Loading...
1c. Preliminary Plat to replat 5 commerical lots into 6 - 1 .c. . /// _ _ 1r , P.C(DATE: Feb. 17 , 1988 Cr, CY OF � � C1121111121SSEN C.C. ::E:86:c:U4F 11988 II ��� ► Y CASE B IPrepared by: Olsen/v il STAFF REPORT I PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat to Replat Five Commercial Lots Into I Six Commercial Lots Q IV LOCATION: Northwest corner of West 78th Street and Kerber J Boulevard I �. APPLICANT: T. F. James Q 6640 Shady Oak Road, Suite 500 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 I I I PRESENT ZONING: BG, General Business District IACREAGE: 21 .7 acres DENSITY: I ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- R-12; West Village Townhomew 2// 7 /? ' IS- BG; vacant P In fCC E- OI; City Hall ' g'-' , W- R-12; vacant IW WATER AND SEWER: Available to property. PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site contains steep slopes and the land is currently being farmed. I2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial I ri,v ,__ 'ii I ,t _ '/( . :"- t `, _-� ` � �j ce R k • il� m Liu--� � R W IbVAIIIP E No .0.,:�� Jige \~ tit 1i91L'i'; �.= LA est P.-I R-I �� C�' =� T. ±�\�� 11\ RD lit ��►•0 la '11 Ma%vat!E4 1(2_4r "WAN 1110 ��i •fp.% h\ ., L A a E �O �• :. f ill■imal.erv. i-,i R-IA • (5 lazIm. a A ,, , ....„.. o 1,.... amaziii ,T7, . cp_., -:‘,.. _ 1 . ..„9„,...„., , . . , . . , ople P 1441111111110 i. R_1 A ' �D t r �1t�i::. ►� �� Ai I r.t. 4. a ir• .-*/41WATZ.„241; • .'\\ .___--. - SARA rd.Alp two � W \NI. W • R-!A WEEP ! - - C I a`iiiiitiIi eo T 3 =. .� l 1111111 illu Ilu - c _�' mac, ICIA ,_�� cr+Nri ' qN - ■ .:pry E 1� /,, `; t;� • .s. �# J ' cr DR. ' I 1 ' I i 'VF ST 111 A , am In - C-2-%If_i : R- IIP 1111111/ _ CA.D at� f©g I 7` w W Ng x.41 . ¢0.p k T n J z t- w. IMP le ,f C-3 !-2 : :;` I , VP ' � I, 0 ■Lt R-1A :0 AV 4 \ , _ 'At • - " ` lw .. 0 I <7( . ----- I o LAKE SUSAN j,r fil% - - - -- -" �� � NE m RD -���� R/CE E IA ,�• �.- , - - •• R-I / / \—__—- --A-- 1 T.F. James Replat February 17, 1988 Page 2 ' APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Section 5-13-5 , the BG District requires that a lot have a mini- , mum area of 20 ,000 square feet, a minimum of 100 feet of lot frontage, and a minimum lot depth of 150 feet (Attachment #1) . REFERRAL AGENCIES BRW Consulting Engineer Attachment #2 Fire Inspector Attachment #3 Carver County Attachment #4 ' BACKGROUND On January 12, 1987 , the City Council approved the final plat for .West Village Heights for the creation of five commercial lots and one high density parcel (Attachment #5) . The approved lots con- tained the following areas : Lot 1, Block 2 2 acres Lot 1 , Block 1 1 .5 acres Lot 2 , Block 1 2 .6 acres Lot 3 , Block 1 . 9 acres Lot 4 , Block 1 11 . 9 acres Attachment #6 shows the approved five commercial lots . On August 17, 1987, the applicant received approval for a par- tial vacation of West 78th Street (Attachment #7) . The partial vacation returned property to the applicant from the West 78th Street right-of-way that was no longer necessary due to the realignment of West 78th Street. As part of the subdivision proposal and realignment of West 78th Street, the City performed a feasibility study for the Powers ' Boulevard/West 78th Street detachment. The feasibility study reviewed proposed improvements to West 78th Street and Powers Boulevard/Co. Rd. 17 ( stormsewer, landscaping and bike trails) . As part of the approved preliminary plat, the applicant provided a ponding area to retain post development runoff on site prior to it entering Burdick' s property to the south ( Lot 2 , Block 1) . Upon review of the feasibility study it was determined that the ' stormwater retention basin was no longer necessary on the James property. The runoff instead will be directed to a ponding area on the Eckankar property to the west. ANALYSIS As a result of the partial vacation of West 78th Street and the removal of the drainage easement between Lots 2 and 4 , Block 1, i T. F. James Replat I February 17 , 1988 Page 3 the applicant has additional land that can be used for a commer- cial site. The applicant is requesting a replat of the approved five commercial lots to increase the number of lots by one. The proposed lots contain the following areas: Lot 1 , Block 2 2 . 9 acres Lot 1 , Block 1 1 .5 acres Lot 2 , Block 1 1 acre Lot 3 , Block 1 1 .5 acres Lot 4 , Block 1 12 .1 acres ' Lot 5 , Block 1 1.1 acres The proposed replat essentially splits Lot 2 , Block 1 into two lots and also increases the acreage of Lot 3 , Block 1 . All of the lots meet the minimum requirements of the BG District. The attached report from Gary Ehret of BRW, reviews engineering aspects of the proposed replat (Attachment #2 ) . 1 The new storm-water plan for the city provides for the ponding area on the Eckankar site and removes the necessity of the ponding area on the West Village Heights property. The City will initiate negotiations with the owners of the Eckankar property to acquire the necessary drainage easements. The ponding area on the Eckankar site is preferred over the ponding area on the James property. If the drainage easement on the Eckankar site cannot be acquired, through initial negotiations , then the city would initiate condemnation procedures . Until the ponding area is acquired on the Eckankar site, Lots 2 and 3 , Block 1 cannot be developed. Therefore, staff is conditioning approval of the pre- liminary plat on the city acquiring the necessary drainage ease- ments on the Eckankar site prior to the development of Lots 2 and 3 , Block 1 . Streets The plat is dedicating 40 feet of right-of-way along West 78th Street which is acceptable to the City. The plat is also dedi- cating 50 feet of right-of-way east of the centerline on Powers Boulevard (County Road 17) . The feasibility study assumed a right-of-way of 150 feet on Powers Boulevard (CR 17 ) ( 75 feet on either side of the centerline) to accommodate lighting, landscaping and bike trails . Carver County typically requires a 150 foot right-of-way on roads with Powers Boulevard (CR 17) classification but is willing to accept 100 feet of right-of-way if street improvements can be accommodated. The proposed street improvements on Powers Boulevard (CR 17) can be built within the existing 100 foot right-of-way. Currently, the city also has a permanent 30 foot easement along the westerly boundary of the James property including Lot 1 , Block 1 , and Lot 1, Block 2 . The preliminary plat shows this easement as 25 feet and this should be changed to 30 feet. The existing 30 foot drainage and utility easement can be used for the landscaping, lighting and bike M 1 T. F. James Replat February 17, 1988 Page 4 ' trails and additional street right-of-way is not required. Staff is recommending that the drainage and utility easement be amended to include trails ( i .e. drainage, utility and trail easement) . ' Driveways The existing plat for West Village Heights was conditioned upon Lots 3 and 4 , Block 1, sharing driveways and that Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2 maintain at least 200 feet of driveway separa- tion from Powers Boulevard (Attachment #8) . Shared driveways and ' minimum separations from Powers and Kerber Boulevard should still be maintained. Staff is recommending that a maximum of 4 drive- ways be permitted along the north side of West 78th Street and that a minimum 300 foot separation shall be provided between ' driveways and Powers (CR 17 ) and Kerber Boulevard. Driveway entrances from the north side of West 78th Street should be located directly opposite of existing driveways on the south side or placed in a location such that future driveways on the south side can be constructed opposite of those on the north, i.e. lot lines . There should be a maximum of two driveways along Kerber and a driveway servicing Lot 5, Block 1, should be opposite of Coulter Drive. It is recommended that there should be no direct access ' to Powers Boulevard. Any access to Powers Boulevard will require a permit from Carver County. ' Miscellaneous The Fire Inspector recommended that the fire hydrants be 300 feet apart. Carver County requested plans for the new West 78th ' Street/Powers Boulevard (CR 17) intersection prior to final plat approval. ' SUMMARY The proposed replat of West Village Heights meets all of the ' requirements of the BG, General Business District. Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Subdivision Request #86-11 for West Village Heights to replat five commercial ' lots into six commercial lots as shown on the plat stamped "Received January 28, 1988" with the following conditions: ' 1 . There shall be a maximum of 4 driveways on the north side of West 78th Street and the drivways shall be directly opposite of existing driveways to the south or placed in a location such that future driveways on the south side can be constructed ' opposite of those on the north ( i .e. lot lines ) . T. F. James- Replat I February 17, 1988 Page 5 ' 2 . Lot 5 , Block 1 shall share access to West 78th Street with Lot 4 , Block 1 at a minimum of 300 feet from Kerber Boulevard to intersect with the Burdick property to the south. 3 . A maximum of 2 driveways shall be allowed along Kerber ' Boulevard and a driveway servicing Lot 5 , Block 1, shall be directly opposite Coulter Drive. 4 . There shall be no driveway access to Powers Boulevard ( CR 17) . 5 . Final site plans shall conform to city and watershed ditrict criteria for 100 year freeboard elevation. 6 . The drainage easement for the ponding area on the Eckankar site must be acquired prior to development of Lots 2 and 3 , Block 1 and the 25 foot utility and drainage easement on the west border shall be increased to 30 feet. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION , The Planning Commission unanimously approved the proposed replat of West Village Heights to replat five commercial lots into six commercial lots as shown on the plat stamped "Received January 28 , 1988" with the following conditions : 1 . There shall be a maximum of 4 driveways on the north side of West 78th Street and the drivways shall be directly opposite of existing driveways to the south or placed in a location such that future driveways on the south side can be constructed opposite of those on the north ( i .e. lot lines) . 2 . Lot 5 , Block 1 shall share access to West 78th Street with , Lot 4 , Block 1 at a minimum of 300 feet from Kerber Boulevard to intersect with the Burdick property to the south. Lot 1 , Block 1, shall have a minimum driveway separation of 300 feet from County Road 17 (Powers Boulevard) . 3 . A maximum of 2 driveways shall be allowed along Kerber Boulevard and a driveway servicing Lot 5 , Block 1 , shall be directly opposite Coulter Drive. 4 . There shall be no permanent driveway access to Powers ' Boulevard (CR 17) from Lot 1, Block 1 . 5 . Final site plans shall conform to city and watershed ditrict criteria for 100 year freeboard elevation. 