Loading...
1d1. Rosemount, Inc. Preliminary Plat Idl . I - ' C !T Y O F P.C. DATE: Oct. 7, 1988 5 C.C. DATE: Oct. 24, 1988 Y CASE NO: 88-25 SUB II - Prepared by: Olsen/v I r- STAFF REPORT I I PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 87.5 Acres Into Five Industrial Lots and One Outlot F. i I V LOCATION: Outlot A and Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park Third Addition IAPPLICANT: Opus Corporation 9900 Bren Road, Suite 800 IMinnetonka, MN 55343 IPRESENT ZONING: IOP, Industrial Office Park a k ._.. - - _'✓ '. IACREAGE: 87 .5 acres t.iu-it,,'------ --- __ , DENSITY: ;: ___f_a./!_�L ._ !$,d JL';).1'.:;'G tq i. :--,1„' ii11, IADJACENT ZONING ^��1 f$��� AND LAND USE: N- BG & BH; vacant UaT� ; t .2 111_.1 IS- Lake Susan and Lake Susan Park f4E Q E- IOP; vacant IQ . W- IOP; vacant AND SEWER: Water and sewer are available to the site IWATER W PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site contains two Class B wetlands and one Class A wetland and heavily vegetated I (I) area around Lake Susan and the remainder is natural open space. II2000 LAND USE PLAN: Industrial 11 d a d 1 i,.-MN etc! /P+ Elm = R 12 .,. NNW :W -l-' � �� J NW: �Fi \va..�1�1 ri �.•�•� I; 111 P. Mil v� ����, ��� I ���,;,ii: 111111111111 :'` ile _ - ":3 44 pk‘IJI71. "--_-_-- ------- .. BD LIE N ..: 111. --IPr---------__- -0.- g . i „,.... ...........1„,,, I ,b, ilh,......_ - iri.inr. „...... . imi =_--------,---.-,- ,,, .930-„„-. t G = ``ir =a ._,PAC ....0....... --" . ' =� � �rw�_ IGHWA �.s % _ 4 %/ZO 'Q Set) raw 1 arc,;:26,r,r,).11 • 1.41 ,W _ illi �► ' vRO� 3 L► • dj 641 'i gill Q. � L2� 'F RSF -� ��AKO AN , __ " ' iNNEN iir „,,_,, at. ‘\\. 2161. CIRCLE RS ' LAKE SUSAN Jim, RD 1**♦ arm RicE U 7fr.. ............,„,-. -----'4- 0 7, 1 \VV . \\N\ -_ _,,-• • l I:- — 86 TH SL R4 '� _ - I PUD—R N RSF, 1 Fr Z at R12 R S F : yoo ._,. w . ._ , ; .. o• • Tt . Li e 3.1V •rs � Bs EVARD R. 18 ` RiP! 1 A2 ' - PD I RD i ," , J• r; 4 )i L //YE ' Rosemount Subdivision October 5 , 1988 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS ' The IOP District requires a minimum lot area of one acre and the minimum lot frontage 150 feet on public street and a minimum lot depth of 200 feet (Attachment #1) . REFERRAL AGENCIES Asst. City Engineer Attachment #2 Park and Recreation Attachment #3 ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing to replat Outlot A and Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park Third Addition into five industrial office park lots and one outlot. Lot 1 , Block 1 57 .8 acres ' Lot 1 , Block 2 6 .3 acres Lot 2 , Block 2 12 .6 acres Lot 3 , Block 2 5 . 8 acres ' Lot 1, Block 3 3 acres Outlot A 2 acres ' The proposed Lots 1-3 , Block 2 , located in the westerly corner, are bordered by the railroad, Lake Drive East and County Road 17 . Lot 1 , Block 3 is located in the northeast corner of the site and is bordered by Hwy. 5 , Lake Drive East and the extension of Market Boulevard. Lot 1 , Block 1 is located in the southern por- tion of the site adjacent to Lake Drive East and Lake Susan. ' Outlot A is located on the westerly boundary of Lot 1, Block 1 . Outlot A was created to be transferred to the city to be used for additional parkland for Lake Susan. All of the lots contain the required lot area, frontage and depth for the IOP District. Currently, the right-of-way for Lake Drive East is located along the southerly boundary of proposed Lots 1 and 2 , Block 2 and then through the middle portion of Lot 1 , Block 1 . The preliminary plat is showing the realignment of Lake Drive East to the north of its current location. The applicant is in the process of vacating the existing portion of Lake Drive East and relocating it as shown on the preliminary plat. The relocation of Lake Drive East provides additional land for Lot 1, Block 1 and maintains ' the large Class A wetland and one of the Class B wetlands on Lot 1 , Block 1 . The City Council will review the vacation request at the October 24th City Council meeting. I Rosemount Subdivision October 5 , 1988 , Page 3 The buildable area of Lot 1 , Block 3 is reduced as a result of the proposed realignment of Lake Drive East the future extension of Market Boulevard, Hwy. 5 and the Class B wetland. Lot 1, Block 3 contains a Class B wetland which makes up the westerly half of the lot. The site will have to maintain the front yard setbacks from Hwy. 5 , Market Boulevard and Lake Drive East and the 75 foot setback from the Class B wetland. It appears that with the imposed setbacks of the Zoning Ordinance, the buildable area for Lot 1 , Block 3 is questionable without variances to the setbacks from the roads and possibly a variance to the wetland setback. Therefore, staff is recommending