The URL can be used to link to this page

09-20-89 Agenda and Packet rr ✓�� AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 1989, 7: 30 P.M. CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Planned Unit Development - Commercial - for a commercial center on 1. 2 acres of property zoned BG, General Business and located at the southwest corner of West 78th Street and Market Boulevard, Market Square Partnership. 2 . Conditional Use Permit for the placement of a deck on the recreational beachlot on property zoned RSF, and located west of Choctaw Circle along Lotus Lake, Lotus Lake Homeowners Association. NEW BUSINESS 3 . Official Mapping of TH 212 . OLD BUSINESS APPROVAL OF MINUTES CITY COUNCIL UPDATE OPEN DISCUSSION 4 . Discussion of Aesthetic Aspects of the Highway 5 and 101 Corridors, Fred Hoisington. 5. Potential Ordinance Modifications to Require Financial Guarantees for Landscaping and Other Site Improvements Required as a Condition of Site Plan Approval. ADJOURNMENT C 1 TY Q F P.C. DATE: Sept. 20, 1989 I ' C.C. DATE: Oct. 9, 1989 CHANHASSEN CASE NO: 89-2 PUD Prepared by: Olsen/v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Development Stage for Commercial Planned Unit Market Square _ Q V LOCATION: Southwest Corner of Market Boulevard and West 78th ^^ Street 1.� APPLICANT: Market Square Partnership AMCON 5775 Wayzata Blvd. , Suite 820 200 W. Hwy. 13 St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Burnsville, MN 55337 _ t _ I PRESENT ZONING: CBD, Central Business District Inn 12. 1 acres DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- IO and CBD; Chan Bank & Realtor/Dr. Office Q— S- BG; vacant E- CBD; Filly' s and Hotel Site W- BG; Lakeshore Equipment 11.1 WATER AND SEWER: The site has services available PHYSICAL CHARAC. : Currently a vacant level parcel. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial i �� t. riJ �f1. u ` LJ i lidaillENA 4.9g* gl 1. %1111 ' / " lillitiMW (I) 4_____Ti . I= %.11.41 li :'�4: N N RSalli 11111111111t" tin E ��11tial tto e# a .• 0 r �11r- R 4 R 1 - !�►='JD 0� \ SA• • r .LAP 6...6. %.1"neva Slit if:. t3R , ... a ii E.'..,,i_it ....,, ... ., - - mow r •leire IWilirme OI : .. . .� .., ��: `- R12 r :FT= -, ... y T - .q -t// c4 vaRLE _ � 1 - ■ 1111 :11 \ P4RK I BG L, .7r f_. ..,47:ED g ' n et ; ( / . . - 1 1 9.14. a7nh6.1,.;11.iN.lh. " f-¢fes , I1 d - ---. 1 ��. - .,iiii10,11.1f .,, '-.. ....---\> - PACFt— IG}iWA1 \ \ ek • �. e • 1CP '�� ^,P4) �, o, s� `� s. • ;a . , q - - _._, _, , .. „. • ,- ..... 5Q./ --- „D4K0 H . . \�;INNEN 1t CUtGLF- o • ..110 ‘1\:. L .4 KE SUS A N RD _ --ii ' i , , - ,, fBUD - R - i 1�� - — - 86 TM ST Market Square Commercial PUD September 20, 1989 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Section 20-518 defines the development stage of a PUD. Following general concept approval of a PUD the applicant shall submit the development stage application, preliminary plat and fee. The development stage shall include but be limited to preliminary plat, site plan information including location, type and size of all graphics and signage and any additional information requested by staff, Planning Commission or City Council. BACKGROUND On August 2, 1989 , the Planning Commission reviewed the PUD con- cept plan for the Market Square commercial shopping center (Attachment #1) . The Planning Commission agreed that the site should be developed as a PUD and that the concept plans were moving in the right direction but that more amenities needed to be provided to the site such as additional architectural design, landscaping, etc. The City Council reviewed the concept plan on August 28 , 1989 (Attachment #2) . The City Council also agreed that the PUD was the proper way to review the site. Since the August 28, 1989, Council meeting, the applicant presented a revised set of plans for staff review to proceed with the development stage (plans dated August 17, 1989) . Staff had several concerns with the revised plans and met with the applicant to review the issues (Attachment #3 ) . The applicant has submitted another revised set of plans dated September 11, 1989. Although there are still some issues unresolved, the plans are complete enough to proceed with the development stage. ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing to rezone the property to PUD to allow a commercial shopping center. The PUD designation is being pro- posed to allow the applicant to have increased lot coverage and _ mixed uses. The total area is 12.1 acres which includes a 1 . 6 acre outlot. The shopping center contains a grocery, drug, Lawn and Sports, liquor, hardware and retail stores. The proposal also includes an individual building housing a veterinary clinic on Lot 2 , Block 1 . The total percentage of lot coverage, not including the outlot, is 79%. As a PUD the city will have the ability to request additional amenities to the site that would be above what would typically be required under the zoning ordinance. In addition, a PUD contract will be developed and recorded against both the shopping center site, the veterinary clinic lot and the outlot which will control what will occur on the site. The ability to have a PUD contract Market Square Commercial PUD — September 20, 1989 Page 3 and the flexibility of the PUD allows the city to have more control to ensure that the proposed shopping center will be an - amenity to the city. The current development plan review for the PUD includes the pro- posed shopping center located on Lot 1 , Block 1, the veterinary clinic located on Lot 2, Block 1 and Outlot A which is proposed for future development. The PUD contract will cover Lots 1 and 2 , Block 1 and Outlot A and will be recorded against each of — those lots. Outlot A Staff is recommending that Outlot A be a part of the overall PUD so that certain controls can be maintained when Outlot A is pro- posed for development in the future. Such conditions would — include the following: 1. Outlot A would have to be serviced internally and would not — be permitted separate access points onto West 78th Street or Market Boulevard. 