6 . The drainage easement for the ponding area on the Eckankar site must be acquired prior to development of Lots 2 and 3 , Block 1 and the 25 foot utility and drainage easement on the west border shall be increased to 30 feet and shall be defined as a utility, drainage and trail easement. ' T. F. James Replat February 17, 1988 Page 6 ' CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION The City Council approves of the replat of West Village Heights to replat five commercial lots into six commercial lots as shown on the ' plat stamped "Received January 28, 1988" with the following con- ditions: ' 1 . There shall be a maximum of 4 driveways on the north side of West 78th Street and the drivways shall be directly opposite of existing driveways to the south or placed in a location ' such that future driveways on the south side can be constructed opposite of those on the north ( i .e. lot lines ) . 2 . Lot 5, Block 1 shall share access to West 78th Street with ' Lot 4 , Block 1 at a minimum of 300 feet from Kerber Boulevard to intersect with the Burdick property to the south. Lot 1, Block 1, shall have a minimum driveway separation of 300 feet ' from County Road 17 (Powers Boulevard) . 3 . A maximum of 2 driveways shall be allowed along Kerber Boulevard and a driveway servicing Lot 5 , Block 1, shall be directly opposite Coulter Drive. 4 . There shall be no permanent driveway access to Powers ' Boulevard (CR 17) from Lot 1, Block 1 . 5 . Final site plans shall conform to city and watershed ditrict ' criteria for 100 year freeboard elevation. 6 . The drainage easement for the ponding area on the Eckankar site must be acquired prior to development of Lots 2 and 3, ' Block 1 and the 25 foot utility and drainage easement on the west border shall be increased to 30 feet and shall be defined as a utility, drainage and trail easement. ATTACHMENTS 1 . Section 5-13-5 of the Zoning Ordinance. 2 . Letter from Gary Ehret, BRW, dated February 11, 1988 . 3 . Memo from Fire Inspector dated February 1, 1988 . ' 4 . Memo from Carver County dated February 1 , 1988 . 5 . City Council minutes dated January 12 , 1987 . 6 . Approved plat for 5 commercial lots. ' 7 . City Council minutes dated August 17, 1987 . 8 . Approved driveways. 9 . Planning Commission minutes dated February 17, 1988 . 10. Preliminary plat stamped "Received January 28 , 1988" . 1 11 il . li li1. Parking lots 2 . Signs II 1 5-13-4 The following are conditional uses in a "BG" district: II 1. Outdoor display of merchandise for sale or rent 2 . Truck, automobile, farm implement, recreational vehicles and boat sales and service II 3 . Equipment rental i 4. Screened outdoor storage 5. Major auto repair and body shops II r------- 5-13-5 Lot Requirements and Setbacks. The following minimum requirements shall be observed in a "BG" District subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modification set I forth in this Ordinance. 1. Minimum Lot Area: 20, 000 square qu feet. I 2 . Minimum Lot Frontage: 100 feet (except lots fronting on • a cul-de-sac shall have a minimum 60 foot frontage in I all districts) . 3. Minimum Lot Depth: 150 feet. 4. Maximum lot coverage: 70%. I 5. Setbacks. Off-street parking areas shall comply 1 l all yard requirements of this section, except that II rear yard parking setback shall be required for lots directly abutting railroad trackage; and, no side yard II shall be required when adjoining commercial uses establish joint off-street parking facilities, as provided in Section 7-1-7, except that no parking areas shall be permitted in any required side street side yard. Minimum rear yard shall be 50 feet for lots directly abutting any Residential District. Side street side yards shall be a minimum of 25 feet. A. Front yard: I I Y j- 25 feet. - B. Rear yard: 25 feet. It 1 C. Side yard: 10 feet. i! 0 6. Maximum Height: 1 A. Principal Structure: three stories/40 feet 1l -56- • ' F t-1', PLANNING i. � TRANSPORTATION t ri is u. ` ENGINEERING BENNETT. RINGROSE, WOLSFELD, JARVIS, GARDNER. INC • THRESHER SQUARE • 700 THIRD STREET SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55415 • PHONE 612,370-0700 ' February 11, 1988 Gary Warren City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive ' Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: West Village Heights, 2nd Addition Plat Review Dear Mr. Warren: ' As per your request, we have reviewed the final plat for West Village Heights 2nd Addition, as submitted by James R. Hill , Inc. , on January 28, 1988. We would like to express the following comments and concerns: ' Plat Modifications The differences between the previously submitted plat and the preliminary plat under review are: ' Lot 2 of Block 1 has been split into two lots now designated as Lots 2 and 3 of Block 1. Former Lot 3 of Block 1 has been renumbered Lot 5 of Block 1. The drainage and utility easement for ponding purposes, located in portions of former Lots 2 and 4 of Block 1, has been eliminated. ' Right-of-Way ' The right-of-way dedication along West 78th Street is forty feet. This is con- sistent with the feasibility study and is sufficient to allow construction of the West 78th Street improvements. The right-of-way dedication along County Road 17 is fifty feet and not the 75 feet assumed in the West 78th Street Detachment Feasibility Study. We have con- ferred with the County regarding width requirements. While it is their policy ' now to require a 150-foot total dedication (75 feet per side) on roadways of this classification, we are told they would be willing to accept fifty-foot per side dedications for the area in concern provided that roadway geometrics allow it. A concern for the reduced width involves future plans for lighting, landscaping, and bike trails along County Road 17. Final plans for the West DAVID J BENNETT DONALD W RINGROSE RICHARD P WOLSFELD PETER E JARVIS LAWRENCE J GARDNER THOMAS F CARROLL CRAIG A.AMUNDSEN DONALD E.HUNT MARK G SWENSON JOHN B McNAMARA DONALD L CRAIG RICHARD D PILGRIM DALE N BECKMANN DENNIS J SUTLIFF MINNEAPOLIS DENVER PHOENIX ( 1 Mr. Gary Warren February 11, 1988 Page 2 78th Street Detachment/Powers Boulevard reconstruction are currently being designed. The new Powers Boulevard street section can be built within the 50-foot existing right-of-way to the east. Expansion of the right-of-way to the west may be desirable. Subject to approval by Carver County, the existing 50 feet of right-of-way (east of the centerline) , as shown on the plat, is accep- table. Landscaping, pathways, etc. , could be constructed outside of the right- of-way on the existing sanitary sewer easement that the City currently retains through this area. Driveway Entrance Driveway entrances present both a potential driving hazard, and an obstacle to the normal flow of turn traffic. For this reason the number and location of driveway entrances should be carefully considered. Review of this plat submit- tal in conjunction with adjacent platting is important to insure consistency and coordination of driveway access points to the adjacent roadway system. Three roadways offer access to the T.F. James plat considered here. We offer the following recommendations for driveway access to each roadway: Powers Boulevard (CSAH 17) Driveway access to Powers Boulevard is not recommended. Sight distances, traf- fic speed, etc. , merit specific concern on Powers Boulevard, and driveway access is not recommended. Final review and approval of driveway entrances to Powers Boulevard will be by permit from Carver County. The developer should meet all criteria as established by the County. West 78th Street 1 Driveway entrances to West 78th Street should meet three basic criteria: 1. No driveway entrance should be allowed within 300 feet of an intersection. 2. Driveway entrances should achieve maximum spacing between each, should be shared whenever possible, and should be located to so as to insure clear site distances. (A maximum of four driveways appears appropriate on West 78th Street.) 3. Driveway entrances to the north side of West 78th Street should be located directly opposite of those on the south side of West 78th 1 Street, or placed in a location such that future driveway entrances on the south side can be constructed directly opposite those built on the north side. (Staggering of driveway entrances is not desirable.) 1 1 Mr. Gary Warren ' February 11, 1988 Page 3 Kerber Drive A maximum of two driveway entrances should be allowed along Kerber Drive. The first driveway should occur no closer than 250 to 300 feet from West 78th Street. If future extension of Coulter Drive to the west is not considered, we recommend placement of a driveway entrance directly opposite of Coulter Drive. The second entrance should attempt to meet the criteria in Condition #2 for West ' 78th Street described above. Review of a comprehensive plan for this area indicates the developer' s intent to provide shared driveway access from Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 and Lots 3 and 4, ' Block 1. This is appropriate and in concurrence with the criteria identified above. ' Storm Drainage The previous plat submittal included an area designated as a drainage easement for storm water ponding. The current plat submittal does not reflect this ' drainage easement. The requirement for storm water retention on this property (and therefore the need for an easement) can be waived based upon three primary criteria. They are: ' 1. As addressed in the feasibility study for the West 78th Street • Detachment, downstream storm piping is not yet in place. The oppor- tunity to determine the appropriate pipe sizes is within the control and at the discretion of the City. 2. The developer has agreed to the incremental costs associated with the increased pipe sizes which are necessary because of the elimination of on-site storm water retention. Reimbursement of the increased costs should be a part of the developer's agreement. ' 3. Storm water ponding is proposed just west of the applicant property. The opportunity to realize the inherent benefits of on-site ponding can ' be achieved with this proposed pond eliminating the specific need for ponding on the applicant' s site. However, the incremental value asso- ciated with the increased ponding requirements should also be the responsibility of the developer. ' We have completed a preliminary review of the hydraulics of this area. A low point will be constructed in the West 78th Street Detachment approximately 500 ' feet east of Powers Boulevard. Flood routing for a 100-year storm must occur to the south through the James Property and the Burdick property or it will occur in the street and adjacent parking areas. We estimate the 100-year high water level at the West 78th Street low point to be about 953 to 953.5. All site plan submittals associated with this development should insure compliance with both City and Watershed criteria relative to this 100-year elevation. First floor building elevations should account for a minimum two-foot freeboard above the ' 100-year elevation. 1 1 Mr. Gary Warren February 11, 1988 Page 4 It must also be pointed out that the storm sewer system serving this area will flow to the designated ponding area on the Eckinkar property. The City does not currently retain the right to ponding on this property. It is critical that negotiations begin as soon as possible with the property owners to retain ponding rights/easements as described. Recommendations 1. We recommend that the future driveway locations conform as closely as possible to the guidelines as described in this letter. 