The URL can be used to link to this page

8a,b&c. HSZ Development, Rezoning, Preliminat Play & Site Plan Reivew IC I T Y O F P.C. DATE: March 16 , 1988 ��\� � CHANHASSEN C.C. DATE: April 11, 1988 ' Y CASE NO: 85-7 SUB, �'0- ' 85-2 REZONE, 86-2 SITE PLAN IPrepared by: Dacy/v I STAFF= REPORT I PROPOSAL: 1 . Rezoning Request from OI, Office Institutional tc IBN, Business Neighborhood District 2 . Preliminary Plat Request to Subdivide 7 . 63 Acres I Z Into Three Commercial Lots 3 . Site Plan Review to Approval a 25, 920 s .f. Shopping Q Center I - LOCATION: I 44C APPLICANT: HSZ Development Don Shafer 123 North 3rd Street, #808 Barrientos Engineerirg Minneapolis, MN 55401 123 North 3rd St. , #E01 IMinneapolis, MN 554Ci PRESENT ZONING: OI, Office Institutional District - :.�4/ �/ � IACREAGE: 7 .6 Acres �... ubi,,,c; ' ,. DENSITY: ;V-�...,�� 'e_ _p N/A ..+ w:: IADJACENT ZONING y/2-r/c AND LAND USE: N- C-3 ; general commercial shopping center I ( Shorewood) Q S- RSF; single family residential E- RSF; single family residential ILI W- RSF; single family residential Ia WATER AND SEWER: Municipal services are available I (n PHYSICAL CHARAC. : Northern part of the site used to be a gravel pit. Low area on the SE corner and site contains mature vegetation. 1 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial II ' D o 6 I( 0 8 c 0 0 0 0 N a S N 8 8 m ° co �'� N /� O I •1 MAN R RD -.� I/`=J1 - - - . , ` . L V. �-.5�.Ir rtiq L6— IN v� ......1-- �I til r � � �., �� , - � _ .�� E ailluillqs,� -I , v •_ ��: RINONECK D- so. =j i�� . • isi 1 ligam, , :1� �.i 1 OI mho.a■■. �-r S�b��4v�. rm _.�. �.I0 _ -g , ,_iib'... v.e.z..„01,-.,, Vs.1- ' -'4 - , ,Aki, Si-fe4-vie, -- ='' i G ! . o �s II 4i W 67 TH STREE T i _ „ • ,t,\;� RR 1 I _ VLAKE■ 1 HARRISON 111 L PINE _ ' . . Qin I •� O A ,.., l ':, I•' i 1 0 ,, ::„ _r •.lr _._.,._. k J rte. �, - ,..,i J F` ii 1.11,1* !, Z ,IL__I 1 I\ MI i 1 HSZ Development March 16, 1988 Page 2 REFERRAL AGENCIES ' City Engineer Attachment #1 ' Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Attachment #2 Minnegasco Attachment #3 Fire Department Attachment #4 Building Department Attachment #5 MnDOT Staff was contacted by Evan Green from MnDOT. He ' stated that the points expressed in their letter of May 5, 1986 , remain valid and a written follow ' up will be sent shortly (Attachment #6 for 1986 letter) . Staff met with MnDOT and the developer to discuss the access issues . DNR Judy Boudreau contacted ' staff and stated that she had no comments on the proposal. BACKGROUND In 1968, the Generalized Guide Plan for Chanhassen designated the ' southwest corner of the intersection of Highways 7 and 41 as Service Commercial. In 1972, the new Zoning Ordinance designated this area as R-1, Single Family Residence. In 1982, when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted, the area was designated as residential low density. In 1983 , Mr. Reutiman made application for a land use plan amendment from residential low density to commercial. This request was denied. Attachment #7 represents a synopsis of meetings conducted by the Planning Commission and City Council from 1983 to 1985 . There has been a separate packet attached to the report that contains the City Council and Planning Commission minutes for the proposal in 1985 and 1986, as well as copies of all petitions and letters received to date on this proposal. The most recent application in 1986 was to rezone the eastern half of the subject parcel to the then retail district which was known as the C-2 District. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning for only the southeast portion of the I II HSZ Development March 16, 1988 II Page 3 site containing the proposed shopping center (at that time known I as Lot 6) . The Commission also recommended approval of the • subdivision request with the additional condition of adequate screening and landscaping be provided along the edge of the com- mercial area. The City Council at the June 2, 1986 , meeting denied the rezoning request. No action was taken on the sub- division application and the item was tabled. ANALYSIS II The proposed rezoning request and preliminary plat request is II different from previous plans considered by the City in 1986 . The differences are as follows: 1 . Three commercial lots are proposed instead of five. II 2 . As well as a right-in only from Hwy. 7 , a full intersection on Hwy. 41 is proposed pending a vacation request of 64th Street from the southwest corner of the subject property to TH 41. 3 . The rezoning request is for the entire parcel and not a por- II tion of the property as was requested in 1986. 4 . The City has changed its Zoning Ordinance to create a neigh- I borhood business district. The uses in the BN District are different than the uses contained in the C-2 District pro- posed at that time. I REZONING REQUEST In evaluating a rezoning request, the city needs to look at the 1 intent of the proposed di trict and its uses to determine whether the proposed district XS e compatible with the adjacent zoning and existing land uses . ' c II Intent `7 The intent of the Business Neighborhood District is stated in the I ordinance as: "limited low intensity neighborhood retail and service establishments to meet daily needs of residents" . During the Zoning Ordinance review process, both the Planning Commission and the City Council identified a need to create this type of a district to serve surrounding single family or surrounding multiple family areas. The city consequently zoned another site II in the city as Business Neighborhood where the American Legion site is located, the Q-Superette and a vacant commercial parcel located on the north side of Lake Drive East. The city zoned II this area as Neighborhood Business given its location immediately adjacent to the Hidden Valley subdivision (now signed as Brookhill Development) . A similar land use pattern exists in the downtown area although not zoned BN but is zoned CBD. 1 11 I ' HSZ Development March 16, 1988 Page 4 ' The intent statement of the district was to recognize that the neighborhood business districts would provide those commercial uses which would provide convenience uses (grocery, beauty shops, retail, etc. ) to service neighborhood residents in the area. The subject parcel is located in the southwest corner of an inter- mediate arterial (TH 7 ) and a minor arterial (TH 41) . The "neighborhood" area that this parcel would serve would be the area in northern Chanhassen extending from Powers Boulevard west along the north side of Lake Minnewashta. It is understood, ' however, that because of the location along TH 7 and TH 41, it does provide an opportunity for passing motorists to take advan- tage of the retail services that it provides. The subject par- ' cel' s location is essentially in the corner of a neighborhood. Currently, the site is zoned OI, Office Institutional District. The intent of the OI District is to provide for areas for "public or quasi-public non-profit uses and professional, business, and administrative offices" . The difference between OI and the BN District is that the BN District allows more retail uses and is 1 broader in scope in conditional uses. Uses ' The BN District permits by right uses which are neighborhood oriented: dry cleaning, self-service laundries, day care cen- ters , small appliance and shoe repair shops, and retail shops . ' By conditional use permit, the BN District allows convenience stores with gas pumps, automotive service stations, drive-in banks , standard restaurants ( sit down restaurants) , and temporary ' outdoor display of merchandise for sale. One of the permitted uses is a shopping center. The applicant is requesting approval for a 25 , 000 square foot shopping center which will be discussed later. The permitted uses have no external impacts other than 1 traffic generation. The conditional use portion of the district requires additional review by the conditional use standards for uses such as automotive service stations or convenience stores ' with gas pumps which have more safety issues involved. Standard restaurants as a conditional use poses another impact of odors into the neighborhood. The lot requirements and setbacks are also established to provide adequate separation between proposed uses and adjacent properties . For example, a 50 foot setback for both building and ' parking areas are required if abutting a residential district. The maximum height of the structures are limited to one story. The landscaping ordinance also requires additional screening between commercial and non-commercial uses . The Business Neighborhood District differs in intensity to the previous C-2 District which was requested in 1986 . The C-2 District at that time allowed hotels and motels as conditional I HSZ Development 1 March 16, 1988 Page 5 uses and provided for installation of fast food restaurants . The ' BN District is less intense in that it does not provide for fast food restaurants nor does it provide for hotels and motels . Again, the uses permitted by right in the district are intended to be low intensity in nature. The proposed site can function as a neighborhood business site. The scale and intensity of the proposed uses are limited so that commercial uses co-exist with adjacent properties . Staff finds that the intent of the BN District and the uses permitted are appropriate for the site. The parcel is located at a major intersection where adequate traffic service can be provided. During the 1986 consideration, the Planning Commission was con- cerned about the ability of the City to rezone the property con- tingent upon site plan or plat approval. In speaking with the City Attorney, this concern can be addressed by the fact that the city procedurally will not enact their final reading of the ordi- nance to rezone the property until the development contract for installation of drainage, utility, or road improvements has been executed and the letter of credit has been submitted to the city assuring that the proposed improvements will be constructed. An ordinance rezoning property in the city requires two readings by the Council according to state law. This has been Chanhassen ' s standard procedure with past rezoning requests . So, for example, if the developer was unable to consummate the development contract or provide financial security, the city would not act on the final reading of the ordinance to rezone the property to the BN District. RECOMMENDATION ' Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Rezoning Request #85-2 to rezone 7 .63 acres from OI , Office Institutional to BN, Business Neighborhood District as legally described in the proposed plat application. " NOTE: If the Planning Commission should recommended denial of ' the rezoning request, the applications for preliminary plat and site plan do not need to be acted upon. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission recommended approval of Rezoning Request 111#85-2 to rezone 7 . 6 acres from OI, Office Institutional to BN, Business Neighborhood District as legally described in the pro- posed plat application. All voted in favor except David Headla who was opposed ( see attached minutes) . I HSZ Development March 16, 1988 IPage 5A ISTAFF UPDATE During the Planning Commission' s consideration of this item, the I concern about the future impacts of rezoning this parcel to com- mercial on adjacent parcels was raised by the neighborhood. The Commission felt that rezoning of the subject parcel to BN was appropriate; however, they felt that a specified land use study ' in this immediate vicinity would be appropriate. The Commission therefore requested the Council permit the City' s consultant on the Comprehensive Plan update process, Mark Koegler, to conduct a I land use study specifically in this area as part of the Comp. Plan review process. Mr. Koegler has advised staff that this would not be a significant expense and could be easily accom- modated in the ongoing update process . The Council should give direction to staff whether or not to include this type of study. CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION IIt is recommended that the City Council approve Rezoning Request #85-2 as recommended by the Planning Commission. Given the I issues involved with the plat and vacation items, the Council may want to discuss all issues prior to making a motion on the rezoning item. I I I I I I I I I I HSZ Development March 16, 1988 ' Page 6 PRELIMINARY PLAT , • The applicant is proposing a preliminary plat to create three commercial lots totaling . 92 acres, 1. 8 acres, and 5. 53 acres. The lots exceed the minimum lot area and frontage requirements in the BN District. Traffic Analysis ' The access to the subject parcel differs from the 1986 applica- tion. Although the right-in only from TH 7 is the same as that which was proposed in the 1986 application, the access from TH 41 is proposed as a full movement intersection. In meetings with the developer and MnDOT, it was MnDOT' s position that such an access would have to be located at least 600 feet sou of he TH 7 and TH 41 intersection. Further, they stated that(1 6y- street street entrance had to be vacated if such a full access was pro- posed. MnDOT would accept two "T intersections" , Chaska Road and the entrance to the commercial center, recognizing the low traf- fic volumes on Chaska Road and the staggered intersections would prohibit crossing traffic across TH 41. City staff advised the applicant that if 64th Street is closed, it should be realigned further to the south so that traffic in the area would not over- burden Oriole Avenue intersection on TH 7 . Further, realignment of 64th Street further to the south would permit traffic to go southbound on TH 41. In pursuing options for realignment, the applicant looked at a number of alternatives. The attached plans depict two alter- natives. One alternative follows the existing Oriole Avenue right-of-way and then proceeds east along the lot line of Gary Reed' s and Ben Gowan' s property. The other alternative proposes 64th Street to meander through the Gary Reed property. Remaining to be resolved with this option is the intersection location of realigned 64th Street. Given the existing driveway location of the school and the location of Chaska Road, the realigned 64th Street must enter TH 41 in conformance with MnDOT' s regulations . The applicants have submitted a vacation petition to vacate 64th Street. It is city staff' s recommendation that before the vaca- tion is permitted and before building can occur on the site, a plat must be approved and a development contract signed which ensures the construction of a realigned 64th Street. , State law requires that the City Council conduct a public hearing for street vacation requests . The Planning Commission may com- ment on the appropriateness of this request given that the vaca- tion request is crucial to the implementation of the proposed project. The proposed traffic pattern attempts to address the traffic con- cerns that were expressed by the neighborhood in the previous proposal. The 1986 application proposed an intersection onto ' II HSZ Development I March 16 , 1988 Page 7 I 64th Street. Concern was raised that traffic from the develop- ment would double back through the neighborhood to go west on TH 7 . The current application removes that possibility by creating I a full entrance onto TH 41 and realigning 64th Street to another location. No access could be gained from the realigned 64th Street. This also addresses a concern from the neighborhood about "creeping commercialism" occurring westward along TH 7 . I The proposed traffic pattern would confine and isolate the com- mercial area to the immediate vicinity of the intersection. I The applicant has also indicated that while the right-in only from TH 7 would be constructed, work could be done to create a left turn lane on TH 7 into Oriole Avenue. 1 TH 7 Corrdior Study The City of Chanhassen, along with Minnetonka, Shorewood, I Excelsior, Deephaven, Greenwood, the Metropolitan Council and MnDOT, participated in the TH 7 Corridor Study which was prepared by BRW, Inc. TH 7 was evaluated in Chanhassen from the intersec- I tion with TH 41 west to the city' s limits. The TH 41 intersec- tion was one study area and the remaining TH 7 corridor was another study area. As to the intersection, the recommended alternative by the consultant was to provide for a right-in only I from TH 7 and a right-in only from TH 41 with an access to 64th Street. This alternative reflects the 1986 development applica- tion. The TH 7 study also recommended that the Oriole Avenue I intersection remain open. Therefore, the proposed application is taking a step beyond what had been evaluated by the corridor study and looks at a broader area for neighborhood traffic. The I remaining study area along TH 7 recommended that access points along the south side in Chanhassen should be evaluated for clo- sure and consolidation. Neighborhood residents were invited to the public hearings conducted through this process and the city I conducted a neighborhood meeting regarding the plan in August of 1986 . Attachment #8 represents the text from the report regarding the recommendation for implementation in this area. I Remaining to be resolved for TH 7 is whether or not it should be upgraded to a five lane section with a center left turn lane or if access points should be upgraded and consolidated. I There is no conflict between the TH 7 Corridor Study and the proposed traffic pattern contained in this application. In fact, the proposed traffic pattern attempts to address the neighborhood I concerns and also address free flow traffic issues into and out of the subject neighborhood. IIGrading, Utilities and Drainage The Assistant City Engineer addresses these issues in his memorandum (Attachment #1 ) . I II I HSZ Development March 16, 1988 Page 8 Park and Recreation Commission The Park and Recreation Commission recommended reservation of a trail easement along TH 41. Adequate right-of-way exists in TH 41 to accommodate a trail. The Commission was also interested in pursuing an access to the Herman Field Park if an alternate street pattern is proposed for the area. RECOMMENDATION ' Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: ' "The Planning Commission recommends approval Subdivision Request #85-7 subject to the plat stamped "Received March 7 , 1988" , the grading and drainage plan stamped "Received March 7 , 1988" , and the utility plan stamped "Received March 7, 1988" and subject to the following conditions: 1 . Approval of the preliminary plat and site plan shall be con- tingent upon vacation of West 64th Street right-of-way, including execution of a development contract and filing of a letter of credit to insure construction of a realigned 64th Street. 2 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with ' the City and provide the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper installation of the public improvements. 3 . The developer shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit. 4 . Hay bales shall be placed and staked around all storm sewer ' inlets. 5 . Wood fiber blanket or equivalent shall be used to stabilize , all disturbed slopes greater than 3 :1. 6 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the permits from the Minnesota Department of Transportation and Office of the Carver County Engineer. 7 . Calculations verifying adequate pressure conditions for the ' sprinkler system of the proposed retail building should be submitted for approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit. 8. The proposed sanitary sewer and watermain systems internal to the site will be constructed and maintained as private utili- ties. The City of Chanhassen will not be responsible for any maintenance of the utilities (with the exception of public storm sewer drainage facilities) internal to the site. HSZ Development March 16 , 1988 ' Page 9 ' 9 . An acceptable sign and pavement marking plan shall be sub- mitted to the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a • building permit. 10 . The applicant shall agree to enter into a joint storm sewer project with the City which will involve the addition of a catch basin on the proposed storm sewer plan as mentioned previously in this report. 11. Specific plans and specifications which address the specific ' alignment, installation, and erosion control for the proposed storm sewer system must be submitted and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit. 12 . Catch basins shall be constructed as sump type catch basins. 13 . The applicant shall submit a revised erosion control plan ' subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 14. Plans which address the demolition of the roadway of West ' 64th Street and restoration of the right-of-way be submitted for approval by the City Engineer prior to the final plat review process . 15 . Access permits from the MnDOT and Office of the Carver County Engineer will be required prior to the commencement of any grading. " PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of Subdivision Request #85-7 as recommended by staff with the following changes to the language in condition #1: 1 . Approval of the preliminary plat and site plan shall be con- tingent upon vacation of 64th Street right-of-way including ' execution of a development contract with the City of Chanhassen, filing of a letter of credit with the City of Chanhassen from a recognized financial institution authorized to do business in the State of Minnesota and a form subject ' to the City of Chanhassen ' s reasonable approval to insure construction of a realigned 64th Street. STAFF UPDATE City staff and the applicant' s engineer met with the Watershed District the day of the Planning Commission meeting, March 16, ' 1988 . It was determined that on-site retention would have to be provided by the applicant prior to discharge into the stormsewer pipe which eventually leads to Herman Field. The Watershed HSZ Development March 16, 1988 11 Page 10 District' s primary concern was the impact of the water quality impact on Lake Minnewashta. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to the applicant meeting the Watershed District' s requirements. Consequently, the appli- cant has revised the grading plan to provide for on-site reten- tion of stormwater. The Assistant City Engineer has drafted another memo to address these changes (Attachment #15) . The applicant has submitted two additional street alignment i options . Option 3 proposes a cul-de-sac on 64th Street ter- minating at the southwest corner of the site. Option 4 proposes an extended cul-de-sac into the Reed property. ( It is staff ' s understanding from the applicant that a verbal agreement has been reached with the Reeds to construct the cul-de-sac within the Reed property. It is also staff' s understanding that Reed would subdivide the property into single family lots. ) The issue before the Council is whether or not to realign 64th Street and connect it to TH 41 . The major reason for having a reconnection of 64th Street to TH 41 is to provide for free flow traffic from the Oriole Lane/ Washta Bay Road area. This neighborhood is blocked for through traffic to the west by an existing wetland area on the north side of Lake Minnewashta directly adjacent to TH 7 . If 64th Street was not reconnected to TH 41, neighborhood traffic desiring to go southbound on TH 41 would have to use TH 7 . Further, residential traffic in the area, both in and out, would have to use TH 7 . Closure of 64th Street would cause residential trips to use a major facility such as TH 7 . This concept is contrary to the , intent of the TH 7 corridor study and typical traffic theory to separate local residential trips from a major facility. Options 1 and 2 were discussed thoroughly at the Planning ' Commission. The neighborhood objected to any option that would require potential assessments against existing properties . The Commission agreed with the neighborhood' s position and recom- mended to the Council that an option be chosen which would not require assessments against existing property owners. Staff recommends that the Council require the developer assume all necessary costs for construction of the road right-of-way if Options 1 or 2 are selected, or any other realignment option. The assessment issue is therefore moot in the discussion of which alternative should be chosen. Council action regarding these options is not necessarily to dic- tate a specific street alignment but rather is to decide whether or not 64th Street should be connected to TH 41 or remain as a cul-de-sac. Staff supports realignment and reconnection to TH 41 as exemplified in Options 1 and 2 . The specific alignment of these two options would be determined through the plat process for the Reed property. 1 HSZ Development March 16, 1988 Page 11 The proposed City Council recommendation is based on reconnection ' to TH 41 as well as amended recommendations based on the revised grading and utility plan provided by the applicant after the Planning Commission meeting. Attachment #15 is the Assistant ' City Engineer' s memo addressing that issue and the street issue as well. The vacation report addresses necessary steps that need to be undertaken to consummate the vacation process. ' CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve Subdivision Request #85-7 subject to the plat stamped "Received March 7 , 1988" , the grading and drainage plan stamped "Received April 6 , 1988" , the utility plan stamped "Received April 6 , 1988" and sub- , ject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of the preliminary plat and site plan shall be con- tingent upon vacation of 64th Street right-of-way, dppraval I of - ' _ heReed-pry ef-ty, execution of a develop- ment contract with the City of Chanhassen, filing of a letter of credit with the City of Chanhassen from a recognized ' financial institution authorized to do business in the State of Minnesota and a form subject to the City of Chanhassen ' s reasonable approval, and realignment of 64th Street to TH 41 . ' 2 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper installation of the public improvements . 3 . The developer shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit. ' 4 . Hay bales shall be placed and staked around all storm sewer inlets . 5 . Wood fiber blanket or equivalent shall be used to stabilize all disturbed slopes greater than 3 : 1. ' 6 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the permits from the Minnesota Department of Transportation. 7 . Calculations verifying adequate pressure conditions for the sprinkler system of the proposed retail building should be submitted for approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit. 8 . The proposed sanitary sewer and watermain systems internal to the site will be constructed and maintained as private utili- ties. The City of Chanhassen will not be responsible for any maintenance of the utilities (with the exception of public storm sewer drainage facilities ) internal to the site. HSZ Development I March 16, 1988 Page 12 ' 9 . An acceptable traffic sign and pavement marking plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit. 10 . Specific plans and specifications which address the specific alignment, installation, and erosion control for the proposed storm sewer system must be submitted and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit. 11. The applicant shall submit a revised erosion control plan ' subject to the approval of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit. SITE PLAN REVIEW The applicant is proposing construction of a 25, 920 square foot retail center. If the rezoning request is approved as well as the preliminary plat, the Planning Commission and City Council can consider site plan approval for the proposed shopping center . The shopping center is a listed permitted use in the BN District. Also indicated on the plan is a second building labeled as accessory retail. The Zoning Ordinance requires that if two principal buildings are contained in one lot a conditional use permit must be processed. Because the future use of the second building is not known, the additional building was placed on the site plan as a future possibility. It should be noted that the Commission and Council' s action would be solely to approve the shopping center. Another conditional use permit application should be processed for the construction of the second building. It should be noted that typically, a building is located on its own individually described parcel. If the second building were to be under separate ownership, a separate lot would have to be created for it. As proposed, the plat is only creating three lots and not a lot for this second building. If the applicant wishes to convey ownership of the second building, another lot would have to be created. However, a lot around the second building would require a lot frontage variance because it does not abut a public street. As proposed, the plat would have to be revised to expand Outlot A to contain this building. Given that the applicant has not indicated the future intention of this building, approval again is only limited to the construction of a retail center. The applicant has also indicated a restaurant in the tabular data on the site plan. Although no specific tenant has been signed for a restaurant use, the applicant has indicated this as a potential use. Standard restaurants in the BN District are a conditional use. If a standard restaurant would occupy the retail center a conditional use permit would have to be filed. HSZ Development March 16, 1988 Page 13 Traffic Circulation The proposed parking area provides adequate circulation in and around the proposed retail center providing for good fire access ' and on site circulation. The parking spaces provided meet the ordinance requirements . The City Engineer notes that because of the right-in only from Hwy. 7 and the full intersection from TH ' 41, a detailed signage and striping plan should be submitted to staff prior to building permit approval to properly guide traffic in and out of the site. Landscaping The applicant has responded to city staff comments and have ' revised their landscaping plan which is included in this packet. The plan addresses the required 6 foot screen needed along the western and southern boundary of the property. The applicants ' have also indicated the correct amount of hedge and tree plantings along TH 41. The proposed plan meets the interior landscaping requirements as adequate area is being provided with the creation of medians and parking lot islands. The parking lot islands also ' help to better define the parking areas and provide guidance for snow plowing. ' The applicant is proposing creation of berms along the western, southern and eastern portion of the property. The intent of the berm in the southeast corner of the property is to begin a substantial screen for northbound traffic on TH 41. Also pro- posed are the installation of 12 foot Scotch Pines . Given the height and the ultimate width that these pines will provide, this will adequately screen the truck and loading area in the rear of ' the shopping center . The 6 foot screen along the western and southern edges of the parking areas are required by ordinance. The applicant is also proposing a series of little leaf lindens ' along the right-in only entrance from TH 7 . This will provide a canopy effect as one enters the site. All existing vegetation on the site will be removed. The ' existing stand does contain dead elms and box elder species, which are not contributing to the vitality of the stand. Given the complete reconfiguration of the site, the proposed landscaping will provide adequate screening and create an asethe- tic appearance. ' Signage The BN District permits the installation of ground low profile signs only. Signage is proposed at the main entrance at TH 41. ' Maximum area of the sign cannot exceed 24 square feet. A sign permit must be processed before installation of the sign (pylon signs are not permitted in the BN District) . HSZ Development March 16 , 1988 Page 14 Lighting The applicant has submitted a lighting plan which details the location of the light standards, their appearance and the amount of area coverage proposed. Given the location of the site near a residential neighborhood, proper lighting is essential. However, adequate security must be provided for patrons in the shopping area. Proposed on the light standards are "cut-offs" which direct the light strictly on the parking lot area and to prevent glare from shining directly onto adjacent properties . Although property owners to the west and the south of the site will pro- bably be able to see light on the site, there will be no direct ' glare from the proposed lighting standards . The proposed lighting will be of a different style and lower intensity than that which currently exists on the shopping center on the north side of TH 7 . Utilities The applicants have responded to city staff' s initial comments regarding placement of fire hydrants and looping of the water- mains . The plan stamped "Received March 7 , 1988" accommodates the Fire Inspector' s concerns . As a commercial building, the building will be required by ordinance to be sprinklered. Building Elevations ' The proposed building is to be constructed of rock face concrete block with modular brick facing. The roofing detail will ade- quately screen rooftop electrical equipment. The applicant will provide a colored rendering at the meeting. RECOMMENDATION ' Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review #86-2 for construction of a 25 ,920 square foot retail center as depicted on the site plan stamped "Received March 7, 1988" , the landscaping plan stamped "Received March 11, 1988" , the lighting plan stamped "Received March 11, 1988" , the exterior elevation plan stamped "Received February 22, 1988" , and the grading, drainage and utility plans stamped "Received March 7 , 1938" and subject to the following conditions: 1 . All bituminous areas shall be lined with concrete curb. 2 . The building permit for the retail center will not be issued until the city has approved the vacation of 64th Street, including submission of financial sureties, and execution of ' HSZ Development March 16, 1988 Page 15 the development contract to insure that 64th Street will be realigned to intersect TH 41 in another location. ' 3 . Compliance with all conditions of the Subdivision Request #85-7. ' PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ' The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of Site Plan Review #86-2 as recommended by staff. STAFF UPDATE The applicant has revised the plans to provide landscaping to the TH 7 right-of-way line along the western boundary of the prop- erty. Ten 6 foot pine trees have been added. It should also be remembered that the elevations in this northwestern corner of the property are already such that they form a berm between the properties on the west of it and the site to the east. ' The applicant has also submitted a revised lighting plan for light fixtures on the north and south side of the building. ' These fixtures will be designed such that the light from these fixtures will be directed onto parking areas and will be shielded so that the glare will not be reflected to adjacent properties . ' CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve Site Plan Request ' #86-2 based on the lighting, landscaping, utilities and grading plans stamped "Received April 6 , 1988" , and the site plan stamped "Received March 7 , 1988" , subject to the conditions by the ' Planning Commission. ATTACHMENTS 1. Memo from Asst. City Engineer dated March 11, 1988 . 