2. Outlot A will not be permitted individual pylon or monument — signage. 3 . The construction of the buildings on Outlot A will be com- patible with the shopping center building and veterinary cli- nic. Veterinary Clinic Page 5 of the submitted plans show elevations of the proposed veterinary clinic. The building will be made of brick and rock — face concrete block with a sloped roof with asphalt shingles. The clinic is providing adequate parking and is maintaining the typical setback of 25 feet. As with the outlot, the clinic will not be permitted its own separate pylon sign and will only be permitted wall signage. The following comments are a consolidation of comments from — Planning and Engineering Staff , Fred Hoisington, Jim Lasher and Gary Ehret from the revised plans dated September 11 , 1989 . Site Plan - Page 1 Access : 1 . The City has been maintaining a right-of-way of 80 feet along _ West 78th Street to accommodate the downtown redevelopment Market Square Commercial PUD September 20, 1989 Page 4 plans. The applicant is proposing to vacate a portion of the right-of-way and staff will be processing this ROW vacation as part of the PUD application. Any ROW in excess of main- taining the 40 feet from the centerline of West 78th Street may be vacated. A right turn lane will be required at the southwest corner of West 78th Street and Market Boulevard and an acceleration lane is being shown on the plan as required by staff. These two lanes should be combined into one con- _ tinuous lane (Attachment #4 ) . The developer must provide revised plans accommodating the future right turn lane and acceleration lane. 2 . The access on Market Boulevard has not been widened beyond 12 feet. Staff had recommended that this be increased. 3 . The access points on Monterey are acceptable to staff. 4 . The PUD contract will state that the outlot will be accessed internally and that it will not have any separate access points from West 78th Street or Market Boulevard. Pedestrian Circluation: 1. As part of the improvements to West 78th Street there are plans to provide an 8 foot wide bituminous pathway along the south side of West 78th Street between Monterey Drive and Market Boulevard. The applicant is providing the 8 foot wide trail on the south side of West 78th Street. The 8 foot wide trail shall be bituminous. The applicant has requested that the 8 foot wide bituminous pathway be located on their site as an easement rather than having it as part of the right-of- - way. Staff has agreed to this request. The PUD contract shall reflect that the 8 foot wide bituminous pathway will be accommodated by a trail easement and that the applicant will be responsible for installing the 8 foot wide bituminous pathway as part of the site development. The development contract will require financial sureties and construction plans to be approved by the City Engineer. 2 . The site plan has been amended to show the pedestrian walkway widened to 10 feet and it is now being landscaped with deci- duous trees rather than fir trees. The walkway should be extended all the way through the parking area to the sidewalk on Market Boulevard. 3 . Staff has raised concerns that the configuration of the out- door storage area illustrated behind the Lawn and Sports store will interfere with the turning radius of large trucks attempting to maneuver around it. The current plan has not been modified to resolve this concern. The site plan should be revised to show how a truck docking at the Lawn and Sports store will be able to turn out of the site. Market Square Commercial PUD September 20 , 1989 Page 5 Internal Circluation and Parking : 1. A drive-thru is being shown at the northern portion of the _ shopping center. Staff is very concerned with a drive-thru being represented on the site plan since we do not feel that even a "small user" drive-thru could be accommodated in that area. Therefore, staff is recommending that the PUD contract make it clear that a drive-thru would not be permitted at that location and that it be removed from the site plan. 2 . The future parking area adjacent to Market Boulevard has been redesigned as suggested by Fred Hoisington' s memo. 3 . The applicant has widened the driving lane south of the building into a two way street to allow movement of trucks using the docking areas in both the easterly and westerly direction. Miscellaneous: 1. The applicant is providing only 3 trash enclosures adjacent to Monterey Drive. The applicant has eliminated the parking stalls adjacent