that Lot 1, Block 3 be designated as an outlot and be deemed unbuildable until it can be shown that the site could be developed with a plan that maintains the required setbacks . If the lot is approved as Lot 1 , Block 3 , the city is approving it is a buildable lot and improvement to the site could not be denied. If the lot is approved as a buildable lot site improvements could infringe on the wetland and ' front yard setbacks by receiving a variance since a hardship would exist. Park and Recreation Commission , The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the site plan for Rosemount and recommended that 2 acres of parkland along the eastern boundary of Lake Susan Park be dedicated resulting in a $48,000 credit to park dedication. Additionally, the Park and Recreation Commission recommended that the city include a sidewalk in the Lake Drive East improvement project and that the developer be required to pay 100% of trail dedication fees (Attachment #3) . RECOMMENDATION Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the , following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Subdivision Request #88-25 as shown on the preliminary plat stamped "Received September 2Q, 1988" subject to the following conditions: 1 . Approval of the proposed vacation of Lake Drive East. I 2 . Lot 1 , Block 3 shall be designated as an outlot and deemed unbuildable until it has been shown that development of the site can occur while maintaining the required setbacks from the roads and wetland. 11 I I I ' , Rosemount Subdivision October 5 , 1988 Page 4 3 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the city and provide the city with the necessary financial ' sureties to guarantee the installation of the public improve- ments . 4 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit and DNR permit. 5 . The Rosemount site shall address all on-site ponding required to maintain the necessary water quality standards which are to be determined by the environmental assessment worksheet. ' 6 . The applicant shall provide the necessary construction and utility easements as deemed necessary by the feasibility study for Lake Drive East. ' PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission recommended approval of the subdivision ' request for Rosemount with staff' s recommended conditions and added the following: 7 . Staff shall confirm that Outlot A is being retained by the city for parkland. CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION ' Staff recommends the City Council approve Subdivision Request #88-25 as shown on the preliminary plat stamped "Received ' September 22, 1988" subject to the following conditions: 1 . Approval of the proposed vacation of Lake Drive East. 2 . Lot 1, Block 3 shall be designated as an outlot and deemed unbuildable until it has been shown that development of the site can occur while maintaining the required setbacks from the roads and wetland. 3 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with ' the city and provide the city with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the installation of the public improve- ments . 4 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit and DNR permit. 5 . The Rosemount site shall address all on-site ponding required to maintain the necessary water quality standards which are to be determined by the environmental assessment worksheet. Rosemount Subdivision October 5 , 1988 Page 5 6 . The applicant shall provide the necessary construction and I utility easements as deemed necessary by the feasibility study for Lake Drive East. ATTACHMENTS 1 . Zoning regulations . 2 . Memo from Larry Brown dated September 30, 1988 . 3 . Memo from Lori Sietsema dated September 28 , 1988 . 4 . Planning Commission minutes dated October 5 , 1988 . 5 . Preliminary plat stamped "Received September 22, 1988" . ' r I I I I I I I I I I IC ZONING § 20-814 IARTICLE XXII. "IOP" INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK DISTRICT Sec. 20-811. Intent. The intent of the "IOP" District is to provide an area identified for large scale light industrial and commercial planned development. ' (Ord. No. 80,Art. V, § 16(5-16-1), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-812. Permitted uses. IThe following uses are permitted in an"IOP" District: (1) Offices. I (2) Warehouses. (3) Light manufacturing. (4) Trade shops. (5) Health services. (6) Printers. (7) Indoor health and recreation clubs. I (8) Body shops. (9) Utility services. (10) Recording studios. (11) Off-premises parking lots. ' (12) Conference/convention centers. (Ord. No. 80,Art. V, § 16(5-16-2), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-813. Permitted accessory uses. The following are permitted accessory uses in an "IOP" District: (1) Parking lots and ramps. (2) Signs. (3) Retail sales of products stored or manufactured on the site provided no more than twenty(20)percent of the floor space is used for retail sales. (Ord. No. 80,Art. V, § 16(5-16-3), 12-15-86) ' Sec. 20-814. Conditional uses. I C The following are conditional uses in an"IOP" District: (1) Concrete mixing plants. (2) Communication transmission towers. 