2. We recommend that final site plans conform to City and Watershed criteria ' for 100-year freeboard elevations. If we can be of further assistance, please let me know. , Sincerely, BENNETT-RINGROSE-WOLSFELD-JARVIS-GARDNER, INC. Gary A. Ehret, P.E. GAE/sk ' Attachment I 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN \ , ;° 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 1 (612) 937-1900 1 MEMORANDUM 1 TO: Jo Ann Olson, Asst. City Planner FROM: Steve Madden, Fire Inspector , DATE: February 1, 1988 SUBJ: General Business, West 78th Street and Powers , Kerber Boulevards ' I recommend that the fire hydrants be placed 300 feet apart. If you have any questions, please see me. 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 " 3 1 • } 1 �F,R C01� \'� \': CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE 1 /\ IV 600 EAST 4TH STREET PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT \ CHASKA,MINNESOTA 55318 (612) 448-3435 rNNES°� COUNTY or CA1NEQ February 1 , 1988 1 Ms. JoAnn Olsen City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P. O. Box 147 Chanhassen , MN 55317 RE: Planning Case 86-11 Subdivision (West Village Heights) Dear Ms. Olsen: 1 We have reviewed the submitted preliminary plat amendment to the above planning case. Now that the revocation of CSAH 16 is complete, the County has no interest in the 78th St. Corridor. The C.S.A.H . 16 designation of the plat should be removed. 1 The proposed change should not effect the proposed 78th Street entrance onto CSAH 17 (Powers Blvd . ) . 1 Before the final plat is approved , the County would like to see plans for the new 78th St/CSAH 17 intersection along with proposed changes to CSAH 17 if necessary. Thank-you for the opportunity to submit our comments. Sincerely, CZ6e--e William J . Weckman P. E. Assistant County Engineer WJW/cj r ■-._ FEB 101988 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer ,7 LJI. _ 174 1 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1987 IIuntil the time that the City finds a replacement for Jim Castleberry. All voted in favor and motion carried. IIh. Weed Inspector: Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to appoint Mayor Hamilton as Weed Inspector and the City Engineer, Gary Warren as IAssistance Weed Inspector. All voted in favor and motion carried. i. Fire Chief: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve Art II Kerber as the Fire Chief. All voted in favor and motion carried. j. Health Officer: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving second to appoint Dr. David McCollum as the City's Health Officer. All voted in favor Iand motion carried. k. City Auditors: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to II authorize the 1986 Audit Contract to the firm of Voto, Tautges, Redpath and Company. All voted in favor and motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the Ifollowing Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: XEl(a) Final Plat Approval, West Village Heights, James Company. I (b) Amendment to the Joint Powers Agreement Establishing the Southwest Area Transit Commission. 1 (c) Resolution #87-1: Approval of Land Use Plan Amendment Request to Include West 65th Street and Crestview Drive in the Metropolitan Urban Service Area. I (d) Approval of Certificate of Correction, Fox Hollow 4th Addition. I (e) Accept Resignation from Park and Recreation Commissioner, Wallace McKay. (f) Set Special Meeting Date for Joint City Council/Park and Recreation Commission meeting. II (i) Resolution #87-2: Request to Remove No Park Zone along Kiowa Trail, City of Chanhassen. IIAll voted in favor and motion carried. I Mayor Hamilton stated that because there were a number of people present at the meeting regarding Consent Agenda items, the Council would discuss items (g) and (h) at this point in the meeting instead of at the end of the meeting. I (g) MRPA Request to Hold the Men's District Softball Tournament at Lake Ann Park. I Councilman Boyt: They are real brief on (g), that's the one about the Men's District Softball Tournament and that's certainly exciting news to see that they are interested in using our field. I would suggest that rather than I/ 2 II 244 4 II City Council Meeting - November 17, 1986 FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST, 760 CARVER BEACH ROAD, GARY BASS Councilwoman Watson: We granted the variance. There literally was no place else on this lot for this gentlemen to put a garage. He was going to have it way up and it was going to be a problem because he is going to try and put a basement underneath it and it was just going to seem very large. It would II have been well above the house but he is not doing that and actually it is only like the roof of the garage that is going to be showing. Due to the significant slope there, there was no place else for him to put a garage and II it was especially desirable because he is parking, technically would be street right-of-way now right out in front of his house. He is just sort of pulling off in a gravel area. This will get his vehicles off, down a driveway and off I the street aesthetically as well as from a safety standpoint. T.F. AMES MPAY NORTEAST CRNER OF WEST 78TH STREET (CR 16) AND POWERS BLVD (CR 1 . I: :: IT: ; 13T;EST ZOE RES OF PROPERTY FROM R-1A, AGRICULTUAL IDENE DISTRCT IN 18.9 ACRES TO C-3, SERVICE AND 24.1 ACRS 'REION OF 50.4 ACRES OF PROPERTY INTO FIVE COMMERCIAL LOTS AND II ONE HIGH DENSITY PARCEL. Barbara Dacy: I can give a presentation covering both items. The parcel is about 50 acres in size and it is right next door to us across Kerber Blvd. between Powers Blvd. and on the north side of West 78th Street just north of TH 5 and the Powers Blvd. intersection. The first request is for a rezoning action. To be consistent with what is shown on the current adopted II Comprehensive Plan, the commercial along the frontage of the property and high density multiple family on the northern portion so the surveys that you have recorded in the descriptions are consistent with the existing guide plan for the City of Chanhassen. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the II rezoning action presented in the Staff Report. The subdivision request is a little more involved. The major issue in the preliminary plat request is the realignment of West 78th Street. You heard a lot about that when Mr. Burdick II platted his property across the street. Just to back up for a couple of minutes, I want to review briefly some of the history about why the realignment and why the realignment of West 78th Street is important to the II City of Chanhassen. Some of you were on various Commissions and Boards during the time when development for what was known then as the Highpath property was being considered. This is a transparency of an old plan back from 1979-1980. The Council at that time was even considering separating the street II intersection from the intersection of TH 5 and Powers Blvd. and CR 17. This pond which is in the southeast corner of the Highpath farm and just west of the first proposed entrance on that proposed preliminary plan so there kind of II has always been a history as far as trying to maximize the separation from the intersection. In fact, on the south side to the Business Park you have a similar situation where you separated Park Drive a good way from the major intersection. Also, the original downtown redevelopment plan, when that was adopted in 1980 addressed the realignment issue. Again, the commercial on the !1: south side of Lyman and so on, pointing to a realignment of West 78th Street II 18 245 City Council Meeting - November 17,1986 lir on the north. As you can see, maximizing the distance and stacking distance from TH 5. More recently the HRA Commission, the year 2005 Transportation Study which came to be known as the Broadened Study Area took a broad picture of the transportation system in Chanhassen and into Eden Prairie and documented the traffic volumes and numbers for the need for a separation I between West 78th Street and that intersection. Based on projections from the year 2005, that Study showed that that intersection would fail if realignment is not accomplished. So given those various factors, when the applicant came II to Staff initially there was a lot of discussion of where should the realignment fall on Powers Blvd. and so on and with the help of the actual volumes and numbers crunched by Benshoof and Associates with the II Transportation Study, we were able to determine that the amount of separation should be approximately 600 feet. The next issue was the design curve. How should West 78th Street flow into Powers Blvd.? The concern being the impact to the Burdick property to the south. The Planning Commission tabled this I particular plat in October into November to make sure that Mr. Burdick's concerns were addressed. We had a joint meeting with MnDot, Carver County and the property owners affected and it was determined that the 35 mph design II curve is the most appropriate design curve through this area and would meet State Standards, etc.. As some of you know, West 78th Street is a County State Aid Highway. The queston arises as to how can the realignment be achieved and as the report goes through what can be done is that the City can I request a redesignation from County State Aid to Municipal State Aid and that involves a speed limit study, looking at reducing it from 40 mph down to the III recommended 35 mph design curve. Again, the City Staff is recommending this realignment to improve the overall function of the entire roadway system. At that joint meeting of the jurisdictions affected and the property owners affected, the issue was what is the best way to accomplish the realignment and the purpose that that serves but also fronting for access to existing I properties. What was agreed upon is to make the existing alignment of West 78th Street a right-in and right-out and that would then "T" into the realignment West 78th Street. What would occur is a vacation of some of that II and that would be up to the decision of the property owners of all or part of the right-of-way so that you would have a green area around that and a 60 foot right-of-way bending into the realignment roadway. That still allows for II stacking distance from the north and a proper right turn movement into the area. If you wanted to go downtown you would come to a 90 degree stop. It would also allow for the realigned traffic to flow properly as well. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this design per the conditions I that you have in the Staff Report. Also, they recommended a specific condition as far as the number of access points. It is listed as Commission condition number 6 and as separation of driveways from the intersection. Once the I realignment is achieved, separation of the driveway can be located 200 feet from Powers Blvd.. Finally, in regards to the applicant, there is a concern whether or not the realignment should be accomplished by a right-of-way or an II outlot. Staff's recommendation number 3 is that upon execution and negotiation of a development contract that the realignment should be platted as a right-of-way. Again, the Planning Commission recommended approval of both items as presented in your Staff Reports and as far as the subdivision is concerned, the eight conditions listed in your Report. I 19 I 4)410 City Council Meeting - November 17, 1986 Councilwoman Swenson: I have a question not doing to that but on the recommendations Barbara. I don't understand why was the recommendation from the Park and Rec Department for the bikeway classification not included by the Planning Commission? Barbara Dacy: I'm sorry, I should have addressed that. As you can see the Park and Rec wanted the Council, really they are making no recommendation to the Council to look at the separated bikeway improvement along that area. A Class I Bikeway Classification, if you have the roadway separated by sidewalks and then separated bikeway. The feasibility of whether or not that can occur will be studied during the feasibility study process to see if we have enough right-of-way in that alignment to account for that. Also troubled with the fact that we are going through the downtown improvement feasibility study phase and the attached bikeway is proposed on the north side of West 78th Street and the HRA will be discussing that in more detail but my comment is that it should be coordinated with the downtown effort so that you have a smooth flow of pedestrian traffic. The recommendation from the Park and Rec Commission is to the Council. Mayor Hamilton: Was there any consideration given to how we are going to ' align or how the bicyclers will get to Lake Ann? There are a lot of kids that use that path during the summer and would we want them to go through the newly aligned 78th or are we going to want them to go up to the new part? If they go up to the new intersection, we want to look at having something immediately across the street so they would cross and get on a path there rather then staying on the street. Barbara Dacy: Yes, that is a good point. It was not discussed at the Planning Commission meeting. Whether or not it was discussed at the Park and Rec meeting I do not know. The Planning Commission did suggest some alternatives that we could look into further. Maybe a bike path through the multiple family area to the north. That might be accomplished. They were kind of concerned being that West 78th Street was a major road and so on, so those issues had to be decided and should be during the feasibility study as far as costs, etc.. Mayor Hamilton: How would that intersection be handled as far as stop signs ' and traffic flow? Coming from the north especially. Barbara Dacy: From Powers? There would be no signage or control on Powers. There will be a stop sign here and down here at the "T" into West 78th Street. There will probably be an island in here, a right-in/right-out only and the major stop light at TH 5 and Powers. Mayor Hamilton: Will there be a left turn lane at Powers Blvd. and 78th so if there is no stop there traffic can continue to flow? The new intersection of Powers. i Barbara Dacy: Not that I'm aware of. Bill? Bill Engelhardt: I would think there would have to be. 20 . 1 247 1 _ City Council Meeting - November 17, 1986 II Mayor Hamilton: There would have to be a left lane Y turn lam because you said there wasn't going to be a stop sign. 1 to n Councilwoman Watson: I guess I'm having trouble understanding why anyone would come off of TH 5 and go to that upper intersection and I can't 1 understand why children coming out of Chan going to the park are going to go that way either. They are going to keep going straight as they go. They are still going to be in the middle of that intersection. People take the path 1 of least resistance. They are going to come off of TH 5 and they are going to go in on West 78th Street into Chan precisely as they are now so I guess I'm confused as to what we are solving. I Barbara Dacy: So you are questioning why are we realigning it if traffic is coming up in this way? 1 Councilman Horn: Or why are we leaving that in? Barbara Dacy: The primary reason for leaving the existing alignment again is to provide an access to the Burdick property. If this does not exist then the 1 two lots down here would have to have access down at this point here. To answer Carol's concern about why are we realigning this. One of the reasons is the stacking distance that will occur from the stop light here and that 1 will block this intersection here for the left turn movement out from existing West 78th Street. It Councilwoman Watson: I can understand why we want to do it. I have always known that we wanted to and why we wanted to do it. I guess with the 78th . Street open down there, I just don't see that it is going to solve much. I think people are still going to use it as they have always used it and nobody 1 is going to bother to use that nice little road up there. Mayor Hamilton: Except that when you take a right turn in there on the 1 existing 78th, they are going to have to come to a stop at the intersection. If you continue up to the new intersection you just go through it. You won't have to make a stop. 1 Barbara Dacy: Traffic coming out of the downtown too will use this to serve these commercial lots as well. 1 Councilman Horn: They won't have to stop if they come through there, from downtown. 1 Barbara Dacy: You are saying they will come in like this? Councilman Horn: Sure. 1 Mayor Hamilton: Then they can only take a right out. If they are going to take a right anyway, they might as well keep going. $ Bill Engelhardt: I was going to comment that that is just fine if they do take that right turn into downtown. Another reason for the realignment is the potential road to the west for future frontage road then those two would match 1 21 1 248 City Council Meeting - November 17, 1986 up and then you would have your major intersection up there but that is just fine if they take that right-off right down into your redevelopment area right downtown. That works very nicely. 111111 Mayor Hamilton: That fits with the Burdick property and for... Councilwoman Watson: It certainly is interesting. I guess I never expected it to look this way. I was nothing short of fascinated by the ultimate design of the whole thing. 1 Mayor Hamilton: I kind of like it. I think it works out really well. Charlie James: I pointed out to the Planning Commission and I would -like to point out here too that we stop thinking of this sometimes as a public street because originally what we had done is brought this down and we were going to provide an easement across through here and making a portion of the blacktop here sufficient to access Mr. Burdick's property and so then vacate back the rest of the right-of-way. Right now it is a 150 foot right-of-way and the tar is only 40 foot wide out there so we are proposing that everything would be vacated back. Mr. Burdick was very concerned about people making this movement on TH 5, coming up here like this and then down and around to get into these properties and he was asking for a right turn into his property. I wouldn't care if this right hand movement just went into his propety. I could care less but then we have to get them out of his proeprty again so it is sort of a right-out or going this way and I think one way to look at this thing is we are going to have a 80 foot right-of-way up here and you were saying why would people turn here or whatever. You are going to have a much improved road, you're going to have medians in the highway here and medians in this street here with turn lanes and this could have the appearance here of say an area like Southdale or someplace where you have perimeter roads and there is accessory buildings. There is like main road and then at some point this could become vacated out of here is what I'm saying so this would be like making a right turn into a parking lot. Maybe Mr. Burdick would have a Lund's store sitting here or something and people would come here and rather then appear like they were coming into a street, they would be coming into a grocery store or something and there could be an integrated and shared parking lot here so I think, if I can speak for Mr. Burdick, I think what he is trying to accomplish here is just some insurance that there is some access and in the future as the properties develop we can sit down and maybe in the future we will decide we don't need this. Maybe Mr. Burdick and I will sit down and say wouldn't it be better if both of just vacated this out and we each got 75 feet back and maybe this becomes a right-in to a joint parking lot that we develop between whatever building I put here and whatever building he might put there ' so I'm sure that this is going to be subject to change in here but right now it seems to be a solution that allows us to proceed. It seems to be a solution that gives Mr. Burdick the access. It gives the County and the State and everybody what they want and still gives us the maximum flexibility to look at this again in the future and say should we close this, should we vacate it, should this be a right-in for Mr. Burdick? Mayor Hamilton: Mr. Burdick did you have any comments you would like to make in addition to what was referenced? 22 City Council Meeting - November 17, 1986 B.C. Burdick: I like this plan for me. Perhaps it's not as good if you left West 78th Street the way it is for me but I could live with it and go along. This came about from the best meeting I have ever been at. Bill Engelhardt was there, Jo Ann Olsen, Roger Gustafson, the Carver County Chief Engineer and Evan Green of MnDot. Everyone respected each others ideas and this is what ' they came up with, MnDot and Carver County as well as myself and the James property. This is fine with me. ' Councilman Horn: Is there going to be a median out there? What is to prevent somebody from making a left turn out there except a sign? Bill Engelhardt: There will have to be concrete medians. This is a very ' simplistic sketch showing the direction of flow but when it is all done it will have to be a pretty sophisticated intersection. ' Councilwoman Swenson: When we switch to a MSAH, do we have to make an exchange for that? ' Barbara Dacy: We are playing dominoes too. We are evaluating the upcoming • projects and how much will be entailed for each project in the MSA system. Lake Drive East was removed because of the tax base of the Business Park and the next project was Bluff Creek Drive so the Council annually approves the Municipal State Aid schedule and orders improvements and so on. Councilwoman Swenson: The reason I ask is because Bill wrote to Eden Prairie and to MnDot regarding the fact that the road that goes around Riley, Lyman Extension, Eden Prairie is working with MnDot to get that road switched over to MSA and I had worked with Bill in going to the County because we are getting a lot of County traffic through there with the advent of TH 212 coming in so I know that he contacted MnDot or wrote a letter to them regarding that. This is something that is going to have to be addressed pretty soon because we have a major problem there with all the traffic that is ' coming through or around to the park across the way. With the potential increase of housing on the Eide property and along in there, we have a major problem and I want to make sure that we're not going to scarifice other areas ' that have already been spoken