to the trash enclosures as requested by staff. Staff feels that 3 trash enclosures will not be adequate to — accommodate the shopping center and that the applicant should provide at least one additional trash enclosure near the hardware store. The PUD contract will prohibit individual — trash enclosures within the parking areas . Staff recommends that an additional trash enclosure, identical to the ones proposed, should be provided at this time near the hardware — store. The dumpster locations along the west side adjacent to Monterey Drive should be surrounded by earth berm or opa- que fence or a combination of both at a 6 foot height. A trash compactor is located south of the grocery store. Staff is requesting the trash compactor be completely screened by a all made of similar materials as the building. — 2 . The parking lot lights are shown at 30 feet high. Staff is recommending that the lights be reduced to 25 feet in height _ and that they match the design of the downtown lighting. 3 . The site plan shows that the outdoor storage areas will be surrounded by 6 foot high concrete block fence to match the '- building material. The PUD contract will provide that when the outdoor storage areas are developed they must be enclosed with the same material which is used on the buildings as shown on — the plans. 4 . The Fire Inspector and Public Safety Department has agreed that a "no parking" lane around the building is not required Market Square Commercial PUD _ September 20, 1989 Page 6 and that the applicant is providing enough areas free of parking for emergency access to be provided to the building. Civil Plan - Page 2 A. Sanitary Sewer 1. The sanitary sewer service to the veterinary clinic has been revised to the desired 4 inch diameter pipe. 2. The existing 10 inch sanitary sewer currently runs in a 60 foot easement from Monterey to the east side of the site. The developer continues to show the construction of the building over the sewer line. As previously discussed, the city will allow this under the following conditions: a. The existing 10 inch PVC sanitary sewer shall be placed in an oversized ductile iron casing which clearly extends 10 feet beyond the limits of any building footings or sidewalk with manholes built at each end of the casing to provide access. The sewer main must be properly blocked and encased in the ductile iron casing, i .e. , grouted or pea rock. 3 . Service stubs to the retail center. As previously mentioned, these stubs should be constructed in accordance with the appropriate building codes for service lengths , cleanouts, etc. B. Watermain 1. Location of fire hydrants will be addressed by the Fire Inspector. 2 . The revised water main alignment appears acceptable. However, gate valves need to be added. Concerns regarding the condition of the existing 10 inch CIP watermain which runs west to east through the site are eliminated by the abandonment of the pipe. A new utility easement will be required for the new 10 inch watermain line. C. Drainage 1. The developer will be responsible for the extension of the existing 72 inch storm sewer along the south property line. Plans that continue to illustrate "installation by the city" are in error. The plan should be modified to note that the storm sewer work is the responsibility of the developer. The line must be installed prior to the issuance of any building permits to resolve existing drainage problems . 2. The city would be willing to vacate the drainage easement across the property upon confirmation from BRW that the down Market Square Commercial PUD — September 20, 1989 Page 7 stream pond is adequately sized to accommodate runoff from the area. 3 . An additional catch basins have been added to the south parking lot, however, there is still some question over the north half of the parking lot whether or not the number of _ catch basins are adequate to service this area without causing temporary flooding of the parking lot. Drainage calculations should be obtained from the developer to deter- mine the adequacy of the system. 4 . No additional details pertaining to roof drains were sub- mitted on this plan. — D. Preliminary Plat 1. No change from Gary Ehret' s previous letter dated August 31, 1989. The city will be willing to vacate the right-of-way through the center of the site with the condition that a sanitary sewer easement is granted for the existing 10 inch sanitary sewer that runs west to east through the site. 2 . Cross easements will have to be provided for internal access to the veterinary clinic and Outlot A and for all utilities. E. Miscellaneous 1. Gary Ehret' s letter reflected that the grading plan did not illustrate future grading along the Soo Line Railroad tracks. These plans still do not clarify the impact on the railroad and should be further addressed, i .e. show that the grading — contours will match the existing grades on the railroad property. 