1227 . 1 § 20-814 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE (3) Public buildings. (4) Motor freight terminals. (5) Outdoor health and recreation clubs. ' (6) Screened outdoor storage. (7) Research laboratories. (8) Contracting yards. (9) Lumber yards. (10) -Home improvement trades. (11) Hotels and motels. (12) Food processing. (Ord. No. 80,Art. V, § 16(5-16-4), 12-15-86) State law reference—Conditional uses,M.S. § 462.3595. Sec. 20-815. Lot requirements and setbacks. , The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "IOP" District subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter: (1) The minimum lot area is one(1)acre. (2) The minimum lot frontage is one hundred fifty U50)feet, except that lots fronting on a cul-de-sac shall have a minimum frontage of sixty(60)feet. (3) The minimum lot depth is two hundred(200)feet. (4) The maximum lot coverage is seventy(70)percent. (5) 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 street side yards shall be a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet in all districts. Other setbacks are as follows: a. For front yards, thirty(30)feet. b. For rear yards, ten(10)feet. c. For side yards, ten(10)feet. (6) The maximum height is as follows: a. For the principal structure, four(4)stories/fifty(50)feet. b. For accessory structures, one(1)story. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 16(5-16-5), 12-15-86) 1228 1 :fir CITYOF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1 900 MEMORANDUM ' TO: Planning Commission FROM: Larry Brown, Staff Engineer DATE: September 30, 1988 /77 ' SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Review for Lot 1 and Outlot A, Block 1 Chanhassen Lakes Business Park, Third Addition Planning File No. 88-25 SUB, Rosemount, Inc. This site is located immediately north of Lake Susan and west of State Highway 101. The site is varied in topography and contains mature vegetation scattered throughout. At present, Outlot C ' serves as the City' s park and pump house facility. During the September 26 , 1988 meeting, the City Council ' authorized a feasibility study to analyze sanitary sewer, water- main and construction of Lake Drive East through these proper- ties. Several of the issues regarding this site for utilities 1 will have to be addressed once the feasibility study is completed. At this time, general comments will be made which will need to be clarified through the feasibility process . 1 Watermain Municipal water service will be available to the site by the ' extension of the watermain along the proposed Lake Drive East. The site plan, which is not up for approval at this time, indica- tes that the watermain for the entire Rosemount site will be constructed by the City. It is unclear at this time whether the ' applicant is requesting that the City do this construction as a public works improvement project. 1 Sanitary Sewer Municipal sanitary sewer service through the proposed right-of- way of Lake Drive East will be analyzed as part of the authorized feasibility study. The applicant should note that at this time the City has not been petitioned to extend sanitary sewer or water service to the proposed building as a public works improve- ment project. Unless petitioned, it is the applicant' s respon- sibility for the construction of this watermain. If the applicant wishes to petition the City for the construction of 1 these mains , the cost of these improvements would be assessed back to each of the benefitting property owners . 1 1 Planning Commission September 30 , 1988 II Page 2 Grading and Drainage I The proposed grading for the Rosemount site appears to be appropriate for the surrounding area. The intended use of the I existing ponds/wetland will need to be addressed through the wetland alteration permit process . The plans also indicate a future ponding site by the City. I Unless the feasibility study for Lake Drive East indicates other- wise, the City does not have plans for immediate construction of II this ponding site. The plans should be revised such that the water quality issues for the Rosemount site will be addressed adequately through the ponds on site. The proposed facility has proposed a water discharge to the II ponding sites, along with cooling towers . I