for. I think this is something that is going to have to be looked into. Mayor Hamilton: Like Bill says it is a very preliminary sketch. I agree with you completely about how that whole intersection works out with pedestrians especially getting to the park but we have two issues at hand. That is the subdivision rezoning of 43 acres from R-1A and he is also requesting the subdivision of 50.4 acres into five commercial lots. Are there any questions about those issues? Councilman Geving: I'm really not too crazy about maintaining West 78th Street. I think that was a major concession of Mr. Burdick in that development. Personally I would liked to have seen it closed off and cul-de- saced because I think that makes a lot more sense then what is being proposed. I do believe however that we need to pursue the idea of maintaining that Park and Rec recommendation to pursue the roadway to the north aligning the hiking/biking path, whatever it comes out to be, on the north alignment and 23 1 City Council Meeting - November 17, 1986 then looking west across the highway, CR 17, in the manner in which it will align itself to Lake Ann Park. I still don't see how that is going to be done or where it is going to come out but we want it on the north side of the new proposed alignment and if need be, I would even go so far as to say that we should look ahead to a walkover type facility across CR 17 if that should happen or if the need exists for that. That might be a good spot. We see a number of those as we go east through Edina, I think there are half a dozen and something like that might just fit that particular alignment so I would like to see us pursue that and follow through on it. Secondly, on the County Road designation moved into a Municipal State Aid Road System, do we receive funds to build that road as a result of making that maneuver? Mayor Hamilton: Yes. , Councilman Geving: How much of the road would be paid for by the City? Don Ashworth: It would be anticipated that the cost would be paid out of the State Aid Funds. Councilman Geving: Okay. Then would we have to redesignate that portion of the County State Aid length somewhere else in the community? Would we lose that piece of highway? It should be close to half a mile or so. Bill Engelhardt: I can answer that. Right now or within the near future the realignment would carry both designations, State Aid and County State Aid and the reason for that is the County does not want to lose one single tenth of a , mile on. their system and when they get another segment of road within Chanhassen that could be classified as State Aid, then they would switch and transfer that classification from West 78th Street to that section to maintain their mileage. Councilman Geving: So the mileage would be maintained and the road would be paid for out of State Aid Funds not out of any City funds is that correct? ' Don Ashworth: That is correct. Councilman Geving: I have no other comments and now I'm in favor of the project. Councilwoman Watson: When we were talking about the bike path and with this intersection and everything developing into this, I think there should be a real big consideration to figure out how we are going to get the kids from downtown because the kids are used to going there. They have Center Street. This map just tickles me because the Village of Chanhassen and Center Street, it must be as old as the hills. If you come out of Center Street here better known as Coulter Drive, and you were to come behind Lot 3, which I assume that single family home that is on that and I realize that that Lot 4, wherever that building is going to be, could swing down a ways there and come closer to 78th Street and then begin up the north side. If you came through that way you could avoid having them come down to the main street. If there is some way that they can come in and run along behind there and then come up here and make because then they could come up Coulter Drive for one thing which I think 24 ' IIL:A to City Council Meeting - November 17, 1986 f is what a lot of them do when they come out of town. They come down through ' the City Hall parking lot here and if they could come along there, it could be very distinctly separate. Mayor Hamilton: I think that needs to be a part of the next step when the Planning Commission needs to review the Park and Rec Commission Minutes as we do and I think your point is well taken. I think all of us are concerned about how that will happen. Councilwoman Watson: I think that alignment would be a good one since it does almost approximate Coulter Drive behind that area. I don't have any problem with the street the way it is done here. I think it is a little odd. It's just unusual. Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the Rezoning Request #86-2 to rezone 50.4 acres into 24.7 acres of C-3, Service Commercial and 25.7 acres of R-4, High Density as depicted in the legal description requested in Attachment #6 of the Staff Report on the northwest corner of West 78th Street and Kerber Blvd.. Also, to approve Subdivision Request #86-11 for the subdivision of 50.4 acres of property into five commercial lots and one high density parcel with the following conditions: 1. The City proceed with the reclassification of CSAH 16 to MSAH 16. 2. Existing West 78th Street will become a right-in/right-out after IlLcompletion of the realignment of West 78th Street. 3. Up on execution of the develo pment contract, the realignment of West 78th Street shall be platted as a right-of-way. 4. Any access from CR 17 receive a permit from the County. 5. A building permit for Lot 2, Block 1 shall not be issued until the realignment of West 78th Street is completed. 6. Lot 3, Block 1 shall share an access with Lot 4, Block 1, from Kerber Boulevard and West 78th Street and Lot 1, Block 2 shall have only one access from the existing West 78th Street and the new alignment. 7. All driveways must be at least 200 feet from an intersection. 8. No building permit will be issued until municipal services are available to the property. All voted in favor except Councilwoman Swenson who abstained and motion ' carried. Councilwoman Swenson abstained because she wanted to know what is going to happen the MSA for the street. It 1 25 IIIIIII 0— NM Mill E MN • INN — = , ■III • I • • • — 117 r WEST VILLAGE HE— GH� I I<ngrR 4-- 808 74 1J 0I THE qM�.. OF THE I /SR Sn SEC 1.OF SEC 12.i 0 41 ;J N89°01,'28'' ‘36Ty;2A‘`J26 - _off N 87°41'48"W 1316.9 - - 296.79 - .011 _-1 --� s C1� _ 166.0 _�� 9 597 ���p OAR6 30 s zt o eft E \ 5 G. , 3 INE OF THE tE.or roe SE I/.OF SEC.It.T r16,q.I! SO SO V/ \\JJ I oT�ry,e,I r'1 \ _ \ u I\ m -}^( Y 11\a ;'I • 3 1p t Z 1 s Z ry ,i �-� �W .. ■ Q Z I„ I •95 OO 1 0 �„ \ 'I° 1Z \`•/ ''0929 990 00��—"-'• 0 , I 300.00 te)-.I'.a'E 99992 360.00 I I W Jag 92 M Q L 1 �°'-'t'� a - c� " t' (Li ° L- , ■ m Q L 220.25 a'9'Iq'or^ c,� tt rte.r1 �_ 4a 'o �_ 1"�o I xer•u , x,.,0.50 � ''+r'' / __x?le).e34—w 0 W `r ,l' ttft�� T ✓o - �I.I ''‘j..-) '_' r--or_ _• '''"..00 a.♦���� agJ0.y ERSEVExt4 1 �o�s Ne=J�•9'w i . . y r I i o�'O" ��• „. c„ 5\� I 00.00 i-(" - a0 ao r ■ c° .0�� • M11 a 0�oy 1 I Cr� � _,. (1 �^ \ ' %~00 f SWTN IIxf OF THE SE IM OF THE �I'rtr'I J \• ry ♦fie♦ 1 /tE 1/4 0,SEC 0,T 116,R I!4 1 •I 2 'a e'�;�° AD'S s T •c ^ ° �° / /- k., o „8 f —✓ n' I • 355 Sr /. +.� eJ.6a���/ rt.m r , /65.05 k NJ°° `r•k, me re 200 00 I �l I • Rs k, pt E Sn fOq EC q IJ • -- "'COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY NO." l'16 x m(W. 78TH'rz STREET) : = A/97°41'43"W /3/6,42 --� N-- rNf souTN Elrrf o[TN �OF THE — y 359.97 �Sb vq OF SEC 12 R tt N 88°34'49"W Irrn.i,___ 1... City Council Meeting - August 17, 1987 II special meeting to discuss it further and get recommendations as quickly as Ipossible. PARTIAL VACATION OF WEST 78TH STREET. MC Public Present: B.C. Burdick ' Charlie James IJo Ann Olsen: The site is West 78th Street. The approximate location is on the corner of West 78th Street and Powers Blvd.. The applicant is requesting II a partial vacation of West 78th Street so that he can start construction on the site plan that was approved just recently by the City Council. Partial vacation would allow for parking and landscaping to be provided. It will still maintain the existing right-of-way for the existing street there so that II would still be under the control of the City. We tabled action on August 3rd until the Carver County Board could revoke the control of West 78th Street and they did do that this past Tuesday so now the City can act on the vacation. II Also, MnDot who controls the right-of-way in this corner has sent the applicant a letter stating that they do not have any objection to returning the control of that right-of-way over to the applicant. Although it is a long process, it could take up to a year, but they have initiated that and they II have also let the applicant know that he can construct his parking area into that right-of-way prior to the officially turning it back over. Staff is recommending approval of the partial vacation with the conditions that the II utilities be preserved by an easement and that the remaining right-of-way of West 78th Street, where the street exists, shall not be vacated until the realignment of West 78th Street to the north is accomplished. We are recommending approval of the partial vacation. IIB.C. Burdick: I most certainly have comments on this gentlemen because it directly affects me. Vacating that portion of the entirity of West 78th II Street is perhaps okay. I keep an open mind on that but this is what I object --- to. I object to the partial vacating. This piece meal approach. That never works as well whether it's on this or something else. That's number one. Number two, that directly affects me, cutting off that piece up there at an Iangle reduces the visibility of my property from the north so there, I believe there is damages established. I also question procedure. I talked briefly nicely with Jo Ann this morning and she stated that it had been published but II questioned whether it was posted as is required. Jo Ann did not believe it had been posted and it is a requirement that vacating must be posted and this has not been done so the procedure was not followed. Also, I've got questions I about the publication too. Was there a petition? That's another procedure that was not followed. There was not a petition and it's also my understanding that a petition needs a majority of the property owners. Well, II there are two persons. One person can not be a majority because it's not a majority. I believe that's it. I'll keep an open mind at this date in time if this was all planned and at the time they start on the new street and doing [E: it properly. 