2. Berming around the site needs to be confined within the property and not on the street right-of-way, specifically along Monterey Drive. Landscaping - Page 3 1. As recommended by staff, the applicant has provided more evergreens along the south and west side of the property and has replaced many of the evergreens along Market Boulevard and West 78th Street with deciduous trees . Staff feels that the screening along the south side is not adequate and that additional evergreens should be placed along the southerly portion of the property. Primarily, screening of the loading docks for the hardware store and grocery store is inadequate. It has also been suggested that conifer shrubs be provided and ornamental shade trees be planted along the building facades to break up the massing of shrubs . In addition, to — provide some color during the winter, compact viburnum should be used in lieu of the regular viburnum. Market Square Commercial PUD September 20, 1989 Page 8 2 . The applicant has provided deciduous trees in some of the parking islands. Staff feels that deciduous trees should also be included within the parking islands just north of the grocery store. Elevations and Signage - Page 4 1 . The applicant has provided additional information on the wall signage and the pylon sign. The wall signage will be free standing two foot high individually lighted letters on matching electrical raceways. Each individual sign will have to receive a sign permit and each store will only be per- mitted two wall signs. This includes the Super Value store. Staff would define the Super Value logo as a wall sign. The applicant will be required to submit sign covenants which regulate type, size and location of the wall signage. The covenants should also state how much space per tenant will be permitted for the wall sign. The two proposed monument signs, at 41 square feet of sign area, meet the standards of the sign ordinance (maximum of 60 square feet) . The individual stores listed on the monument signs will be permitted but the lettering will not be per- mitted to be interchangable ( such as a reader board with weekly specials) . The monument signs are designed to reflect the architecture of the shopping center and as proposed will maintain the integrity of the site. Outlot A and Lot 2 , Block 1 will not be permitted separate pylon or monument signage. 2. The materials proposed for the building are acceptable to staff. The applicant will be providing a color rendering at the Planning Commission meeting. The colors provided, if acceptable by the Planning Commission and City Council, will be documented to ensure that the colors shown will be the ones used when the building is constructed. The roof sections above the major tenants were presented to staff as being continued from the front of the store to the back. Staff requested that roof sections be provided to verify that the roof sections go the entire width of the building. These requested sections have not been provided. The city will not accept a false front. The roof line must be continued for the width of the building. Sections were also requested to show the relationship between the development and Hwy. 5 . The requested sections have not been received. The sections are necessary to verify that the majority of the roof area will be hidden by vegetation and grade change. Staff is concerned that the roof equipment, storage areas , loading docks , etc. will be visible from Hwy. 5 and if so, additional screening should be provided. Market Square Commercial PUD ., September 20, 1989 Page 9 RECOMMENDATION Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the PUD Development Plan and preliminary plat for Market Square as shown on plans dated September 11, 1989 with the following conditions : 1 . A PUD contract will be drafted which will contain all of the conditions of approval and will be recorded against Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 and Outlot A of Market Square 2 . The applicant will vacate a portion of the West 78th Street right-of-way and a revised plan must be submitted accom- modating the future right turn lane and acceleration lane on West 78th Street. 3 . Outlot A will only be accessed internally and it will not be permitted any separate access points from West 78th Street or Market Boulevard. 4 . The 8 foot wide bituminous pathway along with West 78th Street will be accommodated by a trail easement and the applicant will be responsible for installing the 8 foot wide bituminous pathway as part of the site development. The development contract will require financial sureties and construction plans to be approved by the City Engineer and City Council . 5. The pedestrian walkway through the parking area shall be extended to the sidewalk on Market Boulevard. 6 . The site plan shall be revised to show how truck docking at the Lawn and Sports store will be able to manuever out of the site. 7. The site plan shall be revised to remove the drive-thru being represented at the northern portion of the shopping center. The PUD contract will state that a drive-thru will not be • permitted at that location. 8. An additional trash enclosure shall be provided to accom- modate the northern portion of the shopping center and addi- tional individual trash enclosures within the parking areas will be prohibited. The trash enclosures shall be surrounded by earth berm or opaque fence or a combination of both at a 6 foot height. 9 . The parking lot lights shall be reduced to 25 feet in height and they shall match the design of the downtown lighting. 