The URL can be used to link to this page

3d. Site Plan Reivew Hidden Valley Center, New American Homes Corp II ‘ , CITY OF _____ ....., et , II : CHANHASSEN , „ il \ , , N; -- 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM IITO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Barbara Dacy, City Planner�� IDATE: August 19, 1988 II SUBJ: Site Plan Review for a 40,000 Square Foot Shopping Center New American Homes, Applicant The applicant has revised the plans to conform to the staff recommendations con- ' tained in the July 6, 1988, staff report. Given the recommendation from the previous item on the agenda not to authorize condemnation, the following motion is recommended for City Council adoption. IIThe City Attorney is preparing a letter of understanding with the applicant regarding the location of the building on the lot. As now proposed the building I faces Lake Drive East. Road alignment alternatives for TH 101 may create an alignment west of the property which would mean the building is facing the oppo- site direction. The City Attorney will be present Monday evening to advise the Council as to whether this should be a condition of approval. IRECOMMENDATION 1 It is recommended that the City Council approve Site Plan Request #88-6 for a 40,000 square foot shopping center based on the plan stamped "Received August 19, 1988" and subject to the following conditions: II 1. Compliance with the City Engineer's recommendations contained in his August 17, 1988, memorandum. I 2. Compliance with the recommendations of the Fire Inspector as contained in the memo of June 9, 1988. IATTACHMENTS 1. Memo from Larry Brown dated August 17, 1988. 2. Memo from Larry Brown dated July 1, 1988. I 3. Planning Commission minutes dated August 3, 1988. 4. Letter from Roger Knutson dated August 15, 1988. 5. Letter from John Cairns dated August 12, 1988. II 6. Memo from Barbara Dacy dated August 1, 1988. 7. Letter from Roger Knutson dated July 21, 1988. 8. Letter from Roger Knutson dated July 20, 1988. I 9. Letter from John Cairns dated July 7, 1988. 10. Staff report dated July 6, 1988. 11. Plan stamped "Received August 19, 1988". 20 II I {y CITYOF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager �- 1 , A FROM: Larry Brown, Staff Engineer ( I DATE: August 17, 1988 SUBJ: Site Plan Review for the Kerr/Chanhassen Shopping Mall 1 Lot 6 , Block 1 of the Hidden Valley Subdivision New American Homes File No. 88-6 Site Plan On August 3 , 1988 the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment #88-5 which identified the "North Leg" option as the primary preferred route for the Trunk Highway 101 realignment and that the "South Leg" option would be considered if the "North Leg" option was not approved by MnDOT. Based on the complexity of the issues yet to be resolved for the realignment of Trunk Highway 101 , staff is still recommending that this site plan be tabled until ALL the issues for the realignment of Trunk Highway 101 may be properly addressed. If the Council approves the site plan, it is recommended that the following conditions be instated: 1. The applicant shall submit to the City Engineer for approval calculations which verify that adequate pressure flow con- ditions will be available to the site which would support the building sprinkler demand along with the demand required by the fire department. 2 . The site plan shall be revised to include an additional 1 access from the southwest corner of the site onto Lake Drive East. This access shall be of adequate width to support two- way traffic. 1 3. An erosion control plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to the commencement of any construction or grading. Attachment: Staff Report Dated July 1 , 1988. 1 11 1 CITY OF ssEN c 7 car\\I . 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 1 K. (612) 937-1900 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission 1 FROM: Larry Brown, Staff Engineer "e",":;;) 1 DATE: July 1 , 1988 SUBJ: Preliminary Site Plan Review for the Kerr/Chanhassen Lot 6 , Block 1 of the Hidden Valley Subdivision New American Homes ' This site is located immediately west of the intersection of Lake Drive East and Hidden Court . The 4. 86 acre parcel is comprised of a rolling open field with little or no vegetation. 1 Sanitary Sewer Municipal sanitary sewer is available to the site by an existing 1 8-inch sanitary sewer main which has been extended from Hidden Court underneath Lake Drive East. 1 Watermain Municipal water service is also available to the site from the 12-inch diameter main located down at the southwest corner of the 1 subject parcel. Calculations which verify that adequate pressure and flow conditions exist to handle the maximum demand that would be necessary from the building sprinkling system and fire depart- ' ment demand should be submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to final site plan approval. The watermain from Hidden Court to the southwest corner of the 1 subject parcel should be looped. This will be analyzed as part of the final site plan review. Access The existing plan shows only one singular access to the site . It 1 is recommended that another access be considered down at the southwest corner of the site onto Lake Drive East. This addi- tional access would enhance traffic flow patterns as well as pro- vide additional access for emergency services. 1 1 Planning Commission July 1 , 1988 Page 2 The access that has been provided along the north and west sides of the building will not accommodate a semi-trailer vehicle. It is recommended that the building be adjusted such that these vehicles can be accommodated to facilitate the anticipated deli- very traffic. The concept plan for the realignment of Trunk Highway 101 at this 1 time suggests that the realigned section of Highway 101 will run directly through the middle of this parcel and connect up to Lake Drive East in the proximity of the southwest corner. At this time, staff is investigating the feasibility of the realignment of Trunk Highway 101 with MnDOT. This is a complex issue which has been accelerated due to the recent construction plans pre- sently under design by MnDOT for Highway 5 . At this point in time, however , we are unable to answer these access questions until MnDOT and the City further evaluate the traffic impacts and funding scenario. Grading and Erosion Control The majority of the site will be flattened out to create the parking lot and proposed building pad. The current plan does not address erosion control. A revised plan showing all erosion control measures should be submitted for approval by the City Engineer prior to final site plan review. Drainage The proposed grading plan will direct drainage down to the south- ' west corner of the property where an existing 21-inch storm sewer pipe exists for this site. This site was accounted for in the hydraulic calcuations for the Hidden Valley Subdivision such that the predeveloped runoff rate for the entire subdivision could be maintained. In light of the questions that need to be answered for the ' realignment of Trunk Highway 101 which would traverse this entire parcel , it is recommended that this item be tabled such that the outstanding questions for the realignment of Highway 101 may be addressed properly. Recommendation 1. It is recommended that this item be tabled until MnDOT and the City resolve the Trunk Highway 101/Trunk Highway 5 interchange issue. I II ' Planning Commission Meeting 1 August 3 , 1988 - Page 28 ' C Conrad : They just might . They just might . It ' s not precluded that they won' t. What is precluded is that if they accept the north option, you don ' t have TH 5 coming to Chanhassen for 2 years . ' Larry Guthrie: I 'm saying, back to something he said, the reason for the delay for 2 years was that the consultant' s who planned the TH 5 ' intersection would take probably a year to incorporate this extra lane in. Why couldn ' t our consultants do that plan and turn it over to them upon being accepted? The same as they do for across the intersection. ' Fred Hoisington : It' s a different situation for this reason. When we' re dealing with TH 101 we' re dealing with different alignments. It is a State trunk highway alignment but at least it ' s not part of only MnDot ' design at that point in time. They will not relinquish that to our consultants . Their consultants will do that on their . . . all the additional right-of-way as a part of that. Barton Ashman will need 2 ' years to . . . Emmings moved , Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend ' approval of the Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment #88-5 as presented in Attachment #1 with a change that would identify the north leg option as the primary preferred route for TH 101 and identifying the proposed plan as a secondary option in the event that the north leg option is not I approved by MnDot. All voted in favor except Wildermuth and Headla who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2. Conrad: The reason for opposition Jim? ' Wildermuth : I don ' t think the north leg is viable. I think there have to be other solutions other than the south leg or the current proposal . I don ' t think it makes any sense , I think it ' s poor planning to look at ' routing minor arterial traffic for 1, 000 feet of a very busy state highway. Headla : I think the north route is very poor planning in a long range • term. . . .come 2005 we ' ll have the south route and . . .decision . Conrad : Okay, this item goes to City Council on August 22nd . I thank you ' all for showing up tonight. PUBLIC HEARING: ' CONSIDER ADOPTION OF OFFICIAL MAP FOR THE REALIGNMENT OF TH 101 ACROSS TH 5, CITY OF CHANHASSEN. Public Present : ' Name Address Mark Senn 7800 Park Drive ' Rome Roos 1450 Park Court I Planning Commission Meeting August 3, 1988 - Page 29 ' Don T. Smith 8012 Erie Mike Wittrock 8022 Dakota Avenue Drew & Melanie Wright 320 Sinnen Circle Gene Heikkinen 301 Sinnen Circle Greg Gmiterko 8121 Hidden Court Grace Johnson 3143 Marsh Drive Jack Atkins 220 West 78th Street Gary Disch 8170 Marsh Drive Bill Streepy 321 Sinnen Circle Elizabeth Kersch 271 Hidden Lane Jeff & Holly Peters 8120 Hidden Court Bruce & Cindy Marengo 8150 Marsh Drive Sharon Loeckler 8028 Erie Avenue Tom Lehmann 330 Sinnen Circle Larry Guthrie 520 3500 West 80th, Bloomington Jim Lewis 8133 Dakota Lane Jan Coey Taco Shop Janine Ringdahl 8032 Erie Avenue Bill Davis Minnetonka Ivan C. Johnson 7910 Dakota Drive Jeffery Cook 1800 Meritor Tower Gene Borg 90 Lake Drive East Ulrico Sacchet 8071 Hidden Circle Brad Johnson 7425 Frontier Trail Conrad: Barbara, we don ' t need any staff report on that . Dacy: Based on your previous motion, when you make the motion to adopt the official map, you should identify both the north leg and the south leg . Conrad : Technically, should I open this up for public comment? Okay. We will open it up for public comments . Relatively it' s the same item we just talked about . We just have a different step that we have to go through. Is there any comments relative to the mapping process? Larry Guthrie : I have a question , the comments that were made. . . in the crosstown comments . Is the north leg option supposed to be utilized , would there not be a signal at the north leg? Elison: Yes . ' Larry Guthrie : So traffic from TH 101 would not have to merge. They would just have to wait at the stop light and then they could immediate get over to the left lane. Conrad: It can be solved that way. Uli Sacchet : I certainly want to take the opportunity to express that I believe it is absolutely mandatory from the viewpoint of the people that live down there that two options are both fairly accurate. Certainly the north leg option has an equal value alternative to what' s currently Planning Commission Meeting ' August 3 , 1988 - Page 30 ' proposed . Also, I 'd like to ask a question. It has to be considered what would happen at the intersection of Great Plains Blvd. where the east leg ' comes into it if the current proposal would go through. Fred Hoisington: You ' re talking about Lake Drive East west of TH 101? ' Uli Sacchet : Correct . It' s basically a "T" intersection at this point which to me seems a very undesirable situation which would be an additional point for the north leg option the way I feel . Fred Hoisington: As I ' ve indicated in the past, I hate to keep putting things off on the feasibility study but that ' s what it' s for is to deal with design problems such as that and to try to determine what the costs are and so forth so that will be answered . I ' ll say again, if it is not. . .but it is viable solution that can be engineered. Conrad : The north route, and I ' ve always been concerned about realignment of TH 101 because I want to make it easy access to downtown. I 've always been, I think those of you have been here , I 've always been concerned that ' some of our routing is taking the highway too far away from downtown. I want to make sure that people who are close have an option to use our downtown services. There is that little added benefit in the north route where we haven ' t routed people all the far . We haven ' t routed them additional distances away from making that alternative choise of going to downtown and visiting some of our businesses which I think is important . Just as a footnote, I think that the north route does do that a little bit ' better . Any other comments? Mark Eidem: From what I 'm hearing is , what we ' re coming up with here is a short term solution to a long term problem. The big issue here is whether ' or not it ' s going to cost 3 years of construction time and whether or not TH 5 is done. I guess what I 'd like to say is , why not wait to make the right decision and do it right in 2 years . It ' s not that much of a wait ' to do it right and do a long term decision. Conrad : Yes , and that ' s what we like to do on Planning Commission . We like to plan. We like information. If we do our job right, that' s what we ' re doing . There are some other issues that are out there that we haven ' t talked about but there are other issues. This may be our only opportunity to do something that ' s kind of good planning . Obviously, from ' your standpoint it ' s not but from the residential neighborhoods in Chanhassen , this may be the opportunity to do the good planning . I think the folks over here who voted against the motion, they' re probably right. ' Probably the better plan is the south route but in my mine, I don ' t know that we gain a whole lot from it. I don' t know that we gain much and I really want to pursue some other neutral solution to the problem at this point . I just don ' t see a real long term benefit any particular direction ' on this one. TH 101 is just a real problem. It may never be solved and it' s one of those things you can study it to death and never come up with 7 a perfect solution and that' s what I 'm afriad of. As we study it to I death, we may lose the ability to solve the biggest problem Chanhassen has based on what everybody tells us every other week when we ' re here at the Planning Commission Meeting August 3 , 1988 - Page 31 Planning Commission. So anyway, I hear your point and it' s not that we' re ignoring that. Conceptually we've got to agree with you. Any other comments? Resident : I 'd just like to point out if I could make this document a part of the public record. Conrad : Sure. Just deliver them to Barb Dacy here and she can do that. Mark Eidem: Is this normal procedure where you approve something like this with so many. . . Conrad: Maybe not . Mark Eidem: With something of this importance , how can you approve? Conrad: We' re approving some concepts . Actually I ' ll take it back. We do that and when we see new developments coming into Chanhassen, we ask for sketch plans. We like to see concepts before we get into some details . In this particular case , I think it' s prudent to approve some of ' these things right now so we have the alternatives because if we don' t approve them right now, these alternatives may vanish . From a planning standpoint, yes , maybe we should have more data but from being real wise about it , we are protecting more of our options right now and that ' s what' s important. At least that' s what' s important to me and maybe some of the members on the Planning Commission tonight . We' re asking staff and consultants to find more information. We' re also being forced into this a little bit prior to when we would prefer to be looking at the issue but we see the benefits are there. From a city standpoint, we' ve got to take a look and we' ve got to make sure we' re not going to be forced out of having some of these highway access problems solved for the entire city of Chanhassen . We have to make sure that the rest of the community is aware that if we change this to a north route, the rest of the City is going to be missing a section of TH 5 for a couple years . They may not be pleased to hear that but anyway, tonight we' re reserving some options. We don' t have all the data in . We' re asking our consultants to get us more data and we haven' t precluded some things also. Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Erhart moved , Ellson seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Erhart moved , Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to approve the adoption of the Official Map for the realignment of the two routes as proposed in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to amend the Transportation Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan of TH 101 across TH 5. The official map shall be prepared by BRW in time for City Council consideration on August 22 , 1988. All voted in favor and the motion carried . I , Planning Commission Meeting ' August 3 , 1988 - Page 32 ' SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 40, 000 SQUARE FOOT SHOPPING CENTER ON 4. 86 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED BN, NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LAKE DRIVE EAST, JUST EAST OF Q-SUPERETTE, HIDDEN VALLEY CENTER. ' Dacy: Given the Commission' s previous action on the first two items, the City Attorney has made a recommendation as to a motion that the Commission should adopt. The motion would be to recommend denial to the City Council because the location of the shopping center would be within the proposed official map. Headla : Since there are alternatives , are we better off tabling it? ' Dacy: A motion to table is an option but the Chairman may want to pose that question to the applicant . I really think it ' s P Y going to be up to the ' applicant as to, well , maybe I should put it this way. The applicant is aware of all the options . He has seen the language in the recommendation to pursue the north leg option. He may still want to "take his chances" and pursue his application . . . ' Conrad : I think tabling keeps it away from the City Council and I don ' t know that that' s the right thing to do either. Yet on the other hand I think staff has made some comments on the plan and the applicant has not ,' incorporate those comments into the plan so I would feel well justified in tabling the site plan until I saw the plan . Things like the two accesses ' on the site plan. I don' t feel the applicant has considered what we talked about the last time when we were here . There were some recommendations that we made during the sketch plan or whatever we had and I still don ' t see that incorporated into the plan. I typically like a ' plan going to City Council . The one that we see is the one I want them to get and I don ' t see any plans . I don' t see any of those modifications made on the plan that we got tonight . There' s another option. We can ' table it until we get those changes . We could turn it down. We could approve it. We could do anytning the Planning Commission so desires but I think there ' s some rationale for tabling it for reasons other than the ' location and the previous two items . Tim, what ' s . . . Erhart: I 'm for denying it . I think it ' s more consistent with our previous action here tonight and basically make a decision to remap it which does not allow this proposal to work. I guess I wouldn ' t mind asking the applicant what he wants to do but. . . ' Conrad : I 'm sure they want to proceed . There' s no doubt about it but why don ' t you take the floor , being that you brought it up Tim, I ' ll let him talk to us . ' John Cairns : I 'm John Cairns , 4150 Multifoods Tower , counsel to the developer. We prefer to see the matter go to the Council . We don' t think there ' s a technical grounds for denial but you ' re the commission and we' re not and I don' t mean to stand up there and argue with you about the technical grounds. You see the staff report . For your information, we II Planning Commission Meeting August 3 , 1988 - Page 33 ' would consider denial in effect a condemnation of the property. Because I of the potentially your raising of the second alternative, the north leg is , of course , fine with us because a lot of it has to do with what the property here can do so I think that is helpful and I think the Council ought to be the place where we decide whether or not they want to in effect condemn the property by not doing what we thing the ordinance requires them to do so we prefer to see you send it ahead and if it' s on a I denial basis , that' s the way we will see it go to Council . Erhart : Yes , except the northern route still has the east Lake Drive I alteration. Could have even if we did do the northern route wouldn' t it? Dacy: I 'm not sure I know what you' re referring to . Erhart: If we had the north leg option, you still have to put in an intersection where we ' re proposing and you'd still be putting , still be making a change, to Lake Drive East which would cut across this property. Either way it significantly affects your property. John Cairns: No, I don' t think that' s right . Dacy: The north leg option would not have Lake Drive East crossing this property. John Cairns : As I understand the north leg option, the south side of the II highway stays as it is and the north side has a new intersection. Our property stays intact there that ' s why I 'm saying , we think the ordinance I compels the issue for approval of the site plan because we ' re technically complying and the effect of saying that there ' s a secondary option that may prevent that is in effect saying we can' t use our property and we view it as condemnation of the property. That ' s really the City Council ' s decision, not the Planning Commission decision that' s why we urge you to send it forward and we' ll argue it out there. Dacy: Dakota Avenue will still be closed off. There would be no change to Lake Drive East in the area the applicant is proposing . Erhart: Okay, I didn' t understand that . ' Emmings : I agree with Tim. I just think we should do something that' s clear cut and be consistent with what we' ve already done. Ellson : If we deny this , can they come back if the north leg option is approved? I guess that confuses me. If it all goes through and the north II leg option is the way to go and we ' ve already said , no , you can ' t have a shopping center there, then they can' t? And it goes to the City Council and they also do the same thing , does that mean they can' t or can they come back? Dacy: They do have the option to reapply. Ellson: Okay, then I would go along with you. I ' Planning Commission Meeting ' August 3 , 1988 - Page 34 Wildermuth : I agree with what ' s been said . Headla: Denial is consistent . Conrad : I don ' t have anything new to add . Ellson moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend ' denial of the Hidden Valley Center Site Plan because it conflicts with the proposed Official Map for the relaignment of TH 101. All voted in favor and the motion carried . PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO PERMIT GAS PUMPS ON PROPERTY ZONED BN, ' NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HWY 7 AND HWY 41, SUPERAMERICA. ' Public Present : Name Address Betty Lang 2631 Forest Avenue Allen Putnam 6285 Chaska Road Bob Wagner 2511 Orchard Lane ' Gene Conner Roman Mueller 2521 Orchard Lane SuperAmerica Bud SuperAmerica Randy Peterson Real Estate Agent for Applicant Roger Zahn HSZ Sandy ' Jo Ann Olsen and Larry Brown presented the staff report on this item and the Site Plan Review. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . Allen Putnam: I live at 6285 Chaska Road which is just to the east of the proposed site . That just off of the street I live on, TH 41 where the ' traffic has been getting worse there more and more. I believe that gas pumps located on this site , and this site has been brought before this body in the past. Traffic was a major concern for this particular site ' and by putting a 12 outlet gas station there, even any gas station there would significant increase the traffic turning off TH 7 onto TH 41 to come into that area . It would increase the traffic on TH 41. There are six gas stations within a mile of that location currently in the Excelsior area . Three of them located right on TH 7. Because of that, I would ask that this body deny the motion to put gas pumps at this location. l Betty Lang : I live 2631 Forest Avenue and I thought this was all cut and dry before when you talked about this cute little shopping center that was 1 LAW OFFICES IGRANNIS, GRANNIS, 1'ARRLL &L KNUTSON DAVID 1.. GRANNIS- 1874-1961 PROFESSIONAL.ASSOCIATION TELECOPIER. DAVID L. GRANNIS,JR. - 1910-1980 Posr OFFIcE Box 57 (612) 455-2359 VANCE B. GRANNIS 403 NOR WEST BANK BUILDING DAVID L. 11ARMEYER VANCE B. GRANNIS,JR. 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE ELLIOTT B. KNETSCH PATRICK A. FARRELL MICHAEL J. MAYER DAVID L. GRANNIS, III SOUTH ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075 TIMOTHY J. BERG I ROGER N KNUTSON TELEPHONE(612)455-1661 August 15, 1988 I Mr. Don Ashworth I Chanhassen City Hall 690 Coulter Drive, Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 I RE: Hidden Valley Center Dear Don: I Enclosed for your information please find copy of corre- I spondence received from Attorney Cairns concerning the above matter. Very truly urs, I GR'a NNI RANNIS FARRELL --- piiis.tITSON P I : i; Qcfer N. Knutson RNK:srn /13 I Enclosure cc: arb Dacy I I I I I I AUa1. f, 1988 CITY.OF CHANhAS5E1'► I C CURTIN, MAHONEY, CAIRNS & WALLING A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW RICHARD T CURTIN 4)50 MULTIFOODS TOWER OF COUNSEL MICHAEL C MAHONEY MINNEAPOLIS CITY CENTER JOHN A. CAIRNS MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 EDWARD C.ANDERSON ' WRIGHT S. WALLING 1"E LECO PIER(612) 339 6962 PAUL G GUTTERMAN SUSAN L. NEUMEYER TELEX 291163 JOHN G HORNER DOUGLAS J CARNEY TELEPHONE(6121 333-5411 ALVIN H GANDAL• DONNA E. HANEERY •ADMITTED IN DC AND OHIO MICHAEL W SCHLEY SECOND FLOOR JEFFREY C ROBBINS NANCY ZALDSKY BERG 818 CONNECTICUT AVENUE N W WASHINGTON, D C 20006 TELECOPIER(202) 296 8709 DAVID J STEINGART TELEPHONE(202) 887 0716 STEVEN J DZURAK ' RANDY L. DECKER JODY O. DESMIDT REPLY TO Minneapolis August 12 , 1988 Roger N. Knutson, Esq. ' Grannis, Grannis, Farrell & Knutson, P.A. P. O. Box 57 409 Norwest Bank Building 161 North Concord Exchange South St. Paul, Minnesota 55075 Dear Mr. Knutson: ' HIDDEN VALLEY CENTER OUR FILE NO. 2878-001 ' On August 3 , 1988 , the Chanhassen Planning Commission considered the above-entitled matter. Prior to considering the matter, it agreed to recommend that the City Council revise the City' s ' transportation component of its Comprehensive Plan to reflect two alternatives for the southerly extension of Highway 101 across Highway 5 . The preferred alternative extension (namely, a "T" ' intersection of 101 and the north edge of Highway 5 , called the "North leg" ) would not affect our property adversely; the less preferred alternative (extending 101 across Highway 5 through to Lake Drive East) would, in effect, constitute a total condemnation of our property. Having recommended amendment of the Comprehensive Plan and the ' transportation component, the Planning Commission then went on to consider our Site Plan Review Application. Notwithstanding a staff report indicating conformity in all respects with the requirements of the Site Plan Review Ordinance, the Planning Commission voted to deny the Application and to forward the matter on to the City Council for consideration. The stated premise for the denial was the "potential" conflict that the development might have in respect of the less preferred, and yet B101KERR29JACbk0812882 1 Roger N. Knutson, Esq. City Attorney, City of Chanhassen August 12 , 1988 Page 2 1 to be confirmed, alternative for the southerl y extension of Highway 101 . In addition, comments by Planning Commission members indicated that the Application might, because of the previous action amending the comprehensive plan and transportation component, result in the development being in conflict with the City' s Comprehensive Plan. It was further acknowledged by Commission members that the theoretical conflict with the Comprehensive Plan was not withstanding that the zoning permitted the use and the Site Plan met the Code requirements in all respects . Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance Section 3-6-1 , et seq. , describes site plan review procedures, as you know. In reviewing Sections 3-6-1 through 3-6-4 , it appears to us that the ordinance is devoid of any requirement that the site plan conform with the City' s Comprehensive Plan. That, of course, is expected since the site plan review ordinance goes into the technical details of the particular siting and arrangement of the project on a properly zoned parcel. There is no requirement that the project comport with any of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Chanhassen, let alone one adopted after the application has been made for the Site Plan Review and after the Site Plan Review has been approved by staff. I would suggest, further, that the absence of any reference to the City' s Comprehensive Plan is consistent with Minnesota Statutes and the basic law in regard to zoning and planning in a city. It is inappropriate and illegal for a city to reject development of a parcel which is in conformance with zoning and building code requirements for the sole reason that it may not comply with a theoretical amendment to the City Comprehensive Plan to be adopted after staff approval of the application. It is our position that the City must approve the Site Plan inasmuch as it conforms in all respects with the Ordinance. The project conforms with zoning, of which there has never been any doubt. We are absolutely entitled to a building permit to proceed with the project. The City may not, under the guise of its Site Plan Review process, reject a development which otherwise qualifies for a building permit in all respects . However, the City does have a remedy, in theory, if it wishes to prevent the development. That remedy is condemnation for a public purpose. If there is a public purpose that may evolve with respect to this site for the City, it will be the extension of Highway 101 through it to Lake Drive East. As you know, there is B101KERR29JACbk0812882 1 Roger N. Knutson, Esq. r City Attorney, City of Chanhassen August 12 , 1988 Page 3 i extraordinary controversy about that extension and the better judgment of the City Planning Commission is that such an extension should not go through. We would ask that you advise the City Council that it must ' approve the Site Plan Review because it comports with the Ordinance. We would ask further that you advise the Council that the theoretical conflict with a Comprehensive Plan which is yet to be adopted, and which adoption in all respects was initiated after our plan was submitted, is irrelevant to the approval of the Site Plan Application. r In the event we do not receive Site Plan Review approval at the meeting of the City Council on August 25 , our clients will move forward and make immediate application for a building permit. In the event the building permit is not issued according to the r Ordinance, we will seek a directive of the Court requiring the City to issue the building permit. Moreover, because of the substantial damage which is being incurred by our client because ' of the City' s illegal failure to issue the site plan review, and in anticipation of its unwillingness to issue a building permit, we will be considering application to the Court for damages under ' the theory of inverse condemnation. Very truly yours ,, i �Lc JOIIN A. CAIRNS ' JAC/bk cc: Frank C. Kraemer r r B101KERR29JACbk0812882 CIT'YOF • CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM 1 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Barbara Dacy, City Planner DATE: August 1 , 1988 ' SUBJ: Hidden Valley Center Site Plan Review If the Commission' s action on the previous two items were to approve the Comprehensive Plan text amendment and the official map for the realignment of TH 101, the City Attorney has recommended the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends denial of the Hidden Valley Center Site Plan because it conflicts with the proposed official map for the realignment of TH 101 . " This item will be scheduled on the Council' s August 22 , 1988 , ' meeting. I ' 1. LAW OFFICES IGRANNIS, GRANNIS, FARRELL & KNUTSON DAVID L. GRANNIS- 1874-1961 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION TELECOPIER: DAVID L. GRANNIS,JR. - 1910-1980 POST OFFICE Box 57 (612)455-2359 IVANCE B. GRANNIS 403 NORWEST BANK BUILDING DAVID L.HARMEYER VANCE B. GRANNIS,JR. 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE ELLIOTT B.KNETSCH MICHAEL . MAYER PATRICK A. FARRELL J I DAVID L.GRANNIS, III SOUTH ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075 TIMOTHY J.BERG ROGER N. KNUTSON TELEPHONE(612)455-1661 IJuly 21 , 1988 IMr. John A. Cairns Curtin, Mahoney, Cairns & Walling 4150 Multifoods Tower I Minneapolis City Center Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 IRE: Hidden Valley Center Dear Mr. Cairns: I Our office represents the City of Chanhassen. The City Manger has asked me to respond to your letter of July 7, 1988. The Planning Commission has scheduled further review of your I client' s proposal for the August 3, 1988 meeting. It was impossible to schedule it for an earlier meeting because the preparatory work has not been completed. INothing in the City Code prohibits the Planning Commission from considering a proposal at more than one meeting. Your I reference to the language in Section 20-107 of the City Code "the Planning Commission meeting • " is not persuasive. Section 1 -2 of the City Code and Minnesota Statutes § 645.08 provides that the singular includes the plural. IVery truly yours, I GR—, 1 S, GRANNIS, FARRELL & . NU ON I Roger N . Knutson RNK:srn I cc: Don Ashworth Barb Dacy Jo Ann Olson I I JUL 2 2 1988 CITY. OF CHANHASSLA LAW OFFICES GRANNIS, GRANNIS, FARRELL & KNUTSON DAVID L. GRANNIS- 1874-1961 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION TELECOPIER: DAVID L. GRANNIS,JR. - 1910-1980 POST OFFICE Box 57 (612)455-2359 VANCE B.GRANNIS 403 NORWEST BANK BUILDING DAVID L.HARMEYER VANCE B. GRANNIS,JR. 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE ELLIOTT B. KNETSCH MICHAEL J. MAYER PATRICK A. FARRELL J DAVID L. GRANNIS,III SOUTH ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075 TIMOTHY J. BERG ROGER N. KNUTSON TELEPHONE(612)455-1661 July 20 , 1988 Ms. Barbara Dacy Chanhassen City Hall 690 Coulter Drive, Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RE: Hidden Valley Center Dear Barb: ' If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the official map and comprehensive plan amendment, then with respect to the Hidden Valley Site Plan review I recommend the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends denial of the Hidden ' Valley Center Site Plan because it conflicts with the proposed official map for the realignment of TH 101 . " Very truly yo rs, '.► ► - , GRANNIS, FARRELL N, J B N. AffnmwOn RNK: srn 1 JUL 21 1988 , I CURTIN, MAHONEY, CAIRNS & WALLING A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1 RICHARD T CURTIN 4150 MULTIFOODS TOWER OF COUNSEL MICHAEL C. MAHONEY MINNEAPOLIS CITY CENTER JOHN A. CAIRNS MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 EDWARD C.ANDERSON I WRIGHT S. WALLING SUSAN L. NEUMEYER TELECOPIER(612) 339-6962 PAUL G GUTTERMAN TELEX 291163 JOHN G HORNER DOUGLAS J CARNEY TELEPHONE(612) 333-5411 ALVIN H.GANDAL* DONNA E. HAN BERY *ADMITTED IN D.C.AND OHIO I MICHAEL W SCHLEY SECOND FLOOR JEFFREY C. ROBBINS 818 CONNECTICUT AVENUE N.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 NANCY ZALUSKY BERG TELECOPIER(202) 296-8709 DAVID J. STEINGART TELEPHONE(202) 887-0716 STEVEN J. DZURAK I RANDY L. DECKER JODY O. DESMIDT REPLY TO IJuly 7 , 1988 Minneapolis A9*-. gl..11(4.441 A: Mr. Don Ashworth .r --/. — I ._^, _Cr City Manager e P.O. Box 147 `i - /=Tf; IChanhassen, MN 55317 7/t/: `=' HIDDEN VALLEY CENTER IOUR FILE NO. 02878-002 Dear Mr. Ashworth: IWe are counsel to New American Companies who are, through a subsidiary, developers of property south of Highway 5 near the intersection of Highway 5 and Lake Drive East. Over the past I months, we have been working with your planning staff to create an acceptable site plan that conforms with the City of Chanhassen' s codes and regulations. IOn Wednesday, July 6 , 1988 , we appeared before the Planning Commission to present the site plan. The Planning Commission I Staff Report acknowledges that the project is zoned properly for the project that we contemplate. The report also confirms that the site plan meets the City guidelines and regulations in all respects. IIn reviewing the Chanhassen codes and ordinances, we looked particularly at the zoning ordinance, Section 6 , describing site I plan and review procedures. Under Section 3-6-1 , the City Council and Planning Commission are required to review and approve a site plan application before issuing a building permit. I The approval is mandatory, as evidenced by the phrase "shall review and approve. . . . " At Sections 3-6-3 , applicants are required to submit the description of the project on forms provided by the City three weeks in advance of "the Planning I Commission meeting which it is to be considered" (emphasis added) . h.'.-=:`j`L) ' F9DJACcja0707882 JUL 0 8 1988 CITY OF CHANhAL.;).-ri I Mr. Don Ashworth Page 2 July 7 , 1988 Our File No. 02878-002 1 From our review of the ordinances, there seems to be no provision for tabling the site plan review application once presented to the Planning Commission. Clearly, the ordinance contemplates a single meeting at which the Planning Commission is to act. This single meeting concept is, in our view, consistent with the site plan review process inasmuch as the City is obligated to issue the building permit after the review process has been initiated and completed. This is particularly the case when there is no objection to the site plan. The Planning Commission meets again on July 25 , 1988 . We would appreciate your communicating with the Planning Commission Chairman and indicating by letter that the Planning Commission must forward the matter to the City Council at that meeting and isZempowered to retain the matter in the Planning Commission. As you are aware, there is a substantial authority for the proposition that cities may not delay issuance of building permits when the proposed project is consistent in all respects with the zoning code and other regulations. Our client is prepared to go forward with the project now. We have tenants who have made commitments based on a timely completion of the project. We are quite concerned about the potential loss of these tenants in the event the City continues to inappropriately delay approval of a site plan which is consistent in all respects with the City code. Thank you for your early attention to our request. Ver truly yours, 6C-2�Z Jo ,.N A. CAIRNS cc: Frank C. Kraemer ' Roger Knutson F9DJACcja0707882 CITY OF $ P.C. DATE: July 6 , 1988 1 C.C. DATE: July 25 , 1988 CIIIIIIIIASSEN CASE NO: 88-6 Site Plan 1 Prepared by: Olsen/v 1 STAFF REPORT 1 1 PROPOSAL: Site Plan Review for a 40, 000 Square Foot Shopping Center L V 1 z c� a -- 1 LOCATION: Lot 1, Block 6 , Hidden Valley s e 0),4 APPLICANT: �� New American Homes Corporation {� Q 256 First Avenue North, #200 �� Minneapolis , MN 55401 1 ' PRESENT ZONING:0 ING: BN, Neighborhood Business 1 ACREAGE: 4 . 86 acres DENSITY: ' ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- Highway 5 & Business Highway District 1 S- PUD-R; Hidden Valley Estates tri E- PUD-R; future church site 1 W- BN; Q-Superette shopping p Aping center W WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. I (n PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site is an open field with .a slight slope to the south. 1 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial r • 0 .40 ‘....y.■ ...- Pabl • ‘....:1= = A %\ __,, • 11■11.1.11111ftiftt \ r /i■ kes. t• . t--\ZE) 41 ' 111 rig EIMUI ifit A ISO n'VD—R t lei 4,,,,4.10,We wo. L il .44 It. I -tre_,_zat‘vadaz xi _ ---- I 416:•1 *wawa. wv. I& * LWtats-A11111101 - 1111111) M.r ( I.• .bawm.-All GI. Viklik, . Ataserearx1P (Pc> .___ -■:__N_,I‘ mammal ;,I - -i■-• _ it.41■110 k : , \ ol I gratipir /01 C, \INNEN .. >. i 0 cot' I ! t.. 1111A\ LAKE \ISM. ' , ..., / = t 0 c R S F i I ..k.. . \ i NW& A A117.\ I I Ila■116 Nisi A ' i P 1 illW I .- -. /-,) ;:t3.4/11111111111 11111110p4 ) •---,___\ t - . • R i ; pie It alsv ii What—lir-4Z -' . mom i SI% NS Pi ii-TIVII. \ 1: V MIMI 1 .c. ;.■ AI. III WO 11111111V Z---r;-:4 pi ' - Nes AM IP .4 0"1,11.11: I° k O' .‘ ■••■•..........._ I '4. i 411. 1,../0 k‘ 440fr 0•1.i■ ,,,, -.7--7:x._ 4. - !..) 1.• .III■ • !AI ---■ , 3 4 ? R 1 -i - tr ....,,:,. ....,... „,,,,........ .„..f • , .,.. ....„ , , N)IIIIIIt CI:7 , . . :-,.--,,,...„„10- • du. • open! sr A - V ktiaLrm• ,44...15 A . An ' °, 2 • -- , ,.. • _ ... . , . ,.. .., umuirsfinlIgin Mir 17 N., 0 tojv 7 IR 1 2 t.. ,, --.. .. . .. simi..-. r IIIIPV A \ I:), —morn Nora MOM WWI IMIMV .1.t AL Illkk,f'- I cr,.== maw Num NM MEM Cc.. 4,INIP2 EWA mra Is= rm., A FrrAn 4 2• ,. . ....-.. .. . - ■7:11-ais:7-- = • so almv•-..m.1111111EU 196r2r..In .„- - ---1 (Zb MIMI dli- hi.TISIr: - 11 gi nrrii Z 4 -•,- '• 1 1-646117-1-111.111-11111t IMI imut_- -d-ii_ ill i- is a 14111 'Immilmmi---....6:- Iii ,. 11015igosoul 1111111 -- BG . .. si. BD 1Pilit...1, ..j1PPR. . . T ...,_ I" MINIM "".' it c_ °I...di' •.4 - ..