7. Reqeust from Planning Commission for Input from Countil on Site Plan Review for Expansion of Taco Shop 1. 11
CITY OF 17.
1
vi
1 -
• 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
'' (612) 937-1900
• __ l J-
MEMORANDUM ° ` '
ITO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
FROM: Stephen Hanson, Planning Director .
i
A-
DATE: February 7 , 1989 �'� _ ---
ISUBJ: Site Plan for Expansion of the Chanhassen Taco Shop
This item was tabled by the Planning Commission at their January
1 18 , 1989 meeting. The Commission discussed whether to deny the
application based on staff' s recommendation or table for further
information. The Commission determined that they needed input
II from City Council relative to the potential for acquisition of
this property as part of the Highway 101 improvements. The
Commission and the applicant felt if the property is to be
acquired then no further improvements to the property should be
1 done.
The Commission would like some direction from City Council
1 regarding the possible acquisition of this parcel as part of Hwy.
101 improvements. If the parcel is not to be acquired Planning
Commission would appreciate comments on the long term use of this
parcel.
I
ATTACHMENTS
II. Planning Commission minutes dated January 18, 1989.
2 . Staff report.
3 . Site Plan submittal checklist.
Manager ' s Comments: As noted
g by the City Planner, the final
draft of the feasibility study for new TH 101 realignment did
I include acquisition of the Taco Shop property. The realignment
plan shows that the use can exist, but traffic patterns will be
circuitous and will generate numerous U-turn conditions which
II defeat the initial purpose of the project, i . e. increased safety
at that intersection. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority' s
Redevelopment Plan includes acquisition of the Apple Valley
Red-E-Mix property. This is currently a non-conforming use and a
I less than attractive entry monument for our community. With the
acquisition of the Taco Shop, re-use of the entire parcel,
including the Red-E-Mix property, could be better achieved.
I
1
4 1`
Page 2
II
Funding for the Highway 101 realignment project continues to be
dependent upon the City' s ability to allow tax increment revenues II from our Economic Development District to flow to the project
area. To do such, state legislation is required. This past
year, the legislation was presented and was within one vote of
passing in the final moments of the legislative session. The
II
primary stumbling block was opposition generated by Hennepin
County. As can be seen from the attached letter ( end of this
packet) , the City has spent considerable time attempting to II insure that that opposition will not exist in the 1989 legisla-
tive session. Should the Hennepin County Board act to support
our project, or more importantly - not act to fight us , Senator II Schmitz and Representative Kelso stand ready to introduce
legislation supporting our position. The project is a non-
partisan project and the City did receive significant support
from Representative Sidney Pauly (Republican-Eden Prairie) during
II
this last legislative session.
Recognizing that legislation must occur within the next 30 to 60
I
days , this office would recommend that the City Council authorize
the City Attorney' s office to prepare the necessary documents to
start condemnation of the Taco Shop property. The motion should II also include directing the City Attorney' s office to obtain an
appraisal for the property which can be used to negotiate
acquisition and, therefore, potentially avoid condemnation.
f /V ii)
1
_,) il
il
li
li
ii
I
ii
I
I
I ' __, ,
w
II CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
C JANUARY 18 , 1989
IChairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7: 30 p.m. .
1 MEMBERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad, Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings, Annette Ellson,
Jim Wildermuth and David Headla
IMEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Batzli
STAFF PRESENT: Steve Hanson, City Planner and Larry Brown, Asst. City
IEngineer
I (Due to technical failure of the audio equipment , the meeting could not be
recorded. Therefore, the Minutes are summarized rather than verbatim. )
I PUBLIC HEARING:
SITE PLAN REVIEW AND A VARIANCE TO THE PARKING LOT REQUIREMENTS FOR A 696
SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO THE CHANHASSEN TACO SHOP ON PROPERTY ZONED CBD,
1 CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED AT 195 WEST 78TH STREET, GUY
PETERSON.
Public Present :
C
Mr . and Mrs . Guy Peterson - Applicants
IISteve Hanson presented the staff report on this item.
I The applicants , Mr. and Mrs. Guy Peterson , stated that the issue stated in
the staff report that negotiations for acquisition of the Taco Shop due to
the realignment of TH 101, were unknown to them until they had received
the staff report. They stated that the City had made comments a few years
Iback but not recently.
I The Planning Commission discussed the item and were concerned about the
lack of information provided to them and that they really didn' t have
anything to react to. They talked of denying the item, as staff had
recommended, passing it onto City Council without a recommendation or
tabling the item so the applicants could provide more information. The
following motion was decided upon after discussion with the Planning
Commission and a recommendation from Councilman Jay Johnson.
Emmings moved , Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to
table action on the Site Plan Review and variance to the parking lot for
Chanhassen Taco Shop and pass it onto the City Council for their
recommendation and to put a priority on whether this property would be
affected by TH 101 and TH 5. All voted in favor and the motion carried .
1
II
CITY OF
P.C. Date: 1/18/89
,0,7 CNN3 � 5 /`� C.C. Date: 2 13 89
Case No:Prepared by: Steve
Hanson/Fred Hoisington
STAFF REPORT
1
PROPOSAL:
Site Plan Review for a 696 square foot addition to the existing
Chanhassen Taco Shop Restaurant (addition of 32 seats).
Z LOCATION:
Northwest corner of Highway 5 and Dakota Avenue.
APPLICANT:
Mr. Guy S. Peterson
910 Nez Perce Court
Q Chanhassen, MN 55317
a
PRESENT ZONING:
BIT, Highway and Business Services District
ACREAGE:
+/- .75 acres
DENSITY:
N/A
ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE:
N - R-12, Apartments
S - BH, Highway and Business Services, Service Station
E - BFI, Highway and Business Services, Single-Family Residence
and Office Building
W - BH, highway and Business Services, Rcd-E-Mix Cement Plant
WATER AND SEWER:
WAvailable to property.