1 Market Square Commercial PUD September 20 , 1989 Page 10 10 . The outdoor storage areas shall be surrounded by at least a 6 foot high concrete block fence to match the building material used for the shopping center. 11. Curbing shall be painted yellow as indicated on the drawing as part of the Fire Inspector' s Memo dated September 13 , 1989. No parking fire lanes shall be installed as indicated by the dots on the Fire Inspector' s plan and the addition of two fire hydrants as shown on the Fire Inspector' s plan shall be provided. 12. The existing 10" PVC sanitary sewer shall be placed in an oversized ductile iron casing which clearly extends 10 feet beyond the limits of any building, footings or sidewalk with manholes built at each end of the casing to provide access. The sewer main must be properly blocked encased in the ductile iron casing, i .e. grouted or pea rock. 13 . Gate valves shall be added to the watermain and a new utility easement will be required for the new 10" watermain line. 14 . The developer will be responsible for the extension of the existing 72 inch storm sewer along the south property line and the plans should be modified to note that this storm sewer work is the responsibility of the developer. The line must be installed prior to the issuance of any building per- mits to resolve existing drainage problems . 15. The applicant shall provide drainage calculations to deter- mine the adequacy of the catch basin and storm sewer system. 16 . Additional details concerning roof drainage must be submitted for Engineering Department approval. 17 . The grading plans shall be revised to clarify the impact of the grading along the Soo Line Railroad tracks and shall show how the grading contours will match the existing grades on the railroad property. 18 . Berming around the site shall be confined within the property and not within street right-of-way, specifically along Monterey Drive. 19 . The applicant shall provide additional evergreens along the south lot line of the property to screen the loading docks for the hardware store and the grocery store. 20. Conifer shrubs shall be provided and ornamental shade trees _ shall be planted along the building facade to break up the massing of shrubs and the compact viburnum shall be used in lieu of the regular viburnum as proposed. Market Square Commercial PUD — September 20 , 1989 Page 11 21. Additional deciduous trees shall be included in the parking islands just north of the grocery store. — 22. Each individual wall sign shall have to receive a sign permit and each tenant shall only be permitted two wall signs ( this includes the Super Value store using the Super Value logo) . The covenants will include the veterinary clinic (Lot 2 , Block 1 ) and Outlot A. The applicant will submit signed covenants which regulate type, size and location of the wall _ signage. The covenants should also state how much space per tenant will be permitted for each wall sign. 23 . The proposed monument signs will match what is proposed as — part of the plans and will not be increased in size. The entire site will be limited to two of the monument signs as proposed. The individual stores will be permitted to be — listed on the monument sign as proposed but the lettering will not be permitted to be interchangable such as a reader board. Outlot A and Lot 2, Block 1 shall not be permitted — separate pylon or monument signage. 24 . Roof sections will be provided by the applicant to verify that the roof section is for the entire length of the — building. The city will not accept a false front. 25. Sections shall be provided to show the relationship between the development and Highway 5 . The sections shall verify that the majority of the roof will be hidden by vegetation and grade change and roof equipment, storage areas, loading docks, etc. will not be visible from Hwy. 5 and if they are additional screening shall be provided. 26 . The final plat shall provide drainage and utility easements and cross easements shall be provided over Lot 1 , Block 1, for Lot 2, Block 1 and Outlot A. ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission minutes dated August 2 , 1989 . 2 . City Council minutes dated August 28 , 1989 . 3 . Memo from Jo Ann Olsen to Market Square Partnership. 4 . Illustration of acceleration lane and right turn lane on W. 78th Street. — 5. Memo from Mark Littfin dated September 13 , 1989. 6 . Letter from BRW dated September 14 , 1989 . 7 . Letter from Jim Lasher dated September 12, 1989 . 8 . Letter from Fred Hoisington dated September 12 , 1989. 9 . Memo from Steve Kirchman dated August 27 , 1989 . 10. Plans dated September 11, 1989 . Planning Commission Meeting August 2, 1989 - Page 59 — change other than I just don' t know that Forest Street ' s the right place but I think 2 more weeks might make it go through City Council with a little bit more support than the neighbors and less time overall . Is there a motion? Wildermuth moved , Erhart seconded to table Subdivision Request #89-8 as shown on plans dated July 20, 1989. All voted in favor and the motion carried . NEW BUSINESS: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - COMMERCIAL - CONCEPT PLAN FOR A COMMERCIAL CENTER ON 1.2 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED BG, GENERAL BUSINESS AND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WEST 78TH STREET AND MARKET BOULEVARD, MARKET SQUARE PARTNERSHIP. