Loading...
2a Arboretum Business Park 4th Todd Gerhardt June 5, 2002 Arboretum Business Park 4th Addition Page 2 RECOMMENDATION City Council action includes approval of one motion: 'The City Council approves the preliminary plat for 92-6 PUD File 8, Arboretum Business Park 4th Addition creating three lots, one outlot and right-of-way for a public street as shown on plans prepared by Schoell & Madsen, Inc, dated received April 12, 2002, subject to the following conditions: The development shall comply with the Arboretum Business Park Development Design Standards. . o The developer shall pay trail fees pursuant to city ordinance. Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign all plans. . o Revise the easterly side, full access to a right-in/right-out access of Century Boulevard. The applicant will be required to meet the existing site runoff rates for the 10 year and 100 year, 24 hour storm events. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage .system. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. . Type II silt fence shall be used. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading will require an easement from the appropriate property owner. Silt fence shall be promptly removed upon completion of construction. , Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the City's Building Department. o Each newly created lot will be subject to City sanitary sewer and water hookup charges at the time of building permit issuance. The 2002 trunk utility hookup charges are $1,383 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,082 per unit for water. . Public utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will also be required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District, Carver County, etc. 10. On the utility plan: · Show all the existing and proposed utility easements. Todd Gerhardt June 5, 2002 Arboretum Business Park 4th Addition Page 3 · Revise sheet title to "Preliminary Utility Plan". · Eliminate the proposed storm sewer north of Lot 1; any stormwater must be treated before discharging into a wetland or pond. · Add 6" gave valve on the watermain going to Lots 2 and 3. · Revise the sanitary sewer along the east side of Lots 1 and 2 to be within the lot property limits. 11. On the grading plan: · Add a note, "All sanitary services shall be 6" PVC SDR 26." · Show the benchmark used for the site survey. · Revise Sheet Title to "Preliminary Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control Plan". · Remove the abandoned portion of the existing RCP 36 inch storm sewer. 12. Cross-access easements for the shared driveway access must be obtained and recorded against the lots. 13. Dedicate Outlot B to the public fight-of-way including a cul-de-sac bubble and build the street according to City standards and specifications. 14. Additional fire hydrants will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. 15. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, bushes, shrubs, Qwest, Xcel Energy, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. 16. "No Parking Fire Lane" signs will be determined by the Fire Marshal upon a site plan review of new proposed buildings. 17. When fire protection, including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for.fire protection is required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. Pursuant to 1997 Minnesota Uniform Fire Code Section 901-3. 18. The total SWMP fees are $47,433.00 and are due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording. PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE The Planning Commission held a public heating on May 21, 2002, to review the proposed development. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed subdivision subject to the conditions of the staff report. Todd Gerhardt June 5, 2002 Arboretum Business Park 4th Addition Page 4 As part of the discussion, the Planning Commission concurred with staff limiting access to these lots from Century Boulevard to right-in/fight-out. ATTACHMENTS . Planning Commission Minutes of May 21, 2002 Planning Commission Staff Report g:\plan\bg\villages\executive summary Arboretum Business Park 4th.doc Planning Commission Meeting - May 21, 2002 Sacchet: Madam Chair, I make the motion that the Planning Commission approves Variance //02-5 for a 15 square foot wall mounted sign to be located on the north elevation of the Remax Action West building as shown on the plan dated May 2, 2002 with the following conditions 1 through 2 with changing condition 1 that it reads wall sign not monument, sign. Blackowiak: Okay, is there a second? Feik: Second. Sacchet moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission approves Variance/fl)2-5 for a 15 square foot wall mounted sign to be located on the north elevation of the REMAX ACTION WEST building, as shown on the plans dated May 2, 2002, with the following conditions: 1. The north facing wall sign is in lieu of a monument sign. 2. The applicant shall apply for a sign permit. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER THE REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO CREATE THREE LOTS AND TWO OUTLOTS ON 26.9 ACRES ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HWY 5 AND 41, STEINER DEVELOPMENT~ ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK 4T}I ADDITION. Kate Aanenson and Matt Saam presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Okay thanks Kate. Commissioners, any questions of staff? Slagle: I just have a couple. First to Matt. This cul-de-sac that will go in, which will then be extended, assuming something happens in that corporate comer, this landmark site that we talk about as an entry way to the city. Would there be another entrance in and out of that corporate site or would it be this street? Saam: I don't believe there'd be another entrance. Maybe the applicant can add his feelings but from my discussions with him and from what we've planned as a staff all along, I think this Outlot B, it's actually going to be a public street. This will be the entrance for the site. Slagle: Which is Outlot A, correct? Kate, to the west? Aanenson: Yes. Slagle: So then my question is, is if we've got this street going to Outlot A, which will still be again hopefully the big corporate entry way, hospital, what have you, would a right-in/right-out work for the anticipated traffic flow of a big corporate site? Aanenson: No. Actually lots, these lots here also have the flexibility of how we're going to look at that. Ultimately this street will be connected to 41 when that's re-graded and re-built. Planning Commission Meeting - May 21, 2002 Slagle: So you're thinking Outlot, what I'll call the corner. Whatever it is up there in the upper left, that will possibly exit in and out of 41 ? Aanenson: Correct. Sacchet: Point of clarification Madam Chair. Aanenson: No, not this cul-de-sac. No I'm saying this street could come out and those two lots. Right, it hasn't been decided. You may want to split those lots and make them separately but it could, but that would be a point. Sacchet: Point of clarification please, because I think we have a confusion. That cul-de-sac is going to be right and left turn. What we're saying will be restricted to a right-in/right-out only is the driveway further north of that cul-de-sac, is that correct? Aanenson: Correct. Saam: Correct... Slagle: So the cul-de-sac's going to be a left/right. Saam: Oh, the cul-de-sac will be a open public street. Slagle: Okay, great. Aanenson: Yeah, and I was answering the question whether the cul-de-sac... These