1d2. Rosemount, Final Plat ...
CITY OF i 6,-2.
.:
\ „i . CHANHASSEN
k,\„_,,... :
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317,
.= (612) 937-1900
- ✓
MEMORANDUM
T0: Don Ashworth, City Manager c• _-"f ,- ?" .7.
FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner - -----
Date su%riitied to GauncL
DATE: October 20 , 1988 4
SUBJ: Final Plat for Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 2nd Addition
On October 5 , 1988 , the Planning Commission recommended approval
of the preliminary plat for the Chanhassen Lakes Business Park
2nd Addition with 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.
6 . The applicant shall provide the necessary construction and
utility easements as deemed necessary by the feasibility study
for Lake Drive East.
The applicant has submitted the final plat for the Chanhassen
Lakes Business Park 2nd Addition and wishes the City Council to
act on both preliminary and final plat at the October 24, 1988,
meeting. The plat is creating five IOP lots , one of which will
be the location for the Rosemount facility.
The submitted final plat is consistent with the approved pre-
liminary plat. The city is currently working on a feasibility
study for Lake Drive East. The feasibility study, which will
Mr. Don Ashworth
October 20 , 1988
Page 2
be reviewed by the City Council in late November or early
December, will determine the exact roadway easement for Lake
Drive East and any additional drainage and utility easements
required. In addition, the site plan for the Rosemount facility
is currently going through the city review process . The site
plan will also determine exact locations of drainage easements on
Lot 1, Block 1 in relation to the two wetlands located in the
northwest corner of the site. Lot 1 , Block 3 must also provide
drainage and utility easements to cover the existing wetland on
that site.
RECOMMENDATION
The proposed final plat dated "Received October 21, 1988" is
consistent with the preliminary plat. Staff recommends that the
City Council adopt the following motion:
"The City Council approves the final plat as shown on the plat
dated "Received October 21, 1988" , and 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.
6 . The applicant shall provide the any easements as deemed
necessary by the feasibility study for Lake Drive East.
7 . The necessary drainage and utility easements over the wetland
on Lot 1 , Block 3 will be provided.
8 . Drainage easements necessary for the wetland areas on Lot 1,
Block 1 as determined by the approved site plan will be
recorded with Carver County.
ATTACHMENTS
1 . Final plat dated October 21, 1988 .
.Tlanning Commission Meeting
October 5, 1988 - Page 17
4. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the
Watershed District permit.
5. The proposed driveway shall maintain a 12 foot separation from the
existing driveway located to the south on Park Court.
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 .
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
bales 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 .
8. The driveways (proposed and existing) shall be signed appropriately to
designate one-way traffic for each driveway (refer to Attachment #1) .
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 .
SUBDIVISION OF 87.3 ACRES INTO 5 INDUSTRIAL OFFICE LOTS AND TWO OUTLOTS ON
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.
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report.
Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order .
Bob Worthington: Mr. Chairman, given the fact that you' re in a hurry and
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
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
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
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 for a while. We' re very pleased that we' re able to start the
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
Planning Commission Meeting
October 5, 1988 - Page 18 1'
adverse impact . . .environmental issues that have been identified as new
research on the site. The major focus of course is the larger 57.57 ac
we�rewnothhere thislevening will
talk about
take ea I can say this , even thoug
the southeastern corner of the site. The building lwilltbetlocatedland be
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 b:
conference center on this site which. . . in terms of the building . They' .
going to come in with a much needed and very important facility for our
park as well as the community. We think we ' re going to have an excitin•
plan to show you in about a month and we hoe yo
reviewed the staff report and have no objectionsutogany of tthehat. We
stipulations that have been recommended as conditions of approval for th
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
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 . W;
think that should 10 be shown as a variance,
the overall image and prosperity of the ark.peSo with those contribute comments,
I ' ll step back and I ' ll be happy park. So with those comments,
have. I think the staff reportypretty smuch acovers sbasically twhat 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 .
favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed .Al1 voted in
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.
to be addressing in this preliminary s that something we ' re trying
y plat.G
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
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 .
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
,nning Commission Meeting
;tober 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
Council. 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?
Olsen : 2 or 2A.
Erhart : If it' s 2, which TH 101 goes the existing route , than Market
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 unbui.ldable 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
Planning Commission Meeting
October 5, 1988 - Page 20
C
variances to build and therefore, I feel comfortable with this motion .
think it' s still pretty soft,
it.think
Yet on the other hand , granting an opportunity to Opus to look a
thought, I would really feel lstrongly taboutestickingu to truth if
ordinances especially � I
y when we' re dealing with such a large Cn parcel .
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
ofcSibdivisionmbequ2st 19882 sa
5s shown on the
tvr
preliminary plat
sect to the following condition-
1. Approval of the proposed vacation of Lake Drive East.
2. Lot 1, Block 3 shall be designated as an Outlot and deemed unbuildabl
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 Cit
and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to y
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
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?
Planning Commission Meeting
October 5 , 1988 - Page 17
4. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the
Watershed District permit.
5. The proposed driveway shall maintain a 12 foot separation from the
existing driveway located to the south on Park Court.
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 .
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
bales 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 .
8 . The driveways (proposed and existing) shall be signed appropriately to
designate one-way traffic for each driveway (refer to Attachment #1) .
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 .
SUBDIVISION OF 87.3 ACRES INTO 5 INDUSTRIAL OFFICE LOTS AND TWO OUTLOTS ON
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, ROSENIOUNT, INC.
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report .
Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order .
Bob Worthington: Mr. Chairman, given the fact that you' re in a hurry and
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
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
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
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 for a while. We ' re very pleased that we' re able to start the
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