was based on the low traffic volumes, we approved it last time. I think what needs to be done is if we decide that this area is a good area to have basically a trucking business, which is what garbage hauling is is a trucking business. Their freight happens to be coming from each of our households. If this is an appropriate place for a trucking business, we should amend the BF district to allow trucking businesses but we have to look at that. If I was going to place, I don't think I can call them a contractor's yard. We came close to another trucking business going in as a contractor's yard. Unfortunately, he does a lot of, the other person does a lot of trucking but he is a contractor. He does build things. I think that it does fit into our industrial park if you do it right. You probably don't want to be, there may be a section of our park where you can generate truck traffic that wouldn't be a problem. We're not talking about vehicles here dripping garbage and running around because they don't do that. 20 years ago or 40 years ago, yes but modern sanitation vehicles are such that they're really not a problem but I still am going to move, and I'll make this a motion here so. .. Mayor Chmiel: Prior to making your motion Jay, I'd like to find out if there's anyone else in the audience that would like to address this particular issue. John Foster: My name is John Foster, City of Golden Valley representing the Joseph Kristoff property which is located on the northwest corner of TH 101 and TH 169/212. I don't think that it should be approved in the standpoint, our value of our property would decrease. Not only that but the traffic is at a high level on our corner and the trucks would have to go down TH 101 to receive that intersection. By doing that, it would cause more problems then presently are there. Through the notes and so forth, we have talked about the tractors, the wintertime with the buses coming down the hills, etc. . The way that I understand the plan is set forth is that the entrance would be put onto TH 101. By doing that, causing more problems along TH 101 and the hill area relative to going onto TH 169/212 area but I would ask you to, at this time, take a closer look at it. I'm not in opposition of them coming back at a later time with a different proposal of how they would do the work to the City Council here so that you can take a close look at it as long as Planning too. Patrick Blood: I'm Patrick Blood. I guess the biggest problem of the whole thing is the traffic and we respect everybody's say in the matter but I'd like to leave one thing in the back of your minds, being the City of Chanhassen. I don't foresee the impact of traffic being that great. In your eyes you might. That's fine but we remember other roads, highways that you do have in Chanhassen that during certain hours are already backed up to the limit. We've got a short access to TH 212/169. All our facilities, or most of them, are Reuter's, 10 City Council Meeting .ebruary 27, 1989 Anchor, MX Tire which are directly across the river and down which puts us in Chanhassen only for pick up day at a minimum. We're out of this city completely. The only problem we face, and we don't feel it's our problem, and that's TH 101. That is a State Highway. That i.s a State problem. A stop sign at that intersection would help greatly. If you look at the problems you have on TH 5 during rush hour and compare it what you've got down there, I don't foresee any problem. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else wishing to address the issue? Councilman Workman: I guess one other point then. I highly suspect that if - these trucks, these garbage trucks are hanging around the shop, they ain't making much money. They're out doing what they're supposed to be doing and they're not hauling a whole lot of it back other than when the recycling perhaps - gets going. Councilman Boyt: They're not talking about a garbage truck as we might envision a big garbage truck. They're talking about a pick-up. Patrick Blood: A majority of our trucks are like the 450 Ford with.. .but we do have two big garbage trucks and possibly three. Councilman Workman: Would those big ones make it under that bridge? Patrick Blood: Yes. 7 Councilman Boyt: I think there was a condition in here that you had to go south on TH 101 isn't there? Nancy Lee: Somebody mentioned it but they said they couldn't force us to do it legally but normally that's the way we would be going. We would be going south. One other quick comment. As far as the recycling goes, if you're looking at a lot of traffic coming in and out, we would like it optional. We would like to make an open facility so the people of Chanhassen can come in and utilize it. However, if the City doesn't want us to, we'll just simply use it ourselves for recycling which is just our vehicles. We just felt that.. . John Foster: Don't get me wrong. I'm also, I'm in favor of small businesses and the way they grow. I'm just looking for the safety aspect of the community itself. Just so long as everybody is aware. Councilman Boyt: Maybe the thing to do here is if Mr. Blood and Ms. Lee want to pursue a stop light there, we're not really talking about a stop sign, there's already a stop sign there, but this is just a difficult corner. I don't know that we've got a good answer to this corner and I guess I'm saying, I wasn't happy with my vote last year and I'm not happy with my vote this year but it's going to be different. Councilman Johnson: I think the main traffic problem is not at the stop sign it's during negotiating of the curves as you come around to their driveway. There is sight distance there. I don't know how, I just drove that several t__ times this weekend and took a close look at it again and I think it would be manageable. We do have in the conditions 12 vehicles i.s the maximum amount of vehicles they can have at that site. I don't remember if that was 12 of their 11 Council Meeting - )ruary 27, 1989 vehicles or if that was the employee's vehicles plus their vehicles. I'd have to look back in the notes on that one. I thought it was 12 hauling trucks but anyway, I'm still going to move to deny on the basis that it does not meet the definition of a contractor's yard. I'll deny extension of either the permit and also I'd like to add in there to have staff review what we would call this type of business. As one, just a strick hauler where they're just doing the vehicles and two, as a hauler plus a recycling center and ace where it will fit within the City of Chanhassen zoning districts or what areas within our zoning districts we think this type of operation would be appropriate. Councilman Boyt: I'll second it. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to deny extension for Conditional Use Permit #87-18 for a contractor's yard for Admiral Waste Management, Inc. on the basis that it does not meet the definition of a contractor's yard. Also, direct staff to review this type of business and where it would fit within the City of Chanhassen's zoning districts. All voted in favor and the motion carried. SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR PARKING AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS ON PROPERTY ZONED CBD, -.,i(L' CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED JUST EAST OF 480 WEST 78TH STREET, CHANHASSEN PROFESSIONAL BUILDING - PHASE I, ARVID ELNESS ARCHITECT'S, INC. . Steve Hanson: This is, in some respects, continuation of an itan that you've reviewed previously in January for the Chanhassen Professional Building. In the January meeting which you approved the site plan for the building itself. The plans before you tonight are for the perking area around that. This particular area was reviewed by the Planning Commission at their last meeting and they recommended approval of the site plan for the parking area. At that time, they approved that with 3 conditions. The first of those being that the area be platted. Secondly, the submittal of the final facia, signage and exterior building lighting for the Planning Commission approval prior to issuance of building permits. Then a third condition which was added at the Planning Commission meeting that the traffic engineering review the sidewalk location and each portion of the parking lot for safety with the possibility of realigning the sidewalk and adding stop signs or speed bumps. Bear with me for a minute and I'll get that graph to show you the area that we're specifically talking about. The sidewalk area that we're talking is this particular alignment right here. Whether that line would stay in this location or preferably be looking straight down in this direction which is the route that we talked about when we...the site plan for this particular building. One of the reasons for the flip flop on it was to allow for the traffic movement over into. ..feeling that was more of a pedestrian generater than the professional office building. We're still looking at that in all honestly as far as.. .and also how to signage that area. One other item that was brought up at the Planning Commission was this access here which is a limited access. It's a right-in, right-out only and that was the one dissenting vote on the approval from the Planning Commission for the site. Also, one last graphic that's up here is an outline of Phase I which are the improvements to the parking area that would come during the first phase when this actual building is constructed in this location. It's really the back part of the parking area and then this would be the temporary access that's existing 12 • City Council Meeting February 27, 1989 _ input so I would suggest that you just continue this iter and that you need to take no action. t VARIANCE TO THE FRONT, SIDE AND REAR SETBACKS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DAYCARE _ FACILITY LOCATED ON THE LAKE DRIVE EAST, IMMEDIATELY WEST OF TOTAL MART CONVENIENCE STORE, G.P. BAJR INC. . Steve Hanson: I might explain this one also. This iter was also up before the _ Board of Adjustments earlier tonight. This particular request was denied by the Board of Adjustments by unanimous vote. The applicants have requested that it not be considered by Council at this meeting and pending their decision whether they'd like to bring it to Council or not. They have a 10 day period to make that decision. SET 1989/93 LIQUOR LICENSE FEES. Don Ashworth: The 1989 budget anticipated an increase in liquor license fees of — approximately 5%. Each of the license holders were given notice of this meeting. Some of the licenses are established under State Statutue and I have asterisked those that are again set by the State. Staff is recommending that _ the license fees be increased generally by 5%. We rounded in some cases as shown in your report dated February 8th. Mayor Chmiei: Is there anyone who would like to address this that is in the — audience? Just for general public, for your information. Some of the fees that we' re adjusting is just two specific items. It's the off sale non-intoxicating a_ license which is existing $30.00. We're raising that to $50.00. The on sale - non-intoxicating which the existing was $205.00 and that's being proposed at $253.00. I feel they are fairly reasonable and to be in compliance with the requirements as stated by Mr. Ashworth. I would like to ask for a motion. _ Don Ashworth: May I make one quick point? The motion also includes the intoxicating liquor schedule. The City's schedule there is based on both restaurant and non-restaurant type of uses. The schedule again is shown as about 5% higher than in 1988. Councilman Boyt: Were you able to get those figures Don? Don Ashworth: No. They may be in here. Councilman Boyt had asked for a comparison of fees with some of our other communities. I was looking for that information late this afternoon and I was not able to have that available. Resolution #89-29: Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the Liquor License Fee Schedule as presented by staff. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 4 CONDITIONAL USE PER'1IT EXTENSION FOR A CONTRACTOR'S YARD THAT WAS GRANTED ON ` ` S1 FEBRUARY 8, 1988 FOR ADMIRAL WASTE MANAGEMENT LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TH 1 ' ' 212 AND THE EAST SIDE OF TH 101, PATRICK BLOOD AND NANCY LEE. Steve Hanson: This is a request to extend an existing conditional use permit. The conditional use permit had a one year limitation to put in the improvements 5 City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989 and none of those improvements have ben done on the property. Therefore, it comes back to the Planning Commission and City Council for them, if they want to (-- request an extension and they have requested an extension. The Council has the authority to extend the permit for an additional period of time after getting a recommendation from the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission reviewed this at their regular meeting and their determination at that point in time was that based on testimony taken at that meeting as well as the review of the permit and plans that the applicant has for future use of the property, that it - was not appropriate to extend the conditional use permit for Admiral Waste at this point in time. Part of that was pending some of the other things they're looking at doing and adding to the property. Their feeling was rather than extend an existing permit knowing that they're going to have to come back and amend that, it would be better for them to just come in with a totally new permit for a conditional use. Also, you should be aware that the Planning Commission felt that the permit that was granted previously should possibly not - have been approved. They had recommended approval previously but their concern was, in going back and looking at the Codes, as far as defining what a contractor's yard is, they didn't feel that the proposed use fit within that - definition. The definition for the contractor's yard specifically really mentions construction type activities rather than the waste handling facilities. So the Planning Commission has recommended that the City Council not extend the conditional use permit #87-18 and further, one other item that the Council needs to deal with that does not come up before the Planning Commission. When the conditional use permit was issued previously, it was also issued a wetland alteration permit for the property as part of that conditional use. That also - has a year time limit on it similar to the conditional use permit and we would add that that also not be extended. Really the two should go hand in hand. That would conclude my remarks. Nancy Lee: I think one thing that we didn't make real clear with the Planning Commission is we made it sound like there was going to be a lot of drastic changes. One of the reasons we didn't go on with the project as planned was because in the trash hauling industry there are some major changes coming about in recycling and we felt it best to hold off until we found out what these changes were which depend on what the City's decisions are. At this point not - all cities have made their own decisions as to what they're going to be doing with the recycling. As far as our building and everything, it may go up exactly as planned. We realize any major changes or anything would obviously have to come back to Council. I guess that's what we were waiting for but we didn't want to lose the permits so that if there were no changes, we could go ahead and put the building up. That's all I had to say. Councilman Boyt: You'll notice there are 28 conditions passed with this thing making it a major undertaking but as I recall the discussion of a little over a year ago, one of the critical issues was generating additional traffic in one of the worse traffic areas in the city. The point was that these basically pick up trucks, as I recall , kind of a heavy duty pick up truck would be leaving early in the morning. Would basically stay out all day and would come back in at the end of the day. That was the reason that I voted for it at the time was because it wasn't generating much traffic. To look at it as a recycling center, it could very well generate a good bit more traffic. As I read the discussion, we're talking about having a potential drop off center for people to bring recycleables in. I don't want that kind of traffic on that stretch of road. I've been very relunctant to see us continue to encourage contractor's yards in 6 City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989 Chanhassen. I think that we need to find a home, it's sort of a, I think a 1 responsibility for a cumiunity to have someplace for people who haul trash to do their business. I don't know what the good place for that is or would be in Chanhassen. I think that's worth some good study. What I do know is that we shouldn't be encouraging uses that generate very much traffic at all at this particular location. As far as extending it, I guess I'm real interested in what other folks have to say up here. I agree with the Planning Commission's position that this doesn't fit the description of a contractor's yard but I don't know that that stopped the Council in the past from approving contractor's yards or items as contractor's yards. It's sort of been a catch all in a way and my concern would be, why encourage them to conduct a use that I don't want to see expanded? My inclination would be to say this is an opportunity to turn this down and avoid an even more difficult decision down the road and when we've got a considerable investment meeting those 28 conditions and I personally wouldn't want to see it expanded. Councilman Johnson: I'm pretty well where Bill is on this one. I believe, if my memory serves me right, I voted for it last time. In retrospect and looking at the definition of the ordinance a little closer than I did last time, they're right. This doesn't really meet the definition of a contractor's yard. Leaving in the morning and coming back in the evening is different than doing any recycling work there. Recycling business is probably going to create more traffic, especially a drop off center. I think this fits more into an industrial site versus the site it's on. That's my only comments. Councilman Workman: What can we do as the City Council and City then if we're going to deny this, perhaps help them to do business in our City? Is the Planning Commission going to look at that? Councilman Johnson: Can the HRA do anything? Is this something that is needed in our City and as part of our Housing and Redevelopment, should we be looking? We've been promoting a grocery store. We've been promoting housing. Is there a way we can promote a recycling center? Mayor Chmiel: I think recycling is something that's going to become a necessity. Every city is going to it. I agree too that in reviewing the definition of a contractor's yard, it just doesn't fit in that specific, as it spells it out within the City Code. At the same time, Don, can you offer any suggestions? Is there any areas within the City that could facilitate this type of facility? What have we done in the past? Don Ashworth: 14,. have attempted to bring businesses into the Business Park and one of the things generally with contractor's yards is as they grow, they find that they can do better business, really provide better services if they're able to move again into a business park setting. I think Merit Heating was one that was really looking to contractor's yard position and we were able to get them into the business park. Contractor's yards typically have been a growing area, you might say, for some businesses and I really don't know in this particular instance, if they would be to a point where they could consider a location in a more typical setting. Councilman Johnson: I think something I probably would mention that probably clouded our decision a year ago was at that time we had another similar business in a contractor's yard that had been previously approved and in the interim - 7 ITY O F •C• DATE: 2-1-89 ---- \\ � / C.C. DATE: 2-27-89 CHANEASSEN V CASE NO: 87-18 CUP Prepared by: Hanson:k STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Extend a conditional use permit for a contractors yard. z a V LOCATION: North and adjacent to Highway 212 and east and adjacent to Highway 101 . Address : 10500 Great Plains Blvd . Cl. APPLICANT: Admiral Waste Management, Inc. Attn: Patrick Blood and Nancy Lee 8275 Tamarack Trail Eden Prairie, MN 55344 PRESENT ZONING: BF, Fringe Business District ACREAGE: 13 . 27 acres DENSITY: N/A ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- A-2; large lot single family residential S- A-2; Minnesota River Valley gE- BF; vacant commercial ( cold storage warehousing) W- BF; existing motel units W WATER AND SEWER: Municipal water and sewer lines are not �-- available to the site . PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site contains steep slopes adjacent to railroad tracks to the north and contains a Class A wetland. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Area is designated agricultural . Admiral Waste CUP February 1 , 1989 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Section 20-236 , Expiration for Conditional Uses , allows for the extension of the permit . The City Council has the authority to extend the permit for an additional period of time as it deems appropriate after receiving a recommendation from the Planning Commission. Section 20-424 , Expiration and Renewal for Wetland Alteration Permits , provides for the extension of permits . The City Council may extend the period to commence work. This extension is to be - granted by the City Council and there are no provisions requiring a Planning Commission recommendation on this matter . ANALYSIS The applicants have submitted a letter requesting a one year extension on the conditional use permit for a contractors yard located at the northeast corner of TH 212 and TH 101 . This per- mit was issued last February, 1988 . The applicants had delayed construction of the improvements due to anticipated changes in their operation specifically for recycling . In their letter , the applicants have noted that due to the changes in their plans for dealing with recycling that their original plans for the property will need some revision . Based on this , staff would expect that the applicant will in the near future be coming back to file an amendment to the conditional use permit that they presently have on the property. - If the present conditional use permit is extended , they will need to revise that conditional use permit and go through the full _ conditional use permit procedure to accomplish this amendment . If on the other hand the conditional use permit is not extended , the applicants would be required to submit a complete new application for a conditional use permit to accomplish any changes they anticipate for the site. Attached for Planning Commission consideration is the staff - report written for this request at the time the permit was issued. At that time, staff recommended approval of the con- ditional use permit with 26 conditions . Subsequently the -_ Planning Commission recommended approval of the conditional use perit with the addition of another condition and modification of three other conditions . The conditional use permit was then approved by the City Council on February 8 , 1988 with 28 con- ditions . Also at that time the wetland alteration plan was approved. Also attached for the Planning Commission ' s consideration are copies of the minutes from the City Council meeting when this item was previously approved; the conditional use permit itself Admiral Waste CUP February 1 , 1989 Page 3 as recorded with Carver County; a letter dated February 11 , 1988 to Admiral Waste Management from Barb Dacy specifying the con- ditions of the approval as well as requesting a revised site plan to be submitted. At this time the revised site plan has not been submitted to staff . The conditional use provisions do not provide any criteria for making a recommendation relative to extending the conditional use permit. The regulations simply state that if substantial construction has nc• taken place within one year from the date on which the conditional use permit was granted, the permit is void, unless an extension is granted by the City Council after a recom- mendation is received from the Planning Commission . If the Planning Commission feels this particular application is appropriate for the site, they should extend the permit for a specified period of time. If , however, the Planning Commission is reluctant to continue this particular use as previously per- mitted , they should not grant the extension . In either case, it would be appropriate to use the general issuance standards cited in Section 20-232 for conditional use permits for making findings on whether to extend or not extend the permit. This section of the code states as follows : "The Planning Commission shall recommend the conditional use permit and the City Council shall issue such conditional use permits only if it finds that such use at the proposed loca- tion : 1 . Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety , comfort , convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the City. 2 . Will be consistent with the objectives of the City' s Comprehensive Plan and this chapter. 3 . Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of the area. 4 . Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses . 5 . Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services including streets , police and fire protec- - tion, drainage structures, refuse disposal , water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the pro- posed use. Admiral Waste CUP February 1 , 1989 Page 4 6 . Will not create excessive requirements for public facili- ties and services and will not be detrimental to the eco- nomic welfare of the community. 7. Will not involve uses; activities processes; materials, — equipment and conditions of operation that will be detri- mental to any person' s property or general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, — fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash. 8 . Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. 9 . Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. 10. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area. 11 . Will not depreciate surrounding property values. 12 . Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as pro- vided in this article. STAFF UPDATE The Planning Commission evaluated input from the applicant and — interested neighbors regarding the extension of the Conditional Use Permit. There was concern on the part of the Planning Commission that the applicant had plans to amend the present per- mit in the future if the permit was extended. This would require the filing of an amendment and the Planning Commission felt if this were planned the permit should not be extended but rather a new permit should be applied for when the applicant' s plans are — fully known. The Planning Commission also felt the initial permit probably -hould not have been approved as a contractor's yard as the pro- posed use as a trash collection and vehicle storage area does not fit the definition of contractor' s yards. The Planning Commission felt an area needs to be identified for this type of use but that this is not the appropriate location. They required staff to look for an appropriate location for this type of use. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council not extend Conditional Use Permit #"7-18 for a contractor' s yard for Admiral Waste Management, Inc. The applicant also had a wetland alteration permit for this prop- erty approved as part of the conditional use permit. As this Admiral Waste CUP February 1 , 1989 Page 5 was part of the conditional use permit, staff recommends the City Council not extend the wetland alteration permit. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the following motion : "The City Council denies the request for an extension and there- fore voids the following permits : Conditional Use Permit #87-18 - Contractor' s yard Wetland Alteration Permit #87-14 for Admiral Waste Management, Inc. " ATTACHMENTS 1 . Letter from Patrick Blood dated January 13 , 1989 . 2 . City Coda definition for Contractors Yard. 3 . City Code , Section 20-236 , Expiration. 4 . City Code, Section 20-424 , Expiration Renewal, etc. 5 . Letter dated February 11, 1988 to Admiral Waste Management from Barb Dacy. 6 . Conditional Use Permit as Recorded in Carver County. 7 . City Council minutes dated February 8, 1988 . 8 . Staff Report and all attachments from City Council meeting of February 8 , 1988. 9 . Letter from John Foster dated January 24 , 1989 . 10 . Planning Commission minutes dated February 1 , 1989 . AD||IRAL WASTE MAHAGE|1ENT, INC. ~` 8925 13th Ave. East Shakopee, MN' 55379 ~- 496-3053 aerua, , j3, 1969 Hansun ~� Planning Director ' 6�o Ccoiter Drive ~` F . ;T . 147 r_h :-,r_.. ^`�| �F;21�r � ~-q . 1 ' t , fi ] s for a o^c �ear e,.tensirn o ' t.!Fe Permit , for a contractors yard , lucateu at toss. cn.' .`, of Hwys' E12 and 101 . ( 15100 Great Plains Blvd- ) This ~` it w- s tp Patrick Blood and Nancy Lee in February on tHi-: s� tc to upcoming ~� neees . Specifzca] ly the need for racyclang . awp.'e, there are some major cheoges coming _~ for +J. in the disposal of trash ' One of these being the nepds WO a loc&l trash hauling co�paoy, ang w -J . 1 'v1-,]`.E7i in this issoe. After months of mr.,-.7..tn:1-.- o ,ffp.'ent c / ties wr s+"rvice, it has been conc]ud�� ~� that pe will be pici, ing up the recycling materials from our } c^�tome, s ' cs well as their trash. Due to this change, our nriol plans will need some revision. ~� � .nce.'el ' ' "9 p] nod ~~ ! _ � - ���J 1 � 1 �� ~^^�"" ~ = -�~ _ CITX OF CHANHASSEN � -- 4F.7....... § 20-1 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE • (..--. J. Church means a building or edifice consecrated to religious worship, where people join together in some form of public worship under the aegis and direction of a person who is _ r=i; authorized under the laws of the State of Minnesota to solemnize marriages. A church may '` include livingquarters for persons employed on the premises and classroom facilities. The *- following are not considered as churches: Camp meeting grounds, mikvahs, coffee houses, _ — recreational complexes, retreat houses, sleeping quarters for retreatants during spiritual lei .---,1:-'` retreats extending for periods of more than one (1) day. Bible camps with live-in quarters, publishing establishments, ritual slaughter houses, radio or television towers and transmis- _P', Sion facilities, theological seminaries, day care centers, hospitals, and drug treatment centers `' are not churches. Class A wetlands means wetland types 3,4,5,6,7 and 8.In the case of wetlands adjoining — a public waters designated as lake or pond this class shall also include type 2 wetlands.Type 2 wetlands shall also be deemed a class A wetland when adjoining a stream designated as public waters to the extent that it encroaches upon the one-hundred-year floodplain of the stream. Class B wetlands means type 2 wetlands not adjoining a public waters designated as lake or pond nor within the one-hundred-year floodplain of a stream designed as public waters. Clear-cutting means the removal of an entire stand of trees. Collector street means a street that carries traffic from minor streets to arterial streets. = Con ference'convention center means a preplanned, centrally managed development con- . ( taining facilities for business or professional conferences and seminars anc containing ac- commodations for overnight lodging, eating and recreation. The development is characterized by architecturally integrated buildings, common use of parking areas, and incorporation of passes recreational amenities into overall site design. Conforming building or structure means any building or structure which complies with • all the regulations of this chapter, or any amendment thereto. Contractor's yard means any area or use of land where vehicles, equipment, and/or construction materials and supplies commonly used by building, excavation, roadway con- struction, landscaping and similar contractors are stored or serviced. A contractor's yard includes both areas of outdoor storage and areas confined within a completely enclosed building used in conjunction with a contractor's business. Cul-de-sac means a minor street with only one (1) outlet and having an appropriate turn-around for the safe and convenient reversal of traffic movement. Day care center means any facility or home where tuition, fees or other forms of compen- sation is charged for the care of children and which is licensed by the state as a day care center. — Density, gross means the quotient of the total number of dwelling units divided by the gross site area. Density, net means the quotient of the total number of dwelling units divided by the developable acreage of the site. Developable acreage excludes wetlands, lakes, roadways, and other areas not suitable for building purposes. 1144 § 20-236 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE Sec. 20-236. Expiration. 71C.- If substantial construction has not taken place within one (1) year of the date on which the conditional use permit was granted, the permit is void except that, on application, the • council, after receiving recommendation from the planning commission, may extend the — permit for such additional period as it deems appropriate. If the conditional use is discon- tinued for six (6) months, the conditional use permit shall become void. This section shall apply to conditional use permits issued prior to February 19, 1987 but the six-month period shall not be deemed to commence until February 19, 1987. (Ord. No. 80, Art. III, § 2(3-2-8), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-237. Revocation and not for a particular person. Failure to comply with any condition set forth in a conditional use permit, or any other violation of this chapter, shall be a misdemeanor and shall also constitute sufficient cause for the termination of the conditional use permit by the city council following a public hearing. (Ord. No. 80, Art. III, § 2(3-2-7), 12-15-86) Secs. 20-238-20-250. Reserved. DIVISION 3. STANDARDS FOR AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Sec. 20-251. Scope. In addition to all other standards required by section 20-232, the standards in this division shall apply to conditional uses if they are to be located in agricultural or residential districts. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 9(5-9-1), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-252. Bed and breakfast establishments. The following applies to bed and breakfast establishments: (1) Two(2)off-street parking spaces plus one(1)additional space per rental room must be provided. (2) There shall be no more than one (1)employee in addition to the residents. (3) Establishment must be owner occupied. (4) There shall be five(5)or less rooms for rent. (5) The rooms shall not be rented for more that seven (7) consecutive days to the same person. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 9(5-9-1(1)), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-253. Group homes. The following applies to group homes for seven (7) to sixteen(16) persons. t(1) The structure must be in compliance with the state licensing requirement. 1172 s 20.422 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE — the council. The council may establish reasonable conditions which are specifically set forth in the permit to ensure compliance with requirements contained in this article. Such conditions may, among other matters, limit the size, kind or character of the proposed work, require the construction of other structures, require replacement of vegetation, establish required moni- toring procedures and maintenance activity, stage the work over time, require the alteration of the site design to ensure buffering, require the provision of a performance security. The granting of a wetland alteration permit does not abrogate the need to obtain permits required by other local, state or federal agencies. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 24(5.24-9), 12.15-86) Sec. 20-423. Inspection of work. The city engineer may cause inspection of work for which a wetland alteration permit is issued to be made periodically during the course of such work and shall cause final inspection to be made following the completion of the work. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 24(5-24-11), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-424. Expiration, renewal,etc. (a) Unless otherwise specified by the city council, the person issued a wetland alteration permit shall begin and complete the development authorized by the permit within one(1)year after the date the council approves the permit application. (b) The permittee shall provide written notice to the city engineer twenty-four(24)hours prior to the commencement and completion of the development project. No project shall be deemed to have been completed until approved by the city engineer after receipt of notice of completion. (c) If the permittee fails to commence work on the development within the time specified in this section, the permit shall be void. The council may renew a void permit at its discretion. If the council does not renew the permit, the holder of the void permit may make original application for a new permit. (d) The permittee may make written application to the council for an extension of the time to commence work, but only if the permittee submits the application prior to the date already established to commence work. The application for an extension shall state the reasons the permittee requires an extension. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 24(5-24-10), 12-15-86) Secs. 20-425-20435. Reserved. Part B. Issuance Guidelines Sec. 20-436. Generally. No wetland alteration permit shall be issued unless the council determines that the proposed development complies with the provisions of this part, as well as the intent and 1192 4toq CITY OF„ . CHANHASSEN ”"' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 February 11 , 1988 - Admiral Waste Management, Inc . Attn: Mr. Patrick Blood Ms. Nancy Lee 8275 Tamarac Trail Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dear Mr . Blood and Ms . Lee: This is to confirm that the City Council at the February 8 , 1988 meeting approved the conditional use permit for a contractor' s yard based on the site plan stamped "Received January 21, 1988" and subject to the following conditions : 1 . Hours of operation shall be from 7 : 00 a.m. to 6 : 00 p.m. , Monday through Saturday only (work on Sundays and holidays not permitted) . 2 . There shall be no outside speaker systems . 3 . Any light sources shall oe shielded from adjacent public road right-of-ways . 4 . A holding tank shall be installed to receive the waste water from the garage area. The holding tank shall be pumped as necessary and the applicant shall be required to keep a current copy of their pumper contract on file with the City. - 5 . The applicant shall daily clean on and off-site dirt and debris from streets and the surrounding area that has resulted from construction work by the applicant, its agents or assigns . 6 . The building must have a heat and smoke detector system with a central dispatch. 7 . Lighted exit signs must be installed at all exits . 8 . A plan for storage of flammable and/or combustible material must be submitted to the Public Safety Office for approval . Mr . Patrick and Ms . Nancy Lee February 11 , 1988 Page 2 9 . Emergency lighting must be installed. 10 . The driveway and parking lot shall have B6-18 concrete curb and gutter. 11 . The applicant shall submit a landscaping plan indicating installation of 20 six foot evergreen trees between the vehicular use areas and the public right-of-ways . 12 . All septic system sites shall be staked and roped off prior to the commencement of any construction. Any traffic over these sites will require reevaluation of the sites . 13 . The applicant shall obtain an access permit from the Minnesota Department of Transportation and shall comply with all conditions of the permit. 14 . The approach onto Trunk Highway 101 shall be a maximum of 0 . 5% grade for a minimum distance of 50 feet. 15 . Catch basins shall be provided at the low point of the drive- - way along with proper spillways in the parxing lot. A revised plan shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer. 16 . Calculations verifying the preservation of the predeveloped runoff rate for the site and ponding calculations for a 100-year frequency storm event shall oe provided to the City Engineer for approval . 17 . Check dams (Type II Erosion Control) shall be placed at 100-foot intervals along all drainage swales . 18 . Existing structures shall be disposed of properly. If debris is to be burned, the applicant shall obtain a burning permit from the Department of Public Safety and the Pollution Control Agency. On-site burial of debris is prohibited. 19 . Additional erosion control shall be placed along the north side of the site. A revised plan shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer. 20 . All erosion control measures shall be in place prior to the initiation of any grading and once in place shall remain in place throughout the duration of construction. The developer is required to make periodic reviews of the erosion control and make any necessary repairs promptly. All of the erosion control measures shall remain intact until an established vegetative cover has been produced at which time removal shall be the responsibility of the developer . 21 . Wood fiber blankets or equivalent shall be utilized to stabi- lize all disturbed slopes greater than 3 :1 . Mr. Patrick Blood and Ms. Nancy Lee February 11, 1988 — Page 3 22 . Seeding shall be disc-anchored and shall commence no later than two weeks after slopes have been established.. 23 . All detention ponds and drainage swales shall be constructed and operational which includes all pertinent storm sewer systems to have the ponds functional prior to any other construction on the project. — 24 . The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the watershed district, DNR and other appropriate regulatory — agencies and comply with their conditions of approval. 25 . Any expansion of the building or parking areas or expansion beyond 12 vehicles used in the business shall require a con- ditional use permit. 26 . The site plan shall be revised to shift the building 20 feet to the east. 27. Should the subject site be subdivided, the city would look to — requiring the necessary right-of-way for a frontage road to make connections to the east. 28 . All regulations shall be followed to cap the well. The City Council also approved a wetland alteration permit based on the site plan stamped "Received January 21 , 1988" and subject — to the following conditions: 1 . Compliance with the standards of Article V, Section 24 (a) ( 4 ) . •2 . Compliance with the conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit Request 87-18 ." — It is requested that you revise the site plan to shift the building so that it is 100 feet away from the TH 101 right-of-way — line and that the additional 20 six-foot evergreen trees be indi- cated on the plan. The size and species shall also be indicated on the revised site plan. Enclosed is a copy from the building code regarding the oil and flammable liquids separater. You will need to submit the septic system design, holding tank design and other necessary drawings as -required by the building official in . conjunction with t:He building permit .appIication. I would :also- " — recommend that you have your engineer begin the process to obtain the access permit from the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Also, remember- that demolition of the buildings — and the capping of the well ,should be coordinated with Jim Chaffee, the Public Safety Director and the appropriate State agencies. Mr. Patrick Blood and Ms . Nancy Lee February 11 , 1988 Page 4 The City will be preparing a conditional use permit document which will be recorded against the title of the property at the Carver County Recorder ' s Office. A copy of this document will be forwarded to you when signed by the Mayor and City Manager . Should you have any questions , please feel free to contact me . Good luck on your new location . Since ely, Barbara Dacy City Planner BD:ktm CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1 . Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants a conditional use permit for: Contractor' s yard activities 2 . Property. The permit is for the following described property in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota: See Attached Exhibit A - (PID # 25-0360600) 3 . Conditions. The permit is issued subject to the following condition: 1 . Hours of operation shall be from 7: 00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. , Monday through Saturday only (work on Sundays and holidays not permitted) . 2 . There shall be no outside speaker systems. — 3 . Any light sources shall be shielded from adjacent public road right-of-ways . — 4 . A holding tank shall be installed to receive the waste water from the garage area. The holding tank shall be pumped as necessary and the applicant shall be required to keep a current copy of their pumper contract on file with the City. 5 . The applicant shall daily clean on and off-site dirt and — debris from streets and the surrounding area that has resulted from construction work by the applicant, its agents or assigns . — 6 . The building must have a heat and smoke detector system with a central dispatch. — 7 . Lighted exit signs must be installed at all exits. 8 . A plan for storage of flammable and/or combustible material must be submitted to the Public Safety Office for approval. 9 . Emergency lighting must be installed. — 10 . The driveway and parking lot shall have B6-18 concrete curb and gutter. _ Page of Pages 11 . The applicant shall submit a landscaping plan indicating installation of 20 six foot evergreen trees between the vehicular use areas and the public right-of-ways . 12 . All septic system sites shall be staked and roped off prior to the commencement of any construction. Any traffic over these sites will require reevaluation of the sites . 13 . The applicant shall obtain an access permit from the Minnesota Department of Transportation and shall comply with all conditions of the permit. 14 . The approach onto Trunk Highway 101 shall be a maximum of 0 . 