lots could be split off and it may not go through but this would not be restricted. The concern is up through in here there's a partial. If you look at this, this is that street going in. It's this area right here. Slagle: Okay. Aanenson: Which will be also serving the Kindercare, and that will also have a movement back down, back out to this. Slagle: Okay. Aanenson: And then if you look at the entire piece, which is some of their concern, over here, which is on this piece. This was also given a possible retail type use. It could be a restaurant, hotel which was identified in the PUD. So ultimately that, generally we like to line up the driveways. The concern that they also had was accessing that. Whether that makes a T and a full turn moves they were anticipating on that side also. So in looking at that was some of the rationale to go back and say let's look at a traffic study. Whether that curb cut needs to be a full curb cut or how does the traffic move, because we don't want, when this piece develops, that backing up onto 5. Slagle: Exactly. Aanenson: So that's the issue that we're going to look at. Planning Commission Meeting - May 21, 2002 Slagle: Okay, and then the follow-up question would be just do you think if a corporate you know company goes into that Outlot A, or the lot A what I'll call it, will that cul-de-sac and it's traffic you know lights be enough to handle what goes in there? Aanenson: Well that's why there was the possibility of bringing a road down back onto this road. They may not want to do that but we'll have to look at that. Slagle: Okay. That's all. Blackowiak: Thanks Rich. Steve, questions at all? Nothing? Okay, go ahead. Sidney: I've got a questiOn about sidewalks and trails. Are we impacting the origin, al plans at all? Or is that, I guess that maybe is more of a discussion for the site plan. Saam: I can add. Just in regards to the public street, and I believe they show it. Yeah, they show a sidewalk. That's typical for what we require. Now interior, you're right. I think that will be adjust, Kate correct me, with each site plan. Blackowiak: Okay. Uli, questions? Sacchet: Yeah, two quick questions. On this plat there's this thing called pond. And with the idea that this would be filled up? Saam: Yeah. There's some history here that wasn't all explained in the staff report but about a year ago that pond was there. I don't know if they filled it all the way in. Now they got a grading permit last summer/fall. Around that time. It went before you guys. So with that they received approval to fill that and prepare it for these building sites. Sacchet: So there is no pond? Saam: I don't believe it's left anymore. Again, we can ask the applicant. Sacchet: Yeah, and then the second question, with them doing a traffic study for that right- in/right-out, is the assumption that the traffic study could possibly show that it's acceptable to have it a full access? I guess that's why they're pursuing it, right? Aanenson: Correct. Sacchet: Yeah, okay. Saam: I did tell them in the meeting today though that there's no guarantees that, you know if it comes back favorable to them, well they've got it. We'll take that under advisement. Of course that will help them if it comes back showing that traffic, the turning movements aren't going to be an issue. Sacchet: Okay, okay. Okay, that's my questions, thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, thanks. Bruce. Feik: A couple. I would like to follow up on that same access way, the right-in/right-out. If it stays a right-in/right-out, will that median then be extended to the south? Planning Commission Meeting - May 21, 2002 Saam: No, and I should have pointed that out. What we were planning on was installing a pork chop type, if you've seen those. It's basically a triangle with a raised curb. So people can, they can only turn right-in and they can only go right-out. There will be an actual concrete barrier, you know not allowing the wheels to go straight. Feik: And access to Lot 3, which would be the daycare, would also be accessible from that same right-in/right-out? Or would that be coming from the cul-de-sac? Saam: It could be I think. Yeah, it could be. All along the, oh go on. Feik: My concern is we've had a number of residents approach us on some other issues regarding access. U-turn issues. The one down at Dell and some others and with the daycare'there, I guess I would like to see some special deference to the daycare and insure that we're not creating a hazard that doesn't need to be there otherwise. Blackowiak: Okay. Claybaugh: ...additional questions. Blackowiak: Okay, sure. Claybaugh: Could you expand on the scope of the study? The traffic study that's being done. Obviously it's pertaining to the right-in/right-out but is it also going to encompass the main cul- de-sac to that future corporate lot? Is that part of the traffic study at this time or is it just limited to the bank entrance? Saam: I think that would be a better question for the applicant. I would suspect that whichever firm they entail would look at turning movements here, and then just for the simple fact that it's close by, turning movements right at 5 and into this cul-de-sac. I mean it would be easy to model those also. But again you might want to address that to the applicant to see what exactly they were going to be looking at. Claybaugh: Thanks. Blackowiak: Okay, Steve no other questions? Lillehaug: I do have a question. There's a site plan approval to come later on but this site plan approval refers to 3 pages in this preliminary plat. By us approving this preliminary plat, does it limit any additional information that we'd require on the site plan approval? Maybe that's not clear. Aanenson: Yeah, I understand your question. If you want to call out a specific sheet, if you feel more comfortable with that. The one that just says preliminary plat, that would be appropriate because the rest of it does refer to the site plan. If you want to call it just Sheet 1 of 2 for the preliminary plat, that'd be fine. Lillehaug: Okay. Blackowiak: Okay, and Kate I had this for the next item but maybe if you could comment right now in the relationship between items 2 and 3. What do we have to, what happens, should we Planning Commission Meeting - May 21, 2002 approve number 2, how does that affect 3? I mean are they independent? Can you just sort of walk us through that. Aanenson: Sure. You have to create the lot in order for a subdivision. Right now it's in outlot status. In order for it to be a buildable lot, you have to create the subdivision to allow it to be built. So the first step allows a buildable lot, and the second step would be the.use to go on that lot. Blackowiak: Right, so then if we for example approve number 2, then we can go ahead and say that, assuming that City Council follows through and does approve number 2, that we recommend approval of number 3 or however that would go. Aanenson: Correct. Blackowiak: Okay. Alright. Okay, at this point would the applicant or their designee like to ' make a presentation? If so, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Fred Richter: Fred Richter with Steiner Development. Kate, we're just talking about the plat right now. Aanenson: Correct, the subdivision. Fred Richter: Subdivision. Aanenson: Yes, not the site plan. Fred Richter: In addressing the subdivision, I'll just make a few overviews just to allow you to understand the issues. There were, let's start with this one. We have always been following the PUD which goes back to '97. At that time it