2 . Letter from Kevin Larson dated February 29 , 1988 . 3 . Letter from Minnegasco dated March 3 , 1988 . ' 4 . Memo from Steve Madden dated March 1, 1988 . 5 . Memo from Inspections Department dated March 3 , 1988 . 6 . Letter from MnDOT dated May, 1986 . ' 7 . Synopsis of meetings . 8 . TH 7 Corridor Study excerpt. 9 . 1972 Zoning Ordinance. 10 . Memo from Lori Sietsema dated March 10 , 1988 . ' 11. Shorewood City Map. 12 . Citizen comments . 13 . City Council and Planning Commission minutes 1985-1987. ' 14 . Letter from Soil Conservation Service dated March 25, 1988 . 15 . Memo from Larry Brown dated April 21, 1988 . 16 . Letter from Evan Green dated April 7 , 1988 . 17. Planning Commission mintues dated March 16, 1988 . CITY OF 1 \ . =j i, , ,__. - . 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 7-_ 4" (612) 937-1900 I MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission II FROM: Larry Brown, Staff Engineer 1 G DATE: March 9 , 1988 SUBJ: Preliminary Plat and Site Plan Review for HSZ Development Planning File No. 85-7 Subd. , 86-2 Site Plan This 7. 6 acre site is located at the southwest corner of Trunk I Highway 7 and Trunk Highway 41. This site is composed of both low-lying areas located along the east property boundary and the southeast corner and steep berms with mature vegetation along the 11 south and west property boundaries. Sanitary Sewer Municipal sanitary sewer is available to the site by an existing 1 8-inch diameter sanitary sewer which runs along 64th Street. The utility plans propose that two 8-inch diameter sewer mains be I constructed to service the proposed retail center and future expansions of Outlots A and B, should the need occur . Watermain 1 Water service for the site will be adequately supplied by the proposed 6-inch diameter loop system as shown on the utility I plans. The applicant' s engineer has been advised that a pressure reducer II exists on 64th Street east of the proposed watermain connection on the southeast corner of the site. The existing pressure at the site is approximately 50 psi . Calculations verifying ade- IIquate pressure conditions for the sprinkler system should be sub- mitted for approval by the City Engineer prior to the building permit process . The proposed sanitary sewer and water systems provide service II only to the subject site and therefore will be constructed and maintained as a private service. The City of Chanhassen should II not be responsible for any maintenance of the utilities (with exception of public storm sewer drainage facilities) internal to the site. II 71-77 -1-(4?-6 /-74-/i Plannin g Commission March 9 , 1988 Page 2 Roadway and Traffic The site plan access is based on a main access onto Trunk Highway 41 as well as construction and right in exit/entrance ramp for westbound traffic on Trunk Highway 7 and a deceleration/turn lane for a right in movement from southbound Trunk Highway 41 traffic. An acceptable sign and pavement marking plan should be submitted to the City Engineer prior to the building permit process. ' Current traffic volumes during peak p.m. volumes near the pro- posed intersection (as supplied by the Minnesota Department of Transportation) do not warrant the installation of a stop light at the proposed intersection given the anticipated commercial uses . The Minnesota Department of Transportation gave their verbal approval of the proposed site plan layout. They also indicated that neither the current nor projected traffic volumes for the site would warrant the installation of a stop light given the anticipated commercial uses. Written final approval was pending conclusions from the hydraulics department. ' Plans and specifications regarding the construction of the road- way and parking lot should be submitted for approval by the City Engineer prior to a final plat review. Grading The grading plan proposes that the low-lying area at the southeast corner be filled in. The plan also calls for grading of the berm located along the south side of the site to a 2 :1 slope. Wood fiber blankets or equivalent shall be required on all disturbed slopes greater than 3 :1 to be in accordance with the Watershed District' s guidelines . The applicant has also provided for the construction of a ponding site on the northeast corner of the site to maintain the predeve- loped runoff rate as well as provide adequate storage for a 100-year frequency storm event. ' The proposed grading for the site extends into 64th Street right- of-way and is contingent upon the vacation process of West 64th Street. Restoration of the right-of-way should include the construction of a drainage swale along West 64th Street to help channelize the storm water runoff which exit the proposed parking lot at the southeast corner of the site. This channel should ' extend from the proposed outlet to catch basin E as shown on the grading plan. Plans which address the demolition of West 64th Street roadway and restoration of the right-of-way should be sub- mitted for approval by the City Engineer prior to the final plat review. 11 Plannin g Commission March 9 , 1988 Page 3 I Drainage and Erosion Control Presently runoff from all properties in this area drain overland to the west end of 64th Street and ultimately to Lake Minnewashta. A long history of drainage problems exists for this area due to the lack of a storm sewer system to collect and transport the runoff. The proposed storm sewer system addresses these problems by pro- viding two catch basins along 64th Street. It is recommended that the City participate in a joint storm sewer effort by adding another catch basin as per Attachment #3 . The additional catch basin will relieve the surrounding low-lying areas of a long term drainage and ponding problem. The proposed alignment of the por- tion of storm sewer south of the intersection of 64th Street and Oriole Avenue follows the existing drainage way which was accom- modated in the feasibility study for Herman Park. 1 The proposed ponding and storm sewer system maintained the prede- veloped runoff rate as well as provide adequate storage for a 100-year frequency storm event. Such a plan meets standard City and Watershed District policy and addresses the legal requirements of an upstream land owner. Since the proposed ponding site is upstream of parking lot and 64th Street catch basins, it is recommended that the catch basins be constructed as sump catch basins to aid in the sedimentation process. A downstream ponding site at Herman Field was con- sidered, however, was rejected due to the proximity of available ponding locations versus the locations of the suggested play areas for small children. Plans and specifications which address the specific alignment, installation and erosion control for the proposed storm sewer system, should be submitted for approval by the City Engineer prior to the final plat review. Recommended Conditions 1 . Approval of the preliminary plat and site plan shall be con- tingent upon vacation of West 64th Street right-of-way, including execution of a development contract and filing of a letter of credit to insure construction of a realigned 64th Street. 2 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper installation of the public improvements. 3 . The developer shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit. I I 11 Planning Commission March 9 , 1988 Page 4 4 . Hay bales shall be placed and staked around all storm sewer inlets. 1 5 . Wood fiber blanket or equivalent shall be used to stabilize all disturbed slopes greater than 3 : 1. 6 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the permits from the Minnesota Department of Transportation and Office of the Carver County Engineer. 7 . Calculations verifying adequate pressure conditions for the sprinkler system of the proposed retail building should be submitted for approval by the City Engineer prior to the ' issuance of a building permit. 8 . The proposed sanitary sewer and watermain systems internal to the site will be constructed and maintained as private utili- ties. The City of Chanhassen will not be responsible for any maintenance of the utilities (with the exception of public storm sewer drainage facilities) internal to the site. 9 . An acceptable sign and pavement marking plan shall be sub- mitted to the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit. 10. The applicant shall agree to enter into a joint storm sewer project with the City which will involve the addition of a catch basin on the proposed storm sewer plan as mentioned previously in this report. 11. Specific plans and specifications which address the specific alignment, installation, and erosion control for the proposed storm sewer system must be submitted and approved by the City ' Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit. 12. Catch basins shall be constructed as sump type catch basins . 13 . The applicant shall submit a revised erosion control plan subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 14 . Plans which address the demolition of the roadway of West 64th Street and restoration of the right-of-way be submitted for approval by the City Engineer prior to the final plat review process. 15. Access permits from the MnDOT and Office of the Carver County Engineer will be required prior to the commencement of any grading. I 1 Planning Commission I March 9 , 1988 Page 5 I Attachments: 1 . Location Map 2 . Additional Storm Sewer and Storm Sewer Layout/ Herman Field 3 . Pressure Reducer Location I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I III MN 11•11 1111111 Mil IIIIIII MIN 111111 IIIIIII MO 110111 MI 11111111 MN MN IMO =II MI IIIIII I I \ `c...-------- .__j \ \ //1 I I —•—j\--\1 e l l J ,�a Forest Avenue• / ih•re nO.W.) I (.2 \\*\ . i / i.-.."-'..' g i Mnnewesnte I5't.o.w.for walking pain, �' ..' ,7.- '' 1 'efl a. I �At' Nt'%A!1 rQ._C _ i __. .O / e1', ��.• - 'aces 'ilia. road t perking lot•/ '' boulder play.held Pic�. ♦. ��_ '~ ,' ` / �il .lot fe s tor`sinalI`'dren) i,'r'15,�/,64%Xoq-wslic(nD Path' - ,,1� woo.p.•es:—•, �`� �`��\�� `: j tt rjwlh tity de'vptopment) _ -)C ;, '"" Doia �' � .�'. \1\°, isual'focal t .•,••,,,r„ i ro• 'aw�np r tall&short • li b� \ \ \ `\` •'" •, '' "N)1111111111111111111111114 +- \\\\`,\\,I,'nic i, ' ;; i bbardwelk Aver wet area I`%�ry �� \\ \ ` \` ''!I) irl%/�' \ I * picnic steel -- ` \ \• `\\\„\`\ 11,111F/17/,' 1,111 'r ' /, nature tratl/explore, -------- difg,hly' \ �, _ - \ \ \`, r`I;li' I I I , ` ab ` \ \\ \�` . rlil:i i I 1 � . \ /, 1 i 1 I ` I, „,,,‘s .`i ;in' ' h�. , • • Concrete pipe \\\\\\ \ r ! I , ' in tall ass __---',..)...;;',1i r I , 1 Su?,c w `1e / ba field(with b ckatop; - ``\\�`\ co ppacted chip tratl�.... , • _ / ___y___ I ” ____. ___--- i - \\ ,i '��,(,(heat v18+.tl • TTTYYN _/ Existing TUN Cover 0 -- / X / New Planting. kan)ewashta Regional Park iy _------------ 1 'R " -iii ... __ r..—►.air "'"' HERMAN FIELD t Van Doren Hazard Stallings Concept NEIGHBORH c.s u,,..,om.'r.,.00u^•n OOD PARK Explore•Discover•Ptay•Park II City o f ,. o Chanhassen,Minnesota 1 HERMAN FIELD NEIGHBORHOOD PARK EXHIBIT ACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY - MASTER PLAN NO. 2 3 11 ; 1 , I , • 1 I I • , . i. ).!..1 I , • .._ .. . "•-... -'Y- • 3 , .., > ,. -.NI.' :•''f s' li.' ,..:•-' S. ,* '1*,,,l' , ,,7 ',.1—`',t)r)('• ...‘;,'. ' #,-. ' - .t ,. ^a...."'• s.,1' e...tA,,-,., .,. ':o. -, ..41,,4,-1,tc r.it.J.ictifotil*,:gA.i,;,1#:vls,i.-1 : .. •... ,:,,,,•i,"oh...,7 .' - i'. ,'' . s k,,,,,,,.....q?.... 1 mi.,,,... As ii ..,,,,......,...,... . ,-,...... . : .• -. ', ..... _ . , -, .- : "--. -- co 11/4— CP , . - al •40yitiOrixt.,',4C.-.•,-.4C$ ., .' ",1t,ri"'“Th. "' " ' 11.11 . A * : — — ,. •*Z.."... , _ k 4' • i' rils* • '? ■ ''. „.. `,..,--,-4,2 .' ..'"'' .: / .-.V.i..'-'''' ''''''' '' 7‘ '44 'i'''''.....' '`'..:• - ' ` st.-' '' ', '4, .• ' • !,; 5,, ‘-, ., ,) 4P-'-'-,. -' .-- , ), ..' . -.•. • ,. r .. Plt, - ...,-g..-,.:: ' 'ti..1''..; .4., • , ....'•4'.':','‘,"-11• ,' • .-11,,,,'. ‘ i;j,..,•.,'''i '...'.'4`ft'4.>;:f4,' ; ' ' :' ,:,, , : , .• - - , ;„..„-,..4,:ii...,:.,t. '-, 1...., „ . :1',.....: .'2, :,4.4.,). -, , „,, . , Ifti, 4, i ,.-4'. ;:,"..k, •:-•.-rs. 11, ,L,i 4,,,-,. . -...,4.... ,,,,,,...2it-t t, •. , .,,,WV.,‘: t-; t ._•.i-;:a s-'-.....,---.4,1.4-.1,q,v.----.---i,.4',.- , ( ie. Z.;.•'t '--,• 1.45‘■-,, , ' .,, '. `‘, , - ' , %,.1.,`i",',,,,,:' 4.14..f.' . -`,"' , . .,'i ,• , ,„..4.41,,,,alf.`"Vp f.", .1 a , t:', -.„. .. • ,' ' 1 1.4: 1 :4■.;'''' -- ,, [ > 0 t- oo I I ,.„.„ „.: ;:-‘ -- 'V,''''''.•---; --' ' - . , ,' il,ot ' "i'.; ,?'t ' cn ,; ' , .i%ri r. .4: , • '' ".• ,, 0• — —ipf ...f .•-•, / Ts"',"be-- , - ' • .41. , . ,1 . r i.t..; I ' `'VA, .0i 91 „ ,,, 101141,4 1114 ,,... A.,1•• ..,,,,, ' 4,-•--4-Alt. , i'S ,kk. 4 " " ' 4,,'N.,t' Alk,.' .•,47- '',, :,',*..4y. .."' 4:1., ‘‘.,, : '..1k.; z.., . +`y. ...". _ ..N., N, ■'‘4,v,„ Wi, , •., ,'"-r4i,, : N. ',N 12.Y - 1 ' .17:4" ''!, ,, • , ,,. Crt N lv;;V. - ,-*Ift4,,j .,„ „. : 1 4 ,,, ,...... ..._ Ali. rt,-..,,,,z _ . ..„,, w;.,, ,- -, '4`iii:e . , : , r,3; I -,,, - .. , -4;,.,. ,,..., . ,4. \I',N-,.‘ * :Iv- ,.";4y1r.h.'! ' I:14 ,,,,* ,, 1,,. .,..:..... - asts, ‘,"..V .' '.-IP'. ' lic , •' ' ' t 0 ',.444=r1,..N.,-.4.-. ' -.:. ' ,.... ■ I ' pi /*Q2 'si 1 .,-..,4C4, \ ----fs' „ i :I ..,., . .,, , "A 1 . .-1."-' 7. 4-, - .!4, -.4',,, ,•,,/I '• - ....*,...-_,-42 " .,' ./ if •'',: • ;.R‘ ,..iti . - .1001.P/eli ., ,, ir ,C,3 ■i•QPIP ' - 4,-':...*"... - ,, i . ,,•.e 4.,.. . ., i •, ,,,,,..,,,. , ,lit. . .... i.,4 t It 0 f-, ,f ..`01:,•,.,,./..<=i;,'' , f:'-',1'ap X.4- 2•4,,-", ,, ,it:,,, zt ., Jr,' II I i 1.7'1'-•■'''' t'',' A • I #1.41.0 -0- 1!.. ' , ., ' tt N fr *; • :Sri • ,, , je 9 .. t9 I V - v A k'-.-V 1'&"\I 2.Vri•V; ..• / .il• 4-1' ,Vif' . ,' ' , , ..,..,! . •. ., -.,,•,. ?' •,,,• ' 1,0, - v-vv: f.', v, . ,.I, -A 4 • P , '' ' - ' ' , ,...: . ''''T 1 NI.. .`m, .t ,,%_. i =N.; *.. ... =.4 l.' 1, • ...L.', • , w •-•..., . ,,.. •:,,, ,...-7 A,, ,' t% ' •/ i '-."‘6 ''?i' ' ' 1 er -is) . '''' '' • "' 1''...‘4 i'li ,4 , t , • ?.'1.:-• : : - ' . 1 4';''t* .*,',II r '.. • • i i to . . . *,. ..,4,,, ,' ' ' , ", ,' . : -:. '')0.144;4....bi,i.,' '' '• liNc . $1, .,.. t.:,,,N _.- , .,,, _ . ........ . • , .•.. . . 1 ..„-.. ;7 .. ..f.willitift....,,,....,,Y1104... .-1,-.,s . -5-cl.4 , , : .„.-.st .: ';., ,,; , , - • -•••-!•• • , r_ :1.:-. :;.....:, . . ,. :4, ..- - !,.4..,.7-•.',e. „*, 0- . . ,...,.., - • ir■--.. .0-'-.....<„...! i.v.„4 , „,,...r. • • rot- . .-...7 -,..t, i.,- ''"",;.• -`,., , - sco I . ..A....-: , , =,.. i s , ... ....... _. .i. - , •'" -• I'• ... -4.• v ', ' , .1 . • ..•r, - ise • '' ' e :::;4'''Y - ' - ,',`...'' c. X- ., - .1' 'et; • Toi- 0- .. ,-.:-„r-, .„.;: itiSfh ;.- *,...I.,- • - , '• '4 .4. c■1 .4. ,' ' -• - ■...-. ., -4, i ... , ..'-', . : ,,.,,.. , . . 4„. ..„. .e..,4 , .. , , - . ---.4— - -,ir , ; . , ' : -•4 1 '*,` \��HAHq CAF■ WATERSHED BOUNDARY N N, � 'flj� � �SHED ; ✓` , ; MNyFy 4 k4 ,„ "y 'N N E H A H A CREEK LAKE MINNETONKA I WATERSHED DISTRICT P.O. Box 387, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 MINNESOTA RIVER IHOARD OF MANAGERS: Camille D.Andre,Pres. • Albert L.Lehman • John E.Thomas James R.Spensley • Richard R.Miller • Robert D.Erickson • C.Woodrow Love IIFebruary 29, 1988 Ms. Barbara Dacy, Planner II City of Chanhassen PO Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 rRe: Minnewashta Meadows, HSZ Development IDear Ms. Dacy: We have received the information you forwarded concerning the above-referenced projects in Chanhassen. The developments appear feasible and will require a permit review and approval by the Board of Managers of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. IISome of the District's concerns in development of this type include that: 1. The rate of stormwater runoff from the site shall not increase as a result II of the proposed development. This criteria shall be analyzed and met for runoff producing events with return frequencies from one to 100 years. I 2. The quality of stormwater runoff leaving the site after development shall be equivalent to runoff quality for the existing condition. This criteria shall be analyzed and met for runoff producing events with a Ireturn frequency of one year. 3. Appropriate erosion control methods are in place to prevent the transport of sediments off site during and after construction. II4. Prompt restoration of the disturbed area be completed with seed and mulch or sod. 1 Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 473-4224. ISincerely, EUGENE A. HICKOK AND ASSOCIATES IIEng veers for t District Kevin C. Larson, Engineer .- -• -- cc: Board MAR • 1 1988 L. Smith ICITY OF CHANHA SE pjinnegasco A Company of Diversified Energies, Inc. March 4, 1988 1 Ms. Barbara Dacy City Planner 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: HSZ Development - Located in the Southwest Corner of T.H. 7 and T.H. 41 Dear Ms. Dacy: Enclosed are the prints for the above-referenced project, with our facilities shown in red (see sheet U1) . These locations are approximate and must not be used for construction purposes. To have our facilities field-located, please call 342-5200 twenty-four hours in advance of desired date for marking. Also enclosed is a letter from Steven Von Bargen, Real Estate Specialist, regarding the 64th Street right-of-way vacation and how it will affect Minnegasco. Also shown on sheet U1 is a 12" steel main running parallel with Trunk Highway ' 41. This main operates at an extremely high pressure; please advise your con- tractor to proceed with extreme caution when excavating or working around this gas main. Please send me a set of your final plans so that we may determine our involve- ment. Sincerely, • AI Dave Henningsgaard Design Engineer Engineering Services P.O. Box 1165 Minneapolis, MN 55440-1165 /lh ' Encl. MAR 71988 CITY OF CHANHASLN 700 West Linden Avenue Minneapolis,MN 55403 t CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 1 r; (612) 937-1900 TO : Barbara Dacy , City Cit Planner FROM : Madden , Fire Inspector 1 DATE : March 15 , 1988 SUBJECT : 85-7 SUB , 86-2 SITE PLAN ( HSZ Development ) 1 I have found that the site plan for above 1 site , is in complaince with the fire code. If you have any questions , ask. 1 1 1 t 1 71)t-7.94 6-7xT# 1 1 1 1 t I CITY OF .,, 1 \ 1 k . CHANHASSEN 1 , , , ,_,_ _ . .„.. _... v 690 COULTER DRIVE •• P.O. BOX 147 •• CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 '' (612) 937-1900 1 I MEMORANDUM TO: Barbara Dacy, City Planner I FROM: Inspections Department air- .. DATE: March 3 , 1988 ""fir I SUBJ: Planning Case: 85-7 SUB, 86-2 Site Plan II HSZ Development The Site Plan you submitted for HSZ Development has been II reviewed. Please give the architect a Code Review Outline. This should be filled out and submitted at the time of the preliminary plan review. We will require a complete set of plans to conduct II a preliminary plan review; two weeks should be allowed for this . A Commercial Building Permit Requirement Sheet should also be given to the architect and contractor. II II II II II 1 II 1 /177,1Citlin4 I t��NNrq k. Il' do Minnesota Department of Transportation a 4. _ �. District 5 Fyn It.'a4p 2055 No. Lilac Drive Iof TRP Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 (612) 5c4c5:51kid I 593-8537 May 5, 1986 IIBarbara Dacy, City Planner City of Chanhassen II Community Development Department 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 IRe: S.P. 1004 T.H.7 1008 T.H.41 I Proposed Minnewashta Gate located in the Southwest Quadrant of T.H.7 and T.H.41 in City of Chanhassen IIDear Barb: We have reviewed the above referenced preliminary plat and have the fol- ' lowing comments: — We are in general agreement with the proposed preliminary plan II dated April, 1986. This plan proposes that one—way entrances from the highways be allowed at two locations. One from high- way 7 located approximately 430' + west of the northeast corner of proposed Lot 4. The other one would be from T.H.41 approxi- ' mately 210' + south of the northeast corner of proposed Lot 4. We are in agreement with this if all other direct access points to T.H.7 and T.H.41 are closed. The procedure for changing the II access points would take about four months from the time it is requested. II — Entrance permits for the access points must be applied for and approved before any work may begin on the highway right—of—way. The specific design of the entrance can be finalized at that time. 1 — Special design considerations and good signing will have to be included for the right turn off entrances where they join with the 2—way street so as to discourage wrong way moves. The lane Ifor the right turn off of the highway should be aligned so that it is completely to the left side of the 2—way street centerline. See attached drawings. 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED IM J o tL 6 1986 An Equal Opportunity Employer `cr ,,e . rA�r�, �® CHANHAS &N PLANNING DEPT, 11 Barbara Dacy May 5,1986 Page Two - Additional time is needed for review of the proposed drainage system. Any significant comments in regard to this will be transmitted at a later date. If you have any specific ques- tions about our review of the proposed drainage system, please contact our District Hydraulics Engineer, Ms. Ellen Gavlinski at 593-8504. If you have any questions in regard to this review, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Evan R. Green , Project Manager cc: Todd H. Thompson - Tomac Development, Inc. Reed Becker ERG:pn 11 SYNOPSIS OF MEETINGS ' On June 8, 1983 , the Planning Commission considered an application to amend the Comprehensive Plan from Low Density Residential to Commerical for a 4. 5 acre "T-shaped" parcel. Many residents in the ' neighborhood opposed the application stating they would not agree to all commercial, but would consider a commercial use buffered by Medium to High Density Residential Development. The Planning Commission was concerned about the application because the Commission did not feel it ' was improving the neighborhood and it did not provide for appropriate transition in land use for the adjoining property owners. The Planning Commission recommended to table the item until staff provided ' additional information on uses in the surrounding area. The matter was again considered on June 22, 1983. Planning staff pro- vided the Commission with information on zoning and land use plans ' from Shorewood and Excelsior. The subject site was one of three areas discussed for possible changes in land use. The Commission recom- mended denial to categorize the parcel as commercial. ' On July 11 , 1983 , the City Council considered the application. The Council denied the request stating that the commercial use was too ' extreme of a change and the Comprehensive Plan should be followed. On March 13 , 1985 , the Planning Commission considered the Sketch Plan application. The Commission recommended that the area north and east ' of the proposed roadway be rezoned to C-2 and the area to the south and west of the proposed roadway be rezoned to C-1. The Commission also instructed the applicant to meet with the surrounding property owners before reappearing in front of the Commission for a public hearing. The City Council considered the Sketch Plan request on April 1, 1985 . The Council reiterated the necessity to meet with the public before application and was concerned with the traffic and land use impacts. Some Council members felt that medium to high density residential ' development was more appropriate at that location. On April 17, 1985 , the applicants conducted a meeting at the City Hall from 7:00 to 10 :00 p.m. regarding the proposal. Of primary concern to the 20-25 people that were present, were the land use impacts and the traffic concerns . As a result of the meeting, the applicants redrafted the proposed traffic alignment in the northwest portion of the site. On April 24 , 1985 the Planning Commission tabled the Land Use Plan Amendment , Rezoning, and Preliminary Plat requests until written com- ments from MnDOT could be obtained and the applicant would be able to submit a buffering plan. Staff was also directed to prepare a land use analysis of adjacent properties. II_ eastbound TH 7 difficult to make. Again the closure of "- direct property access to TH 7 would have negative impacts on several commercial properties. A second alignment for CR 19 was considered to improve the skewed intersection with TH 1[- 7, but this alignment involved considerable additional cost, impacted a wetland and resulted in only a minor improvement in the geometrics of the intersection with TH 7. This alternative would also reduce access to the residential area ■— along Academy Avenue north of TH 7. Recommendation for Excelsior Area West ": Alternatives 2 and 3 came out very close in the evaluation. Alternative 2 is recommended because Alternative 3 would create an unsafe intersection with TH 7 and provide less accessibility for the residential area along Academy Avenue ii north of TH 7. This alternative would eliminate one full II movement intersection on TH 7 and improve the geometrics of the remaining intersection. It is anticipated that only the intersection of CR 19 would need to be signalized. However, II future development in Chanhassen may eventually warrant a traffic signal at the Galpin Lake Road intersection with TH 7. If the location of the two closely spaced signalized intersections does become a problem in the future it would II be possible to realign CR 19 over to Water Street north of TH 7 and elminate the signal at the CR 19 intersection with TH 7. 11 TH 41 AND LAKE MINNEWASHTA AREA The alternatives for the TH 41 area and the Lake Minnewashta area focused on two issues. First, how access to TH 7 could be consolidated in this area and secondly how to upgrade the remaining access points. The alternatives are shown on Figures 30 through 34. Most of the access consolidation occurs on the south side of TH 7 in the City of Chanhassen. In meetings with homeowners and residents a general concen- sus was reached on a plan which would consolidate access in the TH 41 and Lake Minnewashta areas. A frontage road bet- ween Elm Tree and Dogwood Avenue is shown; construction of this road would be a local decision. The major issue yet to be resolved is whether the remaining "- access points should be upgraded at isolated locations or whether a five lane section with center left-turn lane would be better. Both alternatives could be implemented within ii- t II he existing right-of-way and would have similar impacts relative to access and effects on existing commercial and residential areas. The major difference between the alter- if natives is the cost (a five lane section would be almost twice as costly) and the capacity, and safety on TH 7. "- 104 _.....1 U The 2000 forecast ADT on TH 7 west of TH 41 is almost 20,000 vehicles per day. Based on this forecast a two lane roadway 11 with turn lanes will not have sufficient capacity. A five lane section would provide adequate capacity and improve the safety on TH 7. Therefore, the five lane section is the Ifrecommended alternative for this area of TH 7. The Cities of Chanhassen and Shorewood and Mn/DOT should coordinate access based on the access consolidation shown in I/ Alternative 2 in the TH 41 area and Alternative 2 in the Lake Minnewashta area. Access on the north and south of TH 7 should be lined-up as much as possible and public I/ street access should be spaced 500 to 750 feet apart. The improvement of TH 7 to the five lane section could be staged by widening at selected locations and restriping for a center left-turn lane at these locations. I/ I 11 I I I I I I 1 1 105 ,r... ,, ,.u,'',.,„',••ss.;,74 r -,4,?