■ • PlIYSICAL CIIARACTERISTICS:
The property is an odd-shaped lot surrounded on three sides by streets. Soils
and slope conditions are good for development.
1990 LAND USE PLAN:
Parks and Open Space.
.. liqp
, I \s' 'I. • i
loor44 $ tl. lir&: ". • .•
' ' • '1'‘ ? . /4t iti.,op; . kt, 4401- IP>s, ,
\
,
\V...„„, : 0
Fic?) 1 2 cow° 0
41)
,I.,,..tt,4 it.
r- . -
, i.. , ....- _.: ....- ,--„, go. . , --
4 's;
Ilib
E ..
.' !MOPE fris
'Eue NIF an ma Maw; lag■Ii= 0 Av ' i.
. „.: .
• ----- . u.i
01
•
..,,,., - • MOW NA rri 4 cn
- <•, ) me NM Wm um,- ----- - _ -a'..lita° ,-,
..,
Location of Proposed Addition i'::1....:t' -; , •
2 :z. I 4Z
.4i4 i
- - _
wt. ., 114E1511e ST mu . -.41
' W TH ST it (..)
. ....i
-7 , 4 • °16_,,,e, -41. • c t
112 c
.:
62 .111 - Ar.:"..• ::::":.:/...... 1.1
P !lin 1 1 A....
BD I ill
III p •.:$.007..-4- • fri-------.
, •.; ,,,..r,
, --.6 ka- . . . .4112 . . . ., •i
- -1. -, .------ ilippirroalaill.11°V.
3 10P
•
• .s.-- -Am'
..... .it . %.
dor
.4. .......
' .1 is : 811,404,601 A
BG gor l't w :01 - lair"' air
• Ima. „,,.....„...: -
.... . to , .• :05 ma_ Init4 _ qi
lhoisiiirpii T.,
.!'Ma.' 40 if-!7,; al= P4144141 m ' idammitiammt
15:114,!. 1.1 ... Kw-0 --- , o
0 o
i I 0 I ''1/4e;;) I . • - es.
- ..'„,is .•,,,06 ci; bell& (--
„Irm 1•■•.T• bt;•• irlo NW IWO or3a2 ua
CO
II ;u 01$lk sia,lath at hi. .I 46 ily-
tmi; • 15. wfigiv;% di., . , eloo
Sleep. %.lbettetAi:I
6.4reitiagss ',:g.1 as,SU* , I ( •
, P.■ ie — 8200 . • ,
VIP?
DAKO AN 4 ,
.. -.
MARSH I‘
J; ,
f t' --- ---'-7-...\'' .
-8300
CIRCLE _
‘■• :g
I SUSAN
.--%
'ho■. ., _, _
_
y,r, 8•`4.11
1 LID
Alt- 111 if / 741r4 RICE AI ., -SI/ LAKE
_ ----,.
I . . / '-.4.,‘' NE
...
_111 11)\
86 TH ST /,, ,
7-_
:• .._:, - ' --;--- -
...k /
_ - ,-------
: ......
•
• II• ,(-(-
..;....... .....„,___
—
- - - „ . ,,- 8600
-. . p• gam .
0 .
i cT-I •
. 8700
RSF •
•
ti)
a z R 1 2 8800
I .g 7 - .".• • . • • ,.
F.''.. . '. il P ONO
. •
1-• ; GL11 E Ro 8900
:4 --- ---
4 . --
' ;.- • :...--• ••• -i• ..,
tai •
•
o .
• 18 ,.
• ,) ...
:.
9000 ,
I
1
I
ZONING HISTORY
I
February, 1972: The property was zoned C-3, Commercial Service District as
part of the adoption of Zoning Ordinance No. 47.
I
February, 1974: The property was zoned CBD, Central Business District as part
of the adoption of Ordinance No. 47-A.
I
December, 1986: The property was zoned BH, Highway and Business Services
District.
(BACKGROUND
I
In June, 1982, the applicant applied for a Conditional Use Permit to construct
an addition onto the west side of the existing building which was previously a
I
drive-in restaurant. The owner wished to change the use of the property to
an off-sale liquor store. The owner did not pursue the Conditional Use Permit I
and instead opened a taco shop in the existing building. Since the Taco Shop
was similar to the previous use and structural changes were not necessary,
the City did not require a Conditional Use Permit at that time. I
In August, 1985, a Conditional Use Permit was granted for a 12' x 30' addition
onto the west side of the Taco Shop Restaurant. Since it was an intensification
I
of a use in a CBD (Central Business District), it required issuance of a
Conditional Use Permit. The Conditional Use Permit was issued subject to four
conditions: I
1) A 20 foot separation be maintained between picnic area and parking
I
stalls.
2) The Conditional Use Permit be reviewed if parking capacity is
inadequate to handle present traffic or if internal congestion poses
I
significant safety hazards.
3) The permit be reviewed in one year.
4) The permit be contingent on meeting Health Department and Building I
Official's regulations.
I
1
2
I
I
I
`PROPOSAL
The applicant is proposing a 696 square foot addition onto the west side of
I the restaurant. The addition will include a public restroom, additional seating
for 32 people, and expansion of the kitchen area. The current building has
984 square feet, no public restroom, and seating capacity for 48. The addition
Iwill increase seating to 80 and total building square footage to 1,680.
IThere are 33 existing parking spaces. Five spaces are located along the east
side of the building, 19 are on the south side of the property, and nine are
I adjacent to Apple Valley Red-E-Mix (see Site Plan). No additional parking
spaces are planned. Major variances are being requested by the applicant to
avoid ordinance compliance in matters of setback, curbing and landscaping.