went through a AUAR. We had a traffic study and so on and basically set up the framework and uses and so on. We have created 3 lots here where originally we didn't know if there was going to be 2 lots, whatever. And that was in response basically to the market and what people wanted to be in this location. So that's why we're here tonight with US Bank on approval of a 1 acre site, Kindercare on about a 1 ½ acre site, and then a third site which we'll call the residual site which will have, finer parameters on it for later development. The cul-de-sac and things were all implemented last fall when we went through our grading, so we' ve kind of pushed forward for the utilities and everything in place to move ahead with this. There was a question about a pond. That pond never really existed. It was created when we rough graded Century and it was kind of a temporary thing, and has all been mitigated and rough graded to facility this plan. On the traffic counts, originally we had traffic counts of about 1.2 lineal square feet in the total count which will probably build out somewhat less. Maybe 20 percent less. We're about half built out now in that development. Traffic is generated by a number of vehicles. We're estimating probably about 3,000 vehicles will be parked in here and then when the traffic study, they'll get into peak times and things like that. We're of the opinion that we have 3 outgoing lanes, 2 coming in. Quick turning movements onto 5. That's all designed in. The State has already put in those traffic lights so the real issue becomes stacking from Highway 5, and that's what we want to get input from a traffic study. And we're looking for just good, easy movement. We're after good movement as much as the city so we aren't at odds here. We're just trying to get the facts. We also feel, when we look at the bank and the Kindercare, that moving the biggest generator of traffic in the site plan is the drive-thru bank. We really don't want them driving back into the Kindercare and then out. We Planning Commission Meeting - May 21, 2002 think it really is much more efficient to get them in and out and back onto Century. We think there's enough stacking space and the thing will flow so that we'll get into when we get it back... As far as Block, the development here. We don't know for sure the market. The city and everything will come together hopefully in a short period of time we'll have a corporate campus looks like, or might have a medical orientation, but it will probably be in the neighborhood of 200 to 250,000 square feet of multiple buildings generating probably 500 to 1,000 cars and we think we're well served if we can oversize the road coming in. It's 2 lanes and 2 lanes out. We have ease of movement so you really minimize congestion. And the cul-de-sac which we think will be...will come off of Century and the majority of people will go up to 5. But...understand traffic will also move, when we did the PUD Coulter was a debate so we have that ability to move east all the way past Galpin, whatever. Eventually, you 'know get back into downtown Chanhassen. And then we exit down on 82nd and eventually we'll have a right-in/right-out when they re-grade Highway 41, but there's really no assurances on that so I'm just kind of giving you ihe context from the planning. I'll take any questions. Blackowiak: Okay, commissioners questions of the applicant? Sacchet: Yeah, one question. It's an interesting comment you just made about, so you're actually weighing the hazardness of some of that bank traffic going through the child care lot versus the traffic going right-in/right-out, and left-in/left-out. Fred Richter: Yeah. When you look at the bank detail plan you kind of see that. And the, I mean traffic's important for everybody and we just want to do what we think is the most efficient and best. We just think, we aren't generating that much traffic counts that this will ever have any real stacking problem, which is the reason we do right-in/right-our's. When you have big shopping centers going onto collector streets, and you've all been there. You know you're pulling out of a big box retail and you stack up... Sacchet: Thank you. Blackowiak: Thanks. LuAnn, question? No? Anyone else questions? Claybaugh: No, they addressed my question. Blackowiak: Rich, go ahead. Slagle: I just have, Fred just one or two. I mentioned to staff, and then also to fellow commissioner that I had some concern about the actual corporate landmark, the corner that's desired for this you know, whatever you want to call it. The entry way to Chanhassen. And by creating these 3 lots if you will we've now reduced the size of the potential of that large, and I'm not saying it's good or bad. I'm just. Fred Richter: It's reality. Slagle: Okay, reality and we are now looking at that. My question is this. And it does dovetail with the traffic. If we do get something on that 26 acres or whatever. Fred Richter: 22.19. Slagle: 22.19. That's left, if you have them going eastbound out of that corporate way, or whatever it's going to be called, and then they hang a left to get to 5, you're suggesting if you Planning Commission Meeting - May 21, 2002 don't approve the right-in/right-out, if you don't, if that doesn't happen, that there will be another intersection or will it just be people taking a chance to take a left or right on their own off the stop sign? Fred Richter: Oh, this won't generate, I don't think there's anything in here that will generate another traffic light. Slagle: Well what I'm thinking though is if the other lot, the 22.19 or whatever it was, if that becomes a development with hundreds of cars that will be going in and out at certain times and most of them I think probably taking a left to get up to 5, my question is, why wouldn't you have, you mentioned the Kindercare. Why wouldn't you have those people come in and out of that corporate way? Fred Richter: Kindercare will. Slagle: No, the US Bank. Why wouldn't you want people going in and out there and then following the traffic pattern like this potential site will. Fred Richter: We just think the bank wants to, would operate as more of a self contained, more oriented to, it's more of a retail function. More spontaneous access to Highway 5 I think is their concerned where the rest of it is more internal. And I think we're getting, I wish I had all my numbers here but this development, I mean you can go look at the big corporation developments and there are a lot of them in the metro area and you don't even know they exist, whether it's General Mills, Cargill, there's no traffic lights. I mean there's traffic counts by shopping center standards are very, much smaller. This is not, in my opinion, a huge traffic issue. But again, I mean I...more detailed traffic study. Slagle: Sure. But I guess I'm interested in your opinion as well. As a US Bank customer, you know if I pulled in there, and I want to take a left to get back to my home up in Longacres, I mean what's the chances of sitting there for a while trying to take a left? As cars are coming out of this and coming up Century, I mean I'm just. Fred Richter: I think the worst condition would be, and I don't know exactly how this would fall out but if you had...there would be a chance at that time, for a short period of time during this stream of traffic, it could be onerous to pulling out. But I think that would be very short and pretty painless compared to the concept. I mean if you go over there now and I've had, and this is just observations, but I've sat here waiting