have reviewed the Environmental Protection Agency report for the discharge for the II Eden Prairie site. The report states that the discharge of water from their facility is acceptable. The applicant is preparing an environmental assessment worksheet at this time. Easements II Construction of utility easements will be determined through the II feasibility and plans and specifications review process. The final plat should reflect any permanent easements required by the feasibility study once approved. II Conditions of Approval 1 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with II the city and provide the city with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the installation of the public improve- ments . I 2 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit and DNR permit. I 3 . The Rosemount site shall address all on-site ponding required to maintain the necessary water quality standards which are to be determined by the environmental assessment worksheet. II 4 . The applicant shall provide the necessary construction and utility easements as deemed necessary by the feasibility study II for Lake Drive East. II II II CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 1 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM 1 TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner FROM: Lori Sietsema , Park and Recreation Coordinator DATE: September 28 , 1988 2 SUBJ: Rosemount, Inc. 1 The Park and Recreation Commission recently reviewed the site plan for Rosemount , Inc. Attached please find the background information and staff recommendation to the Park and Recreation 1 Commission. The Park and Recreation Commission moved to recommend that the City request the dedication of 2 acres of parkland along the 1 eastern boundary of Lake Susan Park, allowing a $48 ,000 credit to park dedication. Additionally , is is recommended that the City include the sidewalk in the Lake Drive East street improvement 1 project and that the developer be required to pay 100% of trail dedication fees. i 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 I/ Park and Recreation Commission September 27, 1988 Page 2 BACKGROUND Rosemount, Inc. , is proposing to build a 330,000 sq. ft. building , on the property next to Lake Susan Park. The HRA has been working to provide incentives to attract this company as it will bring 700 new jobs to Chanhassen and over $839,000 in new • taxes annually. In early 1988, the Park and Recreation Commission made applica- tion to the Department of Trade and Economic Development for the park development at Lake Susan Park. Part of that park design involves boat access on Lake Susan. The logical place to put the access would be along the east boundary of the park; however, doing so would require the removal of a stand of large mature oak trees . Staff has felt that the acquisition of additional land to the east would allow us to construct the access without endangering the stand of trees . In conceptual discussions, Rosemount has agreed to dedicate the 2 acres needed along our eastern park boundary. They would expect a credit on park dedication fees for the amount the land cost them, $24 ,000 per acre. This 57. 75 acre project would generate $60,637 in park dedication. With the dedication of 2 acres of parkland, the balance due would be $12,637. The Safe Sidewalk and Trailway Plan calls for an off-street sidewalk along Lake Drive East. As this street will be constructed by the City, a credit on the trail dedication fee would not be appropriate. RECOMMENDATION It is the recommendation of this office to request the dedication of 2 acres of parkland on the eastern boundary of Lake Susan Park, allowing a $48,000 credit to park dedication. Additionally, it is recommended that the City include the sidewalk in the Lake Drive East street improvement project and that the developer be required to pay 100% of the trail dedication fee ( $20 ,212) . • 1 L • I ' .. • Planning Commission Meeting October 5, 1988 - Page 17 I4. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit. I5. The proposed driveway shall maintain a 12 foot separation from the existing driveway located to the south on Park Court. II 6. The applicant shall supply the City Engineer with details (storm profile sheet) for the installation of the storm sewer which shall include details for the rip rap, flared and sections and energy dissipators prior to City Council 's approval . ;.r" 7. The erosion control as delineated on the plan shall be revised to reflect the City's standard for Type II erosion control (staked hay Ibales and snow fence) . The erosion control plan shall be revised on the plan set to reflect the City's standard for Type II erosion control . I8. The driveways (proposed and existing) shall be signed appropriately to designate one-way traffic for each driveway (refer to Attachment #1) . I A signing and striping plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to final plat approval . All voted in favor and the motion carried . IFL SUBDIVISION OF 87. 