-_,-.. p Mr. ORM • I _, O° ,,. -Pi -,_ ( - • ti . ._. ,. ._., ita,04.:, -,,;-,-rtOcrbiz„.. • ., low1IMIIL .: • I ._ ‘40•.7:.Ir. Pa jikk Iii Am as moms - `..C...--........a.....---- i. Kik es imi I. ..,,v,, A; -R:--: •....... ---.. , =Er spilt,w• . .._ .-10* - ..w imift al lie - .,, .4- l""1"4, qZ)4, °,„.■••■•••• f 's-- 3 7-4 .,-• 7 -` 11.4 'II rili- lar 4.11 i • •ii• • 111111/40, li I „..,,,....z, ma v11. :rir oc:X.-)ct), e--C---Tfi,I - Z--F-A4 -Le._ 14.4 e =41 1.4 1111‘ IF ) 1001M1:Pr: ,711 ew 10P IP z 46'. ...Hr. -,...,,,,,,,,,..i1/4,-I....11... .01.lei , \--01 If° II. 3,*1.41iiii car" f-z4t,--- . -•• 1141, ,---, BVIVVI'lfililaIT.* , , 1 .1.....,.. , I • , 10 RSF \. : :-%.,..-- , • - ---,-------,:.. -------.. ,,,• _ . . .•. . ., . . 111 -%--q•.:,,----- - ______. „ # — A IVA D Aci KNI r:Nc:LE V A 8 i ill ,-;--- i•Vli, - 4, • oi. 7 - R • • LAKE SUSAN b-.• .st, - _ • i Au .:, RD ;--v , RICE AI -4 / / ‘‘-;-'-` NE. _ .7., _ .:. . , / --..... .,-. ......_ A._.....!... ,... fir‘.........41.- 4.N I ; 111111 - 86 TH ST. 1110 ; .••A _ ., ..•••m................. • , . .=..1111111110 r . 4 *ice PCIVOCn • is.t 1 ..■•P 4 — . . , .- - Hidden Valley Shopping Center ' June 15 , 1988 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Section 20-692 (12) allows shopping centers as a permitted use in the BN District. ' Section 20-695 ( 5 ) allows a maximum lot coverage of 65% in the BN District. ' Section 20-695 ( 6-a) requires 35 foot front yard setback, a 30 foot rear yard setback and 15 foot side yard setbacks . ' Section 20-695 (7-a) requires the principle structure to have a maximum height of one story. ' Section 20-1178 requires that all trash disposal units be comple- tely screened on all sides . Section 20-1191 requires a 10 foot strip of land between abutting ' right-of-way 'and vehicular use areas including one tree per 40 feet and a hedge wall or berm of at least 2 feet. Section 20-1192 requires interior property lines to be landscaped with one tree per 40 feet. Section 20-1211 requires interior landscaping for vehicular use ' areas . Section 20-1125 requires 1 parking space for each 200 square feet ' of gross floor area for shopping centers . Section 20-1302 permits a ground low profile sign not to exceed ' 24 square feet and 5 feet in height with a maximum of two per lot. ' REFERRAL AGENCIES City Engineer Attachment #2 ' Building Department No comments Fire Inspector Attachment #3 ' ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing to construct a 40 , 000 square foot shopping center on approximately 5 acres of land zoned BN, Neighborhood Business District. The site is bordered by Highway 5 to the north and is serviced by Lake Drive East to the south ' and east. The proposed building is located along the north and west side of the property with the parking area along Lake Drive East. The building will be one story in height with a maximum height of 28 square feet . . II Hidden Valley Shopping Center June 15 , 1988 Page 3 Parking and Landscaping The applicant is required to provide 200 parking spaces to meet the Zoning Ordinance requirements . The applicant is providing exactly 200 parking spaces which includes 4 handicap stalls . The applicant is providing parking and vehicular access completely around the building with the parking stalls at the rear of the building being used for employees and truck traffic. The applicant has met all of the landscaping requirements except for the interior landscaping. Staff has met with the applicant and has reviewed an alternative plan that provides additional interior landscaping which would meet the zoning requirement. The interior landscaping will remove several parking spaces which will require the applicant to reduce the size of the building somewhat. ' The applicant is proposing two ground low profile signs which are meeting the requirements of the zoning ordinance and has provided adequate lighting in the parking areas which meet the zoning requirements . The proposed trash enclosures will be completely screened by a rockfaced block wall and cedar door. Grading, Drainage, and Streets In his report, the Assistant City Engineer will review the proposed grading and drainage for the site and street access . Staff will oe requesting a secondary entrance or exit from the site as we did with the church site directly across Lake Drive East. This will also possibly remove proposed parking spaces which will cause the applicant to adjust the size of the building again to meet the required number of parking spaces . SUMMARY The proposed site plan currently meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance except for the interior landscaping. The appli- cant will be providing a revised landscaping plan providing ade- quate interior landscaping with an adjustment to the number of parking spaces and building size. The cover memo on this report explains the implications of the TH 101 realignment project on this site. Given the issues identified in that memorandum, planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission tables Site Plan Request #88-6 until August 3 , 1988 ." PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission unanimously recommended to table action on the site plan until August 3 , 1988 . (7 Hidden Valley Shopping Center ' June 15 , 1988 Page 4 ' ATTACHMENTS ' 1 . Excerpts from City Code. 2 . Memo from Assistant City Engineer dated July 1 , 1988 . 3 . Memo from Fire Inspector dated June 9 , 1988 . 4 . Planning Commission minutes dated July 6 , 1988. ' 5 . Site plan dated May 3 , 1988 . 1 1 ( 1 § 20-693 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE Sec. 20-693. Permitted accessory uses. I The following are permitted accessory uses in a "BN" District: (1) Parking lots. (2) Car wash(when accessory to automotive service station). (3) Signs. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 10(5-10-3), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-694. Conditional uses. The following are conditional uses in a"BN" District: (1) Convenience store with gas pumps. (2) Automotive service stations. ' (3) Drive-in banks including automated kiosks. (4) Temporary outdoor display of merchandise for sale. (5) Standard restaurants. (6) Bed and breaksfast establishments. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 10(5-10-4), 12-15-86) State law reference—Conditional uses, M.S. § 462.3595. Sec. 20-695. Lot requirements and setbacks. I The following minimum requirements shall be observed in a "BN" District subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter: ' (1) The minimum district area is three (3) acres. This paragraph may be waived in the case of expansion to an existing district. (2) The minimum lot area is fifteen thousand(15,000)square feet. (3) The minimum lot frontage is seventy-five (75) feet, except that lots fronting on a cul-de-sac shall have a minimum frontage of sixty(60)feet in all districts. (4) The minimum lot depth is one hundred fifty(150)feet. (5) The maximum lot coverage including all structures and paved surfaces is sixty-five (65)percent. (6) Off-street parking areas shall comply with all yard requirements of this section, except that no rear yard parking setback shall be required for lots directly abutting railroad trackage; and, no side yard shall be required when adjoining commercial uses establish joint off-street parking facilities, as provided in section 20-1122,except that no parking areas shall be permitted in any required side street side yard. The minimum rear yard shall be fifty (50) feet for lots directly abutting any residential district. Side streets side yards shall be a minimum of twenty-five(25) feet. Other setbacks are as follows: ' a. For front yards, thirty-five(35)feet. 1216 I ZONING § 20-712 ' b. For rear yards, thirty(30)feet. c. For side yards, fifteen(15)feet. (7) The maximum height is as follows: a. For the principal structure, one(1)story. b. For accessory structures, one(1)story. ' (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 10(5-10-5), 12-15-86) Secs. 20-696-20-710. Reserved. ARTICLE XVII. "BH"HIGHWAY AND BUSINESS SERVICES DISTRICT Sec. 20-711. Intent. ' The intent of the "BH" District is to provide for highway oriented commercial develop- ment restricted to a low building profile. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 11(5-11-1), 12-15-86) ' Sec. 20-712. Permitted uses. ' The following uses are permitted in a "BH" District: (1) Financial institutions. ' (2) Fast food restaurant. (3) Automotive service stations. ' (4) Standard restaurants. (5) Motels and hotels. ' (6) Offices. (7) Retail shops. ' (8) Miniature golf. (9) State-licensed day care center. ' (10) Car wash. (11) Convenience store with or without gas pumps. (12) Personal service establishment. (13) Liquor stores. (14) Health services. (15) Utility services. (16) Shopping center. 1217 1 ZONING § 20-1176 Sec. 20-1145. Landscaping and screening. All berths shall be screened from public rights-of-way and from view from the property across the street frontage and/or from the zoning district boundary when the adjacent prop- erty or property across the street frontage or side street frontage is zoned or used for residen- tial purposes. The screening shall be accomplished as required in article XXV. (Ord. No. 80,Art.VII, § 2(7-2-4), 12-15-86) ' Sec. 20-1146. Design. All loading areas shall consist of a maneuvering area in addition to the berth and shall not use any of that portion of the site containing parking stalls.Maneuvering areas shall be of such size as to permit the backing of truck tractors and coupled trailers into a berth without blocking the use of other berths, drives, maneuvering areas or public rights-of-way. (Ord. No. 80,Art. VII, § 2(7-2-5), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-1147. Required loading areas. ' (a) Any use which the city believes requires the provision of designated spaces for the loading,unloading or parking of trucks or semi-trailers shall provide such spaces and maneu- vering area in the number and configuration which shall be deemed necessary in order to prevent interference with the use of the public right-of-way and with vehicles entering onto or exiting from the public right-of-way. ' (b) Semi-trailer spaces shall be at least fifty-five(55)feet in length, ten(10)feet in width and fourteen(14)feet in height plus necessary additional maneuvering space. (c) Spaces shall not be located on a street side of any building, or, if so located, shall be provided with screening deemed adequate by the city. (d) Spaces and the associated maneuvering area shall be at least fifty (50) feet from the property line of any residentially designated property. (e) No trucks shall be parked in areas other than those designed for such purpose on an ' approved site plan. (Ord. No. 80, Art.VII, § 2(7-2-6), 12-15-86) Secs. 20-1148-20-1175. Reserved. ARTICLE XXV. LANDSCAPING AND TREE REMOVAL DIVISION 1. GENERALLY Sec. 20-1176. Intent,scope and compliance. (a) The intent of this article is to improve the appearance of vehicular use areas and property abutting public rights-of-way;to require buffering between noncompatible land uses; . 1251 A. `� III § 20-1176 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE ' and to protect, preserve and promote the aesthetic appeal, character and value of the sur- rounding neighborhoods; to promote public health and safety through the reduction of noise pollution, air pollution, visual pollution and glare. I (b) This article does not apply to single-family detached residences. (c) No new site development, building, structure or vehicular use area is allowed unless Ilandscaping is provided as required in this article. (d) No property lines shall be altered nor shall any building, structure or vehicular use area be expanded, unless the minimum landscaping required by the provisions of this article I is provided for the entire property. (Ord. No. 80,Art. VIII, § 1, 12-15-86) ISec. 20-1177. Plan submission and approval. The property owner or developer shall prepare a landscape plan for review by the city. I The city shall apply the following conditions in approving or disapproving the plan: (1) The contents of the plan shall include the following: a. Plot plan, drawn to an easily readable scale, showing and labelling by name and I dimensions, all existing and proposed property lines, easements, buildings, and other structures, vehicular use areas (including parking stalls, driveways, ser- ' vice areas, square footage), water outlets and landscape material (including botanical name and common name, installation size, on center planting dimen- sions where applicable, and quantities for all plants used). I b. Typical elevations and/or cross sections as may be required. c. Title block with the pertinent names and addressed (property owner, person drawing plan, and person installing landscape material),scale date, north arrow (generally orient plan so that north is to top of plan), and zoning district. d. Existing landscape material shall be shown on the required plan and any mate- rial in satisfactory condition may be used to satisfy this article in whole or in I part. (2) Where landscaping is required, no building permit shall be issued until the required landscaping plan has been submitted and approved, and no certificate of occupancy I shall be issued until the landscaping is completed as certified by an on-site inspection by the building inspector, unless a performance bond, or irrevocable letter of credit from a banking institution, has been paid. I (3) If necessary, the city may require a letter of credit to insure proper installation landscape materials with complete cost of all work certified by landscape contractor, Iwith the bond amount to include the actual cost plus ten(10)percent. The bond shall be released upon satisfactory completion of the work as determined by the city. (4) Where unusual site conditions exist where strict enforcement of the provisions of this I article would cause a hardship or practical difficulty, the planning commission and city council may waive the requirements as part of the site plan review process. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VIII, § 6, 12-15-86) I 1252 I 1 ZONING § 20-1179 1 Sec. 20-1178. Landscaping for service structure. (a) Any service structure shall be screened whenever located in any residential,commer- cial or industrial zone (except RR and RSF zones). Structures may be grouped together; however, screening height requirements will be based upon the tallest of the structures. (b) A continuous planting, hedge, fence, wall or earth mound shall enclose any service structure on all sides unless such structure must be frequently moved, in which case screen- ing on all but one (1) side is required. The average height of the screening material shall be one(1)foot more than the height of the enclosed structure,but shall not be required to exceed eight (8) feet in height. Whenever a service structure is located next to a building wall, perimeter landscaping material, or vehicular use area landscaping material, such walls or screening material may fulfill the screening requirement for that side of the service structure if that wall or screening material is of an average height sufficient to meet the height requirement set out in this section. Whenever service structures are screened by plant material, such material may count towards the fulfillment of required interior or perimeter landscaping. No interior landscaping shall be required within an area screened for service structures. (c) Whenever screening material is placed around any trash disposal unit or waste I collection unit which is emptied or removed mechanically on a regularly occuring basis, a curb to contain the placement of the container shall be provided within the screening material on those sides where there is such material. The curbing shall be at least one(1)foot from the material and shall be designed to prevent possible damage to the screening when the con- tainer is moved or emptied. (Ord. No. 80,Art. VIII, § 4, 12-15-86) ' Sec. 20-1179. Tree removal regulations. (a) It is the policy of the city to preserve natural woodland areas throughout the city and with respect to specific site development to retain as far as practical, substantial tree stands which can be incorporated into the overall landscape plan. (b) No clearcutting of woodland areas shall be permitted except as approved in a subdivi- sion, planned unit development or site plan application. (c) The following standards shall be used in evaluating subdivisions and site plans: (1) To the extent practical, site design shall preserve significant woodland areas. 1 (2) Shade trees of six (6) inches or more caliper shall be saved unless it can be demon- strated that there is no other feasible way to develop the site. (3) The city may require the replacement of removed trees on a caliper inch per caliper inch basis. At minimum, however, replacement trees shall conform to the planting requirements identified in division 4 of this article. I (4) During the tree removal process, trees shall be removed so as to prevent blocking of public rights-of-way or interfering with overhead utility lines. 1253 I I § 20-1179 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE (5) The removal of diseased and damaged trees is permissible. (d) Tree removal not permitted under subdivision, planned unit development or site plan review shall not be allowed without the approval of a tree removal plan by the city council. ' Tree removal plans shall include the content requirements as dictated in section 20-1177 and identify reasons for tree removal. The plan shall be submitted three (3) weeks in advance of the city council at which it is to be considered. ' (e) This section does not apply to single-family and two-family lots of record. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VIII, § 7, 12-15-86) ' Secs. 20-1180-20-1190. Reserved. ' DIVISION 2. PERIMETER LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS Sec. 20-1191. Generally. ' (a) Where parking areas are not entirely screened visually by an intervening building or structure from any abutting right-of-way, there shall be provided landscaping between such area and such right-of-way as follows: ' (1) A strip of land at least ten (10) feet in depth located between the abutting right-of- way and the vehicular use area which shall be landscaped to include an average of ' one (1) tree for each forty (40) linear feet or fraction thereof. Such trees shall be located between the abutting right-of-way and the vehicular use area. (2) In addition,a hedge, wall,berm,or other opaque durable landscape barrier of at least ' two(2)feet in height shall be placed along the entire length of the vehicular use area. If such opaque durable barrier is of nonliving material, a shrub or vine shall be planted along the street side of said barrier and be planted in such a manner to break up the expanse of the wall. A two-foot berm may be used; however, additional landscaping at least one (1) foot in height at time of planting shall be installed. The remainder of the required landscape areas shall be landscaped with grass, ground cover, or other landscape treatment. (b) This division applies to perimeter landscaping. ' (Ord. No. 80, Art. VIII, § 2(8-2-1), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-1192. Required landscaping adjacent to interior property lines. ' (a) Where parking areas abut property zoned or, in fact, used primarily for residential or .institutional purposes,that portion of such area not entirely screened visually by an interven- ing structure or existing conforming buffer from an abutting property,there shall be provided ' a landscaped buffer which should be maintained and replaced as needed. Such landscaped buffer shall consist of plant material, wall, or other durable barrier at least six (6) feet in height measured from the median elevation of the parking area closest to the common lot line, and be located between the common lot line and the off-street parking areas or other vehicular use area exposed to the abutting property. Fences shall be constructed according to the standards in section 20-1018. 1254 I ZONING § 20-1212 , (b) In addition,an average of one(1)tree shall be provided for each forty(40)linear feet of such parking area or fractional part thereof. Such trees shall be located between the common lot line and the off-street parking area or other vehicular use area. (c) Where such area abuts property zoned and, in fact, used for office, commercial, or industrial purposes, that portion of area not entirely screened visually by an intervening structure or existing conforming buffer, shall comply with the tree provisions only as pre- scribed in this section. (Ord. No. 80,Art.VIII, § 2(8-2-2), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-1193. Combining with easements. The required landscape bufferyard may be combined with a utility or other easement as long as all of the landscape requirements can be fully met, otherwise,the landscape bufferyard shall be provided in addition to, and separate from, any other easement. Cars or other objects shall not overhang or otherwise intrude upon the required landscape bufferyard more than two and one-half(21)feet and curbs will be required. (Ord. No. 80,Art. VIII, § 2(8-2-3), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-1194. Existing landscape material. Existing landscape material shall be shown on the required plan and any material in satisfactory condition may be used to satisfy these requirements in whole or in part. (Ord. No. 80,Art. VIII, § 2(8-2-4), 12-15-86) Secs. 20-1195-20-1210. Reserved. DIVISION 3. INTERIOR LANDSCAPING FOR VEHICULAR USE AREAS Sec. 20-1211. Generally. (a) Any open vehicular use area(excluding loading, unloading, and storage areas in the IOP and BG districts)containing more than six thousand(6,000)square feet of area,or twenty (20) or more vehicular parking spaces, shall provide interior landscaping in accordance with this division in addition to "perimeter" landscaping. Interior landscaping may be peninsular or island types. (b) This division applies to interior landscaping of such areas. ' (Ord. No. 80,Art.VIII, § 3, 12-15-86) Sec. 20-1212. Landscape area. 1 (a) For each one hundred(100)square feet, or fraction thereof, of vehicular use area,five (5)square feet of landscaped area shall be provided. ' (b) The minimum landscape area permitted shall be sixty-four (64) square feet, with a four-foot minimum dimension to all trees from edge of pavement where vehicles overhang. • 1255 I wj Ic ZONING § 20-1125 I (12) Mortuaries—One (1)space for every three(3) seats. (13) Motel or hotel—One(1)parking space for each rental room or suite,plus one(1)space Ifor every two(2)employees. (14) Office buildings (administrative, business or professional)—Three (3) parking spaces for each one thousand(1,000)square feet of floor area. I (15) Public service buildings, including municipal administration buildings, community center, public library, museum, art galleries, and post office—One (1)parking space I for each five hundied (500) square feet of floor area in the principal structure, plus one(1)parking space for each four(4)rests within public assembly or meeting rooms. I (16) Recreational facilities, including golf course, country club, swimming club, racquet club, public swimming pool—Twenty (20) spaces, plus one (1) space for each five hundred(500)square feet of floor area in the principal structure or two(2)spaces per court. I (17) Research, experimental or testing stations—One (1)parking space for each five hun- dred(500)square feet of gross floor area within the building, whichever is greater. t (18) Restaurant, cafe, nightclub, tavern or bar: a. Fast food—One (1)space per sixty(60)square feet of gross floor area. I b. Restaurant: 1. Without full liquor license—One (1) space per sixty (60) square feet of gross floor area or one (1) space per two and one-half (21/2) seats whichever is Igreater. 2. With full liquor license—One(1)space per fifty(50)square feet of gross floor area or one(1)space per two(2) seats whichever is greater. I (19) Retail stores and service establishments—One (1) space for each two hundred (200) square feet of gross floor area. I (20) School, elementary (public, private or parochial)—One (1) parking space for each classroom or office room, plus one (1) space for each one hundred fifty (150) square I feet of eating area including aisles, in any auditorium or gymnasium or cafeteria intended to be used as an auditorium. (21) School,junior and senior high schools and colleges(public, private or parochial—Four I (4) parking spaces for each classroom or office room plus one (1) space for each one hundred fifty(150)square feet of seating area including aisles, in any auditorium or gymnasium or cafeteria intended to be used as an auditorium. I (22) Shopping center—On-site automobile parking shall be provided in a ratio of not less than one(1)parking space for each two hundred(200)square feet of gross floor area; separate on-site space shall be provided for loading and unloading. I (23) Storage, wholesale, or warehouse establishments—One (1) space for each one thou(0.-- sand(1,000)square feet of gross floor area up to ten thousand(10,000)square feet and Ione(1)additional space for each additional two thousand(2,000)square feet plus one 1249 I , 1 • C I TY F to t ; , . 1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM 1 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Larry Brown, Staff Engineer ' 1 DATE: July 1 , 1988 SUBJ: Preliminary Site Plan Review for the Kerr/Chanhassen Lot 6 , Block 1 of the Hidden Valley Subdivision New American Homes This site is located immediately west of the intersection of Lake Drive East and Hidden Court . The 4. 86 acre parcel is comprised of a rolling open field with little or no vegetation. Sanitary Sewer 1 Municipal sanitary sewer is available to the site by an existing 8-inch sanitary sewer main which has been extended from Hidden Court underneath Lake Drive East. Watermain Municipal water service is also available to the site from the 12-inch diameter main located down at the southwest corner of the subject parcel. Calculations which verify that adequate pressure and flow conditions exist to handle the maximum demand that would be necessary from the building sprinkling system and fire depart- ment demand should be submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to final site plan approval. The watermain from Hidden Court to the southwest corner of the subject parcel should be looped. This will be analyzed as part of the final site plan review. Access 1 The existing plan shows only one singular access to the site. It is recommended that another access be considered down at the southwest corner of the site onto Lake Drive East. This addi- tional access would enhance traffic flow patterns as well as pro- vide additional access for emergency services. 1 C' ' Planning Commission July 1 , 1988 Page 2 The access that has been provided along the north and west sides of the building will not accommodate a semi-trailer vehicle. It ' is recommended that the building be adjusted such that these vehicles can be accommodated to facilitate the anticipated deli- very traffic. The concept plan for the realignment of Trunk Highway 101 at this time suggests that the realigned section of Highway 101 will run directly through the middle of this parcel and connect up to Lake ' Drive East in the proximity of the southwest corner. At this time, staff is investigating the feasibility of the realignment of Trunk Highway 101 with MnDOT. This is a complex issue which ' has been accelerated due to the recent construction plans pre- sently under design by MnDOT for Highway 5 . At this point in time, however , we are unable to answer these access questions until MnDOT and the City further evaluate the traffic impacts and funding scenario. Grading and Erosion Control ' The majority of the site will be flattened out to create the parking lot and proposed building pad. ' The current plan does not address erosion control . A revised plan showing all erosion control measures should be submitted for approval by the City Engineer prior to final site plan review. Drainage ' The proposed grading plan will direct drainage down to the south- west corner of the property where an existing 21-inch storm sewer pipe exists for this site. This site was accounted for in the ' hydraulic calcuations for the Hidden Valley Subdivision such that the predeveloped runoff rate for the entire subdivision could be maintained. ' In light of the questions that need to be answered for the realignment of Trunk Highway 101 which would traverse this entire parcel, it is recommended that this item be tabled such that the ' outstanding questions for the realignment of Highway 101 may be addressed properly. Recommendation 1 . It is recommended that this item be tabled until MnDOT and the City resolve the Trunk Highway 101/Trunk Highway 5 interchange issue. 