for people to talk about this land. I mean there is virtually no traffic and we already have this thing half filled out. Slagle: Sure. Well I'm also, if I can throw out, I'm also thinking of the Pulte homes. You know coming south and going and doing whatever they're doing and coming back that way. Maybe it's a short cut to the school, to the rec center. Fred Richter: I don't know, Century is only going to be a mile long. It T's into 82nd. It's never been designed as what you would call a collector street to move traffic. Coulter is much more of a collector street. Aanenson: It is designed as a minor collector though. Let's be clear. Slagle: That's what I'm saying, they would go down Century and then make a left on Coulter. Planning Commission Meeting - May 21, 2002 Fred Richter: But they wouldn't because, they could. I mean anything, but they could go north because you've got 2 parallel roads along 5 to move traffic. I think the city's done a very good job. This was an issue, was it 6 years ago Kate? The two parallel, what do you call them? Sidney: Frontage. Aanenson: No, no, no, no. We don't use the word frontage. Access boulevard. Fred Richter: I drove up there today and all the traffic on 5 moves very well on the north access. I mean so. Aanenson: Rich, maybe I can just answer this question, and Matt you can correct me if I'm wrong, but looking at the turning movements, part of the background data as you'v4 indicated, they're going to have to look at what those turn movements are coming out of that intersection. It has to be looked at to say, because that's some of Matt's concern is if you're coming out of the bank and there's a stream of traffic coming out of that cul-de-sac, corporate, is that what you're going to call it? They're going to have to look at that. How long is the wait and if it's going to be a long wait, you're going to take the path of least resistance why you're going to come back down so that will be part of the background data. Looking at those turn movements so that information will go into the equation, because it is a valid point. Slagle: And I didn't preface my comments by saying Fred that too, that as this commission knows I' ye had some interest and some skepticism about traffic studies, to be quite honest with you so. Fred Richter: It's not my specialty so, but I just have a strong gut feel that we're over reacting to a traffic problem that isn't there. Slagle: Okay, fair enough. Fred Richter: And I think, hopefully we're back here within a year or so talking about something on that large site and it can meet city expectation. I don't want to, you know we talk about corporate headquarters and all that and I don't want to, get the expectations up because right now it could be many things and the history on it, there's only...we had a medical campus which physically would have met all the expectations but there were some other issues. Slagle: Sure. Fred Richter: And maybe it'd be a hybrid of that or something. Hopefully, because we've got a good solution but right now it's there as a large piece of land... Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Alright, this item is open for a public hearing. So if anybody would like to speak before the commission on this item, please come to the microphone and state your naine and address for the record. Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing and Uli, I will let you make comments first since I know you have to leave in 5 minutes. Sacchet: I don't have any issues with the subdivision, however I do feel a little uneasy about this traffic thing. I would want, I want to express that for the record. That certainly if the traffic study shows that there is no issue, then there is no issue but I'm a little bit concerned about the safety of that place but I'm willing to pass it through as proposed. 10 Planning Commission Meeting- May 21, 2002 Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Feik: I have concerns as well regarding the right-in/right-out. Converting that to a full access intersection, particularly in light. There's currently no access from Century to 5. It is hard to determine really how much of an impact that intersection and a newer access for all of the corporate residents we have to the south of that. My other concern regarding that is daycare. The prime time of pick-up and drop off of daycare is at the beginning and the end of the day. The same time that people are trying to get to and from work, which is also the worst time to be potentially, and not having the traffic study, crossing Century at that intersection when people are dashing home and/or trying to get back to work so I have some reservations regarding that access. Blackowiak: Okay, thanks. LuAnn. Sidney: I have no problem with the subdivision since it is consistent with the PUD. I guess one comment, and this is more of an opinion about the traffic at this site. At these sites. I guess I agree with Fred in that I think we're making a possibly a bigger deal out of it than it is. I walk Coulter every day practically and I' ve seen traffic fluctuate but it's very sparse actually during the day. And then this is even with people trying to bypass 5 and get out of the construction so I feel fairly confident that the traffic study will come back positive. Blackowiak: Okay, thanks. Comments. Claybaugh: Yeah. I personally feel that there's some areas in Chanhassen that are testament to the fact that there hasn't been enough focus put on traffic. I'm a little uncomfortable. The development as a whole looks fine. And again, like my fellow commissioners I have some concerns about not having a traffic study in front of us, specifically not knowing what assumptions will be made based with that. As Fred stated, they're anticipating a single large corporate user potentially but there could be diced up a number of different ways so, like my fellow commissioners I think it's a good development. I like what's in front of us. I'd just like to state that I'm a little uneasy without having that information in front of us. Lillehaug: I also have comments regarding the same right-in/fight-out access. I do hear your internal traffic concerns, that you don't, that you would rather not have that traffic go back in front of the Kindercare, and that is legitimate. But looking at the current left turn. North, dual left turn lanes going onto Trunk Highway 5. They are dual left turn lanes, and by allowing a left turning car to sit on Century Boulevard and wait for southbound traffic, it does create a safety issue. To allow that left turning movement to the US Bank. And I do feel that this is a safety issue. Regardless of what the traffic counts say, it only takes one car to be sitting there, and then it becomes a safety issue. So I do have concerns with this and...any more comments. Blackowiak: Okay Rich, any comments? Slagle: Same concerns. Comment. I suspect that the traffic study would come back somewhat favorable. I don't think I've seen a traffic study that's come back that's not favorable, and please Fred, don't take that wrong but I've yet to see one that comes back not favorable to an applicant. Here's a question. Would this commission be open, and I took this from Craig's comment. Would this commission be open to tabling this until we have a traffic study? Is there a problem with that? Aanenson: I want to just make two points of clarification. One, we did have a traffic study that came back and that was on the VanDeVeire piece that wanted the curb cut on West 78th, and the 11 Planning Commission Meeting - May 21, 2002 same issue we had was that we wanted that curb cut further away from the intersection of Galpin and so that came back in favor of keeping the curb cut further down. Further to the east. They wanted it closer to the intersection so one did come back in concurrence with our recommendation. Just so you're clear, we took the narrowest interpretation here. What we're doing is leaving the window open for them in good faith to look at that. And I think as Matt has indicated, even though they may come back, the city doesn't have to agree with that position and we'll present, if you want to make a statement of your own when it goes, but we want to give them an opportunity that we're willing to look at that again in good faith so ultimately you can make a recommendation with or without the traffic study or something amended with that but the council will take all that into consideration. Did that make sense? And I guess that's what we're saying to them. We want to give them an opportunity. Obviously it's important to US Bank and we're saying we'll make that another piece of evidence when it goes up to the City Council. Does that make sense? Slagle: Okay. And I guess I would say I'm okay with it with those concerns and just as long as we state those concerns pretty effectively. Blackowiak: Would you be more comfortable if we left condition number 4 as is? Just knowing that there might be further information... Slagle: Yeah, I'd be okay with that. I'd be okay with that. Blackowiak: ...before City Council. Okay. Alrighty. Yeah, and I've got the same traffic concerns I think everyone else has addressed. If indeed there's a traffic study to be done, I would hope it takes into consideration not only the right-in/right-out on the potential US Bank site, but also Century, Highway 5, the cul-de-sac, the lot to the east of Century and also the effect that Pulte is going to have on this because it's, I think it's not just the right-in/right-out we need to look at. We need to look at the whole area and how a potential right-in/right-out or a turning allowance, I don't know how you'd put it, right turn, left turn at that point would affect it. I think one major assumption that's being made here is that the bank is the tenant and I think we need to think about the fact that the bank might not be the tenant, or might not always be the tenant so the question I would ask of my commissioners, fellow commissioners is, if the bank isn't the tenant, do we still want to allow full turning, right-in/right-out and that's I guess a question I don't have an answer to tonight but I would sort of throw that out for everyone just to think about because it might be something else. It might turn into a fast food. I mean I've seen banks in the past turn into fast food restaurants. Highway 7, there's a Taco Belt that used to be a bank and now it's a Taco Bell and I look at that and I see possibilities. It's not always necessarily going to be a bank so for what that's worth. I think traffic is a concern. And I like Matt's statement that you would take it under advisement regardless of the results of the study. And Rich, if you'd be more comfortable leaving it as 4 is, why don't you go ahead and make the motion. Thank you. Slagle: Okay. The Planning Commission reconm-~ends approval of the preliminary plat for Arboretum Business Park 4th Addition, plans prepared by, is it Schoell? Claybaugh: Schoell. Slagle: Schoell and Madson Inc dated April, 2002 subject to the following conditions 1 through 18. And nay 18 on the very bottom is sort of messed up from the copying so I'm assuming that 18 is okay with folks. And I would just leave that as is unless there's some verbiage. Blackowiak: I guess with the understanding that City Council might see a traffic study, okay. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - May 21, 2002 Slagle: Right. Blackowiak: Alright, there's been a motion. Is there a second? Feik: I'll second. Slagle moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Arboretum Business Park 4th Addition, plans prepared by Schoell & Madson, Inc. dated April, 2002, subject to the following conditions: The development shall comply with the Arboretum Business Park Development Design Standards. 2. The developer shall pay trail fees pursuant to city ordinance. o Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign all plans. 4. Revise the easterly side, full access to a right-in/right-out access of Century Boulevard. . The applicant will be required to meet the existing site runoff rates for the 10 year and 100 year, 24 hour storm events. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. , Type II silt fence shall be used. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading will require an easement from the appropriate property owner. Silt fence shall be promptly removed upon completion of construction. . Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the City's Building Department. o Each newly created lot will be subject to City sanitary sewer and water hookup charges at the time of building permit issuance. The 2002 trunk utility hookup charges are $1,383 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,082 per unit for water. o Public utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will also be required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District, Carver County, etc. 10. On the utility plan: · Show all the existing and proposed utility easements. · Revise sheet title to "Preliminary Utility Plan". 13 Planning Commission Meeting- May 21, 2002 · Eliminate the proposed storm sewer north of Lot 1; any stormwater must be treated before discharging into a wetland or pond. · Add 6" gave valve on the watermain going to Lots 2 and 3. · Revise the sanitary sewer along the east side of Lots 1 and 2 to be within the lot property limits. 11. On the grading plan: · Add a note, "All sanitary services shall be 6" PVC SDR 26." · Show the benchmark used for the site survey. · Revise Sheet Title to "Preliminary Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control Plan". · Remove the abandoned portion of the existing RCP 36 inch storm sewer. 12. Cross-access easements for the shared driveway access must be obtained and recorded against the lots. 13. Dedicate Outlot B to the public right-of-way including a cul-de-sac bubble and build the street according to City standards and specifications. 14. Additional fire hydrants will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. 15. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, bushes, shrubs, Qwest, Xcel Energy, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. 16. "No Paring Fire Lane" signs will be determined by the Fire Marshal upon a site plan review of new proposed buildings. 17. When fire protection, including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire protection is required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. Pursuant to 1997 Minnesota Uniform Fire Code Section 901-3. The total SWMP fees are $47,433.00 and are due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. Uli Sacchet left the meeting at this point. 14 ,,I CiTY OF PC DATE: 5121/02 CC DATE: 6/10/02 REVIEW DEADLINE: 6/11/02 CASE #: 92-6 PUD - File 8 STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Request preliminary plat approval to create three lots and two outlots, Arboretum Business Park 4th Addition. .. LOCATION: Southeast comer of Hwy. 5 and 41 APPLICANT: Steiner Development, Inc. 3610 South County Road 101 Wayzata, MN 55391 (952) 473-5650 PRESENT ZONING: PUD, Planned Unit Development (Office/Industrial/Support Commercial) 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Office/Industrial ACREAGE: 26.9 acres DENSITY: Not Applicable SUMMARY OF REQUEST: · The applicant is requesting subdivision approval to create three lots and two outlots. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance. If it meets these standards, the City must approve the preliminary plat. This is a quasi-judicial decision. 1 Coach Court 2 Coach Lane 3 Coach Place 4 Coach Dr 5 Village Street 6 Village Place 7 Century Circle 8 Arboretum Village Trl 9 Arboretum Village Cir W 82nd St. 5 Au1 6 Au1 [umn Ridge Ridge Ridge W Arboretum Business Park 4th May 21, 2002 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The developer is requesting the subdivision of Outlot C, Arboretum Business Park 2nd Addition in to three lots and two outlots. As part of the original preliminary plat, Outlot C was slated to be one large lot of approximately 23 acres and one smaller lot of approximately 4 acres. The smaller of these lots from the preliminary plat is proposed to be subdivided into three lots, rather than one. Hence a new preliminary plat is required since additional lots are being proposed. The plat itself is very straightforward. The proposed lots comply with the minimum standards for industrial lots specified in the city code. The only issues are the limitation to a right-in/fight-out access to Century Boulevard and the need to dedicate a public street where Outlot B of the subdivision is being proposed. Additionally, the applicant will need to dedicate the cul-de-sac bubble at the end of the street and construct the street to city standards. Staff is recommending approval of the preliminary plat, subject to the conditions contained in the report. BACKGROUND December 10, 2001, the city approved an amendment to the Planned Unit Development (PUD #92-6) Development Contract/PUD Agreement for Arboretum Business Park incorporating printing as a light industrial use; pmTnitting indoor recreation/health clubs and recording studios in the existing office- industrial buildings in the project; and prohibiting vocational schools, public buildings (except in Outlots A and B), screened outdoor storage, and food processing. On September 24, 2001, the Chanhassen City Council approved Interim Use Permit #2001-1 to grade a portion of the Arboretum Business Park development and Conditional Use Permit #2001-8 to permit development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District August 13,2001, the city approved the amendment to the Planned Unit Development (PUD #92-6) to permit an Auto Services Center on the "Wrase" property with the stipulation that auto body repair is prohibited on the site, and On July 26, 1999, the Chanhassen City Council approved an amendment to the PUD for Arboretum Business Park to permit a Church facility as an interim use in the building on Lots 3 and 4, Block 2, Arboretum Business Park 2nd Addition. On March 8, 1999, the City Council approved PUD #92-6 granting final plat approval for Arboretum Business Park 3rd Addition creating two lots and fight-of-way for TH 41. On May 11, 1998, the City Council approved Arboretum Business Park 2nd Addition consisting of six lots, one outlot and the right-of-way for Water Tower Place, formerly known as Coulter Boulevard, and a site plan for a 113,600 square feet office-industrial-warehouse buildings (Steiner Building 2). Arboretum Business Park 4th May 21, 2002 Page 3 On July 28, 1997, the City Council approved the following: the ordinance for PUD #92-6 rezoning approximately 154 acres from Agricultural Estate, A2, to Planned Unit Development, PUD, and the PUD #92-6 granting final plat approval for Arboretum Business Park. On June 23, 1997, the City Council approved a Resolution that the AUAR be revised to incorporate the summary of issues and mitigation plan contained in this staff report, that the revisions to the Traffic Study prepared by SRF outlined in the staff report be incorporated into the study, and that the revised AUAR be adopted by the City. On May 27, 1997, the City Council approved the following: Approved the first reading for rezoning the property fi'om Agricultural Estate, A2, to Planned Unit Development, PUD. Approved the preliminary PUD #92-6 for an office/industrial business park and preliminary plat approval for 12 lots, two outlots and associated fight-of-way subject to the plans dated April 4, 1997, revised May 23, 1997,with conditions. The City Council approved Wetland Alteration Permit for Gateway Business Park subject to the conditions of preliminary PUD #92-6 approval. The City Council approved Interim Use Permit #97-i for Gateway West Planned Unit Development site subject to conditions. LANDSCAPING/TREE PRESERVATION Landscaping will be installed with the development of the individual lots. Landscaping along Highways 41 and 5 shall comply with Buffer yard standard C. Coulter Boulevard, Century Boulevard, West 82nd Street, and the proposed local street shall comply with Buffer yard standard B. The master landscape plan for the Arboretum Business Park (formerly Gateway) PUD shall be the design guide for all of the specific site landscape developments. Each lot must present a landscape plan for approval with the site plan review process. PARKS AND OPEN SPACE Arboretum Business Park dedicated sufficient parkland to meet the parkland dedication requirement. However, the developer is responsible for trail fees. As required by ordinance, the developer shall pay trail fees pursuant to city ordinance. GRADING, DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROl, The plans propose to grade about 25% of the site for the three new building pads (Block 1) and a proposed street ending with a cul-de-sac. The current plans propose three lots located in the northeasterly portion of the site will be about 970.00 in elevation. At these elevations, stormwater from buildings and paring lots will drain toward the proposed catch basins and be conveyed via storm sewer Arboretum Business Park 4th May 21, 2002 Page 4 to the existing storm sewer. Prior to final platting, storm sewer design data will need to be submitted for staff review. The applicant will be required to meet the existing site runoff rates for the 10-year and 100-year, 24-hour storm events. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100-year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Staff recommends that Type II silt fence be used along the grading areas. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading will require an easement from the appropriate property owner. UTILITIES Municipal sewer and water service is available to the site from Century Boulevard and from stubs on the south side of the lots. The watermain and municipal sewer lines will be considered public utility lines since they will serve more than one lot. As such, minimum 20-foot wide easements will be required over the public portion of the utility lines. The sanitary sewer lines should run within the development rather than in Century Boulevard. The developer shall revise the sanitary sewer along the east side of Lots 1 and 2 to be within the lot property limits. Since the developer will be responsible for extending lateral sewer and water service to the lots, the sanitary sewer and water connection charges will be waived. However, the sanitary sewer and water hookup charges will still be applicable for each of the new lots. The 2002 trunk hookup charge is $1,383 for sanitary sewer and $1,802 for watermain. Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Upon completion of the utility improvements, the utilities will be turned over to the City for maintenance and ownership. The applicant is also required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will have to be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, MCES, and Watershed District. STREETS No public streets are proposed as part of this 'project. The applicant is proposing full access to the site from both the future road on Outlot B and from Century Boulevard. Staff is concerned about the Century Boulevard access point being less than 600 feet from Trunk Highway 5. Staff recommends a right-in/right-out access east of the lots onto Century Boulevard. Also, the applicant shall dedicate Outlot B as public right-of-way and build a street according to City standards and specifications including the cul-de-sac bubble. As the two accesses will service the three lots, cross-access easements will need to be obtained and recorded against the lots. Arboretum Business Park 4th May 21, 2002 Page 5 SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP) Water Quality Fees Because of the impervious surface associated with this development, the water quality fees for this proposed development are based on office/industrial development rates of $4,633/acre. Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based,on an average citywide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels, and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Office/industrial developments have a connection charge of $4,360 per developable acre. SWMP Credits The stom~ water ponding for the proposed project was completed with Phase I of the PUD. At that time, SWMP fees were calculated for the entire development and water quality credit was given for the construction of NURP ponds, the provision of outlet control structures and pipe oversizing. SWMP fees totaled $1,006,227.00, with credits covering $532,606.00 of that total. In most cases, credits are applied to the water quality portion of the fees, with the applicant paying the water quantity fees up front. In this case, the credits were applied to both water quality and water quantity fees for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Additions of Arboretum Business Park. This means that neither water quality nor water quantity fees were paid with these three additions. Consequently, the fee per acre for the remaining developable land must increase to cover the water quantity, fees for existing lots that used water quality credits. A summary is included below. Quality Quantity TOTAL Credits Applied PUD Total 518,386.00 487,840.00 1,006,226.00 532,606.00 1 st Addition 46,423.00 43,687.00 90,110.00 90,110.00 2nd Addition 134,542.00 126,614.00 261,156.00 261,157.00 3rd Addition 22,146.00 20,841.00 42,987.00 42,987.00 Remaining 315,275.00 296,698.00 611,973.00 138,352.00 Remaining SWMP Fees Remaining Credit 611,973.00 138,352.00 TOTAL DUE $ 473,621.00 TOTAL DUE Acres Remaining ~I'otal Assessment per Acre $ 473,621.00 46.93 $ 10,092.071 Arboretum Business Park 4th May 21, 2002 Page 6 For the current development of 4.7 acres, the estimated total SWMP fees are $47,433.00. These fees are due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording. COMPLIANCE TABLE Code Lot Area (sq. ft.) 43,560 Lot 1 46,635 Lot 2 49,836 Lot 3 78,963 Outlot A 966,701 Outlot B (local street) 29,492 Total 1,171,627' Frontage (ft.) 150 Depth (ft.) 200 169.6 235.21 166.44 228.9 173.0 440.55 (26.897 acres) SUBDIVISION FINDINGS 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the IOP, industrial Office Park District. . 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. o 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 specified in this report. , 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. 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause significant environmental damage. 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. Arboretum Business Park 4th May 21, 2002 Page 7 7~ The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: Lack of adequate storm water drainage. Lack of adequate roads. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. Finding: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban infrastructure. RECOMS/IENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Arboretum Business Park 4th Addition, plans prepared by Schoell & Madson, Inc. dated April 2002, subject to the following conditions' , . , . . , . The development shall comply with the Arboretum Business Park Development Design Standards. The developer shall pay trail fees pursuant to city ordinance Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign all plans. Revise the easterly side, full access to a right-in/right-out access of Century Boulevard. The applicant will be required to meet the existing site runoff rates for the 10-year and 100-year, 24-hour storm events. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Type H silt fence shall be used. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading will require an easement from the appropriate property owner. Silt fence shall be promptly removed upon completion of construction. Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the City's Building Department. Each newly created lot will be subject to City sanitary sewer and water hookup charges at the time of building permit issuance. The 2002 trunk utility hookup charges are $1,383 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,802 per unit for water. Public utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest editions of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and Arboretum Business Park 4th May 21, 2002 Page 8 specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will also be required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District, Carver County, etc. 10. On the utility plan: · Show all the existing and proposed utility easements. · Revise sheet title to "Preliminary Utility Plan". · Eliminate the proposed storm sewer north of Lot 1; any stormwater must be treated before discharging into a wetland or pond. · Add 6" gave valve on the watermain going to Lots 2 and 3. · Revise the sanitary sewer along the east side of Lots 1 and 2 to be within the lot property limits. 11. On the grading plan: · Add a note, "All sanitary services shall be 6" PVC SDR26." Show the benchmark used for the site survey. · Revise Sheet Title to "Preliminary Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control Plan". · Remove the abandoned portion of the existing RCP 36 inch storm sewer. 12. Cross-access easements for the shared driveway access must be obtained and recorded against the lots. 13. Dedicate Outlot B to the public as right-of-way including a cul-de-sac bubble and build the street according to City standards and specifications. 14. Additional fire hydrants will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. 15. A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, bushes, shrubs, Qwest, Xcel Energy, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. 16. 'No parking fire lane' signs will be determined by the fire marshal upon a site plan review of new proposed buildings. 17. When fire protection, including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire protection is required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. Pursuant to 1997 Minnesota Uniform Fire Code Section 901-3. 18. The total SWMP fees are $47,433.00 and are due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording. Arboretum Business Park 4th May 21, 2002 Page 9 ATTACHMENTS' . 