I 1ANALYSIS
IGeneral Comment
I The 8.5" x 11" Site Plan submitted by the applicant does not meet Site Plan
Review requirements. The following items are missing:
Ia. Complete site plans signed by a registered architect, civil engineer,
landscape architect or other design professional.
I b. Boundary survey.
c. Name of project on submitted Site Plan and date proposed.
d. Tabulation box - Percent of site covered by parking area, projected
I number of employees, number of parking spaces required and
number of handicapped parking spaces.
e. Location of all existing and proposed structures with distance from
Iboundaries and building dimensions.
f. Vehicular circulation systems showing location and dimensions for all
driveways, parking spaces, parking lot aisles and loading areas.
Ig. Landscape plan.
h. Lighting locations, style and mounting.
I i. Signage details.
j. Building elevations from all directions.
k. Fire hydrant location, proposed fire protection system.
I 1. Trash storage location indicating closed containers within a totally
screened area.
I 3
I
We do not believe the Site Plan submitted correctly reflects the existing I
situation.
Parking. Driveway and Access I
Parking number requirements are satisfied since 28 spaces are required by
ordinance for a fast food restaurant (1 space per 60 square feet of gross floor
I
area). The applicant indicates there are 34 existing parking spaces. The
submitted site plan suggests that parking spaces 33 and 34 are of insufficient
width. In addition, the plan shows parking bay lengths of 16 feet in the west
parking area and 17 feet on the south side. Design guidelines for a parking
space call for a minimum length of 18 feet.
I
Driveway access on the south side of the building appears to be inadequate.
The dimensions shown on the submitted site plan are in error. There appears
I
to be less than the 24 foot minimum requirement for a two-way traffic
driveway.
There will be access problems to the Taco Shop since only right-in and ri
ht-
out traffic movements will be permitted to future Highway 101. There will I
be no left turn median cut at future Highway 101 which will generate a
significant number of U turns at West 78th Street during peak noon hour or
lunch time periods. A private railroad crossing is proposed to serve both the I
Taco Shop and Apple Valley Red-E-Mix from West 78th Street. There is a
potential problem with this railroad crossing in that the railroad may not
wish to issue a permit and/or that the crossing may be prohibitively
I
expensive to build and signalize.
Setbacks
I
Zoning Ordinance parking lot setback requirements are 25 feet for front yards I
and street-side yards and 10 feet for side yards. The majority of parking
spaces do not meet setback requirements and most spaces have no setback
from property lines. If parking lot setbacks were met in all respects there
I
would be insufficient space for parking areas and driveways on-site.
Technically, the restaurant does not meet either parking number or setback
requirements.
I
I
4 I
I
I •
I
Landscaping
There were no landscape plans submitted with this proposal. For existing
sites, the Landscape Ordinance states: No structure shall be expanded unless
the minimum landscaping required is provided for the entire property.
' Because parking lot setback requirements cannot be met, there is insufficient
space to meet perimeter landscape requirements. In addition, there are no
interior landscape plans as required by ordinance for open vehicular use
areas containing more than 6,000 square feet of area or 20 or more vehicular
parking spaces.
' Curbing
' Concrete curbing of parking lots and driveways are required in the BH
District. The submitted Site Plan does not indicate any additional curbing for
parking areas and driveways.
Lighting
All commercial, industrial and multi-family parking lots are required to be
lighted. There were no lighting plans submitted by the applicant.
1 Signage
No detailed signage plans have been submitted.
I
5
I
RECOMMENDATIONS
I
Planning Staff recommends denial of the Site Plan for the Taco Shop for the
following reasons:
I
1. Future Highway 101 will not be allowed to have a left turn curb cut for
access into the Taco Shop which will cause a significant number of U turns
I
around the median (with West 78th Street and Highway 5). From a traffic
standpoint, this is a less than desirable solution to accommodate traffic
movements and access. If approved, the proponent should be required to
state in writing that he understands and will assume full responsibility for
loss of future access.
I
2. Considering the high visibility of the Taco Shop from Highway 5 and West
78th Street, landscaping and screening requirements for vehicular use
I
areas are especially important but will not be satisfied.
3. The 1990 Land Use Plan designates the Taco Shop property as Park and I
Open Space because of its key location as a main entryway to the
downtown area. Expansion would be contrary to the City's Comprehensive I
Plan land use designation.
4. The property owner cannot or does not intend to meet a substantial I
number of zoning ordinance requirements concerning setbacks, curbing
and landscape requirements. Therefore, a number of variances will be
required. While the shape/size of the parcel may represent a hardship,
and warrant variance consideration, the magnitude of the variances is
simply too great to warrant approval as requested. The proposal is one I
which blatently disregards the City's zoning requirements.
5. The Site Plan, itself, is incomplete and in error and a legitimate evaluation
of the proposal cannot be made.
Todate, an acceptable solution to access the Chanhassen Taco Shop from
I
future Highway 101 has not been found. Acquisition of the property was
contemplated as a possible action as part of the Highway 101 Feasibility I
Study and costs were included for such acquisition. We would, therefore,
strongly recommend that the City give immediate consideration to opening
negotiations with Mr. Peterson to acquire the Taco Shop.
I
6
I
I
I
IAttachments:
1 1. Site Plan Review Application dated October 17, 1988
2. Site Plan of Existing Conditions
I3. Site Plan of Proposed Addition
I4. Letter from Steve Hanson, Planning Director, dated December 23, 1988
I5. Letter from Building Inspector, dated January 3, 1989
6. Letter from Consulting Engineer, BRW, dated January 5, 1989
I7. Development Plan Referral Agency letter stamped "Received
January 9, 1989"
I
I
I
I .