6 it ^1 1 - City Council Meeting - August 17, 1987 Mayor Hamilton: We're not going to start the new street until this one is II vacated so if we want to hold off I guess we can do that. Charlie James: I'm Charlie James from the T.F. James Company and I had II brought along some exhibits that I have colored up that may make this whole thing a little more understandable. First, briefly I would like to give a II little background into what has happened out there as far as the surveying and where the original road right-of-way was out there. When we purchased the property we had a boundary survey done and the area that is shown in yellow II here and in pink is the right-of-way, the edge of this pink line would be the center line of the right-of-way as it was originally recorded and described. You can see that that does not relate to the section line where it was intended and the yellow line shows an encroachment onto my property of where II the road right-of-way was described and subsequently when we bought the property there was quit claim deeds that were exchanged and reported to the County. The right-of-way has now been restored or currently exists as a line II described approximately 75 feet north of the section line. Sometime prior to this, because of the description for where the road should be turning in a northwesterly direction and when it was intended to be on the section line, . : because of that, originally this was 150 foot right-of-way that was intended II to be 75 feet on either side of the section line down here and because the road was built, or the description was given in a northwesterly trend and based on an inaccurate survey, at some point then the paths, they went along II on Mr. Burdick's side of the road and they reduced the right-of-way on his side from 75 feet to 40 but they left the right-of-way on our side as being 75 feet so he's already been quit claimed back 35 feet of land on his side of the II i section line. What we are asking for now here, then when the road was built, I forgot one other point here, when the road was built, the mat, the actual West 78th Street as traveled here, the mat was placed in somewhat of a southwesterly trend so you have the road easement as being described on a I northwest basis askew from the section line and then the road was built askew on a southwesterly basis and that resulted, as we leave the section corner here, the blacktop mat is pretty much in the center over the section line. As II we approach the section line which forms the center line of Powers Blvd. the mat is placed so it approximately, it's 44 feet wide at that point and approximately 16 feet of it is north of the section line and the balance of it is south of the section line. On this exhibit here, the yellow indicates the `i right-of-way that would exist after this partial vacation that we are requesting. I'm sorry, the yellow shows the mat that will exist after we vacate, if our vacation is requested here. The pink shows the remaining 1 right-of-way so you can see that even after our vacation request here there will be right-of-way left on both sides of the blacktop even though the blacktop is somewhat askew of the section line. Then blowing this up in a II little better detail here. This orange line here represents the right-of-way as it's described and finalized in the quit claim documents that were exchanged between the County and myself so this is the right-of-way, where it should be, as it is today, the orange line. The green line down here, the I border between the green and the yellow, this line here, represents that portion that we would like vacated. All of that land will be used for green space and for parking. There will be no building on that area. The yellow II here then represents the remaining right-of-way that will be left in this area here and the orange line through here represents a center line of the blacktop II7 _ - 1 s '-'- 1 ��' 4 City Council Meeting - August 17, 1987 so I brought these exhibits this evening so that number one, I could demonstrate that even after this vacation there will be ample shoulder or I green space on the road and that on Mr. Burdick's side of the road 35 feet has already been vacated back a long time ago and I don't think any property y p perty owners came in at that time and complained that that was going to obstruct any I use of the north. This vacation, at this point in time, is occurring entirely withon our property and this vacation is contemplated because of the fact that I'm willing to donate and have agreed to do so in writing, the entire 80 foot I strip of land for the new West 78th Street so I'm willing to give up 80 feet, I would like to get this approximately 45 feet back. I guess that's the end of my comments. I B.C. Burdick: I have spoken with Bill Engelhardt about this and what_ that does to me and his directions and angles here go just the opposite of what Charlie James has presented here. This is Bill Engelhardt. This just isn't II correct at all. I just wish he was here tonight but I didn't know it would get into this. II Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. Councilman Johnson: I don't really think I have anything other than, I ' remember that in the subdivision ordinances when I was researching this for a different project, coming up and complaining to the City Council at that time about not posting the subdivision change. There is a little paragraph right II next to that that says this will not be grounds for dismissing the procedure in my memory as of about a year ago. I believe that if we look at our subdivision ordinance we'll find that posting is in the ordinance and should II be done but is not grounds to dismiss a subdivision procedure. Vacation procedures may be slightly different. Councilman Geving: If all of the comments, your comments relate to what Roger I may come up with in terms of procedure, then I don't have any questions but the comment that Mr. Burdick brought up is a very important one and that is, is there a need for a petition by both property owners in an area and we need Ito have that resolved. If in fact one property owner can make petition to the Council representing 50% of the property owners in that particular area, I _ don't know. I Councilman Johnson: His petition was to vacate half the street that's on his property. I Councilman Geving: But it also affects the other properties in the area. That's the procedural question. Then of course the requirements that were brought out in terms of staff. Your response Barbara will probably be what II Roger comes up with in terms of the posting. Barbara Dacy: I'll wait until the City Attorney. I Councilman Geving: I just don't really have a lot of questions because we've been at this project for a long time. We've got to start a part of this 6 project before the other pieces can fall in line and sometimes it's necessary II 8 1 - 411( (O 1 City Council Meeting - August 17, 1987 II to do a piece meal approach. Mayor Hamilton: Roger is back and may have an answer to our questions. II Roger, can you respond to the questions that Mr. Burdick raised about the posting and the petition and the partial vacation of the street? I Roger Knutson: Partial vacation is fine, legally. A petition is not required. The City can do it on it's own motion. Mayor Hamilton: There was a petition however. I believe Mr. James has II petitioned, is that correct? Charlie James: There was a letter. I was just looking for a copy of that and II there has been a constructive petition in the sense that we've been under discussion since October. I have a letter going back to October, 1986 when this whole thing was before the Carver County Highway Department., ' Roger Knutson: The only significance of a petition, there is no petition required. It requires a four-fifths vote of this body to vacate. If there is II a petition by majority, and that means something more than half, then that is reduced to a simple majority. Mayor Hamilton: What about the posting? II Roger Knutson: It's required. 1 Mayor Hamilton: It is required. Can you tell us anything? II Roger Knutson: The Statute is silent on that. Whatever is the custom II practice of the City. They can posted in City Hall, on your bullentin board, at the Post Office, at prominent places in the City. That's based upon your Statues which unfortunately are about five years out of date. My recollection is that several places, and I don't have these memorized, several places where II these requirements existed, the legislature has gone through and eliminated them so what I would suggest, if you desire to vacate, you can vacate it subject to my checking to see whether that posting one, in fact has taken place. Maybe it's taken place, I don't know. In just talking to Don, Don - - doesn't know if it's been posted. If it's been posted, there's no problem or if that provision has been eliminated from the Statutes you have no problem. II So if you want to approve it then you can do it subject to checking those two things out. Councilman Geving: The posting is required? II Roger Knutson: If posting is required and posting did not take place, then we will just go through the posting. I Councilman Geving: And for what period of time is that? Roger Knutson: I believe it's 10 days. It will postpone this about 2 weeks. II II 9 1 City Council Meeting - August 17, 1987 iv/ Councilman Horn: It appears to me that we would have a difficulty in setting ' a partial vacation unless we know the exact plot lines of the highway and that appears to be a question also. I think we need staff to clarify that for us. Where the lines are in this thing otherwise I don't know how we can get a reasonable description for a partial dedication. Gary Warren: We obviously haven't looked at it. At this point, surveys are done by a registered land surveyor. Bill Engelhardt has not expressed any comments to me. I don't know if he has to Planning about the fact that the vacation was not consistent with what has been shown on the James plat. Those plats have been around. V can certainly look into it. Barbara Dacy: The display boards that Mr. James has presented tonight are consistent with the submittals that we've worked on for the past year. Again, ' Mr. Engelhardt has not alerted as to any discrepancy. As a matter of fact, we specifically directed Mr. James to have his engineer prepare these types of submittals so they can clarify this issue. I think staff is confident that we know what the City is vacating. • ' Charlie James: One thing that Jim said about not being accurate, part of the information that was used in locating things out there was Mr. Burdick's survey that was done for the Burdick Park 2nd Addition by Schoell and Madsen and that's on there and they located they shoulders of the road and the section line and they determined the mat as being 44 feet wide and that's where, when we did our survey, we tied into some of that information and cross ' checked it and then Hanson-Pellom did my survey. As far as not having a description, the description is simple. The description would be the north 45 feet of the south 75 feet of the west 467.20. ' Councilman Boyt: I think Roger has cleared it up in terms of saying that we can vote on this subject to the condition he mentioned. We've been working on this for a year. I'm a little surprised to see so much contention at the ' last moment about this and I feel like it's time to take action. Resolution #87-87: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Geving seconded to ' approve the iat pa 'r l vacation as shown on the site plan dated August 13, 1987 with the following conditions: Y ' 1. Any existing utilities within the West 78th Street right-of-way proposed to be vacated shall be preserved by easements. 