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Findings of Face and Recommendation Development Review Application Reduced Copy Plat Reduced Copy Preliminary Plat Reduced Copy Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control Plan Reduced Copy Utility Plan Memo From Steve Torell to Bob Generous dated 5/14/02 Public Heating Notice and Mailing List Arboretum Business Park 4th May 21, 2002 Page 10 IN RE: CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION Application of Steiner Development, Inc. for Subdivision approval for Arboretum Business Park 4th Addition. On May 21, 2002, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly schedule meeting to consider the application of Steiner Development, Inc. for preliminary plat approval of property. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed subdivision, which was preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Planned Unit Development, office industrial park. 2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Office/Industrial land uses. 3. The legal description of the property is: Outlot C, Arboretum Business Park 2nd Addition. 4. The Subdivision Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider seven possible adverse affects of the proposed subdivision. The seven (7) affects and our findings regarding them are: (1) The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; (2) The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's 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 sto1Tn water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; (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; Arboretum Business Park 4th May 21, 2002 Page 11 (5) The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; (6) The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements .of record; and (7) The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: ao Lack of adequate storm water drainage. Lack of adequate roads. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. o The planning report #92-6 PUD file 8 dated May 21, 2002, 2002, prepared by Robert Generous, et al, is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION Plat. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Preliminary ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 21st day of May, 2002. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION BY: Its Chairman ATTEST: Secretary 04/12/02 04/09/02 14'54 08-35 FAX FAX 9524737058 612 937 S739 STEINER DEVELOP~IENT INC. CITY OF CRAN-IIAsSEN 002 ~ 002 '. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN~ MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION --. r, _r · , Cnmprehensive Plan Amendment __ Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements Interim Use Permit Variance Non-conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unft Development* __Zoning Appeal RezonJng Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review' Notification Sign I .__X Escrow for Filing Fees/A~torney Cost** ($50 OUPISPR/VACNAR/WAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) TOTAL. FEE $_ ~'"'.~_4~._~ A list o! all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries o[ the property must be Included with the application. ~lui]ding material samples must be submltte~f with site plan reviews. 'Twenty-six full size folded cop[es of the plans must be submitted, Including an 8W' X 11" reduced copy e~, ~-~--:~ ~---~g.:., for each plan sheet. *' Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. ~./D9/02 08:,38 FAX 6.1.2 937 ,~?~g ~NER DEVELOPItENT INC, CITY OF CHAN~ASSEN ~003 W~-TLANDS PRESENT YES ~ NO PFLE. SEN-T ,ZONING F~IEDU~: STE~ ZONING PFLES~NT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION ~.EA$©N FOR: THIS REQUEST -This ~.pplication must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all inform,~tion and pla. ns required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Dep~er~ to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requiremet~ts applicable to, your application. 'A dmermlna'tion of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A wriRen ~adce of application deficiencies shall be mailed te the applicant within ten business days of application. -Thl~ ~s ~ cer'dfy that ! am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying wi:h ~11 City requirements with regard to this request. This applicat, ion should be processed in my name and I am [he party whom · me City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof or 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 s~gned this application_ i w~qt keep myself informed or the deadlines far submission of material and the progress of this application. I fur;her 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 ~y kmowJedge. , 'The u. ity hereby notifies the applicant that develdpment review cannot he campleted within 60 days due to public hearing Tequirement$ and agency review, Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automalic 60 day extension far development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review ext~nsJon, s are approved by the applicant. · Dap . / Applica.lion ~;eueived on "__~k i, )~'2-- Fee Paid ~ Pi~';' Receipt No, ']'he ~ppT~c-a~t should contact staff f~r a copy of the st~ff report wNich will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. not ¢on/~ed, ~ copy of ~h~ r~p~d will ~e m~iled to the applicant's ;. I :.1.: IIIIII I I / \ / \1 (T'I, ,_ I I / I I AUI'kLI~O / ,/ · I /, // /'/. / / ! ! ., , LLI __ MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Bob Generous, Senior Planner Steven Torell, Building Official DATE: May 14, 2002 SUB J: Review of preliminary plat for Arboretum Business Park 4"' Addition. Planning Case: 92-6 PUD File 8 I have reviewed the plans for the above plat dated: April 12, 2002. I have no comments at this time. G/safety/st/memos/plan/Arboremm 4th Addition NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, MAY 21,2002 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7700 MARKET BLVD. PROPOSAL' Arboretum Business Park 4th Addition APPLICANT' LOCATION' steiner Development SE Corner of Hwy. 5 & 41 NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Steiner Development, is requesting preliminary plat approval to create three lots and two outlots on 26.9 acres zoned Planned Unit Development and located at the southeast corner of Hwy. 5 and 41, ,Arboretum Business Park 4th Addition. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. Questions and 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 227-1131. 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 May 9, 2002. 1 Coach Court 2 Coach Lane 3 Coach Place 4 Coach Dr 5 Village Street 6 Village Place 7 Century Circle 8 Arboretum Village Td 9 Arboretum Village Cir Ridge Ct 5AutJmn Ridge Ln 6 Aut~ imn Ridge Way Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160® .~ENTS OF UNIV OF MINNESOTA CHASKA GATEWAY PARTNERS REAL ESTATE OFFICE 3610 CO RD 10k.....---~'''~ 15TH AVE SE 424 DON HOWE BLD WAYZ,~T4~'~ MN 55391 ~rNEAPOLIS MN 55455 3ENTS OF UNIV OF MINNESOTA REAL ESTATE OFFICE 15TH AVE SE 424 DON HOWE BLD qNEAPOLIS MN 55455 3ENTS OF UNIV OF MINNESOTA REAL ESTAT. F__OFFICE  424 DON HOWE BLD MN 55455 Y OF CHANHASSEN BRUCE DEJONG PO BOX 147 MN 55317 GATEWAY 'PARTNERS CO RD 101 !YZATA MN 55391 iSKA GATEWAY PARTNERS CO RD 101." MN 55391 N ACQUISITIONS LLC WASHINGTON MA 02339 !TURY 2000 PARTNERS LLP SOUTH I-BYY 1 MN 55391 PARTNERS LLC PO BOX 265 MN 55387 ©RETUM III REALTY PTRS LLP CO RD 101 MN 55391