I
1
I
I
I
1 7
I
_)A44 . I ? - -
LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION `
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
II
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900 �a
IAPPLICANT: Caf/l/,0 SS,'.r' Alec) /S/VO/0 OWNER: l ()c,� S- Pe le rc ��/
ADDRESS / .5---- ( PST 7c""' S- ADDRESS ?/C) A j PP Acc 0,27 I
rf,4�1,4sscr.-0l _Ai 5-5-3/7
CA ss€4 /9/,(/ .r3-3i
Zip Code Zip Code I
TELEPHONE (Daytime ) 9317/- P-// TELEPHONE 1/7/-3GO,r-
REQUEST:
1 Zoning District Change Planned Unit Development
• Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan II
Preliminary Plan
Zoning Variance Final Plan
Zoning Text Amendment _ Subdivision 1. I
Land Use Plan Amendment Platting
Metes and Bounds
I
Conditional Use Permit
Street/Easement Vacation
Site Plan Review
IIWetlands Permit
PROJECT NAME -T,q('Q 5:-W/%4/7/-)/7-70---t/
PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION I
REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION
II
PRESENT ZONING R f7
REQUESTED ZONING 1
. USES PROPOSED
SIZE OF PROPERTY 3 j
7/7 - _ 11
LOCATION rixi.eO 4 Ali- g #Z f-J
REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST ,�PP17 PUbe/c 677'/ ',7 '1/7/ /T/U.v I
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary ) '
1
1 - II
__,L.4, a _ .. .._
City of Chanhassen
Land Development Application
Page 2
FILING INSTRUCTIONS :
' This application must be i
completed
clearl - in full and be typewritten or
Y printed and must be accompanied by all information and
plans required by applicable City Ordinance
filing this application, you should confer withv the oCity Planner
to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements
applicable to your application .
FILING CERTIFICATION:
' The undersigned representative of the applicant here
that he is familiar with the procedural prequirementsbof calllfies
applicable City Ordinances .
•
Signed By
'
/ Applicant Date AC>X7 / V�
_
1
•
The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has been
authorized to make this application for the property herein
described.
Signed By
Fee Owner Date
•
Date Application Received
Application Fee Paid
•
City Receipt No.
* This Application will of Adjustments land Appeals radt theire Planning Commission/
' meeting.
1
._.._._ __.. a \ •
, I
4 I - ,\ _ '•
•
c I 1 -
o: r \ ` '
' !
v
tP 11 s` L \\
I tii -1.*
,,
.+ 1 jO1 _•
_ .a. h
1 .�
•
v
r o o-
_9 him .2.-.. \
z
�; r \ v..
•
! 1 1' / • cr \\ .S•�_L D ` \f
• ' ab o
•
/ r.r
I
v j ..n r+ j'� . 'S
•
d \ =\
'e
o tevs;\ M t •
s .IPA I ` t�
; Y., \.% `\ /�
rte/
\.1.1, S. .-1.\t■ N
: ../....%
&S /'\ 1
. . .„......e....d,.e 1.-:-\..le....._\ ::.,(4)
.4
1.
Ne. CY
\ z.......) :\c„, \, , ,,
• N..., 3.•`f _ to r 1 \...7.
I
\Y i>,...\"%.....,..,s,' t. y
•
C «- ._ +-
aa.•...amp I+'..ran ,S.sarrr ,ST•Z21 ,. .v.Tj / '
\ 5.. \ tt n.J wr,f..ad 'V$. ys✓3J '11 .s f•var.rwc:.vJh-sln' •,,.:j. .,.,"i•r�
1...' 1 \X . .......
,.
, J 5 i' ,
! a \
• t. 1.
I �
•
0 , d I 1\
e
o � � I =
I I ' _�
ss
szLfl •\ i
CI
a .1
• I , �1
9 u I \ 4
�i. o
I o I e. w
a
_ . °l
1 t 1
r -M rr a
•
N • GI .9 "se,. T {
_ o
V
-
i -i.- ��J
•
, 5 _ a o o l/
\� \ 1 J Z
•I 6 r \�
• .,.-\y� N+k� L \ �4 2 o.
t
v i
\\ (--
c 3. ..t.• a]1 c.'..."17:-. �.
i f r '-9 r?o •
1 , • a 1 vo!„,
• ./.........-----.-..7----::.------.\PP...\0: ' '
O- s,� le -�`�°
• \� '� \-
r 6C _`
N.
0.
•• I S
sa. f£
C i — \ D
....„.../V .1,r;dslwou ./1!�VSrJ 7 +^7 •SP•221
•
,,004,11-1..LS.]
r�0�
••rin)j
/a - s•V L00\ - Fy/►,R17��ral YYAO 4 S✓31 YI/w ant)/4917Y&O NYJ 1,,t, *WS..1. •w/7 f'WK./.
1 I r \ • S; ' t "r.. . a . ,. ..« :iLt: r._
s..i..1C.GO._„
«':c.' 540.4 n..,,,,•• (*,.•110.1 -...../'r 1... l.►i.•nrr....14.14..... r- n.r.n rarr......•,..».......ter -zra-a+..R..wrrtv+A4
-.0. FIn►I1�aSS,Ta1aM+O.LSYa,Y1t.jyaMt haosrrn�ls►�xtsOry sM� 3'r+•+snl�rahas/�Y+Nl l
&-... • - --
....�...r. w A.aa „1*..�.i,.�.,,�r�a
. .
CITYOF
._.
I
_.:
., 1
N1/4, ; G
1
�� 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 1
December 23 , 1988
I
Mr . Guy Peterson
Chanhassen Taco Shop 1
910 Nez Perce Court
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: Response to Site Plan Application and Variance Request 1
Dear Mr. Peterson:
In reviewing the application material submitted to us regarding 1
the addition planned for the Chanhassen Taco Shop, the following
deficiencies in meeting Zoning Ordinance requirements are noted: 1
1 . Zoning Ordinance parking lot setback requirements are 25 feet
for front yards and street side yards and 10 feet for side 1
yards . The majority of parking spaces (20 out of 33 shown)
do not meet this setback requirement.