5% grade for a minimum distance of 50 feet. 15 . Catch basins shall be provided at the low point of the drive- way along with proper spillwa-s in the parking lot. A revised plan shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer. 16 . Calculations verifying the preservation of the predeveloped runoff rate for the site and ponding calculations for a 100-year frequency storm event shall be provided to the City Engineer for approval. 17 . Check dams (Type II Erosion Control) shall be placed at 100-foot intervals along all drainage swales . 18 . Existing structures shall be disposed of properly. If debris is to be burned , the applicant shall obtain a burning permit from the Department of Public Safety and the Pollution Control Agency. On-site burial of debris is prohibited. 19 . Additional erosion control shall be placed along the north side of the site. A revised plan shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer . 20 . All erosion control measures shall be in place prior to the initiation of any grading and once in place shall remain in place throughout the duration of construction . The developer is required to make periodic reviews of the erosion control and make any necessary repairs promptly. All of the erosion control measures shall remain intact until an established vegetative cover has been produced at which time removal shall be the responsibility of the developer. 21. Wood fiber blankets or equivalent shall be utilized to stabi- lize all disturbed slopes greater than 3 : 1. 22 . Seeding shall be disc-anchored and shall commence no later than two weeks after slopes have been established. 23 . All detention ponds and drainage swales shall be constructed and operational which includes all pertinent storm sewer systems to have the ponds functional prior to any other construction on the project. -2- Page of Pages 24 . The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the watershed district, DNR and other appropriate regulatory agencies and comply with their conditions of approval . 25 . Any expansion of the building or parking areas or expansion beyond 12 vehicles used in the business shall require a con- ditional use permit. 26 . The site plan shall be revised to shift the building 20 feet to the east. 27 . Should the subject site be subdivided, the city would look to requiring the necessary right-of-way for a frontage road to make connections to the east. 28 . All regulations shall be followed to cap the well . 4 . Termination of Permit. The City may revoke the permit following a public hearing under any of the following circumstances : material change of condition of the neighborhood where the use is located; violation of the terms of the permit. 5 . Criminal Penalty. Violation of the terms of this - conditional use permit is a criminal misdemeanor. Dated : February 8 , 1988 CI IF $ HANHASS N . (/_/ BY: /.0.kl, I s Ma By: 06 :111114 Its Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ell,,X day of Gllit^,c,G , 1968, by Thomas L. Hamilton, Mayor, and Don Ashworth, City Manager of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation . No ary lic -3- ♦ K"-11 J_r: :'_:rr`T� hCT. :Y P� -, STA CAR [RJC - My commission e,, s 1.-16-91 _ Page y— Pages EXHIBIT A That part of Government Lot 4, Section 36, Township 116. North Rasge 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian. C County. Minnesota. which lies southerly of the southerly right—of—way line of the Chicago and North Western Railway Company (formerly Minneapolis asd St. Louis Railway Company) and northerly of the northerly line of State Highway No. 169 and No. 212, EXCEPTING therefrom that part contained in the follovinst That pert of Government Lots 3 and 4, Section 36. Township 116. leage 21, described as follows: Commencing et the West Quarter corner of . said section; thence South along an extension of the vest line of said Government Lot 4, s dietance of 14.65 feet; thence northeasterly deflecting to the left 106'21'30". a distance of 1327.05 feet to the actual point of beginning of the tract of land to be described; thence continuing northeasterly along last described course 170.35 feet; thence northwesterly deflecting to the left 89'15', • distance of 50 feet to • point marked by a Judicial Landmark; thence continuing northwesterly along last described course. a distance of 473.2 feet to a point marked by Judicial Landmark; thence Northwesterly deflecting to the left 63'38', a distance of 40 feet to a point marked by a Judicial Landmark; thence southwesterly deflecting to the left 25'30' , a distance of 146 feet to a point marked by a Judicial Landmark; thence southeasterly 545.52 feet to the actual point of beginning, a point being marked on the last described course by a Judicial Landmark; distant 50 feet northwesterly of actual point of beginning. And except that part of the South Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 36. Township 116, Range 23, described as follows: Starting at a point on the North right of way line of Trunk Highway No. 169 which point is 50 feet North of the center line of the p t at • point 1487.4 feet Northeasterly from the West line of said Section 36 es measured along the center line of said pavement end running thence North 13'32' West or at an angle of 89'15' with said pavement a distance of 473.2 feet; thence North 77'10' West, 40 feet; thence South 77.20' West. 146 feet; thence Southeasterly 501 feet to the North right of way line of maid Trunk Highway and thence Northeasterly along said right of way line 171 feet to place of beginning. And EXCEPT that pert of amid Government Lot 4 lying easterly of the following described line: Commencing al the West Quarter corner or said section; thence South along en extension of the west line of said Government Lot 4, • distance of 14.65 feet; thence northeasterly deflecting to the left 106'21'30", • distance of 1487.40 feet to the •_tual point of beginning of the line to be dse:ribed; thence northwesterly deflecting to the left 89'15' to the south line of said Chicago and North Western Railway Company and said line there terminating. OFFICE OF COUNTY RECORDER • STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF CARVER Filing Fee 52r JO This is to certify that this dot meat w '�file-�d,��'n office oqq th Ci day i ;G 19A.D.at '?'`3 o'clock 110M. and was duly recorded as 6 90 Ceo.C� j� ���� �� � document no. 95439 ocCAu• CARL W. HANSON JR. County Ret• =rAA'' ' by _ / � JK M v l G L'"-G V Paso Pees CITY OF CIIANHAE1IPCDATE: 6/15/94 CC DATE: 7/11/94 — CASE #: 94-4 SUB 94-2 REZ STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Preliminary plat approval to subdivide 17.6 acres of land into 23 single-family lots; Variance from the wetland setback requirements and for flag lot setbacks Z and Rezoning from RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Single Family Residential Q LOCATION: 1420 and 1430 Lake Lucy Road - A portion of the Southwest Quarter of the — (() Northwest Quarter of Section 2, Township 116 North, Range 23 West 11 APPLICANT: Coffman Development Company William D. Coffman, Jr., President n' 117 Sentinel Building, 5151 Edina Industrial Boulevard Q Edina, MN 55439 PRESENT ZONING: Rural Residential, RR ACREAGE: 17.552 acres DENSITY: gross:1.31 net: 1.44 (includes wetlands) ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - RSF, single-family homes S - RR, vacant across Lake Lucy Road Q E - RSF, single-family homes within Curry Farms subdivision - I—• W - RR, single family homes across Yosemite Q WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site Lii PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site is densely wooded in parts and open in the central portion. I.—. It contains some steep slopes which separate the eastern and western halves of the development as — well as all or part of three wetland areas. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential - Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 - 4.0 Units/Ac.) ....... _..... . C 8 8 E 0 - . - . .4" •• 47.... 1 ie . • ol = - k 0 1... pi•a•.11 lk;.. I ! /--4,..,...s t& I I 1 1 Lt,..c ,...j. I i I 1 - — . .3. 0•• CHRI.STAMS ' 1 1 HENNEFIP itA4.-,44801p,..A. . „......,, ,- „...... i . ..... . ._ ,..., .•.: q 401014 ‘ . IAT..0)-1-' ---11. ..-a• 24 liTtigiii:. rm.' -v, . c.,..:._ _... 4- '' ---- i 114 iiiit •4144a am /r• 1 ., . I-7.,MG i.Z.41.:s'igt s .. s 3, -- 1110464,7:'4,1'41'14 Pc1c.,1 .. ii INI11s...1* I-1 Xi, 10 .... _ ma Wiri. Er . .' ' i il , l••% 1041 -,--. , - 1 I ill="--• mob mirolVIIN ,:•,....:1....._), __:. EN ' pARKANIew . Nr—atill. =.: :::-- , ,.. .t....,,, si mi,-,1 . ' ' ''a • •''. 'ot;allf V-7"kt,„-% /IN PftVi. •-1-- % s-,:A ,. -%...... .-.4. . ,,- ,i, - -; .:0 Sr ft, iaLti -.. /7 i•O....-"'"" s * • , ...,„• op,,, . e1/4.5-...-- ,C•lInikpios •.7,-- St.,. .\-\ . i 4- I • . ,/ ilLr*4.51. I ],Jr. ilir.“T 1111-..."-.. . 7 , ..1111.K:er.!x: :. :•„, •- ' 1-•q•-••'--1- ." 44MII N. • 4'al iii. 11.m , .. : . . . ;,---, ,....0'.:41=1, r....,_51.„,r, • . 44, , 9° NO• ,gRC:11111104.0 f''V.';V : r AgH . t . I ip r.. : ,... _ :-••,‘ - . ..., . 1..,•,,i`._71- q • • . . r"\\ _, v.0...i, •--1 7-4----fv---74.-.- - - Nu.' • ___ , [... k..... .A.,.... . .:' ,,.,,, . 1../3e.4, • - 'ft A 1 . ,- -... go,j ( PARK fir ------ -1 -• - ——--i--- _ 71111111 ...m. `_-_.f!---____ft 1.111111111.= dwaltalo Jo* ....IMm• 141. . ..%kip _....... 1-1 • . -7 I), '''-;'--:1; 14:': ''L.,..4%147.11:E.L:::\eie.i'Gn Tat 1..t. ....,4'T1 ." "*. . LAKE LUCY iti . • YJ „..r'--14p • ,,... .,. - : -,I '•- - .-11 —0 _ cev. ''' • lit.t. , . -7. s 1 ... 4 ----- -- - , • ...„.., _.... . .1.CA . -.. ...--- -0----"*.`"r:_)\.‘---S' ••• - = . - ' i r..---4, i %rIzak• ;;;;r7ir-J.I fi0 ” 1 i"-•'' • irli ,....4•'4,1C . .•,.; . .•.-.0. •-, - .11' '---'- ' 1 :3' • - :.17.7...0\.- 1:f . % ' (V 41'11 1 .sHoRrs , -ARK-- ':- V• 1 .. -177:1 •- ;F • ``101011!•-:-..- .:).1!"tornisb,,,,_1- 4,-*- g ; meADow '#51111_,_rbs j.,%10%I.='44-t(75V...., •- ' • ‘• ',••• ....4..,.. 0 I GREE1 N PARK 1-74.41-""'-` 7" -- 11% . 4`f _ -a 'lcLAKE ANN .. c / I....-3 • ".i .' IT ! --• .6* 1-±7.L.- • . ....._ •. _ „..--; 5„ i !_____,., ...--• , i I I LAKE T . • ---7-771 IF! ' 7"1' .I..._7". '-•: -. ---••-•• , ' : •T -- •-- *....., ,,,,. --4. r , . j ... i le .1." -. 1.• li L2:1114. I . to P ' - . • la.... ow -. -__ . 3!'' ai•-*.--•--,-"Lr."."[ 1 1 : -\\ II \ : —,- - • -.. ;..; :_c, :.. - „...., , 1-4.-i,,..,-.. )44 ,rg. -., .11,,,: • .z....__ 1 I r- LA Al ill •o r •12- - .- _.,(......____,....................---"-•---.---. 1 --- (iNfli-----• : ti ----' e- 111 aiiii,"' ! :=.117 ..r.-.'_ ir M:,, -tj\'.• ,..._1 ----=-- , —---• • - .- ri. or ail 41 g• NIGNWO 1 i 11111 , \ .., •::::, ::: i 11 00 ...‘.3 • krait.... .... •0:00 .1 , -'.•-.-=----...--:„-,,..-.__•-_•-_-:.i 2.e.t?, :-\. 111(1Pw1 -.... ' P.3o. 1lkiiur•..?':'"''''-.-„"-.A4.,,",.l..en-1.r.fr7.$o.E1,.",11f.Infsn!sK"ui-e. I -- _ — :41 i. " W/:' 1LAKE SUSAN • 1•--"F-i- • \. Mr/ 3.‘ ;142. )F-1 0 • . • • .1' ...... _. • -...... --".-;-:s_. - / • / ,f,,,,,• -!......-- : '' -•----- 1..• ,.= . ./---•- ----- 0,74e*/ \I • .:::::.->„,-7.1 ,,,-;::•-----Ps'03-;,rci • .... 4...-r-, • ,.•••:-. --,4"1..... " '7.-- - ......fi 1.........!,.:....• . " . ... .---s •/). A ,f. it*e ...............\ .._ ... i ;7.,. .4-.17-7- :) --• zs, 1 •- • ' - - •i-.-'', •V ..•;:ig,....a..ia •.. .. ' —1 0 1 0 (...\\.......„.. ‘ ‘ . 4- 1 I %;- I ." --- -___N. pie• • .- , . . i.—_Iit•--i:' 'aft .,..4-•, • • ./ ....loll I, 1 ,. Vattj. ...t..1 1 ,..., w" '----- , \___ ..., ..... . . A'' ‘ ' !".t•. - .• .) .•A•? • .Z , L.,., • __) .........„ ,.,„.,,. .,.• ..., . r, ,-- - . -:•41.. .44 ,....„.../ . r, . e ...;:4-:.•-:./....,r-,. 1 1---1 — •, — - — g 1 n \ .,\ .,.i. i • .1,4 ' --leif ' r.--rr , ... ..._1.,..,..,,, •....4........- ..-.. .. , . ., . , , 1 , • ,I', ..1.1-. 'i . I Coffman Development Company Shadow Ridge June 15, 1994 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is proposing the rezoning of a 17.6 acre parcel of land from RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Single Family Residential consistent with the land use plan designation of residential - low density, and preliminary subdivision approval. The proposed subdivision would create 23 single-family lots at a net density of 1.7 units per acre (excludes right-of-way and wetlands) with an average net lot area of approximately 26,000 square feet. The applicant is dedicating approximately 1.56 acres for right-of-way including additional right-of- way for Yosemite and Lake Lucy Road. The site is densely wooded in parts and open in the central portion. It contains some steep slopes as well as all or part of three wetland areas. The severe slopes separate the eastern and western parts of the development and are also located around the eastern wetland area. Significant stands of trees are located along the central slope that need to be protected. To this end, staff is recommending that a 20 foot front setback be permitted on Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5, Block 1 to move the building pads away from the top of the slope and that the roadway be realigned to the east per the attached sketch plan to permit greater separation between the top of the slope and the house pad. Staff is also concerned about the severe slopes around the eastern wetlands and encourages the developer to incorporate bluff protection guidelines in the development. Staff is concerned with the suitability and desirability of providing building pads between the roads and the wetlands. On Lots 17 and 18, Block 1, staff does not believe there is sufficient developable area to support two lots in this area. This wetland is designated a natural wetland and as such all efforts should be made to protect and enhance it. The applicant is proposing that the city accept a 10 foot buffer and 40 foot building setback in this area. Additionally, on Lot 18, they are requesting a variance from the wetland setback to permit a deck to be located within 25 feet of the wetland buffer area. Staff believes that a 20 or 30 foot buffer strip is more appropriate between the roadway and the wetland and that the 40 foot building setback should be maintained. Buffer strips are by their very nature not to be altered and should remain in their natural state. Given these constraints, staff believes that there is insufficient developable area on Lots 17 and 18, Block 1 and these lots should be combined into one undevelopable outlot or be included in other lots in the development. Staff is also concerned, for the same reasons, that there is not sufficient developable area in Block 2 to support five (5) lots. We believe that there is only sufficient area to provide acceptable building pads for three homes. We are therefore recommending that Block 2 be — reduced to three (3) lots. Staff is recommending preliminary plat approval of Shadow Ridge subject to the revisions and conditions contained in this staff report. Staff recommends that the wetland setback variance be denied. Coffman Development Company — Shadow Ridge June 15, 1994 Page 3 — BACKGROUND On April 9, 1990, this property was brought into the MUSA by a resolution of the Chanhassen City Council after a petition by the property owners. The Metropolitan Council approved an amendment to the MUSA line on June 14, 1990. This 2000 Land Use Plan amendment permitted these properties to be served by sewer services that were available adjacent to the property. — WETLANDS Three wetlands have been identified on-site and they are described as follows: Basin 1 is located in the southeastern corner of the site. The wetland extends off-site to the — east; approximately 0.7 acre of wetland is on site. The wetland is classified as a natural wetland under the City's Wetland Ordinance. The basin is best described as a combination of an inland deep and shallow fresh meadow with a diversity of species and marginal impacts _ due to agricultural and urban development. Basin 2 is located just east of Yosemite Road along the southern edge of the property. The _ wetland is approximately 0.8 acre in size according to the wetland delineation performed by Svoboda and Associates. The delineation on the west side of the basin is appears to go beyond the trail edge. Since the wetland delineation was performed last March, staff — recommends that this edge be re-evaluated now that the wetland parameters (vegetation, soils, and hydrology) are more apparent. An 18-inch pipe discharges into this wetland from the wetland on the west side of Yosemite. The wetland was classified as an ag/urban wetland — during the City inventory, however, this wetland is best classified as a natural wetland under the City's Wetland Ordinance. The basin is described as an inland shallow fresh meadow. The disturbance to this wetland has been due to the construction and existence of Yosemite — Road and the horse trail use nearby, however, there does not appear to be excessive soil erosion, sedimentation, or water quality degradation. Basin 3 is located in the northeastern corner of the site. The wetland is approximately 0.4 acre in size. The wetland is classified as an ag/urban wetland under the City's Wetland Ordinance. The basin is described as combination of a seasonally flooded basin and wooded — swamp. Land use disturbance to this wetland is similar to Basin 2, however, this wetland is smaller and the degradation appears to be more substantial. _ Coffman Development Company Shadow Ridge June 15, 1994 Page 4 Buffer Strip The buffer strip width required for natural wetlands is 10 to 30 feet with a minimum average width of 20 feet. The principal structure setback is 40 feet measured from the outside edge of the buffer strip. The buffer strip width required for an ag/urban wetland is 0 to 20 feet with a minimum average width of 10 feet. The principal structure setback is 40 feet measured from the outside edge of the buffer strip. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP) The City has prepared a SWMP that is in the final stages of formal adoption. The SWMP will serve as a tool to protect, preserve, and enhance its water resources. The plan identifies the stormwater quantity and quality improvements from a regional perspective necessary to allow future development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In general, the water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100-year design storm interval for ponding and a 10-year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan uses William Walker Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at each drainage area based on projected future land use, and therefore, different sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies. Water Quality The SWMP has established an assessment rate for water quality systems. The cash dedication will be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using the market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. Since the applicant is proposing to construct the water quality basin, these fees will be waived. Water Quantity The SWMP has established an assessment rate for different land uses based on an average, city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes all proposed SWMP trunk systems, culverts, and open channels and stormwater ponding areas for temporary runoff storage. Signal family residential developments will have an assessment rate Coffman Development Company Shadow Ridge June 15, 1994 Page 5 of $1,980 per acre. The proposed development would then be responsible for a water quantity assessment fee of $30,294 assuming 15.3 acres of developable land. Drainage The development is located within the Christmas Lake Watershed. The area is divided into three natural drainage districts described as follows: _ The first drainage district includes the majority of runoff for Block 1. This runoff will have to be pre-treated to Walker Pondnet standards before it drains into the natural wetland located in the easterly part of the site. The second drainage district includes a minor amount of runoff from lots 15 and 16 and the proposed street. The storm runoff drains toward Lake Lucy Road. This drainage should be directed back on-site and pretreated before it is discharged off-site or the applicant will have to show that the runoff from this portion of the site can be accommodated by the existing — drainage system on Lake Lucy Road. The third drainage district includes the runoff from Block 2. This runoff drains into wetlands along Yosemite and into a large wetland known as Clasen Lake north of the site. The runoff from this area will also have to be pre-treated to Walker Pondnet standards before it drains into the existing wetlands. The City's SWMP calls for a 12-inch storm sewer to take the — discharge from the northerly wetland to Clasen Lake. The drainage between the wetlands along Yosemite may need modifications such as a storm sewer connection as part of the development. If no development occurs in this area the improvements still could be made and a credit given against the storm water quantity fees. As a minimum, the applicant shall dedicate a drainage and utility easement over the wetlands and drainageways. The existing site contains large wooded areas and is bordered by two large wetlands to the west and east. Site elevations range from 948 to the north to 994 at the wetlands. The site does provide quite the challenge for development. The applicant is proposing a 60-foot wide — right-of-way. In this instance, there may be room for compromise to a 50-foot wide right-of- way which results in saving trees or minimizing grading to retain the natural topographic features. Staff has worked on a sketch drawing revising the cul-de-sac design somewhat. Right now the applicant is proposing to severely grade some very steep slopes adjacent to both wetland areas. Staff has revised the street alignment and pulled the house pads back up — on top of the hill to minimize grading and stay out of the treed areas. We believe that this is a feasible alternative and should be implemented by the applicant on Lots 1 through 5, Block 1. In addition, staff has revisited the private driveway to Lots 9, 10 and 11 and feel that one of the lots should be eliminated and the lot lines reconfigured per staff's sketch. Staff's design will maintain a majority of the wooded areas and reduce grading dramatically. The Coffman Development Company Shadow Ridge June 15, 1994 Page 6 applicant is also proposing two house sites immediately to Lake Lucy Road (Lots 17 and 18) which are located on very steep slopes with some scattered trees. These lots are immediately adjacent to the natural wetland as well. Staff does not believe that these lots are feasibly able to be built on without mass regrading as well as tree loss, Staff is also concerned about driveway access onto Lake Lucy Road. The appli: :int is proposing a 33-foot wide right-of- -- way which exists today on Lake Lucy Road. Lake Lucy Road is classified as a collector-type street and needs to expand the -fight-of-way to 40 feet. The applicant is proposing numerous retaining walls in an attempt tc ;mit grading and tree loss throughout the development. The plans also propose a storm water quality treatment pond adjacent to the natural wetland on Lots 12, 14, 15 and 17. Side slopes can be designed as either 4:1 or 10:1 for the first 10 feet and 3:1 thereafter for safety purposes. Staff believes a better alternative would be on Lots 10 and 11, Block 1. This would provide the City's Public Works crews better access for maintenance purposes. The storm sewer design proposes two storm sewer lines to convey stormwater runoff to the water retention pond. The water will be treated prior to discharging into the natural wetlands. Again, staff believes the storm drainage system should be revised to consolidate the storm discharge points to one and the storm sewer line be redesigned to provide ease of access for maintenance crews in the future. Staff's sketch has provided what we believe is a superior location as well as access route for maintenance crews. There are a few areas on-site that meet the City's definition of bluff. These areas are where the slope rises at least 25 feet above the toe of the bluff and where the grade of the slope from the toe of the bluff to a point 25 feet above the toe of the bluff averages 30 percent or greater. The areas where the average slope is less than 18 percent over a distance of 50 feet or more shall not be considered part of the bluff. Although this site is not included in the bluff impact zones within the City, staff encourages the applicant to follow the grading and structure setback guidelines designated for bluff impact zones. Erosion Control 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. The City has adopted a Best Management Practice Handbook which the applicant can purchase from the City at a cost of $25 to assist with the design process. UTILITIES Municipal sewer and water is available from Lake Lucy Road. However, due to the sewer elevation'. • will have to be realigned along either the wetlands or through the rear portion of Coffman Development Company Shadow Ridge June 15, 1994 Page 7 the property to be able to serve the rest of the development. Watermain does run adjacent to Lake Lucy Road and can be easily studded into the development. The applicant is also proposing to develop 5 lots adjacent to Yosemite Road (Lots 1 through 5, Block 2). Currently, no City sewer or water exists in Yosemite Road adjacent to these lots. City sewer and water ends just north of Lot 1. The sanitary sewer, however, is approximately 6 to 8 feet deep in that location and cannot be extended to service these lots without the use of ejector pumps in the homes. Staff believes that eventually sanitary sewer will be brought up to the intersection of Lake Lucy Road and Yosemite from the south at which time the sewer could be extended of Yosemite to service these parcels and the parcels to the west of Yosemite. Therefore, at this time we feel that development of these lots should be considered premature and should be platted as an outlot until sewer and water in Yosemite is upgraded to urban standards. According to the utility billing department, the existing home at 1420 Yosemite is on water only. It appears this home is to be razed as a part of the development construction. The existing home at 1430 which is located on Lot 1, Block 1, is currently connection to City sewer but not water. According to City ordinance, the property owner may retain his well until such time as it fails, at which time the property owner is required to connect to City water. The existing septic system and well at 1420 Lake Lucy Road will have to be property abandoned per City/State codes in conjunction with site grading. Since the development will include the installation of public utility and street improvements, the applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security and administration fees to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval. The applicant shall submit to the City for review and formal City Council approval detailed construction plans of the street and utility improvements. All street and utility improvements should be designed and constructed in accordance to the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Staff typically reviews access and utility service to parcels adjacent to development To the north of this development lies a large tract of land which does not currently have City sewer and water available to it. As a part of this development it is recommended the applicant extend sewer and water service along the common property line of one of the lots (5, 6, 7, 8 or 9) to provide future sewer and water service to the parcel to the north. We believe future street access to this development would be from Yosemite Road. The parcel currently gains access through a private driveway from Yosemite Road. We also believe the applicant should dedicate a 30-foot wide strip of land across the northerly 30 feet of Lot 1, Block 2 for future road right-of-way to access the site to the north of this development. Coffman Development Company Shadow Ridge June 15, 1994 Page 8 STREETS — Access to the site will be provided from Lake Lucy Road via a shared drive between Lots 17 and 18 and a cul-de-sac serving the remaining 16 lots in Block 1 and via Yosemite for the five lots in Block 2. Lake Lucy Road is designated as a collector road in the Land Use Plan. The site is proposed to take access from Lake Lucy Road. The intersection of Lake Lucy Road and the new street poses somewhat of a concern for staff due to sight distance problems. Commission members may be somewhat familiar with the sight distance problem that currently exists at the intersection of Yosemite and Lake Lucy Road. There may be a similar concern for this intersection. The applicant's engineer should verify that adequate sight lines are provided in accordance with MnDOT's sight distance requirements. This may or may not require adjusting the intersection one way or the other. As previously indicated, Lake Lucy Road exists within in a 33-foot wide right-of-way. The applicant should be required to dedicate an additional 7 feet of right-of-way to be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan which classifies that this road is a collector-type roadway system. The City has obtained additional right-of-way from previous developments along Lake Lucy Road such as WillowRidge, WillowRidge 2nd Addition and Curry Farms. This will increase the impacts to Lots 17 and 18 as far as the setbacks go. Staff is also concerned about driveway accesses onto Lake Lucy Road from these two locations. The engineering staff believes that both lots (17 and 18) should be removed unless the applicant's engineer _ can demonstrate the lots are feasible and minimize impact to the existing terrain and wetlands. Right now staff believes there will be a major impact to the natural wetland as a result of constructing homes on these two parcels. The applicant is proposing to fill on Lot 18 approximately 7 to 9 feet and employ a use for retaining walls in the rear yards to buffer from the wetland. Staff has worked with the alignment of the street and has shifted the northerly half of the street easterly by approximately 20 feet at the curve in an effort to minimize grading and tree loss on Lots 2 through 5, Block 1. Staff also has adjusted the private driveway at the end of the cul-de-sac which required losing one of the lots. However, we believe that this alignment is best suited for the terrain and will minimize impact to overall development. The proposed cul-de-sac is designed with 60-foot wide right-of-ways. In an effort to further minimize grading or tree loss, it is recommended that a 20-foot setback be considered versus the 30-foot normal setback. Coffman Development Company - Shadow Ridge June 15, 1994 Page 9 LANDSCAPING/TREE PRESERVATION The applicant has prepared tree preservation calculations for the development. Existing canopy coverage is 6.72 acres. Based on a net developable acreage of 15.29 acres, this represents a base line canopy coverage of 44 percent. Using the canopy coverage matrix, this - development will be required to provide 35 percent canopy coverage or 5.35 acres of canopy coverage. The applicant has stated that they are in the process of preparing the final canopy coverage estimates for the development. Based on the review of the site, the tree preservation area, and the applicant's statement that individual lots will be custom graded, staff believes that the applicant will be able to meet the canopy coverage requirements. The applicant is proposing an extensive wetland and tree preservation area (attached) within the development encompassing approximately 5.7 acres. Staff is recommending some modifications to the preservation area: add 50 feet to the rear of Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5, Block 1; - add 20 feet from the north lot line of Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, Block 1; add 10 feet in the northeast corner of Lot 9, Block 1; add 20 feet along the east line of Lot 18, Block 1; and provide a standard easement of 130 feet along the east lot lines of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, Block 2. This change results in a net increase in wetland and tree preservation area of 0.43 acres for a total area of 6.13 acres of which 3.87 acres are tree preservation area and 2.26 acres are wetland. The tree preservation area would represent approximately 72 percent of the required canopy coverage area.. Prior to the final plat approval, a Woodland Management Plan and Tree Preservation Plan must be developed by a landscape professional pursuant to section 18-61(d) of the City Code. This plan must be submitted to the city and be approved by staff. RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE The Park and Recreation Commission will hold their public hearing on this development on Jtine 28, 1994. Tentatively, they will request park and trail fees. Their recommendations will be included in the submittal to City Council. - REZONING The rezoning of the property from RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Single Family Residential is consistent with the 2000 Land Use Plan designation of the property as Residential - Low Density which permits net densities of 1.2 to 4.0 units per acre. - Coffman Development Company Shadow Ridge June 15, 1994 Page 10 COMPLIANCE TABLE LOT, BLOCK WIDTH (ft) DEPTH (ft) AREA (sq ft) WETLAND SETBACK, ft from buffer, and the buffer Code 90 125 15,000 Natura1:40, plus 20 average, range 10 - 30: Ag/Urban: 40, plus 10 avg 1, 1 240 146 35,050 NA 1, 2 100 181.5 17,700 NA 1, 3 100 212.5 21,000 NA 1, 4 75* 210 22,300 NA 1, 5 135 221 33,700 NA 1, 6 85* 134 14,250# NA 1, 7 100 129.5 13,350# NA 1, 8 100 141 14,900# NA 1, 9 171 178 25,150 NA 1, 10 100 305 31,950 40, plus 20 avg 1, 11 100 282 27,850 40, plus 20 avg 1, 12 84* 149 17,100 NA 1, 13 100 130 17,200 NA 1, 14 100 170 16,800 NA 1, 15 100 177.5 17,900 40, plus 20 avg 1, 16 130 140 18,200 NA 1, 17 110 180 21,550 40, plus 20 avg Coffman Development Company Shadow Ridge June 15, 1994 Page 11 1, 18 143 230 32,900 40, plus 20 avg 2, 1 138 338 47,250 40, plus 10 avg 2, 2 90 331 29,550 40, plus 10 avg 2, 3 90 317 28,300 40, plus 10 avg 2, 4 90 301 34,350 40, plus 10 avg 2, 5 240 292.5 70,450 40, plus 10 avg Notes: *Meets minimum width at building setback; # does not meet minimum lot area; NA - not applicable FINDINGS 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential Single Family District provided the lot lines are adjusted to provide Lots 6, 7, and 8 - additional area to meet the minimum requirements and with the elimination of Lots 17 and 18, Block 1 and the elimination of two lots in Block 2. 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable plans. 3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions and revisions specified in this report. Of special concern are the steep slopes around the easterly wetland and separating the east and west portions of this development. The applicant shall attempt to minimize the grading in these areas and to move house pads away from the top of the slope. 4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; Coffman Development Company Shadow Ridge June 15, 1994 Page 12 Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure. Block 2 shall be platted as an outlot until such time as sewer is available from the intersection of Lake Lucy Road and Yosemite. Of special concern are the steep slopes around the easterly wetland and separating the east and west portions of this development. The applicant shall attempt to minimize the grading in these areas and to move house pads away from the top of the slope. 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage in subject to conditions of approval. 6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record. Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements. 7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. b. Lack of adequate roads. c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. Finding: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban infrastructure. Staff recommends that Block 2 be platted as a outlot until such time as sewer service can be provided from the intersection of Lake Lucy Road and Yosemite. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Subdivision #94-4 and Rezoning 94-2 to create nineteen (19) lots on 17.6 acres of land and rezone the property from RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Single Family Residential consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and deny the wetland setback variance request subject to the following conditions: Coffman Development Company Shadow Ridge June 15, 1994 Page 13 1. Revise the lot lines for Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 to bring all the lot areas up to the minimum 15,000 square feet. 2. Modify the preservation areas as follows: add 50 feet to the rear of Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5, Block 1; add 20 feet from the north lot line of Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, Block 1; add 10 feet in the northeast corner of Lot 9, Block 1; add 20 feet along the east line of Lot 18, Block 1; and provide a standard easement of 130 feet along the east lot lines of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, na 5, Block 2 (see attached City Wetland and Tree Preservation Area). 3. Prior to the final plat approval, a Woodland Management Plan and Tree preservation Plan must be developed by a landscape professional pursuant to section 18-61(d) of the City Code. This plan must be submitted to the city for staff approval. 4. A 20 foot front setback be permitted on Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5, Block 1 to move the building pads away from the top of the slope and that the roadway be realigned to the east per the attached sketch plan to permit greater separation between the top of the _ slope and the house pads. 5. Staff is also concerned about the severe slopes around the eastern wetlands and _ encourages the developer to incorporate bluff protection guidelines in the development. 6. Designate Block 2 as an outlot until sewer service is available from the intersection of _. Lake Lucy Road and Yosemite. 7. Park trail and park fees as specified by city ordinance. 8. Re-evaluate wetland delineation on west side of the southerly wetland adjacent to Yosemite. 9. If the applicant intends to alter any of the wetlands on-site, they must meet city, state and federal permitting requirements for wetland alterations. 10. The City requires detailed storm water quantity and quality calculations from the applicant prior to final plat (storm water system should meet the City's SWMP design parameters). All stormwater ponding basins shall be designed and constructed with 4:1 slopes overall or 10:1 slopes for the first 10 feet and then 3:10 slopes. 11. The proposed development will be responsible for a water quantity assessment fee of $30,294 assuming 15.3 acres of developable land. Water quality assessments will be waived if the applicant constructs an on-site Walker pretreatment basin. These fees will be negotiated based on the developers contribution to the City's SWMP for the Coffman Development Company Shadow Ridge June 15, 1994 Page 14 site. SWMP fees for water quantity and quality are pending formal approval of the SWMP by City Council. If there are any modifications to the fees, they will be changed prior to final plat. 12. Runoff from lots 15 and 16 and the access road is shown to discharge to Lake Lucy Road. This drainage should be directed back on-site and treated before it is discharged unless the applicant can demonstrate that the runoff from this portion of land can be handled by the existing drainage system on Lake Lucy Road. 13. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of all drain tiles found during construction. Drain tile shall be relocated or abandoned as directed by the City Engineer. 14. The applicant's engineer shall prepare documentation that the sight distance at the intersection of Lake Lucy Road and the proposed street is in accordance to MnDOT's sight line requirements for a 35 MPH speed limit. 15. The existing home on Lot 1, Block 1 will be required to connect to City water once the well on the property fails. 16. The applicant shall dedicate an additional 7 feet along Lake Lucy Road with the final plat. 17. The existing outbuildings and any septic system or wells on the site shall be abandoned in accordance with City and/or State codes. 18. The applicant should redesign the plat in accordance to staff's layout dated June 9, 1994 as indicated in Attachment No. 1. 19. Lots 17 and 18 should be combined and platted as an outlot or one large lot unless the applicant's engineer can demonstrate that a home can be built on this site which provides less disruption to the existing terrain and wetland. 20. The stormwater retention pond shall be relocated between Lots 10 and 11 and the storm sewer system combined into one discharge point along Lots 10 and 11, Block 1 of staff's revised plat. 21. A variance to the 30-foot setback should be considered in an effort to save trees and minimize grading. Coffman Development Company Shadow Ridge June 15, 1994 Page 15 — 22. Lots 1 through 5, Block 2 should be platted as an outlot due to the lack of adequate utilities and street. This outlot would not be subdividable or buildable until Yosemite — Road is upgraded to the City's urban standard and municipal sanitary sewer and water is extended adjacent to the parcel. 23. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated for all utility lines outside the plat. The minimum easement width should be 20 feet. 24. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee the installation of the public improvements _ and compliance of the conditions of approval. 25. 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 construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to staff for review and formal approval by the City Council in conjunction with final plat consideration. 26. The applicant shall apply for and obtain the necessary permits from the Watershed District, DNR, Department of Health, MPCA and other appropriate regulatory agencies — and comply with their conditions of approval. 27. Upon completion of site grading, all disturbed areas shall be restored with seed and — disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket within two weeks of completing the site grading unless the City's Best Management Practice Handbook planting dates dictate otherwise. All erosion control measures shall be in accordance to the City's Best — Management Practice Handbook. Attachments 1. Development Review Application 2. Development Narrative by William D. Coffman, Jr. — 3. Preliminary Plat • 4. Preliminary Utility Plan 5. Preliminary Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control Plan — 6. Applicant's Wetland and Tree Preservation Areas 7. City Wetland and Tree Preservation Area 8. Memo from Mark Littfin, Fire Marshall dated 6/2/94 — 9. Memo from Steve Kirchman, Building Official dated 6/6/94 10. Letter from Joe Richter dated 6/1/94 _ 11. Notice of Public Hearing and Mailing List 12. Staff's version of revised plat 13. Preliminary plat dated May 18, 1994 — CITY OF CHANHASSEN 1:0 COULTER DRIVr CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION FEc' APPLICANT: (uffi7A.1 7)GUQPWeNT Gryi°l4^`'7 OWNER: 7e/271,51 Alec- %?. 0 82/EAJ ADDRESS: 5/S/ ED/4/.4- ADDRESS: /`12 0 /'4/cc 2frc r SL(iw" /(7 t/)1r/A /►fry 55`1 39 Ex r6,t ort /�iv 55 3 3/ / / / "TELEPHONE (Day time) 8 3 S ^ /2 ' U TELEPHONE: 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW/Easements 2. Conditiona! Use Permit 12. Variance 3. Grading/Excavation Permit 13. Wetland Alteration Permit 4. Interim Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal 5. Planned Unit Development 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. Rezoning — 7. Sign Permits 8. Sign Plan Review x, Notification Signs 9. Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" $100 CUP/SPRNACNARANAP $400 Minor SUB/Metes & Bounds 10. X Subdivision TOTAL FEE $ g9:5°% 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. 8W' 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. " Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract PHOJECT NAME 5//4- i) LOCATION / '20 tfi P13 D i Lac y /� LEGAL DESCRIPTION Sce PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION Si2".€"-/7/r9 - L04,1 5/7y REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION �E s/Dc�i.9z - LoL✓ 2^'S/7Y REASON FOR THIS REQUEST % 1 -/ zcif' 5.-Av6e /TeM65 T&"5 This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly 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 I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying 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. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further 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. 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 approval/permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's Office and the ori.inal document returned to City Hall Records. � , 000 5- 9 Signa ' - of •. n •' (-51/3- 'S-7/ 6/v Signature of Fee Owner Dat Application Received on Fee Paid Receipt No. The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the - meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. EXHIBIT "A" Commencing at the Westerly } corner of Section 2, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota; thence Easterly along the E-W Center Section line 330. 1 feet; thence deflect left 90 degrees 06 minutes along the centerline of Apple Road 331 .8 feet to the point of beginning, thence deflect right parallel with the said center section line 402.00 feet; thence 0ddeflect ecteleft ft90 fegreesh00ceinutes e 405.00 feet; thence deflect left 90 deg . right 90 degrees 00 minutes 282.95 feet to the centerline of driveway; thence with — deflect left along said crltherlydriveway alongotheits centerlineiof said the of said Apple Road; thence Sou Apple Road to the point of beginning. AND Commencing at the Southeast cornei- of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 2, Township 116 North, Range23 West; thencefNorthtalong the one half quarter line 589 feet to a point; South parallel with the first mentioned line 598. 7 feet to a point on quarter Section line; thence East on said line 600 feet to place of beginning . containing, 8. 