1 CITY OF ..:. 1 , :1 .__ \' ` CHANHASSEN 1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 1 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM II TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Assistant City Planner II FROM: Steve Madden, Fire Inspector DATE: June 9 , 1988 I SUBJ: Hidden Valley Center 1 Upon reviewing the site plan for Hidden Valley Center, I recom- mend the following: I 1 . A hydrant system be installed, as marked, around the building (UFC, Section 10 .30[ c] ) . 2 . Install a second driveway from the park areas to Lake 1 Drive. 3 . A total sprinkler system be installed, both above ceiling -1 and below, with a U/L approved dispatch/monitor system. 4 . Post indicator valve be installed. I 5 . Flow alarm bell be installed above the Fire Department connection (as marked) . I If you have any questions, please ask. 1 I 1 1 1 1 r I ...- . 4 ( , - •ita: • :4----...-E • , ...:i :it • - I - ■.1$i-, Li-, -, ilk.1• 1•. ,, I - .d.?; 1 ,-:. f.. „,,:-. , .,,,,_- ---_... k, . if - -,'''- _ - ':_-,-,.:_-_,--.=-,-.1---4- -,..,, Et ix 1, .-.. , ....._....1, .-4 i..-Mail!,%sr..% I ,. trf titr.. : --- ts I ..- 1- • ......,: ..'r-.w.11'.--44 :L.._ .._ -, ..... . .... ,,,, i N _.....„ Pal. 1111111111/11*, II r' —. .i::41,3:1•E ll I ' ! 7.: !■ ! \• .7.i I .. .1---11 .1'11'•111=-- -' -":r-1111111> •:',",- I ,, r':::;'.. ' - I , : - Az 1' \I. „.,-,is 1 I - A rIr.:43. tt-,.,.....,. 4---1111,:e,16...._;771-4-6 i; -v--, ----- i., I ,,,r ir; Y -`.. ! I ' I -c_ . I 1 'i-'. • i I . . . *L. al I ; . _ :,.° [-.Mr, I i 4L..:-", .t.,, I to i i...,.I!, i71 --7'I :'" i'' I --1 1 li• ... 1 m • 20= il f;1.4 MIN 1 I x . ..,.. I I . ' m c' I :-.4-rz- ... ' ,.... . 4 ..-: 1 i 1 ' .' 1421 4.-; 1111 a 1_,.2. ; ,r_-....,'.'..:.F•—iIIfIi•fI••S rkh• V:„I V if I L .„..: II, I I 1 1. r 'i:7'BP :I fEl■ ., "T'Is rik rt- , i I • I-f.1 li , ir.. .1 f;‘,......t...„. ....... „ no . , .. I fiti'';:inrif- 1 44,,,,,i.., _..._ =--m. I'f...•:■ "1" .,4.7 " Pt,.. . ■V'' -1' il.,q III 7.., • _ • iL II ....Zff:-'•=111.'' I , i:' - '- I *F';',.:I.I I-, 1-:_4,-,---za 1r - _ . -• .7 I • ....": '. • 1: .1 -'3,4,': .■ti.si L'Hil irl X1_,I '..'S.."'I• ''. .I.:. I irIt': . ,, i4:, . . "sCS FR al3 ' .*.f • , . . t , t • kW,I • . .r,. '- k 4 NI`' - - 4-:-.r.-'4S' •.4".'•,'I 1 r;, rz. • 1•3.,%! 477-,:' I -.. :.% N , - rib , .■ '::: _I ,i I • 7 •:, slit • - NW it 1 ., t• Net. I K.. .. • .1- I.. • r..1 4-4 1 5;y_ -:II ....-. •?1/4, , ::'. .— i., -::::::I 411 I i. • : 7 ,:: Nr....7 1 - I . :17:1: I I 1 = :,: -,: 1 , . ,:L1.1 1 •• :1: • ' I • - , a : o : ; :I. ••• z : i :: ' ... -2 a m X `• -.1 m x ' ; 33 :, '• .-• a ... : .. >C;Ct *.s- • • . - ;17 -;. • tit° ;4.,1,,. •a #•1 0 ' .f. . Z.*.- if,, T4:. 'Ala.'.tc "••.' ••••• • • ' . - !!'.'•- Rr71• . .."' • - • " - - •, . < = r. ). - ' ,, • 0 = - - • : I j 'I, I i I° - - 1 , 1111 1: . . .. . t . _. _ : - . . 0 .. 77,7 .. C 717 z m A M Z . ... -o !i ■ C C 1City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 II (612)937-1900 Date: May 31, 1988 To: Development Plan Referral Agencies II From: Planning Department By: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner I Subject: Site plan review for a 40,000 square foot shopping center on 4.86 acres of property zoned BN, Neighborhood Business District and located on the i. north side of Lake Drive East, just east of the Q-Superette Center II Planning Case: 88-6 Site Plan Review (Hidden Valley Center) The above described application for approval of a land development I filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department pm proposal was g partment on May 24, 1988 In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission II and City Council review, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and pro- posed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring II public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a II recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning II Commission on June 15, 1988 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than June 6, 1988 . You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. II Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. " 1 1. City Departments ,�_ MN Dept. of Natural Resources City Engineer 8 '- r'` .Ne Company '' b. City Attorney Bell or United) City Park Director 62 Public Safety Director tric Company Building Inspector. , �(NSP or MN Valley) 40 Watershed District Engineer 10. DOWDEN Cable System 3. Soil Conservation Service 11. Roger Machmeier/Jim Anderson i 4 MN Dept. of Transportation 12. U. S. Fish and Wildlife ' 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 13. Carver County Engineer 6 Minnegasco 14. II Other _ I ...,. _ lb • '-1.-1 --..wimp .. bdos■ :: 11, --1'2:gw..7.7= C1/11 fie . .. .- Itialinigri . A 1.1Upt-_F3 ...`""9111■ , hir..*t\. 41 sr ..4% ire liq 4F '.0 lighliaft 1 . IV:.migi \ •.. c.c. .410, 11"k L__._,„worWallIm01 ; 1 uturayse, 000 7 IIIIIMIII :i, 01111 • , ,ce\ ...- pt. .>. .,' cr,i r Aft*. ■ ' \,.111.. i ,RSF i.-- I 1 ; • - tr, ,Tom. unk /--; VI../11•111 Ilimp4 ir,.% cp 4.• ii gi-mienerrirairra. if•P%. -----_---, , 1 :--- , ____-- ..,.. -&-m 4.----t: .40-,, -, I -' .- - ' - • R i t.- PIUS ""tlitti ii"tfr - - - Illgt VS ■ g p y clet o:4 sr . um= 1 i■ ■s• VI 10 1 1111 Iii■ "1"-""4 elk . v IIIMII , I ,t, - "' /AO wox errtir • k_. • L-0111 4 ma 111/..4r04 !Li ., , .-. 134 ii , R 1 ait,,— r.... -.4 It ri.#0410 * .- • , , . - NitilitialE44t- iM,'W,V ,I11111111 ILE e‘., ._. .. lebisra - c, monis' fin/Flint LIM IW r ;.--..=, 4‘v . .... ., ..= min .. .,.,,_... .,.. 11 :or-. sem Nom mg: Mir7: R 1 2 01 '.: X Mi= MEW Mali IMAM IMO ......, I._ ....6.4 .......e Imp irm...,i 5rAks. si 2. ..i.- .,. .... , .. . -. ... .... - - r. m. . 6.:11.,y orril .1 ..,-_. -- . ...,.--, - • '= II:4 M gm"*.6:2 -iiiiimminith . it._ 1.1111 limp tala. Ina -An r: - - _ ...... . II mri4.-----0P■ : 111 .- ' BG SD L ! ,----- __.:,, „ . , 1 -, - --- . I - P ig CAVE --_.. ,.._ N-11 w ini > ... . -- _. ....-- ....--. .-. •- _ ,-kal tr __:,,,, --4- ar,.....„,. .-: -,- • _.• Eig A kg.... .-, :4"-'-- . • 0 '' ,' LI • ligifallit V.. ..".""1 ' • '''.....-- . . \ v. N-X-7.--•::.=4-1 !2) all■. i - - :, .,.........0..... r•o% ,....% f . .:Aker ..„4-. 1 ...a.-,, . :..a NOM =Fe'. a.Wil! IP ~ rk. IOW fa min: ipieW,„livi, 1-(1 -i .■01)1, vl 1p AB =EP,' war,- ,,.-i..-., '.. • #•-,,: 1. INIft mia .....qt - 4,..1 ••••• ' 1 7 we Werhs; oNli--• ---..-=-•-•'"'". [ \ _ .. .. _pc-, PCI-._ .--U. :: VI-A1---f ECIN 1 Eta re.)4. A ), ' . •!‘• 2,44.ww t It - I 0 p \-01 ilzp e:* all alba/ r4z---14-i-- . -"klativwqr 4* eV e-;-,.*4.1:.- _ • -,:-. I, , _ - .. tb, ,vii_ip 110411;.. , fa -- - 1 1 k "--1 • '0%1 • -,,,,i , 01.*#4.-‘ ._ i t ' 1 t •I ` %Ma ha ma$* . \- , • : '-- 1 illitmsu ip el rt. _ ,:, . ... .„. .p • ego- /eRSF , _siff.-- t - .---3- --„------,. I .,. .-;:i “- . ,- ._ . ________ ,....,:.•- ....... • V DAKO AN ill ' ''.:i=,•:' INNEN t I - r A CIRCLE ; I , i 1 I.k- Rs , LAKE SUSAN )' • , ' N -s) . I ' -----:-j if )isrli ---- - = -------' - • I' . RD ,;--** • 7 4 I,II rdi RICE M -7 ' / / _ - I . 4' = 'Ilrillt IP • I ,.... ..:, _ . 'It' A pow 8. TH ST. PAVOCIn — -- - - - _ ID 4 -- -- .........., , . . _... - City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 II (612)937-1900 Date: May 31, 1988 To: Development Plan Referral Agencies From: Planning Department By: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner 1 Subject: Site plan review for a 40,000 square foot shopping center on 4.86 acres of property zoned BN, Neighborhood Business District and located on the I north side of Lake Drive East, just east of the Q-Superette Center Planning Case: 88-6 Site Plan Review (Hidden Valley Center) I The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on May 24, 1988 . In order for us to provide a c II omplete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and pro- II posed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a li written report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning I Commission on June 15, 1988 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than June 6, 1988 . You may also appear at the Planning Commission II meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. II 1. City Departments - MN Dept. of Natural Resources I/Cit Engineer 8. - �:° �.e Company b. City Attorney Bell or United) City Park Director II Public Safety Director tric Company Building Inspector (NSP or MN Valley) l_/ Watershed District Engineer 10. DOWDEN Cable System II 3. Soil Conservation Service 11. Roger Machmeier/Jim Anderson i 4 MN Dept. of Transportation 12. U. S. Fish and Wildlife II � 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 13. Carver County Engineer II C' 6,/ Minnegasco 14. Other II II �_ �1/1111�111�� 'tt \\ , i 1' ifil•;.Orgii0/144 Ai? t.•v.4111111 w.J 111/4 U_it*lk 11 91 14akk 1111k az 10;la 1,,m 07:1: .n./_4.y oo ° I�1■ • i"",� / �� d. Pk t�� LAKE \� ) R (..0 SF i��: �l)�� II� . R i- '• /... ____-----nr, ... .... ... . . .. .„,e,,,,, ,-, , , II 4 ktilivIllimghi,a1:;.'-,-;,-• iTs.- ' \ . \\ mom rte■ `�,40/411r...,.44,- �t ■ - \ - Niliii, izaj- ti[i��f � .. . . . • .U� ■ t 1a■F ■I1 rir �M • O�N' R OI ..]icy �r .r f- , '�• .r .r.� mom 1I 11 2 `=.F .10_ 1 .. MI►,11 '•►,1:x:∎1::111 . •• 1 1�, .. ■ 1111111111P� 1MI- , 5la�■■a ;.111 Ili! ., BG pimem„ f:i'. BD IFE71',.w_ OW ' Et A At... , ._ __:_-------- Ixo. (di ,. 2, ......, , - 10,17„11' ___ 6 � 1 S TA � IG� . W' ' �∎ a mt.. s rem`•' IT'''. � r ,1 Ayt,= M'7 =:.I.0,q. 467"/-:01---L2.-cpc--\11-Lap.sinE.,"1---4-- Az_e_.:•t-p,,,,*:. = !alrYPe4::41 01--:,--.7.,;5;, / 10P ",..„, 4. :-* 0:;„ • .,-:- 4E, -. `A Ili �� ' AVP1 $ : RSF=■ .. — ._ ...... .•.: ` reD"° A PI INNEN I 4 i CIRCLE RS • , LAKE SUSAN ) .r -,„ _ - - �> l ai5 • -it- ' „ _ 1IIii!..“4. _ .4 illi ST. gib .. Ilr ." LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 ' APPLICANT: New American Homes CorporatiOWNER: Same ADDRESS 256 First Avenue N. , #200 ADDRESS ' Minneapolis, MN 55401 Zip Code Zip Code 11 TELEPHONE (Daytime ) (612) 341-3111 TELEPHONE REQUEST: ' Zoning District Change Planned Unit Development Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan ' Preliminary Plan Zoning Variance Final Plan Zoning Text Amendment Subdivision Land Use Plan Amendment Platting Metes and Bounds Conditional Use Permit Street/Easement Vacation X Site Plan Review Wetlands Permit PROJECT NAME Hidden Valley Center PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION B-1 REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION Same 1 PRESENT ZONING B-1 REQUESTED ZONING Same 1 USES PROPOSED Shopping Center SIZE OF PROPERTY 4.86 Acres LOCATION State Hwy. No. 5 and Lake Drive East ' REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST To construct a building I LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary ) iv1 AY 2 `0 1988 CITY_OF CHANriAb6tN City of Chanhassen Land Development Application Page 2 ' FILING INSTRUCTIONS : This application must be completed in full and be typewritten ' clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and or plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions . Before filing this application , you should confer with the City Planner to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application . ' FILING CERTIFICATION: - The undersigned representative of the applicant hereby certifies that he is familiar with the procedural requirements of all ' applicable City Ordinances . New American Homes Corporation + r Signed By T ,,q•,7r? ; C {Gtr } � i u P Date 5-23-88 Applicant _ i The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has been authorized to make this application for the property herein described. New American Homes Corporation Signed By ',c ,l}\, -1n,•>)Thi,' V, r Date Fee Owner 5-23-88 ' Date Application Received Application Fee Paid ' City Receipt No. * This Application will be considered by the Planning Commission/ Board of Adjustments and Appeals at their meeting. June 15, 1988 r 4,—.—......--.—.—.,....—, , . : I 110111100111103 MOM 111111031101 AIN I On Amirso3 33NT1l 31111 05113013 • 6 - I . 1 0009.900 •1609S NW V(.. • AWA0V009 minoR 901 ilk '3N1 'ismo-48-38HIVS to -*"..r: i AWIIVA N30011%)10018 1 SOS 0'4053" {';°•N;R:;- • ASAWIS AlAVON(1011 I • • • • ;. • I i El I- t :'•.' i I •a I ! i I''': 0 11 fli I r,t .i.1 .5.,a1 P; g - 1. '1.• • ;Jo ii: i.',4 -..,• \ • 6 . '..;i' 81= ; e2 :Ill la lit il, • Ili -li 2-21 \ \ fh ns - I \ , \....-\ \ ,. \ \ I I V \ , ,.„, -N,„ 7"---, I , /- 4, 01' , "'',,,,■• CP 's4.•,.0,: __ — • ...- __ ,, , - trt, c•.1&k,.. 2- , „ _ ' 0 , ., ' 0 / , ---___I 4.• , 3,00.04.061 3A le10 / 4°0('''''',, ' -- — . ‘<.. . \ -- . \ ' 1 \ ' . \ V , •1 \ \ ' i \ .61 vo0°,- • , - \ .P. ' 1.- ...., \' u, . ) 0 0 ., ' ? . \ .S. so f.' I , '•?,s:n o 0 1.., \ 66's ce .. . \ ' .° , \ \ , . I \ 1 _ _ - \0\ • • - oe•"--r- ‘, \ IL LOS I \ s ' 3„E0,L2.0N ,o9.0;04 t '‘ I IS '04 .."