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Conrad: Okay, thanks Jo Ann. Here it is five to twelve. We've been here for 6 hours and it' s not fair for us or for you but why don' t you make a presentation at this late hour. We want to treat it fairly at this point in time but unfortunatley we' ve kept you up until midnight . It' s not our (( choice. Jim Winkles : Thank you. My name is Jim Winkles. I 'm with MarCor properties and I 'm part of the team that ' s going to be, put together to do this project . I think tonight in fact what we 'd like to accomplish is just a couple things very quickly recognizing the hour here too is one, to begin with, we want to just talk very briefly about the PUD process . Secondly, we want to talk to you very briefly about the plan which are two parts. One' s a site plan and one' s the building plans . Really what we want to try and do is just get your ideas on the plans. We' re on a very fast track schedule that we' ve put together with Fred Hoisington and Jim Lashes and with Jo Ann. It ' s a schedule that' s ambitious but at the same time is one that we feel that I think, I don' t know if you ' ve received a copy of that yet or not but if not, we'd certainly like to get one of those in your hands also . What we' re trying to accomplish is to create a shopping center that has been talked about for quite a while in the town. The property being just south of where we are right now. It would in fact include a grocery anchored center which we have heard for some time now is probably the number one shopping experience that people seem to want around this general area . In fact, Cooper ' s SuperValu would be the lead tenant or anchor tenant in that project . It' s a project that' s been talked about for a long time. It' s a project that we recently, in the last several weeks have been spending a lot of time with Jo Ann and Fred and Jim Lasher talking about the ultimate design. I guess I would agree with Jo Ann, I think we' ve made a lot of progress in a relatively short period of time. 7 We have been to the HRA and showed them just a concept basis also. We've got a whole series of steps to go here through so we' re trying to get to everybody that' s going to have some type of review over this project. PUD wise , when we started talking to staff , it became very clear that there' s # I MOB Planning Commission Meeting August 2, 1989 - Page 60 — really not an ordinance, there' s not a vehicle within the City Code right now to allow or permit this type of development. Much as there is in othe _ cities where there are this type of shopping center . There didn' t seem to be a good one ordinance that we could go to that would say this would work-- really well in this particular situation. We looked at the rezonings. We looked at variances. We looked at the PUD' s and it was kind of the consensus of staff and really it was staff' s direction that the PUD seemed to be the best route. That' s why we at least are trying to go about it in that fashion. I think within that concept we ' re trying to show a development that will include a multiple number of buildings. Not just one shopping center but also some outlots and then you get into how do you wor with traffic flow. How do you work with parking and where do you put lot lines and all those sort of things. We don' t know all the buildings that will go on there yet. We know the main shopping center . We don' t know a13- the 1pthe outlot pads and what will happen there. We know from experience, looking around , that those things will happen. We just don' t know how they' ll happen or what they' ll be but tonight what we'd like to do, since it is getting late, Todd Kristoferson and Bill Brisley from AmCon are here and Todd will review the site plan and Bill will review the building plans. You've got one set of elevations. Staff said they had some concerns about that. We 've gone back and we' ve met with the staff and Fred and Jim again as I said and we have a couple of things to show you tonight to try to start generating some ideas with what we hope we can then arrive at something that we all kind of mutually agree upon so we can put that in — final form and get that into staff within the next 2 weeks so we can move forward in our schedule. Our schedule that we want to hit is being under construction in October . So with that , I guess I 'd ask Todd if he could _ run over some of the things. Again, we know that when we come back to you roughly in about a month I believe it is Jo Ann, if we hit all the schedult and we' re back on your agenda, then we' ll have renderings and things like that so you can see things a little clearer but at least for the time beinr- we' re trying to get some ideas right now in terms of what your general thoughts are and start putting things in perspective for everybody here. Todd Kristoferson: I think that the site plan that you got in your packet is a little bit difference than this one. We made some changes since that was submitted. We' ve been meeting with Jo Ann and Brad and Jim Lash the last 6 weeks and initially we started out with the plan that was, the concept was the same but the parking and the traffic was a little bit different . What we' ve ended up with I think is a real nice plan. We made a lot