2 . Because parking lot setback requirements cannot be met, there 1
is insufficient space to meet perimeter landscape require-
ments. In addition, there are no interior landscape plans as
required by the ordinance.
II
3 . Concrete curbing of parking lots and driveways are required
in the BH District. The submitted plan does not indicate
Iany additional curbing.
4 . The application for Site Plan Review has a number of missing
items. It is recommended that the following items be submit-
II
ted:
a. Complete site plans signed by a registered architect, 1
civil engineer, landscape architect or other design pro-
fessional.
b. Boundary survey. 1
c . Name of project on submitted site plan and date proposed.
d. Tabulation box - Percent of site covered by parking area, 1
projected number of employees , number of parking spaces
required and number of handicapped parking spaces .
II
1
I
Mr. Guy Peterson
December 23 , 1988
Page 2
' e . Location of all existing and proposed structures with
distance from boundaries and building dimensions .
f . Vehicular circulation systems showing location and
dimenstions for all driveways , parking spaces , parking
lot aisles and loading areas .
g . Landscape plan.
h. Lighting locations , style and mounting.
Signage details .
' j . Building elevations from all directions .
k. Fire hydrant location, proposed fire protection system.
' 1 . Trash storage location indicating closed containers
within a totally screened area.
I 5 . Specific findings need to be made for variances pursuant to
Section 20-58 of the City Code . Attached you will find a
copy of this section. I would suggest you address how each
of these applies to your situation.
In order for City Staff to prooerly review your sit e plan appli-
cation,cation, it is in your best interest to complete the missing items
' required for site plan review. If not, we will aegin processing
your application as presently, submitted and discuss the insuf-
ficiency of the application with the reviewing bodies .
Sincerely,
A
Stephen Hanson
Planning Director
' SH:v
Enclosures : Variance Requirements 20 .56 - 20 . 60
' Site Plan Requirements 20 .106 - 20 .108
cc: Fred Hoisington
Don Ashworth
1
■
1(6
ITYOF
C
NHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM 1
TO: Steve Hanson, City Planner
FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Inspector A04 k -
DATE: January 3 , 1989
SUBJ: Planning Case 85-7 CUP (Chanhassen Taco Shop)
1
1 . Applicant has an outstanding building permit ( #2201)
dating back to 2/88 . This permit must be finaled before
any other permits are issued.
2 . This is a commercial building. All applicable items on
the "Commercial Building Permit Requirements" handout
must be submitted before permit issuance. The handout is
enclosed with applicable items marked.
3 . Existing building and parking areas must meet all provi-
sions of SBC Chapter 1340 , building code handicap
requirements . 1
• 4 . Existing kitchen facilities must be approved by the MN
State Board of Health as being adequate to handle the
increased load.
1
1
I
1
I
1
I
PLANNING
( ; TRANSPORTATION
ENGINEERING
BRW INC THRESHER SQUARE 700 THIRD STREET SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS.MINNE SOIA 1,5115 PHONI 60/370 0700 FAX 612'370 1378
January 5, 1989
I
Mr. Stephen Hanson
Planning Director
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
RE: Site Plan Review
Chanhassen Taco Shop
' Dear Mr. Hanson:
As you requested, we have reviewed the ahove-referenced Site Plan submittal .
Our review has focused on the relationship of this site to the proposed
realignment of TH 101 which will he aligned directly to the east of this site.
Utilities
1. Sanitary Sewer -
II This site currently has sanitary sewer service. Lack of information
does not clarify sanitary sewer service needs for the expansion area,
however the assumption is that no new service will he necessary, or if
so, that the existing service will meet the needs of the expansion.
2. Water Service -
This site is currently served by City water. Similar to the sewer, our
' assumption is that a new water service will not he necessary for the
expansion.
um
3. Storm Sewer and Drainage -
Uncontrolled storm runoff currently occurs on this site. The proposed
expansion will not materially impact the amount of storm runoff.
Roadways
1. Site Acess
This site currently has all access from Dakota Avenue/West 78th Street.
Full movement in all directions can occur. The approved layout for the
relocation of TH 101 proposes a right-in/right-out driveway entrance
only. (See attached sketch) . A right-in/right-out driveway is the only
acceptahle option for this particular site.
AN AFFILIATE OF THE BENNETT RINGR(ISC WOLSFEI D JARVIS GARDNER IN(- GROIIP
DAVID J BENNE TT DONALD W RINGROSE RICHARD P WOLSF ELD PETER E .IARVIi I AWRENCE J GARDNI R THOMAS r(5Af1R(11I (:RAI(;A AMI 01111 N DONAI U C II III
MARK G SWENSON JOHN B McNAMARA RICHARD D PILGRIM DALE N BECKMANN DENNIS J SUTLIFF JEFFREY L BENSON RAI PI I C BO IM DAVID L GRAHAM
MINNEAPOLIS DENVER PHOENIX TUCSON ST. PETERSBURG
Mr. Stephen Hanson
Page 2
January 5, 1989
The continued functioning of this business , and in fact the expansion of
this business, will contribute significantly to potential traffic
problems at TH 101. Specifically, a full median which also permits
right-in/right-out movement may encourage U-turn movements on TH 101.
If we may he of further assistance, please let me know. '
Sincerely,
RRW, Inc.
1
Gary A. Ehret, PE
Project Manager
GAE:mr
cc: Mr. Gary Warren
Mr. Fred Hoisington '
I
1
1
1
I
1
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147
II Chanhassen, MN 55317 t��C.%' V-''3
(612)937-1900
Date: December 29, 1988 JAN 0 9 1989
ITo: Development Plan Referral Agencies CITY OF CHANHASSEN
IIFrom: Planning Department By: Steve Hanson, Planning Director
Subject: Site Plan Review and Variance for a 696_ square foot addition & parking
II area of the existing Chanhassen Taco Shop located at 195 w. -78th Street
on property zoned CBD
IIPlanning Case: 85-7 CUP
The above described application forapproval of a
filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on 12-26 8g elopment proposal was
IIIn order for us to provide a complete 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 ■
II 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
recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council.