„4r,,,,,,4 „*„ , , , J. , . ,,, , , . , .(, tr7M. , "•-•;riNTR451..4, ; v).74444", - -,,,giqg".--:-.4,4, ..frif 44.., 41:-,',.,--,., •,,1,. ,... ,,. i-1•..-4,4 fo.. •••.:,,,•,k•fi, ,r,,.;t, . ,,,"A 4 ,'. ,,,: ,$., ,. . '2':,.,.), ,,. ., ,,,tf:.: : '''),.., ii''‘.',I.; ",=,i' ,,,,, ,..14 - Te?.., ..1.4'.ii 4. .,2.'"'' 1 ' l.' '.,:,, '" ':,;.< -,,,:,,' - ..,e'47,, ''' ,.4''I''''P'';,,",..56,1 ',:'"'Uo; I ...' ;IL''''IT--''' ''.1--t '',,, '',-0'''. ."qk,,,'''., r,,, '.:,:If' ‘oo,:', -,iilf. ,,;'4f, 7.4'','",,,,i'llf` - IT: tfi- '' • til ' '' #4";--' l''5.'S'..rw.V, tti4i* 4'.. I'''':4 11'I ':`1.'' ..'1' 14 , 0$' • ' 'J ..4i,'ti. .'4,'' '''>ii il.,''''.. , 10' 1:',1:,.,..L ,_,40.ro,l;,..; ;, . ,. ,'3, .' I i..f7;+.:-'',, VP,0: `'. ''''''',11') ..Y.:' .. ''i .''' V. ,.°,4" ,c,,,..,,,',..: '-.14,1*• ,,, .., .;*', , • li;,e„.',f,',0, ',',.. ,, i,,,f,.., ,,,,',4.7 '; y:. ,..., ,, . ,,,,., szt. , ,, - .Rtri;,1 '..'9",,'"4,., k,,, l'it"-', • ;,(4,,;', 4, 14,,,,,,-‘`!,,,-..T. ;,1..;,',e1-''•P 4.il‘',If ,. ■..-,lik, ',..''''.. '''S-04.,•,i1-),'' .. ■4 ' -'' '', 4,,,,),,y.: ' ' ,i‘e9 '-.., '•4 •-• ' -^- ' . ,' ' p..-,,-r-. e t'''., '' . etati,J, ".,,IX 't Ir."',. 4c i .s.%f,,, -. ,4;ri, ','''.%.,''' It .:' , "t'4,150'. 'l' P ' ,.'it',1! '. 1'Ai '"Tr( ' .,'--*".-'4„1„,..,,*. .4„. ,,1., ),°,,,,,- fe,,,r,.. ',', ,ty,“- .,." ,.„.,>a.:40,4te, ' t .'-', 4 1, 4*,.',..A ';''' " ',i";') '61z' P.,k:.'', '.5'f,,$.1;.,.',,':' ','`.;:i,•?0,:,-„,,-;.: '.1' • '',i;;,tit . 4. 1 i i, ".*:. e■'-', (':14t+l,tr'*.A',A ,*:1*644; .!: '':' , '':,1:,64),,,Vi';;',..:,':'','. ', ?...,:04?„' ... : ''...•,,ies,• ,..44,/,"k,4 :%.,,, ,.',?; ?ti'1,4,...'it,''': 1 1 -;•,4,1.110,.!.!'''!„i;/' If:1,4%.' 4f, ,:,,;314 Iii,4.!,,,:,,-,c-4;f:'?:;*" , '''',it; 440 ; 4', .."4`; ''' g 41.:.-;:.t. ,..:A ' "fl'-4'.'S.";i11:„;";1.4;1 **!;";:',,61 Airlf• 41' %* ,....:' .4,',.::::',:;'' Y; ....;,4 „)...'i: '!j f, Li 1, i:E`c::i,,,,,,'i .4' '111-17,04.1.1:.;,..:,,,,t-11,,.,c+-eti',';i-it.... .,- iii.,..'-'.4 ,;'• ,,A, ..' -. I .•v..I, .,', . - - 4,1 II-Ls, .* . :...44. 4 ; f. ''';',A.,..,$;*.;, ii-:.::,'r\ ,.)rtit; ot.., k, ;ev,,,:-;- .s‘,,',;si',1,.) '4;4.vr it r- 1:41,. i''''' ,. r- ' 44'''',!' : , ''''.«:".1r',' ;''' ''''' 4 I 110 ill i, iv a.4 ,-,:.,,,,,,, „ov 1 ...,,41 7 - ., '',-...":7,1,,, .,, '..: ,',, ''' .''' '' '...'1, .-,1 ,' , - 1 ., -f.,; ;,itl;, .i 4, ',F ",14;', 1,-1:tt- 44e ... ,•Ix r..1,,,,..„.k.,.., 1 '•?i.,-., . i ' tqV ..,* ': ''' ''' . '';''''4.;,414.* 4 '.,. ::ri i”''-',..,.* ,i,' 1,:, '';''''') '''''- ',,,1: ''..4 :ill' '' '1'1,''''-' f,,,,k,,,..:*...,•,,,--,':; '' , .„,,,, "4"4*. .,.4,.,...'tj -4, Al; '17i, ..";';,t.-'-i.-`244 -g kx.11..!'.''''ill 4'4. -', .; :. ;44.4!:;,r- 4F:04 ,.:,-t. --.,;.i,;. ,,,V4' 'ff,.4-!,- 4,, r . ,,,,,,,,,,, - ‘ , ,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,..,. q ,''.4,4. . ..;. .'' i,',,,k1. 44,. i,,li a 6 *,'0 . .i• 5. '.' 7' `.: .t 0. X '5-••V., , :": ,:3; ,...-t1-.7' ',-, .'.,- ` l'Y I 4 r w..''''*4 '.•A''''''iltki:- •• ' ',:l.-..fi''72,' , i?:;.,•fp ,,,i,;r„,-, -. • ,: c./...1.,1 ill ti.,1, .e,g' . --'..-,..,.,3< .: ,.k,' , ?rf, .4, .;. i, ,., ot.- ,4.,‘,/4-., , ., ;,1,,, .,,„Ait,rje., ,:,,A-1,411,,,.....: , .. ..„. _i,:9.i.,:. 4 '..A.,011"-'—A,4140i>44, ' ''i' . ''' :!4.-"--'.'::0-4';`1.'Pairitc:'''..' - ' '4 - 'Cio i`54 ."if;'-',. :- tk "":"..;10;:7,;C.43'4- : —1141' '' i,?aij ' ' ,...,1.-7..:,.ivAi/J!..:-"v— -.,"'t..,-,," ''':.■ .' Anvs,,,i4r, ' - A ',.I Ito - *,'' ..40,!F‘•'.,..%-,rt.-,. .,,,'./litt',..•;',4'...1" ?.,s, ,,, ig .,,,,. ,---, '-, 4..*f„;.t...,:,-,,,t. ..;:, ,, .,...,...,...,..11:4# ,vg., , .2 1.'flt.{.:: '''!‘`',,: ':.`'''''''' 1.40,„e,,•.-, V '.,?,.$1,. .0. 6 . ............. ` .1;"`A•"` '' fly'? ,t i'l',,l' ,r-,.....4.%_,,,fii..,.,::,' 2'"..1K,'":0,11 if SLJ ' ' -' '''?' ,:;;AV 1, -,-:. t-1,s. b ■-/''‘.) ....% `:.- '-''''' . „!scl."--- . ''V-".., ' ') '''A 0--i ,,,. Itt.",'a:es,''.'-.,' -;,,,,, . " .2'.'.":.."''''::".1;' .".14" ..t,..:..,:.,:.•''':', '4-'f. qT ' 1 1 OREW a 41 6 =116''' ' ' . - - ''''''\ - ' -';''.. "-- - : A; .'. ''..'":, ' : 141%,1, vit • -'5.,...,'''''4'''..•-• .,,...... ..„,,,I.,.st.t.,-1-;ii.-- ,', ,4,7./-'.!..,'II' , ,,A -,,,k+tif•-•'',.:.',. .f•::: , '.,-,,v,.:-:,.- l',„..tt,; r•A'',-%;;;- 1.11,,,, ,. - „, 1:...110,114" si„,....... ."....'"" "Y ',.."-:7'7;,7'""""-'•-.....4-•-•w■ie,1.1„.04. 7.,,1,.., ,.„.;..7 i 1 Pt -*,,,30'7 P7Y,A,944- .- 411.7.,:rtyr,.. "."4 tik.'-ff.',.-4.-- 4„e ,tititit.-'41.1" 4 1,.**-',' .,,," 4.1,'<' - ‘4,,,Vkl•fili- f,„ ,f,40-**, ; 47,4*. ,,-,,, ' ,i',./'%'.4":::' z '''''' V i Al,, . ow :r.,:,-, j. .,,,,-t,,,,.,,,.I.1.4.5,., v.,....m*.:4,',A.,;.-.„,-.. . . 'ay, ' .f 1,t'. ,, " S '.. ':A II 14 e-'' '-,-11 ''',' '''''. t'"#ii' 4:: ; ..'ir "2:;•.:' 'l' ' ',*. )› 119 * :''j'. t14/** ''. 1'''19;3't-%,I*44''' :.1'' ri,',' 41.4fr 4-t?., -'' '4,:lb,, 4'.. • -,4, .'s'i',./'','1. . ' Pi, PA, 4 ( <i,,,''''44,,i44' ' ,,,.,:,,,,, .'!'+,f.P ,'171?-:':i ' ,,,i0ii.X.,,*ik'- 4 . •' ''''' "3, .L.'ffi.'"r:', ,qjt: 't i ''',,r- ...-"P'`4.-:," -.1---'''''er4i44'-":; ; ','-" •:,'-`:`,.)'': ,,,,,!;f'c',':. .4.,*,* "-rtl''''''''..,jr-, ,'..- 4 ' ..`!'. - 4'fit.g.,*. c V li-4..,%.,W•.-: •",,, *441 1 .. J..,, , , .,,,,,,,,..: - ..; ;: . .. ,,,. %,„„:„...,..,, ...., . '7".,-!`,.1, ?, . l'•• V,, 'iii ij f r . .A.' 'e. '4*p...,.:,;. I .,*/ki 1 ill k.it,f;,;.;, , ,. f.: - . ,,,,,,, ,o. ,,,,,,,,,,-,„,,...4 .;•,,,,. •,.•,. . 4,„..,.., s , ' ',..?' ';:„:„.„1,.-.‘%..4it.,,''' ••...4,' ,,...:,,,..•.,,,.. „ '•.' •*. -., -,,c, .. t.4.,,,,•..,, '.,„ .,' , ,..,t-c, ,, ,..,. , 1,•,,,,,,tt.,,_ 4,"ii.::-- . 'f,':,;,4 '-''''' ' f.4.,,•*"1,,,,,'Ir',..1.,;''' '2V-g;,-'' r:-‘!, , 4. ':-pill 1, ? ,, ,,, .. "--,•,,,. .- „4"..'--' 41 i 1 -".•105 c. . :-,,, `,:;t',Zii",4 to, '‘(.', $',4.r.., ,,.,.....,, , ,,,,,,.,,, ,...::,.., < „,„ igiii4•'?,.-.Ft:. , ,St 1:'1...,„P4iff§/.1,,,y1.-,,-,,,, ,i, 1 /,,,t, ' . -.-. ,,, ,," ., .,,, ',,-,,,,,,-.e..t.4 -•'-' -',, ... , .431ta ??4, , ' - , , .4 .:., '',.,,,4'4, ,•• ,,,4 i tt.,., -co 1 ,e, 40:4.4%-,.. '., ,''',-,5:hsli-:.','.,,W' --,,,i7..,4,' 40,01* Atf '' ' '-' '". 1 •-."' '' '',, i 4c4 ."-"" '''0,—s'''' •' iv,"' ..!••• t.-, !'; .-;:,-'. ' "10,,•,- gik,,,,,) ,..4, -,, -,-,...,-:,..*J,,,-,- 11.,14,;44-„,t, ,L,4,..'11. ' -f- ''''''• '- . .v.. '"'". ",'' • .1*-/ ' ,, ', - '''''''*"'''' 0-•.'sr.',. - -•'' Ar- - -; 1., - •1.,,,,,,1,,T.,;.. iv.L.8.,4,,,z.,,,7...44f.::7• - ,..' ,, . f . -,t,A.,- „t• 4,,"'. , 4,44,, , --A,,,..;,,,.„. ..,-, .,- 7,' w- . 'vo'',/0"viirli`. 2,,4>0.71.Y1,•4 ''.,fr'' 0 V.,4',F' lir' f;f*,rift 14W '',Pi" .C, '..::: :•:1,'.. Y'.• fj,,:,41,tct i.,•,••• "-t,/ ..g,.....,,,;,,.•'• r:.. ,'',,,..41' .,. -,,-,., 47,t, '.''''*;i," .th.'1'1,,,,''.;l'' l',"Y" :k'' - .,,,,,‘,, ,:$''',f,i' ..* . . ,I .p.f.,7;■''',',1 te.,,,,',. , fi' ..&- - ..:- -::,e,, 4 '-L ,,,...:,4,..., , . 0' -' „4'f, ',,;-,, , • . , '•,,!,-;;14, .4t,.',,,r;"":41t-V,f« '''';:,;;;',--4“ .41;,-.',;'?',:* ., 4:1,thii,t' ''''.I'l.,4';1114:,r .-.. I. . e .1'',''...'4r.47"'. , 4.414,.:`,'!Ar.'. At,,,,r '''''`,i,' •,f;444:41,': ...;,,,,, t,', 'ifl,!,'1,...„.. ..„,.,-.,, :4;,7,-' % ;1,".;., r• ,.,•79.,,, s,; -14;,'. . '....k •.4" -.40c'4. „,,kil.: ,....4-7;k14,";-- ' .,i,•"... .-. 0::'.•••;:. ,1' ,, ' - 4i' 141''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''.r.'"..,.•t.'f,,.,.,9*, L,,,,,, 4 . 'X-'.'',r:o-- '. 1-:, , ,.(.1,,,„, , ,.„,,t, , ,,, ,,,,. T v --e,-4„,, ,,*y. .: , ,, .,....,,,t' .;;;;‘,,,,,i ..'741.;,r11,A.,,,......„-,,,, . .,.. 74, i .4.;,3-0,4,1..,„ 1.- ,..... 1;,',:..ow..ii,i,., ,,,.1..;„.,.. ,...,...v.„• %lop?, •, •, ..,2 -, ,.. , , ..: .0, ,,,,,, ,.,, .„,..44?..,.....4,t...., ,,,A ,‘,,} 44,.•4-..p. : .. , .. ,t'•'-,,,,: .''''.1",et'''4' 1:f : -`4, '',.,',,<-1 *,, .1*;,,,,,,, ,,'„,;'4.. ' :';','',.;',/s.:•.-- imr,;411%1P.tit • di,::see, ',.,,; Z•t' — ).,,i.....1,i. .„, ''..,...4,,,,,.. ..0 ei,..,:14d,LA.S.t. k q ...A.--,...1. FIGURE 30 TH 41 AREA ALTERNATIVE 1 • ci-IIIEw -• ,.:':.:-. .... . 100 200 400 600 Feat • • 7 CORRIDOR STUDY r T H gut, vs; gall !Nil !Not , 1 1 _ 1 t TT!, PIN!, In mm, —a iiii, 1111111 INK IM IM 11 . lisr ile ale lie Ike simi '' ,.1......., ,,, ,,.... ir, ,. ,„pi-*wawa•sir II i/i ' . ' '.1 k .•:: .f ''m.'. .*-4.,-10.?',,,';!'s'''A c•,, ''''"n."4 1,t":./17 f;145,it'5',,,, "Wi, ,''.,''''''.77:4• ' ;,,!'.'7:,-.4;41,*',1,?:‘,.,' 4'3:4.kr---461:.;•.•::7,::::):.' '...:.:'''..''''',.!:,.... 0 .;. '-. 1,,,, ..;,...;:. ,..,,.2, ,,im .,1,, , .. ._ .,„;_,,,!,.,....,,-47,:i ,i ,:,:..,:„: 1 •ki,,,,-ii,qt:,4,14,1 : :, ir...4„', ',,,,,„ .,,,,,ii.,, „I71.!«..4., ..r41. - .,..;.4,...-.. . ..,,,..; :,L.r7 :if,:.,. ; ',,":-:. ..'... :,-'n' if .4-. ,' '.'"' . 'v.'''.ts''. ' '"" Nr(4.1 '' 41,,.•••••'. --*Iltt'ip'14,6/14014*.'',',/".—, 4' .4 ,q,;<• pi"-''‘lti..0741'. — :eV ..i.I''''4 j.7,,t,...,.,,.,44,- 1.,,,,.1; ;•‘,.... •.,41.nks.•':.,,,,,-..;.0`1..... ,..,' i, ' '. " $. -,•'-' '.i,.;,.4,,:f.' :''t'',- .•••-•' "....: ,,,,r,,,,;$4::,$ .-'.or •,... .„.'.'•424..,,',, $:,..,:.-,-, . .•'.!-- lc .- . -. ,..!''' .;. . . ":..,,,' ' : ,.'siz,v,'$-•31,•‘ ''''t,' -:,!,,, -,,,,,oe. ,, :•,,,,,, I. • ••?.I.1 . ,'•••.:,' ..,;•-,...". 4 It ' i•:•,....1.i.:'.,..•:',.•.,.,','.•', . p, .,- 4 ; ,:••••4'..' ,, r. ',',4,'7':440," '''';' i'4, • • ' '..- ' .'.* .1' 1:3 '',.::-,.., ::,.:.; ' ;''''.'.'i,' : ,,,,;,,.:••.•„;,.,...,;.:....'••:.>'.'j,•,,,,i •c•Y, '''.*j'r': 4,i4.,'-/qi.4' ,f1;!*(:.' <fr.';;.':k,'.',.''.›! 4i qriki.16.44. ' ,:%'''''''''''!7,,,A.; 4 tp;iA'4.11,.'i,,"V.':4`; '''''..444.....",,":.' 1.,..n.. -,.,.:.:Kit;!,,, .1.• .4... „,t,2,n.sf*,.., , .' 1 ' ri° ': i I i.'''•-•'''''''..•-'',:'''-:',•Ls'.- l'.15 1,..s, ' r te ';'-t'''''.i.4...): 't'`It'•,''.'0•,..'is...11) ',04.' ,,x,e4Y'el'fr. )grrt; .''.,iit!..ii.;:::'..'..' t4,.44}.,1 ,...,r''''''',i,r,r,,,14,:*.'rr';.:I'',,,rfr.r.;fi,5.r'.:'t 1.a._L.,.,,Ty. .....,--,4.444,*,. ,f 4 ie,,,,,,,l'ye ' ,it - ..*,,,,',,:,:,-',.:?.'..4,, :;;,-:,.-xy:.., 410..:',i 'r",f', •-c._,, '7,', :4 ''' .... 1,..:.,;' . :',L:,',.,44.'0',',.. ,;.' : ' ' "'.• ' rji:. * r rr'l4&4.''r''r::"A: Ae*'..t1::';''''''''.'rrr 7'57.:.;''r.j.'''' ''.r- 4 ' li,0 .4 .. ...'ftr.i•rxt:..,'.,,.,,-.•,:- r rr ;:rre 4'.;:.,' Ty, t''''l ,;,,ita.; i,-; ,..-. ,-.04.,,:-,,,,'..,tr 4::: :,,,r,r: . ':',1 i;'7: 4 :.1.1„_,44''"7.;'''4.'44., .IV''.''`i,77;■;:':,".' to..., ,r' .,. ,,e,.....' ::„„. • .p 'r, 1,,....,,,,, ,.., .,,-.,-;'.s: .5,ii.A,Frr.):. : ,. ,,,,Ic.a,,,,,,,,,,to:q44.t.,•:, if 14,,,.--c'44".i..,-'. i-, ';. ',', ,:.'W; , 1"..".'4.,. ,' :ii; ''r ',.,'"iik" '','.."., ,..n i 414., :..--, ,i,--,,';-:',,-; ',,.. ',,„fi,•••... '' 5J,,.,Y•40',„,il. :1,, .4,4-44,,,,: ....-'e', ', ,,,,T;tri, ,i.4,,,,,,,,,-,',/,'iri .':. -, Ix-,. .,„.,,;,..4;7„..i, ,. ::.,,,..,,;„, .:-.-.,-2...,.•:- N4-.:, ::,4...,',.'Ai•;,. V ' "'.11.)::Sit)fi .' frik".%■ A-•4.g. .,',,,I,1,,,,,,i.,, ,i.ti. ,:i7„,',,,,,, -'4i,,- ,,„.,1,r„, ,;,,,,,-.„...;:';-,r, „..,,,::,: • grt::-.L:si ;-)s..4- ,,,,, ,..„.- ,,,;,.:16 , ,,..,..,,i..N.0:,. 4,...;,,,..,t.„,.., „.:,,,.,,t,,,,,,,,4',„;,-,,„-,4 14)44,), ',, ite.A41,sik;r:,,V vitk,14.,,,, .1,' 't.4„,,:',,,,'„It.4,4,...k),:-:4 :iti:4)*, 4..,, .,..., :,. : "4-4,o' .'''' i''' '';it, :44,1if tv, .,,,T..., :.,...i!. ..„.. .,,..,:.,:l'41'4.. .':, i;',..4.';';z„,t'l r.,2::..''''',,it '',•'A,r rrt,t,4'.i.,: 4 1;07,,,:i ...r.eftittn4W,s;qr44 r ';' :,.:,,P.:.:1',',;,•.':y3$rr. ,:t.) ;i,,,i;ei4,i1 ,,r,- ..T:-.'74 '' ft .+,....N : ittiv!..,p.- • • .. •i r...,,,,.....;:,..x.„., .,....,.. .,,Ai ,:,,v..:'-./.;;., --:::1 :„..5 --,. 1.1:04,t4 •,:„.-141,:tt 4 ..",,,liker :,,,4',,,,,„.;444m4.4.,`', ,141„7, :- xq: 4,,,,i'''." ',4`;i:,...,4.?,;11 "" ft, .,,ii. i :• i'r,.-4,4,-`:4-t- ‘, • /." ','. .- ,,,,::!:',-.5;', .4,,,i'',,. : cAlpoti, ?-45F;;,;..51!ANg.;„ ,„„1„,,T, cA„,ENTFF../.,„,., - 1,?f,:c.nr:Vk '"' , '.11,4:4 4,ittaii,,,.`:.k,,f#:.• _.,,,,'''A ,tp,,aT t '.,.! .;,..;1 /ic ,;,-.;',..4.;..,.scr, • . ::: ,:.,,, .,,,:'1:•:: - 4:: •••.• ,--•• ' ,.. -. -., rim". f.111,--" .:.., ., ..,1 , -,,,. A..,'9 '''' y/'X'.,, .II.0, ,A,.41, i V. ■, .i-, ...',.."v,s' ,*., ,, 4.,.1, ,1 .,,., * ,s .,- ..', !* .i S:n. ':::4;AfSkiet?:4!'li"4.N VI'• ':.''.4. :r,r'rr'':"r tig '':'i'I.?.f!'J7'Y.;;4 , ' krt',,,4 il,.'1r: ‘;.'..: ;i4i'*/44.114'It f,ffilir!'r';4*:N 4 11'4';.:1 Vil;' A'7;11 :ri 14 '% . '''''''6:'' '':''rr'''.1V;r:4. 4.''t'*r. ' ' r r''' .;':';'!':' 'r.; ; 'I. ' 1 i ':-14............... ..,10 ly,;„,,,; Vlit,,t4 '1 ,, 't ,r'l*i'ii. ,47#1.,1:'.‘ 4,44,114,,,,,:" t,,p4t4,,-' ''''' ,„.•,;,‘4)1'74f...i&-,-.,!:,..iir. ''.• _,t.,:%!;./;•,,-,„,•'.01kliii-,b.4' -..j il-tiI, ":.,s3...."1,, ,, 1 „i,,t!,. :••'',-.,' ,-' .. '',..,,&„-;'t et4,-,4%, -.- , . ..,, -7•-•-•-...,.........,_,_,....... -,0":4 ,:',,;•,.:.',Tel.r•IfIlirr•i". li..i 7!,..„/„,f s''',•:il.4.:+p, S 1.4 n In r-\No -"Ail ,,,,,,,,,„, t-•'.i,.. 0 .....: '..'-1 ,,,, „.. .,,,,,,,,•,..,„. ,.••,':''•;,, ,„. ",yt 41,,`: K..", A-,7,1,-•, 114 '.*. ", 4, .', •, .., • -...-!-. ' ',4,..4 ,;...4%,.,..,:.,,....,,,..:. '',;,,,,,4;„..... . 1%-inc - ..;.,:',f4;it,!':i i:S zt,'•,St iii4''''';im., ' ':•!-- ••,- '',..1 •:.' 7 j.:? :7 ',iv' „Orrie Lre.,,,,,, t , ,.■*"...""."'a*"".. '......" ' •••••■•■•),,,,elt. 4, r,:pr:r"4:: ''''''';';.t',.i 041;.471riti, 4,1*, , ,,„.. ..14,,,r04."',. stet '.,,4...",,,:,,,.,:3:1",t,Ve,' .70tr:p-sylrip,44, ,41",40..''•„0449,-.04,?miri" ktc,,,,,.V.,,,,,ii:4",.N411,, . t :. 4 444 I .,.,r 1.; .''. ;,..,...,;17,4.7 'IP? . '',4***- i'll;',.;- '4'74°,.,' '!„,16. '1'3,:" -, ,i'",:::if• 4 t.:,,,11,77) -'7,:i.",,I.i ,?4.1,W,,,KtP 1 ''', t",_?."4:1 ft :ANglit 666,3, .e, t ; -0-, i -,,,i. -„fe44. , d , ,, ,, t,r: :1.-;4„,„,,,,,,01,iii,,I,,,;;;„y....,-d. , .-.7- ,,,L1.," ,•-.-,0 .:,,,,.,rir .-):.o.,..A.4,-,-..-ii, , ..,,t,,, ',-.,„- , ,,,y,../.!',...ris..h„/ ,, ' .„, ,,,,,..-,f- .::,',,...`..,.0..n,.,. ''....,.4.7 ...,4" ..47,",14.,' ;',;;':•'-:;"-?•:.;.t°44'.4.ta::11;')- ''' '....i.t.44;;efs'fiay;i4 $-..1..i>7`41,--.'non O or,oi,,,,,ig- , 4 I::.?...:,rilt, :to..4,,,kAlt ' :.,:.: :r„,....•,.--.4,......;„I:,.,,,e,41, 44,,,2*„.„ ..! , ,,. - ,:: , -e.$;.,i-si:i$ --,#" ,14e,-.,:41,,;4;-/,,..,-.,H',:,:,,,:4,9.. .4 .;13_, -,:..,,,,.:7717,c:ir:‘„..,:it ,g,-,.- , '',',.6$14.4,,,,,---..,-. to,,f,.,,,14,C .:01, I tiCr4 . 7771 : -,,,,,?..4•?;i::-.;s,i37-; „11".,IN,44-v.:::4.-"pz: ,,r.rq-`,4,,,,, ..,;'• #1,,,, ... : ',4;',',0i/. ', V ''.0":.',Cii:,,I. ti,41. '7.*i ',::':;?. .1 r:,,,:.;^,!..77', ,4'1:g.' :'‘,7411.,P 1.4%;V:,,e,`?..1,!rj i:7,,,,,,, -tic:,,,,?':',0 •.,i, .04..,trin,,,hr'1,,;" .rt'.4.,,, A.,:,.0, ,,";,,".;,7". .. ....'"n t'NEditik.'t.,:::,.," :',nn I 4 :‘,.,...<1.4. .....,,..1_,,,o,,. .., ,,,;:i.1•,-.i.,q,..,:„,., . 4'44,,.4`.‘..:, "74,\'r:IA r'''•-:.:, ' .7,r,...'..'''.-44 :in"t"!P4ve,St An,.,e.t i,n,:.".,,,i,..5/414,41i?, tr., ,,,•,,,,..,:.:31: ..., 'w.'i., .„,';;:,,,,:,-...:,;:. cr%•..,:„,,,,,.4.,::::,..%.-i,..,:„..-irit4 ,.-:,.,i :. 4...;.,. —rn 31,,,44 tt,, ,, , „,,.. .‘, 4,0,,,,,,,..,„ k . , ile 1,,,e,,:,,,,t,,,,, , ,„, r,,,:., 'i••: i'if'•,1) ' • ••••=- ' # ''''' )'' T1,'" te** 1 .,,,11.471,41.; tio: .<?we'n..VC..gr '4,1,4*, At$Jo.:;, , • . 4 9:1.,..,:ti ,t,;[.-,...''. Ali',cw 1.34111 sr.', -'1!0'.'Ill ,,t4.44-.it: ;;;.., 'Is,: -Prel--,:"'"Iii,'t...... ‘‘'.'•,.. :: ,,.'-i AS, .'r:It''',7q'',. ''' *4k.,.4.'t));:rlji'Alt -'.;-i. ti;,.'i?' "-* k':•,0;.%,;;;;'''ht,f,.. <:',41kr' : '4.1''-'4;f:' .r•j: tt;','; -4;/.114",,• '.,' ,..•ittr .''4,;;:"..•.,;"*4-:'-'' ,41:at... ,'';'.• 4 Ix, '."-::::;;..:,,,;.0, ,. ;Ii,:..;;,', '.,11.',''' ',,;tr,..,:-;:irt;;:‘,., 104',.•;:...;''' ., ..,:•-,,,,:: ..):,.::.;o: ;..... .;,,*:wV,e4441,A, sti.h.-,:',:,,,t,A,t ',C101:-.';?4,7": i tril '47' ,.. 4 ' . ..,. ,„ .I,/,, •.-,1''' ..",... „yi r,r 4.'.:;Iri',:r'' !:::; :rtr„r'TV,'t,;:., r;:..: , ';', r.. ':.144../(),':. r r'.;:I.VINVirfl; 'Jr'r.r 4,441';;;i1;714 irar'i;;r'':4:,:''';';',. ... Ni',..',:1'.. 'r', rr. '',' , i.W r 0';:rrr#.,..' 14 e 4 . "zYf,'14.. ''''' . ' ...':.1'41.!Zir% ..''.'' 4:.:,,,,:‘,,,,-;.,,i,,,,,..,.1,,.. .4.4::,.;:„.t..:-.r.,>,;• v,,::,-.„,:t.p.,4; ,,,,,i:,..::::::,,,,,,,..9„ ,,1„... „ ri,,,,,,,,.0:14,,,f,i,:.. .T.,,, ,, .,, '''' ,?.,'' ''''..,,.,.,. •-'•• ,i,•r•.. :, ,r,l.r.1,,, ,,,,,, , , . ., -,t„,, ,,,e,--,...,,,- • „. .,z...., ,, 4,-,t•• 4,01. '2` O- I/ "''4 r'rr'r ''." ' .44:1;.1 1;1.''',;4'''.„140.1F' "'1,2....7,,,,,a::,„' ''.;r,2,91:';' *',.4''.,','y..,,f'jilt' V:i!,„-';'..'■;.:::r'',,.:.';'',',' -, t''4' IFT.,'...":''.: .;%,.r ,,,,,„n*„ ''1.''rrf,'' •■74%I ' :,''...'9.11". - ''''''t',,rf::k::'''', '''' .::: :;',.:■7 ..:cr .. ., ',,,-, ', , •4 4i, ' ''' * ".' ''''''''' 'W ..r"''',' t '',i'C' '''' '''' ' ';',;" .;:4.ii''''., '''''''''; g , '''''' If ,,,,,,,,;,° A.,; ,.''.8:--".1rito .:-.,•,`.1',",;,1,,,r.:: ii,,..14, • .0°.- ' 4,,i*'..,e!t!,4 ,,4,;''.A:::;*': ';''t.);k. , — - , "iek...,,,.,- ,.. w, ,,,,, :"'',. ,,,,t, ,. ,• s, „ ;., ,.,,,, :, , , i ,, , .,', E. „ . , ,.,...,4 .i. "4" '" • • . si!,:'., 4' ..': .44.-.-.`4 i --`.`"'.7.:i(,:0''',. .-0,, ,,,,,,4544,',,,„',,.. '-if,:',/%44„ ,,k,,,, •t, - ,,-t:,4,'-,,.„H-fi.,4'441.,.4.'4b.:1,—:.',''",,k;6 .5' i ',11:4;,1V,ff. :,4,,,`,It,:t.V.I'l -4,,..4),.. tiP'''''..,,ittt 'riit',(...,,,v),:,,..c'N , ''''''',,,:':::•;::::-',. #4.f.,;--fg!:AvAri* ',,,twiptiv,,,, .•?4,0;-', ,,'''-vr,y,..,“ - ..t,, ,,..::,: ..7,-. ,?i,itt:.,,,,L4o4A,,,„,,,.. ..,::r,.,-..:.,....-...i,.2,t,.2.v::.ac,:txi.,,y-, ,I,4.: ,iti„,',4,1,;.,,ir,i i"?,;„'d;e:, 41,1!...4„'N''.;b,,,,,...*';',' .. , :,,,•"4 •;`,<'`,,4!,,•'. 1"Pli'211',1,,,,;::,;,,....... '14 -,,•.;:t,. 4'itv, .'. .11.0;;?,...',",,4A,:,,,.;,•..,,',l„ •,•; 4 ,,,,itir•,'A,i,tr,, ,,=1;',., '0,044g'',.'05::"',.1'''gtgp.,4, '' p': .7•:!,i, ,,,...".,'''''' -'- '''' ' l'''''''''''''" ' ' ' ---4' I--- - ..,..4. "'- ,Ari.,.,r'wk. 4,0,',.."..:*.,.14. ; ' •;11:.5',,,,,,q,,k,..0,..!e4,1,14p, 1...:,,,,,,,,,,,1,,,,.,..NA,,,,,„„ufr..„,„,zeit,..,,,),n .".1;(,, Luz, ,■...„:,7 FIGURE 31 TH 41 AREA \LTERNATIVE 2 rl0...77.....1 00 400 600 F t .I 0 10 2eel :.1 T.H. 7 CORRIDOR STUDY, EltIV " ' 1 'Y ,ll v "f..r 4',i?n;•,' s,y'3, 1 i': ! , ; ,4 }`1Y} .,, ;r; �, • . •' .q; v.. r '4" �"� � �vK> ►t ,tc vo'� �,.jy t'�� ;` � � 'I'f9 f^�,F fir,. i '" :' �'� '�, it-ZHf��'%' )1 y� .y a �� Y. ,+ �" r. i w N ., ,�fi ,� ;k.. .� �; %, ..�� «Y ,. �Y '1W0„.t, ,�}' .. + i�,I i 3. t,4 .,!%,r4 ,,l .1 311',f7 .p , ,s h • 5, ,t. 7;, ' P!,+ '�':sit�, J X,04; *`F {'ac,, 'y� ,T.4, 4 ?h "t?!`. n,1 "!G;,'L'i t,w''�1 ,i � •ovi,,,e -.' ,04.•- ,;v y, f3 N � y�1 �Y, 'is A¢..• ,,+s ,.2°,r�` �► �� 1;.,y r,,,,,' ,s' PL: f � ,;i w � j ��. . .{ �.4 ;,A,`. S i br.: ri •M' .e'', ,'41a . ,r ! v' } ''.S,r s% s q„��r,p�� au. � t+,;fW,, t >< ��" ,' �I <� '5,4� ,, 6 .,1•0'0, i'S •et ,^� y+ i f, r�r s, a .A: ' 'h'e h.- .I'1.4, ''• 1_.•w.b' b , '.• M ,l”•°fir t:''Rt• F 4 A%,j�!e,, r .t „. �j.9�y+'” �}f �tl d ,rG."`.. om.' s4 "; 'u' yft '''' ',.. �' .r 0 '!w t+ 'k,r; f.t: •7 t'..•. �aa,o , �>rte„• ,'diy4_:i xr� � ,tars'• cti'"�u�t��t ''�i 8� ,*v�� , � yA�''! t �� r �'�r7h srs �"�i �T''f$. �"' �r k Asa+ y �a n ^ i a' "s [� $• t . Q r.. it rs ',. ' ,a a S • > 7 r., t '•, .hfxC , ;a tw 1, ' S ,� � !W'!�� '�4 A �C I n ,�'� �'�y � �u f.� � '�, F�¢ Fes. ' �4`%' W J '"-• `141, , r' ':[1,'?,, P,1v,.• n.q.,...r o 1 ``-: ,,,),4,,..,„' f ,,1'' 'y� ,c; r2,..P•.. M' .'kr• .. i �y"iL" l, H� vK ..„may{ t, j ��) � �C , ef•^ , i f � i„,7',: tj,"�'c1,:.', ,r' tY * .,... �. i;'y,.Y 99.t 1 y 0. ,r.',,''..441 7'.-1 .el { q i fY .,!. . 1� A t r. - "; ?•, 2 , !'s f '�"'Rte• i ','� ,...,IIa qyf 'f „,.441.4.4,'; r ':`v FR' �i,.�1°' ;� v "`” .? * '44a' `9�' �,,,.',..,24 s �' ....±',"....'''V--,-„,,;. $ -.-'1(,'Y?+e: !t1Wy�., , f,. , ,r c faT ;;•*);'t4 ;::.''', a, rf, .\ }v }. t` +', r.� t� '". i. �e1` .,?�:i JN w' I a ;Sy.G y ,,,, i i. _X^/ { TWA y M j,,� z,,, • ��Y � ,A V :,. . ....,..L) ,,, .^ n '' •"^�,, . .Y:" S: A 0. ! '' !K$,'f .jr + `� t� .. ','i -,.- .,., . ,-.- Z,i,,Ft }$ . t:4'' • 3� M ,,.kr' ti- ,...w- k!1c'h d ,. d/J ', i ° ' !l ', t rY ''h , �y, ,` �jR;pY.� t Y!'1', } r` ,n.,! y '' f ' " t .n ` <• , y .^ry t), .t•�"� y, ?'.':J[ •� yr"Y . r f ., ,iY•-•,.,t,,,,„,, ,i• �f,y ,,Ai ) �f, IY.te"1O r'��"q 4011 �`s - +.'Sr '',, !at. t '4. ,,.;,., m a,,'"C 4f ' ♦,, � h +,*ewer` I r D' d r } , �,��,�,•�, --- 4,V .I ..„. , e r !,...,,Nyi ',f4,,„ ,� k �.,y„ �r M� e, 3' I l.�p A s 'IC A” ..'4,;ti,*.+p;;. ' T4'W� ',s'.. 1" u, ` , •3• a ,f3 ,F.3�;' .t`,f i,, e�'. A r !` �' + `4 ' R ,.S°`' j t 'Q ,j�, - h1, Fl a .). ,. Z "3,LS4'" h .h ''b. .! �! >•. ,' eialA !F p t• :tr ;�,� ,f., yh.•�l .r;f L e• J K' ! a r J� s ,4,'..)4.: ; Sir.` ri r" N Ks. i;. ',it )f,'y r��lcq i 1•''+ i ' Y + ,'' •..' 4. • yN, !'.44 •„,a" i ,k, 21 .,? `'t`�''!4. 1 '4 ' ,p •... ► ,. A ,A"&'.'f+.•"" .'t:e "Pi.r. E•'t, ' • ' ,y,. 'i%..t.., �y$i i ;y •S�y'vr� .yri.,y t: o3 �, V ,' .; * ,1'- i� .• ,j! K @t)� ,,4 .MS: r 'i � 4Sit S::H , ',�jJari. y p.j, ,.G+... t,e 'x °'., yl,.N St J h' C�. ^, '�t.,;i„ !••,+ . . .�.., t fs : ? �, .a i .i. r--- ,ac •, � k r a r`t t iglirk 1: ,— p,,..., 0 .„,, ,, *fi. ., ,„,..1, , , -V- .v,,,I see: y «w 1,t:y '!.. . ',} ,r, t{ . 41 1 k,;;c Ito 4'1,f�4'' . AM IGURE 32 _AKE MINNEWASHTA AREA \LTERNATIVE 1 • T.H. 7 CORRIDOR STUDY ' o ,o�--L.1 Fee, ®�a ��s� pimi pip pi. poi pi Flu p. poi p. p. pli poi poi Fs/4 PI! Pill Iva ['MI mop -J -J -J _j _J _j■ r ■ iri -'4 -�■ice ■ ti ` y n,,`4 v.1• .�� .. .. '. ,i.''.3' a'r' t.i,i v qr'``i'. �' 4 a.r.1°; :��. �7!y. �.w'��t:•:;' , S 71' ' S, � n F ;,♦ '. , �: , . . . •.,' : i • •' ' � r � �{. . � . s 1. t"3 �1i' ,' •,R c k*' ''1' { "�r = . F . f: ., e ` � f � * rii 2� . t r ' ' '3j� / 4,4s;,S f .f .0 � !, � .''" fi 'a • ro'c,i P i, ,j � f2 1 r 1+.4r''' & "' r"�Y '- Y�r y +� � ; yy �.4 i • W . 'K .;r�{ '� ' fi r. �. p'.'c '„*;$�4 . f"4 �K., �. q. , ,,14'. ''' a`. `.�■ '4"" ~ a�' k 4F ' . .• ' e" s� q> KK : ��{ l1 � { "h "� �f� e:�� j%. i�F,},,• �r ,t A a 1" ;'}� ,. , ns rtlru. � ,t`y 1i• * '`. •�N � 'k C .�ry � � , 't�r � pJ�1 �iY ;y d 7 0. ' y�a' r t l . . d u ta ti '' ;i'Y' V * ''� F -+4. .19.t-.1 • Af;.fa LY-. � � -+. .� i " ^ > y Rke'3. t ��4t 1 k '•'pi.4n,•t`l;a. W y. ` �f k ,,i 1nt i.; • > +tt, ,./' �•i . � ,� —.,f . r'' � �� i�" .` .; . s: L 'S q, :. ,:;1:;:,,',-/i'•:.S2* *fi r* :.*��iri . ,. , f 'a�+t: ,� iA �, N" � d. ' ''4`.4;',a,1---,i:14'.,1,`,.., .� jsiT - 's s dµ`�A r' ,,, ,:r:,,..,,,•,: ,'' ya , 7 'T N�ER ,,4.1.:`—:;4,.', k�a:: ij + F*' ;< , �rf�± . ,..14'. .,7�.?+ ' .tr . f� +:fl,:*i k R.t'F,e P - :Z ;� v + '': fi $ , 1� � s,/. y ;,. , 1`" Y 7.,„�i ` ` sP # r" ' w &A•1. ,r � .' ';t;' 4. yF np t } "11 1+ .'i*, Y .s, is 3 '8/ • � p • y � o'/ ' y „ra �. • ,, b ” .• - { M , ' i► ^. •-., °P--,• : 4 ii r tt,:',14.',.1/4,.a . ' i ,M , 4, r rv 'n „ i .- ,6r • �a : d r it ., .��6 T, k S t k �� } .r + a f,,,5 y4 41'p � "_!.�! `'• ,a e � �• ; i 'tos y ,t +y ' t 4 5 � . k^'' "� t '! r } Mr r,d w 4f. , •. �.,y, a:b.4i>, 4... > 'Al"' 1� ' '4,r r r k t .' '- , ' � 4,1,-, v `�•7J ' { ' r 'F ? ' i:0i.. r F IC. ::z. ,,'� a 14 *� fi { ` JW t, " _ 9 ro ca A r. „,„-. !,., .,-, ,:;/:. -' .4�_ u i-ii I y .,: •' H j F S44-- F p •�; 9M '. s S y.,w" y R t 4_�„ '�t . , ` J f T � , Y X •-i- Y'' x .: P } , p, ( }C°} . .. ,r nJ: „0 t e' ' • Sr{. h f �„','a+' K f " j { 4 ` 'y � . a '1'r ‘:Tot ; r. p w `i•• �FA'.'ES r .?kQ”•/ ' S. d• s l* 3tq Y, lT ` 1 t w r,',i..'¢'a i�RQ:v t 1 F ` ■ p � '' • i 3r A ', iad '! 7A Ra r v ; W,Lr ��. . y.,v w �t � } e ',/, ... ,9 c ,• k L,1' `.,4,:'04.42.0,.g i, 5'`," • �� • f'.�q i . '' '' K l # S ms . f �•'` iV ,y " r . n. 4� _40 ', j;, r t .' Ne a rr'* a M hrAz,� a fi.rt FA-, ,,a `vi 7t °" � w R FIt. • 'IGURE 33 .AKE MINNEWASHTA AREA LLTERNATIVE 2 T.H. 7 CORRIDOR STUDY -...-L► , 0 100 200 400 600 Feel ®/, 1p1��1 , , r!44. .',if t','r.,'';'*4},i0.4'4' '."1' '10% ''' ''''''F'''''''' 44t3441.4",' ,C., 41' ,- , -...—..f'-`_s. Yi• •'4' Vi.V '.- - 'fly ''4'4.7c.ft'l'Awax-'..‘`,,i.'or'4•*1 /1 ,;', 1. . :.,-,=.1..k.;', ...,, , 1. mi,‘ • A 'irt-ii. ' .',,,ri ;4141., i• '1. ). ricilif.Trie4:77i kitiLl .• ,;,a,. — ',.: A-,74 ' ,,, •4"14•,,i;:z7,,,..„."P'7s..V.4"0. ..,,,,,,, : , '44,: tY",,, li''!','",-.,'?"?'.;„¢",c)"," 1,.,e14p,' `,..4'. ' ,AI- •.0 ,*, . ','At'•, S'''''w,•_io,' ' • Alt --17,.,... t. , IA'''/,, !,,,t‘,..' ' ,/.. ,,,P If.,,Irtt,4 +.4:r, , 4—'101,t,it''"'"iiiii,',' 1 , . 4i'L''' ',',,?,>;^,,,, so.i,$.4:7,',,,•fr,774. .„44,4,1 ,• ,, , :.,;,•,„ •-.. -.. ., ." .2,.., /.104,4,,*".;;„ , t, ' - '' ' ;'•'' if-4?- ..4,) ' Nto. ' ', ., r" ' ... '' -,Vv,ke...;10',., st.41-, r. '... ..,„I... " .'4414' Cr'`' ,;',4 'y'1,i- frl.,,....!.,--. ',,-^,30 ...,...,(,.:,' of#.,. ,f,,,: 4v, r,,,,/. ,,,,i 4,, 7.- * ,'„,t• .., ,.., • - it6i.v.,,iik, 4. > ,/ .■ , 1 ( ,-,,,,,p,:ii f,'• rf 4'AT,"',''',. l 4,',1' • 14,.'4+44/14,,,ti1.44e,4„,...:•,i,,i, ,,,,,A46„.•,,,..‘,,,,t,, 1., ,li ,,) e 4•,, , s ,,),r, . ,. , ,.. , riwo iff N''•' ., 4, '4:1''' ., f - ',11, • k, , -,:,, i;-7' . ' It.. ‘.; - ,..„.,,,;;;:.?„i, :1,1,,,,,,,,,,:iii: - .1..s,.--.4'.,,,, ,,,'..:$.-,,,...-iii,,,f1,1-,..t.4,7.,, -,.;,..t. , 1,,,,,,,, i, ,,c,,,,,,o, . . - ,,k ,$.' ': 1' ' , n,4 le . 1 A.. ..,,,,, , ;1,i' .:',,.. ,.., *,,;,,,Tii, i(A. 'r.•,,..e4r.;.‘'Ir .;,',.. it i' ' ',' ,i, A To v,.,,,, ,-:,47,..7-• , '.7,,,, . ,v, ,,,,,,,...,,,,,, ,. A , ..0,.,0,..,,i , , . . ., ,.::1 ; ,s„ ;,.•.7.,,k . '',.3,P .k 4 °A 0 1.''. •',, ,+•* '; ,',., !ry',rit, 9:t Rif tk,* ' ''AY,. r. ,J. ',,,,::.ii - '',14,i',,,ie' ',',, '''''''":•!•" ' . • t, --,,,:!1".A'..• ..•4r*I",ett , ,,,, 'It ,, • ......4* . 411 , a`alks• , . '4 ''‘`''f,r-. ' ' ''", .."'', '''''f.,'• I i.,,,,,,,,fa,tr: ...„ ,01,,,,„ t ...1.,4 - v..40.,,..,;,,,,?•., ..,.1,-0%..„1, di ,,,,,,1 ,V4.„ 4'ociivtp,, -:,■. ',..f.,, ...,,,-1,,,,, i.----,... ,:,,,,, .t .1,47:r,Oft 44', lif,''' /,'':- 7:` 44'•',9:'.,,t,;.=-...:'4 ir '.3 . ' 4': f--' ;'- ' ''' A 41641...•''", 7.".i41,-Alfif 2. *. '--7., ' l'''',1'1, ,) -'4 11 LAN WIT iCENTER-ai j `',* • ' , -14.40, ''''.txa ‘.''.''' ;et P' '‘' ' ''' '4 ti "7 i 4'7?4,, Ai 4 A.t. * ' 1141' .41.'4 ttUl '' .*'' f"''' •i '-ur*' HRN LANE '4 '- ^-; :. 4-,ws-Ar...4' ,,f,' ,4"1„--,., ,-1, -, ,.- foi: ,,e ,Fi, ...,.. . , .. 0 ,- , , ,..., .,„„ ...r ,.., '14, - • *.,t,,:t ', '•.. ,..",■414 .1(44 ',.,'''.,%:.,,'', a •,. ••• in / 5 : . ..,•.,.... ‘..1. . -.•••,... „ 4„,•• •••,,,..„,,,; .,..,-„,, • -...,,w ...,•,., .•- ,,„.„. •r,,.'<,01",,,,1 ..300 10 4 fitt-c ,, * ‘,4 f.. '';, -.0A'.2",:,,,,•'-‘;',-,,,',..,:, 4.1vr: ,.: 4,':,' f'0 _ , 4 s,,. A, ‘,. .tki.t,.444 .:., ''' 4 ,,,ggsamaska...a••........,-th, •,,,,,,..0, 4 h . ,;.,.„ . „,,,,:. : jt, ,,.. if4,, . z to,,,.., ,• 'a iii,,,,-74., "'••... ., ---..... 1 , 1 "73;1 : -i:i4 • -•"''''' '*' 4- •*.i,' A-- ..!?"`•-• - ..., `''"*---... " ---------,... _______2;''' 'Pi":-tc.`'" •' ,,..,,A' "4 f, IF . 4:;, ,•,,' '.. ,,C. ------"%shilip I.:ti" : t i tv,■ - ,'?', ' , ,t. •k. '' " ' ,repi ,,,, ale ",,,, fl• •, ;,.. ' 't ,-, z.;;,..,„'''!: ;,,,.. ' A ' ,,, '" " ' i' ' -4 , "•#!:. <4 , ' ' ,i, ,, I•1':.)'1 46 •17,0',r,.., ,,.,,, • • ,41 4 , ,.„ , ,_ .„.....„,,,,„,..: „„ it''' • ,..- 1,int via., /,'':, ..,''0.,." ',',"` Ilk .-.iq,( '' '5* -'t , . •., , '''''' - , 4..K, .,,,, , , s ., 4 , ,,,, ,, ,,1 ,,, , 71,T, :,17, ..;,;:,*.I,* ,, ,,,,...1.1 tiAl ,ibilr7,pipe4,1, s 6•14- ,,•..Ix,-•V ...... , . , . ....,,,,z,,,,ri, . ,,i, ., ;,,,,,„ ,,;1,,,,,i,,, ,...1,.., ;:0,41,..;...,. 4,,,,,X: •:.4:,,,,I, 7 ;,.'''' ,r., : 4,07:4:, . ."• 1'4 ; '''.41;:fil .,'.' 0-17;A..;t.'''' ''6 ''1:2.:111.44r?";"t—:1111116HYI:‘ *>:'''.).10....11.44:,',Y.t&-..i.:4'.4474111:::94.:,1,,f1111'.1‘..,N;.'; 1 , , ' • ' — giiiiiiii1177, 41, 4,i,'''y ;1,1,, „'''.':1 ,' , •1.,' if ••• -4,4 tt. , 411, 2;.: ',,, Iff.1?-1,- . , . , ' -4 -, . , • • c : ,4:ir, ,.., .I.'•• 4 •..•,,-,4 , ,-- t ,.•,i t;x. 0. .0.x 4 ' , 1; 4, ' et, y" "": t -#. ' 44..i.4,•,4,• ' r'''''' 1;.8.1*.44.4 =',1':,:t v , '''.4.;4I-14::i :-s;fe,' ','.:;-, 't;4'''vl,114 ',, ::::'-',., ' r.'. ' ' ,..‘ .4' -.1*-.4'4' TA 4 " ,:e0:- ' 1,,W4','•; ., ':-.-eitirt. 17'1 at: :,-!.;fiv: rk. . .1.. .,„ Ai*.fit,'.r• , i i.4- ..,p4.'.' ,;.!.):tfrittb. , ,', -k,,, ,,,N,',4.,,, i.', .. 4., i it ,,x■ Ao.',';,;e, .. 4uit, , , , , ,,,, 1 / t , ,,.'' ' ,e; .; 4_ ,,,)04.,.e 1,,I,C,-7. , - 0 I ,,.,, ,„.,, & ,.Y4).,•.,,i' _‘...-4 i. ,Pi , ,e, *.lii '..2.. , '''4,c4i'77%.,,:: ,'-',. .4,■. '.''. .., '''':.,47';' 7 ''''''', h., . ■1:if4i! kit f'afiC .4,;4'; 4 6: ''':!-:' 7'''.• .7.,••• 4-..r. '", '".,,• i 1.•.*-,?,.'4 ' wl"i'-'1, • ',„'' „4.',„ ',•''.1,i.:' 11 ‘1),,P*1•0.14,Z 41'. 4 ' . ." , .4 ..-447--, .,,, ,, t i it , 4 .4 r$W,o tir:4 ' '''' r ,'. t,',41'.k.:: 11.-.0 4, Y*3. t -- ..0-.4" / ,No. ,.,..r. ....' , , ,;.,1-4,04., T1- , 4 4'•4# i,A., ),,t, ,,, i'' IC 0 t ' t ' ,,,' , ' `,•:. . Vie ',',, .-,, ;. : ,NI:,,' ° '''''. ;, ,.'y , • 4 * ' , 1 e,. , „.. . ,,•.., , .,4,0,., - .;.;4 . `3 • . . , . ' ,`• 1 A,.' 4:: m 44'1°kAI"$$''i • '5.°' 1.?"to , , i •■ ", 4,/- It,'.,',. '4''',1 .t• ' ; ' '' FIGURE 34 LAKE MINNEWASHTA AREA ALTERNATIVE 3 Ititw . ....._ 71_77....1 eta 0 ,.. 200 400 600 Feel T. 7 CORRIDOR STUDY ip‘ !IR r•R mii, FIR Imo !It IIIN1 TN, Iploi !lit IN” !It gall 1 111111 !mil 1111.1 11111111 I C of closet provided. controls than allowed in other commer- feet in height shall have a side yard 1 6. Incinerators. Trash and Garbage: cial districts. The office uses permitted in having a depth of not less than 25 feet. I and a. Exterior storage of trash and gar- this district are those in which there is b. Each building in excess of 30 feet bage shall be completely enclosed by limited contact with the general public in height shall have a side yard having a walls and roof,and all garbage shall be in which no manufacturing, exterior depth of not less than 25 feet plus one stored in completely enclosed Village display or the direct selling of merchan- foot of side yard for each foot in height i approved containers. dise from the permitted use shall be al- in excess of 30 feet. .,1 b.Only Village approved incinerators lowed. 