of adjustments in working with staff. On the setbacks, we' ve — increased the setback from the property line now. The two sides where the streets are, we've increased those to 25 feet to get additional landscaping and berming in those areas . We adjusted our driveways to get better traffic flow on the entries with the median here so traffic will cross in front where we want to use some stacking . We made some adjustments also front of the stores here. In this area here, we initially had thought of the concept of 2 aisles of parking in front of these buildings. Now what we've done is put one row of parking up against the building and then separated the next level of parking with curb and gutter and a 'median type thing to get a little better traffic flow through there. So we think we' ve- kind of worked this thing , little things here and there that' s kind of worked it' s way toward a real workable site plan. We' ve got a few more Planning Commission Meeting August 2, 1989 - Page 61 17 things that we've come up with in the last couple of meetings that we haven' t addressed on here. One of those is a sidewalk which has been suggested along Market Blvd. which would tie into I believe some existing sidewalks on this corner. That ' s something that if we agree to do, I think that' s a good idea . We' ll incorporate that into our next submittal . Then also there's this hatched out area running through the parking area. What we plan to do with that is dress it up a little and create some landscaping and some curved islands with the sidewalk through the middle to hide that walkway through the parking lot into the sidewalk on Market Blvd . . Conrad: Where's the sidewalk? The walkway that you' re talking about. Todd Kristoferson: It' s this hatched out area in here that goes through the parking lot. It was a suggestion I think of staff that people that park so far out wouldn' t have to walk through all the cars. That there'd be some walkway to go through there. Conrad : Is it an elevated walkway or is it just marked? Todd Kristoferson: Well it would all be on grade with the parking but I think what we' re envisioning now is some curb and gutter that separates the walkway from the parking and the sides and then has ramps down where the walkway goes through so you ' re stepping up and be able to push carts through there or for handicap people will be able to go through there. ._� Erhart : Why do some people put the rows running from the buildingand in your case you have the rows going 90 degrees from the buildingthen Although I guess because it' s an L building , there really is no. Todd Kristoferson: Part of that is the main parking in here is . . . Erhart : This is where the grocery store is? Todd Kristoferson: Yes. The parking layout in that area is pretty much driven by what works for the grocery store . We' ve also made the stalls wider than the City ordinance requires . it cuts down the number of spaces. If there ' s a problem we could always restripe the lot and cut our sizes down but we'd like to start out with little bit wider spacing. It makes it a little bit easier to get and out with cars and groceries. Wildermuth: What's up there in the open space between 12: 00 and 3 : 00? Todd Kristofer:son : That ' s the outlot area that Jim was referring to . What we'd like to do is with the approval of this and PUD concept apprpoval of having additional buildings on there. Probably a couple of buildings in addition to the vet site. We don' t know what those uses would be right now so we don ' t know how they would lay out and how the parking would be but we'd like to have it as part of this whole packet, I would like to have it approved that we could come in later with 1 or 2 more buildings on those sites that would have adequate parking and possibly share parking in a cross easement type thing and share parking agreements with the main shopping center. That' s all I 've got. So without any other comments, I guess this is pretty close to what we would be coming in with. Planning Commission Meeting August 2, 1989 - Page 62 — 47 Jim Winkles : With the site plan , the initial building that would go up is about 78,000 square feet in size. With that then there's also the expansion space that you have for the SuperValu which is about another '- 15, 000 square feet. Then we also are, as you can see in terms of the outlot, that' s all in one building . And you have one outlot up there right now that at least programed, at least there' s a significant amount of — interest to put in a veterinary clinic. The remaining open space would be used for other free standing buildings and that could be one building, it could be two buildings . I supposed it could be three. I guess we' ve — envisioned that to be two other buildings. We don' t know what those other uses would be there other than we do know that even a SuperValu there' s a requirement that that area has to be self sufficient in a sense of parking. SuperValu will not allow, by their lease with us, will not allow us to put in some use on that site that will generate more traffic than what by ordinance they would have to provide right on their site. I guess that' s probably consistent too with what we've been talking to Jo Ann about and — some of the staff people that in a sense we can ' t