18 acres of land. Also commencing at a point 589 feet North of the Southeast corner of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 2, Township 116, Range 23; thence North 137 feet; thence West 600 feet; thence South 137 feet; thence East 600 feet to the place of beginning, containing 1 .82 acres of land. 11; Sentinel Bu v rGoffrnan Development 5151 Edina IndusrillBuulevard Company Edina, Minnesota 55-110 • 612/835-1270 May 18, 1994 City of Chanhassen _ 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 To whom it may concern: Coffman Development Company respectfully requests Preliminary Plat approval of Shadow Ridge, a 23 lot subdivision on approximately fifteen acres of land located at 1420 and 1430 Lake Lucy Road. Phase one shall consist of 18 homesites with the existing home at 1430 Lake Lucy Road remaining on Lot 1 , Block 1 . The home at 1420 Lake Lucy Road will be razed. The remaining 17 homesites will be sold to one or more custom home builders for homes in the $300,000 and up price range. Grading operations for phase one will hopefully begin August 10, 1994 with completion of all utilities by October 15, 1994. Phase two shall consist of 5 homesites all being served from Yosemite Avenue. The grading plan for this phase has not been completed due to the fact there are several engineering issues yet to be resolved. Therefore the timing of phase two construction has not yet been determined. Two variances are being requested at this time. First, we request the 20 foot side yard setback for flag lots be reduced to 10 feet. This only affects Lots 5, 9 and 10, Block 1 . This will aid in tree preservation and natural topography preservation. Secondly, we request the 40 foot setback required from a wetland Distinctive Neighborhoods since 1950 buffer strip be reduced to 25 feet to the deck only, on Lot 18, Block 1 . This will allow a deck to be built on this home in the normal fashion. It is our sincere intention to develop Shadow Ridge into a highly desirable upscale neighborhood. We believe this will be accomplished by preserving the three wetlands on the site, by preserving most of the natural topographic features of the site with the use of relatively deep lots as well as flag lots, and by maintaining the wooded nature of the site by building boulder retaining walls to preserve wooded slopes and also placing tree preservation easements across much of the site. Respectfully submitted, Air° -I ` / William D... .ffp: n, Jr. President I' ' B\ 1 li 1 / a 1 ; X11` 41 _- _ q!1, 1 .. t I { 1 . - . .a - -TT \ 1 j /(' _i --s-;--L---. -":"---___ i !1.,it-i•.':- la gap . " .-- . illif ______\.1 t:,,•: , : 2.*:./,,,,, —:••:...:____„, l'\'sr---;2,\)*---. IhNipte, ..-jk/ .,,ti.----• _-_--4-• ..-.-.„.-,,..:-.7,--z-z..„ isigio = I- niv / / �/ - ._• '. moi) �]Z(( i :t,�� �� .�-..i'j�. i-,..•? i "f!•.% -,.. , - + / tomit r 1—_ iC o = 1' • ' ' ... `' ' ' -. . • — A 1 \ . • 1 ' ....• - t'/'' o 1 I . .:,..7::7-: 1 s. ''i i f : o ro C _ Mil t, r. b ... -..,`f-.d -- —f Z �_ c.— +E • ' _8 ata' - s ' •� -1 _-_ i . - � dill - pa 1° . ' ..- -iiiI i.p W E tf i £ $l. LAKE LUC! ROAD —. \ 101 > '. 60000 •••• -- s \ M. € a s 4 1 E aa. . D 1 xl li 0 s it 1 a ijc i E !'s. p(a I n c a;= n > o{af i '� ,ii,......... i} 11 f`8= ils1 a� f� 11f �j' J a drpjFfirl ill# iii[Ilit, lelp. it iVilplato.pariel; Ir. ;(11.11.14:1*�} aial1;'laaalys1e1111! .i I. '-ial' a l#f i ! I g _ ii ! 3i ( 4 •sEci # p U C 5 -Il1fi3 t;scFi=Ef [1 111'015=ls=41 ii r I!!! =�.� •tea o n .! i {sfi111 ■IaalgW4 ii it =-ai ; 1_1 ifia 11. a —io 1 !Io lam! saaa ; ast J!! - an !if F�; a i t rll =i a! � [r;ai�I�aaa i 11 i3l ;oaaa !- s:}'� a3'Iatt= i L! — J•_-1 L_L9 1 a• ` Jlaatliz}`_I rig=a flat !3 1`iiii itlsli S L . , 1y }(�i 'a i11 :ra=t. ai _E•1g � , €=-C fa jn ,_ R if .1111011(titillig);:a 11,3 r ilhI1fl !Ill1 fiii it I ,a z r 4 / gam IP I Q 1 r ti a 40 \ -- �-- tamE 042 kle ' `- . - ni \ 1 J .i- ,...—f_ \ \ { l a • - ,, :: ,..--- -. --zi , , t-- , . _-:--- ...-.z / — . , ,-, , Nee —','/ ; • ,,,. vi- \_ Jit n { - A r., -j4f L, ,... ge f.., _ i i F'ii: \v...- i 1 i IS k .... _ L.----...„:„.... , ..... . . _ .,., _ -.,,,r-----. - ..... .... ,,,, ..._ .,__ ..„ ,:,_, , , ... II i 1 !Ili r 1 !. I/ ,, ..i _ • 111 I 1 ,r, �' S i 1 1 / •/ ,m; ' b 1 li ' Ta . Iv — ,In ' : -t o 1' `�l—rJ .z . It - . ;5 •J i ,l - F_ •,.ls raj —— - —IJACE LUCI ROAD 2 z z i -. �n s I v. < 'I`�!JI1 C 7- > •• z Q_,, t v l \/ 6 o a o , I, I g c g 5 a C n BERM o m 5!!ii o gliii ra == i i C'. X 5 i 13 \ J 6 _ "� f III /\ ;ill/_.:_ • . - \�\l`' •1 ''�.I . . spy ! �}f \,,_„.,,,..„:„.2.\Z �' • 2 ,...r . . ,3 g f i I I r- i ..i 't:� ¶,22 .ir ': � 0 '1�`!�• : iiiik , t't iii f !`. ISR k'iMi-"t Z,� #.'` �� moll i 1 lif \ . i(r / ti t ; i ifft4F .' .� •/�i: 1f "° ” ;,,> 1 ( r/- a ng - >;r..: iL i Ilia. �'y• moi, 1 • • \� i...7.. i• 2f( ._I sem-«• 1101 *it:41.17 iI1 Fly f . b fff11� �nx0.1, �,�_ 0.A// O • flOEN 'L.'w••r4;:SSC � ' Iti M &Jil' • IW 1 I I �/ �4' 5"r"'IIii•77 / i •.!..(:,.. ,/ •.• i - tri 21g I ler I- t ,'' . 4 a \ . •— . tt rte .- :.-4 o 7:_rs.",•' - ..t14 iArit '%.•••\k2.---a----•-.....----.:-.."7-___-_,........,,- ' ---------- Mil / _ (AJfil/�� �>l 1:—.t....,,,_-_-----,..:4.�i . ,,t=om - - - t - - -` LAKE uiCY ROAD fit; • '. 'iIfj1 ni pr1 1 hili = giiolaii � .. i`� , iiv. I 111 s I 2 11 , I- g•` '. i off ii 6 I4Ir r A'' ,I Wq 411`4 I., n i r I t„I' t o $ i g I:.I� is I Id • Pi i le f $ F,.:a V 2 O • i --t • 6 a •9 y R , J . ti c m II., T 9 g 9 til Li' I a If `” :I ' 111 11 1 Si i 17 .. j I ti — Ij �,-i l p PP i>, 1169 2 ' I 1 i I Imm I z 8311W3Sook.-- i 7) • \\1116,11k \ \1( ... ` i g • • ., L A• Ar \.1/2',, . 1 'i' (..,. _......_,,. ,.• \‘( ../ , 1 1 1) I/1 I.i.. . _ . iii. , \ \\ � dr_ s, . • � --. 0) — —— �,-1 4111 ah O . (<,... .'‘'.r t rj 1 . ��� �� �( s-; ._, ...tz _t sii� ,#* iffill El -nureiI- us,n,IEr, . ' d J dm% twativiffi „, 1 _ ' ' •i.i .(c,(/ . -1_, PaVps...lik 0 wid r I ' - \-...: „.•" „„...(-:-----;-,..- -..a....:14iiki...,, 1__ - 1 rigfiriti 1 rri rl r : IlkA % •� -. Z . 1:0,.' 1 . lits,\„'44 e __ ..--_-:-. rig. --.- , imal .7 i. .1/ : • ik .44mith. I t; 2,) .27- .111.:"..- 1 •------ :..___,j•ri ' i ' A,.illibilite,Atilblk \ \ . I Ad k ;„,-----,-. ----- ,• J i lei a /j• 1:-/e/..- �-- • `` 19 / � " \,,\ .,fit 7 ,.tr )Y }, �� z m.m1 -..., ..... 7- 11 . . . ... , ... . _ .. O .-- — - i •OS, 311w3 S' A —--- •-• '......"...1111klak. \\ ..---- 1-. •. .• _--- . \....,_\.,\\\ ts- \\1 i I.\\,. •,.. ... ---\\N, N, •,...... ) , ii .' . '... •,,,,,,,, ' ,.. -- .. / ..-'. ___.-----"- • 1 , li • ' ' N... ''',. . -'..''',..'' - • I' , '' ..\ 7 . ,/ • \\.:17,' • ) ...... ,., .. •.... il' (t . ,\ i '. 1 i •i •'-- ..- 1 0 1 'N.......,.....N.......______"" ‘s 1 )(7 k 1 1 : `.. ' _.416.62.milliiMirr • ii ....- Lk, lik- ' ge&arMill 4' ,.-- ,,. ., e•••a• .' -Mil.:') '', -'''• "...... .'... .•••• ..- __ .. ...." ..."' .•-• ...,..... ••.1.--.---. I ....• , ____, ___.__. .,. . .._..... e.. 1• •cP .... rt-:120- 411111144.‘<14..::7: ..1114 74ire.‘414P.,4....431r )0- .. ____.. *.... .....• 4,..,.„,,,iltie ,s......„.„........„./ Nt ,„„,_ . .. _ .r.--_,..„„,,,s ....,–_—_____ m 1061_,,.........:\\ ..... / ..„..: f... ........._____ _ : : 6 1 4../2:.-2".; ( /7.'ir—'-=- r . ; -, _ , • .411„„ ) P / ( / z(-.". • /) 1 , , c z , . - , 10104 i I C . , . ..„.;* lilip;y2WI 1.....4611111141114. # .6..e.. . 1 \ rir irgliik. z i off , 0 ..--- Ilffiir v_ i • c, ,co —fr-- I . -•,--„. -- -;;----- ..„1„,.. f .-- s'f-----%.0:,;.--- -1------:----------„,--..,-e* tINPliodi — --1 r"....ii • ..'e...--• ..-., .--:-,6 •----.3--- • i -4.tive'r--' -.• V • M ./Vi;• ... '`,.% .1\...,,, . :i..,`':.... , . „.,Nr...... m--/ ., '/'• • CAI IIN.V.•••k6.. /...''.'" %*SC" If I ..5 \*f .../... .... •. , •'/// / :1 ''. .41.7111 ..,... , ., .... ...... • ,,tv .,,'.. 1y1 . - i A (-(": Xi .. -.‘, ,... 1 --.-' . .....----- • . r ; - 3491 III ii%3L1101:Ib.. \:kk.,•:..e' 4 .,,r •3...11.-• r j Aji .i, 0,.. . ._ M . ... . .. __ . *i • -.).,.;; • 1 - 1\%ri,..14.1411.144.411 I- IL. . \.,.." .,r1 •I' L '4.. -4%. .N •'''.:,ii • .r • '• .2.`r‘ .."` c f"/.• ''''''' /- ,---- \ -'sekti.'• \ : ---f-;?_.= 40....< -5-*'el.'',. •,,'CI, .ji.. ..,... --N. - . iliiit .• V‘.. •1 \ So //;- ' - .1' - t r f / • , ,, ..,,,, •,3. ,\,,,s,‘,',1 7 i.2r 311 7,// • ,... 4,,?!..:, ____ _. N.\ .. '41/ -,,•,'A•?...'-!.:•.,:- -'" . ..• - ...L, , . .. .... .3. 3:3 i M 3:).- CITY o 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: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: June 2, 1994 SUBJ: Lake Lucy, Yosemite Road Shadow Ridge Planning Case #94-4 SUB and #94-2 REZ I have reviewed the submitted plans and have the following requirements: _ 1. Submit revised utility plans for approval of locations of fire hydrants. Fire hydrant spacing is 300 foot maximum. 2. Submit street names to Fire Marshal for approval. This is to avoid duplication of existing street names to minimize confusion in emergency situations. 3. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, cable TV, transformer boxes. This is to insure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance Sec. 9-1. 4. Submit turning radius and cul-de-sac dimensions to City Engineer and Fire Marshal for approval. Pursuant to 1991 Chanhassen Fire Code Sec. 10.204 (d) and 10.203. CITY OF 101°11. IIANEASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 — MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Generous, Planner II — FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official .cl DATE: June 6, 1994 SUBJ: 94-4 SUBand 94-2 REZ (Shadow Ridge) Background: I have reviewed your request for comments on the above referenced planning case, and have some items that should be added as conditions of approval. Analysis: In order to avoid conflicts and confusion, street names,public and private,must be reviewed by the Public Safety Department. Proposed street names are not included with the submitted documents. Locations of proposed house pads and the type of dwelling is necessary to enable the Inspections Division and Engineering Department to perform a satisfactory plan review of the structure at the time of building permit issuance. For the same reason, proposed lowest level floor elevations as well as garage floor elevations are required to be indicated on the proposed pad location. Standard designations (FLO or RLO, R, SE, SEWO,TU, WO)must be shown for proposed dwelling types. These standard designations lessen the chance for errors during the plan review process. The memo explaining these designations is enclosed. Recommendations: The following conditions should be added to the conditions of approval. 1. Submit street names to the Public Safety Department,Inspections Division for review prior to final — plat approval. 2. Revise the preliminary grading plan to show the location of proposed house pads, using standard designations and the lowest level floor and garage floor elevations. This should be done prior to final plat approval. enclosure: January 29, 1993 memorandum _ g:^safety\sak\memos\plan\shdwrdge.bg 1 CITY QF . • CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORAN r UM TO: Inspections, Planning, & Engineering Staff FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official 4i_ DATE: January 29, 1993 SUBJ: Dwelling Type Designation We have been requesting on site plan reviews that the developer designate the type of — dwelling that is acceptable on each proposed lot in a new development. I thought perhaps it might be helpful to staff to explain and diagram these designations and the reasoning behind the requirements. FLO or RLO Designates Front Lookout or Rear lookout This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8'below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to approximately 4' above the basement floor level. R Designates Rambler. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8' below grade with the surrounding grade approximately level. This would include two story's and many 4 level dwellings. SE Designates Split Entry. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4'below grade with the surrounding grade approximately level. SEWO Designates Split Entry Walk Out This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4' ' — below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to lowest floor level. TU Designates Tuck Under. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8' below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the front of the dwelling. WO Designates Walk Out This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8'below grade -;at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the rear of the dwelling. wo - , cm. RLO _ __ ill =1� Inspections staff uses these designations when reviewing plans which are then passed to the engineering staff for further review. Approved grading plans are compared to proposed building plans to insure compliance to approved conditions. The same designation must be used on all documents in order to avoid confusion and incorrect plan reviews. ��4. PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER STATE OF DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES PHONE No. METRO WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106 FILE NO 772-7910 June 1, 1994 Mr. Robert Generous, Planner II City of Chanhassen - 690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: SHADOW RIDGE, COFFMAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, CITY OF CHANHASSEN (94-4 SUB) , CARVER COUNTY Dear Mr. Generous: We have reviewed the site plans (received May 24 , 1994) for the above-referenced project (Section 2 , T116N-R23W) and have the following comments to offer: 1. The project site does not contain any Public Waters or Public Waters Wetlands; therefore, no DNR permit is required. However, it appears there are wetlands on the site that are not under DNR Public Waters Permit jurisdiction. You should be aware that your project may be subject to federal and local wetland regulations. The Department may provide additional comments on your project through our review of applications submitted under these other regulatory programs. 2 . The site does not appear to be within a shoreland or floodplain district. 3 . It appears that the stormwater is treated in the wetland. In general, we are opposed to the primary treatment of stormwater in wetlands. Sedimentation/treatment facilities should be used to protect the wetland from sedimentation and water level bounces which are detrimental to the basins wildlife values and water quality. The determination of what is best at this particular site should be addressed by the city and other agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands subject to the Wetland Conservation Act. 4 . There should be some type of 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 U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and the City of Chanhassen have jurisdiction over the areas and that the wetlands cannot be altered without appropriate permits. vJ AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Mr. Generous June 1, 1994 Page 2 5. The following comments are general and apply to all proposed -' developments: a. 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, shculd be followed. b. 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. c. If construction activities disturb more than five acres of land, the cc-tractor must apply for a stormwater permit from the MLnnesota Pollution Control Agency (Scott Thompson @ 296-7203) . d. The comments in this letter address DNR - Division of Waters jurisdictional matters and concerns. These comments should not be construed as DNR support or lack thereof for a particular project. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me at 772-7910 should you have any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, '6-64--4-1 f-g:-14--t'-k Joe Richter Hydrologist c: Riley-Purgatory Bluff Creek WSD, Bob Obermeyer U. S. Army Corps of Engineer, Gary Elftmann , '), c)i, 1. 1 ; �- Ilk ) I. ,K ... ` 1 d S1 'moi'�..�.:fii rAlla I �-_,\� _Jam ■. l ,timcc- arra -. �+` �/ " NOTICE OF PUBLIC ��-- `"'- A�,`.'�/ ili HEARING r.,2:.-f•:.. ���., Ns-aTi,L iii.:1,46, L . PLANNING COMMISSION rr: � - —; di' or • ,� - ' MEETING ` ., ' A - Wednesday, JUNE 15, 1994 - a J� •''. :ate 'Rom s;urn at 7:30 .m. !IIIII L 0 `1 Z -14 airjr-- City Hall Council Chambers7r11 r : L� ,1'� •j 690 Coulter Drive _ '-;_lb' - ,rte g'' AA L Project: Shadow Ridge =/ ' �» LA Lf/Cr N Ai Developer: Coffman Development � '' • - Li _ 7-•*7-iitf Tr 11, itvwa• ..L SNOREC S Location: 1420 and 1430 Lake Lucy / AR" ivit, . ifilAigv OW / Road r �� LAKE ANN PARK .. ` Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your — area. The applicant is requesting to rezone 17.6 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family and preliminary plat to subdivide 17.6 acres of property into 23 single family lots with wetland setback variances and side yard setback variances on the flag — lots, located at 1420 and 1430 Lake Lucy Road, Shadow Ridge (Harvey/O'Brien) Coffman Development Company. 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 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 Bob at 937-1900, ext. 141. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the 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 June 2, 1994. * The Park and Recreation Commission will hear this item on June 28 at 7:30 p.m. - .._,undgren Bros. Const. Wayne R. & Debra Patterson David & Lindsay Anderson 935 East Wazyata Blvd. 6637 Mulberry Circle 6655 Mulberry Circle Vayzata, MN 55391 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 .ester & Stephanie Morrow Eric & Lisa Kleven Lehrer Andrew & Anne Eckert -0673 Mulberry Circle 6601 Mulberry Circle 6619 Mulberry Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Kathryn Stoddart Shirley Hopf Bruce & Nannette Twaddle _.611 West 63rd Street 6420 Yosemite 6430 Yosemite Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Dale Hiebert & Susan Jorgenson Harry & Joeann Desasntis Laura Warner Lundquist )510 Yosemite 6440 Yosemite 6460 Yosemite -.3xcelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 -Michael Schmidt Michael O'Neill & Richard Saffrin 6470 Yosemite Diane Utzman-O'Neill 1661 Wood Duck Lane Excelsior, MN 55331 1671 Pintail Circle Excelsior, MN 55331 — Excelsior, MN 55331 , _viichael & Mary Koester Emma St. John Thomas & Ann Nye 1641 Wood Duck Lane 1621 West 63rd Street 1641 West 63rd Street 'Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Leonard Sr. & Luvilla Koehnen Glenn & Teresa VanderGalien James & Rhonda Downie —1631 West 63rd Street 6371 Teton Lane 6361 Teton Lane Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 John & Donette Leduc Randy & Sheree Karl Frank & Mary Uggla 6401 Teton Lane 6391 Teton Lane 6381 Teton Lane —Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 J- on & Julie Thornberg James & Mary Benson Mark & Kathy Paulsen 1320 Stratton Court 1310 Stratton Court 1321 Stratton Court Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 —S. John & Lisa Hagenstein Craig & Leslie Carlson William & Lori Delay 1331 Stratton Court 1341 Stratton Court 1350 Stratton Court Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Bruce & Annette Kotzian Robert & Margaret Thompson Neil & Susan Bergquist 1340 Stratton Court 1330 Stratton Court 1311 Stratton Court chan Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 -- Gregory & Julie Carter Eric & Jean Lopez Douglas & Joan Ahrens 6600 Charing Bend 6606 Charing Bend 6601 Charing Bend Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Todd Posusta & Robin Bury Almond Krueger Myrna Johnson 6480 Yosemite 1600 Lake Lucy Road 1630 Lake Lucy Road Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Robert & Sandra Kendall Robert & E. Christensen Theodore Coey 3734 Elmo Road 1511 Lake Lucy Road 1381 Lake Lucy Road — Minnetonka, MN 55305 Excelsior, MN 55331 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Brian & Nancy Tichy Joseph & D. Gayle Morin Kristi J. Willis 1471 Lake Lucy Road 1441 Lake Lucy Road 6890 Utica Terrace Excelsior, MN 55331 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — Charles Herbert James Sr. & Mary Emmer Todd Bogema 6411 Yosemite 6321 Yosemite 6371 Yosemite Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 _ Mark & Katheryn Bastiansen Donald & Carol Oelke Thomas & Elizabeth Steward — 6301 Yosemite 6431 Yosemite 6471 Yosemite Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Elxabeth Glaccum Carolyn Wise William & Ginni Nordvik 1510 Lake Lucy Road 6401 Yosemite 1375 Lilac Lane — Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 David Peterson 6451 Yosemite — Excelsior, MN 55331 17,, /,, ^, 'I , r_ 13 STAFF'S VERSION OF REVISED PLAT DATED JUNE 9,1994 a \ e9 J � t`ill - ?'_11.1 -:--`__.57-- V a 1 t■'i % � ii9� I 1 . . / ,\ ftp_ , Te . � _ _� � \ ' r \ �� , •y`�� �_ ��•-/f L_____ 1' gy -lt,- ::. 1 , p � .` ' s .* ., �� :-ti '� to = ,i:o l .t ��1 \ iiliE /'-- -:-. 'Le• '..;;141ibii Wit 41111rAllild ll 1 a ; . � i _: _ . rt■ q all r t; :f` ,ii''' '� .:.�i 11 � _ :' . :r k ,- iv. . S I p :l'. ....* • • ---c..-40:-*--: -_-_-..- AL ,.-,:: 614- . ,k i — IC 1--- . ' if- lin i ge . MI - :. • • . -.1--7-;- -••4..--,:s7(--- ., — ---Iii i'-o --- 1 -- /id • ' no. -. ' -- LAKE WO' ROA6 I R 1 .• _•s -. 600.00 -' _.t jrc g I \ J 1 b..4 I g / \ =r: 1 ■1 _; s 2 i t N — y ,i AY V x i'•li'ttilli 1x;411 11114tH:1 a; 41.1t;r�� 121111 n e se3 "id y 1v II ti ■-i .r...1e 1tt 1I�ti 'a ....ti,../1.1,. a 'rriifllti�'• ;e1i1t�131l1�i it Iir IB �ir 1�{s o a 11t3 i 11 _IItiEIiIIli!; ! 1IIIti1IIfJi1fl raj eill l;' 3.1;0114 .11 f}i F ' , I '3f}l i " 8 1! I; -214.1 ii i 'si it aro -�s i t'j1# Fti i i Eh 4 i 44, ii g" 1N I `i : 1 4iJ , aii 22" )# I I.!1 ' 1?-11910j 3I "If .siiiii!Iii,li If 0 L' _ .:J Ji l 1_ i!-`i: ___9, - ;;e't0 1 #' 1rltii t plii 1.91't ji.:7,1111:1,111013i 11i;qtai1,Jii::' _ ,i�• , x =j■ tt ;t#iillllle ;231118111 11111:jlizt`:d 9 12t2i 11.1 eee3tl21... t2 st_11,R4:1ii, : ATTACHMENT 1 \.. J CITY OF PC DATE: 6/15/94 `' C Ii A N II A CC DATE: 7/11/94 1 CASE #: 93-5 PUD By: Generous, Hempel, Desotelle STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Conceptual and Preliminary Planned Unit Development to rezone 89.59 from Agricultural Estate, A2, to Planned Unit Development, PUD, and preliminary plat creating 34 blocks, 166 lots, and three outlots and associated right-of-way for a residential medium density development consisting of 166 dwelling units Z in 34 buildings consisting of 2, 3, 4, 6, or 8 units and a potential future phase Q for development on the west side of the existing wetlands. The development is (j called Autumn Ridge. _1 0. LOCATION: Southwest corner of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard (County Road 19). APPLICANT: Good Value Homes, Inc. Q 9445 East River Road NW Coon Rapids, MN 55422 (Al')) 7Sc_07Q1 PRESENT ZONING: Agricultural Estate, A2 ACREAGE: gross: 89.59 net: 29.11(less wetlands) DENSITY: 1.85 units/acre (gross); 5.08 units/acres (net, less ROW and Outlot C) ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - A2, Highway 5 and Miniature Golf and Driving Range S - PUD, Trotters Ridge and a wetland complex Q E - A2, Elementary School Site, single-family homes, and Galpin Boulevard W - A2, vacant, proposed Opus Industrial-Office Park C) WATER AND SEWER: The applicant has petitioned the city for the extension of services. W I-- PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The site contains a large wetland complex (43.8 acres) with an upland _ agricultural area that was farmed most of the last decade. There is a tree line along the property limits. The buildable area along Hwy. 5 is generally flat but then the site drops off toward the wetlands to the south. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Medium Density Residential north of collector road and Low Density pec'dhr*42' cw t' of couv^*„r row / v ic Li tt-ia to „Av/:: ,4.- I LAK, •. 4____ 0 -w, 4.,7,..,----. ....iii . ; , _,.. iA,rt , . . l C •0 iiIIA` i: _______-_---:1 f i . . . ,:_i . -',.-1.,-.-c..-.)..;7 i',C,i— 44444 `` ,IV'] 1 I # t!-: t io 'a .qem.:::___);_ _ •_ Y Clie 1 % . I j :SR _Mr .i .OMD I J}y` Li, _-- La.,,. . •PARA, , • '` I� ' /. irl mil rd . A.:,..:—...„...._23 • Mi. 9.111tkorr ..________J — f -'--,-- '4RK (CR 18) LYMAN BI YD f' + .� - 1 1 �,C. - �1+. I Cl .�. I I I I N ?. fl‘i, 00.411111k, 8700—� / ' PARK `^-'..J .-7 I n n n n ^ n ,au 8800— !� _ • .-_ J I P3GG ® tip r s 7f Cr) A N 900: .- CITY OF -. 1 9,00 _ Q ' u HANHASSEN 92001 - - r11 BASE MAP 9'0° &1� 9400 I 1 _ I - 990• 1, 2 4i9600 970E MI --1 //J 1 r c7, ti 9800 r- S---:13 9900 - BY: ,0200 �Ar0 ANHASSEN ENGINEERING DEPT. 0330 \ REVISED JAN_ 1994 Good Value Home, Inc. Autumn Ridge Development June 15, 1994 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY Good Value Homes, Inc. is proposing to build 166 townhouses on the project on the southwest corner of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard. There are a total of 34 buildings proposed nine 8-unit, five 6-unit, eleven 4-unit, two 3-unit, and seven 2-unit buildings on a net area of 32.68 acres. This property is currently zoned A2, Agricultural Estate, but it is guided for Medium Density (4-8 units/acre) Development and Low Density (1.2 -4.0 units/acre) Development. The developer is proposing densities of 5.69 units per acre north of the collector road and 4.12 units per acre south of the collector road. However, if the city would like to average this density over all of the upland located south of the collector road, then the density falls below 4 units per acre and would comply with the guide plan designation. Although the guide plan shows this area as a mix of low and medium density, staff has supported this area as medium density. These densities are at the low end of the medium density land use density. The parcel is 89.59 acres. There is a DNR protected wetland which is 43.8 acres. The property that is suitable for development will be split by the extension of the collector road that will eventually connect Audubon Road with Highway 41. This road is part of the City Comprehensive Plan and the alignment was refined in the Highway 5 Corridor Plan. The extension of the collector road must cross a portion of DNR protected Wetland 10-210W. The collector road has been moved to the south to accommodate the school site at the east end of the project. The final alignment on the west end must be determined in conjunction with the development of the Opus site. Based on the size of the development, the parcel being split by the collector road and the large wetland complex, it would be difficult to develop single-family at this location and clustering of units is a reasonable alternative. The applicants are seeking conceptual and preliminary PUD approval at this time. The applicant still needs to provide additional information including compliance with the Hwy. 5 development standards, wetland alteration permit, and tree preservation determinations. The site has a large wetland complex and staff is concerned about the suitability of some of the soils especially in the western portion of the site. Upon investigation of soils on the eastern portion of the Good Value Homes site, 31/ feet of peat and ground water one foot below grade was found. STS, the consulting engineers who did the soil study, stated in their opinion the site is unsuitable for park improvements unless the City undertakes a very expensive program of soil stabilization and site drainage. Staff has concerns whether or not this area is suitable for building and would recommend the applicant submit a soils report to verify buildings can be located on this western portion of the site. The design of this project appears to reflect many of the Hwy. 5 development standards. Careful measurement of this project against these standards needs to be made. The building design include the pitched roof elements, variation in facade treatments with dormers and Good Value Home, Inc. Autumn Ridge Development June 15, 1994 _ Page 3 colonial windows, variated building components, and the use of colorful and functional plant materials. The applicant has not provided the city with building materials, textures, roofing treatment, and color schemes. Staff has asked for additional information on specific issues such as tree preservation calculations, perspectives from Highway 5 toward the development, impervious surface, revised grading plans at a larger scale, etc. Staff is also concerned that the applicant has not, to the maximum extent feasible, minimized the amount of site grading that would be done. Instead, the site will be mass graded to accommodate the proposed _ building pads for the townhouses. While staff is aware that due to the topography of the site grading and filling is necessary, we still believe that the amount of grading can be minimized through the design of the project and the rearrangement of unit sizes (e.g., exchange Block 5 for Blocks 6 and 10). The development has, at times, taken great care in arranging building orientations to provide diversity and varying perspectives, specifically in the central portion of the development north of the collector road and throughout the southern portion of the development. However, along the eastern and western edges north of the collector road, the applicant has provided a — monotonous building orientation and perspective. Staff is recommending that the applicant alternate building orientations in these areas. Additionally, the applicant should exchange one or two 6-unit structures along Galpin Boulevard. For example, exchange Block 1 for Block 12 and Block 3 for Block 17. Staff is recommending conceptual approval only at this time with the modifications to the plan and the appropriate conditions. Site Characteristics The site is currently agricultural, and has corn growing on the upland areas. An abandoned farm home and out buildings are located in the far northeast corner of the site. Shelter belt — plantings of large spruce and pines are found around the farm home and along the highway with box elders, aspen and eastern cottonwood, black willow and American elm growing within delineated wetlands and on some uncultivated. REZONING Justification for Rezoning to PUD The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 89.6 acres from A2 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. Good Value Home, Inc. Autumn Ridge Development June 15, 1994 Page 4 Section 20-501. Intent Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a greater variety of uses, internal 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. FINDINGS It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to be realized as evaluated against the following criteria: 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 characteristic of this property is the large wetland complex. The portion of the site that is being developed adjacent to Hwy. 5 is relatively flat. The property along the western edge has trees including elm, box elder and some aspen. The wooded area, with the exception of the frontage road crossing, will largely be left intact. Staff is requesting revisions to the plat to minimize the amount of grading. A Woodland Management Plan and Tree Preservation Plan needs to be _ developed. 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. Findin . Because of the wetland on the site and the collector street that bisects the site, the property is split into two developable parcels. Because it is against city ordinance to have a subdivision lot to have direct access onto a collector, it would be difficult if not impossible to develop this property as a traditional single-family subdivision. 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 west of the subject site is being developed as a business/industrial park. The site to the east is proposed as an elementary school. Good Value Home, Inc. Autumn Ridge Development June 15, 1994 Page 5 Timberwood is just to the southeast of any proposed townhouses. While this is not _ the optimal location for single family housing, townhomes with their ability to be clustered and develop internal amenities are an appropriate transitional use. 4. Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Finding. The Comprehensive plan guides the area to the north of the frontage road — for medium density 4 - 8 units an acre. The location of the collector streets has been modified since the adoption of the 2000 Land Use plan. This road has been shifted to the south to accommodate the proposed elementary school. It appears that the —. maximum buildable area for the site is around 32 acres after elimination of wetlands and road ROW. Staff would support the buildable portion of the site to be designated medium density. The net density of the developable area south of the collector road is well below the upper limit of the residential - low density permitted densities. 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 development contains a large wetland complex that will be maintained and enhanced as part of this development. A passive park (15 acres) will be located on this site or the Gateway property to the west or a portion of both. — 6. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate with the PUD. Findin . The price of the "for sale" units has not yet been determined. 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. The grades have been designed around the location of the proposed frontage road and the wetland complex. Staff is requesting that the applicant re- evaluate the proposed grading plans to determine if the grading is being minimized. 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. Findin . The site will have access from Galpin Boulevard. A collector street will tie this site with the property to the west and east of the site. This collector street will Good Value Home, Inc. Autumn Ridge Development June 15, 1994 Page 6 include a trail. Access to this site will not be through any existing single-family neighborhoods. 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 allows the disturbed areas to be further removed frcrnt 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 (wetlands, water quality in lake, trees, topographical features) Sensitive development in transitional areas More efficient use of land GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE Good Value Homes, Inc. is proposing to build 166 townhouses on the project on the southwest corner of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard. There are a total of 34 buildings proposed with nine 8-unit, five 6-unit, eleven 4-unit, two 3-unit, and seven 2-unit buildings on a net area of 32.68 acres. The townhouses are located around an internal private roadway system that is accessed via a south Highway 5 collector road.. The project has two sets of development standards to comply with, one is the PUD district and the other is the Highway 5 Corridor Development and Design Standards. The PUD district allows a maximum of 30 percent impervious surface. No information is given about the required amount of impervious surface at this time. Parking, as 'zhown on the plan, meets the city requirements. Two parking stalls per unit are required, one of which must be enclosed, plus an additional 1/4 space per unit. The development and design standards for the Highway 5 Corridor have been incorporated into the applicant's development proposal. Building height is limited to 3 stories or 40 feet. This proposal is for two story buildings. Buildings shall incorporate pitched roofs, variations in the rhythms of the building components and details including dormers and colonial windows, the use of colorful and functional plant materials, variation in the mass of buildings with 8-, 6-, and 4-unit buildings along Highway 5, and the provision of open spaces and sight lines. The applicant has not provided the city with details on building materials, textures, or colors. The setbacks for buildings along Highway 5 are 70 feet minimum and 150 feet maximum. For the interior collector, the setbacks are 50 feet minimum and 100 feet Good Value Home, Inc. Autumn Ridge Development June 15, 1994 - Page 7 maximum. Parking should not be in these setback areas. This proposal meets these standards. There will be no roof top equipment. Signage is proposed for the intersection of Galpin Boulevard and the proposed public frontage road. Detail specifications are not available at this time, but the signage must be compatible with the project design and low profile. Lighting is proposed for the exterior of the building as well as the standard street lighting. Exterior lighting will be on garages and entrances. Exterior lighting will be controlled with photocells. Lighting shall be consistent with city standards of 1/2 foot candle at the property line. WETLANDS Almost fifty percent of this site is characterized as natural wetland according to the City of Chanhassen's wetland inventory and a site specific wetland delineation. The wetlands on site can be broken into three separate basins that are described as follows: Wetland A - Wetland A is a DNR protected water (10-210W) and is approximately 43.8 acres in size. The wetland is characterized as a seasonally flooded palustrine wetland with emergent, forested, and scrub shrub classifications (Cowardin PEMC, PFO1C, PSS IC; Circular 39 - Type 3 shallow marsh). DNR will be establishing an ordinary high water mark (OHW) for this basin in the interest of the development and the proposed frontage road. The western portion of upland was investigated by the park department for construction of ball fields and tennis courts. The area was found to contain the hydrology, vegetation, and soils necessary to define the area as wetland. Staff recommends that the wetland de- lineation in this area be re-evaluated. Wetland B - Wetland B is located near the west property boundary and is characterized as palustrine emergent saturated wetland (Cowardin - PEMB; Circular 39 - Type 2 wet meadow). This basin, which is approximately 0.3 acre will not be impacted as a result of the proposed development. Wetland C - Wetland C is located in the northeast portion of the site and is characterized as palustrine emergent saturated/seasonally flooded wetland (Cowardin - PEMB/Cd; Circular 39 - Type 2/3 wet meadow/shallow marsh). This basin, which is approximately 0.3 acre will be filled as a result of the proposed development. Good Value Home, Inc. Autumn Ridge Development June 15, 1994 Page 8 Mitigation - Wetland C (0.3 acre) will be filled as a result of the proposed development. The City will also fill approximately 1.7 acres if the Highway 5 frontage road is constructed as stated in the comprehensive plan across this wetland. The applicant will have to follow the wetland replacement guidelines of the State Wetland Conservation Act. The City is the LGU for administering the act and will review the project based on state and local regulations. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers also has permitting authority over wetlands and may need a permit application. Staff recommends that a wetland replacement plan be developed for both the proposed project and the frontage road in conjunction with a single wetland permit application. Through restoration and enhancement efforts Wetland A could be a highly functional wetland in an urban setting. This wetland will be an asset for wildlife habitat, aesthetics, and recreational enjoyment. This wetland also provides water quality improvement and flood retention for the Bluff Creek Watershed District. A wetland restoration and enhancement plan for the Wetland A will most likely meet the sequencing requirements of the City, WCA, and Corps and will protect and enhance the natural resource. This process will also assist with the DNR public water permit application that the City will pursue for the road crossing. Buffer Strip - The buffer strip width for Wetland A is 10 to 30 feet with a minimum average width of 20 feet. The principal structure setback is 40 feet measured from the outside edge of the buffer strip. DRAINAGE The City has prepared a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) that is in the final stages of formal adoption. The SWMP will serve as a tool to protect, preserve, and enhance the City's water resources. The plan identifies the stormwater quantity and quality improvements from a regional perspective necessary to allow future development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In general, the water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100-year design storm interval for ponding and a 10- year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan uses William Walker Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at each drainage area based on projected future land use, and therefore, different sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies. Good Value Home, Inc. Autumn Ridge Development June 15, 1994 Page 9 The City requires storm water quantity and quality calculations from the applicant prior to final plat. After review of the calculations, the City will make recommendations for approval of the storm water plan in accordance with the SWMP. Water Quality - Two stormwater retention ponds are proposed on the site. A large sediment and nutrient trap is shown in the west central portion of the site. The ponds' side slopes can be designed as either 4:1 or 10:1 for the first 10 feet and 3:1 thereafter for safety purposes. A second sediment and nutrient trap is shown at the southern edge of the development to pretreat runoff from the small area around the cul-de-sac. The City is interested in keeping water quality ponding to a minimum, and therefore, the runoff from this area should be routed to the larger pond if at all possible. Storm sewers are proposed to convey runoff from the lawns and streets to the retention ponds. Detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10-year storm event along with ponding calculations based on Walker's Pondnet methodology shall be submitted to staff for review and approval prior to final — plat consideration. The SWMP has established an assessment rate for water quality systems. The cash dedication will be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using the market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. Since the applicant is proposing to construct the water quality basin, these fees would be waived. Water Quantity - The SWMP has established an assessment rate for different land uses based on an average, city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes all proposed SWMP culverts and open channels and stormwater ponding areas for temporary runoff storage. Medium density single family developments will have an assessment rate of$2,975 per acre. The proposed development would then be respon- sible for a water quantity assessment fee of$130,305 assuming 43.8 acres of developable land. A credit could be applied to this fee for any segments of trunk storm sewer or ponding the applicant installs as a part of the overall development. GRADING The plans propose to mass grade the site in order to accommodate placement of the multi- family type units. The existing topography shows an elevation change of approximately — 32 feet from Galpin Boulevard to the Wetland located approximately the middle of the site. the proposed site plan shows an elevation change of approximately 15 feet in this Good Value Home, Inc. _ Autumn Ridge Development June 15, 1994 Page 10 same area after development. In conjunction with reconstructing Galpin Boulevard (County Road 19), the existing roadway grade will be lowered. Commencing at Trunk Highway 5, Galpin Boulevard will be lowered by approximately 7 feet. At the intersection of the proposed frontage road and Galpin Boulevard, the grade will be approximately 4 feet lower than it exist today. These grade changes are necessary in order to improve sight lines along both Trunk Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard. These modifications are proposed to be completed sometime in 1995 in conjunction with the school construction. I have attached a copy of the proposed Galpin Boulevard profile form the feasibility study for the Trunk Highway South Frontage Road (Attachment No. 1). The applicant's grading plan should be revised to be compatible with the future street grades along Galpin Boulevard. As previously mentioned, the entire site is proposed to be mass graded as a result of the development. The site contains scattered trees throughout but the majority of the site has been employed in agricultural uses. There are significant wetlands along with a significant stand of trees located in the southeast and northeast corner of the site. All the trees in the southeast corner are proposed to be lost as a result of the grading for the streets and building pads. Staff is not sure due to the steep slopes in this area if any of the trees could be saved with any kind of development. The other alternative is to restrict or prohibit development in this area. STREETS The City's Comprehensive Guide Plan proposes an east/west collector-type street (Frontage Road) from Galpin Boulevard to Trunk Highway 41. This frontage road will also serve a future industrial park lying west of this development (Opus). The frontage road is also designated on the City's Municipal State Aid System (MSA). The applicant is proposing to construct a portion of this frontage road in conjunction with the overall site improvements, specifically from Galpin Boulevard to the easterly edge of the wetlands. Both the applicant and staff has had concerns with regards to extending and funding the frontage road through the wetlands to the west property line of the site. Other concerns such as outside governmental agencies (DNR, Army Corp of Engineer, etc.) will also have to be consulted and the appropriate permits obtained prior to extending the frontage. The City feels reasonably comfortable, though, in obtaining the necessary permits to construct this frontage road due to the fact it's been on the City's Comprehensive Guide along with being designated on the State-Aid system. The DNR is currently in the process of mapping the wetlands to determine the ordinary high water level which will give the City and applicant a better perspective of exactly where the road may be extended. Good Value Home, Inc. Autumn Ridge Development June 15, 1994 Page 11 The applicant is concerned with future assessments for the extension of this road. Staff understands that the road may not be assessed to those parcels of land which do not receive benefit. There may have to be alternate funding mechanisms employed such as Tax Increment Financing (TIF) or State-Aid funds to assist in the construction of this segment of roadway across the wetlands. State Aid funds are encumbered up to the next five years. Since the frontage road plays a significant role in accessing this development, a condition should be placed in the approval process that the subdivision is contingent upon the City receiving the necessary approvals for extending the frontage road across the wetlands. Should this not be the case, the applicant will have to go back and redesign the street system layout to include possibly a right-in right-out only on to Trunk Highway 5 and/or extending the southerly cul-de-sac back out to Galpin Boulevard. The cul-de-sac could access Galpin Boulevard directly south of the home on the west side of Galpin Boulevard at the cost of removing some trees. The Carver County Highway Department would also have to be consulted regarding this access point. The applicant will also need to apply for and obtain an access permit from the Carver County Highway Department for the proposed frontage road access. As previously mentioned, this frontage road through the site is listed on the City's MSA route and therefore must be constructed in accordance with MSA design standards. The interior streets are fairly well laid out from a traffic circulation standpoint. The streets all to connect back out to the frontage road with the exception of the southerly cul-de-sac. All of the streets which branch off the frontage road are proposed to be private streets and not maintained by the City. Since there will be public improvements constructed in conjunction with this development, the applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security and administration fees. UTILITIES The City has previously authorized extension of trunk sewer and water facilities along Galpin Boulevard to service this area. Other than construction of the trunk utility lines and the frontage road, the remaining portions of the site are proposed to be private. Due to the magnitude of this development, it is recommended the applicant use the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates for construction of the private utilities. Utility inspections for the installation of the private utilities will be done through the City's Building Department. Good Value Home, Inc. Autumn Ridge Development June 15, 1994 Page 12 The site contains remnants of an old farmstead. The applicant should be responsible for abandonment of the septic system, well and outbuildings in accordance to City/State codes within 30 days after final plat approval. This development will sustain assessments as a result of the extension of trunk and lateral utilities to the site. The assessment methodology is proposed in the feasibility study. LANDSCAPING AND TREE PRESERVATION The western and southern portions of the site are heavily wooded consisting of central and lowland type hardwood forest species. Significant tree stands are located within the wetland complex. The significant tree inventory of the site verifies these tree types consisting of maples, oaks, box elder, and elm. Conifers have been planted in the area of the farmstead. The applicant has not provided the city with the base line canopy coverage calculations nor the post development canopy coverage estimates. Staff has attempted to estimate these figures in order to determine the adequacy of the proposed Landscaping Plan Since the landscaping plan as well as development proposals are limited to the eastern portion of the site, staff has limited the analysis to this portion also. The only significant tree preservation proposed on the eastern portion of the site is in the northeast corner of the property and along the northern portion of the site within the Highway 5 right-of-way. Staff estimates that the base line canopy coverage is 9 percent (4.0 of 43.8 acres) The minimum canopy coverage requirement for a medium density residential development is 20 percent. Based on this base line canopy coverage, none of the existing canopy coverage should be removed and an additional 4.76 acres of forestation would need to be provided. Of the existing canopy coverage, approximately three acres will be removed. Code requires a replacement of these trees at 1.2 times the canopy coverage area being removed, in this instance, 3.6 acres of replacement trees. Adding together the 4.76 acres and 3.6 acres equals 8.36 acres of forestation and replacement tree planting that will be required or 334 trees. Staff believes that additional trees can be preserved in the southeast corner of the site by relocating the proposed retaining wall closer to the street and leaving the area east of the private road in its natural state The landscaping plan provides 356 trees which would exceed the forestation/replacement planting by 22 trees. There are 16 different tree species included in the plant schedule. Of the total number of trees provided, 110 trees are ornamentals (31 percent), 72 are conifers (20 percent), 133 are primary species (37 percent), and 41 are secondary species (12 percent). Staff has two concerns with the landscaping plan. The first is the distribution of tree species. While the northern half of the site has 69 percent of the Good Value Home, Inc. Autumn Ridge Development June 15, 1994 Page 13 dwelling units, the landscaping plan locates 74 percent of the ornamental trees, only 45 percent of the primary trees in this half of the development, and only 56 percent of the total trees being proposed. The second issue of concern is that the landscape screening for this development is being provided primarily by the evergreens that are being preserved within the Highway 5 right-of-way. To resolve both these issues, staff is recommending that a more equitable distribution of trees be incorporated into the landscaping plan and that additional groupings of evergreens be planted along the northern project boundary to prepare for the possible future removal of the evergreens with the widening of Highway 5. PARKS AND RECREATION Park acquisition and development will be part of the plat. However, the exact details are not known. The Park and Recreation Commission will be meeting on June 28, 1994 to discuss this development. At a minimum, a trail system will be included along the eastern edge of the wetland complex that will tie into a system to the south. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council conceptual approval of PUD #93-5 to rezone 89.59 from Agricultural Estate, A2, to Planned Unit Development, PUD, and preliminary plat creating 34 blocks, 166 lots, and three outlots and associated right- of-way for a residential medium density development consisting of 166 dwelling units in 34 buildings consisting of 2, 3, 4, 6, or 8 units and a potential future phase for development on the west side of the existing wetlands subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed fire hydrant locations are unacceptable. Developer must contact the City Engineer and Fire Marshal for additional placement of hydrants. 2. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants; i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, N.W. Bell, cable T.V. transformer boxes. This is to insure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated, pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance Sec. 9-1. 3. Submit street names to the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for approval. 4. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet. Minnesota Uniform Code Sec 10.204 (a). Good Value Home, Inc. _ Autumn Ridge Development June 15, 1994 Page 14 5. The marking of fire lanes on private and public property shall be designated and approved by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal pursuant to Minnesota Uniform Code Sec 10.207 (c), and Chanhassen Fire Department - Fire Prevention Policy #06- 1991 (copy enclosed). 6. Chanhassen Fire Department policy on Premise Identification must be followed. Additional Fire Marshal approved monument signs for address locations will be required. Developer should contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for requirement and details, pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department - Fire Prevention Policy # 29-1992 (copy enclosed). 7. Submit turning radius to City Engineer and Fire Marshal for approval, pursuant to 1991 Minnesota Fire Code Sec 10.204 (c). 8. Submit street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review prior to final plat approval. 9. Revise the preliminary grading plan to show the location of proposed dwelling pads, using standard designations and the lowest level floor and garage floor elevations. This should be done prior to final plat approval. 9. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the property. 10. Adjust property lines to permit openings and projections in exterior walls or confirm that no openings or projections are planned. This should be done before preliminary plat approval. 11. The applicant shall work with Southwest Metro Transit in the provision of bus stops/shelters within the development. 12. Prior to final platting, the applicant shall revise the landscaping to provide a more equitable distribution of trees throughout the site. Additional groupings of evergreens shall be planted along the northern project boundary to provide additional screening and to prepare for the possible future removal of the evergreens in the right-of-way with the widening of Highway 5. 13. The applicant shall submit additional information and more detail on issues such as tree preservation calculations and a Woodland Management Plan, perspectives from Highway 5 toward the development, impervious surface, revised grading plans at a larger scale, investigate whether the arrangement of unit sizes can be Good Value Home, Inc. Autumn Ridge Development June 15, 1994 Page 15 altered to minimize grading (e.g.,exchange Block 5 for Blocks 6 and 10), provide a explanation that to the maximum extent feasible the amount of site grading is minimized, etc. 14. Staff recommends that the applicant alternate building orientations along the — eastern and western perimeter of the northern portion of the site. Additionally,the applicant should exchange one or two six unit structures along Galpin Boulevard _ (e.g., exchange Block 1 for Block 12 and Block 3 for Block 17. 15. Pay park and trail fees as specified by City Code. Credit may be given for the construction of the trail segment within the development and or the dedication of park land. 16. If feasible, two water retention ponds should be combined to one large water retention pond located in the west central portion of the site. Side slopes may be designed as either 4:1 slopes overall or 10:1 for the first 10 feet and 3:1 slopes — thereafter for safety purposes. Detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10-year storm event along with ponding calculations based on Walker's PONDNET methodology shall be submitted to City staff for review and approval prior to final — plat consideration. 17. The applicant will be responsible for the appropriate water quantity fees based on the City's Surface Water Management Plan. Staff has estimated the proposed development would be responsible for an estimated water quantity assessment fee of $130,305 assuming 43.8 acres of developable land. The applicant may be credited against these fees for portions of the trunk storm system they install as a part of the overall development. Staff will review the final construction documents and determine the applicable credits, if any. The SWMP fees are pending formal approval of the SWMP by the City Council. Any modification to the fees as a result of the approval process will be adjusted accordingly. _ 18. The applicant's grading plan shall be revised to be compatible with future street grades along Galpin Boulevard. — 19. The applicant shall construct the frontage road within the development from Galpin Boulevard to the wetlands in conjunction with the overall site improvements. The street shall be constructed in accordance to State-Aid standards. Plans and specifications will be subject to review and approval by the Minnesota Department of Transportation, State-Aid office. — Good Value Home, Inc. Autumn Ridge Development June 15, 1994 Page 16 20. Subdivision approval is contingent upon the City receiving the necessary permits and approval from the governmental agencies such as DNR, Army Corps of Engineers for extending the frontage road across the wetlands to the Opus parcel. 21. The applicant will be required to enter into a PUD/development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security and administration fees to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval. 22. The applicant shall design and construct the public street improvements and private utility improvements in accordance to the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications for the public improvements shall be submitted to City staff for review and formal approval by the City Council in conjunction with final platting. 23. The applicant shall be responsible for the proper abandonment of the septic system, well and outbuildings in accordance to City and/or State codes within 30 days after the final plat is approved. 24. The applicant shall provide a copy of the covenants for review and approval by the City. 25. The applicant shall provide "as-built" locations and dimensions of all corrected house pads or other documentation acceptable to the Building Official. 26. The applicant shall apply for and obtain all necessary permits from the regulatory _ agencies such as the MPCA, Health Department, Watershed District, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers, MnDOT and Carver County Highway Department. 27. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction. The applicant will comply with the City Engineer's direction as far as abandonment or relocation of the drain tile. 28. Erosion control measures shall be consistent with the City of Chanhassen Best Management Practice Handbook. 29. Drainage and conservation easements shall be dedicated over all wetland areas within the subdivision including outlots. Wetland mitigation measures shall be developed and subject to approval by the City. The mitigation measures shall be completed in conjunction with the site grading and restoration. CITY OF CHANHASSFN • 690 COULTER DRIVE — CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: Good Value Homes.Inc. OWNER: Betty O'Shaughnessy ADDRESS: 9445 E. River Rd. NW ADDRESS: 1000 Hesse Farm Rd. — Coon Rapids, MN 55433 Chaska, MN 55318 TELEPHONE (Day time) 755-9793 TELEPHONE: 496-1707 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW/Easements 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance 3. Grading/Excavation Permit 13. Wetland Alteration Permit 4. Interim Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal 5. X Planned Unit Development 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. Rezoning 7. Sign Permits i > 8. Sign Plan Review X Notification Signs 9. Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" $100 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP $400 Minor SUB/Metes & Bounds 10. Subdivision TOTAL FEE $ 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. 81k" 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. " Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract PROJECT NAME Autumn Ridge LOCATION Southwest Quadrant of Highv :y 5 and Galvin Blvd. LEGAL DESCRIPTION please see attached • PRESENT ZONING A-2 Aq. , State District REQUESTED ZONING PUD PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION Med. to Low Dpnci ty Res REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION PUD REASON FOR THIS REQUEST Propose to r1Pvel np parcel - This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly 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 I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying 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. - I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further 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. I al o understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded agai t the title to the property for which the approval/permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's - Office .Qd the original document returned to City Hall Records. Signature .f A•plicant ; Date Signature of�ee\wnei ate - Application''Received on / Fe P • Receipt No. The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. 64 T dpave 111 V1" 71 iiiiiip� 0eVpC�. sa H °VTpRT 0 C il 6 p. P $011 I -Ra) Fii % Z - • N d d �. 1i ; ill 1Pil oO5883 Ste] n ° & bnill �° i+ o S x 0 Pill iir-i 4 iIi rn ..� Fp s g y o f h o hi 7 r :.0107 4, ,/4} F4 V 10.6+0 p i !a gi4m bCr n e�j6 I 1 F �e�� Ilagil ew p ~ 3 k li g ,:iso -1g.0 aER4 !RE.IA. ;64-5,4 9' g ii jeUgin 5tb. P '° T Mx li"e 1 4z if a. 1 INs.liTad * k ma. i • I. Y!~ 1 .9. 1 b V i� r g pV o g �p o f IgAmil? FN:q :1 r' lz 4 g;_ I:0 E. Evilgil vsg4 i' ;0 r 1 F"2 p 1 p i 1 0 ,.. o&d gniifV111 M ;111410 V4qz§ r 8.2 liriff irjE �'$ 4 Q !! $!1!I nyP�y r �y1... e P P Yi r ' y P. 0 0- 1 P IN:18 $ ;IIIIIiiil ,fl `451-P111111 1fur 0 6549 TFP- !md ?�cR�R � � ° � !P �. ``per o ti .� � ag!flI g rrt�_ e a d���CaNF+ ' ra ~ �y h cw- 0 ii gags 42 AP d o - Ox o i .. C � �y�rxp ; �P'• Os sT Pial syrR g N �NO�C�� i r+qiil ' 1 5- g, • P aaiiii • r• 6-o P i R xrfr° : 18:EErvai E OXIIF ird;i1F : '11. grillER :2444! 5 "Tty0ir 14y21° Aag c goaro i 194:14a at 10.0. _ ir. 0ai U 11 :041 hJ 1:1-a6 Di;"0 §6 %.1Eei . Et• agk; Kk8hzi — r FR::, ' 6 $ o v P. s .JUN — 8 - 94 WED 14 : 32 FRANZ ENG . 61 2 5 -7' 1 r 67O P - Ei2 — 1 L eql4 44 L • t . OW L 1 • i' i t, p 1 L _I i. ,, . , L il } 1 1 ii 1 I \ I 1 1 1 ,, I i j g ° L ;it'll qi1 is L li ii; ri !NN,,,,..„ .. :4 • it 1 I. 1111 i 1, 1 .gi : I It*: 1 • TWA OMNM.3 r . .�'� `-, t i fs t 4•.•\\ , - I .plea II tt•e• $,/: ,• ' ' N, , . 1 is. ' s ,...,, ____.______ ,.v _i ... ,44 g a p 7: ii-...„.. •t.• a r ., e'4 tP" \ a _\________„---\__I L .414r. --,.. 471 , _,...„,- ...„,. 1', 1 1 .i&1 I t ti it itgeil itilr - .-....''. • ".S. . .., ....,,,„,„ I , ra. . ., , \.0 , :, r Li. i r_ , io, (k74,4 7,.:11,-itipp--- [01 ‘, . ... . ,....T..?--_ voi......,4__ IA__4. _„......._ . ,,,,,, -; ;1.0.\\1;,:... , 1 1 ......,,, .0...,,,,... .. . tru .w^ --- 7—to. —_ .. ( � i..•nets • � - - • - -s x.. --- PASSE ENGI ENGINEERING, INC �- I . • `r ;= 1 4T AUTUMN RIDGE 45 a,,.sr ZVTR Ro.c sc7 zr3 .i i 1 — :r- '� ' I 1st-tint t1I11.1aDV bt er JUN — 8 — 94 WED 1 4 : 34 F R A N 2 ENG . 6 1 2 5 2 1 7 6 7 0 P . 0 S I o { . e S1 !£ is::::%N.----N---., . \\.....s.,........,,‘— _.____. 1 x I n13 i m H r 4-.. ..•3 I 1in I I Ci i 1 C > i — e m + .t C 1, •-•.\-•\\ 1 v . `ms s'').1 1 • 1:1,07--1,!I - j I LL t re~ '4— i- I CI *11 ..'' 771A747A, i ... 4.\ 1 . tg' et* ,..44,.. \,\ . ---------iwT.L-J--- I a 4i __, 11— -..........-4.1 . :s . , . , „ ,- ! 4! 1 1 'i /' ...• . sa , it 7 -4. "`i - U ;rr ;it , % , t , ; g 1 i 4t. . 1-5., i V-TrN - --i_(-.'-._ . I . ell,' ir..,•1ZY/ • 7 fi 1 � � Ji \ f/... . . » 407 ?..•• - c• ---•• __. ' / a ; `.s:o,tvivatit x5:nut sires s— ~~���� -- •`^.- 'PASSE ENGINEERINGINCIn-=`� - -_;- � r AUTUMN RIDGE "' � _. � ,- ..�. Illt.p p}E EtWATION. PLAN a•e flat Amt.RNID sttrr poe - — - _ ••••• • . . •iitt:,.. •.III r.04 C . . .--1- Ev,_, .:.-z ./ f •• f - t • yl- ao • ,i-_-.....„,... 1, - -.t-..t„1:=7:2.-•:•:- 1 __;,..4„..,;,,-.„,,:, -..,...-. 07,---- ---.411' =4-t.•-- 1 • r ' , f ... .. , ,, c• .igill : - a .. , in i ,:-.t...-4:-.2.;„,-,---_-,....,_-_ --"" 4, •. :.,,,,,,, 4, ...dies* -0,, 4-. ... --.. e•-------,:.--. .,A:pr,,r.:fir..u.. - — ?• .C.• vet-M."5.4qt,-. •,.,_•%•••-.....!.. .-ilakTrei -L.kfil ..:-Iiizi ...; ' .._,.....:•.• psilik:. 1 so'1...- EtT:---z-lik ). !..••-' ,..,.. ,r.._•,....ra -1,0 „viLv.a:,01... . • • Plagiej • - ,jiw: '•--- -4---t.11 .... Kair.---"•".4 .: „••=..,.. 11 :-.• ....-4 r„.'‘' -:-..anaitIllueS. ,-- s ...... ..• ,..f.f _ .•--....:,..- -4.: --0.1,• .:--1-- - - .• ..,.:. ..,-....r.., . -ri,.. -V---• ,...,:l.,_ k )>: ':,-"Laii;•*- retularfi-,' - „,.----...-,-.-_,- i .. .=.... . , . . .....,mpuss.u... : ;_'•' v,"11` .2tik".. -7-7,,..„_---..7----11- .::::!I ..v.....11)4111:-_----'t Iiiti\ ' , Ut '- 1 • %hi • 7A.. ..L_Z F-' 4,.. , - pr..," Atv__"...4,„ ,w li ..- — II ill IN ;i-- 1M . : .:...- ....- 4;4:_;..... .:....„.. - .f..-- t ni nII 'I- • -. umIll 1111111111111V .' 4 • • ..,,,,.:_,•.-..... .. , . . ., , ..., ". ., ------. .,.., ll - - II 11111117 il;1111 .. vC. ...I .1 ,77:: . -'.„. ....-- , UNII INMINSIIMIIIIIIII: .it 'l oirthitt: ler; t li___MMIGififiallp.Thliall:%; .t1 I,t •Iii. dr •"'"••••-;•LI:. - .. .' • 77-1/1/11.'•1.1 Por* 0 i':k.-;. %-=--•?;7------•' :iski=---111111 11111111M 3/4 'I`,\ —. ai` • c; 4 ‘ ,./... . .._„.._____...,. • .... ......,,_. '' it 1 : ...... ..-.- ,,et...:-:. * Z 1, ' I >. IlErf k, 1 l'. I -...flitt --..--------- ------- - ; 1._ M.=t ^ al ,,,,A, 41 _ .._ 7 •------f--- ---- --_1_- .....- .,___,....___ift , --1.11 4 V• ,_-•••••---7------- : ' f-lIFT +HI ii 7 ilipt„:: r ..: :--7-7-----r--_-i•: ..-• . j_i_.-t .-. ..,- - --- • - ...-,-: I . -7.r... ..jf ROA I 1 i 41' I = = -_-____1. , -_ --- itt•A 11,1111. . ....it 1 I 1 41 , ___------:--' •, I1D;D_J ,4 ii 11?p MI 4 . 14#1 -.....yok..----: /. ..L.7.1!_j r'i: III I.' Yr:. ; NI !,,, • ,._,...i. ... 1 ,====- /i ir - • , ,• i 1, . . 1 iii tau/if . . ..--, :_:, . • l ; ., ______-,..,......,. _.•• , ,.: .13; • 1 ; 1 ___T-,_. iii'llii EP I'id'tt 1 ; -•,••, Nt to - _, 'if II! i• -14 ,.....,„ „,„„,...,_, , , , , ,.... , ! ___- __ • j, , ..,_ l•/r _...., ---- r •- -..-- .....--", 1 . -_ .mittt:tqf gp' ..._:—. = -- 1 dnumir. 1 . 1 ....„ Arr. 1 • 7.---0 -a.----4-4:- —1 IjIll .t-- --•, II - ri -=- - , 61 .. 1 i .... ...., O''' .. 1 11 ..i ...,_.....,, 1,,, Jur ' !..l ..,.:.„,, .__ 1 v.—r,.. 11, ,,..„p... . • i ' . . kr !,rfs 1 • 17: ;11,111 I ,.! .1 f ijiLlip I I Ir 0- -; -. K ,... . .... . tn: , il!liiii " sulk ialkaz/ ._,e..;.., il i I 1 IRE. - ;,"v::ilim ".. 1 =,..i . ..a„ .,::1. - ,ii; „„i 3244yr;IV 1 -T.til 14 IJIMMIII1b. if• !ill 1.::i.. N.....f I 4k 74 r • t A -. In ; /------1;is iii II , 1..--.4:_•-:--'I= #1111111; 11 /I ' . . ur ... '....nuistii iill 11.111,— :I ...4 ..•r,it. , 1 1 ...........ih Milt: & -kr _ V i r 41-• I I.' •'1=.11'' INV"zil : 1 .,11 .M• , , __.., ,:i•Ii1 1- iIiiiiiiiii ! • i 411P • •.I . — —nl: ".'-LI 1"' .. . 4..i . ,1 . • ..:.._,. .. , ,, ./' !-.-4 1.-''''.1 1 =. ...... • ...., S --:iiIir-If Pr , • .. .,„,,,,,,,, .,„ p •_ y3Lti T- 1 • 41 MOM' j,,,,i'a/ i'n. ..-. ....1 iiiiii, ..-1------ -....4 - ,1_ :el.• ..." ZS, ' L,-_-..,...- oil i ,, -- Igi E rA ....7 ; ,5:' I-717.1-u I 1 I ' tA.... -. . -4 •!• •'llillitil 1,t)1C - ,:;44•:P...•PA'I...t. y..-4,11 .,4 G thliN t. :^r(.. .- . --..-e.--,,-, .':: ilif 111' , , il .40,•__ __•:, Mr i•vr,.. —,., :;.-- t = - r"-v—; !';.▪di ;•,, i u.r,, „_. , _.-; I -1 , 4 •:. ..rr --''''' * • -'--. I . ' 1 IA ''''- l - -- 1--. • ' WWI N[V. ) 4 c . ', z•-q, 1 i-' .7.• .r . • .,t; A rs r. '1-41fILA 01 - 1 1” 1 : „ii.15 „,,,,.. VI ,?... ,:.•:.•,- i r :--= ille. - 8 '1111, 'I m\ om .0' ' ••• -._ 1.' • • I I A '1'1' iiik , ,t,.. ;AN,. . •„• .• • 1.'s I'-- 7 ' 'a- .'"` ..- it, ,,,,i 1 '1''.• I -4 • , 14,1f r, - i f , --- -,.. e .3,,=,. • • I,..N i I 4. N... !-: iiillill i.ii i 111:1. .14 _ , A. .. . aLgi 7 1 r ,"--• loilii ----1 I-Q-ik •Li 'II 1 ! ', -- • '1111f1 II 'N11411111111 it 7 1.;., _...„ lipiiritil I- . 7.3 7=-4; ; ::iii I RrimR ',II 7 „:- ::, .A z ,_,,,,, ,,,m 771 .1 , - !Iljd- --- kg,. ilip . k•=1111 ff•MN• II 111 113111111 111111111 . I .c:. II. . < lill 1;,;h1i110111r r › ,...i - . _ 1 ,n IiEffi :.:. ...;:.. 7 E r; .•—; ..... rls.... ---r--.. V.F. , j):.:3i1 I, C 4 jil lit i i 0 z := ii I ffinffillill r77-77 7 4.1Z e:;:::4 1111111111 hq4—; s ----;, 1 I i illi ,- ,•11'F--., \—; .• :,I 1-- III' —a ---, oi ; [ ..1 7 • ______, ,, T , _ _____ , ... i ! ir---___7/: •=...,_•—•••• . Fi.I 1 __=.7,-]j= _, __J, _____ : 11 , i _,.........; T I .=-7.— II -Q1 I „..._! •, ![, -, -tg. 1 1.--1ROE T1 ......_.., , .,_,.____ I-,- ,.. __,, -- ',,::!=. , - I III MI 1„; : Hillitul ---1.— DR -1, Li ,•-- .-----_-gi 7--=-. ; • --; :1 -- : 7-----=-= T __,....1. ., , ...miraml , 1 ....... ' .I I It unimp ,.. m==.Z T !, 1 I I ....- - _ ... ...... .. .....—.......... T 1 I. 1 1:- =._---_...--,.., i -- It____ 1 AA —.-.------1 1Lma,..........., 3 ; ---,=----.--.: - _ 1 T 5, , . -H 1 I. , I I E ---_ 1— - __ , IL--1 Ti :_-; .---,,,m, ,--7---f ,u. , ..__ , T i . ,m. :,... 1 . . . -�4_ �Nti r�1�10 .i-,.....47, ]: ��• ¢ i' . aa.war -E 1 i,i ' . 1 J pio /AA 22 __ :4 ,. 1__, C- Z Z x�t_� Z O t... m I E- ... , r\711,.." = al L1 3 a CI o iii I Z -• y ob m;p -, J . oo Q - r ITI , . L....., , ..... /...._.N., _ , . .., , e......b_ ,,t ! !! . , . , _ . _ . i _. _. O_ _ O i O f c z c i 1 o o =° ... ;7:T. 14 — CO 6 cm I = I r Ili J III " [L < • — o a I 8;, V t �. O I I F=o 1 C = - C; L Qm �+ O=b Cx I" Oo ; G' i `c 4 c z� ll I .�,...,. a -T V-' ,- STATE OF DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES PHONE No. METRO WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106 772-7910 FILE NO June 6, 1994 Mr. Robert Generous, Planner II City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: AUTUMN RIDGE, DNR WETLAND 10-210W, CITY OF CHANHASSEN, CARVER COUNTY, (City NUMBER 93-5 PUD) Dear Mr Generous: We have reviewed the site plans (received May 24 , 1994) for the above-referenced project (Sections 15 and 16, T116N-R23W) and have the following comments to offer: _ 1 . The site does not appear to be within a shoreland or floodplain district. - 2 . Public Water Wetland 10-210W is on the proposed site. Any activity below the ordinary high water (OHW) elevation, which alters the course, current or cross-section of Public Water Wetlands, is under the jurisdiction of the DNR and may require a DNR permit. No official OHW has been established for Public Water Wetland 10-210W. We are in the process of making arrangements for the DNR hydrographic survey crew to perform an OHW investigation. The plans show a "future road" that appears to cross a portion - of Public Water Wetland 10-210W. Placing fill for road crossings in Public Waters is prohibited by State Law. However, a local unit of government, such as the City of Chanhassen, may obtain a waiver of the prohibition against fill where this prohibition would prevent or restrict the project, or create a major conflict with other public interests, provided: a. There is no other feasible and practical alternative to the project that would have less environmental impact; and b. that the public need for the project rules out the no- build alternative. WPM 199/: AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER r'T1 u' 1.11.":i"1-iimSCEr,. Mr. Robert Generous, Planner II June 6, 1994 Page 2 It is possible that a request by the City of Chanhassen for a waiver of the prohibition against fill would be rejected. It seems inappropriate to approve a plat that is based upon a road that may never be built. The City of Chanhassen is advised to consider alternate alignments for the road or the construction of a bridge over the Public Water Wetland for this project. 3 . It appears there are wetlands on the site that are not under DNR Public Waters Permit jurisdiction. You should be aware that your project may be subject to federal and local wetland regulations. The Department may provide additional comments on your project through our review of applications submitted under these other regulatory programs. 4 . It appears that most of the stormwater is routed through settling basins, which is good. We would object to having the stormwater routed directly to Public Water Wetland 10-210W. 5. There should be some type of 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 DNR, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and the City of Chanhassen have jurisdiction over the areas and that the wetlands cannot be altered without appropriate permits. 6. The following comments are general and apply to all proposed developments: a. 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. b. 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. c. 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) . Mr. Robert Generous, Planner II June 6, 1994 Page 3 d. The comments in this letter address DNR - Division of Waters jurisdictional matters and concerns. These comments should not be construed as DNR support or lack thereof for a particular project. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me at 772-7910 should you have any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, - rA� 'Joe Richter Hydrologist c: Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek WSD, Bob Obermeyer U. S. Corps of Engineers, Gary Elftmann City of Chanhassen General File C ' TYOF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 — MEMORANDUM — TO: Robert Generous, Planner II FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshall DATE: June 2, 1994 SUBJ: Galpin Blvd. - Autumn Ridge - Good Value Homes, Inc. (Betty O'Shaughnessy) Planning Case # 93-5 P.U.D. I have reviewed the proposed planned unit development and have the following requirements: 1. The proposed fire hydrant locations are unacceptable. Developer must contact the City Engineer and Fire Marshal for additional placement of hydrants. 2. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants; ie street lamps,trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, N.W. Bell, cable T.V. transformer boxes. This is to insure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated, pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance Sec. 9-1. 3. Submit street names to the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for approval. 4. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet. — Minnesota Uniform Code Sec 10.204 (a). 5. The marking of fire lanes on private and public property shall be designated and approved — by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal pursuant to Minnesota Uniform Code Sec 10.207 (c), and Chanhassen Fire Department - Fire Prevention Policy #06-1991 (copy enclosed). 6. Chanhassen Fire Department policy on Premise Identification must be followed. Additional Fire Marshal approved monument signs for address locations will be required. Developer should contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for requirement and details, pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department - Fire Prevention Policy # 29-1992 (copy enclosed). 7. Submit turning radius to City Engineer and Fire Marshal for approval, pursuant to 1991 Minnesota Fire Code Sec 10.204 (c). a:'afery1ml\fvccodr.gvh _ ,,...„. 4 CITY of ._,_;,-Ik-fo ,n, .-. - A4i CHANHAssrx t ) i\-1-4!.:.‘ -.:_il -.;.1!` y. ',- ,..t. , ,.. ,,, , ' � i,-.. ,:`�- 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY PREMISES IDENTIFICATION General Numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Said numbers shall contrast with their background. Size and location of numbers shall be approved by one of the following - Public Safety Director, Building Official, Building Inspector, Fire Marshal . Requirements are for new construction and existing buildings where - no address numbers are posted. Other Requirements-General f 1. Numbers shall be a contrasting color fro `the background. 2. Numbers shall not be in script - — 3. If a structure Is not visible from the street,additional-numbers are required at the driveway entrance. Size and location must be approved. - — 4. Numbers on mall box at driveway entrance may be a minimum of 4". However, requirement #3 must still be met 5. Administrative authority may require additional numbers if deemed necessary. — Residential Requirements(2 or less dwelling unit) 1. Minimum height shall be 5 1/4", — 2. Building permits will not be flnaied unless numbers are posted and approved by the Building Department Commercial Requirements b- - 1. Minimum height shall be 12". 2. Strip Malls a. Multi tenant building will have minimum height requirements of 6". — b. Address numbers shall be on the main entrance and on all back doors. c. m 3. If address numbers are located on a directory entry sign, additional numbers will be required on the buildings main entrance. Chanhassen Fire Department _ 11111111" Fire Prevention Policy #29-1992 AsT.- - -- Date: 06/15/92 Revised: Approved - Public Safty Director Page 1 of 1 t01 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER a CITY OF CHANHASSEN _, ;,..,ti,,„,„ ,,,,,. ,-c, „_,, ;.... s,. ,,,, :__ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 _;� (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY REQUIREMENTS FOR FIRE LANE SIGNAGE 1. Signs to be a minimum of 12” x 18" . NO 2 . Red on white is preferred. PARKING FIRE 3 . 3M or equal engineer' s grade LANE reflective sheeting on aluminum is preferred. 4 . Wording shall be: NO PARKING FIRE LANE 5. Signs shall be posted at each end of the fire lane and at least at 7 ' 0" 75 foot intervals along the fire lane. 6. All signs shall be double sided facing the direction of travel . 7 . Post shall be set back a minimum of 12" but not more than 36" from the curb. - - 8 . A fire lane shall be required in (NOT TO GRADE front of fire dept. connections SCALE) extending 5 feet on each side and along all areas designated by the Fire Chief. ANY DEVIATION FROM THE ABOVE PROCEDURES SHALL BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING, WITH A SITE PLAN, FOR APPROVAL BY THE FIRE CHIEF. IT IS THE INTENTION OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO ENSURE CONTINUITY THROUGHOUT THE CITY BY PROVIDING THESE PROCEDURES FOR MARKING OF FIRE LANES. Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #06-1991 Date: 1/15/91 �.�1 Revised: Approved - Public Safety Director Page 1 of 1 OW t4w is PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY TF ClIANBASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Generous, Planner II FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official ,(,< DATE: June 6, 1994 ` SUBJ: 93-5 PUD (Autumn Ridge, Betty O'Shaughnessy property) Background: I have reviewed your request for comments on the above referenced planning case, and have some items that should be added as conditions of approval. Analysis: In order to avoid conflicts and confusion, street names,public and private,must be reviewed by the Public Safety Department. Proposed street names are not included with the submitted documents. Locations of proposed dwelling pads and the type of dwelling is necessary to enable the Inspections Division and Engineering Department to perform a satisfactory plan review of the structure at the time of building permit issuance. For the same reason,proposed lowest level floor elevations as well as garage floor elevations are required to be indicated on the proposed pad location. Standard designations(FLO or RLO, R, SE, SEWO,TU, WO)must be shown for proposed dwelling types. These standard designations lessen the chance for errors during the plan review process. The memo explaining these designations is enclosed. Existing structures on the property which will be demolished will require demolition permits. Proof of well abandonment must be furnished to the City and a permit for septic system abandonment must be obtained and the septic system abandoned prior to issuance of a demolition permit. The side of a number of buildings appear to be on the property lines. Table 5-A of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) prohibits openings in walls that are within three feet of a property line. Projections (decks, overhangs, etc.) must comply with UBC 504 and 1710 which generally permit projections to extend a maximum of one third the distance to the property line, but require these projections to be of one-hour fire-resistive construction. What this means is that property lines should generally be four to five feet from the buildings. Bob Generous June 7, 1994 Page 2 Recommendations: The following conditions should be added to the conditions of approval. — 1. Submit street names to the Public Safety Department,Inspections Division for review prior to final plat approval. 2. Revise the preliminary grading plan to show the location of proposed dwelling pads, using — standard designations and the lowest level floor and garage floor elevations. This should be done prior to final plat approval. 3. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the property. — 4. Adjust property lines to permit openings and projections in exterior walls or confirm that no openings or projections are planned. This should be done before preliminary plat approval. enclosure: January 29, 1993 memorandum g:kafet aNmemaasplaXMutmrdge.bg1 CITY OF s CHANHASSEN \. . 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORAN P UM TO: Inspections, Planning, & Engineering Staff FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official4_ s DATE: January 29, 1993 SUBJ: Dwelling Type Designation We have been requesting on site plan reviews that the developer designate the type of dwelling that is acceptable on each proposed lot in a new development. I thought perhaps it might be helpful to staff to explain and diagram these designations and the reasoning behind the requirements. FIA or Ra) Designates Prow Lookout or Rear lookout This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8'below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to approximately 4' above the basement floor level. R Designates Rambler. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8'below grade with the surrounding grade approximately level. This would include two story's and many 4 level dwellings- - SE Designates Split Entry. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4'below grade with the surrounding grade approximately level. SEWO Designates Split Entry Walk Out This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4' below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to lowest floor level. TU Designates Tuck Under. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8' below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the front of the dwelling WO .. Designates Walk Out This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8'below grade - -.at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the rear of the dwelling. sE SEwo wo 4- o - � orRLO Inspections staff uses these designations when reviewing plans which are then passed to the engineering staff for further review. Approved grading plans are compared to proposed building plans to insure compliance to approved conditions. The same designation must be used on all documents in order to avoid confusion and incorrect plan reviews. ,. PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ' (t; . ea I - NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING .....„_ _•1 PLANNING COMMISSION r' ' ., . OC ": t$Q i 1 MEETING Wednesday, JUNE 15, 1994 ``' <A:;"`". — ;.fig. at 7:30 p.m. = vl City Hall Council Chambers <>iggi' <f ,�� —' I 690 Coulter Drive z` >'l: : : 'MEI *VW).-11111 , Project: Autumn Ridge - K �� D Developer: Good Value Homes, Inc. t _ .mI1 44-4 Location: Southwest Corner of Hwy. 5 i ' �"' and Galpin Boulevard ee' �� — p ICIt N . . ._� t �rMLN :'vD Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicant is requesting a Conceptual and Preliminary Planned Unit Development to — rezone 89.59 acres of property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate to PUD and preliminary plat to create 34 blocks and 3 outlots for a 166 unit residential development comprised of 34 buildings of either 2, 3, 4, 6, or 8 units in each. The units are two story, slab on grade construction with — attached one or two car garages. The property is located in the southwest corner of the intersection of Hwy. 5 and Galpin Boulevard, Autumn Ridge, Good Value Homes, Inc. (Betty — O'Shaughnessy property). 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 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 Bob at 937-1900, ext. 141. If you choose — to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the 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 June 2, 1994. The Park and Recreation Commission will _ hear this item on June 28 at 7:30 p.m. _HID ASSETS OF OSHKOSH, INC. CHASKA GATEWAY PARTNERS CURTIS E. & J. BEUNING 4275 NOREX DR. 3610 HWY. 101 SO. 2381 TIMBERWOOD DR. CHASKA, MN 55318 WAYZATA, MN 55391 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ANDREW & S. RICHARDSON MARK & J. TAINTOR MITCHEL & MARY KRAUSE — 8120 PINEWOOD CIR. 7481 SARATOGA DRIVE 2380 TIMBERWOOD DR. CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JAMES & LINDA J. LEIRDAHL CURRENT RESIDENT E. Jerome Carlson _2350 TIMBERWOOD DR. 8250 GALPIN BLVD. d o Instant Web CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 7951 Powers Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 HI-WAY 5 PARTNERSHIP JAMES AVIS DALE & M. WANNINGER C/O DENNIS DIRLAM 8190 GALPIN BLVD. 8170 GALPIN BLVD. — 15241 CREEKSIDE CT. CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 —LAWRENCE & F. RASER PATRICK & K. MINGER JP'S LINKS INC. 8210 GALPIN BLVD. 8221 GALPIN BLVD. c/o John Przymus CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 642 Santa Vera Chanhassen, MN 55317 _ROGER & G. SCHMIDT TIMOTHY & V. DEMPSEY LARRY & E. VANDEVEIER 8301 GALPIN BLVD. 8241 GALPIN BLVD. 4890 CO. RD. 10 E. CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHASKA, MN 55318 MILLS PROPERTIES INC. JAY C. DOLEJSI MID AMERICAN BAPTIST SOCIAL —512 LAUREL ST. 6961 CHAPARRAL LN. SERVICES CORPORATION P.O. BOX 505 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 2600 ARBORETUM BLVD. BRAINERD, MN 56401 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 E. Jerome & Linda Carlson Duane & M. Johnson Neal & Deborah Wunderlich 6950 Galpin Lake Road Box 102 7011 Galpin Blvd. — Excelsior, MN 55331 Chaska, MN 55318 Excelsior, MN 55331 — David & Anga Stockdale Earl Gilbert III Dennis & Beverly Jacobson 7210 Galpin Blvd. 6901 Galpin Blvd. 6841 Hazeltine Blvd. Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 - Jay C. Dolejsi , (\k, 5' Michael & C. Klingelhutz Prince R. Nelson 6961 Chaparral Lane r' 8601 Great Plains Blvd. Paisley Park Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 7801 Audubon Road — Chanhassen, MN 55317 Valentine & Wirtz Paul & Roxanne Youngquist Robert & Penelope Arneson 19380 Highway 7 7105 Hazeltine Blvd. 6921 Galpin Blvd. Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Brett A. Davidson Martin & Beth Kuder Mr. Terry Forbord 7291 Galpin Blvd. 6831 Galpin Blvd. Lundgren Brothers — Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 935 E. Wayzata Blvd. Wayzata, MN 55391 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 1, 1994 Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Joe Scott, Matt Ledvina, Ladd Conrad, Jeff Farmakes, and Nancy Mancino MEMBERS ABSENT: Ron Nutting and Diane Harberts STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II; Bob Generous, Planner II and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer (The quality of the recording on the first tape was very poor and therefore a lot of the discussion could not be heard.) ARNOLD AND ANN WEIMERSKIRCH FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 25.95 ACRES INTO 9 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH VARIANCES ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT; WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION AND MITIGATION OF A WETLAND; AND VACATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED ON =r- MINNEWASHTA AVENUE. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF SANDPIPER LANE AND WEST OF PIPER RIDGE, NEUMANN SUBDIVISION. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Would the applicant or their representative wish to speak? -- Ken Adolf: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, my name is Ken Adolf with Schoell and Madsen, the consulting engineers for the applicant. The applicant...Mrs. Neumann is here...Harry Peters and Harry Peterson. I'd like to address several of the recommendations. I'll just go through them item by item. On the first one, the 13 foot front yard variance on Lot 1, Block 2 and a 12 foot front yard setback variance on Lot 4. I believe it should be Lot 3 which is the...On the vacation of Minnewashta Avenue, I did make a transparency and if -� there's any questions on the location of that. We'd like to just make a clarification of what Mr. Weimerskirch was misquoted in the Minutes of the previous meeting on the vacation of actually Sandpiper Lane and I believe he's... Ann Wiemerskirch: On page 18 of the Minutes...my husband said, but they do nevertheless have the right-of-way to that so we have no intention of, and he said disturbing that and he's quoted here as saying preserving that and we don't want the neighbors to think that we have no intention of preserving that right-of-way to the lake. He... 1 Ken Adolf: Okay, I have...additional clarification. In determination of Lots 1 and 2, the applicant feels that both of those lots...both of those lots meet the ordinance requirements so we don't need variances. We feel that the justification...all the mitigation that is necessary is provided to the street construction. There isn't any...included for providing a buildable site. And the other, two other items...adjacent to a wetland. One of the items, we don't feel that that's necessarily a justification for...There's no justification to require that. So that should be Lots 1 and 2, Block 1...On the, I guess which is now item 14. I had in my notes number 7. Storm water trunk fees. This is something that apparently is something new which did not appear in the previous report and the applicant is questioning if it's appropriate for them to be subjected to something that hasn't been...or adopted by the city. If I guess that's going to be upheld we would ask that the lots for the two existing houses be exempted from having to pay that fee. One of the justifications for the question of whether it should be done is if this had been approved at the last Planning Commission meeting...would have been able to avoid this. Aanenson: If I could just make a clarification. We didn't...in the last staff report...that it be tabled so that's why it wasn't in there...We just put four reasons why... Ken Adolf: I guess I'm referring to the discussion in the main report. Last time there wasn't any mention of this that I know of. On item 11, which refers to the tree conservation easement and the 10,000 square foot area that would be available to construct a home. That's basically been shown on the tree preservation plan. A 60 foot pad, which is required by law needs to be shown plus 20 feet around the perimeter of that...We feel that that's really too restrictive in that it wouldn't necessarily...larger area than that but...being just restricted to that specific area...a tree preservation easement and...is considerable effort to get that relocated if necessary. What we're asking for is some additional flexibility for that. We feel each lot here is unique and that we'd like to just sit down with the staff and identify a tree preservation easement area on each individual lot rather than just using a rule of 100 x 100 square and trying to find that...lot so we are asking for additional flexibility. Mancino: Excuse me, what is the tone of the development? I mean do you want it to be, are you going to market it, advertise it as a wooded area and draw people in for part of that? - Ken Adolf: That's correct. That's what the intent is and the initial site grading would be... storm water pond and the lots would be cleared and graded at this time. That would be done with the home construction and we're...homes here which we design to best fit the site. Mancino: Do you see it's an added benefit and an added enhancement, enticement to the people who are going to come to want to live here, to know that their neighbors are going to preserve their trees too and that there is an easement and so that you know that you won't have a neighbor next to you that's going to clear cut let's say or take 3 or 4 trees. Want a nice front yard instead of this wonderful treed lot that you have already existing there. Ken Adolf: I think I'll defer that to either Harry Peters or Harry Peters. 