4. Rear Yard Regulations: and trash and garbage compactors 9.02 Permitted Uses. Within a C-1 Of a. Each building not in excess of 30 • shall be used. fice Building District, no building or land feet in height shall have a rear yard 7. Elevators: shall be used except for the following having a depth of not less than 25 feet. I 2.a. All multiple residence buildings of uses b Each building in excess of 30 feet more than three i3 i stories shall be 1. Administrative and executive offices. in height shall have a rear yard having equipped with not less than one i 1 pub- Medical, dental, legal and similar pro- a depth of not less than 25 feet plus one lic elevator fessional offices. foot of rear yard for every foot in '1 8.Accessory Buildings: 3. Financial institutions. height in excess of 30 feet. I 1 a. Setback requirements established 9.03 Accessory Uses. Within a C-1 Of- 5. Lot Area Regulations: for multiple residence buildings shall fice Building District, the following uses a. Not more than 30`, of the lot area apply to accessory buildings except shall be allowed as accessory to the per- shall be occupied by buildings. t that accessory buildings located within mitted use: b. An allowance of 500 square feet the rear yard of the multiple residence 1. Within office buildings having ei- shall be permitted for each parking building may be located to within 5 feet ther a gross floor area of 40,000 or more stall in or under the principal structure of the rear of interior side property square feet or at least 200 full-time office or otherwise completely underground. , line. employees, a limited amount of the 6. District Area Regulations: b. Exteriors of accessory buildings ground floor area may be used for facili- a. Each C-1 Office Building District I shall have the same exterior finish as the principal structure. ties providing convenience goods and shall have an area of not less than 3 services for the office area occupants and acres unless such district adjoins an 8.07 Parking. There shall be provided business invitees provided that the total other C-1 District or a C-2 District. on the site occupied-by the multiple resi- net floor area devoted to such accessory 9.06 Building Design and Construc- dence building a minimum of two parking uses shall not exceed l0`.4 of the total tion. I I spaces per dwelling unit, one of which gross floor area of the building. Said ac- shall be enclosed, except that in the R-2 cessory uses shall include those listed 1. Design Review: District there shall be provided two en below and such other accessory uses the a. No building permit for a principal closed parking spaces per dwelling unit. primary function of which shall be to sup- building or buildings accessory thereto, Each parking space shall have a mini- ply convenience goods and services for in a C-1 District shall be issued without mum width of 9 feet and a minimum the office building occupants having first been reviewed by the Plan- depth of 20 feet exclusive of aisles and a. Restaurants, cafes and coffee ning Commission and approved by the maneuvering space. Exposed parking shops. Council following the procedures set areas shall be surfaced with a hard, all- b. Office supply equipment,sales and forth in Section 23, Conditional Use J I weather. durable, dust-free surfacing service. Permit Procedure, except that no pub material and shall be properly drained. c. Pharmacies and related prof es lie hearing need be held on any applica and shall be maintained in a sightly and sional shops. tion for a permit. The Council may at- well-kept condition. No parking area shall d. Newsstands. tach such conditions and guarantees to be located closer than 25 feet to the front -e. Barber shops. any such permit as it deems necessary property line, nor closer than 10 feet to 2. Subordinate uses which are clearly to insure compliance with the provi- any building All parking areas containing and customarily accessory to the permit- sions of this ordinance. more than six spaces which face either a ted use. 2. Design Responsibility: public street or residentially zoned prop- 9.54 Uses by Conditional Use Permit. a. A building permit for a principal ' ertv shall have a solid wall or fence of not Within a C-1 Office Building District, the building, or buildings accessory there- less than four feet in height along such following uses may be allowed but only upon the securing of a Conditional Use to, in a C-1 District shall not be issued adjoining property line, which shall be unless the applicant's building plans, maintained in good condition, and which Permit including the site plan, are certified by shall be so designed to be architecturally 1 Any use permitted in Section 7 04 of the an architect registered in the State of I harmonious with the principal structure. Single Family Residence District, as A screen planting approved by the Council regulated therein. Minnesota, stating that the design of the building and site has been prepared may be substituted for'the required wall 2. Multiple dwellings containing not less under his direct supervision. Any build- or fence than three(3(dwelling units. ing of Type I or Type II construction,as 8.08 General Regulations. 3. Hospitals. provided in the Uniform Building Code 1. Additional regulations in the R-2, R-3 4. Mortuaries. incorporated by reference by Ordi- and R-4 Residence Districts are set 5. Research facilities and laboratories. nance No 23, shall have its electrical, forth in Section 19 6. Passenger facilities for mass transit mechanical and structural systems • 8.09 Boundaries of the R-2,R-3 and R-4 services. designed by engineers registered in the I Residence Districts. 9.55 Height, Yard, Area and Lot Width State of Minnesota. Provisions of this The boundaries of the R-2, R-3 and R and Depth Regulations. paragraph shall not prohibit the preps- 4 Residence Districts shall include the 1 Height Regulations: ration of the site plan by a professional following described tracts and parcels a No structure shall exceed 45 feet in site planner of land height as measured from the average 3. Type of Construction: I SECTION 9. C-1 OFFICE BUILDING grade of the surrounding lot area a. All buildings in a C 1 District shall DISTRICT. 2. Front Yard Regulations: be of Type I or Type II construction as 9.01 Purpose. The C' 1 Ofiice Building a. There shall be a front yard having set forth in said Uniform Building District is intended to provide a district a depth of not less than 25 feet. Code. which is related to and may reasonably b. A lot located at the intersection of 4. Incinerators,Trash and Garbage: adjoin high density residential, commer- two or more streets shall have a front a. Exterior storage of trash and gar- cial and industrial districts for the Inca- yard depth on each street side of not bage shall be completely enclosed by tion and development of administrative less than 25 feet. walls and roof, and all garbage shall be office buildings and related office uses 3.Side Yard Regulations: stored in completely enclosed Village I and which are subject to more restrictive a. Each building not in excess of 30 approved containers. 8 ---...„754? i i ., 1.4 r • ■ c b Only Village approved incinerators ing. sh not occupy more than 30'. of the 1 I and trash and garbage compactors 4 Storage: gross floor area of the principal struc- I shall be used a. All supplies, equipment and motor ture. 5. Elevators: vehicles in excess of 2 of larger than 10.04 Conditional Uses. Within a C-2 I a All buildings in a C-1 District of 7,000 pounds licensed gross weight shall Commercial District, the following uses more than 2 stories shall be equipped be stored within a completely enclosed may be allowed. but only upon the secur- with no less than one public elevator building. ing of a Conditional Use Permit 6. Accessory Buildings: 5. Loading: 1. Auto service stations for gasoline, oil, a. Set back requirements established a. There shall be provided a mini- tire, battery and accessory sales, ex I for principal buildings in a C-1 District mum of one off-street loading facility eluding body and major power train shall apply to accessory buildings. ex- for a building having a gross floor area repair: and provided that,in addition to cept that accessory buildings located of 20,000 to 100.000 square feet and one such other conditions as may be pre- within the rear yard of a site adjoining additional facility for each 100,000 scribed by any conditional use permit, any C-1, C-2. C-3 or I-1 District may be square feet or major fraction thereof the following minimum standards shall I located within 10 feet of the rear or in- over 100,000 square feet. The location. apply terior side property line. design and screening of loading areas a. No service station structure,park- b. Exteriors of accessory buildings shall be subject to the same restric- ing area or driveway except access shall have the same exterior finish as tions applicable to off-street parking driveways shall be located within 100 the principal structure. areas. feet of any portion of an R-1A,R-1 or R- 9.07 9.07 Parking. 9.08 Landscaping. 2 Residential District. 1. Spaces Required: 1. All exposed ground areas of a permit- b. A Service station site shall have a a. A minimum of one off-street park- ted use which are not devoted to drives, frontage of not less than 150 feet on a ing space shall be provided on the build- sidewalks, patios or similar uses shall public street, and shall have not less I ing site for each 300 square feet of gross be landscaped with grass, shrubs, than two places of access to a public floor area within the principal struc- trees, or other ornamental landscape s4-eet. The total`site area shall be not ture, provided that on building sites uti- materials, which shall be kept neat. less than 20,000 square feet. lized primarily for medical and dental clean and uncluttered. No landscaped c. Fuel pump islands shall be set I offices. a minimum of six off-street area shall be used for the parking of back not less than 25 feet from any parking spaces shall be required for vehicles, or the storage or display of property line each doctor or dentist maintaining pro- materials,supplies,or merchandise. d. Hoists, pits, lubrication, washing, fessional offices in the principal struc- 9.09 General Regulations. and repair equipment shall be enclosed ture. 1. Additional regulations in the C-1 Office within the principal structure. b When the principal structure is of Building District are set forth in Sec- e All driveway and parking area such size or capacity as to allow for tion 19. - surfaces shall be constructed and main- accessory uses within said structure, 1.9.10 Boundaries of the C-1 Office tained in the same manner as pre- additional off-street parking spaces Building District. The boundaries of the scribed for parking areas in this dis- shall be provided at the rate of eight C-1 Office Building District shall include trict. spaces for each 1000 square feet of the following described tracts and parcels f. The storage of wrecked or junked 1 gross floor area devoted to such acces- of land• vehicles shall not be permitted on an sor'uses. SECTION 10. C-2 COMMERCIAL DIS- auto service station site. 2. Design and Construction. TRICT. 2. Establishments of the"drive-in" type. a.Off-street parking areas shall be so 10.01 Purpose. The C-2 Commercial except drive-in theaters,offering goods ` designed that vehicles may be parked District is intended to provide compact or services directly to customers wait- in a convenient and orderly fashion. centers for retail sales and services offer- rrifin parked otorvehicles,provided Parking areas shall be surfaced and ing a wide range of goods and services. -that, in addition-to such other condi- _ maintained with a hard, all-weather, 10.02 Permitted Uses. Within a C-2 tions as may be prescribed by any con- durable, dust-free surfacing material, Commercial District, no building or land ditional use permit,the following mini- shall be properly drained, and shall be shall be used except for the following mum standards shall apply. maintained in a lightly and well-kept uses- a. No structure. parking area, or condition. Each parking space shall be 1 General retail sales and services, but driveway except access driveways clearly outlined or otherwise marked not including automobile, truck, trac- shall be located within 100 feet of any and shall have a minimum width of 9 tor. trailer, boat, or other mobile pow- portion of an R-1A. R-1 or R-2 Residen- feet and a length of 20 feet exclusive of er-driven equipment sales or services. tial District. aisles and maneuvering space Clear building material yards, or automobile b. Each site shall have a frontage of aisle widths shall be at least 12 feet for car wash establishments. not less than 150 feet on a public street, 45 degree parking, 18 feet for 60 degree 2. Financial institutions. and shall have not less than two places parking and 24 feet for 90 degree park- 3. Business and professional offices. of access to a public street. The total ing Open off-street parking which 4. Restaurants, theaters and taverns, but site area shall be not less than 20,000 faces either a public street or residen- not including"drive-in"type service. square feet. tially zoned property shall have a solid 5 Dry cleaning and laundry collection c. Parking areas shall have a front wall or fence of not less than four feet stations and self-service laundries. yard having a depth of not less than 25 in height which shall be maintained in 6. Mortuaries. feet and a side yard having a depth of good condition, and which shall be de- 7 Government owned and operated civic not less than 10 feet. signed to be architecturally harmoni- and cultural institutions including, but 3. Hotels and motels. ous with the principal structure A not limited to. administrative offices, 4. Parking ramps. screen planting approved by the Coun- libraries, public safety buildings, and 5 Private clubs and lodges organized as cil may be substituted for the required places of assembly non-profit corporations. wall or fence The wall or fence shall 10.03 Accessory Uses. Within a C-2 6. Passenger facilities for mass transit not be used for advertising purposes. Commercial District, the following uses services. Any lighting used to illuminate off- shall be allowed as accessory to the per- 10.05 Height, Yard, Area, and Lot street parking areas shall be so ar- mated use Width and Depth Regulations ranged as to deflect the light away 1 Subordinate uses which are clearly and 1 Height Regulations: from adjacent properties. customarily accessory to the permitted a. No structure shall exceed 45 feet 3 Location: use in height as measured from the average a. No parking area shall be located 2 Repair facilities when operated as grade of the surrounding lot area. closer than 25 feet to the front property accessory to a retail sales permitted 2. Front Yard Regulations: line nor closer than 10 feet to any build- use, provided that said accessory use a There shall be a front yard having i Amenck,t '</ 7- V 9 Cr __.------- - - - C a depth of not less than 25 feet, except located in separate areas adjacent to oth I P zoned C-2 or C-3.Parking areas adjoin- P 7 that a site facing on an R-1A, R-1 or R-2 ing all other districts shall not be local er retail business districts and thus help I Residential District shall have a front locat- ed closer than 25 feet to the side or rear to keep the basic retail areas compact I yard having a depth of not less than 100 property line Truck traffic shall be and convenient, and in other separate feet. routed around and not through automo- areas to provide a district which may be I b. A lot located at the intersection of bile parkng areas. located in close proximity to a major tho- two or more streets shall have a front 4 Loadingi roughfare or highway in order that high- yard depth on each street side of not a. An off-street loading facility shall way service types of land uses can be less than the depth required under be provided with an area of not less provided. I subsection 2(a)above. than 12.feet in width and 65 feet in 11.82 Permitted Uses. Within a C-3 3. Side Yard Regulations: length. exclusive of aisles and maneu- Commercial Service District, no building a. A site adjoining an R-1A. R-1 or vering space Such facility shall be at or land shall be used except for the follow- R-2 Residential District shall have a the rear of principal structure and shall ing uses- side yard having a depth of not less than be used exclusively for the loading and 1 Sales, services and major repair of I 75 feet. unloading of merchandise. All such fa- motor vehicles, boats,and mobile pow- 4. Rear Yard Regulations: cilities, aisles and maneuvering space er driven recreational equipment. a. A site adjoining an R-1 A,R 1 or R shall be surfaced in the same manner 2. Auto service stations, -provided that 1 2 Residential District shall have a rear as that prescribed for parking areas. the minimum standards of Section yard having a depth of not less than 75 5. Storage: 10 04(1)of this ordinance shall apply feet. a. All supplies, equipment, and mo- 3. Establishments of the drive-in" type 5. Lot Area Regulations: tor vehicles in excess of 2 of larger than -drive-in-offering goods or services directly to a. Not more than 25' of the lot area 7.000 pounds licensed gross weight shall customers waiting in parked motor shall be occupied by buildings. be stored within a completely enclosed vehicles, provided that the minimum 6. District Area Regulations: building standards of Section 10.04(21 of--this I a. Each C-2 Commercial District 10.08 Landscaping. ordinance shall apply 4 shall have an area of not less than 5 1. All exposed ground areas of a permit Greenhouses for retail sales only acres, unless such district adjoins an- ted use which are not devoted to drives. 5. Financial institutions. other C-2 District or a C-3 District. sidewalks. patios or similar uses shall 6. Hotels and motels. I 10.06 Building Design and Construe- be landscaped with grass, shrubs. 7. Restaurants,theaters and taverns. tion. Building design and construction trees, or other ornamental landscape 8. Dry cleaning and laundry collection within a C 2 District shall be governed by materials, which shall be kept neat, stations,and self-service laundries. the provisions of Section 9 06 of this ordi- clean, and uncluttered. No landscaped 9. Retail plumbing, heating, television, I nance,except as hereinafter set forth area shall be used for the parking of radio and appliance sales and repair 1. Accessory Buildings: vehicles or the storage or display of 10 Mortuaries. a Set back requirements established materials,supplies,or merchandise. 11.03 Accessory Uses. Within a C-3 for buildings in a C-2 District shall ap 10.09 General Regulations. Commercial Service District, the follow- ply to accessory buildings. 1. Uses permitted in the C-2 Commercial ing uses shall be allowed as accessory to I b. Exteriors of accessory buildings Districts shall be subject to the follow- the permitted use shall have the same exterior finish as ing conditions clearly 1 Subordinate uses which are clearl and the principal structure. a. All business establishments shall customarily accessory to the permitted I 10.07 Parking. be retail or service establishments use. 1. Spaces Required: which deal directly with customers. All • 11.04 Conditional Uses. Within a C-3 1 a.The minimum number of off-street goods produced on the premises shall Commercial Service District, the follow- parking spaces requjred on the building be sold on the premises where pro- ing uses may be allowed, but only upon site for each of the following permitted duced. the securing of a Conditional Use Permit. uses shall be b. All business, servicing or process- 1 Uses allowed in the R-4. C-1 and C-2 General Retail Sales and Services, ing, except for off-street parking and Districts. Financial Institutions: One space per off-street loading, shall be conducted 2 Commercial greenhouses and land 150 square feet of principal structure within completely enclosed buildings. scaping businesses. gross floor area.. c. All activities involving the produc- 3. Parking ramps. I Business and-Professional Offices, tion, processing, cleaning, servicing, 4. Private clubs and lodges organized as 1 except medical and dental One testing or repair of materials,goods or non-profit corporations. space per 300 square feet of principal. products shall conform with the perfor- 5. Passenger facilities for mass transit structure gross floor area. mance standards established for the I-1 services. Medical and Dental Offices: Six: Industrial District in Section 12 of this I spaces for each doctor or dentist ordinance, provided that the perfor- 11.05 Height, Yard, Area and Lot I maintaining professional offices in mance standards shall in every case be Width and Depth Regulations. the principal structure. applied at the boundaries of the lot on 1 Height Regulations: Restaurants, , Theaters and which such activities take place a No structure shall exceed 45 feet I Taverns: One space per 300 square 2. Additional regulations in the C-2 Corn- in height as measured from the average feet of principal structure gross floor mercial District are set forth in Section grade of the surrounding lot area I area or one space per 3 seats in place 1 19. 2. Front Yard Regulations: of assembly,whichever is greater .10.10 Boundaries of the C-2 Commer- a There shall be a front yard having Government Buildings: 10 spaces 3c ial Dish-ice. a depth of not less than 40 feet. except plus one space per 500 square feet of',..- The boundaries of the C-2 Commer- that a site facing on an R-1A.R-1 or R-2 I principal structure gross floor area Jicial District shall include the following Residential District shall have a front Mortuaries: One space for each described tracts and parcels of land yard having a depth of not less than 100 employee and one space for each 3 SECTION 11. C-3 COO11"MERCIAL feet. seats in the place of assembly. SERVICE DISTRICT. b. A lot located at the intersection of I 2. Design and Construction: 11.01 Purpose. The C-3 Commercial two or more streets shall have a front I a. The design and construction of off- Service District is designed to furnish yard depth on each street side of not street parking areas in a C-2 District areas served by other retail business dis- less than the depth required under shall be governed by the provisions of trios with a wide range of services and subsection 2(a)above. Section 9 07 of this ordinance. goods which might otherwise be incom- 3 Side Yard Regulations: 3.Location: patible with the uses permitted in retail a. A site adjoining an R IA, R I or R I a. The parking area may abut the business districts. This district is intend- property Residential District shall have a side property line if the abutting property is ed as a business district which may be yard depth of not less than 75 feet. I 3- tnwewl a 411-AS CITY OF CHANHASSEN 1 As4.1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM 1 TO: JoAnn Olsen, Assistant City Planner FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator ki DATE: March 10 , 1988 1 RE: Park and Recreation Commission Action on HSZ Development The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed this site plan at 1 their last meeting. The Comprehensive Plan does not call for park land in this area as it is within the service of area of Herman Field. A trail easement may be needed along TH 41 . However, the road right-of-way is 150 feet wide and the state has indicated that they would give approval on trail construction within that right-of-way. If such is not the case, additional easement should be obtained. The Commission also discussed the alternatives involved to pro- vide a second access the neighborhood if 64th Street is vacated. The Commission is interested in either of these proposals as it will provide access to Herman Field. It is the recommendation of the Park and Recreation Commission to accept park and trail dedication fees and to require a 20 foot trail easement along TH 41 if trails cannot be constructed within the right-of-way. They have also recommended that a second access be pursued, connecting the existing neighborhood to TH 41. /07)V(PtVq*CI 1 1 1 1 i II J Tu \\ 'fr6,6.,,,,Ni I (14 :('' car \\ 1.i� W I 1 !II - _IMIL/� I 03 0 000�- I 1 p6 ��j'1'I's .� DR J W •l6 a/; 1, N,WN 1'14° Ib AMN 1S �` Y 0.,..s,.-_,.:,,;, 5 P .-is / i �IIvJ co U : __. S ii, A. .- tll Iba31Na I J •■ al• I M / 1 .. a i... - 003 Aa1M10�r i DOM V L...1; / - A3mn ens° I it tai �� X I .1 Iiws Nir aN u- 1 En %2 umt\.i=, tll .no -----�- 2 - r �N3 tl nO11NtlW Li ME W. tl1 NOS..1 j 11 W _4 8� #k=1."1"linii.li I Q SAP °P� i ^ �r Cr Io -__i__ - - , t �_ a0 ` t SNVWtl3S I�O 60 OOOM3003M S a J\ 06 I tlM3lIn3 \ all►—_ I N'i-----}---�--a--1 1 I I /)136113 .3 i im I II 1 : . 1 .. 1 \LI A IA M 00V3W 1111-ffil,1 \ N a I / Wp 1 \------- rg b S g I Z Oa 2N 3601 /Ntl60 W I.-� �i jThhMCflT2 c i u 0"I ANNA/ROLLS -_j---� 1.4...C_ <1� __DI 41 r�`M1. ® 410 A':"��'�. United States Soil 219 East Frontage Road Up p Department of Conservation g Fronta Agriculture Service Waconia, MN 55387 1 I Subject: Retail Center, SE of Hwy 41 Date: March 25, 1988 Intersects 85-7 Sub I To: Barb Dacy, City Planner File Code: City of Chanhassen II 690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 II Enclosed you will find a soil map showing the approximate plat boundaries and single sheets describing individual soil properties. The soil infor- ' mation in this report is for general planning only. Specific questions at specific locations should be addressed by a qualified soils engineer. The north portion of the property has been used as a borrow site; therefore, only subsoils remain and the soil data may not directly apply. II As can be seen from the enclosed material, the site presents no major soil related problems. Water seepage, shrink swell and frost action could pre- ' sent difficulties for basements and paved surfaces, if not adequately planned for. Runoff from the site after development needs to be evaluated for impacts II off site. Two depressions are located on the east side of the property and may offer potential stormwater storage capacity to mitigate down stream runoff effect. II Final plans should include erosion and dust control measures and a schedule of permanent vegetation establishment. I Particular care will be needed in blending grades on the west side of the site to the adjoining properties. Please call if you have questions (442-5101) . II iI /� r Ai I i / —Stanley Wendland I District Conservationist I I I O The Soil Conservation Service Vis an agency of the Department of Agriculture -A77/ti 7wY / /—44/ I 1 , • CITY OF 1 CHANHASSEN `\ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 1 (612) 937-1900 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager ' FROM: Larry Brown, Staff Engineer DATE: April 21, 1988 1 SUBJ: HSZ Development Site Plan Review Planning File No. 86-2 On Wednesday, March 16 , 1988 , a meeting between staff, the appli- cant' s engineer, and the Watershed District was held a few hours 1 prior to the Planning Commission meeting, to address late concerns regarding the water quality of off-site runoff which discharges into the wetlands of Herman Field park. The Watershed District 1 revised their initial recommendations to require additional on- site ponding. 1 The Planning Commission approved the site plan dated "Received March 7 , 1988" subject to 18 conditions (which included that a revised plan accepta'ble__to the Watershed District be submitted prior to final site plan review) . 1 The applicant' s engineer has resubmitted the grading plan which addresses the water quality issues . ' Grading and Drainage 1 The grading plan proposes the construction of two ponding sites along the northeast and southeast corners of the site. These ponds are well situated to take advantage of the existing topography and drainage patterns. 1 The proposed parking lot elevations at the southwest corner of the lot maintains a vertical difference of 22 feet from the 1 existing elevations on West 64th Street. The proposed slope for this area is a 2 : 1 slope. Wood-fiber blankets or equivalent will be required for stabilization of this area (refer to Attachment #1) . The proposed ponding sites maintain the predeveloped runoff rate as well as provide for adequate storage for a 100-year frequency storm event. We find this plan acceptable. 1 �`S_ Don Ashworth April 21, 1988 Page 2 Roadway/Access ' Access to the site remains intact from the previous submittal. Please be advised that the site plan includes the West 64th Street right-of-way. MnDOT has stated that they will not support the driveway access from the site onto TH 41 without eliminating the West 64th Street access onto TH 41. The closure/realignment of West 64th Street will be discussed at length in the vacation report (agenda item 8d) . ' It is therefore recommended that the site plan be approved con- tingent upon the alternative access plan as approved by City Council and the following conditions: ' 1 . Approval of the preliminary plat and site plan shall be con- tingent upon vacation of West 64th Street right-of-way, approval of a final plat for the Reed property, including execution of a development contract, filing of a letter of credit, and realignment of West 64th Street to TH 41. 2 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper installation of the public improvements. ' 3 . The developer shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit. ' 4 . Hay bales shall be placed and staked around all storm sewer inlets. 5 . Wood fiber blanket or equivalent shall be used to stabilize all disturbed slopes greater than 3 : 1. 6 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of ' the permits from the Minnesota Department of Transportation. 7 . Calculations verifying adequate pressure conditions for the ' sprinkler system of the proposed retail building shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit. 8 . The proposed sanitary sewer and watermain systems internal to the site will be constructed and maintained as private utili- ties. The City of Chanhassen will not be responsible for any maintenance of the utilities (with the exception of public storm sewer drainage facilities) internal to the site. 9 . An acceptable traffic sign and pavement marking plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit. ' I Larry Brown April 21, 1988 Page 3 10. The applicant shall submit a revised erosion control plan subject to the approval of the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit. ' 11. Specific plans and specifications which address the specific alignment, installation, and erosion control for the proposed ' storm sewer system must be submitted and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of the building permit. ' Attachments 1 . Proposed Slope Diagram 1 , _„:' , \x\ \ -\\ , f , -:::ce°,..\____ . .? ... ,7=tv• -a-ii---1---"-t---"0.-_.___ _ ___ . ) ,\,__o____ �i `` '∎ \9 \\ ` GQ-'t _ _TO' _ A -• = 996��D ��T P AST = e. 96.51 / �\� 90 J� - in _ : 5.20— --. ,L____f_ I f. =_A58.6• 1 // �� .��- \` \ \ • B,C ( T Pdr �\ 1 r1 \ •\ �` T0��ASTING-;39T$5 _ 1 \ \ 1 ( / 1 �" 0 \ ��=.� 1!!I( _I \ I I \1 ` ` - rI !i1 IIIIElai11111YlllihignliM llll OIli 11►1111N1 ii f\ \ \ v�� *'' 01 / r l \ i 101. �.�— \\ \ \\ 4.!��, `\\ \� �// \\ �N Ln°- i --978--N \ \ � \ ��.,j, i-- / \` 97&� _ ll C.B. D (S-WRM)_ \ \ 1 I \ \ \' \\\ N` 14 --- 27* i I \�` P`�,� o I OP A b0. h:9 7. 8�-' o X 1 7 I 9 \ \\\\\ �I � \ , . ,Nv7 S 0 M SEWER �1 _ --- - — — - — — — — - �� / \`_1 i I C.B. E (STORM) 1 \. /- *AO _ 64th I TOP CASTING= 978.0 \63 \` �� \ � t;ST,` INV. = 975.00 a' - . ihr,*.„4,„ . , , t ,, .. , 4,,, .., ...\-.\„ .4 *7 , , .. \ - S / ' - - - / . S17. 1 •cs • NE r .. .. — .. .. — — 1.• F .S'.. .. .. .. .. .. 