--\ : \ \ i \ ' \ \ \ ' I ■ ■ ■ , \ I \ 1 • i • MIN Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 1988 - Page 29 Emmings : I was thinking that the right thing to do was to recommend approval with the conditions because that would give them the opportunity to comply and do it and I found that the owner didn' t like that. I changed my mind on that. One of the major things that made me change my ' mind was the fact remembering that our Attorney told us that we don' t want to create temporary conditional uses. I thought, and again I was more willing when I came in here tonight to look at some of these and try and find some that we could maybe put to the side if they do others. I thought that we, for example, my initial reaction was we' ll put the sewer and water in, get that done and go easy on the rest of this as long as there is some assurance that they do it or we have sanctions if they don' t. I ' don't feel that way anymore. I just think that creating a temporary use and applying different standards to this property on things that we can apply to the rest of the IOP makes no sense at all . Erhart moved , Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission sxon recommend to deny the request for a conditional use permit for a contractor ' s yard in the IOP, Industrial Office Park District for Merit Hearing and Cooling , Inc. on the basis that it does not meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. All voted in favor of the motion except Wildermuth who opposed and the motion carried . Wildermuth : I would like to see the issue tabled and I 'd give the ' applicant another opportunity to put together a different plan. ' SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 40, 000 SQUARE FOOT SHOPPING CENTER ON 4. 86 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED BN, NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LAKE DRIVE EAST, JUST EAST OF Q-SUPERETTE, HIDDEN VALLEY CENTER. Jo Ann Olsen and Barbara Dacy presented the staff report . Conrad: Right now Barbara, if they gave us their presentation, more than likely we' re going to table the item. I 'm just speaking for myself but ' would we be inviting them back for another presentation therefore? Dacy: Yes . ' Conrad : So we would see it , if we decided to table and we' ll certainly give the applicant a chance to speak for themselves but from our standpoint , is it worthwhile looking at their application now and their ' presentation or should we, from a planning standpoint, wait based on what you might find out in the study? Will the studies change what you think is going to be presented by them a great deal? Dacy: I don ' t think it would hurt that you would allow them to go through the presentation to become more familiar with the site. It might save time at the August 3rd meeting . I 47 17 Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 1988 - Page 30 Conrad : Is that agreeable to everybody? Okay. Is there somebody that would like to give us a little show? ' Frank Kramer : I'm Vice President of New American Homes . We started working with the City staff approximately a year ago in working on the site plan for this area that we' re going to present . Back in December we met with City Staff and they said, will you work with us through the legislative session? We think we can funding proposed for the TH 5/TH 101 alignment. We' ll know a lot more. In the first part of June, the 5th of June, we met with City Staff again and we were on your last Planning Commission agenda. We wrote a letter to the City Manager and said that if we get a letter from the City stating that we' ve met all the requests and all the ordinances and all zoning ordinances, we agree to be tabled until the next meeting . We never received a letter back so we really should have been on the last meeting. We' ll make our presentation but this will be the second meeting we' ve been tabled at . We' re holding a very expensive piece of ground and we tried to work with City Staff and I hope you take that into your consideration when you decide what you' re going to do about this. With that, I ' ll have Jack Boarman from Boarman Associates who ' s the architect make the presentation. Jack Boarman: We basically, just to illustrate some of the background, we II started the project by coming to staff and going over the various planning and zoning issues. This is TH 5. This is the Lake Drive East. This is the intersection point. The setbacks . The signage. All of those have been worked through various revisions and various preparations to get it just right . I think we have that . One of the things I wanted to point out, I think at an earlier proposal that we went over with staff, we have a little bit more than 40, 000. In reviewing the actual final submittal as I revised, we do have some interior landscaping islands and 40, 000 square feet. All those numbers reflect compliance , I think with some revisions that we submitted to staff later on. ' Erhart : A question to make it clear , the design is based on the existing road? Jack Boarman: Absolutely. Erhart: And we want to delay it so we can redesign it around the proposed II intersection? Jack Boarman : I think, if I could hold this up, this is our property right here so as you can see . . . Erhart : It has a major impact on it . Jack Boarman: It cuts it in the middle. After several revisions , I think II this sheet represents the compliance as finally revised. A lessertive plan than that is represented here. From the standpoint of the design of the facility, we' ve got pretty much all the schematic and design development drawings done. We' re working on final processing . Within a short period of time would be in a position to pull a final building • II C 1 Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 1988 - Page 31 IIpermit. This project really begins at this oint with the larger rger retail facility here. We' ve designed this end of the building so it really has I some good visibility so there' s really very little rear of the building kind of exposure. Heavy landscaping across here. Another larger facility here. Smaller spaces through here . A central tower element and focal I landscaping in through here accessing off of this tree columnated access drive here . Heavy landscaping through the islands in through here. Then heavy landscaping on the berm that runs through here and through over here and a berm across the back which is going to be Norway Pines and Spruce as I a barrier back here so the rear of the building really doesn't have a problem as far as exposure. The overall design theme of the building, as the completed design, we tried to relate to the high quality of retail I design that ' s being introduced and expanded over the years here in the community. Obviously this beautiful model out in the lobby represents your potential and there' s construction going on and I think the design of I this, with this central pylon tower element with a clock and a central canopy element . This is at the intersection of the columnated driveway off of this intersection and onto the road here so as you come in, it really is the focal element . It ' s high enough that from TH 5 you see it I as well. More of a village square kind of look to the facility. A combination of brick and wood and metal roofing . Again , similar to the design palate that you have established here now, the series of higher I entry elements with lower will give it a sense of not being a horizontal kind of building but a building that has a series of focal point entrances . We spent well over a month looking at different design sketches. The roof design is , in some areas, a straight truss that slopes I in. In other areas it drops down and over and down and up so that it maintains a gabled edge but has a lower recessed area for screening I equipment and that type of thing . We' re very, very sensitive to providing a very high quality design image. We think that this location is outstanding . It' s the type of thing that provides not only an excellent design for the community but the location is inherently a very important I spot and we want to make sure that the design is of the high quality that befits this kind of location. I think at that point I would open it up for any questions about the design. I Conrad : Any questions that we may have of the design? The one access point is something that intrigues me. Just one. I Jack Boarman : I think there has been some discussion with staff about even a second access point up here and we would think that that is fine. We were actually more concerned about creating controlled points of access I as the level of this road intensifies . Naturally through development, not through realignment of TH 101. The point of our interest is that this drive right here, as a frontage road with a controlled entrance here and a I controlled entrance here is a very viable type of street layout for this type of project and also for the traffic. This location, of course, is kind of at midpoints between these and provides an organized location for a major turn in and out. Obviously as the development proceeds, we would II assume that this road here would be designed to take the type of development activity, traffic that we' re talking about so we'd want to, — for safety sake, try and concentrate the intersection points so that even ___ if it became a left in or out if there' s some kind of geometric to this I Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 1988 - Page 32 intersection that might be improved for the sake of traffic flow, it would 9 P � be a planning issue. Having an exit point in addition like this , you could have two of them. That wouldn' t bother us but we were concerned I about the traffic effect on movement out here. It's going to be a lot more traffic movement out here than there would be on our internal street as our engineer notes. I Conrad : Any other questions? Erhart: Do you want to kick this around? I Conrad : Sure. Erhart: Right now you're looking at moving Lake Drive East further west? Dacy: No, TH 101. Erhart : Or TH 101. Further west right in the middle of this development . So that means two questions. Why do you want to move it further west and then want happens if you move it further west? What ' s going to happen to your development? What you' re proposing . Jack Boarman: It' s pretty serious . I Dacy: Your first question is why the realignment , is what you said . Why are we going across TH 5? Erhart : I understand that . We ' ve already approved that for the Comp Plan we' re working on. Dacy: But what are you saying by moving it? Erhart: Why do we have to cut across that property? Why can' t you just use the existing? Dacy: There are a number of engineering standards that have to be met in order to be approved by MnDot. For example, the angles of these intersections . They have to be a minimal angle . There has to be appropriate stacking distance from the TH 5 intersection. As a matter of fact, I think the original concept was a little farther over to the east II but in order to get as close of a 90 degree geometric on TH 5 as possible, they had to move towards the west , get a proper crossing over the railroad and get into a touchdown point over at Lake Drive East. So what I 'm trying to say is that there are engineering reasons why it ' s being proposed as it is and that' s why we've got our consultant trying to fine tune that to make sure that that can be accomplished and be acceptable to MnDot. I Erhart : Are we trying to work in the proposal as much as we can? Dacy: As proposed right now, it cuts right through the middle of the I property. They would not be able to build a 40,000 square foot shopping center. • Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 1988 - Page 33 1 Ellson : Haven' t you told them that since the conception of the ' development idea? Dacy: Right and what we' re looking at now as part of the study too is to ' determine exactly how much is going to be left over to see if there is a use remaining . They' re obviously saying , I can ' t build a 40,000 square foot shopping center . We accept that but we need to find out the exact construction limits and so on. Jack Boarman: If I could only add this . The setback limit is 30 feet for any development plus the setbacks for the building and the view, I don ' t want to draw on this but if you took this piece and you came back to that amount of distance plus here you are, you'd have a developable piece that ' s a sliver . Really very, very small and that ' s the end result. Now is it true that the alignment of TH 101 has had a series of discussions prior to this engineering plan? Conrad: We've been working on that for quite a while. ' Jack Boarman : Sure and I don' t think the actual drawing of this type really has been, I have several drawings in my file of concepts that cut ' all the tip of our piece and head into Lake Drive and through a lot of different configurations. The point I 'm getting at is we've been working with that issues as long as , maybe not as long as you have but certainly ' over a year. As we've developed this plan, the road alignment has been getting more and more detailed but it' s also been more and more moving . Obviously it 's not moving in a more complicated direction. ' Erhart : When did you buy this property? Frank Kramer : In 1983. Dacy: They were the original subdividers of Hidden Valley. Jack Boarman: We' ve been working on this design about, the first time we ' looked at it was about 12 months ago and it went through site plans and stopped and started. My only point I wanted to make is, this is, having been in the business 15 or more years , dealing with highway department ' issues is always a big issue and they have very good geometric issues that they want to have. I think we' ve taken the approach that the road is under design and therfore is not in place and we' ve seen already 2 or 3 different alignments and obviously the use of this project , if it were here and done, it would certainly affect the design and layout of this because that ' s the case with these apartments over here. Any of these buildings that are done and up certainly have affected the location of ' this. The use of this property is not , this building isn' t done yet but this is clearly a subsnative use that if it were in place, would affect this location . I think we' ve been trying to see where this thing is ' actually going to be located and we' ve seen it in other locales . Whether it' s over here or whether it' s over here, it certainly would have been less detrimental to the developer and yet, if this were in place, clearly those types of alternative locations to this one would have been more 1 Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 1988 - Page 34 seriously looked at. Maybe that ' s the best way to put it . Anything on paper is cheap. You can do it over and over and move it around. I think that' s kind of the issue we' re hoping to see happen. ' Batzli : Is this configuration