2. The remaining right-of-way of West 78th Street shall not be vacated ' until the realignment of West 78th Street to the north is completed. 3. The City Attorney review the current law pertainng to posting ' criteria. All voted in favor and motion carried. Ciarliv James: If I could just add one word. There was a petition that was sent to City Warren on February 17, 1987. 10 r _ ,/ 41r7 ter 2.1. i J/ City Council Meeting - August 17, 1987 II 't Mayor Hamilton: Perhaps you could also make Gary your boards available for whatever research we may need to do. Is that possible? Charlie James: Sure. I'll just leave these here. I'll leave them right now. II ( STREET VACATION REQUEST FOR VALHALLA AVENUE. II ,,.. p ( Mayor Hamilton: This item has been before us more than once previously. It's ,._� - been recommended that the property be vacated and returned to the property II owners. Staff continues to make that recommendation. Park and Rec did not make recommendation of this item when they reviewed it just recently and it seems to me to be a very straight forward issue. Any comments? II Councilman Geving: I think the only discussion item for the people who are present here tonight is the comment from the City Attorney. I would like to II have written into the record your comments Roger. Could you restate those briefly. Roger Knutson: Yes, I was asked to take a look at this issue and determine if II this platted street could be one, used for non-street purposes. A beachlot or swimming or docks or anything other than a street and the answer to that is no. Land was dedicated in a plat dated 1910 as a street and our Supreme Court II has said that when land is dedicated to a city for a specific purpose we can IL only use it for that purpose and none other. I was also asked if the City could somehow sell the proprty to someone, anyone, and the answer is no. All II we have is again the right to use it as a street. We have an easement on it. We don't have the fee title. We can't use it for anything else. We have nothing to sell. We can either leave it as it is or vacate it or use it as a street. II Councilman Horn: I just had one question about reviewing the Minutes. There was a question about the fact that there were three property owners and we II speculated at that time that it would go to the one that would own the adjacent lot. Now as I saw the plot, there were three people who owned the adjacent lot. I think the speculation was that it would go to the nearest one to that even though the lot was not subdivided. " Barbara Dacy: Right. What I represented at the last meeting is that the owner of portion of Lot 58 immediately abutting the proposed vacated right-of- II way would receive that land. Councilman Horn: Even though there were three owners on that total lot. I Barbara Dacy: Right. There are three meets and bounds descriptions existing on Lot 58 that have been existing for a number of years. Councilman Boyt: I would like to thank the neighbors for II to try to see if they couldn't constructively use the putting in an effort y property but I think the legal issues is pretty clear. We just don't have that option. II 11 I III I= MN MO MI • IMII IIMI • IIMI MI •1111 I= all 1.1111 M'"NIII""'IMDd6--. —. .-. ..-- 3;1T=l'agYarrf1 1001 1 JO 1.13 1.5 • s'.....,,... ON rill ovE. Ca s.',.....„... ZCJI9 §,735 00*10340be r 17.------ 1 ...b , asyd,M008 entaune O 414, • '?•et,.., ---------------------_____-_____ .----- Pols In3t0 ------------T—r. ,i-----------.4__...r..____.:___ i 91 ON 1-1VS0/- 11.144 11,0 ' ,...;;;! :1;:77,::: i:- ------- .0 s Dm.3 11 -___--- All NVA•o0 N ..-i ( , .',--' ....A.....aro.,oa pOC ,.. 11.3C13t:14.7.5 .01•1 , ) . ) 1 1■0 1-1 01103o"11;"0% I/ ',\.\\ 2 1 11 ; V'vas g Z' >1%70 78 I 1'ILJ 1 -; ' r 107 / .‘\ / 107 I . oi.. .( .,.000,...0.■,....................... 111.......,•‘,••,,,,a•......p / 2\\,, , 4.4 0-4 .........•t1/•....... t.4 I i•1,11.1 1,1 e ■ ., At •111.......4'11 • ',...z.......z... ow,aN\ Ni ''..,,,,____, `-------,- ..... 44n4M414 O44.1 wv, ..),..,......... ..._,/,* : I . ----1 _ , _._..._ _,./^...,,.... >.7.4.-:::;---.!--••-----.'- > * .00■•., ----,17-_,-,=. ....,..... • i Aol ,ccrt I ri ...01-t N9f$X) 1” 'V----.----I , ■ 0 o 111 r•n 4 i ...rill i 1,1:1 1 I 147S1.:711V7V1V:-• 'C7ri ; A .L07 . 7 .107 . 1 107 71'0 ro$ vv. 40 ..?0'; I I i „/"------.!11_________..... .21. I I .-____- ---___,E2---- .1t tun 2 co I N o .<• - I • , 0 06 I 1 V 401,1N .. ,P1 •.pi INN SSOO _________ Is3 ,r ._.,t -../ . •-I I I . V 1—.1 • I I • 1 ,. ., :‘, 17,17:S1■1 1 1 i I -`4.,:.:■t•_. ,..ni 1 I '1i 16 i • 1 1 I tirdirli 1 "T1111:1; 1 \ , , ■ • i 1 II I lacy I N>1;';•.1:•:',1:;.■ i0 A IA:.--I \ \\ I 1 .? s.—■. .1 ..• ! °,.4_,""*40 1 _IV,/ I 1 r'lZ ?I) ',I;--i ■. --..--'.- 4,., [i TI-''.--."... .V....-. t 1 1 -.-:t7 1.11-`"7 7'4. ails n:,;,,,,-,4 .,571..1.).•.; \\\1:2 V1,1147.01 O tO11.1. I 44 1.4 . rn .---P.A-2.-,..•,7,------ \-.- * 1 • • 2 73 G-3 • . , ...-, . ,.. 1 .C__y ..... _. :.t.„, _, i,...•.:11,.,...,,,.., i cn D . o c ir • _.':- ‘ - \----;),.11i^g"-'I/ 1 rn -C dvn ti011VD01 2 til —. . -. • 44 -•-•- .. ••, I csk 2 . 1... 3 .22 . • _____. ( 1 LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 APPLICANT: i • f • JAWS Co • OWNER: ADDRESS 64410 5h4DYO14g leo ADDRESS PmN I 55P#1 Zip Code Zip Code I TELEPHONE (Daytime ) 524r1parp TELEPHONE REQUEST: Zoning District Change Planned Unit Development ' Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan , Preliminary Plan Zoning Variance Final Plan Zoning Text Amendment X Subdivision Land Use Plan Amendment X Platting AIAOADMENr Metes and Bounds ' Conditional Use Permit Street/Easement Vacation Site Plan Review Wetlands Permit PROJECT NAME ' EE 'T V I L1 Ab H T5 PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION , REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION , PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING ' USES PROPOSED SIZE OF PROPERTY ' LOCATION �r , REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST " ►u l,. I ' .� )L ` �aD 1 W ED DgAiNivrE. pomps THAT AgE Now P DUNDAMN J IU V■ NEca55AR.'( Dt. . To MEW W. 7 FEMig irr 'TUC)' i MNNATi MG poND5 C12 #TfS A 1J' LdT THAT New REIN& pIV«D 'r i TWO aE fux�MAL tot; .LEGAL DE CRIPTION (attach legal it necessary) f7j` 1 ';s I City of Chanhassen Land Development Application Page 2 FILING INSTRUCTIONS : This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or y printed and must be accompanied by all information and ' plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions . Before filing this application , you should confer with the City Planner to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application . FILING CERTIFICATION: ' The undersigned representative of the r that he is familiar with the procedural prequirements bof callifies ' applicable City Ordinances . .0" Date j11/11 22-/Vg /Signed By 16t 'W 7:14:4.../ •.040 • Ap Licari _ mE ' The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has been authorized to make this application for the property herein described . Signed By Date ' Fee Owner ' Date Application Rece '%ed � Application Fee Pai: �j/j► ' City Receipt No. 2�7,2 11 * This Application will be considered by the Planning Commission/ ' Board of Adjustments and Appeals at their meeting. i 1 Planning Commission Meeting February 17 , 1988 - Page 17 real hard plan, they might be interested in listening to you but you didn' t do that tonight. It 's hard to evaluate something that' s in the future when you have people you ' re dealing with who haven' t shown any interest, really, in doing what they said they would do in the past. ' Lowell Carlson : Number one, how do you go about getting a price on a permit? Emmings: I have no idea . This is the wrong body. TEMPORARY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A TRAILER TO BE LOCATED ' TEMPORARILY ON 5. 65 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED AT 1660 ARBORETUM BLVD. , DAVID LUSE, NATURAL GREEN. Conrad : Staff has advised me that the second item regarding the temporary conditional use permit for a trailer to be located temporarily on property at 1660 Arboretum Blvd. , the Natural Green site, that this item should not be handled at the Planning Commission level and will be handled at City Council . Barbara , can you explain that a littel bit more for us? , Dacy: The City Attorney reviewed this request and because of a previous document called a Settlement Agreement with Natural Green that was executed in 1985, that the issues involved with the office space can be handled by an amendment to that agreement and should not be handled through a conditional use permit . So the City Council will be considering that agreement at their March 14 , 1988 meeting. So if there I is any public here regarding that issue , they should attend that meeting . Conrad : So the rationale is , there is already an agreement governing ' that parcel or that property? Dacy: Right . So we would execute a secondary agreement that would wrap II up the issues concerning the first agreement as well as the office space issue. Emmings : That would also include , would the. . . for allowing the trailer ' be that we get the old railroad building by a certain date and that he have his trailer out of there by a certain date? Dacy: That' s correct. Emmings : I think that sounds real good . ' PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO REPLAT 5 COMMERCIAL LOTS INTO 6 COMMERCIAL LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED BG, GENERAL BUSINESS AND LOCATED NORTH OF WEST 78TH STREET BETWEEN POWERS AND KERBER BOULEVARD, T.F. JAMES COMPANY. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item. , 9 . 1 Planning Commission Meeting February 17, 1988 - Page 18 ' Charlie James : I just had a chance to look at the staff report this evneing and I have substantial agreement with everything that' s being proposed here. I guess one of the things, there are two areas that might be a bit problematic that I would like to discuss. One is this ' recommendation that there be no access allowed onto CR 17 . I have a concern there because I don' t if we' re talking about just this here because at some point we ' ve provided a road up here that we thought would go through this area and come out into CR 17. Olsen: No, we' re just talking about this plat . ' Charlie James: Okay. I was confused there because there may be a situation where the Fire Department may require a continuous street through here to the north through this multi-family area rather than a ' cul-de-sac and we had made provisions with Mr . Jacobsen to reserve the public and private right-of-way through the center of his property for a future street that may go to CR 17 here. My only concern would be on ' the timing of this. We may have a situation where if this doesn' t get built right away and we have somebody that wants to go here, there is sewer and water and if they can get a temporary access off of here. That' s only the condition that if for some reason this thing here gets held up. This relocation. We did submit when this was all approved , a temporary access plan for this Lot 1, Block 2 showing how all that will work on a temporary basis until such time as this is constructed and we ' also have a temporary drainage plan showing how that will work until such time as these improvements . Those have been reviewed and accepted by Staff and I guess I 'm concerned about this no access onto CR 17 from ' the standpoint of just timing this and maybe we might need it on a temporary basis here. I don ' t know. The other issue is , I don ' t have any problem here. We' ve got these driveways lining up here and we've got a driveway lining up here and the reason for this configuration of this ' lot down here relates more to the farm houses. There are now an old couple living there , that future use that we capped for that . What we may have to do before we go to the council , if staff wants a driveway at ' this point, is perhaps replat this lot to expand this west property line over to this point or something so there isn' t an easement required to get into that lot. I don' t have any problem with increasing the ' easement to 33 here. I did want to point out in the staff rerport, from Gary Ehret ' s report , I think he said we' ve only provided 40 feet of right-of-way here and that' s not correct. Along here the right-of-way was vacated out to make it consistent with the width of the right-of-way in the downtown segment of the street but I want it noted that we provided 80 feet of right-of-way through our property here. Not the 40 that was mentioned in the report. Dacy: I think he was referring to the existing portion . Charlie James: I guess that' s my only comments . I Headla moved, Erhart seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. The public hearing was closed. 