1.1 .. toN Tq Minnesota f(pit Department of Transportation ' District 5 2055 No. Lilac Drive ,"of TS Pr Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 April 7, 1988 (612)593 $537 Barbara Dacy, City Planner City of Chanhassen Community Development Department 690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147 ' Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Barb, ' I am in receipt of the proposed HSZ development for our review. As you know, several different plans for this location have been reviewed by us before. This plan is essentially the same except that a full access is ' suggested on T.H. 41. Also, as a part of this plan, the developer has proposed to relocate 64th Street and eliminate several driveways along the west side of T.H. 41. tIn general, our comments are the same as before with the following addi- tional comments: ' - Access to T.H. 41 would be limited to a single driveway located approximately 635'+ south of T.H. 7. A southbound right turn lane and a bypass lane would need to be constructed for this inter- ' section. - West 64th Street would be closed at T.H. 41 and relocated to the ' south. All other access points on the west side of T.H. 41 between the proposed entrance to the development and approximately 1100' south would be closed. ' - The existing access point in the NE corner of the proposed develop- ment must be closed. ' - A right turn off of T.H. 7 would be allowed between Oriole and T.H. 41. ' Details of the proposed entrances and access changes will be worked out as a part of the permit process. Permits must be applied for and approved before any construction may begin within the highway right-of-way. ' Sincerely, ' Evan R. Green • Project Manager APP 0 8 1988 ' ERG:pl CI I Y OF l.;iANi-:,-%-.DLN An Equal Opportunity Employer #14/66 1 1 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING {1) MARCH 16, 1988 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7: 40 p.m. . MEMBERS PRESENT: Steven Emmings, Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad, Brian Batzli and David Headla IMEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Erhart and James Wildermuth I STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner; Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner and Larry Brown, Asst. City Engineer I PUBLIC HEARING: HSZ DEVELOPMENT, PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF TH 7 AND TH 41 INTERSECTION (PART OF LOTS H, I & F, BARDWELL ACRES) : 1 A. REZONING OF 7. 63 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM OI , OFFICE INSTITUTIONAL TO BN, NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS. I B. REPLAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS PARTS OF LOTS H, I AND F OF BARDWELL ACRES INTO THREE LOTS ( . 92 ACRES , 1.18 ACRES AND 5. 53 ACRES) . 1 C. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 25 ,920 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL CENTER. Ir. Public Present: Name Address 1 Leander Kerber 1620 Arboretum Blvd. Robert Wagner 2511 Orchard Lane Jeff & Wanda Kamrath 2731 Orchard Lane II Sandy Lehmer 6461 Oriole Avenue Kelly Ziegler 6480 Oriole Avenue Kenneth & Delores Ziegler 6441 Oriole Avenue Agnes Anderson 6470 Oriole Avenue I Betty Lang 2631 Forest Avenue Dick & Yvonne Brown 2630 Orchard Lane Dan & Fay Dudycha 6451 Oriole Avenue I Jim Masters Ben Gowen 6450 Oriole Avenue 6440 Hazeltine Blvd . Gary & Jan Reed 2461 West 64th Street I Marcia & Bob Scheferli Ralph H. Livingston 325 George Street , Excelsior 2631 Orchard Lane Paul Prenevost 6351 Minnewashta Woods Drive William Wefring 6350 Minnewashta Woods Drive 1 Howard Schmet 2810 Sandpiper Ralph & Kay Hegman 6361 Minnewashta Woods Drive Ginny Hanily 2660 Orchard Lane t— , , Barbara Dacy and Larry Brown presented the staff report on this item. I I Planning Commission Meeting 11 March 16, 1988 - Page 2 Conrad : Because we are missing a piece of the puzzle and some information, I think we do have that choice. Right now we could basically table the entire issue until we got that piece or we could go ahead tonight. We can make recommendations on zoning. In past we' ve looked at the site plan and we' ve looked at things in conjunction with the zoning changes. Theoretically we should be able to look at a site and decide what it ' s good for and should be divorced from the specific that we put on there. I guess my preference tonight would be to go ahead and conduct the public hearing . The down side to that is there' s a good chance we' re going to table an item which means you 'd be invited back again. You could go home tonight and come back when we had all the information in front of us . I guess, being that you' re here, my preference is to go ahead. Unless I hear any different direction from commissioners, I 'd like to proceed on the matter and we' ll address them individually as we come to the three different issues . Emmings: The one thing that we' re missing is , apparently there' s a problem with water quality. Could we approve the plat and the site plan and add a condition that they have to satisfy any requirements imposed by II the Watershed District just to move the thing along so they don' t have to come back and then that issue could be take up in front of the Council? Dacy: Yes , that is an option and you can place that as a condition of 1 approval . The commission should be aware though that the drainage issues may involve adjustment of the site plan or changes in the plat so those items would go up to Council . Headla : It would be your discretion if it should come back here? Conrad: Generally it' s a good idea to have it come back to us so we see II the site plan that goes to Council . Headla: Many times we leave things to their discretion. 1 Conrad : It ' s up to their discretion when there are minor changes . Then we have typically let minor changes go along and what is a minor and what II is a major , it' s always been based on staff ' s best judgment but I think Steve we could do that. We could put conditions in there yet I don' t know how we could send that , put the right benchmark for staff to say bring it back to us if. I 'm not sure what that is. Again, we would say II if there are significant changes . I don ' t know what that might entail . Dacy: I know the developer may have specific requests as to that matter. II Conrad : I 'm sure you'd like us to review the matters tonight. Anything else you could add to that without getting into other things right now? Roger Zahn : Sure, I 'm Roger Zahn, president of HSZ Development . Actually we found out about the drainage problem about 4 : 30 this afternoon or the issue and it really is a problem that is , I think going to be pretty easily resolved and we' ve already got a good solution for it I think. We have John Uban from Dahlgren, Shardlow, Uban & Associates is here to address that issue and I think John has something that he can 11 tPlanning Commission Meeting March 16 , 1988 - Page 3 show you that you can look at tonight that will almost surely by our plan. Perhaps we can take care of that on the front side here. J.D. MacRae: My name is J.D. MacRae, I'm one of the architects on this. One of the reasons we did decide to proceed and come to this meeting tonight is that your next meeting is very filled up at this point. Because we' re such a big issue, we felt that if there was any way we could get a hearing, get a feeling on it and a recommendation, we'd be better off obviously than putting it off two months or bogging down your next meeting which is already full so that' s why we are here and decided to proceed. Conrad : We' ll go ahead with the items and we' ll open it up for public comment. We will entertain comments on any of the proposals in front of us which is one, the zoning change, the preliminary plan to subdivide into three different lots as well as the site plan. We' ll open the public hearing for those. I think we' ll start if the developer would like to give a presentation, I think that' s a good way to start and we can all see what they have in mind and maybe any of the changes that they would anticipate as a result of the recent information they got this afternoon. So with that, Roger would you like to make a presentation or your staff? Roger Zahn: I have the job of presenting to you the basic outline of our proposal. I just would like to go back a little bit into the planning process that we went through and let you know something about our philosophy with respect to this development and this project and the neighborhood in which we propose to place our building and then I think I' ll turn it over to John Uban who, as I mentioned is from Dahlgren, Shardlow & Uban . They are our planners who have done some excellent work in terms of traffic patterns and traffic planning and also on the ' drainage issue. . . . the quality of the project that we ' re going to put up and the building materials and show you maybe some different elevations and some color renderings and so forth. When we looked into starting this project we were aware of the history of the difficulties that previous developers had had in dealing with certain issues as far as the people in the neighborhood were concerned and we went back and studied those and researched them. It seemed to us that traffic flow and the traffic pattern around this site was going to be the key to making it work. We worked extensively with the staff. We had some discussions with neighbors. Engaged what we thing are the best planners in the city to help us resolve those issues and we came up with the idea of vacating 64th Street and moving the entrance to the site the way it was. We kind of went in and said, if we can resolve the traffic pattern so that we have minimal impact on the neighborhood and also resolve the traffic pattern in a way that ' s going to be good for people who are shopping in our center, then this project is going to work. Let' s get the traffic pattern resolved first and then we' ll orient our site and decide how our building is going to fit in there and make the project sort of start from there and evolve and that ' s what we did . We really put a lot of time and effort into studying and listening to the problems and issues that have been raised before and I think we' ve come a long ways and we' re still , of course, willing to listen to any other comments that may come along . I • Planning Commission Meeting March 16 , 1988 - Page 4 Also, the other issue that we saw that was a significant problem previously was drainage. Of course, that 's the one that may be hanging over our head a little bit as I speak because the issue was raised to us maybe at about 4: 30 this afternoon that the solution that we had proposed might have some problems as far as the Watershed District is concerned. However, I want to make the Commission aware of the fact that we were asked to engage engineers to do a study, which we did. At our expense we undertook to present a plan which went beyond what was absolutely necessary for us to do in order to improve the situation that currently exists and make it a little bit better and we did sort of the same thing with traffic and there will be some things that I think John probably will go into as far as the entrance into the neighborhood off of TH 7, 111 that we picked up a few things from the neighbors in trying to add something back in, not only just make a good high quality development. Our philosophy is that we want to do something on this site, and on all our projects, that' s going to last. That ' s going to be good for a long time. It' s in our long term best interest , not just that we want to be nice guys but that's the kind of development we want to do because it' s just better for us. We put a lot of work and thought into our approach to this and we hope the Commission looks favorably upon those efforts . With that, I think you have a basic good understanding of what our site plan is going to be and I think I ' ll turn it over to John Uban and let him explain in a little bit more detail about the traffic and drainage. John Uban: I will not belabor any of these topics but would like to briefly take through our planning review of the area in general . This is 11 an area plan, section maps on the scale of 1 inch equals 200 feet and the property itself lies on the northern edge of Chanhassen. Also, it' s right on the corner of TH 7 and TH 41. Now this is unique. You do not have many corners of two major state highways in the community. When those occur, they are usually not sought out for residential uses or for anything other than neighborhood business , commercial . So from a general , point of view, the uses that have been proposed generally in the past and how we' re viewing it today are all basic planning approaches to this kind of property. We feel that the uses are very appropriate. What we found is that we should really study how this piece of property not only works with the highway system but how it works with the neighborhood as a whole. So we began to look at all the different uses around the site itself. Residential to the west. Again, to the north there is other commercial in Shorewood that has access directly off of TH 7. Full interchange access. Then we looked and saw of course there' s a major park facilities to the southwest and then there was unsewered or rural areas down to the south so from this we saw there will be a concern for traffic. Traffic integrating with residential traffic. So we looked for a solution that would allow this piece, about 7.6 acres of commercial land to function and serve the neighborhood and community in a very busy intersection and yet at the same time not create problems with the residential traffic . So to separate those traffic systems. We saw that an existing system now was sort elongated roads penetrating back into very beautiful residential areas and the concern of course, in the past { was that these areas may become encumbered with commercial traffic so we wanted to separate them. What we looked at are two different approaches. This drawing is at the scale of 1 inch equals 100 feet so we enlarged the II 11 Planning Commission Meeting March 16, 1988 - Page 5 area . Here' s the shopping center and the immediately adjacent road ' system. So we did several things. We had many meetings with MnDot and we just got word for one of the things. One of the concerns in the neighborhood was turning into Oriole Drive off of TH 7. As they return from the east in the evening coming back to their homes , it' s very dangerous to sit in the middle of that very busy highway and try to make a left turn. It' s not protected . The highway narrows right at that point and there is a high probability of rear end accidents. So we worked with MnDot and I just got word that they have approved our plan to put in a left turn lane there that will be restriped. We' re not talking about when that can happen, possibly this summer . So that is something ' we pursued and hopefully will settle a significant problem for the neighborhood . Additionally, we looked in conjunction with the two neighbors to the south, Mr. Reed and Mr. Gowen who have land yet to be developed and how those lands could be developed in a pattern that really works for everyone in that area. So we looked at relocating the road system in some fashion through those two properties to allow good , rational development of their property and at the same time separate ' these traffic systems . We think the two solutions that we've looked at, which are basically the same thing but just different interior patterns of roads depending on how they actually want to plat the interior parcels. Both of these can be done quite easily. We' re working right now on a system that will allow them to happen in conjunction with reasonable development down here and in a system that will not add cost and assessments to people who do not benefit from it. In other words, existing neighbors that live in the area. So the plan is only those who benefit, those who will have developable land when it ' s done with will bear the burden of cost. Obviously we will have a significant burden in ' that improvement. The other things we' ve done is we' ve worked with MnDot to improve the traffic system on TH 41. From the north we put in a right turn lane so there will be a deceleration lane so traffic can easily blend into the intersection and enter the site. Also, on the northbound lane we will be putting in a by-pass lane, a widening of the shoulder so for left turning movements there will be the easy by-pass of through traffic . So all of these will combine to make a good intersection of TH ' 41 and TH 7. The other issues we looked at had to do with the kind of intersection and how to have the lands come together and we think that everything is working out quite well and should do very good things for ' the neighborhood in separating the traffic and at the same time keep the commercial access good and easy and direct off of major highways and not off local roads. The other thing that we looked at, this is a drawing of the same area but has topographic information on it, and we looked at drainage. Here' s the subject parcel again and in this light tan color is a marsh and ponding area down in the park area. This had been designated in your Comprehensive Storm Sewer Plan as being a storage area for the ' berm and ponding. Then it flows out into the lake. This kind of ponding is a very good clarifier of water but we want to clarify them on our site and this is what the Watershed District is concerned about. So what we' re proposing is in an area where water already goes underneath TH 41, that we will be putting in a sedimentation pond and we will do that, working with MnDot where we would like to regrade some of their right-of-way to make sure that it is a good flat condition. Help their drainage problems. Help ours and really work out a pattern of drainage Planning Commission Meeting March 16, 1988 - Page 6 and storage in this area of the site that will meet all the criteria of the Watershed District. That' s what they' re concerned about. They want II storage of the water on the site in a fashion that gets all the sedimentation out. We will have skimmers on that pond, on the outflow of that pond so it skims off the oils and debris . So by the time the water leaves the site and enters the natural system, it is as clean as any water can possibly be. So working with the highway department and our site, we can solve many of those problems. I think that's exactly what the Watershed District is looking for . So that is the change or that is how we will solve that problem so you should be comfortable that that' s the direction we' re going in. If you have any questions on that part, I ' ll get glad to answer them but now I 'd like to turn it over to the architect. Public : May I ask Mr . Uban a question? He said something about a left hand turn on TH 7. John Uban: A left hand turn off of TH 7 onto Oriole Drive. We have worked with MnDot. This is a left hand turn. Traffic coming from the II east , slowing down to make a left hand turn onto Oriole Lane . So this is where this deceleration, the stacking lane separated from the through traffic will be located. , Public : So you' re saying then that they are going to expand that passing area? John Uban: Two things are going to happen. One, this area has already been looked at and geometrics have been measured by the highway department themselves and they have determined that within the existing right-of-way or the existing paved area, a left hand turn lane can be placed . Striped and designated left hand turn only. We've talked to them. They've gone out and measured it. They agree with us and they say they will do it. Now I just have to make sure it gets done as quickly as possible. We will be adding in this area, also a deceleration lane on the eastbound lane that heads in the other direction so we will be widening that portion also. The widening of that deceleration lane is for the right hand turn only into the site . J.D. MacRae: I 'm J.D. MacRae, the architect from Heise, Vanney & MacRae and I will address the site itself now that we've gotten ourselves from the perspective of further out, coming into the site and as we have discussed, off of TH 41 and off of TH 7 . The orientation of the building was addressed to orientate the face, the retail faces of the building to the intersection. Back the building up to the residential . Both the main center and an accessory building back up to the residential to try and act as much of a buffer as we possibly can between residential areas and the parking area. Try to isolate the activity of the parking, the noise of the parking, the lighting of the parking as far in the site as we can. Addressing the two outlots on TH 7 where we have your highest amount of traffic and obviously your highest ability for resale. We have II ! brought the cars in here. They can break off either direction, making '°- them turn as they enter the site to slow the traffic down. Come across the face of the building, parking up against the building and parking, as II ' . Planning Commission Meeting March 16 , 1988 - Page 7 required by Code, out in the parking lot . We tried to minimize it ' s ' depth and it' s blacktopping by bringing employee parking along the backside of the building. We have then put in a 59 foot green strip here on the west portion of the lot and a 59 foot green strip on the south ' portion of the lot . Landscaped and a berm that' s running, again protecting parking, protect the ability for the residential to be viewing at least the blacktop. We can' t say we can block out a building completely. That would be, I think a lie. We' re going to block out cars. We ' re going to block out the blacktop. Conrad: Even on the west? ' J.D. MacRae : Even on the west . I have a couple of things to show you here. Number one is a landscaping plan that we have done. With the use of evergreens basically all the way along to try and act as much of a wall as possible without actually building a physical wall, which is an option but probably not as pretty as greenery. Then we ' re proposing sumac, which is a natural plant in Minnesota, along the hillside. That ' will help hold the root system to keep erosion down and help keep a low maintenance need to that hillside and yet add color and texture to the hillside rather than a big green hill that needs mowing and maintenance. ' Here in the fall will turn nice and bright red . In the summer it ' s green. In the fall when the leaves fall off, there are evergreens remaining there as a natural buffer . We' ve made this back portion along the residential as intense as we feel we can do it within an economic base . By trying to plant continuous evergreens and then bringing out in front here less dense trees such as locust and maple trees that you can see through so you can see our center . The signage of the retailers can be seen by the shoppers. We then go into some site sections here and I 'm going to put this down here probably out of range of the camera but I ' ll bring the sections up onto the easel . I 've got some site sections ' looking at different areas along the land here. Section A is cut basically through the accessory building. Coming along the existing house, this is the existing grade up to the property line and then we hill up to a slight berm and actually have some grade up against the ' building to try and reduce the height of that building where there is no road behind it. Then the landscaping which we showed on the landscape plan up on top of that berm and hillside. Here the idea is that we just ' try and reduce the amount of building that is seen by the residents . We get into the retail center , Section B is cut basically so it ' s just hitting the side of the building here. Existing house and existing grades coming up and then again , our hill to build up the site because of the way the whole site falls off, we do need to do some fill and build it up. We ' re building it up above the parking and then coming back down. Landscaping that so the sight lines don' t see the parking lot. Don' t see ' the cars . They will see the top of the building . As we go C and D here are along the south portion of the property in a couple of different points . C where we have the highest amount of grade fill . The highest amount of fill. We can get a slight berm in to again, protect the sight line of a car from development that may happen down here. Again , we' ll see the building only in a reduced sense because of that berm. Then with ' the landscaping it merges that much more. Then on Section D, the hill starts getting much less because the grades are coming up to TH 41. Planning Commission Meeting , March 16 , 1988 - Page 8 There we' re able to put a larger berm. Especially as we get out in here, the idea was to berm up as high as we could, landscape that as hard as we II could so the traffic coming from a high spot down on TH 41 here are not looking into the back of the building. They' re looking at rooftop units so we can break that view up and try to make a pleasant looking II development. As they get around the corner, looking at the side of the building , then the building starts showing itself again. The building itself is made out of a brick and a masonite and metal roofing. Our firm specializes in retail architecture and this is kind of a hybrid of • development that we've done all over the Twin Cities and with every development we feel we get a little bit more advanced. A little bit better addressing retailers and addressing concerns of the neighbors and II cities. Here we've gone in with two anchor masses on each end of the building. This is a cut large view of the overall site. Anchoring the building on each end with an element . Starting with masonry, working up to a little architectural element that kind of looks like a little lighthouse almost and then going in with a metal canopy with an open truss system where the signage would be going on these open trusses so each sign would be acting in here , a metal canopy covering a walkway underneath up against the storefronts and then glass underneath the canopy. We 've got a brick with a rockface concrete block which I 'm sure, if you' re not familiar with I can describe that. It's a rough looking concrete block that was made to try and look something like an old limestone type material. Accenting the building with a stripe up on the top with rockfaced block here and a rockfaced block band at the bottom. Then this element is also made out of the rockfaced block. Here we have II glass block up on the top on these little lighthouses . We wrapped the side of the building around on each side with brick with the rockfaced bands again going back to about a two-third point where we have a mass of II block that comes off and travels across the back of the building. What we see here in black is another metal roof set back two-thirds into the building that wraps around this side and wraps back for about 20 feet in , the back of the building and then terminates . The purpose of this is because of TH 7 interchange and because of TH 41 to the south, there are points that are higher than our building is and we were very concerned about screening rooftop units that will sit up 4 feet off the roof. We II feel that by actually building a roof that looks like it' s part of the building as a screening device rather than putting up little fences or something that you may have seen around other cities , we can integrate 11 the screening system that helps the building and makes it part of the architectural expression. We then have a sketch that I ' ll leave you with here. Just sort of a perspective of how this thing might look as we' re looking at one of these elements and how the canopy is wrapping back and II going along. You see the open truss underneath trying to make it sort of a fun, festive feeling building with the colors trying to not be overpowering but yet add color and brightness to the area. With that I will leave it open to wherever we go. We have a lot of concerns that I 'm II sure we want to address. We have all of our consultants here tonight to address drainage. To address grading. To address utilities . To address the building. Anything that may come up, we have people who can answer them. Conrad : Just a quick question on your elevations for sight lines . How IPlanning Commission Meeting March 16, 1988 - Page 9 1 much to scale were those elevations? ' J.D. MacRae : Those are to scale . ' Conrad: Are the economics of an interior walkway just so restrictive costwise? J.D. MacRae : It makes it very difficult for the retailer to get his identity. For an example, if we had an interior walkway her and say we had an entry point here, here and here. This retailer sitting back here has lost his ability to appeal directly to someone driving or walking . . . ' We' re finding that the marketplace in Minneapolis just doesn ' t allow for that. They would just as soon be outside with a small center where people can drive up and address them directly and they can have their identity directly off of the street. Conrad: With that I think we' ll open it up for other comments . You've heard the staff report. You've heard the developer ' s proposal and ' I think we' ll open it up for public comments at this time. Bob Wagner , 2511 Orchard Lane: I 'd like to address some of Barb' s ' comments , if I may, rather than the developers here initially. She said this was the third application. I guess I ' ve got bad records. I show it' s the fourth . I show that we came up here in June of 1983 for a 4. 