3 ACRES INTO 5 INDUSTRIAL OFFICE LOTS AND TWO OUTLOTS ON I PROPERTY LOCATED AT OUTLOT A AND LOT 1, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK 3RD ADDITION, JUST NORTH OF LAKE SUSAN AND WEST OF HIGHWAY 101, PROPERTY ZONED IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK, ROSEMOUNT, INC. IJo Ann Olsen presented the staff report . Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . I , Bob Worthington: Mr. Chairman, given the fact that you' re in a hurry and I given the significant nature of the project, in a way it ' s going to be very difficult for me to give a very short presentation this evening because we are very pleased to be able to present the beginnings of what for us is the Rosemount, Inc . manufacturing facility which all of you know I is relocating and constructing a major facility here in Chanhassen . The process that we' re talking about which is now being interpretted through this plat started several months ago. As you know Chanhassen was in I competition with another community. Was able to persuade the Rosemount people that this would be a good community for their facility and Rosemount indeed committed to the community. It was just two days ago II that Opus was selected as the contractor for the project and now we are in the process of evolving the site plan which we' re going to be coming back to you for your approval on next month for this facility. We' ve kind of '`� been running far a while. We' re very pleased that we' re able to start the I process this evening . We think we' ll have an EAW which is a mandatory requirement and Alan Schaft is ready to submit that to the State for their comment and . . .multiple comments back and hopefully finding no major I , . .; .;.le,ii Planning Commission Meeting October 5, 1988 - Page 18 I ( adverse impact. . .environmental issues that have been identified as new research on the site. The major focus of course is the larger 57. 57 acres upon which the development will take place. I can say this , even though ' we' re not here this evening to talk about a site plan, that it will be on the southeastern corner of the site . The building will be located and access will be provided off of Lake Drive which will be extended in a slightly different configuration than was proposed when you approved previously the Detroit Deisel project on this site. There's going to be a conference center on this site which. . . in terms of the building. They' re going to come in with a much needed and very important facility for our II park as well as the community. We think we' re going to have an exciting plan to show you in about a month and we hope you agree with that. We reviewed the staff report and have no objections to any of the stipulations that have been recommended as conditions of approval for the II plat. We do want to comment on the fact that, as was indicated by staff, that the lot that they want to make into an outlot is going to be a difficult one to develop. However , we disagree with the language that II it's an undevelopable site. We think it is a developable site. It will require perhaps some variances in order for it to be fully developed . We think that should 10 be shown as a variance, perhaps. . .could contribute to II the overall image and prosperity of the park. So with those comments , I ' ll step back and I ' ll be happy to answer any questions that you may have. I think the staff report pretty much covers basically what it is we' re looking for this evening. Hope that you agree with it' s recommendation that she spoke to . Erhart moved , Emmings seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in II favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Batzli : I think I only had one real question. That was , the Park and Recreation Commission reviewed this indicating that 2 acres of parkland along the eastern boundary be dedicated. Is that something we' re trying to be addressing in this preliminary plat? ' Olsen: There essentially already is a deal established between Opus and the City and the Park and Rec Commission, they agreed that to receive that II outlot of 2 acres for parkland to be combined with the Lake Susan Park. Batzli : Which outlot are we looking at? Olsen: Outlot B. Batzli : Is that condition, is it to be deeded to the City? What ' s the deal? Olsen : It can be made a condition of the subdivision. Essentially it' s kind