2 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Harry Peters: I can't quite hear you. I can only hear out of one ear. Mancino: Okay. Am I loud enough? Harry Peters: Yeah, that's fine. — Mancino: Can you hear me better? Harry Peters: Sure. Mancino: Okay. My question has to do with, in some of these neighborhoods where we have a lot of trees to be begin with. If they're forested, etc. People you are going to attract and buyers to these areas, these wooded lots and build custom homes, tend to, one thing...they — like knowing that the other people in this development want to preserve the trees too. And they like the idea of having a conservation easement on each lot knowing that the other neighbors will not be taking down lots of trees. So it is an enhancement. It is an incentive for them to want to move in this type of area because it is so special and it is unique. Harry Peters: Well I think this is very true. I think anybody that's going to be interested in — building in this area is going to like, appreciate nature because this is a very unique piece of land. But most of these lots that we are creating are all very, very heavily wooded. You can say you're going to build a house and not take a tree down. I mean take a tree down to — arrange that. But more importantly, your ordinance calls for a side lot requirement and the setback requirement from the road, the setback requirement from the rear lot line, so the configuration that can be built on on these various lots depends on what that side lot — requirement is and the setback from front and rear. And we don't know until someone comes in and becomes interested in a specific lot, what kind of a house they're going to build. Somebody may want to build a long rambler. Somebody may want to build a two story. And some of these lots, the best building site is back away from the road where you get up on a ridge where you can take advantage of those beautiful southerly views looking out to the parkland to the south. — Mancino: So would this Kate, conservation easement that we're talking about in 11, restrict that? Is that that area? — Aanenson: Yes...if you go in a setback area, you have a lot of flexibility. When we go back and we look at the tree ordinance, the one we just adopted, if someone's buying these lots and wants to go in with a swimming pad or cut it down to put in a swimming pool, then they're in the wrong type of lot. And that's why you try...and maybe it's not a first time buyer. Maybe it's the second person that comes in and wants to add on. You try to identify — 3 — Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 the conservation area. Obviously some trees are coming out. We're...but we're saying beyond that, that we want...that's described into the home, is aware that they...I think we could look at some different...In this circumstance we thought it would be easier to say this is a 10,000 square area you can build instead of trying to find the...Here's we're describing the area you can build in... — Mancino: ...you will be flexible in listening to what they think? Aanenson: Well, on their tree plan they show a....and we support that. ...move around within that. We're not saying it all has to be...We're saying within that 10,000 square foot there's flexibility. Mancino: That's what I wanted to find out. Thank you. Harry Peters: Well am I correct, am I correct if we're going to merchandise these parcels of land, these people should be allowed to build on that lot wherever they wish to dependent upon the side lot requirements, as required by the building ordinance. I mean people buying this type of property, a lot of them are going to have an architect and they aren't going to be restricted to this little square that you're talking about. I think we don't have to restrict them. Aanenson: I agree but in talking about, how do you try to do a tree conservation? As they come in and do it lot by lot you know. I'm not sure there's a mechanism to do that sort of thing. Harry Peters: Well if you're going to restrict these lots to having a building of just a certain little area, you're going to destroy the value of the lot. Aanenson: Well that's the same approach we've taken on quite a few with a home placement plan. That's the direction, the city has had a home placement plan for years. Harry Peters: I mean we aren't, to build on this kind of lot that we're creating is a lot more expensive than these lots all around on the old farmland where they cut in a road and punch in basements. Aanenson: We just looked at the Song property. They had numerous trees on there. Ken Adolf: Well as I said, what we're asking for is just some flexibility to work with the... tree conservation area on each individual lot. The comments we had, a couple items I'd just like to mention. We did show a center island in the cul-de-sac and we'd like to get approval for that...but I think the natural setting and breaking up the big expanse of the bituminous in a 4 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 cul-de-sac would fit in with the area a lot nicer. An additional comment that was...in the record. The property has some deferred sanitary sewer assessments along Sandpiper, basically into the wetland area and the applicant is asking that those sewer assessments...wetland area which is not going to be developed and it's in the same area where _ the two lots that are being... Scott: Excuse me. Was that a particular condition that you're? _ Ken Adolf: Well I think we just wanted to have that on the record that that's being requested. _ Scott: Oh okay. Ken Adolf: I don't know if a condition is a proper way to address that. Maybe the Council will... On the wetland alteration...and that's where we're kind of sandwiched between the existing house and the wetland and getting into the wetland with some small amount. As far _ as the mitigation, we discussed this with staff and rather than showing it on the north side... proposed to do it on the east side...So we'll work with staff in picking an area that will... Last time there was some question on the docks. ...if you have any questions on that, Art Johnson _ is here to address those type of dock...I'd be happy to answer any questions, further questions you might have. Scott: Are there any questions or comments for the applicant? I guess not at this point in time. This is a public hearing and can I have a motion to open the public hearing please. Ledvina moved, Farmakes seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was open. Scott: Are there any members of the public who wish to speak at this public hearing? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close. _ Conrad moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. _ Scott: Comments. Jeff. Farmakes: If the city has verbiage I think in there requiring for dockage, isn't it worded as being temporary? Being removable. Aanenson: Speaking to Ceil Strauss from the DNR, their amenable to leaving it in 5 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 permanently as it appears or it may be taken out and... Farmakes: I was just wondering. Is this in conflict with the city ordinance? Aanenson: No. Farmakes: So it's not a requirement that it be removed at the end of the season? Aanenson: No. Farmakes: Okay. Aanenson: Again... Farmakes: I don't have a problem with the islands. I know we've discussed these...city engineer has had quite a few problems with it in the past. This is a very small development. In general the recommendations are...It seems logical to me how this development's been proposed. The areas for the housing. I would support staff's recommendation in the areas — for housing pads...come forward with a more flexible plan that makes sense and seems to minimize the loss of trees. I don't have any further comments. Scott: Okay, Nancy. Mancino: I've got a question Kate about the conditional use permit. We're receiving some DNR approval for the dock... Aanenson: They have more than 4 slips...They're allowed in a recreational beachlot permit to have, based on their square footage, to have 3 docks. 3 boats at each dock. We're recommending, based on the wetland, that they...one dock. But when you do that now, you're taking a requirement for permitting from the DNR. But you have 4 boats at once, that requires a marina. They do support...and again the only issue we've got... Mancino: Okay. My only other question, and I do support staff's recommendations, is on the...What I'm looking at is, I'm looking...canopy coverage and I assume that everything... Then we have a house pad. Then you have broken lines that give us the 10,000 square foot outside. And I see trees right next to that. What trees are going to come down? I mean they're not just in that 10,000 square foot area, is that right? Aanenson: Right. What we did is look at a driveway and then...and we figured to have a 6 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 base line of 50% and the ordinance allows 35%. They were allowed to remove, we feel confident that removal of the trees in this subdivision keeps them within the 35 percentage. _ But that's why we're concerned with saying, just going with the setback, that would allow in excess removal...we're willing to work with them as far as some flexibility but just to leave it open, that's unacceptable... — Mancino: Okay. I think the staff recommendations look very good and I support them. Scott: Matt. Ledvina: Last time we talked about the dock and I asked the question, is there going to be any dredging that's going to be required to access the dock? No dredging, okay. Do we know if the installation of the dock will require a wetland alteration permit? Aanenson: I did check with that and no, it does not. Ledvina: Does not, okay. Alright, let's see. On number 14. What would the city's status — Dave on exempting the two existing houses from these fees? Would that be standard fare? Hempel: That's a good question. The surface water management fees were partially based — on the remaining developable land in the city by the estimated construction dollars to arrive at the rate per acre. Now that would tell me that these homes probably were not included. Would not be included in the surface water management fees. Similar to park and rec trail fees. Dedication fees. I don't think they're claiming these two parcels should be charged those fees as well. I'd like to do a little more investigation I guess with our consultant who put together the fee structure. The proposed fee structure and get some clarification on that. But my initial reaction is that they should be exempt. Ledvina: Okay. I think we can add something to that to get staff evaluation on that for the developer so. Let's see. That's the extent of my comments. Scott: Good, Ladd. Conrad: Kate, under condition 4. Would you just give to me the rationale for 1 and 2 being combined? Aanenson: As Dave indicated in his part of the report, Lot 1 has a...pretty steep driveway... — which exceeds the city requirement of 10% and the other lot is right on...wetland. You have to get...and again we were recommending that the mitigation be moved over to the other side of the wetland. That really it probably would make more sense... — 7 — Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) Conrad: On condition number 11. I don't want, I'm not sure what kind of precedence I'd be setting but I guess I would staff to review the alternatives in terms of a per lot canopy review, and that sounds like a lot. I'm not sure...I think I want you to do that. I don't know that I'm disagreeing with the condition however. That's all. Scott: Good. Can I have a motion please? Mancino: I move that we recommend approval of Preliminary Plat #94-3 as shown on the plans stamped, or dated May 17, 1994 and subject to the following conditions. Number 1 reads a 13 foot front yard setback variance to Lot 1, Block 2 and a 12 foot front yard setback variance on Lot 3, Block 2. Number 2 as is. Number 3 as is. Number 4 as is. Number 5 as is. Number 6 as is. Number 7 deleted. Number 8 deleted. Number 9 as is. Number 10 as is. Number 11 reads, a tree conservation easement shall be placed on all lots outside of the 10,000 square foot building pad as shown on the tree canopy plan. Staff will work with the applicant for placement of these...on these lots. Number 12 as is. Number 13 as is. Number 14 reads, staff will evaluate whether the applicant should pay the appropriate storm water quality and quantity fees for storm water management improvements in accordance to the city's surface water management plan. Scott: And conditions 15 thru 23 remain as is. Conrad: I second that. Ledvina: Friendly amendment? Mancino: Sure. Ledvina: As far as item 4. Or as far as condition number 4 is concerned. Could we add a descriptor identify Block 1? Mancino: Block 1. Lot 2 shall be combined into one lot, Block 1? Ledvina: Well no. Lots 1 and 2, Block 1. Scott: Is that acceptable? Conrad: Yes. 8 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we recommend approval of the staff report with conditions. Any discussion? — Mancino moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Preliminary Plat #94-3 as shown on the plans stamped May 17, 1994, and subject to the following conditions: 1. A 13 foot front yard setback variance for Lot 1, Block 2 and a 12 foot front yard — setback variance on Lot 3, Block 2. 2. City Council approval of the vacation of Minnewashta Avenue. 3. Approval of the 50 foot right-of-way for street. 4. Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 shall be combined into one lot. 5. Relocation of the storm water retention pond from the rear of Lot 3, Block 2 to — between Lots 3 and 4, Block 2. 6. Erosion control measures shall be in accordance with the City's Best Management — Practices Handbook. 7. Deleted. 8. Deleted. 9. The two existing homes within the plat are required to be connected to city sewer within 30 days after the sanitary sewer line becomes operational. The homes may _ continue to utilize their existing wells until the well fails. 10. The street shall be named Tanagers Lane or Tanagers Court and the two existing homes shall be required to change their addresses to correspond to the plat's street name and city's address grid. 11. Tree conservation easements shall be placed on all lots outside of the 10,000 square foot building pad as shown on the tree canopy plan. Staff will work with the applicant as to the placement of building pads in relationship to the canopy plan. — 12. Lowest floor elevations of the homes adjacent to the wetland areas shall be two feet — 9 — Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 above the wetland's ordinary high water level. 13. The grading plan shall be revised to show the appropriate site grading to achieve buildable house pad elevations adjacent to the wetlands. Individual grading and drainage plans will be required for all treed lots. The plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to building permit issuance. 14. The applicant shall pay the appropriate storm water quality and quantity fees er-prov-ide ---- • - - • • --- - - - - • -- - in accordance to the City's Surface Water Management Plan. If the storm water fees have not been formally adopted by the time final plat is to be recorded, then a letter of credit or cash dedication will be escrowed with the City until the SWMP plan has been formally adopted by the City and the fees adjusted accordingly based on the approved fee schedule and assessment methodology. 15. Storm water calculations for ponding and piping shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. All storm water ponds shall meet Walker standards. The storm sewer shall be designed for a 10-year storm event. 16. The erosion control plan may be modified subject to the final grading and drainage plan. Erosion control measures shall be employed in accordance to the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 17. All retaining walls shall be built outside the City's right-of-way and maintained by the property owner. 18. All utility and street installation for public improvements shall be in accordance with the City's latest edition of standard specifications and detail plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval in conjunction with final plat approval. 19. The applicant shall 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 final platting. 20. As a result of platting the two existing homes may be required to change the addresses to correspond to the final plat and the City's address grid system. The new street name shall be subject to approval by the City's Public Safety Department. 21. The applicant shall receive and comply with all pertinent agency permits, i.e. Watershed District, DNR, MWCC, MPCA, Minnesota Dept. of Health, etc. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 22. Submit street name to Public Safety Department for review prior to final plat approval. 23. Accept full park and trail dedication fees for the Neumann Subdivision in lieu of parkland dedication and/or trail construction. One-third of the park and trail cash contribution shall be paid contemporaneously with the filing of the subdivision plat. The balance, calculated as follows, shall be paid at the time building permits are issued: rate in effect for residential single family property when a building permit is issued minus the amount previously paid." — All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mancino: I recommend that we recommend approval of conditional use permit #94-2 for the recreational beachlot subject to the following conditions. 1 thru 4 as is. Conrad: I second that. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we accept staff's recommendation on that item. Is — there any discussion? Ledvina: I have a small item here. On the first one, the first condition. I think we should probably say with more than 4 slips because they're looking at 9 slips. We know that so that would be a friendly amendment. — Scott: Is that acceptable? Mancino: It is. Conrad: And I would second that. Scott: Is there any more discussion? Mancino moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #94-2 for the recreational beachlot subject to the following conditions: — 1. Receive DNR approval for dock with more than 4 slips. 2. Verify water depth and submit the appropriate configuration of dock. 3. The dock shall have a maximum of 9 boat slips. — 11 — Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 4. The recreational beachlot shall meet all of the General Issuance Standards of Section 20-232, conditional uses. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Scott: Can I have a motion on the wetland alteration permit please? Mancino: I recommend that the Planning Commission approve the wetland alteration permit #94-2 for mitigation of a wetland subject to the following conditions. 1 thru 4. Scott: Okay, is there a second? Conrad: I do. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we approve the wetland alteration permit. Is there any discussion? Mancino moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #94-2 for mitigation of a wetland subject to the following conditions: 1. The area of mitigation shall be located on the northeastern portion of the site. 2. A replacement plan is necessary for any impacts to the wetland at a minimum size wetland replacement ratio of 2:1. 3. The discharge of dredged or fill material into any wetland or water area requires authorization under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act from the Corps of Engineers. 4. The following wetland setbacks shall be maintained: Natural wetland 10'-30' buffer strip and 40 foot structure setback Ag/urban wetland 0-30' buffer strip and 40 foot structure setback All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PATRICK MINGER FOR THE REZONING OF 8.46 ACRES FROM A2, 12 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND PRELIMINARY PLAT INTO 17 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT — LOCATED AT 8221 GALPIN BOULEVARD, SOUTH OF TIMBERWOOD ESTATES. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. --- Scott: Questions or comments for staff? Mancino: Bob, in the staff report. The property is bounded on the north and east by Timberwood Estates which is a large lot subdivision with 2 1/2 acres, right? Generous: Yes. Mancino: So the north and the east. The west is Galpin and south is a park. Correct? — Generous: Right. Mancino: So why wasn't this area also guided for something with larger lots? I mean this is a perfect place. Why did we go from 2 1/2 acres to 15,000 square feet? Isn't there something in the middle there? And this is the perfect place to have it guided for something between where you have the 2 1/2 acre Timberwood lots and. Aanenson: Well that...that issue came up at the last meeting as far as what's going in all around and it's zoned for agricultural and that's a holding zone. It's zoned agricultural...and it falls within that range. Mancino: Can we reguide it? Aanenson: Again... Mancino: Ladd, you were here then. I mean maybe somebody else was. What was the — thinking when you have these larger lots and then going to 15,000 square feet? I mean why wasn't there some thought on something inbetween the two? Conrad: Because you do have some, we've had some zoning districts and it really goes from 15,000 and it jumps up to what Timberwood is. The 40,000. And I think back then it was, back then? A couple years ago the feeling was that there probably wasn't going to be a huge — demand for the large lots anymore. You didn't see the general public coming in when we, and I advocated different lot sizes years and years ago and we'd open it up for public comment and nobody would...another zone and nobody showed up. So the general public 13 -- Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 really felt pretty comfortable with the 15,000 square foot. And we had the 40,000 I think when we did the comprehensive plan. Mancino: Well this is 2 1/2 acres. This has got to 90 to 100,000. Ledvina: 100,000 yeah. Conrad: 40,000 is what we were talking. When I said the 40, that was what we were looking at as a different zone. But we didn't get any support for that so we had the 2 1/2, or we have what Timberwood is and then we have the 15,000 and there really wasn't a public outcry or demand for it. Not that the public leads all the way but when you kind of advertise to the Chanhassen residents. Say hey it's there...and nobody shows. Mancino: It would certainly give us more diversity on different levels. Conrad: It would. It's probably not an economic, and I'm not sure what's economically feasible anymore. Mancino: Well we just...4 1/2 acres. People are out there looking for it... Farmakes: Yeah, but...you've got a fair amount of land... Mancino: But to some people that's important. I'm just trying to figure out why there's such a big gap there and it just seems like this particular area would work... Farmakes: I wouldn't agree with that. Timberwood was one of the developments on the...and you had a minimum size that they could be... Aanenson: I think that point is well taken. Those lots were all outside of the urban service area...when we start talking about city services and the cost...when you talk about urban services, it's a different thing... - Farmakes: I remember the farmers were in here that owned property at the time before the corporation...and they were, some of them were doing their own subdividing and a lot of it was minimal farmland and they were arguing how many acres the minimum could be. And they brought it down to 2 1/2 I think. Mancino: It was 10... Farmakes: Yeah. That was something that they were arguing back and forth with the Met 14 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 because the Met pressure was to get as much density as possible and eliminate the large lots. Scott: Any other questions or comments for staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? And please, state your name and your address. Peter Knaeble: Chairman and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Peter Knaeble and I am representing the owners...Patrick Minger. I'm with Ron Krueger and Associates and our address is 5301 Edina Industrial Blvd in Edina. Bob went through most of the...based on the staff report our clients came back with the...In regards to the tree conservation area, here tonight...proposing to purchase the lots from the Mingers and...might have some comments also on...concur with the staff report on their recommendation that this project be approved. The only requirement we have is exactly where the individual trees... Scott: Okay. Any questions or comments for the applicant? Mancino: You made a comment that you might want to change...and you may want to put the houses back further and saving trees in the front. Unless I'm viewing this incorrectly I don't see too many trees in the front that need to be saved. If you put the house back. What I do see, according to this plan is if you move the house back you would take out more trees. Peter Knaeble: Yeah, what we started out with every cul-de-sac we got right at the 20 foot setback line...20 foot, then there would be trees...front setback area that would be taken... to overlay the proposed tree conservation area on our grading plan, to do that, at least a few — lots...actual tree conservation line is encroaching into that 60 x 60 pad area...Lot 1, Lot 15, Lot 17. Mancino: 7 and 8 and I'm sorry, what were the other two? Peter Knaeble: I said Lot 1...15, 17... Scott: Any other questions or comments for the applicant? I'd like to see a show of hands please. Is there anyone from the general public who is interested in commenting on this particular proposal? Okay. Can I have a motion please to open the public hearing? Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Scott: If you'd like to speak, please step up front. Identify yourself and give us your address. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Tim Dempsey: My name is Tim Dempsey. I live at 8241 Galpin, which is the property adjacent to this and I had a couple of things. Regarding your comments earlier, we talked about that quite a bit at the last meeting about the A2 and...and all that and we had a meeting, myself and a few of us...also to understand why guiding happens. I guess I'd like some... some legal ramifications there. I'd like to have more understanding of why we have to have 15,000 square foot lots if it's guided... Farmakes: Excuse me. Do you, when you identified yourself, are you representing Timberwood Estates? Tim Dempsey: No, no. I'm just saying these questions came up. I live right next door to the project. Farmakes: Are you part of the Homeowners Association of some sort? Scott: No. They own the property between the proposed development and Galpin. Farmakes: That house right there? Scott: Yeah. Farmakes: Okay. I thought you said... Tim Dempsey: ...were talking to the people that were from Timberwood Estates at the last meeting brought up the A2 and the response that it was guided for further development. And myself, I would like some more clarification on what legal barrier there is... Aanenson: The same thing was discussed at the last meeting. The comprehensive plan... meet all the setbacks and the lot configurations...that's what they're allowed to have. Now if you say they cannot have that, you have to have a Findings as to why they can't do it. The topography or whatever... Mancino: So guiding really means that it... Tim Dempsey: They just haven't changed the initials yet. Aanenson: No. What it says is that...Metropolitan Council that when urban services are available...If you choose not to... Tim Dempsey: I understand the...Now the other two, the prior meetings before the last 16 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 planning meeting that we were talking about item number 15 in the plan you have which is on page 16. First line says the Minger's house shall be connected to sanitary sewer within 30 — days after the line becomes operational. The second line...Dempsey parcel will have to connect to sanitary sewer within 12 months...hook-up only when the present system fails. When the property's developed or (3), when we sell the property... — Hempel: Yes it is Mr. Dempsey but we also said that the City Council is the only authority that has the power to change the ordinance...That's something staff would support when it _ came to City Council for discussion. Tim Dempsey: Okay. Well I want to bring it up... Scott: And that's true with any issue. If you're for something or you're not for something. Is to say the ultimate decision gets made at the City Council. At least in my experience I see in certain circumstances, in an instance where someone just made a significant investment in either a well or a septic system or if it's in good working order, I can't predict what's going to happen. However, gather your case. Usually the items that people highlight is the age of the system. How it's working, etc, etc and take it from there but we recommend that you follow that issue through the City Council because that's where the ultimate decision is made. Tim Dempsey: Okay. I'll follow it...And looking at the layout...where my worst nightmare was and that is the...large oak trees and...and if we could straighten that out, maybe take it another 10-20 feet away from that...somehow straighten that out, it would pull it away from that. I don't know what you're achieving by the 10. If there's some street maintenance issue or whatever but it seems to be moving close to my house with no real benefit. Scott: Dave is that to give it more of a T intersection? Hempel: That's correct. To try to have them perpendicular...The ordinance requires that they... Scott: And you can get out your protractor. What's the angle, begs the question. Hempel: Unfortunately I don't have one with me here this evening but it appears to be _ within the 50...It can be looked at further but I don't think it can be shifted that much... Tim Dempsey: Well those are my questions. — Scott: Did you have, you wanted to respond? 17 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Peter Knaeble said something which was not heard on the tape. Scott: Okay, well if these gentlemen could perhaps talk that through with city staff. Okay. Would anybody else like to speak at this public hearing? Seeing none, may I have a motion please? Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Ledvina: I guess as it relates to the situation with subdividing this parcel, I'm comfortable with the staff's evaluation of the neighboring properties. I guess I genuinely feel that the site is fairly well screened from the other parcels. Due to the extensive trees along the boundary so as far as that's concerned, I'm comfortable with that issue. If there's some tweaking of the boundaries that can be done as far as the tree conservation easement I would, to whatever to provide some flexibility with the house pads and to actually save trees potentially in the front yard that would be in the tree conservation easement. Obviously if we cut down a 24 inch oak to save a 6 inch box elder on the back side we're not getting anywhere so I would be very receptive to the applicant demonstrating to our staff where things can be jockeyed and we can be precise in that manner and I would certainly be for that so. Scott: Would you want to modify a particular condition? Ledvina: Yeah, I don't know. I don't know how we'd go about that. Scott: Maybe number 4? Ledvina: Let's see. Mancino: It seems that's very appropriate to move those boundaries... Ledvina: Yeah, for the boundary, yes. Farmakes: It seems like they'd be able to deal with that through asking for a variance. They come in. They say the topographical area requires them to put the house here and not there I believe is criteria for a variance. ...relegistating that to that specific development. Ledvina: The applicant talked about Lot 15 and that's not on th boundary of the site so I don't know. Mancino: And micro manage every single lot? 18 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Ledvina: Well I don't know. I don't know how we'd do that. Farmakes: I think you're going to get this with the tree conservation zone every time we get an area in there that's not farmland. You're going to get saying well what if we want to put the house up here or move it over there. Mancino: Well and one of the reasons why we had the tree preservation, had them put the 60 foot pad, housing pad was to make the developers think about it and where it goes in relationship to the trees right away so that we can get these...So we could start...mapping of tree preservation areas. Farmakes: ...to argue that you can't do that. If there's a significant stand of trees or a significant landmark of some sort to say no. On the other hand. Mancino: And that's what staff supports, to go out and look at the... Farmakes: And you can always ask for a variance. Under the criteria, if there's something — that's in your way, you're certainly allowed to come in and ask for a variance. Ledvina: Bob, would you feel that, do you have any suggestions for condition 4 to meet our — objectives here? Generous: Well I think if you incorporate some of the same language you did in the previous — case and say work with staff on the individual lots maybe. The Tree Board worked hard to come up with this concept and they're supposed to look at...critically and say this is the area that we think is best. You know if they wanted to shove the house in the back and have the easement on the front, that'd be fine with us too. We're looking for significant stands. Around the perimeter, especially on the east side. The south side. Then one in the middle. — There are perfect areas of significant stands of trees. Dense vegetation. If we can keep their development out of there, that'd be fine. If they want to tweak it around and say instead of a 50 foot on Lot, what is it, 8. Have a 40 foot on that one in terms of the cul-de-sac and everything. Well maybe that's something we should look at prior to adopting it but let's get it recorded and platted. Ledvina: Okay. Now I'm comfortable with that, yes. Okay. I guess I would also suggest that we add a 23rd condition which would essentially codifies what the residents and the developer have just discussed as it relates to that westerly cul-de-sac in shifting of that cul-de- _ sac the appropriate distance. We should agree with that. Mancino: I think it was 15 feet. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Ledvina: 10. 10 to 15 feet. Something like that. That's the extent of my comments. Scott: Okay. Nancy. Mancino: Well I was going to listen... Scott: Okay, Jeff. Farmakes: I have a lot of comments on this development. One thing on clear cutting on the land issue. It would be nice to see a buffer in here. However, under the circumstances of how it occurred, how the development occurred. Particularly when you take into Stone Creek. We discussed this issue of Stone Creek...the relationship of land versus the adjacent land and the 2 1/2 acres throws a wrench in it. The reasoning for that, as I recall, the hearings that took place. Some people were coming in complaining that Timberwood was being developed saying that that housing was too dense and they wanted a more open row of land and 2 years later you get the residents of Timberwood coming in and saying, this is too dense. So it's just a matter of 5 years here or 5 years there point of view I guess. I don't think it's relevant to expect somebody's going to pay for 5 or 6 acres of land as a buffer. There's a quarter of a million dollar investment before you put up the home on the property. You're going to have 2% or 3% population that can do that. Mancino: No, but by 2 1/2 acres we could go half acre. You don't have to go down to a third. You could do something inbetween where it's not something... Farmakes: But again, how do you look at that as a second zone? Where you have a larger lot. I think that's been discussed infinitum over the years. That issue and it's not on the current plan. Mancino: ...two cents worth in. Farmakes: That's right. 10 years ago you should have been here. But there was reasoning for that and I think it's sound reasoning. The problem that occurred is that there was a motivation to develop outside of town but when they lowered that down to 2 1/2 acres, they brought it down enough in money where people sort of jumped out in front of planning and started building. And you've seen how those type of developments dictate what goes around them. Just like, almost like an old tree that is there and the other trees come around it. It's hard to predict what that is because it's in the realm of a developer. A developer is dictating not only that acreage but other acreage around it and future development. Anyway, I really don't have any further comments on this. I'm not wildly enthusiastic about this development but I think it's within the realms of the rules that we set up. Although I would be open, if 20 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 you want to relook at or talk about buffer. The buffer situation on this is really going to significant change this development if that's what you're steering towards because of the — property that's already owned on the west side. That's it. Scott: Mr. Conrad. — Conrad: I was here for the comprehensive plan and I've kind of looked at it again in terms of what this was guided for, and as I said the last time, if you wanted to protect trees, then — you keep it in the large lot, 2 1/2 acre. We don't have another zone. Period. We don't. So there's nothing, and if we did, we should have been doing something before now. The proposal's here so I'm comfortable with the rezoning. It still makes sense to me. I support the guide plan. But when I say that, I'm not a real proponent of transition and therefore transition is real important and protection of the quality of the life that the neighbors had who bought the property. So therefore I'm fairly rigid in what I'd like to see. I think the staff — report tonight is excellent from the comments that they heard 2 weeks ago. I think they've put in the protections. It's meeting a canopy coverage which I think I thought was pretty strict. So it's meeting what those guide plans are and so it's hard for me to say it should be — something different. In the staff report, on page 4, halfway down the page staff has said, staff still believes that the use of a private drive and the shortening of the easterly cul-de-sac will afford additional tree protection. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. That was a statement but it wasn't really worked into recommendations so basically you support that but you've dropped it and I guess I'd like to know why. Generous: Well Dave and I sat down to try and do it and we couldn't make it work with that house placement. Especially on the...but we'd like to see the applicant investigate this further and see if they can make it work. Not only are we concerned with the tree preservation in that area but again there's that drainageway that we think the building pad is encroaching on. Conrad: For Lot, which one? Generous: Lot 10. If you look at the contours, it goes right through the rear of the building _ pad. Mancino: Going back to the other thing about making the cul-de-sac shorter. So do we want — to put a recommendation that the applicant investigate that further with you and Dave? And see if you can work out something to save some more trees and shorten it up. Generous: Sure. Conrad: You've looked at it and you're saying you don't have a solution so. — 21 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Hempel: We looked at it kind of 12th hour. We didn't spend a lot of time on it. Unfortunately. It is difficult. There's a drainageway, as I indicated on one side and you've got the trees and the tree buffer on the other side. Cul-de-sac does expand the setbacks out further. By shortening that up you may save Lot 10. The house pad being on the drainageway but then Lot 11 house pad...so you're not really gaining anything that much by shortening it up unless you can offset it further. We threw it out on the table I guess. The applicant's engineer maybe can investigate to see if there's a feasible alternative to this with a private driveway that would save trees. That they wouldn't lose a lot. That was another thing that they were concerned about. The potential of losing a lot because...so there's some balancing between the two. Conrad: Lot 13 is a strange lot. Scott: Wasn't there a condition that basically we recommend cutting that lot up and adding it to. Conrad: Along with some of this other, yeah. Which made a terrific amount of sense. You know again we have a fair amount of land here and we are trying to buffer the neighbors to a degree and I think the staff and the applicant has gone along with some of the staff recommendations. I'm real appreciative of that. It's just that geez, we just stuck, there's a real strange lot there and I guess it's legal. I wish if staff had found a good way to preserve some of the things we were looking for, I would have loved to have carved that 13 up and moved it into some of the other lots. I'm going to stop. Mancino: Aren't we doing that? Wasn't it suggested that? Farmakes: It wasn't a condition. Conrad: It wasn't. It was not a condition, no. It was a thought but it's not a condition right now. But I'm hearing from staff that they haven't really found a good way to do a lot of these things and make it a smart. We don't have a better idea right now. Now we can challenge staff again but there's a good chance that there's not a solution to this one. It's just that in general that's, Lot 13 bothers me and it's just grabbing another lot out of here which is legal but, and I think again as we're looking to sort of move out of a large lot subdivision into a small lot, I guess I'm not always trying to squeak out every 15,000 square feet that we can to put a new house on. And I think the rationale for that was if we could be saving a significant. I'm not looking for one tree. I'm looking for a significant benefit and if it's not there, I don't think we should do it. But I guess I'll challenge staff one more time. That if there is some way to do it, and I'd sure like to see their recommendation to the City Council of that way. But at this point in time I don't want to see it back. I'd just like to challenge 22 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Dave and Kate and Bob to take a look at that. I think that is, you know again, I just think that this is a lot better thing than what we looked at last week. Or 2 weeks ago. I think that it's a good report. I thank them for that and I'll go along with the recommendations in the staff report. Scott: Okay. Mancino: I don't have too much new to add except that I would also like to see staff and the applicant investigate the use of private drive and shortening up the easterly cul-de-sac to see that it will afford the additional tree protection. You know when you drive into this land, I think I read a little bit of it in the Minutes. That it was addressed. On the northern part of the entry to this area there is a stand of trees that separates the land to the north and this drive thru which is a really nice entryway. Are all those trees, I don't even see canopy coverage up here. Are all those trees going to be gone? On the north side of this new road that goes in where there are, it's a private road right now and there are existing trees and I'm sorry if you. Hempel: Maybe I can address it on the overhead here. This is where the existing driveway currently is on the property and it continues up right through here. The tree removal will be contained in this area here. The vegetation actually goes on the north side as well. On the cemetery property as well as on the homeowners property there in Timberwood Estates. The vegetation, the property line essentially is centered on that vegetated road there so half of it would be lost. The southerly half would be lost and this first 300-400 foot of roadway. After that the roadway curves south. The remaining vegetation is, as Bob has pointed out here in the purple, will be a tree preservation easement area and all saved. Mancino: So are you taking vegetation off somebody else's property...? Hempel: No we are not. Mancino: Has there been some soil...in your woodland management plan request for maybe putting some trees in that area that's being, that were existing? Generous: No, not specifically in the woodland management plan but there is I believe a recommendation that they provide a landscaping plan. Mancino: I think that that would be a good place as a buffer between the cemetery and it's, it was there and those, a lot of trees will be down. I think it would be good to have some coniferous trees there so we get year round buffering. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Generous: Yeah. Well under condition 3 we address the... Mancino: Okay, good. Those are all of my comments. Scott: Good. Could I have a motion please? Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #93-25 and 94-1 Rezoning providing for the preliminary plat of 8.46 acres of land to create 17 single family lots, rezoning of the property from Agricultural Estate District, A2 to RSF and a front yard setback variance of 10 feet to permit a front yard setback of 20 feet throughout the development subject to the staff conditions. Modifying condition number 4 to include the applicant shall work with staff on the individual house pads to maximize tree preservation. Adding condition number 23. The applicant shall shift the westerly cul-de-sac approximately 10 feet to the east at the intersection of the main access street. Mancino: Can I give a friendly amendment? 23. That staff and the applicant will investigate further, investigate the use of a private drive and the shortening of the easterly cul-de-sac to see if it will afford additional tree protection. Ledvina: That'd be 24. Mancino: 24, thanks. Ledvina: Yes. Scott: Is there a second to that motion? Conrad: Second. Scott: It's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #93-25 and Rezoning #94-1 for the preliminary plat on 8.46 acres of land to create 17 single family lots, rezoning of the property from Agricultural Estate District, A2 to Single Family Residential, RSF, and a front yard setback variance of ten (10) feet to permit a front yard setback of 20 feet throughout the development subject to the following conditions: 1. Accept full park and trail dedication fees as prescribed by city ordinance for the Minger 24 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 subdivision in lieu of land acquisition. 