II This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning
Commission on January 18 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at
Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later
than January 9th . You may also appear at the Planning Commission
Imeeting if you so desire.
Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated.
II 1. Cit De _ - - �
•
y partments 7. MN Dept. of Natural Resources
Ia. City Engineer 8. Telephone Company
h, City ttornc1, (NW Bell or United)
c. City Park Director
si d. Public Safety Director 9. Electric Company
e. Building Inspector (NSP or MN Valley)
2. Watershed District Engineer 10. DCWDEN Cable System
3. Soil Conservation Service 11. Roger Machmeier/Jim Anderson
4. MN Dept. of Transportation 12. U. S. Fish and Wildlife
5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 13. Carver County Engineer
MM 6. Minnegasco / /-S-- F9 14. BRW
f/74e30,5cu� 1�.... /"/a1 /�;, p II ��-�/. ,.. 15. Jer Other
p�S ry Boucher
574 . '�Fr..--,-,......„
•
CITYOF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission 1
FROM: Larry Brown, Staff Engineer el:DATE: January 12 , 1989
SUBJ: Site Plan Review for a 696 Square Foot Addition to the
Existing Chanhassen Taco Shop Restaurant
Planning File No. 88-19 Site Plan, Guy S. Peterson
Attached is a letter of review from Gary Ehret of BRW dated
January 5 , 1989 which outlines the basic concern of the utili-
ties,
roadway and access (refer to attachment #1) .
Chapters 20-106 and 20-107 of the Chanhassen City Zoning
Ordinance list the requirements which are necessary to properly
address the site plan review (refer to attachment #2) . The
information which was forwarded to the City is lacking sufficient
detail to meet these requirements. In addition, section 20-107 ,
subcategory 3 in summary states that the plans shall be signed by
a registered professional . The City feels that this is important
such that we are not open to any liability caused by the design.
It is my understanding that the applicant does not wish to pro-
vide any more information and has requested that this review go
before the Planning Commission and Council. Under these cir-
cumstances, it is the recommendation of this office that this
site plan be denied until such time as a proper review may be
conducted with the pertinent information necessary.
Attachments 1
1 . Letter from Gary Ehret of BRW dated January 5 , 1989 .
2 . Excerpt from Zoning Ordinance Section 20-106 and 20-107 .
1
i
1
I
+Li 'L,3 yy PLANNING,
TRANSPORTATION
ENGINEERING
BRW, INC. • THRESHER SQUARE • 700 THIRD STREET SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS.MINNESOTA 55415 PHONE 612/370-0700 FAX 612/370-1378
January 5, 1989
' Mr. Stephen Hanson
Planning Director
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
RE: Site Plan Review
Chanhassen Taco Shop
Dear Mr. Hanson:
As you requested, we have reviewed the above-referenced Site Plan submittal .
Our review has focused on the relationship of this site to the proposed
realignment of TH 101 which will be aligned directly to the east of this site.
' Utilities
1. Sanitary Sewer -
This site currently has sanitary sewer service. Lack of information
' does not clarify sanitary sewer service needs for the expansion area,
however the assumption is that no new service will be necessary, or if
so, that the existing service will meet the needs of the expansion.
' 2. Water Service -
This site is currently served by City water. Similar to the sewer, our
assumption is that a new water service will not be necessary for the
expansion.
3. Storm Sewer and Drainage -
' Uncontrolled storm runoff currently occurs on this site. The proposed
expansion will not materially impact the amount of storm runoff.
' Roadways
1. Site Acess -
This site currently has all access from Dakota Avenue/West 78th Street.
Full movement in all directions can occur. The approved layout for the
relocation of TH 101 proposes a right-in/right-out driveway entrance
only. (See attached sketch) . A right-in/right-out driveway is the only
' acceptable option for this particular site. Lv"v UD
AN AFFILIATE OF THE BENNETT.RINGROSE.WOLSFELD.JARVIS.GARDNER,INC GROUP JAN 0 9 1989
• DAVID J BENNETT DONALD W RINGROSE RICHARD P WOLSFELD PETER E JARVIS LAWRENCE J GARDNER THOMAS F CARROLL CRAIG A T _
MARK G SWENSON JOHN B McNAMARA RICHARD D.PILGRIM DALE N BECKMANN DENNIS J SUTLIFF JEFFREY L BENSON RALPrTC.EL 1F/F' QAVf6 L� �
MINNEAPOLIS DENVER PHOENIX TUCSON ST PETERSBURG
Mr. Stephen Hanson I
January 5, 1989
Page 2 II
The continued functioning of this business, and in fact the expansion of
this business, will contribute significantly to potential traffic
problems at TH 101. Specifically, a full median which also permits
right-in/right-out movement will encourage U-turn movements on TH 101.
If we may be of further assistance, please let me know.
Sincerely, 1
BRW, Inc. sr
6%() ArALAelikAot±;
Gary A.Lehret, PE
Project Manager 1
GAE:mr
cc: Mr. Gary Warren
Mr. Fred Hoisington
1
I
11
wiliremmingam
I .
§ 20-94 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
(d) Every effort shall be made during the building permit application process to deter-
mine the full extent of erosion control required. However, the city engineer shall be empow-
ered to require additional controls to correct specific site related problems as normal inspec-
tions are performed.
(e) All erosion control measures noted on the approved plan shall be installed prior to the
initiation of any site grading.Noncompliance with the grading and erosion control plan shall
' constitute grounds for an order from the city engineer to halt all construction.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. III, § 4(3-4-4), 12-15-86)
Secs. 20-95-20-105. Reserved.