1 Planning Commission Meeting 11 February 17 , 1988 - Page 19 Erhart : Why do we recommend that these driveways be directly across the II street from another driveway? What' s the purpose of that? Olsen : It' s much more preferred to have them come at a direct angle rather than be off-set. People pulling out from one driveway. From an engineering standpoint , it' s much better to be directly across to have a complete intersection. Erhart: Do you have any businesses that are going to be built here? Can you give us an idea of what? Charlie James : We have our hopes and dreams. Erhart: Are you working with someone specificly on something at this time? ' Charlie James : We are working with a number of parties . I wouldn ' t exactly say that, we' re ready to go as far as this southwest corner of the property. They' re finishing the structural drawings and we' re going to be submitting, we' ve already been out pricing the plans and we' re going to be submitting our building plans , our finished plans to the City probably by the first of the month. On the other side of the street , we' ve had various inquiries . We' ve had some people who want to put a landscape business here and I turned them down because I didn' t feel it was an appropriate use . We' ve had some interest from some banking people and we do have a plan at the other end there at some point, to do some sort of community sized shopping center at the east end of the property at some point when conditions warrant that. That ' s 'why it has the configuration that it does . We have done some prelimnary drawings to lay things out . I think the other reason to have the driveways line up is, if they ever put a median down that street, it gives an opportunity to add turn lanes in. Erhart: The building that you showed, was that in here once already? Okay, and that' s progressing and that ' s going to be what? What ' s going to be in that building? Charlie James : There' s going to a little grocery store and dry cleaners. Erhart : When you expect that to be constructed? Charlie James : We' re trying to tie our completion of that with the completion of West 78th Street . We don ' t want to be opening that if West 78th Street isn' t. . . 1 Erhart : When ' s that planned? Charlie James: October 1. We' re shooting for fall . ' Erhart: My only comment is , I believe we should not have permanent access to CR 17 but a temporary one would be okay. That 's all . 1 . 1 Planning Commission Meeting February 17 , 1988 - Page 20 ' Emmings : In the staff report it talks about minimum 300 foot separation between driveways and from Powers and Kerber Blvd. but it doesn't say that in the conditions . I don' t think, does it? ' Olsen: It does from Kerber but it didn' t say from Powers. I noticed that too . ' Emmings : So we should add in Powers? Olsen: Yes. ' Emmings: Now I noticed that Lot 1 only has 294 feet of frontage. How can he get a driveway 300 feet away? You knew this question was coming. ' Olsen : Yes , because we discussed it with the engineer too . When we were going through it, I pointed it out too. I said, that will put it right on the lot line but the way you measure it . The center line. ' With 294, the driveway can be anywhere from 20 feet wide. It would still be able to placed on it. Emmings : But if you also want 300 feet of separation between driveways, then e?how do you get one into Lot 2? Are you planning that 1 and 2 will shar ' Olsen : They wanted it just from the main streets , Kerber and Powers . Emmings: Okay. Again, the staff report seemed to say 300 feet ' separation between driveways . Oh, I see . That ' s not saying between driveways. Just between the driveways and those two roads. Okay. I understand what you' ve got there now and that ' s fine. ' Ellson: I have nothing further . Batzli : Are there any conditions on the driveways for this Lot 1, Block ' 2 going north to West 78th? Olsen : The driveway was already approved as a part of the site plan. This will be West 78th Street, the new portion. Batzli : So you ' re already basically limiting where you ' re going to put that driveway on the north. Where does that line up on the other side? ' Olsen : They line up almost directly. ' Charlie James: The one down there at the southeast corner of the site lines up with where we placed the driveway for Lots 3 and 4 . Batzli : Are you sharing driveways then? ' Charlie James : Yes . We have cross easements for all the driveways . ' Batzli : So 1 and 2 and 3 and 4 are already sharing driveways based on your having driveways in your Lot 1, Block 2? I don ' t have any 1 Planning Commission Meeting February 17, 1988 - Page 21 questions then. Headla : Let me take off on a tangent on one thing he mentioned this multiple housing to the north. I don't know, have any of you gone to I any of the referendum issues? The fire station . The main rationale for a new fire engine was those units . They need different equipment to get to those buildings. So I asked the Safety Director, what goes on? When you approved that you never said anything about a fire engine. Shouldn ' t those people have born some of that cost if we need new equipment? He came back, it' s against the law. We can' t charge those people for a new fire engine . If we allow them to put up that building , and it needs equipment to fight fires, they' ll disperse that cost. Not that person . I really had an eye opener on that one. I got a little upset but that' s the way it is and the Fire Department' s in the State are trying to work with the legislature to change that. But as it is right now, that's the way it is . Charlie James : I 'd like to distance myself from that. I don' t have anything to do with that. I just sold the land to him. Headla : I understand that but this is an education for us . When you brought that up it just jarred my memory. Charlie James : I want you people to know that we' re working very diligently with our plans to bring them into conformity with what your fire people here want . You should also be aware that you ' re local fire people have, they can' t do less than what the Code requires but your local fire marshalls have the power and authority to request more than what the Code requires and that' s what is being requested of us. They' re requesting sprinklers and a central 24 hour monitoring system which is something that I could see on the Pillsbury Tower downtown tied into the police department . We' re actually being required to do what I think is excessive. Conrad: I have nothing to add . ' Emmings : Could I ask just a clarification here? If he wants to move that westerly boundary of that lot to get in a driveway or something, I don ' t think anybody would have any problem with that but do we have to put anything in here to allow him to do that? Dacy: No , if he wants to make that change between now and the Council , ' that 's fine. Emmings: So the plan can change between here and the City Council without causing him any delays? Dacy: If it' s a minor change. Conrad : We' ve had times when plans did change and we didn ' t see what was going and that' s always a concern of mine. I want to know exactly what ' s going to Council but in this case I don ' t see a problem. ' Planning Commission Meeting February 17, 1988 - Page 22 Emmings moved , Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision Request #86-11 for West Village Heights to replat five commercial lots into six commercial lots as shown on the ' plat stamped "Received January 28 , 1988" with the following conditions : 1. There shall be a maximum of four driveways on the north side of West 78th Street and the driveways shall be directly opposite of existing driveways to the south or placed in a location such that future driveways on the south side can be constructed opposite of those on the north (i .e. lot lines) . 2. Lot 5, Block 1 shall share access to West 78th Street with Lot 4, Block 1 at a minimum of 300 feet from Kerber Boulevard and Powers Boulevard to intersect with the Burdick property to the south. ' 3. A maximum of two driveways shall be allowed along Kerber Boulevard and a driveway servicing Lot 5, Block 1 shall be directly opposite ' .Coulter Drive. 4. There shall be no permanent driveway access to Powers Blvd . (CR 17) . ' 5. Final site plans shall conform to city and watershed district criteria for 100 year freeboard elevation. ' 6. The drainage easement for the ponding area on the Eckankar site must be acquired prior to development of Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 and the 25 foot utility and drainage easement on the west border shall be ' increased to 30 feet . All voted in favor and motion carried . SITE PLAN REVIEW OF A 7,277 SQUARE FOOT CHURCH TO BE LOCATED ON PROPERTY ' ZONED PUD-R, PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT - RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED AT 251 LAKE DRIVE EAST (LOT 1, BLOCK 7, HIDDEN VALLEY) , FAMILY OF CHRIST LUTHERAN CHURCH. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item. ' Conrad: Would a representative of the church like to talk to us? Maybe respond to anything you' ve read in the staff report or what you've heard tonight. I think that ' s important if you agree with the staff' s recommendations or have problems with them. We' re interested in that . Dean Brown: I 'm chairman of the new building committee and representatives of the building committee, as well as the church, are ' here. Terry Lyons is also here. He is an employee of Banden Construction Company and they are our designers and they have prepared the drawings and at this point, will be the ones that are going to be carrying through the whole construction. I think Barb knows us pretty well. Let' s see, we've been working together for quite a long time 1