2. Provide a 20 ft. trail easement to the west of Lot 17 for connection to the city park and construct an 8 ft. wide asphalt trail stub within this easement . The city shall reimburse the developer for this construction. In addition, design an adequate landscape buffer between this easement and the home which will be constructed on Lot 17. 3. Prior to final platting, the applicant will be required to provide a boulevard landscaping _ plan for the first 300 feet of the entrance road into the development in order to replace the existing vegetation that will be removed as part of the road and utility grading into the site. A Woodland Management Plan shall be developed for the subdivision prior to the final platting of the property. This plan shall comply with section 18-61 (d) (3) of the City Code. 4. Incorporate on the final plat a fifty (50) foot tree conservation area to be dedicated along the perimeter of the plat. Within this area only selective thinning to promote the health and survivability of trees be permitted. Additionally, this area, especially along the northern border of the plat could be used as a forestation or replacement area for trees. Thinning, forestation, and tree replacement are conditioned on the development of a Woodland Management Plan by a forestry professional that would address these issues. The following tree conservation easements would also be dedicated as part of the plat: a forty (40) foot easement centered on the common lot lines of lots 2 and 3, and lots 4 and 5; a twenty (20) foot easement along the south lot line of lot 5; a twenty (20) foot easement along the north lot line of lot 7; a fifty (50) foot easement along the rear lot lines of lots 10, 11, 14, and 15: a forty (40) foot easement along the south lot line of lot 12; an easement over the southern 115 feet of lot 13; and an eighty (80) foot easement along the east lot line of lot 16. No construction activity of any kind will be permitted within these easements. The applicant will work with staff on individual house pads to maximize tree preservation. 5. The applicant shall include runoff from the cemetery in the proposed pond design and construction. 6. Remove the applicant's existing private driveway once the street is paved with the first lift of asphalt. 7. Provide water quantity/quality ponding according to SWMP requirements. 8. The applicant shall employ the use of retaining walls to save the 34-inch oak and 28- inch oak on lot 1, block 1. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 9. Submit proposed street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division, for review prior to final plat approval. The plat must be revised to include the approved names after their review and approval. The existing homes will be required - to change their addresses consistent with the new street names and numbering system 10. A ten foot clear space shall be maintained around fire hydrants. 11. Compliance with the terms and conditions contained in the memorandum from Bill Weckman, Assistant Carver County Engineer to Bob Generous dated 4/25/94. 12. The applicant shall investigate the shortening of the easterly cul-de-sac the use of a private drive to service the four houses at the terminus of the cul-de-sac. 13. Detailed construction drawings and specifications for the public improvements will be required for submittal with final plat approval. All street and utility construction shall be in accordance to the City's latest edition of standard specifications and detail plates. Final construction drawings are subject to staff review and formal City Council approval. 14. Prior to the city signing the final plat, 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. The Minger's house shall be connected to sanitary sewer within 30 days after the line becomes operational. The Dempsey's house will have to connect to sanitary sewer within 12 months after connection becomes available. The homes may utilize their existing wells until they fail, then the parcel must connect to city water. The existing septic systems shall be abandoned per state and/or local codes. 16. The applicant shall apply and obtain all the necessary permits of the regulatory agencies such as MPCA, health department, watershed district, DNR and Carver County Highway Department. 17. The developer shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction. 18. The applicant shall submit storm drainage and ponding calculations verifying the pipe sizing and pond volumes. Storm sewers shall be designed and constructed to handle 10-year storm events. Detention ponds shall be constructed to NURP standards as well 26 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 as maintain the surface water discharge rate from the subdivision at the predeveloped runoff rate for a 100-year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage plans shall be consistent with the City of Chanhassen's Best Management Practices Handbook. 19. Prior to the City signing the final plat, the applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee construction of the public improvements. 20. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants so as to avoid injury to fire fighters and to be easily recognizable, i.e. NSP transformers, street lighting, cable boxes, landscaping. 21. The developer and/or property owners shall waive any and all procedural or substantive objections to the special assessments including, but not limited to, hearing requirements and any claims that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the property. 22. Depending on the storm ponding calculations, if the development is not meeting the City SWMP for water quantity, then the applicant will be required to contribute into the City's SWMP program. The proposed rate per acre for single family is $1,980/acre excluding wetlands." 23. The applicant shall shift the westerly cul-de-sac approximately 10 feet to the east at the intersection of the main access street. 24. That staff and the applicant will investigate further the use of a private drive and the shortening of the easterly cul-de-sac to see if it will afford additional tree protection. All voted in favor, except Mancino who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Scott: And your thought is? Mancino: ...I just don't think it's a good...use. I don't think it's a good transition land use between Timberwood and a park. That's what I think. I think it's too dense. Scott: Well, here's a thought. We've seen a proposed development on the north side of Timberwood. As part of the. 27 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Mancino: At the school. Scott: Well there's a, I'm trying to remember who had it. Mancino: Oh, Heritage. Scott: Yeah. So there's an opportunity if you would like to make a proposal on that particular piece. See there's, we've retained some of that, we've seen a request to rezone property adjacent to the north side of Timberwood and I believe there are some 15,000 square foot lots. At least the development that we saw had 15,000 square foot lots lined up, you know where the power line goes through there? Mancino: Yes. Scott: Abutting the east side. So that is a similar, it's guided similar to this particular property but it is not as far along. Mancino: And this one has some other site characteristics being...100%o. 99.6% wooded so... to preserve some of our woodland areas. And I think that this is important so that we do have bigger lots... Scott: And severe topography. Mancino: Severe topography which will be a little different. I just, I don't know. Don't think that this is the best use of that land. Scott: Okay. This is for the 13th? Okay. Thank you for coming sir. And the applicant, thank you. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 10,315 SQUARE FOOT KINDERCARE FACILITY AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A LICENSED DAY CARE CENTER IN AN IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF DELL ROAD AND STATE HIGHWAY 5, MARCUS CORPORATION. Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Any questions or comments from commissioners? Mancino: Sharmin, I just have a question about the site plan review on page, starting on page 1. The April 13th meeting. That those need to be revised. That those are not the...13th 28 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 meeting. The staff recommendation that we adopted the following motions on April 13th. That those are different than the ones that start on page 34. So I wanted to make sure that — you've got the right ones in here. On page 34 it says, Mancino moved, Harberts seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to approve the site plan review for a 54,760 square foot expansion of the Press building shown on the site plan received April 13, 1993 subject to _ the following conditions. And if you look for instance on number 6 on page 2 of our current report dated May 26, 1994 it says, the Press addition shall contain architectural detailing to break the long wall masses. If you look on page 35, number 6. You had put in bold, what — we wanted to add so that all of these 1 thru 21 should really reflect or be the same ones as what's on page 34, 35, and 36. Is that correct? Because I know that we wanted to keep the impervious surface of the Press at 70% and you had that in 19 on page 36. Is everybody — kind of following me? Commission: Yes. — Mancino: Okay. So we need to change that. Thank you. And I don't know about 20 and 21. Yeah, 20 and 21 stay also. That are on page 3 of the most recent staff report. Thank you. Scott: Any other questions or comments for staff? Dave, I've got a question for you on the — SRF memo. Item number 1. The tight turning radiuses and turning restrictions associated with the site are a concern, especially for emergency vehicles such as ambulances and fire rescue vehicles. Would this be the kind of thing that would be sent to the fire department, — staff or, because I saw this and then I was looking through my staff report expecting to see a memo from Jim. Is this the kind of, I mean they've reviewed the site plan that we saw the first part of April and my expectation was to see a comment from them on that. To your knowledge have they had a chance to review this? Hempel: No they have not. Scott: Huh, okay. Not yet. First of all are there any other comments for staff? None. _ Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Mark Senn: Good evening. Forgive my voice. It's almost gone. We don't have any problems with the consultant's suggestion in terms of the Kindercare parking lot. The other thing we did in response to some of your concerns was redesign the parking lot here creating a detached driveway basically going through here towards the south. Basically there's a fairly — substantial barrier to use this thru traffic. We just have done the absolute, I didn't get a chance to mention it earlier today to staff...but I think it answers a lot of the questions about the pass thru traffic... — 29 — Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Scott: Good. Just a show of hands. Are there any people here for the public hearing on the Kindercare/Press expansion? Seeing none, we'll forego the public hearing. Ladd. Conrad: I'm glad to see Mark go back. I don't want what you have. Well Dave, tell me about the traffic engineer's report in your mind. Have we improved? They've made some statements. Have we taken it to the level that you're comfortable with? Hempel: I believe we have Commissioner Conrad based on the parking lot movements. The one restriction that still is, makes me uncomfortable is the sharp turn into the site. But given the fact that they've then restricted the access to the site, we're really limited. I envisioned _ seeing a lot of U turns happening at the intersection of 77th Street and Dell Road, or 24th Street. Whatever you want to call it. Essentially traffic signage will be installed there to prohibit those type of turning movements. And as people get more accustomed to access the Kindercare through the Press site, it may alleviate that problem. Conrad: So you haven't seen what Mark has done in terms of the internal roadway. In my mind that is solving a major part of the traffic issue that had me concerned before. You have not seen this? Hempel: That's correct. I have not seen that in detail. Conrad: Okay. On the surface it sure looks like it's taking care of the traffic needs which would basically. The no U turn would basically force most traffic down that internal roadway, correct? Hempel: That's correct. Mancino: Ladd, can I further ask a question of Dave? Looking at this... As I was thinking about it, one of my suggestions and can you put that up on an easel for us all to look at while I'm talking and Mark, you want to be too. To maybe simplify the circulation problem and I know that we were all concerned with the U turns. When you're leaving on Dell Road and the U turns we create on the 77th, we were concerned about the people from the Press parking lot cutting through to get to Dell Road and they still can go around the barrier, although that's much better. The barrier that's up there. But it still doesn't close off the cut thru. My question is, and it's something that's, I know that Jeff brought out in the last meeting was, flip flopping the playground and the parking lot. First of all the parking lot, _ according to the consultants, would be 33 spaces versus 45 and that's 1 per 6 child which is what our ordinances require. But if you have the parking lot, flip flop it. We have it on the north side of the building, you egress and ingress through the 77th driveway through the Press 30 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 and go into the parking lot and that's your egress and ingress. There's nothing on the Dell Road so that people can't cut through. The Press employees can't cut through to get to Dell Road. You have one driveway that accesses both the Press and Kindercare, which is done for Abra and Goodyear and the emission controls where you have the one driveway and you go to each individual place, and doesn't that cut a lot of the circulation problems? Easy. Scott: Yeah, you don't have the U turns. Mancino: You don't have U turns. You have people coming off of Highway 5. If they're coming west, obviously a right turn onto Dell Road. East on 77th and come through that way. And you don't have any cut throughs and you don't have your turning radiuses so — small. I mean you have to kind of redesign that entry point but that seems to me to be very, very simple and we could use it in other applications. Farmakes: How has the pad changed? That he's proposed. Conrad: I thought you didn't want to put the kids close to the electrical wires. Mancino: The building's in the same place. Conrad: But the kids are closer you know. I think. Farmakes: You need more room to the north. Mancino: You need less room because first of all the parking lot wouldn't be as big. The parking lot gets smaller. It has 33 spaces, not 45. And you can actually take the building a little bit more to your east and if you wanted to put some staff parking on the west side of the building there. The buildings are in the same place. The kids are going to be in the building 3/4 of the time you know in the day and that's the same distance from the electrical wires versus they may be outside a couple hours a day. And in the winter they're never. Conrad: Well did I read things wrong the last meeting we had. I really thought that, I think that's a real logical thing to move the parking lot to the other side in terms of traffic. Mark Senn: As far as traffic goes, I can't disagree with you but they can't build the facility then and the reason is the lot, the playground cannot be on that side of the building. Yes, there's the regulations as it relates to the readings coming off of the lines. Okay. The building right now meets that setback because the parking lot is in front of it. The playground area is considered the exact same way that the building is as it relates to what's emitted off of those power lines. They're actually more exposed because now you've 31 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 eliminated the shell building and putting the kids out in effect an open area and stuff. The other thing is that you also have a highway out there with 55 mph speed limit and stuff and if a runaway car would occur, you have absolutely no barrier at that point between a playground area in effect and where the kids would be outside. And in a situation, I mean you'd have a limitation of a berm and that's about it. Farmakes: There's two berms there though. The signal light berm and then there's the hill plus the trees you're planting. I see what you're saying. ...is 200 feet for a setback. That was their recommendation though. Mancino: It's not a state recommendation. Farmakes: Well there is no recommendation based on what we've read there in... There's fielder's choice. They can't say there is and they can't say there isn't. Mark Senn: There is no current U.S. law. There is a current U.S. standard which follows the European standard of 150 feet back. Okay. And the standard has no basis in law one way or the other. Right now there is pending legislation to make that but that hasn't been passed and it's an issue that's going through substantial debate because of the power constraints and who knows if it's ever going to be passed. Those laws have been passed in Europe and again that's a standard that's trying...in Europe. Mancino: How did you draw any conclusions from your reading? Conrad: Well, I guess I would err on, well. I think there's something to it and I would feel badly by, you've got a safety problem in terms of traffic and if some kid gets hurt, we're going to feel badly. Yet on the other hand, if you put 50 to 100 kids closer to some electrical, you don't know what that damage is. It's not necessarily seen real quickly. I couldn't do that. I couldn't expose them simply knowing that there probably is some impact. Even though it's not proven. Even though maybe there aren't the definite standards. I think if there's a debate, I guess you can't do it so the risk is we still have a mediocre traffic situation at best. But I think it's been improved. Your solution was just perfect, and I think the parking lot in the rear is exactly where it should be Nancy. But we can't put the kids out close to the wires. Mancino: What do we do about single family developments then. They are going to go very close to, you know and I see it in Eden Prairie. Down Highway 5. There are single family houses that are right underneath them. I mean they're not, maybe they're 20 feet away. What do we do at that point? Do we say as a city that you can't build closer than a certain footage from you know the power lines? And is that a taking? I mean you know. I'm 32 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 taking what you're saying and. Mark Senn: If I could offer, you don't have to say that. Okay. Right now there isn't a mortgage company I'm aware of that would lend on a house that way. Now that doesn't go back to say that when houses you're referencing in Eden Prairie were built some 20-30 years _ ago, that wasn't the case. Mancino: No, new ones. Just the new ones that are on Highway 5 on the north side between that shopping center and Dell Road. I mean there are new houses right there. Mark Senn: Between the shopping center and Dell Road? Mancino: Yeah. What. — Conrad: County 4 going west. Mark Senn: The housing all along Highway 5 on the north side there is not new housing. It's far from it. Mancino: But it's not 23 years old. I mean it's in the last. Mark Senn: Well it may be 15 years, yeah. Maybe 15 at best. — Mancino: That was just last year. Scott: I know Diane's house is probably 5 years old and she's got a power line running down her east property line. _ Conrad: We wanted these power lines buried as I recall. Mancino: Does that help? Scott: No. What about taking your idea where the traffic goes down into the Press and _ there's no ingress and egress onto Dell Road but the ingress and egress is from the west side of the parking lot? Mancino: Sure. Take the same idea and just cut the egress and ingress off of Dell Road. Keep the parking lot where it is and then you just, you know. I mean that would work too. 33 _ Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Scott: Because it seems like, in listening to Dave, I mean it seems that that's going to be kind of a traffic pattern that you're not going to want to have more. They're talking about 800 trips a day or something like that? Hempel: That's correct. And then all of those would be doing the U turns. Some of those. Some would be normal southbound traffic on Dell Road. Another consideration too, if you eliminate that U turn would be to restrict this access onto Dell Road as a right out only... Mancino: Yeah, no entry. Hempel: That would force your traffic to enter the site from the Press driveway. Mancino: But that still doesn't eliminate any sort of a cut through. I mean what the developer has done has helped negate that. I understand that. I just wanted to respond to your circulation and parking lot. Conrad: The cut thru is a big deal. And informing the Press employees not to do it is not, that's not forever. That's 2 weeks. A month and then it's gone. It's just got to, you know I'm looking for an absolute way. I think you've got to have a right in, right out. I'd rather not be moving people up and down that long road. There's going to be some development up there and I don't know. I guess I'd rather not do that if I don't have to so getting people out is probably the right thing to do but I really haven't found the solution to keep the cut through down. I can't come up with that. Scott: What do you think Dave? Hempel: I just thought of something and I'll throw it out on the table at this time. The access issue onto Dell Road, it would be nice to have an access onto Dell Road, especially if you have another development occur north of this site. What happens if that access street divides these two parcels? Or if we cut off the access to the Kindercare off of Dell Road but later on when the parcels to the north develop, we have a thru street there. That would serve as a. Mancino: Show me where that would be. Hempel: Midway point in this fashion in here. Mancino: Okay. So it services both the north and the south lot. Hempel: Right. Or either short cut if you will out of the site through here. It divides the 34 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 two points off the parking lot. What would happen though if this drive aisle would ideally have to be shifted back to provide this, have a 4 way intersection if you will. You'd have to _ provide enough buffering though between the playground area and their access. That would give you access either to the site through there or through at this site here. It still wouldn't eliminate your U turn potential though at 77th Street if somebody wanted to come in through that and turn. Mancino: But that would eliminate any cut through that we're concerned about through the parking lot? Hempel: That's correct. Scott: To the Kindercare center. — Mancino: Any other comments on that? That's pretty good. Conrad: Something to think about. Then you've got some traffic conflicts. Internal conflicts. Dave, would that cut out the road, no you'd still have the road going to the north. So you've got cross traffic. Mr. Chairman, I don't have any other comments other than the — traffic issue. Scott: Okay. Any other comments? Matt. Ledvina: Well, I'm not going to add anything more to the traffic discussion other than the memo from SRF. That first comment. I don't know, it seems to leave everything up in the air, and what weight do we place on that? It says the tight turning radiuses and the turning restrictions associated with the site are a concern, especially for emergency vehicles such as ambulances and fire rescue vehicles. Is this to the point where we, is this such a concern that you know it's unacceptable? Do you have thoughts on that Dave? I don't know. I mean if we have to have that access, are we cutting ourselves short by approving this site plan? — Hempel: I don't want to speak for public safety but I would like to point out there is two access points to this site for emergency vehicles. The quickest response route, I couldn't give you that answer at this time. I would suspect the turning radius onto Dell Road would accommodate a paramedic type unit vehicle or ambulance and definitely would not accommodate a full fledged fire truck. — Ledvina: In the event that we had a fire emergency, a couple extra thousand feet or whatever to go through the Press access, right? 35 — Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Hempel: Actually it may be a shorter route if they use West 78th Street as a frontage road to get to the Press access. It might actually be quicker than going out onto Highway 5, down Dell Road and trying to make a turn there. Ledvina: That's right. Hempel: The other issue, if a fire truck pulls up, they may just stay on Dell Road to address any kind of a fire. Ledvina: Okay. So the magnitude of that comment is somewhat unknown but it's, it may not necessarily be. Conrad: I don't think it's stops it. Ledvina: A deal killer, okay. Alright. I guess I would like to see if we do take the recommendation by SRF. I notice that they have a parking plan that utilizes 33 parking stalls and I don't know what the proposal with the new plan is. It's probably still at 45 but I think one of the things that we've talked about is softening the, you know the parking lot impact on that side of the building and I think that would help if we start reducing those spots to what's a more reasonable number and what's, you know what can be laid out to accommodate the site based on ordinance and what's been discussed in the past. So I would like to see that. I don't know about the cut through issue. I think if you have a speed bump there, I think that's going to slow the traffic down and you're going to reduce your conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles. They're going to be there but at least at slower speeds you're going to increase the safety factor so. Conrad: Matt, I think the new design that got brought in is going to help that. But pay attention to the fact that as you're coming from the north down to the south, you miss the first entry point and then you've got to loop around so we got double traffic in there. So you come in to the south. You loop around to drop your kid off to the north and then you loop around again so we're. — Ledvina: Well, I don't know. Farmakes: You interpret SRF as a glowing recommendation? Is that what I heard? Ledvina: I don't know. I think that, I know that there's a lot of looping going on here. There's kind of one way type of traffic in here but I don't know. I think that it can work. That's the extent of my comments at this time. 36 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Scott: Okay, thanks. Jeff. Farmakes: I'm going to back up just a little bit and rather than...traffic. I'm going to discuss the use of what we have here. It's becoming apparent to me that this is not an appropriate use at this particular area. I think environmentally there are potential hazards. We're not sure what they are. It's constricting where the building goes or where the outlot development goes in that building... There is virtually nothing that can be done for the Highway 5 issues that we talked about. That's another issue that we're not discussing here right now tonight. But it is a pertinent issue for this area. I think that this is typical of the type of the development that you're going to see on the remainder of Highway 5. More often than not we'll see parking lots extended as far and as close to Highway 5 as you can get them. The barrier I think is minimal between TH 5 and the highway, although I'm not sure it's an endangerment but even, it's a buffer of some sort. Essentially you've got enough room for a row of trees and that's nothing different than what Eden Prairie's done. A lot of things in the - traffic pattern are telling us that this is a make work situation. It's not an optimal situation. Potential options as I see it would be to run the road higher on the border line. I'm not sure how much that would reduce the additional lot sizes. - Mancino: What does that mean? Farmakes: The recommendation that the city engineer just made. To replace the Kindercare on the north lot. Again, the marketability of the south lot comes into question I think because of it's access. I don't think that on this scale that this is an appropriate use for a daycare center. The issues have been brought up that financially it has to go there. It has to be seen from the highway. There are several daycares, both commercial and not commercial. I'll use the example of the Sunshine or Sunrise and non-commercial would be the Lutheran Church - up here that we just looked at. They've got about 100 kids there. It's an old daycare. It's been there for years. Scott: Or the New Horizon that's on Lake Drive and faces south. Farmakes: They are not dependent on signage from a major highway, although I'm sure it would be beneficial or desirable. Again, I have to ask myself what's an appropriate use there. It almost seems like we're sticking a use there that would be inappropriate. I would expect in looking at that, that would be an industrial use. And remain so. The problem if the daycare were shifted to the north, I think it would lessen the environmental concerns, but also lessen the traffic problem. Again, that does not address the problem of the developer and marketability of the south lot. But I think that those are criteria that back up farther than just discussing the traffic issue. I don't think this is a glowing recommendation on the part of the engineer. At least that's my interpretation of it. It says yeah, you can do it but it's probably 37 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 not a good idea. I have concern about the U turn issues and I think any of those would be enough to deny this usage and I see several still yet remaining as compelling issues to me to discuss it. That's where I'm at. Mancino: Another thing I think you would add. I think we're trying to work something in there that just doesn't, isn't working. Circulation wise. Highway 5 wise. Even architecturally wise in this IOP area. I think that the Kindercare architectural style does not fit in here. So I have still some big concerns with trying to put it here on this lot. Scott: Well we have 3, we need 3 motions. One for the site plan review. One for the preliminary plat and one for the conditional use permit. So, would any of you like to take a stab at any one of those? Mancino: Didn't hear your comments. Scott: I would have just been, I don't have any new issues so. So I'd like to call the question or have a motion please. Jeff, do you want to take the conditional use permit. Mancino: Kate, a question for you and Sharmin. Conditional use permit. This is a conditional use permitted in this area, correct? Al-Jaff: For use of a daycare center. Mancino: Daycare center in an IOP. Al-Jaff: ...permitted under conditional use permits in an IOP. Mancino: Okay. So that's a done deal, Kate is it? Aanenson: No, you have to go through the criteria to see whether or not it meets the criteria of a conditional use. That's what Sharmin has outlined in the report. And we have to have findings to support your recommendation. That's what Sharmin put in her report... Conrad: Before somebody makes a motion. Nancy, Jeff. If the parking lot were flip flopped, then what? Mark says it's a dead deal but if it was flip flopped, have we solved. Farmakes: The only way that that would work if you flip flopped it is you have to back up the building a little bit farther to the north so that the playground area was beyond the recommendation. I'm still uncomfortable with the recommendation. 150 feet. That's what the Europeans are doing. I've never seen so many, well I guess I don't look at government 38 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 reports that often from the EPA but it kind of reminds me of the water quality thing from where we had this various government agencies giving you reports that really were 300 pages to say very little. I got nothing out of those reports. Conrad: So how do you read that? Then if you got nothing out of them, then are you _ concerned? Farmakes: If there is a problem, I hate to put kids within 50 feet of them... Mancino: Yeah, exactly. I'm still concerned. I feel like it's a catch 22 either way. I mean yes, I would like to flip flop this as I first brought up and I thought that that probably solved the circulation problems but I'm not going to put children at risk. Farmakes: If the city looks at acquiring some additional property along TH 5 for some tree massing or something. Total feet or enough property to get us something other than a row of trees, will there be a viable lot to the north if you move everything up 50 feet? A second lot. It seems to me that you have to ask the question first as to whether or not that particular use there, even as a conditional use, is viable for that area and then does it fit into the site. I'm still very worried about this issue of are we taking considerations for the outlot, the totlot issue. We're going to move it 150 feet here but again, the criteria that we're using is being supplied by the applicant. And I was surprised that the government really has to press this issue at all. Mancino: Well if you move this to the north and you put a building in for people to work in, I mean you move this to the north and then you have this southern lot. What goes in there? Do you want those people susceptible to the same problem? Whether it's children or whether it's adults. Inside a building. Conrad: You're really talking about quantities. The power line is there. The power line is running along Highway 5. It was approved to go there. There are, to my knowledge there aren't really grade restrictions. There aren't restrictions so we're making them up or we're just... - (There was a tape change at this point and the remainder of the discussion pertaining to this item did not get recorded. The following is a summary of the action taken.) Matt Ledvina made a motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan Review #94-1 as shown on the site plan received April 13, 1994 and as updated on June 1, 1994 by the applicant pertaining to the access from the north, subject to the following conditions: 39 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 1. That the applicant must revise plans to include trash screening of the Press site and show the type of materials used to screen the trash enclosures on the Press site. Plans must be submitted for staff review prior to City Council meeting. 2. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site. The monument sign on the Kindercare site shall utilize brick as a base for the sign rather than metal poles. 3. The applicant shall provide a meandering berm with landscaping along the south portion of the site, between the parking lot and Highway 5. The height of the berm shall be between 3 and 4 feet. The applicant shall also provide staff with a detailed cost estimate of landscaping to be used in calculating the required financial guarantees. These guarantees must be posted prior to building permit issuance. There shall be added landscaping to the perimeter of the Press expansion of coniferous trees as suggested by Nancy Mancino. 4. The applicant shall enter into a site plan development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping. 5. Meet all conditions outlined in the Fire Marshal memo dated March 10, 1994. 6. The Press addition shall contain some architectural detailing (with relief) to break up the long wall masses 7. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted. 8. The grading/utility plan shall be revised to incorporate storm sewers in the parking lot's drive aisles for the Press. Detailed drainage calculations for a 10 year storm event shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. 9. The applicant shall apply and comply with the necessary permits from the appropriate agencies (MPCA, Watershed District, and City Building Department). 10. Silt fence shall be placed along the northern property line where the parking lot for the Press is being relocated. 11. A rock construction entrance shall also be placed at the driveway entrance to the Kindercare site off of Dell Road. 40 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 12. The applicant shall utilize the existing water service from Dell Road. Open cutting of Dell Road will be prohibited. 13. The main thoroughfare (drive aisle) located on the Press site north of the main parking lot area should be a minimum width of 26 feet with turning radiuses at 77th Street West of 30 feet and two way traffic. In addition, the main thoroughfare (drive aisle) shall be posted with no parking signs. 14. The driveway access point shall be constructed in accordance to the City's typical industrial driveway apron detail. 15. The applicant shall provide the City with a security deposit (letter of credit or cash escrow) in the amount of $5,000.00 to guarantee boulevard restoration. All boulevards disturbed as a result of the site improvements shall be restored with sod. - 16. Conditions of the Building Official's memo dated March 25, 1994. 17. An island or a speed bump shall be placed between the Press and Kindercare site to slow down and discourage traffic from cutting through the Kindercare site. 18. No roof top equipment shall be visible from Highway 5, Dell Road or 77th Street West. 19. Brick shall be used on the Kindercare facade to resemble the building shown in the submitted photographs. 20. The traffic circulation and parking lot layout shall be revised as shown on the revised plan prepared by Strgar-Roscoe-Fausch, Inc. Access to Dell Road shall be revised to a right-out only to eliminate short cuts. The maximum number of parking stalls will be limited to 33. 21. The applicant shall be responsible for all fees associated with the traffic study prepared by SRF. 22. There shall be a landscaping easement of 30 feet running parallel to Highway 5 and then north parallel to Dell Road a distance of 75 feet. A significant number of trees shall be placed on the southeast corner for an entryway. Plantings around the building as well as interior parking shall be provided. 23. Staff shall review an east/west connection. 41 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 24. Proportion of the roof size to the building wall height is incompatible. Architectural plans must be revised to reflect compatibility. The applicant shall bring in architectural drawings of the Kindercare building making it compatible with buildings in the surrounding area. Ledvina and Conrad voted in favor of this motion and Mancino, Scott and Farmakes voted in opposition. The motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3. Farmakes moved and Mancino seconded to deny Site Plan Review #94-1 for the Kindercare Daycare facility based on traffic circulation and inconclusive information relating to the harmful effects of Electro Magnetic Field from power lines. Scott, Mancino and Farmakes voted in favor of denial and Conrad and Ledvina voted in opposition. The motion carried with a vote of3to2. The Conditional Use Permit #94-1 was also denied by the Planning Commission. PUBLIC HEARING: _ REQUEST FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPERTY ZONED RSF TO PUD (46.56 ACRES), PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR 74 LOTS OF MIXED HIGH DENSITY (186 DWELLING UNITS), 15 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND AN OUTLOT WHICH WILL CONTAIN FUTURE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL USE(S), SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR MIXED HIGH DENSITY DWELLING UNITS AND VACATION OF A PORTION OF 86TH STREET. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF HWY. 101 AT 86TH STREET, MISSION HILLS, TANDEM PROPERTIES. Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. (Taping of the meeting began again at this point in the discussion.) Don Jensen: ...window shapes create budding problems for signing and other ways to make ceiling of those designs. They're a little bit more difficult and they add cost to the building. So if we can keep within those particular parameters that we've looked at and that we've proposed, we would appreciate the Planning Commission working with us on that particular 42 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 issue. If there's any questions about that particular building style, that really is our focus. We've also passed around the light fixture that we'll be working with NSP. It's a high pressure sodium light fixture for the internal street. For the street lighting system. It is a regular residential style light. It is not a downcast shielded light. There is glare with it and that's part of what you get for the increased security and the extra light tax. They do have shields on the tops so that they are focusing the light more down on the roadway surfaces. Mancino: Are they decorative? Don Jensen: Correct. Mancino: I didn't see any pictures. Farmakes: They're over there. Don Jensen: There's still one in there so I can start one from the left side if you'd like. They're the same fixture there. NSP, in an effort to respond to development goals of having decorative fixtures over the last 2 or 3 years has come out with a series of light fixtures that they own and maintain under lease to associations for a period of time of about 25 years and so the benefit there is an association does not have to go to a distributor for some different design that goes out of vogue in 5 or 10 years and becomes very difficult to maintain and operate. This way you get the better buying power from a major utility company. They're going to maintain it if it goes out. The photo cell goes out. You call NSP or the electrical company that's in that district. They take them out and they replace it. They fix it. It's part of your ongoing monthly service charge. On the buildings themselves, you're going to have lights that may or may not be on photo cells to highlight the entry ways and those are going to be your typical residential lights. Those are normally in more of a decorative fixture with smaller incandescent light bulbs. Not high pressure sodium and those can either be controlled with a switch or they're on a photo cell. When they're on photo cells continuously, which is the theme for our villa area here, they do not tend to emit more than about a half a foot candle which is what staff is talking about. Much more than the center of that particular private roadway that you have there. So they're encompassing the whole driveway apron. The garage apron out to the roadway. You add streetlights, then you're able to increase your foot candles up a little bit more so that you've got more hot spots on the roadway surface. So you can put some high lights on an intersection areas where you're going to have traffic coming out and in particular that's important for the winter months. If there's any questions about the architectural style of the garden home. The villa everybody seems to be pretty - comfortable with. I'd be happy to address them. The square footage is a little bit over the 1,200-1,225 square feet on that particular product. Again, that's designed more for empty nesters who are looking for a handicap adaptable and handicap accessible type dwelling unit. 43 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 All on one floor. All the living area and the difference between the two buildings is that the interior units, 1 car garage on our 8 unit buildings can allow people who are widows, widowers, single people, never married who really don't need that 2 car garage. It also has 1 less bathroom in it so it's a slightly smaller floorplan. When you add all of those buildings up on the...part of the road, you have a total of 12 different buildings. 56 units. A width real similar to single family structure when you encompass both units. We think that there's an adequate amount of diversity there which accomplishes the city's goals to have a diversity of housing type and that it is an interesting building and an exciting building to look at in real, up close and that's why we have the photographs that we brought along that we just shot out in the field about a week ago. Scott: Comments or questions? Conrad: Not yet. Scott: Okay. Do you want to talk about the buildings to the south? Don Jensen: Sure. We don't want to spend a great deal of time with them. But what we have are the two different building types. The villa, which I have on the larger lots in the back configuration. Just hold up the floor plan right here. We have square footages of about 1,125 square feet on the center with the 1 car garage. It has a living area upstairs and downstairs. Floor plan here. Upstairs. Downstairs. Direct entry into the kitchen. The living area with the patio area in front. The end units have a patio area off the side. They're approximately 1,200 square feet. 2 car garage. Again, direct access into the kitchen as well as the front door in bold design. 2 bedrooms upstairs in both particular instances and we have the bathroom upstairs in both cases has the master. We do have the opportunity in some cases, because of the plumbing, to have an optional bath on some of these dwelling units downstairs. When we go to the non back to back building, represented by this elevation and also which we passed around in a neighborhood that we're getting under way in Inver Grove Heights of what that looks like from the rear to match the elevation in a real photograph as well as the front. What we have in that particular case has increased the square footage and gone to a, not mandatory but it's going to have 2 bathrooms. 