7 acre parcel . That was refused and stayed residential . We came back in April of 1985 at which time it was eventually approved in June of 1985 as C-1. We came back in May of 1986 trying to change that to commercial and that was refused and turned down so this would actually be the fourth ' trip back. A second question I had was the previous plot where you said it was 32 , 000 square feet and I guess I refer you back to a May, 1986 memo in which you sent to we, the property owners in which you identified ' that as 28 , 000 square feet so there may be two sets of data there . What I 'm getting to is the question of intensity. I do have that letter here. Another concern, just in the paperwork side of it , your staff report that you' re looking at tonight, on page 5 states and it ' s in the quote, the Planning Commission recommends approval . I guess I 'm a little confused. I thought we were here seeking comments before you passed that judgment. ' Conrad: What we ask staff to do , because we ' re not real eloquent all the time and this is not our permanent job, we ask staff to draft a recommendations for us . We don ' t have to accept what they draft . In ' this particular case staff feels that the request is acceptable in their eyes and if we believe that it' s acceptable in ours , we can adopt their particular recommendation. Many times we do. Many times we don' t. Many times we alter it. It' s not predetermined at this point in time. It' s ' something that we have, if you went through our Minutes tonight or the different items on the agenda tonight , you 'd find the same for every item on the agenda. Bob Wagner : The next phase of this that I listened to of course was should we go ahead tonight or not go ahead tonight. The concerns I had as I listened to that is that MnDot hasn ' t served their paperwork. The water drainage issue is in hand to some degree but the paperwork is not I Planning Commission Meeting , March 16 , 1988 - Page 10 1 done and then I go back, and this has come up so many times and I look at this development group and I think they are far professional to anybody II I 've seen come forth on this corner and I would really like to see it all down on paper before something is issued because I think they have as good a chance as anybody I 've ever seen . Then moving into some of the II issues directed by the development group, one of the conversations about the buffering and particularly the buffer west along the homeowners . Part of the presentation and part of the original zoning here is just a shopping center . The 25, 000 square feet and the building there, the second retail , the 6,000 square foot building, is in the plat but it isn ' t proposed , as I understand it, to be developed at this time. Yet I see that' s one of the tremendous buffers we' re talking about here if in I fact this is approved and particularly that ' s Ziegler ' s property. I say that as a buffer from the standpoint of lighting. From the standpoint of sound yet I would hate to see this approved and that buffer not be there II years down the road because I think that' s a key issue there when we look along the back strip. The first plat we looked at with trees , which is basically the one you see here, you see a lot and I believe it was termed 16 foot scotch pines along TH 41 yet I see very limited along the back. I recognize of course you came back later I believe with another plat with trees in it. I guess I heard the word grennery. I didn' t hear the verbage there about what' s the height of those trees. How many of II them are there? I heard it very specifically on the front side. I would like more clarification on the back about what we' re really talking about when we talk about greenery mixed with sumacs . I know Mr . Zahn is aware of this , my elevation is a little bit higher than the guy coming down TH 41 and we have those trees there to keep the guy on the highway from looking at the center . I 'm up on the highest spot probably in the community. I can' t drive down the highway and miss it. I have to drive II home and look down upon it. In all fairness, they've been out. We' ve talked about it. I have not heard it directed tonight how that can be handled or if it can be handled. I look out the front of my house today at what was once Bounty Corporation for any of you that went through that saga. Barb I 'm sure remembers it. I certainly sent her a long letter on it about two years ago . The landscaping , while it was escrowed was never done. It hasn' t been done even today. I sit here and I look across at II and I hear words here about escrow and we' re going to have a letter of credit but I 'm very concerned because I 've heard this all before and I yet haven' t seen anything done about it. I hate to have to think that II I 'm going to look out the front of my house and now I 'm going to look out the back of my house and have it on both sides . I personally have an emotional issue there. Talking just about the developer , I kind of I eluded to it. As far as I 'm concerned, this is the first time this group has had a developer , a true developer worth talking about a proposal . I have to commend them on a lot of things. The area of concern, I think with the neighbors is why does it all have to be zoned BN? Why can ' t a II section of this remain office as a buffer behind the homes? I think it' s addressed a couple of ways . One is with this building and can that be an office and can it be conditioned to be nothing but an office. But I think the whole strip from TH 7 along behind these people ' s homes is really the emotional issue. I think about how it' s been said, and I can quote Council meeting Minutes , there hasn' t been any consolidation or giving. I think there has. It 's gone from residential to office and now IIPlanning Commission Meeting March 16 , 1988 - Page 11 I( we' re still talking . . . The issue comes up about Reeds and Gowens and the ' roads. I guess I 'd certainly like to feel a lot more comfortable in what that means before this is passed on. The concern I have is what do those roads lead to as far as future zoning requests and they' re both here . Maybe they could address it a little bit . For instance, what happens to TH 41 in front of Reeds once these roads are put in there? Is that going to become a request for commercial? That ' s one of the key issues . Not just in the local neighborhood but in the whole Lake Minnewashta area . The effects on future zoning . Whether it goes south along TH 41 or west along TH 7. I guess I have a concern about what happens along TH 7 with the two blank spots . In talking to the developer , I feel comfortable in his thinking and talking to me that they' re going to try and preserve something in behind the houses that ' s less intense but again I come back to the fact, the way to really preserve that, at least at this point, is the zoning . Does the whole thing really have to be zoned commercial? The corner of TH 7 and TH 41, I suppose if all the neighbors were to bare their souls, they would say they recognize that ' s the most intense piece of land and even then there' s a concern of something with a filling ' station and the all night type of atmosphere that sooner or later is going to be asked for there. One of my neighbors asked me, where are the dumpsters . I think that the issue that should be addressed also is how ' is the trash movement going to be handled there. I say that with some experience again , looking over the hill in front of me. Is there fencing around that? Is it intended the berming is going to take care of it? Is the trash going to be stored inside? Are there dumpsters with fences or Ifwhat is the protection on the outside? That ' s probably my key thoughts . Batzli : Can you point out, you were talking about a buffer lot existing ' there. Can you point to where you ' re actually discussing that? Bob Wagner : This area . These are the homes of course and this buffer ' zone, I 've heard it stated 50 feet and I ' ve heard it stated 59 feet . We' re talking, some of the greenery we' re looking at , this berm will be high and there will be trees on top of it and the building but in initial statements , there is no building there that ' s being discussed tonight . The zoning is being discussed but the only thing we' re talking about is the 25, 000 square foot building which again , is not really addressing the intensity issues . . . But this is also the area I 'm talking about when I talk about why not maintain the zoning other than BN. Why can not that remain OI? Again, I understand it from the developer ' s side. There are two sides to economics but I think I have to represent my neighbors and their intent is that they have homes that have been there a long time and the concern is from this point all the way down. I think the developer has done an excellent job in trying to preserve it in a commercial mode with the exception of addressing what ' s really going to happen up here. ' Is that building really going to be built? My house is over here somewhere and I 'm looking down upon this area . I 'd like to have that addressed by the developer. Any other questions? Conrad : Would you like to respond to any of the comments that Mr . Wagner had? I Planning Commission Meeting March 16, 1988 - Page 12 1 Roger Zahn : Sure. We' ve had several previous discussions and I think they've been good discussions with the neighbors and we' re still listening to them. They know our thoughts I think on the particular issues that they addressed and let me just put our sight plan here to try and talk about them maybe one at a time. I know Bob is concerned about intensity of our development in terms , there are several different ways to look at that . You can look at that on a flat square footage basis and you certainly have to have a certain amount of square footage in order to justify economically what we' re trying to do here but we want to make it II look less intense and that' s the reason for the brick exterior, the metal roofing , the roof over the rooftop units . That ' s the reason for the lighting plan being directed out towards the highway and away from the neighbors . That' s the reason to make it look less intense , more atuned to the neighborhood. The type of sign band we' re using which is not one of those big wide bright bands. They' re all going to be individually II lighted letters and they' re great for the retailers but they sure are a lot less intense looking . That' s the reason for the orientation of the site. Everything out directed towards the two highways. From the standpoint of the neighbors , make it feel less intense and certainly I think our resolution of the traffic problem also addresses that intensity issue. Maybe not in terms of square footage but as far as how it's going to feel to the neighbors . I think the traffic, the way we have it set up, it' s not going to go into their neighborhood . The commercial stuff is just really going to be isolated on this site. As far as this building is concerned , what we' re calling an accessory retail building, a couple of comments on that. Number one, we would love to build it, we' re going to build it when we have a tenant. We have some tenants interested in it. I can tell you what my feeling is about this building is that it would make a nice office and I 'd love to have it be II an office if I could get a tenant but I 'm not going to build an office building and then have to go seek an office tenant. If we can get a tenant in there that' s a nice office use, we'd love to have them. It may be good for a daycare center also . It does not have the best visibility on the site for that reason I think that' s what we' re at least looking at. However , there are some good retail uses for that also. I think maybe daycare probably classified as a retail use. That' s the most likely type of use for it that I can see right now. It ' s possible that it could be maybe used as a restaurant building but I think that' s less likely because of where it sits on the site . If we were required to make II it office, I think that office zonings would allow us a much taller building for one thing. I think maybe 45 feet is what office zoning allows and so that might not be necessarily in the neighbor ' s best II interest anyway but I think they do know that we would do that but we' re not going to just go ahead and build it until we've got it occupied. Conrad : Talk about dumpsters . Dumpsters , trash . ' Roger Zahn: We' ve got interior trash storage rooms with overhead doors in the back of the buildings. The dumpster can be located inside . Conrad: How about looking down from higher elevation? I ' Planning Commission Meeting March 16 , 1988 - Page 13 Roger Zahn : From Bob ' s deck. Where we sat last Saturday except it was ' so cold we really couldn' t get outside on the deck very much. He has kind of unique problem in the neighborhood in that he does sit up higher . He ' s also done a beautiful job of landscaping his backyard and I think he would concede it' s not much of a problem for him during the summertime because he' s got a significant stand of trees but they do loose their leaves in the wintertime and he looks back out there. J.D. MacRae: He'd be looking at this elevation from the higher point. Again , the rooftop units , the rooftop screening is going to help. I was up by where your house is and I drove through there. That's a concern. ' I can understand that concern and I can' t say that anyone can do anything that's going to totally eliminate any chance of him seeing something . ' Bob Wagner : I guess I could steal some of your trees . J.D. MacRae: We could plant a big pine tree. ' Roger Zahn: I think actual , when you get right down to it, I think one thing we' ll do about that also, when you get right down to placing, actually placing the trees , we have a landscape plan that ' s pretty ' specific in detail but I think maybe when we do place those trees, we will be able to instruct our people to kind of take a look up at his deck and do the best job they can as far as that' s concerned because it is the IF most crucial house in the neighborhood . And again, if there' s offices there or if there' s our building there or if there were residential houses , he might have some of that problem. We did go back, after our neighborhood meeting last week and again after talking to him, increased ' the berming there and with the plantings that we' ve got on top of the berms , I think we have tried to address that problem. I 'm not going to promise that we' ll make it perfect but I think we' re doing the best job ' we can. J.D. MacRae : He had a question about the sizes and the types and the locations . I wonder if our landscape architect could help him go through that in a little more detail . Craig Johnson : I did want to address , I know Barbara had mentioned them ' too, she gave an actual number and a count on that site but we have proposed , I believe there is 3-12 foot on the west end of that building . This is a revision from this . In regards to the west end and west location , we are proposing 3-12 foot and then a row of 7-6 foot and then a group of 6 and then again at a high point here , 12 foot again . Bob Wagner : While you' ve got that up there, can you address the issue of ' your cut off point on the north towards TH 7 where you don ' t show it at this time? Dacy: The screening is proposed only up to . . . Bob Wagner :. Don' t quit. Keep going. What happens from there on up? Dacy: There is an elevation change. As I recall the elevation is . . . Planning Commission Meeting March 16, 1988 - Page 14 Craig Johnson: There is now a berm here and now adjacent to the gravel operation, sand and gravel operation. This is the end right now. This tree right here I 'm pointing at is the final tree in the proposed site plan development. These would all be then the 12 foot scotch pines . Bob Wagner : Let me just throw out the emotional issue here is that that II house is of course the house that at one time had been proposed to be something other than residential and that' s where you start the strip zoning conversations and I think that would like to be implemented very II soon or at least documented in your controls because that' s the next concern that the entire lakeside community. Roger Zahn: The berm will continue. We just didn' t put it in our plan I because it doesn' t address our particular buildings . Those outlots are something that we may sell or we may develop ourselves but it' s not part , of our current plan so we didn' t address it but I can tell you that that berm will continue at at least the same height and the same type of plantings will continue right out to the highway right-of-way. Bob Wagner: You' re here to approve the zoning, we had some discussion tonight for 8 acres . . . Roger Zahn : We' ll covenant that if we sell it , that that has to be done II or we' ll do it ourselves. That' s really what we' re looking to do. To even think about planting something we want to do. We' ve listened to you and we know that's important to the neighborhood so I just want to. . . Conrad : The only concern I would have is if there wasn' t a potential to berm because that will come into us again. We' re sensitive. We've been here every year that you' ve been here and I think in this particular case, I 'm very confident. It 's not on this particular site plan but I think in the future when those other lots are developed , that the same type of screening would be carried forth by whoever did that development. My concern would be, if it wasn' t possible, then you'd have a real good point. If we were blocking some but still we had a potential for a gapping lack of buffer , than I 'd have the same concern but I see no reason why we couldn' t carry it forth in the future. J.D. MacRae : I 'd like to point out that in the ordinance there' s a 50 foot setback between commercial parking or buildings and the property line between residential so we have to have a 50 foot swath in there and the landscape ordinance is such that we have to landscape that . Presently there' s quite a large hill that was cut out when they did the mining of the gravel on that site. That hill can't change because that' s not on our property so that hill stays exactly where it is and then it drops down almost a shear cliff and that ' s about the grade that the whole site is at. So there is already, quite a berm. A 10 foot, 15 foot berm built in because it 's not on our property. We can ' t change that . Craig Johnson : We did fulfill then the requirements of a 6 foot screen adjacent to parking in residential area. On the right-of-way side of things, then we also had planted the appropriate number , more generous number of canopy trees with additional berming and shrubery. In this Planning Commission Meeting March 16 , 1988 - Page 15 case the rigosa rose and then a juniper which would also then create and ' fulfill the 50% winter screen that is required adjacent to right-of-way. So in general , this is the translucent screen. This is the opaque screen and then we' ve also created the sense of arrival with that canopy and ' very fragrant blooming trees . Conrad : Let me jump into the public hearing and I want to deal with as many issues that were brought up as we can and not let them hang or maybe ' not get to them. I think one concern that Mr . Wagner brought up was the property to the south. Barbara , based on the road configurations and the relocation of 64th and the new entrance to this property, does that ' dictate how we allow the property to the south to develop? What have we eliminated for it ' s potential use or have we still left it open to various types of zoning? Dacy: Again , the action for the zoning was on this site here. Just to use this concept as an example, the Reed and/or the Gowen property or both will have to go through the same type of process for platting to subdivide and to create a road right-of-way. Depending on the street pattern that exists , I know to be very frank, Mr . Reed has talked about townhouses in this area as well as single family homes . He has mentioned the possibility of commercial zoning directly adjacent to TH 41. But the Commission would go through the same type of process when this application would come in to determine the same type of issues that are going through now. Is there adequate traffic separation? Is there IN adequate screening? Are the lights impacting the neighborhood and all those various list of issues . I can not stand here and say that there will not be anymore zoning applications in this area . I don ' t think that ' that would be fair but I think the neighborhood and the Commission needs to be aware that when this property comes through, that that could be an issue. As to this application, what we' re saying is that they can' t ' start building here until the City has resolution on the street connection issue. From Staff' s standpoint, that ' s the major issue is to get traffic connection back to TH 41. ' Conrad: Based on the separation distance between access , between TH 7, between access to the site that we' re looking at and the potential vacation of 64th and the new construction, will that southerly piece of ' land be able to have direct access off of TH 41? Dacy: Direct access from this area or this area onto TH 41 probably ' would not be allowed by MnDot . They would probably require them to access into the new street. MnDot ' s intention was to create separation between a new intersection here and a full intersection here . Ben Gowen: I 'm on the south property there. Are you saying that MnDot can vacate my driveway? ' Dacy: Under any type of proposal in this area that the street going into TH 41, MnDot has the power to look at your existing driveway and determine whether or not they should be realigned into the new street . I know you have a separate driveway for your greenhouse and your flower ' operation . Whether or not they would ask you to remove that or whether I Planning Commission Meeting March 16, 1988 - Page 16 or not you could keep your existing house driveway and so on, that would be up to MnDot. I think you should be prepared for the possibility that II they may ask you to realign your driveway. Ben Gowen: I think I have prepared for that because I submitted a five item agreement that would predicate on where that 64th Avenue goes and what effect that has on me. Now if it does that effect and in effect our cost, of course I 'm not for it then . If it doesn' t have the effect that my plat has honored, then let' s go with it but otherwise no. I 've got prior commercial rights there for quite a while yet and I don ' t think you have the right to take it away from me. Dacy: Yes , we did receive your letter and the Planning Commission has it I also. Again, those types of access issues have to be dealt in more detail when this area comes in for development. Mr . Gowen states that he is not willing to sell or go along with the proposed street connection, that ' s going to have to be an issue that ' s going to have to be addressed. Gary Reed : I 'm probably impacted the most by this project seeing they I plan to reroute the street one way or the other it ' s going to impact me. I guess I 'm not sure when they' re going to require the development or the relocation of West 64th Street . If this project is to take off this summer, can they at that time do the street at the same time? Mr. Zahn and I have talked but we haven' t come down to any kind of agreement yet . We' ve operated the business up there for over 20 years on the drive-in operation. I guess I would like to see the front end be some sort of commercial too. I own a house up there and the valuation is residential is not . . . I proposed to Mr . Zahn to buy it from me buy he hasn ' t come back to me yet with any comments . I guess there are a lot of unanswered questions at this point . There are a lot of decisions to be made. The property is for sale. Hopefully we will work something out. Conrad : I don ' t know if I can answer your comment . Barbara , do you have II something? Dacy: I want to clarify that our condition , if it were to be approved I would be that construction can' t start on this piece until we get a plat approved and a letter of credit submitted assuring the City that a road through here in whatever fashion would be built. In essence, your property is driving whether or not this center gets built . Gary Reed: But say the plat approval is made and then the project is not I completed . Would that be a possibility? Dacy: Right, that's why staff ' s condition is that we have a development contract and a letter of credit meaning we have, the City has the I financial security, the money so if something happens . The developer or whoever bought your property would fall out of the process , the City could then go in and construct the improvement. ' Larry Brown: If I can add to that. MnDot will not support the proposed intersection to the site without having the right-of-way vacated and the entrance moved south. In addition however , I would like to comment to 11 ' Planning Commission Meeting March 16 , 1988 - Page 17 I one of Mr . Wagner ' s previous concerns regarding MnDot getting the ' paperwork done. MnDot had originally reviewed the site and was fine with it and I asked them at a later date to go back and conduct a traffic study out there to verify that my report, that the report that I received ' regarding the traffic issues was still current. That was a later request. MnDot has confirmed. They've done the traffic study. They support the site and I will be happy to meet with any individual or group to verify the credibility of that . Gary Reed : I 'm not too familiar with Lake Lucy Road . Isn ' t that coming through to TH 41? Dacy: Further to the south. That is a planned long term improvement . That's down in here. Gary Reed : Now that ' s going to be in the future. In the next 10 years that will probably all be developed so the traffic patterns will increase quite a bit in that area . With the influx of traffic off of Lake Lucy ' Road, the traffic patterns as we've studied them today are a lot different than in 5 years . ' Larry Brown: That issue will be addressed if Lake Lucy Road goes through as development occurs in that area. However , MnDot has evaluated the site on not only the present proposal but future proposals for what the site will handle at maximum capacity and again, Lake Lucy Road will be addressed at that time. If the traffic pattern existing does not support Lake Lucy Road, then we' ll alter or remedy the situation to Lake Lucy Road . Sandy Lehmer , 6461 Oriole Avenue: I have one question to address to Mr . MacRae and that is you talk about the slight berming . What is slight ' berming? How tall are you talking on the west side of this development? You used the term slight. I want to know what slight means . J.D. MacRae : On the left side, Section A here, Section A goes up into ' the building. What we' re showing is we' re 3 feet up on the building and then we' re about a foot up above that . So we' re a 4 foot high berm at that area off of the parking lot elevation. Here to here is 3 feet. A ' car coming up in here so you ' re screening from down at a house , up your sight line would not see your house . Even with no vegetation on it and then we' ll have the 6 foot and 12 foot vegetation on top of that berm. ' The idea was to try and screen cars so you' re not looking at cars and that you then aren' t just seeing one building on the site, so you ' re not seeing a very intense development from that area but trying to limit what you' re seeing and then with the height of the trees , breaking that up as much as we can . Sandy Lehmer : . . . I too would like to see more screening of the natural form in that southwest corner. On the corner of 64th and Oriole so again , the slight berming of 3 feet is really not . . . J.D. MacRae: This would depict the two story house. Right about here , this line right here, I don ' t know if you can see it, this line would be Planning Commission Meeting March 16, 1988 - Page 18 about an eyeball height . That , while standing on your deck. I 'm at the top of the berm here and I 'm at your eye height here, that' s how much building you' ll see without trees . Then with trees on top of that , for your house we tried to address it as absolutely as much as possible. For the houses further west who go back up the hill , that ' s a tougher issue . Sandy Lehmer : My second question is, will these changes in the road, who pays for those? Who pays for the assessments on that because I think Barb said that in talking about the benefit. We have roads there. We' re II not asking for the road to change so who pays for the road changes? Larry Brown: Under this option, and I think one of the applicant's consultants has brought this up, under this option the benefit would be the properties that they are interested in there so they would be bearing the brunt. If on the other hand Option 2 were pursued , then adjoining properties would be assessed accordingly because they do have a benefit to an improved urban roadway section. You can see that the applicant would bear the majority of this cost. Typically they are assessed on front footage. Emmings: Not the applicant . That' s Reed ' s property. Larry Brown: But it' s contingent upon them going into agreement with Reed or doing something with Reed having vacated his property. This property would bear, any of the adjoining properties who receive the benefit from the road would be assessed and I ' ll leave it at that. Roger Zahn: I might address that also. Emmings : I 'd like a blunter answer . I think they would too. Who ' s going to pay for the road? Roger Zahn : That is what I was going to address . We have talked to Reeds and Gowens extensively. Gary is absolutely right. We haven' t come to an absolute answer . We' re satisified with the Planning Commission' s staff's resolution of this in that we can' t go forward until we resolve that issue and we know that we can ' t go forward until we resolve that issue. We are looking at ways of developing in ourselves or contacting other developers and maybe we' re going to work with them. Maybe we' ll put together some kind of a joint venture deal but until we have it, we really shouldn' t make a commitment one way or the other . We know that we know their cooperation or this project isn' t going to go forward and II we' re going to get it one way or the other . We just are trying to find a way and we sat down and worked some numbers back and forth a little bit , we' re trying to find a way to make it economically viable for us to do it essentially. We haven' t gotten there yet but we' ll get there. I Conrad : I don' t really care which developer , how they split that up between this particular subdivision. From the neighborhood standpoint , II do you see them, are they getting a benefit in our minds at this point in time and would they be potentially a part of the assessments for that road improvement? ' Planning Commission Meeting March 16 , 1988 - Page 19 I Dacy: Again, it depends on the option. . . . there are vacant properties ' adjacent to that now. Mr . and Mrs. Ziegler own a number of lots in that area and they have expressed to me several times that, obviously they are concerned about potential future costs. That is just one option. The other option proposes the road through the Reed property and as Larry said earlier , it' s obvious that the property that benefits the most is the Reed property and whoever would develop that. We just want to make clear to the neighborhood, it depends on the option that' s proposed and ' the term benefit is coming from the State Statutes for road construction. Headla: Steve, did you get your blunt answer? Dacy: It depends on how that property develops . ' Emmings : I guess what I 'd like to know, let' s say that he can' t negotiate any arrangement , let' s say with Mr . Gowen. Mr . Gowen simply doesn' t want any part of this. Could he wind up getting stuck with any costs under any scenario from that road? Dacy: Could who wind up getting? Emmings: Mr . Gowen. Dacy: If he does not benefit from that road , meaning that he can ' t create lots off of it or get access to that road. Emmings : Let ' s say if he did this . Would he pay Y p y part of the cost under this scenario? ' Dacy: He could . That ' s a matter of negotiation between the developer and Mr. Gowen too. If the developer comes in and buys the property and so on, then they can create the lots to recover the road costs . Roger Zahn: If I could just maybe inject a little bit here. We' re trying to deal with a couple of hypothetical situations . We really know ' that we have to resolve this issue. We' ve known about it for quite some time. We' ve taken a number of steps . We have our contractor giving us some very specific bids which we hope to get next week. We know that we' ve got to work with these people. Frankly, one thing that I do know is the configuration that ' s up on the screen right now is a little bit not quite to Reed ' s liking . They would like the north to south road just ' closer to TH 41 and I ' ve told them that where