DIVISION 6. SITE PLAN REVIEW
Sec. 20-106. Required.
' (a) The city council, with the advice and recommendation of the planning commission,
shall review and approve a site plan application before issuance of a building permit in the
multiple family districts and in the business, office and industrial districts. Expansion of a
' building in any manner which results in a different intensity of use, including the require-
ment for additional parking, shall also require site plan approval.
(b) The following do not require site or building plan approval:
1 (1) Construction or alteration of a single-family or two-family residential building or
buildings accessory thereto;
' (2) Enlargement of a building by less than ten (10) percent of its gross floor area,
provided that there is no variance involved and also provided that the city planner
approved the enlargement; and
' (3) Changes in the leaseable space of a multi-tenant building where the change does not
intensify the use, require additional parking, or result in an inability to maintain
required performance standards.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. III, § 6(3-6-1, 3-6-2), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-107. Application.
Application for a site plan review shall be made to the city planner on forms provided by
the city and shall be filed three (3) weeks in advance of the planning commission meeting at
which it is to be considered. The application shall also include:
(1) Evidence of ownership or an interest in the property;
(2) The application fee; and -
(3) Complete site plans, signed by a registered architect, civil engineer, landscape archi-
tect or other design professional, to include the following:
a. General:
1. Name of project.
1166 "s
ZONING § 20-107 1
2. Name, address, and telephone number of the applicant, engineer, and owner
of record.
3. Legal description(certificate of survey may be required).
4. Date proposed, north arrow, engineering scale, number of sheets, name of
drawer.
5. Vicinity map showing relationship of the proposed development to surround-
ing streets, rights-of-way, easements, and natural features. ,
6. Description of intended use of the site, buildings, and structures including
type of occupancy and estimated occupancy load.
7. Existing zoning and land use. ,
8. Tabulation box indicating:
(i) Size of parcel in acres or square feet.
(ii) Gross floor area of each building.
(iii) Percent of site covered by building.
(iv)- Percent of site covered by impervious surface.
(v) Percent of site covered by parking area.
(vi) Projected number of employees.
(vii) Number of seats if intended use is a restaurant or place of assembly.
(viii) Number of parking spaces required.
(ix) Number of parking spaces provided including handicapped.
(x) Height of all buildings and structures and number of stories.
b. Site plan:
1. Property line dimensions, location of all existing and proposed structures
with distance from boundaries, distance between structures, building di-
mensions,
and floor elevations.
2. Grading and drainage plan showing existing natural features (topography,
wetlands, vegetation,etc.)as well as proposed grade elevations and sedimen-
tation and storm water retention ponds.
3. All existing and proposed points of egress/ingress showing widths at prop-
erty lines, turning radii abutting rights-of-way with indicated center line,
width,paving width,existing and proposed median cuts,and intersections of
streets and driveways.
4. Vehicular circulation system showing location and dimensions for all drive-
ways, parking spaces, parking lot aisles, service roads, loading areas, fire
lanes, emergency access (if necessary), public and private streets, alleys,
sidewalks,bikepaths, direction of traffic flow, and traffic-control devices.
5. Landscaping plan in accordance with the provisions of article XXV.
6. Location, access, and screening detail of trash enclosures.
7. Location and screening detail of roof top equipment.
8. Location and detail of signage.
9. Lighting location, style and mounting.
10. Building elevations from all directions. '
11. Utility plan identifying size and direction of existing water and sewer lines,
fire hydrants, distance of hydrant to proposed building.
1167
I
§ 20-107 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
I
12. List of proposed hazardous materials, use and storage.
13. Proposed fire protection system.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. III, § 6(3-6-3), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-108. Issuance building permit and certificate of occupancy.
A building permit may be issued if the proposed construction conforms to the approval
' granted by the city council. A certificate of occupancy may be withheld if construction is not
consistent with the terms of plan approval and will not be issued until the terms of plan
approval are met. Minor changes to the approved site plan may be made after review and
approval by the city planner. Major changes shall require the submission of another site plan
review application.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. III, § 6(3-6-4), 12-15-86)
Secs. 20-109-20-200. Reserved.
ARTICLE III. ZONING DISTRICTS GENERALLY AND
ZONING DISTRICT MAP
Sec. 20-201. Establishment of districts. \
The city is divided into the following zoning districts:
' Agricultural Districts
"A-1" Agricultural preservation district.
"A-2" Agricultural estate district.
Residential Districts
"RR" Rural residential district.
"RSF" Single-family residential district.
"R-4" Mixed low density residential district.
"R-8" Mixed medium density residential district.
"R-12" High density residential district.
Business District
"BN" Neighborhood business district.
"BH" Highway and business services district.
"CBD" Central business district.
"BG" General business district.
"BF" Fringe business districts.
Institutional and Industrial Districts
"OI" Office and institutional district.
"IOP" Industrial office park district.
1168
1 - r 1111 1111 MIN 1 r 1 1 - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
City of Chanhassen
Site Plan Review Checklist
N/A Complete Incomplete Comments
1. Evidence of ownership or an interest in the property; v/
2. Complete application form and submit fee ($150); and ✓
3. Complete site plans, signed by a registered architect,
civil engineer, landscape architect or other design
professional, to include the following:
a. General:
1. Name of Project.
2. Name, address, and telephone number of applicant,
engineer, and owner of record. ✓
3. Legal description (certificate of survey may be ✓
required).
4. Date proposed, north arrow, engineering scale,
number of sheets, name of drawer.
5. Vicinity map showing relationship of the proposed
development to surrounding streets, rights-of-way,
easements and natural features.
6. Descption of intended use of the site, buildings,
and structures including type of occupancy and /
estimated occupancy load.