1 down, 1 up. More for guests on the downstairs for your half bath. It's labeling an upstairs square footage is increased up to 1,258 square feet on the outside and it's a little bit more square footage, about 1,180 square feet on the interior dwelling unit which again has a 1 car garage. The target market there is the first time home buyers, which have been increasingly locked out of the western suburbs. It is predominantly 50% women purchasing as the only person on the mortgage. That doesn't mean that there's a lot of children. It just means that there are — single women that are applying on the mortgage and it is an opportunity for those people to get started in home ownership options, especially in light of all the employment opportunities 44 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 that exist in the Chaska, the Jonathan, Chanhassen, Eden Prairie market. That's been real consistent. We'll see another 20% that will be single men. We'll see 20% that are couples _ and about 10% that have been older buyers, which we believe are now served more by the garden home product because it's approximately the same square footage that we can offer to all on one floor versus the two floors and the stairs that are the inherent problem. We believe _ that a lot of the older buyer, and I'll categorize that as people above 55-60 that show up on the mortgage, were interested in buying something that was within their price range and that was in a number of our neighborhoods, something between $65,000.00 and $85,000.00, — depending on an end unit or interior unit in whatever neighborhood that happened to be at. And we believe that there's an awful lot of people who would like to, at least in the older market, not spend all that money that they've happened to accumulated, or not accumulate, on — new housing that better meets their mobility concerns or their long term concerns. Both of these are in associations, which means that the maintenance of these areas are consistent. We have one association in the north. It's a townhouse platting, which means each individual — dwelling unit has it's own lot and block number. The villa neighborhood to the south is condominium platting meaning that it's one lot for the whole building and it's added in a sequential fashion so that people own...in the dwelling unit. Both of these are governed by — the State of Minnesota with new laws that have changed as of yesterday regarding new structure for adequate maintenance. Regarding a whole series of items that were meant to level the playing field, in the legislature's eyes, as to what goes into an association. Something we've been doing for a number of years which is change the language. Mancino: Where's all the metering? Applicant; Metering of? _ Mancino: Electrical. Whatever. Don Jensen: Okay. If you notice on some of the photographs, and we have those probably the best way to see it, right through here. Mancino: Many of them are stuck by the front door. Don Jensen: That's the case in all of our dwelling units. The way that we lay it out. — Mancino: I can't see it. Don Jensen: You can't see it? Mancino: No. — 45 — Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Don Jensen: Well, I'll just point it out on the elevations then. Mancino: Is it here somewhere? Where you have your electrical meter and the. Don Jensen: Sure. You have to look closely because it's in a lot of the shadows through here. Where it is, it's in the wrap around right by the front door so right on the opposite side of this wall right through here, that's where the meter would be in this location. Now what Rottlund has done, which is different from some other builders, is we've got one gas meter for each dwelling unit. We've got one electrical unit for each dwelling unit and we have - purposely not ganged them up so that we're not ganging them up on any one individual home unit. The gas meters on the end elevations occur on the end elevation so the only thing that's going to happen near the front door, which will occur on the 4 unit buildings, is the electrical meter which is now occurring also with the telephone and the cable box. So you've got an area of approximately this size for electrical meter, telephone and for cable, all near the front door area of each dwelling. Mancino: And is it attached to the wall? Don Jensen: Yes. And they're. Mancino: How high up is it? Don Jensen: They're screwed to the wall. By code they have to be about 5 feet high. Mancino: Can you camouflage them? Don Jensen: No, because they need to be read by the people. Mancino: Oh no, but I have a box around mine so, and it's inside so that you can't, you know it's camouflaged architecturally. Don Jensen: In this case, no. We understand Minnegasco's looking at a different supplier, as is their goal to be more service oriented to customers, which includes builders and the residents. They're have a smaller meter other than the one that they've been using for years and years and years, which is approximately the size of the television. Small television. 19 inch television. So in the case of an 8 unit building for example, right through here you have your gas meter and your electrical meter in and around the front door. In this zone through here. The end units. You have the gas on the outside and have the electrical, telephone around the front door in this area. 46 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Scott: Any questions or comments on these two designs? Good. Do you have anything else that you'd like to add? _ Don Jensen: Not at this time. Scott: Great. Is there another member of the development team that would like to talk about some aspect of the development? Dick Putnam: Mr. Chairman, maybe we could I guess just try to wrap up by quickly going through the recommendations and where we have questions, maybe we can just ask that question and highlight them for you. On pages 25 and 26 of the report, at the bottom of page 25 it talks about dedication of right-of-way for one lot. I think Mr. Hempel and planning staff remember this last item we discussed previously about dedication to the right-of-way. I guess Mr. Klingelhutz and ourselves objected to it before. We don't believe it's fair, — equitable and legal. I think the staff is...little different configuration, if I'm not mistaken. They've taken the tact that we should approach it like you would approach any other enlarging of an existing city street or county road, is that correct? — Hempel: Mr. Chairman, yeah. That's essentially correct. We felt, the original concept review I think was that staff felt at that time the entire strip should be dedicated. 230 or 270 — foot wide strip. After consulting with the city attorney's office on that, that would have been excessive and probably...legal but there was some talk of we do have some rights to some future right-of-way out there within reason. Most likely this will be turned back to the city for more upgrading, which will deal with assessments and financing mechanisms to upgrading this section of TH 101. Therefore we felt that it is fair to require dedication of a normal one- half of the normal right-of-way which would be required on a collector type of street, which is 100 feet or one-half of that would be 50 feet of right-of-way. But the remaining balance of that platted as an outlot for the future intent for acquisition through condemnation or outright _ purchase of the applicant. Dick Putnam: I guess Dave, clarify it for us. In other words, the policy would be for us to — dedicate one-half of the right-of-way necessary for a 100 foot street, is that correct? Hempel: That's correct. _ Dick Putnam: Okay. What we would propose then, since there's a 66 foot right-of-way on TH 101 today, or 33 feet on each side of center line, we would dedicate an additional 17 feet. _ Not 50 feet. Is that correct? Hempel: That's correct. That was the intent is to gain a total of 50, one-half of the right-of- — 47 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 way, 50 feet. So if they've dedicated already 33 feet or half of the right-of-way out there, an additional 17 feet would equal the 50 foot of right-of-way. Scott: Well how's that impacted with, I know that the alignment #3 was chosen as the proposed and that alignment does not run right over existing TH 101 but you have somehow determined how to, are you talking about. It sounds like we're talking about existing TH 101 but there's this proposed alignment #3. How do you reconcile those two? Hempel: Alternative #3 also blankets the existing TH 101 alignment. Therefore, we would be essentially able to acquire part of that dedication. Dick Putnam: Okay, then our understanding is correct. Then we don't have any problem with that 17 foot additional right-of-way. The next sentence however is one that's fairly scary. If you can put yourself in a position of the IRS asking you to create a blank check for them in case there are future taxes needed and you wouldn't mind agreeing to it, that's exactly what this says to us. The applicant should be required to provide the city with a cash escrow or letter of credit for future upgrading of Highway 101. The amount of the escrow will have to be determined after the preliminary design and feasibility study for upgrading TH 101 north of Trunk Highway 212. I guess if we knew what it was, we'd certainly look at it but it's very difficult for us or anyone to agree to something that's that unclear. I notice that that recommendation is not in the recommendation section but it is referred to here and I thought I'd inform you that we make I guess our concern fairly straight forward. Until such time that someone can tell us what it is and that everyone is being assessed equitably and fairly, we can't agree to something without knowing what it is and I think you can understand our reasoning for that. If you go back to the recommendation section, the first part of it of dedicating to a 50 foot width is there but not the escrow portion and we prefer your recommendation at the end of the report rather than the sentence I just read. At the bottom of page 26 it talks, just to clarify. It talks about the wetlands and it says the property appears to contain 3 wetlands and 1 of the wetlands will be filled as a consequence of the project. We don't know of a wetland we're filling. If you read on through Basin A and B, the last sentence in that section says, it appears that there will be no fill or excavation on existing wetlands. We agree with that sentence. We are not filling any wetland up. We aren't getting any permits to do that and just so you understand, we aren't filling in any. Scott: Dave. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, I'll have to further investigate that clarification with our Water Resource Coordinator. Dick Putnam: We really aren't doing any. That's the important thing and hopefully that's 48 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 clear. If we could go to the page 29 and in going through the recommendations. Item 1 talks about construction of streets, particular 86th Street where it goes through. We're, in talking with the staff, 86th Street where it goes through the new TH 101 right-of-way would be built as a temporary section and not as a permanent section because it would be ripped up when TH 101 comes through. Just so that's understood. Scott: Have members of staff heard these? I mean is this a dialogue that you've already had with the applicant that is being repeated for our benefit or should this be something that they should be talking to you about and then you bring it to us? Aanenson: That's what we'd like to do. Hempel: Most of this dialogue has not been brought to our attention. Scott: Okay, because let's, why don't, I think that discussion needs to be had with the staff prior to bringing that here. Because there's a lot of these things that we're not going to be able to react to such as. Mancino: Until you work with staff. Aanenson: Well I'm not sure how many more he's got. Maybe there's. Dick Putnam: All I'm trying to do is clarify so in everybody's case you know, when it says all of the streets will be built to the design section. We spoke with the engineering department and the planning staff before and obviously the section in the old, or the new TH 101 right-of-way will be a paved road section but it won't be curb and gutter and build a permanent road because it's going to get ripped up in, I think Karen said 1997. All I'm trying to do is clarify for everyone's benefit. That's my only purpose for it. I'm not trying to be argumentative but just. Conrad: Do you have a lot of clarifications like number 1? Dick Putnam: No, I really don't. Conrad: Okay. Dick Putnam: Item number 3 I think that deals with the storm water. Ed mentioned the fact that it would be very difficult to go to 3. We believe we can go to 4 ponds plus the pond that's there for the commercial section and we'd like to be able to work with the staff on defining which one of those are. I think we have a couple things that we can do to do that. 49 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Item number 10, which is what we discussed with the street. We'd be looking at, and that's on page 30. The westerly 50 feet really is an additional 17 feet bringing it to a 50 foot total, and we don't have a problem with that. We did have a problem with the escrow for... On page 31, item 17 where the staff is asking that they be able to discuss housing districts with the builder, in this case Rottlund, for moderate cost. For working families. Rottlund has no problem with that. These are...units so whatever program the city would like to work with us on, I'm sure they'd be happy to do that. They aren't rental units. They're for sale units. Other than that I think by and large most of the items are pretty clear. A question Don just mentioned on 15(a) which is the totlot. This lists a number of different things that could be included in it. I think what we're looking at for the scope of the project, the people living there and the size of the space, and it's location next to the pond. The picnic tables, park benches, play apparatus for small children would be the extent of the development. Not tennis courts, basketball hoop maybe but not tennis courts. That sort of thing. So with that, I guess Mr. Chairman, those were the only items that we could see other than the commercial area. If you have any questions. Scott: The reason for the comment was there's another development group that goes through the litany of, and unfortunately I may have painted you with the same brush but we have another gentleman that we dearly love who kind of goes through each and every item and it's not. Dick Putnam: I didn't give my name first each time I did it. Scott: So anyway, that's the explanation. Dick Putnam: You should understand, we just received the staff report Friday? No Monday. Scott: Well that's when we got it right? Dick Putnam: The reason we haven't had a chance to talk very much to the staff clarifying is that we just got it. Scott: Good, Dave. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted one more clarification. Apparently there's a duplication in conditions 7 and 18. Worded somewhat differently but they essentially mean the same. I would propose to delete condition 7 and rephrase condition 18 to read, preliminary and final plat approval shall be contingent upon and the remaining sentence as stated in the staff report. 50 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Scott: Preliminary. Hempel: And final plat approval shall be contingent and the remaining sentence as is. Scott: And we're hearing the preliminary plat right now so basically what you're saying is that we're not going to be able to approve, as this condition, we can't approve the preliminary plat for this development because that's what's on our. Hempel: That's a good point. We should rephrase it to delete the preliminary portion of it. Scott: Final plat. Hempel: Final. Scott: Okay, I got it. Would anybody else from the development team like to speak? Yes sir. Please state your name for the viewers at home and your address. Al Klingelhutz: I'm Al Klingelhutz. I own the property that we're talking about here pertaining to the proposed commercial portion of the property. One of the reasons that the plat was laid out on that property is I think I explained this at the last meeting before the Council is, when you haven't got a highway for a road, who's going to build a commercial property. How can you really lay out a plat until you know what the map is going to be? I guess I'm not too anxious about leaving it out of the plat but if I would have to come in and - say, well this is moving to here and this is going to be here and this is going to be here at the present time, I think personally I think it'd be an effort in futility because of the fact that who knows what that neighborhood is going to want and who wants to come in there as a business. The other thing I had quite a shock on when I looked at 50 foot setback on 4 sides of a 8 acre tract as an open space area. Now on one side on 86th Street can be changed to 30 feet. But if you take 50 feet around an 8 acre tract, and you're cutting out about 3 1/2 - acres of that 8 acres...and as far as I'm concerned, that's a taking. It isn't a giving, it's a taking and I think the courts would say something on that. The 30 feet I could see, I can see 50 feet using part of that 50 feet for the driveway and your parking lot but to expect to give 50 feet clean around an 8 acre tract of land I think is very excessive. What if Highway 212 never comes? What happens? What happens to the proposed right-of-way which hasn't been acquired? Probably never will be acquired. What happens to the property of that right-of- way and how can it be accessed without some other plan? Are we sure Highway 212 is going to become a viable thing within the next 50 years? It's been going on for almost 50 years at the present time and I've been on the Highway 212 committee for 42 years. And we're looking at something that's not very tangible. No money available. Whenever Carlson vetoes the 5% tax increase, it makes it less apt to happen. And I'm a Republican and I think 51 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 that's one thing that really turns me against Governor Carlson...something pretty essential for the State of Minnesota to keep our roads in shape. And you're talking about the new Highway 101 north of 212. And you're looking at a 200 foot right-of-way. Is that going to be built with Highway 212 or what are you talking about at the present time? Hempel: Mr. Chairman, at the present time we don't have a set date of upgrading this — segment of road. Development certainly will help dictate a time line or bringing it up to speed here a little bit faster. We've projected a date of sometime after 1997. -- Al Klingelhutz: Highway 101's a state highway and if the road is built prior to the time of 212 coming in, you're planning on assessing the abutting property owners for part of that, for putting in that road. You're going to put in a 4 lane collector highway. Major highway from Highway 212 north and you expect the landowners to pay for part of that highway? Hempel: Just one clarification. We're looking at the upgrade of TH 101 north of 86th Street. That portion up to where Market Boulevard is. That segment the city and/or county will be the funding source for that upgrade. Of course there are funding mechanisms out there such as the TIF district. County Aid. State Aid dollars. And assessments are not out of the question. Al Klingelhutz: lip to the new 86th Street? Hempel: That's correct. _ Al Klingelhutz: Okay. At the present time you aren't thinking of going beyond it? Hempel: That's correct. Al Klingelhutz: Well then it doesn't affect my property so it doesn't...but when you're looking at going across a large tract of land which the State, if 212 ever intends to be built, has said they would redo Highway 101... Scott: I think the last time we saw this project I think the comment was that MnDot was going to be participating very heavily in that stretch from the proposed 212 to 86th. Maybe we need to push that 86th Street a little bit further north. Push it to the creek. Al Klingelhutz: Well I know that's been in the plan all the time that they were going to take care of everything from 212 to 86th Street. Proposed 86th Street. Hempel: That's correct. That's our understanding as well. 52 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Scott: We'll see how that goes. Good, any other comments sir? Al Klingelhutz: Well you know, looking at the commercial zoning. The signage in there. One monument sign and if you're going to throw the commercial out it doesn't mean a thing at this part of it right now. But one monument sign for the whole lot and then the next _ sentence says wall signs are permitted on no more than two street frontages. The total of all wall mounted sign display areas shall not exceed 24 square feet. Now do I read this wrong? That I can have all the wall mounted signs of only 24 square feet. That's on 6 x 4. If I have — 5 businesses in there, I'll have a 1 x 1 sign on each building. Al-Jaff: Well the intention is 24 square feet per sign. Not for all signage. Not all wall — mounted signage. Al Klingelhutz: Well then clarify the one monument to me too. Where would the one — monument be? On the one entrance or should I have one on both entrances to the property or? Al-Jaff: One sign for the entire. Al Klingelhutz: I don't think, you know like the City of Chanhassen is going to put up...City — of Chanhassen on 2 or 3 different places. When you go into a subdivision from 2 different directions, you almost should be allowed to have 2 monument signs when you enter the place. I don't see anything elaborate or anything but just some nice entrance signage. — Scott: Which condition would this be? Al Klingelhutz: That'd be number 1 on page 38. Aanenson: Put it this way. We're all recommending that the commercial be left as an outlot at this time. It's more of a conceptual. We're not going to be zoning. We don't know when it's going to come back and as Mr. Klingelhutz indicated. _ Mancino: It could be changed. Al Klingelhutz: One problem I've got though is with storm water drainage...taking commercial into consideration at the present time. Where is that water going to go sometime in the future? — Scott: Where were you guys saying? 53 — Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Al Klingelhutz: Where it was proposed on the original plat, a good share of that storm water drainage was already designated to go into one of the holding ponds. Scott: I guess it was said that some of it's going to be draining kind of to north, northeast into a retention pond that's going to serve both the southern portion of the development and then also part of the commercial and then when 212 is built, into some sort of a ditch of some sort like that so I mean. Al Klingelhutz: Something that could come up in the future if it isn't thought about now. If they put a holding pond in the residential portion of the property and if by coming at some future date with commercial zoning on that, and they say well you've got to have a holding pond and there's already a holding pond's been put in that should be sized big enough for the commercial site outside of what goes along 212 and things like that. And some future Planning Commissions and future Councils says hey, you've got to put in the holding pond and there's already a holding pond been put in to take care of that portion of the water that flows from the commercial property into residential property. Scott: Well I would assume some calculations have been made based upon a pretty flat pad to convey water in both directions, I would guess. Hempel: As part of our comprehensive surface water management plan, we designated regional ponding areas for both water quality and quantity. To be quite honest I get confused ...a commercial site. What was designated, if anything, on this site. We'll look into that for him. Scott: Good, thanks. Al Klingelhutz: Okay now, about berming along 86th Street. I notice you're saying that the residential part is going to have to berm their's and you're saying that commercial. Well then there's going to have to be a berm between the residential. Are we going to have two berms there? Scott: I don't think so. Al-Jaff: No. Al Klingelhutz: 86th Street and then that portion that goes up south of 86th Street up to the southerly boundary of the residential property. Scott: Sharmin. 54 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Al-Jaff: There will be a berm that the residential developers will be providing to separate the residential district from the commercial district, which is consistent with what the conceptual — approval stated and then most probably there will be a meandering berm that we would require around the perimeters of the commercial parcel as well. It's something that we're requiring with the residential district. — Al Klingelhutz: What's the use of having a berm between the highway and a commercial property? I can see it between the residential but between the highway and commercial — property. When you allow buildings on main street to build right up to the sidewalk. Then you come out here and you've got 50 feet of open space along 4 sides of a piece of property, it just doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense to me. — Scott: Well I think the precedent I think is set with the berming requirements for the Highway 5. My guess is there's going to be a Highway 212 task force that's going to be putting together the same sort of a study so I think that's consistent with the treatment that we're giving to the requirements for construction along Highway 5. Al Klingelhutz: I know I haven't...Highway 212. This states you're going to berm Highway 212. They're taking a 400 foot right-of-way there. What are you going to do with it all? Scott: I would think though, if there's a 30 to 50 foot, whatever that setback is, that is where the berm would be going. Al-Jaff: That's correct. Al Klingelhutz: I don't know where all the ground is going to come from that you're going to not let anybody change the contours of the land. Scott: I don't have that. That's another thing I don't have an answer for. Thank you very much. Anybody else like to, from the applicant, like to speak about the development. Okay. A public hearing is scheduled and I see a few residents. Could I have a motion to open the — public hearing please? Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and — the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Scott: Would anyone like to speak? Yes ma'am. Please state your name and your address. — Martha Klein: My name is Martha Klein at 8412 Great Plains Blvd. My main concern I guess being up here is to...and I live on the existing TH 101 but everything that's being — 55 — Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 shown is on the proposed. I guess my position is that, then this should not be started until the proposed highway is available because we exit onto that highway through our driveway. As do many of my neighbors. My children have to catch the bus on that highway. And this is just going to be an incredible amount of traffic increase. Scott: I'm sorry, which side of the highway do you live on? Martha Klein: I would be, right there. Scott: Okay. _ Martha Klein: So everything that's being shown says proposed Highway 101. It is not there yet. As Dave stated, it might not be there until '97 or after. And just 2 months ago we came to a meeting. You know got...alternative for TH 101 and it was stressed how the traffic has _ already reached it's capacity. I'm not against change but I feel we already are up to our capacity. The noise, the pollution and my children's safety as well as my neighbors. There's so many neighbors along there that have no facility to turn around. They're all elderly. They cannot turn their vehicles around. They have to back out onto that highway. And the traffic's already incredible. I don't know where these are, if this plan is based on a proposed highway, I think it should wait until that highway is available for use. Scott: Dave with, I guess in this particular area. Typically how would that work when the highway is widened? I mean obviously the ingress and egress to their property needs to be maintained. If you could maybe go through a real quick scenario of how that would work. I know that this is, maybe take a step back. Is this a chicken and the egg situation? Let's say this development gets through to final, let's say it's completely approved. Ground breaking starts. This development will be coming on line. Applicant: August. Scott: Yeah August of. Applicant: August of '94. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, yes. This project, as we mentioned earlier, is contingent upon the city authorizing the Lake Riley trunk utility improvements which would extend trunk sewer service to this area. This area is able to be serviced through city sewer. Sanitary sewer. And it's been one of the issues that we had all along. What's going to trip upgrading TH 101. And obviously without development pressure like this, is there really a need or a warrant to upgrade TH 101. So you kind of need this to spearhead development for 56 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 upgrading of TH 101. Safety concerns along TH 101 are certainly valid. We hope to, with this project, where the new intersection of 86th and TH 101, incorporate some safety — improvements such as turn lanes, by-pass lane and improve the sight distance on the hill there...one side or the other. All that will be addressed with this temporary connection to TH 101 with 86th Street. There is also a sharp curve or narrow bridge further out to the north. Those issues will not be addressed with this development. Those will be addressed later on after 1997 with the future upgrade of TH 101. Fred Hoisington, who's been the city's consultant for probably over the last 4 years in designing different alternatives felt that, I've — got traffic counts too for TH 101 but they felt that this development here would not exceed the traffic capacity of TH 101 on this site but it'd be pushing it to a limit. Scott: As it exists today? Hempel: As it exists today. Right now Trunk Highway 101, based on the 1991 traffic — counts, carries about 4,400 cars a day in the vicinity of 86th Street/TH 101 intersection. To give you an example of the traffic north of Trunk Highway 5 up TH 101, it's 10,000 cars. Now you have a similar road design although we probably don't have the wide ditch sections and curvy roads that you have south of TH 5. Martha Klein: Excuse me, do you have driveways exiting onto that highway? Hempel: There are a few, yes. Scott: Yeah, on the Eden Prairie side. Hempel: On the Eden Prairie side and also in Chanhassen. — Scott: And also in Chanhassen. Yeah, as a matter of fact they're kind of, they're lake. It's — very, very similar. There are lake homes on Lotus Lake who have very narrow driveways but I guess what I'm trying to do here is to kind of, to give you a bit of an idea of how this is all fitting together and the impact and I know that when the development does come on line, and — you live north. It looks like you live north of where the new 86th is going to be coming out. So correct me. There won't be any construction activity by their driveway because they're north of where the construction's going to be going? — Hempel: There may be some, what we call the acceleration or deceleration or by-pass for the light at TH 101. But no 4 lane improvements. No driveway corrections in that area. That — would be upon the homeowner if a safety concern arises, which is a normal responsibility of the homeowner to put in a turn around. 57 — Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Mancino: Question. When will these be inhabited? If you start construction August '94. Jim Ostenson: I would think that if we were able to start this fall, we would certainly be at least 6 months before there'd be any inhabitants at all. Don Jensen: Yeah, you need at least 4 months to get one of these buildings done. That'd be about a month longer than a single family structure. Mancino: So next winter. Don Jensen: Right. Into the winter. Jim Ostenson: And then beyond that we would probably look at a 30 to a 36 month build out for the entire site. So the building's all got built and up. Don Jensen: Spring '97 is really when the whole thing is probably going to be completed. Mancino: Because I was going to ask you about letting time. You know can you...time because the thing that's triggering developments like this or triggering would be the realignment of TH 101 and making it wider, etc, can't we compress that letting time between when the development happens and when the infrastructure is needed? Hempel: Funding is a major role in the upgrade of TH 101. Obviously we don't have the construction dollars to do it. But I was going to point out that with regards to the city's...the improvement project, extending utilities to this area, that won't happen until sometime late this fall so as long as the project gets approved however but the City Council, we could grandfather plat approval and notes to proceed with this development to occur concurrently with the city's development. So it could start this fall as well. — Martha Klein: So what you're telling me then is. Mancino: You mean a 2 or 3 year leg time? Martha Klein: But we have the effect after the cause. It's like we have to wait for this development to come in to increase our traffic and then get the okay on the highway. That seems backwards. I mean...backwards. The road is already very busy. Now you're saying that the levels are safe. Okay at that meeting just 2 months ago where they were saying they were unsafe and it had to be plotted and it needs to be changed. It's just, it seems like you're turning things to meet the needs of the city. Right now I don't see a big housing need. I mean there's houses, there's development everywhere. I don't see we're doing it for a need 58 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 and there's houses everywhere. You said people can create a turn around. I can give you 3 or 4 houses right there on the lake, they do not have the facility to create a turn around and they are all elderly people. I can't imagine there is no facility for them. There's no room. They pull right in off the road into their driveway. They have to back out onto the highway, which is already unsafe. My children have to catch the bus. They have to cross that highway. I just don't see where the need is justifying it. If there was a substantial need for housing in Chanhassen, I could see it but right now it doesn't justify jeopardizing my family or the families around it. I just don't feel that's the situation at this time. Scott: Okay. Do you have any other comments that you'd like to make? Martha Klein: No, that would be all. Scott: Okay. Well thank you very much and please follow this issue along. We make recommendations. Would anybody else like to speak? Yes sir. Dave Nickolay: I've never been at a meeting this late. Scott: I have. Dave Nickolay: My name's Dave Nickolay. I've been here before you at the previous hearings. I live at 8500 Tigua Circle. I'm on the northeast corner of the proposed development. Approximately 2 to 2 1/2 of these single family houses will adjoin my property and in the future, as further development occurs to the north, there will be whatever other number of homes also bordering my property. I submitted a letter, or letters to you on September 12, 1993 and on October 17, 1993 and to make this very brief and to preserve your time and my time also, I'm not going to go back through all those issues but I would like you to review the comments that I submitted to you back then and I did testify at the previous hearings so all of that is on record so I'm going to save us all that time at this point. I would like to just be on record by saying that I think that this type of density as it relates to the development that I purchased land in a number of years ago, 13 years ago, is not consistent. This is just way too high a density. There was a compromise made by the developer here to change the single family. They did reduce it by 2. It had no impact on my lots or the number of lots that adjoin my property. I just don't believe that the transition is adequate here to accommodate. What we've got are 3 properties that are affected in Rice Lake Manor. One of those properties...3 homes and you're looking at 7 homes back up to us. The other issue that I'd like to point out. I also noted this...but I'd like to make sure that it's on the record for the purpose of tonight. The horse farm operations over the years have changed the drainage plan in that area. I talked about that previously. The water drains differently today than it did back then. Some of that water drains across my property and I 59 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 would like to see whatever is decided and resolved here, that there be no drainage as a result of this development coming across my property. Again, right now that is happening but it's a result of the farming operation and they're dumping their materials on that site. The last point that I'll make deals with the park issues occurring on the property owners that are in Rice Lake Manor. I don't know what the estimated number of people are that are going to be in this development but 3/10 of an acre of park. I disagree with the Park Commission's recommendation that there's adequate parks in the area. There is not. The street that's going to go down that row of single family housing, the developer's proposed to put in I believe a chainlink fence to cut down the traffic that might come across out of the development into Rice Lake Manor. That that does not provide for the securing of the north end of the development. You can have a dead end street that's going to open itself up to a marsh. There is a trail down below right now. It's not a public use trail. It's the right-of-way for the sewer. There's going to have to be some provisions made to protecting people or preventing people from just having access to that. So what's going to happen is they're going to come down this street. They're going to spill around and they're going to come across the corner of my property and then they're going to end up going through the properties that are in Rice Lake Manor. So there's going to have to be some provisions made to protect that. I said I'd be brief. Thank you. I'll wait to hear what your recommendations are. Scott: Okay, thank you. Yes ma'am. Jo Larson: My name's Jo Larson. I live at 8590 Tigua Circle and a couple things that, as per the design of the development, I really like it. Everything that the developer and staff have put into it except that I don't feel this is the right place at this time to put it. I feel that the only reason that multi-family or high density got put on the comprehensive plan in the first place was because proposed 212 was not a proposed plan. Along with, and right now we don't even know if 212 is going to go through. And a lot of the comprehensive plan, in addition to the comprehensive plan is the Standard State Enabling Act which states that you have to pay particular attention to the suitability of an area for certain development. And I just don't feel this is right without, if the highway was, if we knew the highway was going to go there, fine. But without the highway, I don't think this would have ever been put on the comprehensive plan you know. And I think you still have to take in effect. I hear the Planning Commission with other things coming up, well it's guided for that. It's guided for that but you have to remember that in addition to the comprehensive plan is the Standard State Enabling Act. And what I'm really concerned about is the value of my home. I don't think the transition is right from the big lots. The market value of the existing homes there and I just want you to know that I'm concerned about the value of my home and I think it's your job to help protect mine. That's all I have to say. Scott: Thank you very much. Would anybody else like to speak? Can I have a motion to 60 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 close the public hearing please? Mancino moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Scott: Were you going to say something? Mancino: No. I just have a couple questions for Sharmin. — Scott: Go ahead. Mancino: Not comments yet but just some questions about some other people's concerns. On the staff report on page 6, under issue number 2 which has to do with hard surface coverage that was requested. I go back to the City Council meeting for November 22nd, — 1993 which is on the last page of the whole report. Here you say that the planned unit development ordinance allows a maximum hard surface coverage of 50% and you're over in Block 4 so you would ask them to come back down to 50%. Yet when I turn to the City Council meeting Minutes it says that the City Council would like the multi-family portion of the site exceeds 30%. Can you explain that to me? And they address it in number 23 too. Al-Jaff: The first time I wrote the report I worked the standards under 30% hard surface coverage, which was a mistake on my part. It should have been a 50% hard surface coverage. And I corrected that at the meeting. Mancino: Okay. And that is the standard PUD impervious surface? Al-Jaff: Correct. For multi-family. Mancino: Okay, thanks. But we do have a little bit of overage on Block 4 so we've had to reduce that. Scott: Can you transfer density? Is that what you're. Dennis Marhula: If I could address that please? I sent a memo to you Sharmin. She had asked that we calculate the hard surface coverages within the various areas so that she can include it in the...and the numbers that I gave to her at that time, and that's preliminary numbers off of the plans were Block 1 had a total of 37%. Block 4 had a total of 49%. So the average of those two is actually 41%. I guess I'm not exactly sure where the 55% came from. Perhaps maybe she can explain that to us. 61 — Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Mancino: You mean she believed your numbers? Dennis Marhula: Pardon me? Mancino: She believed your numbers at 499c? Dennis Marhula: Yeah. I guess they're also reiterated on page 34 in the staff report. Mancino: On page 34? Oh okay. So there's a discrepancy here. Al-Jaff: This was an issue at the time when the plans originally appeared before the Planning Commission. Mancino: Years ago. Al-Jaff: Yes. At a conceptual stage. That was addressed and the situation has been corrected. So the section entitled, Background. It's basically the issues that were raised at the time of the conceptual approval and since then all those issues have been addressed. So no, it's not a discrepancy. Mancino: The other question has to do on page 15 and again, has this been addressed... (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) Al-Jaff: ...They are providing some variation of the topography. They are creating a berm. They preserved the existing rolling terrain. Mancino: Desirable site characteristics. They preserve those. And they are preserving those? Al-Jaff: There is quite a bit of grading on this. I know they are grading additional. Mancino: But are they not creating for preserving anything? Are they preserving any site characteristics? Not creating new ones but preserving any? Al-Jaff: They're not touching the wetlands. And that is a site characteristic...grading. Mancino: Rolling hills? Al-Jaff: Rolling hills. There will be grading taking place on the site, yes. 62 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Mancino: So then you cannot, should not be under the summary of rezoning PUD. It should not be something that we're receiving because we're not receiving on page 15 it says that...of — flexibility. Al-Jaff: The preservation of wetland. — Mancino: Okay. So we're not going to retain any rolling hills. They are going to go in and create man made, well I don't know if they're man made, rolling hills or whatever. Okay. — Matt, do you have any questions about the grading and do you have any remarks on that? Because we're doing so much of it. Ledvina: Right. — Mancino: And I know that that has always been a concern since we've seen this. Ledvina: Yeah. I walked the site and I've been concerned with that and I can picture the size of the gullies that they're dealing with and I know that there will have to be some grading that's required on the site to put the building's in there. That's a given. But I do — feel that there's still opportunity, especially in the northeast. I'm sorry, northwest part of the site for stepping some buildings and providing for somewhat of preservation of the general topography. I'm not naive to think that you can just go in and start stepping buildings all over the place and have steps in the buildings and not reach havoc with your budgets and all that kind of thing. But yeah, I would agree with you that that's a question and in my opinion I think that there's possibly some more things that the developer can do in that area. But I — think it's a thing that should be worked out with staff. Mancino: And would you like to put that in the recommendation now? — Ledvina: Yes. I think that's appropriate. Mancino: Okay. The totlot, again. One of the things we brought up and Sharmin would you refresh my memory. We approved the totlot as a third of an acre for this much density? Or — did we have, did we know it was going to be a third of an acre? That just seems, I don't think we had... Scott: Or was this a situation where the Park and Rec department determined that this was not park deficient? Is that kind of how? Farmakes: No. That's not what happened. What happened was that the park, as I recall, the park...didn't need anything and we thought they did. We asked to take that area and at least make it a commons, if not a park of some sort of green space. — 63 — Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Mancino: I don't remember a third of an acre. Farmakes: No, they didn't have a specific. Scott: Because that's kind of what I was thinking. Is that the Park and Rec Department, probably because of Lake Susan Park, determined that this was not park deficient but we said hey. This is so dense, you need something. So this is something that we put in. - Farmakes: Originally I jostled for having something in the south and something in the north and it didn't work out that way. It seems to have something in the south and not the north. They have that area that has the berm allotted for... Mancino: Well from the City Council meeting on November 22nd, I mean it says on number 16. Meet the following conditions of the Park and Recreation Commission. The applicant shall provide a recreational amenity in the vicinity of Lot 6, Block 1. This facility to include typical park amenities such as landscaped grassy areas, picnic tables, and park benches, play apparatus, tennis and basketball courts. That says to me that it's bigger than a third of an acre for this size and this density of development. I mean it doesn't take, you can put picnic tables and park benches and play apparatus on a third of an acre but you can't put a _ basketball court so I think that they were thinking of something and I know I was, bigger amenity common area for this development. _ Farmakes: What I was arguing for was to...based on their recommendations and the rest of the parks in the area to service them. I didn't see... Mancino: Is that correct? Al-Jaff: Well one recommendation that I was going to make is, the Park and Rec Commission will be reviewing this application within the next 3 weeks so you might want to make a recommendation that they make sure that they use amenities that the applicant is providing meets the needs. Mancino: ...development in this area. You might want to see what they say first. Because I think it is deficient in that area. Scott: And we normally don't, after the public hearing is closed, we normally don't entertain additional comments. My thought here is that this is perhaps not a significant issue. I'm just trying to be fair because I, except in extreme circumstances do not allow additional comments so I'll have to respectfully request that perhaps that you take it to the Council after we get 64 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 through with this. Do you have some other comments? Mancino: No. I think that those are my two biggest issues. One is the density and how many...especially for being a PUD. I thought that we were getting more common area. Amenities from allowing this kind of density. And number two, the grading. I'd like to see more...and I don't have any more comments right now but I may later. Scott: Okay, Jeff. Farmakes: ...the commons issue is one that I talked about before when we were looking at this. I think that, particularly when you have higher density, you have less of a sense of community and neighborhood and I don't necessarily think that there should be ballfields or basketball hoops there. Just even a gathering greenery area or something. I wanted to see something north up by 19-18 area...that wasn't in the cards. The area down below, the third of an acre, the common area between 15 and 16. I'd like to see more of what they have... not putting in the landscaping plan. Again, I think...should be referred to the clustering. And Considering that as a passive use rather than a recreational use. If they don't determine that there's a need for such a thing...They're showing 1 tree per lot on the recreational homes. Or not the recreational homes, the single family homes. Is that. Mancino: ...the new tree preservation. Farmakes: Is that the old or new rules? Aanenson: That's the old. Mancino: You know it's a PUD. I would like to see the new tree preservation ordinance apply to this. Scott: Well wouldn't it apply after final approval? Whatever ordinances are in place after final approval or at the time of final approval. Al-Jaff: Yes. Mancino: To figure out canopy coverage and a map. Ledvina: Did you have a recommendation for another condition on that or do you think it's addressed within the report? Do you think we need that? Al-Jaff: Right now there aren't any trees on the site and they're not removing any. 65 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Aanenson: ...2 trees per lot. Ledvina: 2 trees per lot. Okay. Is there a specific condition or where we need a modification? Mancino: Well 2 trees per lot is not using the tree preservation ordinance. Which means that because there are no trees on it, they have to go in and do a reforestation and do a management plan and put in trees. I mean it has to be at least 15%. With the new tree preservation ordinance there's nothing. Ledvina: Well they have an extensive landscaping plan for it. — Mancino: And it may cover it. Ledvina: Right. Mancino: I don't know. But somebody has to figure that out. Al-Jaff: So do we take the single family portion as part of the entire landscaping plan for the PUD or? Ledvina: I don't think so. Scott: Or is it all PUD? Ledvina: The whole thing's a PUD. Scott: Everything's PUD so. Farmakes: But the criteria would be, unless you've granted them less than standard for the... Mancino: Pardon? Farmakes: We don't have a criteria for PUD to grant less than typically what we would ask for, assuming the requirements for forestation, do we? I mean we can say 2 or 1 or 3. Mancino: No but at least, I mean PUD's are taken into account in our tree preservation ordinance. Farmakes: Yeah. So currently they're showing 1. 