that road goes is basically their call because it goes through their property and we want to see to it that they have the input as to where that road goes . So that isn' t even specifically located so while I 'd like to give you a blunt answer ' I ' ll pay for it, or I 'd like to give you a blunt answer I won' t pay for it, we' re just not at that stage yet but I think the Planning Commission' s staff recommendation is we' re not going forward until we resolve the issue. It ' s going to be something like this and I think it' s going to be something that certainly we participate in and hopefully we can make it fair to everybody so that it ' s not going to be a cost to those people. That's foremost in our mind going forward with what we' re tgoing to do with that road. Planning Commission Meeting ' March 16, 1988 - Page 20 C r Earnings: I guess the only thing that would concern me is that you need to have that road or some resolution of that matter to have what you want I on that corner . It would seem in some way it' s not hard to see how it would be unfair even if you and Mr. Reed came to an agreement of what should happen , if Mr . Gowen didn' t want to have anything to do with it I and does wind up bearing some of the cost, essentially having it shoved down his throat when he doesn' t want it at all . That ' s the only thing that would concern me. Roger Zahn : Yes , it ' s certainly a legitimate concern and it ' s not something that we want to do to Gowens . Betty Lang , 2631 Forest Avenue: I guess I 'm a little concerned because 1 it wasn ' t too long ago when I was in here and they said that Forest Avenue was going to be a nice little gravel road down to the neighborhood park. Now could you tell me again about Forest Avenue. Dacy: You' re absolutely right . The Park and Rec Commission did an access study for this area to Herman Field Park a couple months ago and they did end up with a gravel road into the park. . . .there' s a paper right-of-way for Forest Avenue and there are landlocked lots back there . I 'm sure a couple of you in the audience own some of those lots . One of the options . . .when they reviewed this plan came back and said, if 64th is going to be realigned in this fashion, that they would want to see a driveway come out to the road from that point. Rather than going back 1 through the neighborhood and build a road , they can get a direct access over into here to this area, then they would reconsider their original decision. Betty Lang : So opening Forest Avenue as a part of the 64th is not being 1 considered to make it a drive? Dacy: Depending on the property owners abutting the Forest Avenue right II of-way, they could come in and request that the street be connected here. Betty Lang : There' s only two of us and we already said we don' t want it. I Dacy: . . .unfortunatley people come and go. Deaths , whatever . We still have a right-of-way out there and if we have a right-of-way in here. ' Ben Gowen: No you don' t. You don' t have a right-of-way where your finger is now maam. Dacy: Yes , that ' s correct . I 'm saying if the right-of-way is created in I this area through the future development of those sites, there could be . . . These two areas are zoned RSF, single family. Ben Gowen: You ' re mistaken. Dacy: Mr . Gowen' s use is considered a non-conforming use. He ' s had his commercial property for a number of years. At least the zoning maps that I have up in the office since 1972 show that your parcel has been zoned as R-1 and now it' s been zoned as RSF even though it' s commercial . • Planning Commission Meeting March 16 , 1988 - Page 21 IC Robert Sommer , 6239 Chaska Road : The subject matter has been dealing ' with this area all night long and I have a very deep concern, which I expressed the last time, about the traffic pattern coming this way. It has not been even discussed tonight. I ' ve been able to estimate that ' almost all the traffic on this road comes this way. Very little of it goes that way and the simple reason is that it' s a cut-off to take TH 41. This will certainly increase the traffic flow. I wish somebody would sometime do a study and find out exactly how much traffic goes in a southwesterly direction as opposed to a northeasterly direction but they can easily take the TH 7 route coming back. It ' s almost a racetrack. I drive 30 mph on the road and there are people who are tailgating me at 10 1 feet behind and passing me and I 'm deeply concerned about what will happen with the flow in this direction with that shopping center . ' Dacy: Let me make sure that I understand your comment. Are you concerned that , the center is located here Mr . Sommers , that traffic would tend to go along Chaska Road and back up again? ' Robert Sommer : Yes . Particularly if there were a fast food facility in the area . ' Dacy: A fast food facility is not permitted at this time but I would think by looking at the traffic pattern, it would appear that going through a controlled intersection may be faster for the motorists to get into the site versus going south and doubling back up into that . Robert Sommer : That ' s exactly why they would do it because it would be faster coming back to Galpin. Dacy: Larry, I don ' t know if MnDot is looking at that traffic movement but my interpretation would be, that would be doubling back and that ' would be longer than going through the intersection. Robert Sommer : It would be faster because you would have to wait for the left hand turn signal . I 've watched the traffic flow and if you ' re going to Chaska or if you ' re going anyway over this way, rather than come up here and wait for that long wait for a left hand turn signal to come, they prefer to use downtown Excelsior. They' ll cross all the way across TH 7 and come down this way on their way to Chaska . MnDot should obviously determine how much traffic goes this way and how much traffic goes that way and I think they probably would find that 75% of the traffic goes this way. Dacy: Another issue to consider that we had looked at , if this area redevelops then another opportunity could be made to realign Chaska Road right across from the commercial center . That ' s a future option that depends on the development of this property. Robert Sommer : I would like to see that addressed . I want to know what's going to happen. Larry Brown: In my conversations with MnDot, they've felt that it ' s a simple matter. The movements through here and as Barb said doubling I • Planning Commission Meeting I March 16, 1988 - Page 22 w back, just are not as convenient as coming through this left hand turn lane. I don' t what other evidence I can give tonight but that is MnDot' s 11 position. Conrad : It ' s hard to relate to your comments because I drive that to the Jr . High and I don' t see it. I 'm not there everyday like you are so it' s tough to assess the traffic . I hear your comments . I don ' t see a whole lot of traffic myself when I 'm there and it 's not convenient. I won ' t drive there unless I 'm going to the Jr . High and that' s not all that frequent. I hear what you' re saying but I kind of think that MnDot , there are faster ways to get to places . I look for what potential increase in traffic we could have there and I 'm sure the center will draw some people . I'm sure the developer would hope that it would but I 'm not sure how significant that increase is. I guess more interesting to me is we know people on that side who would like to develop that commercially. The southeast quadrant there have expressed an interest now and again to MI a commercial uses there . I think obviously at that point in time, we really do have some traffic issues to contend with. I don' t know. I 'm not sure how to deal with your concern right now to be very blunt . I II don't see the traffic myself. I don' t see it as a problem myself but as a layman, that doesn' t satisfy you and I understand that . Bob Scheferli : We own property on Forest Avenue. As far as I can see, actually this thing should all be put on hold until these things are resolved period. You ' ve got a drainage problem. You have the access road between the Gowen and Reed properties . Until those two things are solved , I can ' t see where you can go ahead. Conrad: I 'm sure the developer would like to know if we' ll consider rezoning because he'd prefer not to spend all his time negotiating with all these different individuals if we' re not interested and we don' t think he' s got a good suitable use for that property. So I 'm not sure, those are two good points . . . Bob Wagner : . . . if you ' re as frustrated as I am. That ' s the issue we come here to talk about. Who is really going to pay for the road? If the road goes up through Reeds, maybe that ' s got a little less impact because the developer is developing the thing but to me that is the issue. We' re talking about one of the key issues that makes it and II that' s the traffic area intensity. Then I hear us talking about up there by Reeds and Gowens up front and MnDot comes back and tells them they are going to have to run that traffic, which may be commercial , back into that road , that ' s the same road we' re talking about developing back to the residential community. I think those are big issues. I don' t think you can address the zoning until you address what that road is going to do. I J.D. MacRae : One of the reasons we came tonight with two options was to get exactly the impact. That it 's impacting the neighborhood. How it impacts the City. Where those concerns are so we can get direction because we really didn't know what would be wanted. It' s also possible, and we don' t know until we ask, that Ziegler ' s would say, oh we'd love a road there. We'd love to sell our land. We don't know that. We don' t I Planning Commission Meeting March 16 , 1988 - Page 23 IC know how people want what so we' re looking for your input . I 'm hearing that you 'd like it over there. Bob Wagner : You' re misreading my comments . I 'm not at all trying to be ' negative to you guys. Like I said earlier, I think you guys are professionals . You' re finally dealing with some people who I think are genuinely concerned but I think the issues here are to some extent beyond the corner they want to develop or that part of that corner , that I think have got to be addressed. I come back to my opening comment , what' s the rush? We in the community have seen it go from R-1 to office , talking commercial again. If you've got us leaning that way because you have a ' professional . . . , don' t arouse the community. Roger Zahn: I think the concerns that the neighbors are expressing on ' this issue certainly are valid and they certainly are something that we' re interested in but I just want to go back and say that I believe it' s all protected by the format of the proposed resolution saying that we' re not going forward until this issue is resolved . So I think we' ll ' resolve it and I think we' ll resolve it in a reasonably for the corner and if we don ' t, we' re not going anyplace . I think you have control of that now under the langauge that you ' re going to use for your resolution or that staff is proposing for your resolution. We' re very satisfied with that. I think that your neighbors are protected. Maybe we will put a couple of trees in your yard. Bob Wagner : But what I hear is that this road , that effects us residentially could become commercial and that' s not going to, if this zoning passes on you, that ' s a separate issue than what happens down the road. At the same time . . . (There was a tape defect at this point and part of the discussion was not ' recorded.) Dacy: . . . it will only allow one full intersection from the commercial site at this location but they can not accept another full intersection of 64th Street and Chaska Road so close to this intersection . They would accept what they would call , I think it' s a "T" intersection because there is no cross through traffic . If they propose a full intersection here and concentrate the traffic going to TH 41 so it ' s not going back through your neighborhood , 64th Street has to be moved to the south. Now your question, what happens in the future is yes , there will be another series of public hearings. They have to file a plat application. If there is a rezoning, they would have to file that. Everybody would be notified again and the Planning Commission and the Council would have to make the final decision. What I would suggest to the Commission, if you would so desire tonight, is your receiving a number of comments on which alignment and I think it' s been pretty clear that the Oriole Avenue option is not favored . The Commission, through their consideration tonight, can give direction to the various property owners who are in the room that this would be a road alignment that the City and Commission would recommend and would like to see. Further on the land use and zoning issues , you do have the tool to use , if the Commission wants to initiate this, and that' s the Comprehensive Plan. This site is already I Planning Commission Meeting I March 16 , 1988 - Page 24 designated as commercial . You can amend your Comprehensive Plan to include new language one way or the other to say that land uses in this area should be limited to this spot , this spot , this spot because of these reasons , 1, 2, 3 , 4, 5. The Commission has tools to initiate a land use and zoning study to resolve some of these issues but again, what happens here has got to go through another hearing process, Commission and Council . If 64th Street is realigned this way, the Dudycha ' s would not be assessed if they had moved on. Wanda Kamrath : I live on Orchard Lane. The entrance into the shopping center from TH 41, is there some particular reason that that must enter at that point and not closer to the intersection? Since our road is already there, is there some reason why that can' t be placed? Dacy: Yes , MnDot again has said that we have to maintain a distance of at least 600 feet from the TH 7 and TH 41 intersection so the distance from here to here, I think is approximately 635. Wanda Kamrath: Also, the first house off of Oriole, is there any proposal , has anybody ever talked about rezoning any of that commercial and continuing on because there is an office building on TH 7 there and I do have concerns because I live on Orchard Lane and the further you crawl towards my property, the more traffic there' s going to be. Is there any discussion? Has there been towards more zoning of that as commercial? Roger Zahn: I should probably answer that. We do not want that property II period . We have no intention of buying it. No intention of developing it. Wanda Kamrath : Not you but you ' re not the only developer . 1 Dacy: The first application from Todd Thompson looked at closing Oriole Avenue off at this location and taking Oriole and Orchard back through here into the development which would have meant the removal of the house that 's there . The 1986 application did not propose to rezone that area at all . I think from the City staff' s standpoint, the rezoning of this lot would not be appropriate . Again , the intent is trying to isolate and II concentrate the commercial area into the intersection and not west . Conrad : We would end up with the same type of transition problems that we' re trying to solve right now. If that turned into a commercial spot, we would have a real difficult time protecting that spot from the neighborhood so I don ' t see that as a potential . Emmings moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in II favor and motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Headla: What Mr. Sommer had said. As an old Excelsiorite I agree with him. Not that I 've ever really gone on the old TH 41 but there ' s going to be traffic there. I don' t care what MnDot says , they aren' t out there. They don' t live there and when you' re part of that community, you kind of like to take that road. I had some questions during the day I ' Planning Commission Meeting March 16 , 1988 - Page 25 t concerning lighting, sewer and water and Larry answered those quite ' satisfactory. I think the applicants have been very cooperative. I think you did an excellent job with the road configuration , talking to the people. This whole thing on talking about changing from OI to BN, I haven ' t any rationale why we should change. I don ' t think we should change unless it's a win-win situation. I think the applicant should win . I think the City of Chanhassen should win . I think the neighbors should win. I haven ' t heard any of that. I hear winning on one side but the other side is losing and I think we' ve got a lot of concerns . For that reason, unless some of you people can come up with something why we should change, why it ' s going to be a win-win, I 'm going to vote no. However , in case you do recommend that it passes, I 've got a couple of comments . One is on the landscaping . The landscaping I consider between sterile and ho-hum, not due to your fault . I think the way we' re going , ' the way our ordinance is , I think we limit the people and make a very sterile situation. Three miles to the south we' ve got a major institution, a research center . They develop I don ' t know how many hundreds of plants . Unique plants to this area like forsythia. We have ' never done anything to promote any of the Arboretum' s products . I really think something like this, if we could work with the Arboretum, our staff and the developer and I don ' t think it should be any more money, cost the developer any more money. I think we ought to promote the products of the Arboretum. I look at where we have scotch pine and what did you say you had 15 or something . Out of about 10-12 years , you can plan on those scotch pines turning brown once or twice. Not necessarily all at once. I see all those scotch pines and a few of them turning brown, that will just break me up and I don' t think we ought to go that way. Here again, I 'm not knocking the applicants . I think they' ve been very cooperative and I think you've caught a little bit of the spirit. Going through here, I didn ' t see anything about what the Fire Department had to say. Do they have adequate equipment with what they have now to fight any ' situation in that building? Dacy: Right . There was a memo from Steve Madden , the Fire Inspector . ' Headla: But he didn' t address that point . Dacy: As to the type of fire equipment? ' Headla: Yes. If we have adequate equipment right now to fight a problem in that building . Dacy: Yes , we do have adequate equipment at this time. The building is 20 feet tall . It can be attacked with our existing equipment. The building will be fully sprinklered and they have met the watermain and ' hydrant location requirements . Headla : Larry, you were going to address the water pressure . Did he say anything on that? Larry Brown: Yes , in my report there were concerns from the neighborhood brought up that stated they were worried about the water pressure that' s out there now. At present , the watermain, the existing 10 inch watermain Planning Commission Meeting March 16 , 1988 - Page 26 (7 , 1 along 64th Street has a pressure reducer on it . That is to hear problems down on Minnewashta where the pressure, although at this particular site is approximately 50 psi , due to the elevation change of Minnewashta it' s up around 80-85 psi . The proposal in front of us would not affect the water pressure whatsoever . It will be impacted , if they had to come in here with a 48 inch watermain, it would have affected the volume flow of the water and still would not have affected the pressure flow. If for some unforeseen reason the pressure did drop, we could adjust that pressure by a pressure reducer that ' s existing out there. But again, the complaints that are out there now regarding the 50 pounds of pressure are due to addressing the problems down on Minnewashta Parkway. This will not have an effect on it. , Conrad : Just to ask you Dave, your rationale for not rezoning . If you read the history, which is quite extensive, a couple of years, I think the neighbors have always been concerned with intensity of use. It' s a commercial location. It' s a commercial intersection. Theoretically. We have two highways . You' ve got good access . Your concern for not rezoning right now is, do you have any reasons? Your just saying let' s not rezone to rezone but do you see a reason that this particular use is too high in intensity for that site? Again, the neighborhood business district is one of the lower use zones we' ve got . It ' s main traffic lies in this particular size site, it' s hard for me to tell but it may not be quite as low as an office center but still it' s on the lower side. I 'm just sort of struggling to understand your concern with the area . Headla : A couple of things. It' s one of these things where if you don ' t II get the right answer you keep coming back and keep coming back and maybe over a period of years you' re going to score because you ' re going to get the right combination, the right chemistry and they' ll approve it . That' s what has happened here. You' ve gradually migrated . As I understand, the last situation it was agreed that we' ll go office institutional at that corner period . That seemed to be a somewhat soft agreement but that was the agreement. Now we' re deviating from that . Someone is coming with a proposal to go for . . . I see one party winning , other parties losing. I also see that if this goes in, we' ve got a nice II line right now, that road , TH 7 , if we allow this , pretty soon Shorewood Shopping Center is going to jump over. People are going to come in, they' ll make proposals to us . They want to put in whatever and you say no. Come back in a couple years, you get the right combination, it' s going to be another Shorewood Shopping Center and it' s just going to migrate. Conrad : What do you want to use that intersection for? Headla: I think what you agreed to before, that office institutional was an excellent choice . Conrad : Even though there ' s not a demand for it? Headla: I don' t know if there is or not . I I Planning Commission Meeting March 16 , 1988 - Page 27 Batzli : Prior to the meeting tonight I think I agreed with Dave but what ' I 've heard tonight, at least from the public has been that the developer has done a pretty good job and has done probably the best job of the proposals. I wasn' t around for the other proposals so I don' t know how to react to that other than they are probably the best source to tell me that and they really told me that so I 'm kind of, at this point, leaning towards approval of the rezoning . I did have a couple of questions ' though. One of them was our favorite topic about two entrances and exits to all of our neighborhoods and shopping centers and such and I only see one exit. Dacy: From the commercial site? Batzli : Yes . ' Dacy: Yes . That ' s correct . The access onto TH 41 would be an entrance and an exit and the right-in only from TH 7 is just that. ' Batzli : Why not two exits? Dacy: MnDot would not allow a full movement intersection on TH 7. The previous proposals too, kind of went through I don't know how many different types of traffic scenarios . In the first application they looked at keeping Oriole Avenue open but shifting it down and then having another access onto 64th Street . The neighborhood concern was that traffic from the development could easily backtrack through the neighborhood . The second time through, MnDot said we will allow a right-in only and a right-in only for TH 41 and the second time through they had a full access onto 64th Street . Still the same type of concern for backtracking through the neighborhood. As a matter of fact, I think one of the homeowners suggested why not a full intersection onto TH 41. At that time, MnDot had not indicated to us their willingness to look at this type of a "T" intersection and realign 64th Street . So now we' ve progressed down the line more and we can provide adequate access to this area . Provide access in for eastbound traffic and still get people in and out while maintaining separate from the neighborhood. Batzli : . . . it goes to our requirements in a lot of other situations with indeed what we considered an emergency exit should that one be blocked. Dacy: In an emergency situation , if this were blocked , the Fire ' Department is going to mow over anything that they can. If it means going out a right-in only and over the median, they' re going to do it. There is access in and out . ' Batzli : That' s find in the summer . I guess I 'm wondering to myself, we've required this, we' ve looked at it extensively in a lot of other plans and here we' re kind of saying you can drive over the medians and drive over the curb, why is this different? Dacy: Your question was for emergency access if something is blocked . What I 'm saying is that the Fire Department is going to try and knock down anything they have to to get out . Planning Commission Meeting I March 16, 1988 - Page 28 Batzli : Back it off one. We' re not in an emergency situation. Why aren' t we requiring two exits? ' Dacy: In this situation. . .traffic . If we were to require an additional full movement access, we could be promoting traffic back through the neighborhood . Larry Brown: In addition, if I may point out , the main entrance onto TH 41, as I read it, is the distance counting the median, is 60 feet. To me II that seems to be adequate . Batzli : I ' ll defer to your judgments but in the future, I guess if we don' t require it on all developments, I guess I have a hard time seeing why it' s so important to some and not this one. I haven' t heard the magical words yet that tells me, this one we don' t need it because. If it ' s because we've got a 60 foot exit and entrance, then I guess I 'd like to make a mental note of that but if we get that in the future, we don' t need a second entrance or exit . Conrad : There is . I guess I 'm struggling with that. There are two. On II a day in and day out basis, you' re right there isn' t a second exit but there is a second exit/entrance for emergency vehicles . They would be breaking the law when they came in but I think that would be overlooked and I think that ' s typically what we' re concerned about is to allowing the fire truck to get in there when one entrance is blocked. That' s what we do in the neighborhoods . Here, there is a second entrance to get in there so I guess I 'm not having a tough time rationalizing it although maybe the standard should be looked at . Batzli : I don' t think we' re enforcing our standard very well on that issue personally but I ' ll move on. Is the accessory building in the site plan or is it not? I 'm totally confused on our accessory building . Dacy: No , it is not for consideration for the commission tonight . Batzli : Next question, are we within 200 feet of a wetland? Dacy: No. Batzli : Where is our settling pond or whatever , going to be going? 