7. Existing zoning and land use.
8. Tabulation box indicating: •
(i) Size of parcel in acres or square feet.
(ii) Gross floor area of each building. ✓
N/A Complete Incomplete Comments
(iii) Percent of site covered by building. L./
(iv) Percent of site covered by impervious surface. ,i
(v) Percent of site covered by parking area.
(vi) Projected number of employees. ✓"
(vii) Number of seats if intended use is a
restaurant or place of assembly. ✓
(viii) Number of parking spaces required. ,/
(ix) Number of parking spaces provided including
handicapped.
(x) Height of all buildings and structures and
number of stories.
b. Site Plan:
1. Property line dimensions, location of all existing
and proposed structures with distance from boun-
daries, distance between structures, building
dimensions, and floor elevations. ✓
2. Grading and drainage plan showing existing natural
features (topography, wetlands, vegetation, etc.) as
well as proposed grade elevations and sedimentation
and storm water retention ponds. ✓
3. All existing and proposed points of egress/ingress
showing widths at property lines, turning radii
abutting rights-of-way with indicated center line,
width, paving width, existing and proposed median
cuts, and intersections of streets and driveways.
4. Vehicular circulation system showing location and
dimensions for all driveways, parking spaces, parking
lot aisles, service roads, loading areas, fire lanes,
emergency access (if necessary) , public and private
streets, alleys, sidewalks, bikepaths, direction of
traffic flow, and traffic-control devices. ,/
5. Landscaping plan in accordance with the provisions
of Article XXV.
r r r — — r M
Ile 1 ' E 1 11111 1 1 1 r 1 1 1 1 MI 1 1
N/A Complete Incomplete Comments
6. Location, access, and screening detail of trash
enclosures. v/
7. Location and screening detail of roof top equipment.
8. Location and detail of signage.
9. Lighting location, style and mounting.
10. Building elevations from all directions. v'
-
11. Utility plan identifying size and direction of
existing water and sewer lines, fire hydrants,
distance of hydrant to proposed building.
12. List of proposed hazardous materials, use and
storage. ,/
13. Proposed fire protection system.
•
CITYOF
,„
\ 1/41 i CHANHASSEN'
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
'
February 2, 1989
Commissioner John Derus
' Hennepin County Board
A-2400 Government Center
Minneapolis, MN 55487
Re: State Trunk Highway 101 Improvements/Extension of Chanhassen TIF District
Dear Commissioner Derus:
On December 9, 1988 I sent you a letter which indicated that the City of
Chanhassen was in the process of studying the utilization of State Trunk Highway
101 by Hennepin County residents to establish the benefits that might accrue to
Hennepin County with the upgrading of Trunk Highway 101. Since that time, the
study has been completed and I include the results for your consideration.
Because the City's Economic Development District expires in 1989, the City would
like to present a proposal for extension of the District to this session of the
Minnesota Legislature. It would be our intent to extend the District by three
years beginning in 1990. As I indicated in the December 9, 1988 letter, this
will generate revenues of approximately $2-2i million to be used exclusively for
Trunk Highway 101 improvements.
As you are aware, Trunk Highway 101 has been the subject of turnback con-
sideration by the State Legislature. The Legislature passed a law during the
1986 or 1987 session which called for MZDOT to assume jurisdiction of the
Crosstown Highway and County Road 18 in return for which Hennepin County would
accept Highway 101. The legislation did not account for the fact that Trunk
Highway 101 actually lies in two counties where it abutts the Cities of
Chanhassen and Eden Prairie. That stretch of roadway is very heavily traveled
and its future jurisdiction has not yet been determined. Because this part of
Highway 101 has not been turned over to another jurisdiction, the funding of
much needed improvements is also very uncertain. Trunk Highway 101 presently
carries in the vicinity of 12,000 vehicles per average day. It is forecasted to
carry between 15,000 and 20,000 vehicles per day in year 2005.
The City of Chanhassen has completed a feasibility study for improvements to
Highway 101 in spite of the fact that it is not under the City's jurisdiction.
MnDOT is very supportive of the proposed project, but has no dollars to fund the
improvements which are so critical to both Hennepin and Carver Counties.
Commissioner John Derus
February 2, 19d9 I
Page 2
The project includes substantial roadway improvements north of Highway 5. It
will then utilize the Highway 5 roadway between Dakota Avenue and Market
Boulevard. Market Boulevard south of Highway 5 has been established by the City
as the proposed future alignment for Highway 101 and this entire alignment has
been the subject of a recent feasibility study which we are enclosing. We are
also including a map showing the proposed Highway 101 alignment and various
intersection improvements for your review.
BRW's study of the utilization of Highway 101 on October 19 and 20, 1988,
included recording license plate numbers during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours and
the mid-day period from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. MnDOT ran the numbers through
its computers and concluded that at any one time, approximately 50% of all
vehicles using Highway 101 are Hennepin County vehicles.
Based on a total project cost of $4,814,640, which project is shown on the 1
attached map, an appropriate sharing of costs might be as follows:
City of Chanhassen $1,466,320 30%
State of Minnesota 941,000 20%
Hennepin County TIF Funds 2,407,640 50%
TOTAL $4,814,640 100% '
Of course, we do not expect Hennepin County to make a contribution in that
amount, but we do hope that we might generate the County's share from the City's I
Economic Development District that encompasses both Hennepin and Carver
Counties. We would hone to extend the District without County opposition during
the 1989 session of the Legislature and seek your very important support in this
matter.
We will be happy to sit down with you to discuss this in some further detail in
the near future. I will call you early next week to set up a meeting. Any
suggestions you might offer would also be appreciated.
Sincerely, a
os2.,,, i3
Don Ashworth
City Manager
DA:k I
cc: Senator Robert Schmitz
Representative Becky Kelso
Don Ringrose, BRW
I