66 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Mancino: And that would...because you would have to look at canopy coverage. I mean the bushes don't count. Farmakes: But do you specify a number or do you say, incorporate that into the new regulations. — Mancino: Incorporate them in the new regulations. Ledvina: Okay so, what. Would we just add on a condition then? Aanenson: Yeah, we just need to go back to the landscaping plan and verify the percentages and the canopy coverage. That they meet the... Mancino: If they have 1 tree per, I doubt it but we can see. — Farmakes: To finish up my comments. They deal with Outlot A as a separate issue. It seems to me that the logical way of, the concern about the safety issue or the people living on Highway 101. It's always frustrating to listen to comments, not statistical evidence when you're looking for a reason to go ahead and put something somewhere. They use the safety issues. I remember that you have to have an accident before you have a reason to put up a — stop sign...but anyway, the sad part about highway systems is that highways follow the votes. That's where, if you get votes, you get highways and it requires population to get highways. That's a sad fact but that's how politics work in this state and politics are very much tied into — highway construction on this. They don't always spend money where it makes sense. All you have to do is go to certain towns and you see an enormous over capacity of highways there. You come to other areas and you see areas that are sadly deficient in highways, i.e. the southwest suburbs. So it's a problem I don't have the...to solve but if there's any way we can modify currently what we're doing and address that problem, I would recommend that the City Council... I think first and foremost we owe that to the residents. That they're safe and that this is not going to be a, add to already an existing. Just in that, I guess that's it then. The extent of my comments. Scott: Okay, Ladd. Conrad: I don't talk after midnight Joe. Scott: Matt. — Ledvina: I'm just going to go right through this. First of all I'd like to say that I think the staff did an excellent job on this report. It's a very complicated project and they seem to — 67 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 have worked out all the issues on many of the very difficult issues with this so they did a nice job. Let's see, Dave. On condition number 1. The developer is asking to get an exception to the standard specification for the street for that portion of the roadway which will be ripped up. Is that, with TH 101. Is that acceptable to you? Hempel: That's something I guess I'd like to look into further. It does make some sense. However, if TH 101 doesn't get upgraded after '97...3 years, 5 years, it might be 10 years. It's something I'd like to investigate further. Ledvina: Okay. Can you help me on number, Dave again. Could you help me on number 10? How do we want, do you want to change that at all? The remaining 230+ feet shall be platted as an outlot. How do I change that? Hempel: On condition number 10? Ledvina: Yes. Page 30. Hempel: Right now we're requesting the applicant dedicate in the final plat the westerly 50 feet of the site adjacent to TH 101 right-of-way. If we said ad additional 17 feet of right-of- way lying east of the existing TH 101 right-of-way. Ledvina: An additional 17 feet of right-of-way? Hempel: That's correct. Ledvina: Lying. Hempel: Easterly of the existing Trunk Highway 101. Ledvina: Shall be dedicated? Hempel: Correct. With the final plat. Ledvina: Okay. Then eliminate the remaining 200 feet. 230 feet, etc. That sentence is eliminated? The last sentence or leave that in there? Hempel: Well just say the remaining property shall be platted as an outlot for future road. Ledvina: The remaining property? 68 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Hempel: Right. Ledvina: Okay. I think I got it. Here's a question regarding the residential area. Now as — part of the design in terms of reducing the impacts to the existing family, existing lots there. We talked about bringing, providing those extra deep lots. Those larger lots above the city standards. Quite a bit above the city standards and then setting those buildings off of the back line but there's really nothing here that I see as it relates to like a modification of the rear setback. And I'll point to page 34. In the table, the last table it talks about the ordinance. 30 feet front. 30 feet rear. 10 feet sides. As the home setback. Do we want to modify that to insure that the houses are built away from that back line? I mean can we modify that, let's say like 80 feet? — Al-Jaff: ...you bet. Ledvina: Okay. Because I was looking at it and essentially there's about, from what they've indicated here for the house pad, there's 100 to 125 feet in terms of what they setback so allowing for a little bit of fudge factor, maybe an 80 foot rear setback would be reasonable — and would insure that that impact be reduced as much as possible. So I know that's our intent but I want to make sure that we get that in there. Aanenson: We'll...lots that are adjacent... Ledvina: Yes, exactly. Block 2, Lots 1 thru 7. Just on those specific lots. Okay. And I'll — work that in somehow. Any thoughts on that from the other commissioners here? Conrad: I think it's a good idea. — Mancino: Yeah, I do too. Scott: Say, reducing the number of lots. Ledvina: Okay. Let's see here. And let's see. I guess for the purposes of a motion then I would be in favor of adding a condition that staff work with the applicant to...the grading in the northwest portion of the site. Adding another condition that the Park and Rec Commission review the extent of the park facilities within the development. Mancino: Can I ask you a question about that Matt? Do you feel comfortable letting the _ Park and Recreation just kind of decide how much common area and not coming back to us after we've made a suggestion? I mean let's say that they say that this is fine. Do you feel comfortable with that as the entire common area for this density housing? That's my 69 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 question. Ledvina: Well, that's a tough question. I guess maybe we can add the, well. They're going to be look at...and I also feel that it may be appropriate for some areas to be provided in the northern part of the development, as Jeff has indicated. I think that has a valid point. I don't know if .3 acres is right for just an open space. You know I don't think there should be ballfields here and I don't think that's necessary. Conrad: Passive. Ledvina: You know like a passive type of gathering area. Maybe a third of an acre is adequate. I don't know but I would defer that to them. Considering our discussion here and — what our thoughts are in the process. Mancino: Would you like to see the developer come back on the parks to show something in - the common area? Ledvina: I'm comfortable with moving it along. I think the developer's done a real good job and I trust that he would work with the staff and the Park and Rec people on doing something nice there so I'm fairly comfortable with that and that's kind of a seat of the pants type of thing but that's how I feel about it. And then the last thing I would do would be to suggest or to have a condition that the applicant verify that the landscaping meets the city ordinances regarding reforestation. Mancino: The tree preservation ordinance. Ledvina: The tree preservation, okay. I'm sorry. Mancino: Tree preservation ordinance as it relates to canopy coverage. Ledvina: I think that's the extent of my comments. Scott: Would you like to continue right along and make a motion? Ledvina: Well, do you... Scott: I would say you covered, the other commissioners covered anything that I hoped to talk about so if you'd like to continue along and make a motion. It'd be appreciated. Conrad: Before you do Matt. It is, I like the development. I think some of the neighbors 70 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 brought up some concerns and they're real valid. On the other hand, I think this is a good location for this kind of density, even if 212 doesn't go in. I'm still comfortable with it. I — think Dave's taken notes in terms of some concerns we have on traffic and concerns we have on drainage. Drainage going off site to the northeast so I think there's going to be some things that staff will look into. But as a high density development, you know the park issue _ is real significant. Here we have the highest density thing we've got and I don't know where people go. And that's not, I'm not trying to reduce density at all. I just don't know where people go and that's sort of I guess a naive thought because we don't deal with these here — and I haven't over the years but it's just an issue. I like the trail around the wetlands. I think people can walk around a wetlands but I don't think there's really a place to go. I have a feeling that Park and Rec looks at ballfields more than they do internal sites like this. So on the one hand that's their job. I don't take over anybody else's job. That's what they should be doing. But I, I don't know. I'd like somebody to say well yeah, everything's fine. They've got places to recreate in here and they can get in their car and go a mile and fmd a — park, or wherever. Aanenson: That's what their recommendation is taking revenue from this project and putting ...into parks. Conrad: But I just, here we have a high density, 200 units or whatever it is and I don't know — where people go. But that's just an issue, not necessarily with this one. It's just like, what do we think when we put in high density? Mancino: It is one with this one though. Scott: Well we're going to be seeing, when we take a look at how the land has been guided — up and down Highway 5, multi-family residential big. Mancino: We're going to have a lot of this. Scott: And I think it's important to do that. Oh I'm sorry. — Conrad: Well no, that's okay Joe. Scott: I was just going to say. In deference to our temporarily fallen comrade, I'm thinking of the types of people who are going to be living in a lot of these. I said comrade, not Conrad. But public transit. When you think about the people, if these properties do sell for $69,000.00 up to $95,000.00, we're looking at about a $650.00 a month payment. Two people working in a not too high paying job could actually afford something like that. I think public transit then becomes an issue and just I think for your information, I don't know what — 71 — Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Diane's title is but. Ledvina: Director. Mancino: Well there's the plan. She's done the planning for 212...the transit hub when 212 goes in. What happens if we develop this and we need a transit hub there sooner than when, or 212 never goes in. Scott: I'm thinking about transit access for this particular. You know are the buses going to be able to get in here so I mean, just to let you know that when this comes back for final plat approval, the lady who occupies that chair there is going to be looking at that very closely. Al-Jaff: It won't come before you. Scott: It doesn't come before us for final plat approval. It doesn't? Even though we're approving a preliminary plat. Why doesn't it come back here for final plat? _ Al-Jaff: Planning Commission only reviews preliminary. City Council reviews preliminary and final. Conrad: Just a couple other things. Dave, you're going to look at the commercial drainage issue going to this site? You have or you're going to. You have to do that. The buffering of the units that back up to the commercial. I just trust that once this goes in and then commercial goes in, that the owners won't be in here saying we didn't buffer. Seriously. Here's a case where there's just no excuse, whether some kind of disclosure statement that they know that there's commercial going back in here. But they just shouldn't be here. They have to know that commercial's going in there. Jeff, you brought up a point. And the only issue that I really have. I think Rottlund's a good builder. Good reputation. I like them. Every unit's the same color. You know of all the things that we talked about tonight... affordable units. It's a real great objective. It looks like a quality, affordable product. Yet on the other hand they all look the same, you know. And that bothers me. And I'm not a marketing genius in terms of what colors people like but to have all units the same color is just like...now this is a PUD and again, I'm not trying to drive up the cost. I just wish you had a creative solution to that. Seriously. Without changing the cost and that's probably a contradiction. Can't be creative without driving up the cost. But to have all the units the same color. Look the same. That bothers me. I'm not real happy with that. It is a PUD. I think we're moving some things around. The developers have done some things to, I think they listened the first time in. I'm pleased with that. I'm just not pleased with, Matt you're talking about elevations or in terms of rolling and you know, are we leveling and are we putting in the same thing? That bothers me. That's all I have to say. 72 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Scott: Okay. A motion. Ledvina: Well what would be the consensus then in terms of what we do here? Conrad: I think we should challenge Rottlund to show City Council what they can do to add a little bit of diversity without driving up the cost $10,000.00 a unit. I guess I don't really want to see it. We could bring it back. I don't know that I do. But I really think we should challenge them and say hey, give us the economics of allowing some diversity in there. What does it cost? What does it, maybe we have to negotiate. Maybe we add some density. I don't know what we do but again, seriously that seems simple. I'm not in that business but I want to challenge the Rottlund to come back to City Council and tell them why. Why you can't do it or what it's going to cost. And I'm not sure that little cuts that the staff has recommended, although I like them and I thank you for doing that, I'm not sure that that separates one unit from the other, to tell you the truth. Tree preservation has to be dealt with and met the ordinance and then I think you covered everything else. Ledvina: I'll give it a shot. I would recommend that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of preliminary Subdivision #94-5 and Site Plan #94-5 as shown on the plans dated April 15, 1994 subject to the staff conditions in the report with the following modifications. Number 1. Add, staff shall evaluate the potential for temporary road section for the future TH 101 right-of-way. Or for the TH 101 right-of-way. Number 3. The first sentence to read, the number of water quality ponds shall be reviewed by staff and applicant. And the rest as indicated in the condition. Eliminate number 7. Number 10. The first sentence as it reads in the condition. The second sentence, the remaining property shall be platted as an outlot for future road right-of-way acquisition. An additional 17 feet of right-of-way lying easterly of the existing highway shall be dedicated with the final plat. Number 15(a). To strike the word tennis in that condition. Number 18 shall read, final plat approval shall be contingent upon the city authorizing and awarding the bid for the Lake Riley Area Trunk Utility Improvement Project No. 93-32. Adding condition 31. The applicant shall work with staff in reconsidering the mass grading in the northwest portion of the site by potential stepping of building elevations. Number 32. The Park and Recreation Commission shall review the extent of the park facilities within the development. Number 33. The applicant shall verify that the landscaping plan meets the city tree preservation ordinance for canopy coverage. Number 34. The applicant shall provide diversity in the color schemes used in the buildings. That's it. Oh wait, hold it. Okay, yeah. That's for that motion. And then the other changes go with the PUD development plan. Scott: Okay. Is there a second to that motion? Or any additions? Can I have a second? Conrad: I second. 73 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Mancino: Discussion. So you're telling me Matt that you're fine that if the Park and Recreation comes back and say we don't need any more park facility in this development, as in active park. They come back and say no. That we're fine with not seeing any more common area. Any more inactive, what do I call that. Scott: Passive park. Mancino: Passive, thank you. It's getting late. So we're fine with not seeing any more passive area in this high density development? That we're going to let it go just the way it is with a third of an acre. Because the Park and Recreation's going to come back to us and say and they're going to think about it as active park. I don't feel comfortable with that. Ledvina: Well they have their job to do. That's their focus. I mean I realize that we're trying to incorporate all these things but. Mancino: But is a part of the intent of a PUD to allow transfer of density so you do have some common area for that higher density areas? Farmakes: To achieve that you're going to have to...I don't disagree with what you're saying. Mancino: Because you guys talked about, both you and Jeff talked about some areas on the north part. North of 86th Street. Farmakes: Will the Park Commission start eliminating buildings? Mancino: I think that's up to us. Farmakes: But I'd like to get their recommendation as to what that should be because I don't know if it should be a half acre or what it is. Mancino: Alright. Farmakes: The targeted amount for that. Mancino: Do you want to see it back after that or do you want to just go with whatever the recommendation they make, is what I'm asking. Scott: Or do we want to go to the Council meeting and just say, oh by the way this is our thought and bring that up. 74 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Farmakes: Well I'd like to get some professional recommendations to what that should be to accommodate that many people and we rely upon the commission for that. The Park — Commission. I will agree that I think their focus is more on recreational development than in passive use, which in this case I think is appropriate. Scott: Well I think the condition was pretty specific when it said, their recommendations for space within the development. Mancino: And maybe we should say, passive space. Ledvina: That's fine. _ Mancino: But I just want to make sure. Ledvina: I know it's a touchy issue. I understand that. Mancino: This is an important part of this whole development. — Ledvina: I understand there's a lot of big issues here. Scott: And we're going to be getting, I can think right now of about maybe 5 more PUD's of this size. Maybe smaller. Maybe larger. That we're going to see and what I think we need to do is to, this is something that's a little bit different but it's the type of development that — we're going to see more of and I think we really need to set the tone with it. There needs to be some sort of passive gathering space within these developments and I think. Ledvina: Besides from the specific park and rec formula. Scott: Yeah. Mancino: Get their input and then see it back just on that one issue? But then _ when...change. Ledvina: I can't change this. — Scott: Or do you want to not see this again and. — Conrad: City Council can handle it. They're big people. They know how to do this stuff. Scott: Yeah, just as long as we can let them know what we're thinking in person. Up close — 75 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 and personal. Conrad: I won't vote for that but you can bring it back. I think it should be clear though. I think Nancy brought up the fact, at the first go around City Council asked for some things and I don't think it came back the way they asked for it. So whether I agree with City Council or not doesn't make any difference. I think it should be noted what they asked for and that should be brought to the Park and Rec's attention. Scott: Okay. Is there any other discussion? Farmakes: Are you going to add that as an amendment? Recommendation. Ledvina: I would accept that. If you want to specifically state that there should be whatever passive open area provided in the northern part of the site, or whatever you want to do that's. Mancino: Yeah I would like to add some. I would like to get the Park and Recreation committee's suggestion as to what that might be and then I think some should be added definitely. I don't know how much. Ledvina: Okay. I would accept that. Scott: Okay. Any other discussion? Ledvina: You were the second. Do you accept that? Conrad: Sure. Scott: Any other discussion? Any other friendly amendments? Or amendments, friendly or otherwise. It's been moved and seconded that we accept the staff recommendation with conditions. Mancino: Does this also, excuse me. I have one question. We are putting the Outlot A and it's just got Lot A. It is not part of the PUD. Scott: No. It's just Outlot A. Ledvina: Then we deal with that on this next motion, right? We have two motions that we have to make. Aanenson: ...dealing with the preliminary subdivision... The next one is just a PUD plan. 76 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Submittal plan. Ledvina: So what are you suggesting? Aanenson: ...Oudot A is the commercial area. Shown as a commercial area and given — concept approval... Mancino: Not preliminary plat approval. _ Aanenson: Right. Not approved as preliminary plat. Ledvina: I would accept that. Yes, thank you Kate. Scott: Is there any more discussion? It's been moved and seconded that we accept the staff — recommendation. Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval — of preliminary Subdivision #94-5 and Site Plan #94-5 as shown on the plans dated April 15, 1994, subject to the following conditions: 1. All utility and street improvements (public and private) shall be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant will be required to supply detailed construction plans for all utility and — street improvements for the City to review and formally approve. Street grades throughout the subdivision should be between 0.75% and 7.0%. Staff shall evaluate the potential for temporary road section for TH 101 right-of-way. 2. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining and complying with all necessary permits such as the DNR, MWCC, Health Department, Watershed Districts, PCA and — MnDot. — 3. The number of water quality ponds shall be reviewed by staff and the applicant. All water quality treatment ponds shall include outlet control structures to control discharge rate pursuant to NURP standards. The City will be maintaining the retention ponds _ and, therefore, the applicant shall dedicate the appropriate easements on the final plat. Maintenance access to the retention ponds should be at a minimum 20 foot wide drainage and utility easements and should be dedicated on the final plat. Erosion _ control and turf restoration on the site shall be in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 77 — Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 4. If the applicant installs the oversized (12 inch) watermain, the City shall credit the applicant by means of reduction in their assessments for the oversizing costs. The oversizing costs shall be the difference between an 8 inch watermain and a 12 inch watermain. Placement of all fire hydrants shall be in accordance with the Fire Marshal's recommendations. 5. The homeowners association declaration of covenants and restrictions shall be submitted to staff for review and approval as it pertains to site maintenance prior to final plat approval. 6. The applicant's engineer shall submit design calculations for the storm sewers and retention ponds prior to final plat approval. The storm sewers shall be designed for a 10 year storm event and retention ponds shall retain the difference between the predeveloped and developed runoff rate for a 100 year, 24 hour storm event. The _ outlet of the retention pond shall be designed to restrict the discharge to the predeveloped runoff rate. The pond shall also be constructed to NURP standards to improve water quality. Should the City's storm water management plan provide alternative regional ponding on-site, the applicant shall work with the City in implementing the best location for said ponding. 7. Deleted. 8. The applicant should provide a buffer area between the development and proposed Trunk Highway 212 as well as Trunk Highway 101. The buffer area should consist of both landscaping materials and berming. 9. The applicant shall include a drain tile system in all public streets where the adjacent dwellings have no other acceptable means of discharging such a pond, wetland or storm sewer. 10. The applicant shall dedicate to the city with final platting, the westerly 50 feet of the site adjacent to TH 101 for right-of-way. The remaining property shall be platted as an outlot for future road right-of-way acquisition. An additional 17 feet of right-of-way lying easterly of the existing highway shall be dedicated with the final plat. 11. During construction of utilities and street improvements along 86th Street, the applicant shall provide provisions for maintaining ingress and egress for the existing homes on Tigua Lane as well as emergency vehicles. 12. Allowed uses in commercial site to be restricted as described in the staff report. 78 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 13. The applicant shall provide density/hard surface coverage calculations for each lot within Blocks 1 and 4. These figures shall exclude the right-of-way and wetland areas. 14. The landscaping plan shall be revised to add more trees along West 86th Street, along Highway 212 and Highway 101 right-of-ways and between the area separating commercial and residential lots. 15. Meet the following conditions of the Park and Recreation Commission: A. The tot park facility shall include typical park amenities such as landscaped grassy areas, picnic tables, park benches, play apparatus and basketball courts, etc. B. Six foot wide concrete sidewalks be constructed on the south side of West 86th Street from Highway 101 east to the project's terminus and a 5 foot wide core sidewalk on "A" Street from West 86th Street north to the street's terminus. C. A bituminous trail be constructed encircling wetland No. 15 connecting the sidewalk system to the "park site. In consideration for the construction of said trail, the applicant shall receive trail fee credit equal to the cost of construction. Said cost to be determined by the applicant for presentation to the city with documentation for verification. D. Full park fees shall be collected at the time of building permit applications at the rate then in force. 16. Plans outlining general layouts (with alternatives) building massings, square footage limitations, grading, building materials, architectural designs, pedestrian access, and development intent need to be developed for the commercial area. We realize that the developer, Tandem Properties, will not be owning or developing this area. Ownership is being retained by Al Klingelhutz. Still, both parcels are located within the PUD and we believe that the city would be remiss if we did not exercise our ability to insure that the ultimate development of the parcel is compatible with the best interests of the community. We had suggested what we believe to be acceptable in this report and would appreciate the Planning Commission's input. 17. While not mandatory, we would like to hold discussions with the applicant regarding the potential establishment of a housing district over a portion of the site. The city has been actively seeking a means to provide more moderate cost housing for working families and this may be a good site. 79 — Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 18. Final plat approval shall be contingent upon the city authorizing and awarding the bid for the Lake Riley Area Trunk Utility Improvement Project No. 93-32. 19. An additional trail easement may have to be dedicated to the city for the sidewalk construction. This will be determined during construction plan review and approval process. 20. The commercial portion of the PUD shall be consistent with the Highway 5 Corridor Study design standards. 21. Submit street names for both public and private streets to the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for approval. 22. Chanhassen Fire Department's policy on Premise Identification must be followed. Additional monument signs for address location will be required. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for requirements and details. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #29-1992. Policy enclosed. 23. There will be no parking allowed on private streets or the south side of 86th Street. _ Signage must be installed in compliance to Fire Prevention Policy #06-1991. Pursuant to 1991 Chanhassen Uniform Fire Code Sec. 10.207(a). 24. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, Cable TV, transform boxes. This is to insure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance Sec. 9-1. 25. Developer must contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact locations of fire hydrants. The hydrants shown on plan are unacceptable and additional ones are required. Pursuant to 1991 Chanhassen Fire Code Sec. 10.403. 26. Fire Marshal approved access must be provided to within one hundred fifty (150) feet of structures to be built. Pursuant to 1991 Chanhassen Fire Code Sec. 10.302. 27. Submit turning radius to City Engineer and Fire Marshal for approval. Pursuant to 1991 Chanhassen Fire Code Sec. 10.204(c). 28. Dead Ends: Dead end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus. When 80 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 buildings are completely protected with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system, the provisions of this section may be modified by the Chief. Pursuant to 1991 _ Chanhassen Uniform Fire Code Sec. 10.204(d) and 10.203 exc. #1. 29. Street lights shall be provided along West 86th Street and "A" Street/Court. The city — shall determine type and placement. 30. The City Council shall consider approving a resolution prohibiting parking along the south side of West 86th Street. 31. The applicant shall work with staff in reconsidering the mass grading in the northwest portion of the site by potential stepping of building elevations. 32. The Park and Recreation Commission shall review the extent of the park facilities within the development and look at adding additional passive park area in the northern part of the site. — 33. The applicant shall verify that the landscaping plan meets the city tree preservation ordinance for canopy coverage. — 34. The applicant shall provide diversity in the color schemes used in the buildings. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Ledvina: We have one more thing to do and I guess I can do that one too. Do we label this as the same development plan, #94-3? Aanenson: Yes. Ledvina: Okay. I recommend that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council _ approval of PUD development plan #94-3 subject to the staff's conditions with the following modifications. On page 34. The top or first table. For the commercial parking setback for West 86th Street shall be 30 feet. Again on page 34. On the bottom as it relates to. — Aanenson: Excuse me a second. We were going to strike any reference to commercial at this point because we didn't want to give...so I think we just leave the motion the way it is... — reference to the commercial development. The only change I would have is when you talk about the 80 foot...but we need to make sure that the 80 foot works and I'd like to see some changes before it goes to Council... —81 — Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Ledvina: Okay. Subject to staff review for feasibility. Aanenson: We still want the compliance for the residential so basically I think if you strike any reference to the commercial development.. Ledvina: Okay. So as part of the motion we strike the reference to commercial developments associated with Outlot A. On page 34, the ordinance, or I should say the setback requirements for the, the home setback requirements for the rear lot for Block 2, Lots 1 thru 7, identify that rear setback as 80 feet subject to review by staff for feasibility. I think — that's it. Scott: Is there a second? Mancino: Second. Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded to recommend approval of the preliminary PUD development plan as outlined by staff in the staff report striking out any reference to commercial development and adding a provision that rear yard setback requirements for Block 2, Lots 1 thru 7, be identified as 80 feet subject to review by staff for feasibility. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Scott: Let me just ask a question. We have 3 items here. The rezoning, site approval and preliminary plat for the subdivision. Did we do all of them? Okay, good. PUBLIC HEARING: CITY CODE SECTION 18-57, STREETS, BY AMENDING SECTIONS (N) AND (0) TO INCLUDE STANDARDS FOR PRIVATE STREETS SERVING R4, R8, R12 AND R16 AND NON-RESIDENTIAL USES. Scott: Is anybody going to cry if we leave this for next time? Okay. We're going to continue item number 6 to the next time. Can I have a motion to approve the Minutes? I'm sorry, yes. Al-Jaff: There is someone here that has been waiting for 5 hours. Scott: Then we need to do it then. I apologize sir. I didn't realize you were there. Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. 82 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Scott: Any questions or comments for staff? Anybody else? I don't happen to have any. This is a public hearing and I'd like to have a motion to open the public hearing please. _ Conrad moved, Farmakes seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. _ Scott: Sir. Please identify yourself and give us your address. Stuart Horn: I'm Stuart Hoarn with Burnet Realty at 19400 Highway 7 in Minnetonka. Actually Excelsior. I'm appearing on behalf of Robert and Paul Garrish who have property on Great Plains Boulevard. There was a situation that there were 4 lots that were created — long before the subdivision ordinance required the 7 ton road. I think that was, Sharmin was that I believe in '87? When did that. This was approved in '86 or '87, I can't remember which. And the ordinance came along in 1991. Al-Jaff: So. Stuart Hoarn: These are grandfathered in. There were 4 lots. Two of them had houses on and there's 2 in the middle that don't have houses on them. These 2 lots in the middle were recently sold. It's too late to reprice them. It's too late for the people who bought them to do anything about...The issue then becomes that the paving, the paving bill is close to $40,000.00 that would be retroactively applied to these lots. If they come in for a building permit. If they come in tomorrow, they wouldn't but if they come in after this is passed, they would. That's the issue. That the lots are sold. It's too late to do anything about what they paid. It's too late to...to reprice them because they had already sold. And there could be other situations, I don't know. We know about it. We inquired about it. It's happening in this timeframe. But there could be other situations out there where people don't know it's going to hit them so our request is that the ordinance not take affect for building permits _ issued prior to the end of the year so there's a chance for people to sell their lots or reprice them. If they have their lots priced at something now and they haven't got that $20,000.00 built in, they have time to change the price and remarket them or whatever they're going to _ do. I don't know how many other situations there are in the city...but there's this one for sure. That's really all... Scott: Okay. Any questions or comments? I'm just kind of looking at this correspondence here. We'll have to take a moment here to go through this. Let's see here. So basically the new home has to be constructed for it not to require paving. _ Stuart Hoarn: That's correct. If the ordinance amendment is passed as it is. 83 _ Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Scott: Oh I see. Stuart Hoarn: When these 2 lots were added in, where there were 2 and now there's 4. When these 2 lots were added in there, there were 2 houses and 1 large piece which was then divided in half. We had 3 lots. Two with houses on them and the 1 in the middle didn't have a house on it. That was divided in half so now there's 2 in the middle and these still don't have houses on them. This subdivide took place in I believe it was '86 or '87. If the subdividing had taken place after 1992, the developer would have had that as part of the conditions for the development of that and provide for this paving. That as a new ordinance or change in the ordinance. That was the subdivision ordinance, not the zoning ordinance. Now this is going to be under this amendment that's before you now, it would be... subdividing into the zoning ordinance which means when people apply for building permits, they have to have this paving done. And the other issue in particular instances is there's a new subdivision to the north of this one that has already received preliminary plat approval by the Planning Commission in which there could be a new street added and that's also from, there is a new street there. But just by moving the cul-de-sac slighting would eliminate the need for a shared driveway entirely. Scott: This is almost like a variance application for an ordinance that isn't on the books yet, which we don't do. Conrad: You just hope we don't do that. You don't know Joe. Scott: Well I'm kind of looking at it. We have, the issue in front of us is whether we want to recommend to the City Council that this happen. I mean that's what we're doing. Stuart Hoarn: Well also when it takes affect. Conrad: Is it worded so it's retroactive? Aanenson: Well that's a definite option. It could be. There could be exemptions existing off the record. Normally when a subdivision comes through now...we're going to tell you right up front. This is what's going to happen... Stuart Hoarn: When they're applying for a mortgage. I mean they don't know this. I mean $20,000.00, one way or the other, when they say to the mortgage officer, well how much do we loan. Give or take $20,000.00. Maybe it will fly, maybe it won't. This is a very difficult thing for some people who are living through this right now. Time is of the essence for them. 84 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Scott: I'm just thinking what's the risk if it's a lot of record versus somebody who now wants to subdivide. I mean somebody who wants to subdivide, there's a process and it goes _ on forever, especially once they get to the Planning Commission but, I guess my thought, and you guys are going to have to maybe, like what are we missing? I mean I'm thinking if there's a lot already of record, to me I don't see the loss on the residents of the city, the — grand whole here we're talking about. I don't see a problem with just saying hey, this does not apply. But I could see, such as the case with the property, the subdivision that we saw this by Timberwood, that's serviced by a private drive. They're subdividing and they have to _ pave it and upgrade and all that good stuff so, it kind of looks like the intent is for things that subdivide, we want to upgrade the streets. But something where it's a lot of record that's maybe served by a public. We're probably talking about smaller number of lots and it maybe — doesn't make sense for us to apply this particular proposed ordinance to that situation. I don't know, what do you guys think? I thought it made sense. I don't know. Conrad: Joe, I think you're right. We've got to get out of here. Scott: I guess well, I could repeat that. — Conrad: I think it's wise if staff could show us the implications of what that meant though and I don't know if we want it back but. — Scott: No, I don't want to see it again. Conrad: But on the first cut at it, at the quarter to 1:00, it sort of seems like it shouldn't be retroactive unless staff really says we're going to miss some things or there's going to be some real harm. — Aanenson: ...identify those. Get a map and identify...and get an idea of how many we're talking about. — Conrad: Right. I think we should do that but otherwise. Scott: Well I think our direction is to exempt lots of record. — Aanenson: Or to research it. Scott: Our feeling is right now, exempt lots of record and then go from there...anyway, can I _ have a motion to close the public hearing? Ledvina moved, Farmakes seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and — 85 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 _ the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Scott: Can I have a motion please? Mancino: I move that we adjourn. — Scott: Yeah, we need a motion on this particular item. Conrad: I like how Nancy tracks. Scott: Even though I'm not supposed to be doing this. — Ledvina: You can't do it. Scott: I would make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the — Zoning Ordinance Amendment as stated in this here document but that the staff research exempting existing lots of record from this proposed ordinance. —" Conrad: I think that's very good. I would have made the motion just like that. Scott: Thank you sir. Is there a second please? Mancino: I would have changed it. Scott: Can somebody else second this motion I shouldn't have made? Mancino: I second. Scott: Okay, good. It's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Scott moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section 18-57, Streets, by amending sections (n) and _ (o), to include Standards for Private Streets serving R-4, R-8, R-12, R-16 and Non- Residential Uses and Amendment to Article XXIV, Off Street Parking and Loading with direction to staff to research exempting existing lots of record. All voted in favor and — the motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Ledvina: I would move that we approve the Minutes with the correction as indicated on the 86 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 first agenda item. I don't know where that is. I've been trying to scan it. Scott: Relative to preservation versus destruction of natural resources or something like that. Ledvina: Yes, please do that. — Ledvina moved, Scott seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated May 18, 1994 as amended. All voted in favor and the motion carried. — Scott: Okay, and the City Council update, we read that. On going items, there are none. There will be no open discussion. Can I have a motion to adjourn? — Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 1:10 a.m. — Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director — Prepared by Nann Opheim 87