the one we looked at when we were looking at the church? Was that the one that BRW was working on? Dacy: This one is different than the one we looked at the time of the church' s application. It shifted over more to the west on the basis of MnDot. Again, August 22nd could come around and the Council could deny a land use plan amendment . There could not be a project for realigning TH 101. We need to decide that. The Council needs to decide that once and for all and that' s what we've got to ask. Through the public hearing process, the north leg option of trying to take the traffic down on TH 5 and south on TH 101 has been a suggestion and I can assure you that the room will be packed full of people at the Planning Commission and the Council asking very good questions . We need to do that traffic analysis. Erhart : Where are we proposing the funding come to do this intersection? , Dacy: There is still an outside chance that we' ll have legislation reintroduced in a special session next fall to extend the life of the Economic Development and Tax Increment District to Hennepin County. The City, I think it' s fair to say that the City Staff at least is committed to trying to find as many funding options as we can to get this project the public support so that' s one avenue . There' s always bonding avenues . Erhart: Isn't the fact that they're going to redo TH 5, isn' t that going to pay for all the improvements whether it' s at one location or the other? II Dacy: What MnDot has said is that they will construct, they will be willing to pay for the improvements within the right-of-way. At minimum, if we can not get the roads built in conjunction with the TH 5 widening , that we would at least try and achieve to get everything in place here first before constructing the remainder of the roadway. It' s another reason why we need to know some of these cost implications . MnDot is really looking at this as a City project. We' re looking at MnDot and saying , but hey, this is a trunk highway that is carrying more than Chanhassen traffic so we' re trying to determine some costs and approach MnDot with some proposals at some type of cost sharing and then finding some financing alternatives that maybe we can work some type of financing agreement out to accomplish the realignment . Erhart: I think the plan that you 've presented is very nice and it' s a higher quality than the one that we' re currently putting in downtown from appearance wise. I think the one downtown is pretty nice. ' Jack Boarman: The point that I want to make is that we' re within 30 days of being able to finish documents and we' ve been doing it for 14 months and we' d like to continue . I Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 1988 - Page 35 Erhart : If you went through the process here in the next 60 days and got approval, when would you start construction? Jack Boarman : That' s getting closer to the fall . Frank Kramer: It's not only a matter of construction time but the tenants we have lined up ready to go right now are saying , are you ever going to get this thing off the ground and are we going to go someplace else? With that, also with us tonight is John Karrens our Attorney for New American Homes and he would like to address the Commission also. John Karrens : I 'm John Karrens , counsel to New American Companies . I don' t mean to play the heavy on this one but I think it might be useful for you to understand how I see this from my planning standpoint which is simply, they've gone through a lot of effort in a very, I think, effective working relationship with your staff on the basic site plan and it does comply in all respects with what you' re basic requirements are and it is a permitted zoning use. I am bothered by the idea of simply letting it set aside given the fact that it does put what we' re required to do on the site what you plan. I often do site review plans myself when I was on the City Council of Minneapolis and I realize as volunteers you' re sometimes caught with these things a little bit but basically the ordinances are drafted to set up the negotiation that worked here to develop a site plan that conforms. I can fully understand if we had a major hook in here and we' re asking for a variation of our conditional use permit or something like, it might be appropriate to set it aside when we comply fully but on these advise and consent site plans, it seems to me that it needs to move forward now since we ' re in compliance. I 'm bothered by the idea of tabling it with on a somewhat related, I think somewhat speculative project. Now our clients have looked at this now for well over a year on this particular design. I know when we had discussion with NSP over the easement that runs across the front of the property on TH 5, even at that time there were several different alignments because NSP at that point wasn ' t quite sure how long their power lines . They've now gone ahead and apparently built so I would really urge that this pass forward to the Council now and we 'd like to see the Council at least approve it recognizing, as I think your staff has in the report, that we ' ve done what the City expects us to do . We' ve done a site plan to meet yours plans and specs. I 'm troubled by the idea of setting it aside for a while here since we' ve already been set aside once . We'd like to move forward to the Council and get past that point and obviously the factors that go into this basically or partially and I think the near to this stage project . We' re been sitting on the caring cost here which is quite substantial now for several years and the market out here has gotten much stronger you know, I think from the development activities in your community. This is a very strong community and now I believe the time has come to move ahead and do this project which we' ve been carrying for several years at a cost so I would urge you to push ahead to Council now in acknowledgement that we've done what you' ve asked us to do and we comply. We do meet your site plan regs in every respect . I ' ll be glad to answer questions . Erhart: Barb, does this in fact tabling this before, was this on the agenda? Planning Commission Meeting July 6 , 1988 - Page 36 Dacy: No , it was never scheduled . Conrad : I hate to play the heavy here but on the other hand, we' ve been looking at the realignment of our highways for quite a while. We've been looking at TH 101 and solutions . We' ve been looking at traffic flow problems in Chanhassen and it' s not that City Staff just dreamt this up. We've been playing around with it and we finally worked it into a comprehensive plan. That plan is documented and it' s there. The exact alignment obviously has been moving around but it' s not that there hasn' t been attempt. I see a City Staff that has laid out a very agressive schedule where they' re saying we are going to do this and we are going to do that and we' re going to turn this around in a month. That' s pretty aggressive type stuff . If you' ve worked with cities before, you know that cities don' t always move that fast. Sometimes you don' t get on an agenda , and I ' ve worked with many different planning commissions and councils and you don' t get on the agenda for 4 to 8 weeks , just getting your turn in those rapidly expanding communities like Apple Valley and Burnsville. I 'm pretty comfortable what I heard tonight that City Staff is not, if I saw them trying to delay something , I think we 'd say there' s something wrong but I didn' t get that feeling tonight. I feel they' re trying to explore the other options and those other options may fall away after , the highway that goes through is going to have a whole lot of input from the neighborhood but that' s just critical based on what this group has been doing for the last couple years, and we have been playing around with that for that length of time. Again , I 'm speaking for myself and the other commissioners certainly can comment on these things but I see those two things. One , it' s in the comprehensive plan and two , we' re really aggressively going out, not trying to delay a project because we like development and this looks like a good development . Something we' d like to have here but we'd be doing a disservice to the community if we didn' t take a look at how we' re going to shuttle people from the south Chanhassen to the north and people from other places south through the town. I guess I 'm not real sensitive to some of the comments . I don' t think we ' re delaying excessively and I think we specifically do owe it to the residents of Chanhassen to take a look at the alignment . Conduct a public hearing and work with you as quickly, as extraditiously as we can. I heard staff give you that commitment and I think that' s pretty good . Any other comments? Headla : We could take the approach to deny it based on the reasons you just gave us so it would go to Council and let them decide on how critical the realignment is . Dacy: I would recommend that we not take that approach . Headla: Why? Conrad : I don' t' think it ' s good planning . Dave, when it' s not good planning, then I don' t feel that just getting it out of our court is smart. When it' s a close call and it' s a question of whether it' s good or bad planning , yes, let the Council have at it but in this case it' s just good planning . It makes sense that we take a look at this . They for sure • i Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 1988 - Page 37 are going to be talking to the Council members and staff knows that there's a parcel here for development. I 'd love to have it in that, I 'd love to squeeze it in there if we could . I think that would be neat but I think we do have an obligation to conduct some of these public hearings. I don ' t know if we need to bump it up. Headla: I don' t have the feeling of the sense of urgency at Council and what' s the difference . That bothers me. Dacy: I 'm sorry, you said the sense of urgency? Headla : Yes . Dacy: There is a window of opportunity here with this widening of TH 5. I have to believe that if we can' t accomplish the realignment of TH 101 and redo Dakota Avenue and so on and put in all those improvements and spend x amount of dollars, then if that window passes, it' s going to be very difficult to come back and start all over and start working up a plan. I think there is an urgency here. We have an opportunity to work with MnDot in trying to accomplish this new realignment. MnDot is saying , hey Chanhassen, make a decision. Are you going to build the street or not? There' s a window here that we have to look at. Conrad: Tim, what' s your druthers on this one? Erhart : My impression from talking to Council people , they' re very serious about getting this intersection at this time. Secondly, I think the getting intersection improved is priority number one and this development, as much as I like it, I think it comes second to that so I think we ought to table it. Emmings : I think denying this would be abusing our discretion. There' s no valid reason to deny it so I don ' t think we should deny it. I think to approve it would be sticking our heads in the sand when there ' s a substantial possibility that a road could go through the middle of the project so I think it' s appropriate to table it . I also agree with Ladd ' s comments about the fact that this is going to be moving along very quickly. Elison: Table . Batzli : I don ' t have anything further to add . Wildermuth: Table it. Headla : Table it. Conrad : Any other comments back to us? John Karrens : I think we' ll be heard at the public hearing on this too . Conrad : I would hope so . Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 1988 - Page 38 John Karrens : This conception, I hope by anybody here, that is a very expensive piece of road with the development that' s zoned properly and designed like this . I can see that there ought to be a better way to get traffic across TH 5 to the site. . . Conrad : We' ll take you through the process with public hearings and we' ll take it through with you as quickly as we can. Jack Boarman: Just one other comment , I seem to hear people saying it' s either or. I would only ask all of you to say, can both happen? No one' s disagreeing with the value of the TH 101 issue but let' s not make it an either or thing. A highway pays no tax base. This certainly will . Conrad : I think we' d all like to have you have it there. I think if the road really did go by, if we could sneak it by, the value is going to be. . . Jack Boarman: I made a comment earlier about plans not being very expensive, I said they' re cheap but I meant if there was a building there, it certainly would be a key factor in the alignment of the road . Since there' s nothing there, we have plans on paper , it' s not considered as heavy or as seriously in affecting the Highway Department' s CAD system that they' re laying out there in geometrics. I would only ask you to join with us and maybe making the leverage on their CAD system as they lay out their geometrics to be a bit more of a range. A bit more flexibility so both things can go . Conrad : We' ll be real interested in hearing your perspective, if we have the alternative of bringing TH 101 in front of your shopping center because that ' s got to quadruple traffic and I ' ll be interested to hear how you react. If TH 101 doesn' t go through or if it moves away. I guess if it doesn ' t go through, it just doesn' t go through. You take the local traffic but if TH 101 goes in front of your center , that' s just got to be a boom to filling that baby up. Jack Boarman: That sounds very exciting and if you could help this kind of go in front rather than through the heart, that would be great . Emmings moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission table Site Plan #88-6 until August 3 , 1988. All voted in favor and the motion carried . ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTIONS 20-695 , 20-715 , 20-774 , 20-795, AND 20-815 TO PROVIDE FOR MINIMUM BUILDING AND PARKING SETBACKS FOR LOTS ADJACENT TO RAILROADS AND RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, CITY OF CHANHASSEN. Conrad : Any questions on this?