of an internal deal . r Batzli : It normally would not be made a condition? Brown: I think what's going on here is that this may have been covered in the purchase agreement which at this time I 'm not privy to but I believe I . , . Planning Commission Meeting IOctober 5, 1988 - Page 19 that was incorporated into that purchase agreement and for us to make it a condition may enforce something else than what was stated in that agreement . I only say that as a caution . I 'm not sure what the content was . Batzli : I guess I will leave it up to staff ' s consideration to determine ' whether it needs to be a condition before Council approval because I 'm obviously not privy to the purchase contract that you have. ' Bob Worthington: I might be able to shed a little bit of light on that. As you know, with all subdivisions , the city has the discretion of imposing the park dedication fee which can be paid in the form of land or cash. In this instance, because the City an interest in expanding Lake ' Susan Park, we negotiated land as a part of the dedication requirement with a cash balance and that is why it is a special purchase agreement stipulation between Rosemount and Opus and the City. So that's basically why that is a requirement. Batzli : So that' s already been inserted in a purchase agreement? ' Bob Worthington: That' s right . Batzli : I guess I 'd just like staff to verify that before it gets to City litaCouncil . That' s all I have. Emmings : I don ' t have anything . ' Erhart : Market Blvd . is shown on here as a through street going south . Is that the plan or is that depending on 2 or 2A? I : Olsen : 2 or 2A. Erhart : If it' s 2, which TH 101 goes the existing route, than Market ' 1 Blvd. would end at Lake Drive East? Olsen: It would not be realigned as it' s shown. ' Erhart: So it would basically T into Lake Drive East . Olsen: There has been discussion to make a full intersection. ' Erhart: Okay, but we would, this plat it reserves, we' re safe no matter which way we want to go? Obviously I like developing Rosemount in our ' City. I ' ll be waiting to look at the site plan . Conrad : I had no questions other than the second point on the recommended motion. I guess staff is saying it' s probably an unbuildable lot. I don ' t know that we want , I personally don ' t want to communicate that I feel it is buildable. I feel real strongly, I think the words you mentioned , you .didn' t like the terminology. I think it' s fairly weak ' terminology allowing you an alternative but I personally would never set you up to think that we would be in a position to grant a variance or variances. I get uncomfortable that we' re setting up parcels that need . . . Y Planning Commission Meeting October 5, 1988 - Page 20 1 variances to build and therefore, I feel comfortable with this motion. I I think it' s still pretty soft, granting an opportunity to Opus to look at it. Yet on the other hand , I wouldn' t be telling you the truth if I thought, I would really feel strongly about sticking to Chanhassen' s ordinances especially when we' re dealing with such a large parcel . Erhart: Jo Ann, is the potential for 40 foot additional right-of-way ' required off of that Lot 1 there as well? • Olsen: For TH 5? Erhart : Yes . Olsen : TH 5 is going to be improved to the north of that site. Erhart: It' s not going to adversely affecting it? Emmings moved , Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision Request #88-25 as shown on the preliminary plat stamped "Received September 20, 1988" subject to the following conditions : II 1. Approval of the proposed vacation of Lake Drive East. 2. Lot 1, Block 3 shall be designated as an Outlot and deemed unbuildable until it has been shown that development of the site can occur while maintaining the required setbacks from the roads and wetland . 3. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the installation of the public improvements . 4. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit and DNR permit. ' 5. The Rosemount site shall address all on-site ponding required to maintain the necessary water quality standards which are to be determined by the environmental assessment worksheet. 6. The applicant shall provide the necessary construction and utility easements as deemed necessary by the feasibility study for Lake Drive I East . All voted in favor and the motion carried . ' ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-421 (11) OF THE WETLAND ORDINANCE TO CLARIFY THAT THE CITY HAS CONTROL OVER DREDGING OF WETLANDS IN PUBLIC WATERS WHICH ARE LOCATED IN LAKES WHOLLY WITHIN THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN. Conrad : Jo Ann , anything other than the obvious here? '.