1 Dacy: The way that it was originally considered, there is a wetland area and the drainageway of the wetland is in Herman Field Park. The options that we have been looking at is ponding in and around the wetland over here or the developer would be doing ponding on site or if the development occurs in and around the Reed property also. ' Batzli : At what scale are we looking at now? Dacy: This has been reduced. You want to know the distance from here to II here? Batzli : Approximate . ' I Planning Commission Meeting March 16, 1988 - Page 29 Roger Zahn: I 've estimated it at 1,400 feet . Batzli : 1, 500 feet maximum? Is the plan for going north on TH 41, I heard something about expanding the shoulder and not making a left hand turn lane. Is that true? Dacy: And not makeing that left hand turn? Batzli : Did I hear that there was a left hand turn lane or an expanded shoulder? Dacy: I understood that there was an expanded shoulder and a by-pass lane so you could have a left turn there. ' Larry Brown: That was one of MnDot' s requirements as far as approval . Batzli : So it' s not a left hand turn lane, it' s a by-pass lane to the right? Larry Brown: There will be a designated lane to turn left and a by-pass lane on the right. ' Batzli : I guess my last concern or problem is really where that other road goes and who has to pay for it. I would recommend that I didn' t see where the staff had really addressed that issue . Larry Brown: I think the road again, we' ll have to go through that public hearing process as well and because there are so many variables ' out there, we can not address that. Being the issue is the site and not the property below, I think we have to consider the site. Obviously the plan is contingent upon resolution of the problem to the south but we can ' t analyze that until we have a firm plan in . Batzli : But the language currently proposed by staff for us to act on doesn ' t handle that issue specifically. Larry Brown: I believe the approval is contingent upon it . Dacy: Right . One of the conditions of approval is that . . . Emmings : Approval of what Barbara? Approval of the preliminary plat? Dacy: Right , and the site plan is being considered also . That before building permits are issued and the City vacates 64th Street, that we have a plat approved, development contract executed and a letter of credit submitted. Batzli : I guess in the event we go ahead with that , I 'd like to propose some amendments to that paragraph but I 'm done for now. Ellson : I read an awful lot and like you ' ve all said there has been an awful lot of history on this. What I ' ve read and what I 've seen to me sounds like people are succumbing to the fact that a corner like this Planning Commission Meeting , March 16 , 1988 - Page 30 gets developed like this . You'd be blind if you think that it could go on and on being a lot there without anything and I 've seen that the neighborhood people saying it' s okay to be developed but and there' s a lot of buts. We want to be heard and we want to be part of what' s going on with this development. I think that this development contrary to some ' of the ones I 've read in the past is doing just that. He' s trying to get that input . He' s trying to research before going along , which is good . To me this can be the win-win situation that Dave is looking for. These people are putting in requests and they're following up with okay, we' ll II give you a tree or we' ll x a tree or we' ll stand on your deck when we plant these trees . It sounds like they' re trying to meet the needs of the people as best possible. I 'm not sure another developer down the I road when you try to get the perfect mix is going to be that way because they' re not required to be that way and I think this one has been. So I think it can be a win-win situation. I 'm leaning towards approval on it. I think if I lived here, and when I drive and look at the sites, I look at it in terms of that, I 'd dislike most of all on that corner would be like a fast food restaurant or something that really smelled up your whole neighborhood or whatever . I think the fact that this is zoned ' business neighborhood where that' s outlawed is a great way to zone this because it' s going to eliminate that type of thing which can happen on those corners just as easily as a small little strip mall development . II Also , the way we are proposing to zone it is going to eliminate the free standing signs. You' re not going to have a gawdy Red Owl at the top of the roof or something like that because again the zoning and the way they' re doing it is not going to allow that sort of thing. I had a question in regards to that accessory building area . Because we' re not talking about the accessory building at this point, as far as approving it , it would be a possibility then that it wouldn' t be built, isn' t that II true? Okay. Then the other question I would have is that that landscaping as the plan shows is being built up right into the accessory building. Would it be built before the accessory building goes up there or if it does ever and I would approve it upon the fact that that is going to be there whether the building goes in there or not or something like that. Whether or not the building goes up, that should get in there and then when the building comes , it' s there. And if we build an accessory building we' ll do another berm or something like that because there will still be parking lot and that sort of thing. Again, I 'm leaning towards approval . Something with our recommendation to the second road proposal also. I 'd like it in there somehow. Written in that we would like to see not an extension of the first road but looking at the other type of proposal for the road so that' s a little more weight for them to try and come to some sort of agreement for the road going in that direction. I was really impressed. I was impressed with how prepared all this was and how professional the presentations were and what have you. This is the first time I ' ve ever been to one that ' s so big and I was expecting who knows, people screaming or whatever so I was really proud of everybody and again, very impressed with how well everybody did and it really makes my job a lot of easier if I can hear from people the way you have been commenting and get the information in the manner you' ve presented as well . Planning Commission Meeting March 16 , 1988 - Page 31 Ik7 Emmings : Annette said a lot of the things that I have written down to say and some of them I 'm going to reiterate. I live up in this end of town also. I live on the north side of Lake Minnewashta and drive by that corner a lot. I was here the last time in 1986 when the other proposal came up and it was vastly inferior to this one. I don' t think it matters much what the past history has been because that corner is going to be developed commercial somehow sooner or later . To me it' s just inevitable. It's unthinkable that corner would be developed any other way. This developer has done a really outstanding job of taking into consideration the concerns that the neighborhood has raised again and again and again and are to be commended for that and the neighbors ' are to be commended for acknowledging that. I think they were very candid about that . As far as Dave' s concern goes about leaving it office institutional, OI , the last developer maybe only said one thing that I ' thought was true when they were here and that was that there is no market for office buildings . It' s not just that there's a slight demand. There' s no market and I think we' re essentially depriving them of using that land if we leave it zoned that way. In some ways, I think BN might ' be better for the neighborhood . The buildings have to be lower in BN. I don' t think the intensity is too much different. It' s probably a little more intense but not too much different. Another thing here is that it' s ' zoned for those services that we all use in our everyday lives. It' s a little, this isn ' t going to sound very nice but it may be a little hypocritcal to always say we want these services and we want them accessible to us but we don ' t want them near us so we can see them. They do grow up in our neighborhoods . It ' s inevitable. I was wondering if in BN we have any limitations . Are there any limitations on hours of operation? ' Dacy: Possibly through a conditional use. . . Emmings: Okay, so if somebody came in and asked for a conditional use, we could put that on it . I like the idea of vacating 64th Street . I think that makes a lot of good sense. I like this traffic plan isolating the neighborhood from the traffic that ' s going to be generated in and out ' of that facility. I think it' s an excellent idea . Getting that left turn lane off of TH 7 onto Oriole certainly will make my life a lot safer. Even though I never turn there, I come up behind traffic that' s turning there all the time and I see a lot of near misses and I think that' s something they didn' t have to do. I 'm real concerned about those two outlots . The last time a proposal came up here , I made a motion to approve that even though I didn ' t like that but I didn' t want to rezone the outlots until we knew what was going on them. I think that again, the BN takes care of most of my concerns in that regard . . . If we make a motion to approve the rezoning , and I 'd be for that, that we make it ' contingent upon resolution of this road problem. That' s the most significant thing up here that I see is the road and I would just as soon let it go back and stay OI , leave the zoning alone, if this project 11 doesn ' t get approved. So if they can ' t work out the road problem, I 'd just as soon see things stay the way they are. That ' s sounds a little contrary to what I said before but since there ' s no market for office , that gives us kind of maximum control I think. That ' s something I 'd like ' to see. Planning Commission Meeting I March 16, 1988 - Page 32 C ' Conrad : Is that legal Barbara? ' Dacy: I think it is . Contract zoning is when you approve a rezoning based on a specific site plan. However , because we have some broader issues here, road alignments that would serve the site as a commercial site, my best interpretation at this point is that the Commission could have a motion like that acted upon. Granted I 'm not an attorney so that' s my best interpretation. 1 Conrad : Is that your best interpretation? Emmings : I have no idea and if there' s a legal problem with it. . . ' Conrad : It' s really tough. Legally you can' t tie zoning to a development. You really can' t do that. You' re tying it to road construction and I think that' s a little different . Emmings : Not just road construction but just a resolution of that problem because it' s such an integral part of the plan. Either that or we can table it and make it come back. I don' t think any aspect of this should get tabled tonight or stay here . I 'd like to see this whole thing move onto the City Council . I think we could talk about this for 4 or 5 meetings and I don' t particularly want to. I 'd just as soon have done with it tonight . Dacy: If I could follow up on Steve' s question on the rezoning . As a matter of policy and procedure, the City would not enact the rezoning until the preliminary and final plat were approved and we had a development contract signed. Emmings : That ' s right . Forget I said that. I ' ll remove my contingency. We' re already protected on that. Another idea I wanted to ask Barb about and maybe you Ladd , from your experience, on the preliminary plat and the site plan, can we say, if we were to make a motion to pass it, could we put a condition on there that it not go to the City Council until they have a resolution of the road situation to present to the City Council? Dacy: A resolution of the road situation would depend on who is going to II develop the Reed property. They would have to come and get the plat. Basically what you' re saying then is before it goes to City Council for action on these three items, you' re saying that you really want to see the application for the Reed property come in. Emmings: Yes , I guess so. I want to see a resolution of this. I think the road problem ought to be resolved before it even goes to the City II Council. I don' t care if it leaves here, but I don ' t want it to go there until they' re ready to present that fully to the City Council . What they propose to do at least so the City Council can decide how to handle that II issue . Conrad : But they will anyway. IIPlanning Commission Meeting March 16 , 1988 - Page 33 Ik7 Emmings: Why? ' Conrad : They' re going to have the same questions that you do on the roadway. You' re just saying, let 's keep it from the City Council for ' months or whatever . Emmings : No . I 'm just saying , if they can ' t get to the City Council , I think the road problem will get resolved in a hurry if it' s going to get resolved at all . Headla : It' s going to have to get resolved for them to continue . I 'm ' not quite sure why you would want to do that. Let them go ahead and progress but they can ' t, as I understand, really start anything firm without getting the road resolved. Emmings : If it goes from here , if we just sent it on, if we passed the resolution that we have in the packet here tonight, if we pass them all , when would this go to the City Council? ' Dacy: It would go April 11th. t Emmings : And at that time they don ' t have to have a resolution of this road situation do they? Dacy: Right. The intent of the application, the developer ' s intent from 1rwhat I understood, was to number one, determine if the City wouldn even consider rezoning the site to neighborhood business in the first place. He could go through all the plat preparations for the Reed and any other ' piece of property and get to the Council and they business neighborhood zoning concept could be mixed. ' Emmings : I don ' t know. I 'm a little confused right now I guess . I guess it would seem to me that it would be, I 'm trying to find a way to encourage them to come to a quick resolution of that road problem and it would be nice, it would seem to me, to have that presented to the City ' Council at the same time the rest of this is , is all I had in mind . Maybe I haven' t presented the best way to do it but I 'd just like to find someway to do that if we can . ' Conrad : It ' s a good point. To resolve the whole traffic flow in that quadrant is important yet it' s got to be resolved before anything ' proceeds. The developer is motivated to do that. He wants to build . Holding it from the City Council , I 'm not sure. That ' s typically what I like to do . You' re saying what I like to do is don ' t give them anything until we've got it solved. In this particular case I think the developer ' should hear whether the Council wants to rezone it and whether the developer should hear whether this looks kind of good to them from the City Council , who may have entirely different opinions and have been known to have. I think it' s good to get it there. It' s still contingent on resolving the road problem. I think I 'm comfortable with that Steve. I think it ' s okay yet I do appreciate what you' re saying because I would love to have this entire thing resolved in terms of the entire commercial impact because I know the neighbors are not only concerned with this 11 • Planning Commission Meeting , March 16 , 1988 - Page 34 C i particular subdivision but with that to the south and that still has a bearing on a lot of things. Traffic and some other issues but I don' t know that that' s going to be, I don' t know how we can deal with that quickly and I don't know that I need to force development of that down there either . I 'm happy to keep it a greenhouse. Emmings: I don' t think what happens south of this property, with the Reed property and ultimately the Gowen' s , has nothing to do with what' s in front of us. We should take a broad view but we've got a specific proposal in front of us that we' ve got to act on. We can' t dictate anything to Reed. He can develop now or 10 years from now or 20 and do what he wants to then and we' ll have to look again at that time. ' Conrad: Barbara, you mentioned a study from a comprehensive plan standpoint of this area . Then I heard somebody from the audience talk II about the southeast quadrant going residential which is something that I was not aware was happening so is it your opinion that to the east side we don' t have commercial pressure from some landowners? Dacy: To be honest , I 'm surprised Mr . Swearingen didn' t show up tonight II because he' s been at all the previous meetings and has stated on the record and I know it' s in the Minutes , if this site went commerical that ' he would file an application. My comment about the Comprehensive Plan is that you do have the tool that the City can state the preferred type of land uses in certain areas of the City. This site is already on the land use plan as commercial . None of the other sites are . There is a ' process. If the Planning Commission and City Council want to look at that area in more detail based on the new road configurations , the Comprehensive Plan would be a good place to start. , Conrad : The City Council could initiate a study of that area in terms of south of this particular project , could they not? Dacy: Right . We could easily ask Mr . Koegler to start that up as a part of our Comp Plan review process . Emmings : You said something about a 20 foot height limitation in the BN II and I believe that ornamental canopies on a building are 27 feet. How do we resolve that? ' Dacy: The BN districts , there' s a height limit of one story. That' s 20 feet tall and the ornamental canopies do extend to 27 feet . Emmings : Is that alright? Dacy: The intent of one story is to have one floor of occupancy. I think the actual ceiling height is actually 15 or 16 feet. The extra 4 feet was for roofing and screening of the rooftop materials. Emmings: Is all of the berming and plantings going to be done at one time? Planning Commission Meeting March 16, 1988 - Page 35 I Dacy: As indicated on the plans , yes . Recommendation is that, what you 1 see in the plans for the landscaping all the way to the property line and the grading , that would all have to be done in conjunction with the construction of this shopping center. Emmings : Then Dave brought up a good point . Not everything makes it through every winter . Who' s got an obligation if one or two or a bunch of these trees die the first winter? Does anybody have any continuing obligation to replace those trees? Dacy: Yes . There is an obligation and that ' s the obligation and that would be the obligation of the property owner. The landscaping ordinance provides that there' s got to be a constant opaque screen and that the landscaping has to be kept alive. We do have a Code Enforcement officer now that we can use to monitor that . Emmings : Maybe it' s obvious from my comments but I 'm basically in favor of approving this and moving it on to the City Council for their consideration. Conrad : I have very little to add . I think the zoning is better than ' we've had there before. This particular zoning district is a low intensive use. It ' s certainly going to be greater than what it ' s currently at but the zoning in my mind is real appropriate for the area. The traffic problems appear to be solved which was a concerned that I had the last time and a buffering problem which I really did not like in any of the previous development proposals. It ' s far better . In the developments that we look at here on an every other week basis, I think the buffering to me is superior to almost anything that I 've seen Chanhassen do. When you do have some commercial or some other type of use than what' s next to you right now, those three things make me feel much more comfortable than I have in the past. The developer has done a ' nice job . It ' s always good to work with good people and professional developers and you can tell when one comes in and you can tell when one is not a professional developer and it ' s always so much easier working ' with people that are good communicaters and do good work. I think the current group, in my mind, is that. I had some concerns , therefore I guess my comments are, I do like the zone . The neighborhood business 1 district for that area. It keeps the traffic away from the neighborhood which has been a concern. I had some concerns that I 'd like to validate and Larry, I think you mentioned it once, that basically MnDot , the turning lane on TH 7 for the neighborhood to come in off of TH 7 , what form do we get that from MnDot to guarantee that type of road improvement? What is the document that we look for to say we will do this? Larry Brown: The first one is , they will be sending a letter of recommendations. Again, they will approve it contingent upon meeting their requirements . Number two, being that it ' s a County Road and similarly TH 7 is a controlled access and therefore the applicant will need to go through the process with MnDot similarly for the proposed access to the site on TH 41 and will have to meet the requirements of the I Planning Commission Meeting ' March 16 , 1988 - Page 36 C r County and get an access permit for those to make sure their requirements are met. Conrad : But a turning lane off of TH 7 into the neighborhood , that ' s in a letter that comes to us that says we, MnDot will do that? Larry Brown: It is stated that they approve of the proposed entrance and exit conditions contingent upon construction of, (a) the right-in off TH 7, (b) the left turn lane off of TH 41 and any other conditions that they've addressed. Dacy: They notify us by writing and then the applicants have to walk down to MnDot and get an access permit and that's where MnDot says you have to build the right-in' s . Conrad : How do we document the buffering specifications? I asked the developer if that was an accurate elevation that I was looking at but how does staff request specifics? When we talk about a 3 or 4 foot berm, is that part of the development contract agreement? ' Dacy: Right . The grading plan that was submitted shows existing and proposed elevations . The landscaping plan indicates where the plantings are going to be located on that berm so we feel that we have accurate information now that states that the representations that they made about the berm heights on the west and south boundaries are accurate . Conrad: I 'm concerned and I think it will be covered, but I 'm concerned as the neighbors brought up, with the cost to the average neighbor of putting in the roadway. I think as we said loosely, those that benefit I should pay for it . The neighbors who are there who are not benefitting from a different road should not be paying for that road improvement . I think any motion we make tonight should be contingent on what the Watershed. The Watershed has some concerns. I guess the other comment that I 'd like to see is that the City Council initiate some kind of study on traffic patterns to the south of this particular development . Whether they feel it' s appropriate or cost effective but I think it ' s important in that a study be inititiated so we can see how that traffic might flow when those lots to the south do get developed . Those are my comments . If there' s nothing else. , Headla : Let me make two comments . There were some dead trees up there, some scotch pine, for instance one of the species will turn color and then they come back again. The Austrian pine they wouldn' t have that type of thing but I 'd really like to see that type of thing addressed. I would also like to see that we take the position that we start pushing the Arboretum products. Newly developed products. They are a part of us . Conrad : Are they marketing their products? Headla: Not them. It' s through nurseries but if we could say, look at this development, and this would be an ideal place. Some of these are Arboretum products . They develop right at the Minnesota Landscape I I ' Planning Commission Meeting March 16 , 1988 - Page 37 I( Arboretum. They' ve done wonders on a lot of that and I look forward to ' the scotch pine issue because put that with even some kind of deciduous bush. That would really be nice. Somehow, whoever makes the motion, I would like to see something in there. Nobody else commented on it so I don ' t know if they' re concerned . Dacy: Mr . Chairman, if the Commission wants , the DNR forester has been available to us on other items . We could pass a condition that we could ' have the DNR forester look at the proposed landscaping plan and make some comments as to the species . Emmings : I don ' t think we should propose that on this plan. I guess I agree with Dave. I think it's a good general notion. Maybe we could develop something so that when new developers come in with new plans, we can say we've got the Arboretum out here and they' re developing a lot of nice new products , let' s see you use them. Let' s see you use a couple of maple trees. That was Bob Siegel who used to sit in this chair, that was something he always pushed and they do have maple trees . I don ' t know about sugar maples . Conrad : One of the upcoming meetings, the next agenda items, we' ve got a ' lot of sugar maples on a plat. Emmings: I just have one other question. We were told how you thought we resolved the problem that the Watershed has raised at 4 : 30 this afternoon. I just want to ask if you think that resolution of that problem will change anything we've looked at tonight? ' Roger Zahn : I don ' t think so. Emmings : Will it change for example the landscaping plan along TH 41 because of the creation of that pond or where the entrance is or anything like that? John Uban : Not the entrances . Right now we see the ponding would happen ' up in the corner in the areas where we show no landscaping at this point . In trying to work with MnDot , they have excessive right-of-way up there and solve some of their drainage problems too with a combined pond. ' Emmings : Then the only other question I have Ladd, is putting in a condition that approval would be contingent on approval by the Watershed District, would that have to go both in the preliminary plat and the site plan or just the preliminary plat? Dacy: If you throw it in the preliminary, there' s a catch-all condition on the site plan that you ' ve got to meet the preliminary. Conrad : Okay, I ' ll accept motions . We' ve got three items in front of us. First is a change in zoning. Second, is a review of the preliminary 11 plat . Third is the site plan review. Would somebody want to make a motion on the rezoning? Planning Commission Meeting , March 16 , 1988 - Page 38 I Emmings moved , Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Rezoning Request #85-2 to rezone 7. 63 acres from OI , Office Institutional to BN, Business Neighborhood District as legally described in the proposed plat application. All voted in favor except David Headla who opposed and the motion carried . Batzli : On the first condition. Execution of the development contract . Who are you expecting them to execute the contract with? ' Emmings : The City. Batzli : Yes . Can we specify that? ' Dacy: Your question is , including execution of the development contract between a developer and the City? Batzli : Yes . Dacy: Sure , if you wanted to. The intent of the condition is not to require this particular developer or whoever but that they come in to the City to insure that that road can be. . . Emmings: If I can speak for you. It' s just a little ambiguous and he wants to be sure somebody doesn' t come in and say, how do I know that doesn' t mean it' s between me and the guy who ' s going to build my building . The owner of the property and the builder of the building . Dacy: That's fine. I just want to make sure I understand. ' Emmings : Yes , the development contract with the City. We' re just taking that for granted because we see it there all the time and it ' s not a bad ' point. Batzli : The filing of the letter of credit I assume is with the City from a recognized bank authorized to do business in Minnesota? ' Dacy: That ' s fine . Batzli : I was going to start talking about the letter of credit but . We II have some concerns from the public regarding it. I think the letter of credit should be a form subject to the City of Chanhassen' s reasonable approval . ' Larry Brown: All letters of credit are subject to our approval . We have a standard form. ' Batzli : Those are my friendly amendments if you'd like to accept them. Emmings : Sure. Let 's do that. So as I understand it now. Starting ' with the third line of number 1 it will say, including execution of the development contract with the City and filing of a letter of credit in a form. . . 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 16 , 1988 - Page 39 Batzli : Here' s what I had . Letter of credit with the City of Chanhassen from a recognized bank authorized to do business in the State of Minnesota and a form subject to the City of Chanhassen' s reasonable approval . Emmings : That ' s fine . ' Roger Zahn : do you want to change that to financial institution instead of bank? Batzli : That' s fine. Recognized financial institution. ' Emmings moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision Request #85-7 subject to the plat stamped "Received March 7 , 1988" , the grading and drainage plan stamped "Received March 7, 1988" and the utility plan stamped "Received March 7 , 1988" and subject to the following conditions : 1. Approval of the preliminary plat and site plan shall be contingent ' upon vacation of West 64th Street right-of-way, including execution of a development contract with the City of Chanhassen and filing of a letter of credit with the City of Chanhassen from a recognized financial institution authorized to do business in the State of Minnesota and a form subject to the City of Chanhassen ' s reasonable approval to insure construction of a realigned 64th Street . ' 2. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper installation of the public improvements . 3. The developer shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit . ' 4. Hay bales shall be placed and staked around all storm sewer inlets . 5. Wood fiber blanket or equivalent shall be used to stabilize all ' disturbed slopes greater than 3: 1. 6. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the ' permits from the Minnesota Department of Transportation and Office of the Carver County Engineer . 7. Calculations verifying adequate pressure conditions for the sprinkler ' system of the proposed retail building should be submitted for approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit. 8 . The proposed sanitary sewer and watermain systems internal to the site will be constructed and maintained as private utilities . The City of Chanhassen will not be responsible for any maintenance of the ' utilities (with the exception of public storm sewer drainage Planning Commission Meeting I March 16, 1988 - Page 40 facilities) internal to the site. 9. An acceptable sign and pavement marking plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit. 10. The applicant shall agree to enter into a joint storm sewer project II with the City which will involve the addition of a catch basin on the proposed storm sewer plan as mentioned previously in this report. 11. Specific plans and specifications which address the specific alignment, installation, and erosion control for the proposed storm sewer system must be submitted and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit. 12 . Catch basins shall be constructed as sump type catch basins . 13 . The applicant shall submit a revised erosion control plan subject to the approval of the City Engineer . 14. Plans which address the demolition of the roadway of West 64th Street II and restoration of the right-of-way be submitted for approval by the City Engineer prior to the final plat review process. ' 15. Access permits from the MnDot and Office of the Carver County Engineer will be required prior to the commencement of any grading . All voted in favor and motion carried . Batzli moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan Review #86-2 for construction of a 25, 920 square foot retail center as depicted on the site plan stamped "Received March 7, 1988" , the landscaping plan stamped "Received March 11, 1988" , the lighting plan stamped "Received March 11, 1988" , the exterior elevation plan stamped "Received February 22, 1988" and the grading drainage and utility plans stamped "Received March 7 , 1988" and subject to the following conditions : 1. All bituminous areas shall be lined with concrete curb. ' 2. The building permit for the retail center will not be issued until the city has approved the vacation of 64th Street , including submission of financial sureties, the execution of the development contract to insure that 64th Street will be realigned to intersect TH 41 in another location. 3. Compliance with all conditions of the Subdivision Request #85-7 . All voted in favor and motion carried . Conrad : Is there a feeling amongst Planning Commissioners that we should initiate a study for the traffic patterns and the land use to the south? 11 • ' Planning Commission Meeting March 16 , 1988 - Page 41 Emmings : To the south and to the east? Yes , I think so. ' Conrad: We might need a motion to do that or can that just be a simple request? Dacy: That can be a request . Conrad : It takes the City Council to fund the request so formally how. . . Dacy: I think what we would do is take that comment along with these items to the Council on April 11th and see if the Council would allow extension of Mark' s contract to include this study. ' PUBLIC HEARING: GEORGE NELSON ASSOCIATES , LAKE RILEY WOODS SOUTH, PROPERTY ZONED A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATES AND LOCATED SOUTH OR AND ADJACENT TO CO. RD. 14 (PIONEER TRAIL) , 1/2 MILE EAST OF TH 101 : A. SUBDIVISION OF 77 .44 ACRES INTO 16 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS (MINIMUM LOT SIZE 2. 5 ACRES) . B. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN 200 FEET OF A CLASS B WETLAND. ' Public Present : Name Address Brian Olson Ron Krueger & Associates, Applicant Jim Peterson Ron Krueger & Associates , Applicant ' Boyd Peterson 325 Pioneer Trail Jo Ann Olsen and Larry Brown presented the staff report on this item. ' Brian Olson: I 'm with Ron Krueger and Associates and I 'm here representing George Nelson & Associates and this is Jim Peterson who is also here. I have a color up rendering of the drawing that may be a little bit easier to read than that one but basically we have no objections or any additional things to add to the staff ' s comments. We are here for any questions . Boyd Peterson, 325 Pioneer Trail : My property line adjoins . I had a question on the road. It' s going to be going from their road over to Great Plains Golf Estates . Is that a road or a trail? Olsen: We were just looking at options of providing future connection and actually the only possible location would be along this line but that is not definite that that road will go through yet. Brown: If I may clarify that , I don' t mean to confuse you. I don' t think it's a future street connection. I think if the plat were to be approved , that would be a requirement if the Commission would so desire