overbuild the site by putting uses on there that are inconsistent in terms of their hours or anything else. But again , what we' re asking for , we' ll be asking for in _ the PUD, is a . concept approval for that other outlot space recognizing tha there will be some other space. Recognizing that it would still have to conform, would have to come back into you for further subdivision for review of the site plans and building plans for those specific buildings — f when they' re known . When we start construction, if we don' t know what' s going to go there, it' s simply going to be landscaped. It will be landscaped and be green area until such time as that became known. Whether_ that was 1 year or 5 years down the road. It would just be landscaped until that point in time. Maybe Bill could come up and talk about the building itself and then maybe after that we could take your comments . Bill Brisley: In working with Mr . Dasher. and Mr . Hoisington considerably, we revised what . . . to the most recent version here. The chief difference here is that down at the end in the corner we have an identify keyot sort — of thing that the City already has in several places along the roadway and similiar in it' s form and structure . Our original design called for a dry bed or a stucco type material on most of the center . We' ve revised that _ now to be stucco only on the parts of the buildings that are large. The large anchor tenants so to speak. We have now in the sign band above the general retail , a wood 4 inch lap siding . Whether it' s cedar or redwood, something like that. All along and I don' t know if it was clear to anyone,— the base that you see under the windows goes all the way through and all around the back of the building is a rock faced concrete block to give a foundation or pediment sort of base look to it . We' ve soften the canopy from a metal continuous canopy to an opaque , non-translucent canvas canopy that are individual over shops . Sometimes combined , sometimes not to give a feeling that, what we' ve all been striving for is an old town look. To have as much variety in old town apperance as is possible in a single — building. This is one large building. It' s hard to break it up as much aE we have but I think we' re getting there to a point that it now'is within that strived for concept of old town for street front. One of the things — that you might notice that all the buildings have 2 or 3 levels of . . .at the tops of their walls. They go all the way around the back. I think all of i — Planning Commission Meeting August 2, 1989 - Page 63 17 these elements including the quarricos in front of the main tenants I think all meet or contribute to this individuality of these different buildings even though they are one building . We do have and I don' t have an overhead of the handout that you got prior to this one. It' s one that we, it was sort of the Version C. If the one that were mailed was A, this is B. The one with the peaked roofs or hip roofs over the large anchor tenant is a version that we' re looking at and pricing right now. We don' t have absolute go ahead on it with the contractor yet but it's the one that possibly is our ultimate design. What you' re looking at here on this one are just blow-ups of these different areas. You get a larger scale. If there's any questions? Jim Winkles: The kind of comments we received from the staff were that they were striving towards the old town type of character. Doing a couple things. Using the different building heights . As you can see on that by different masses on there. They talked about materials and they wanted us to use a combination of material rather than an all this or an all that type of structure. They wanted to start introducing different materials so hence the rock faced block and I always say glass and the stucco and the wood and some of the other elements , they' re all attempting to create and even the canvas awnings, things like that are all an attempt to try to generate or create this feeling of different buildings even though it 's one huge big building . Also introducing all the different elements in terms of material into the thing too so that's what we' ve been trying to do and I think tonight what we heard from the consultants just prior to this meeting was that they said yes, they think we' re getting there towards doing that. It' s hard to tell , a big building like this , you try to do a rendering or not a rendering but an elevation like this, it' s very difficult to see all the detailing in a building like this . Things by it ' s nature, because it' s so big , get very small and it ' s hard to talk about a lot of the detailing around the edge of the roof and how the wood and canvas and everything comes together and the use of colors and what all happens out there. But I think what we ' ve tried to do is meet staff and say okay, that's the kind of look they want, that ' s what we' ll try to design into this thing . I think that we' ve pretty much done that . When we come to the next meeting , you ' ll see a rendering . A 3D rendering and in color you' ll be able to start picking up on the all details we' re talking about because right now, I look at it too and it looks flat and it ' s hard to see the detail how things go in and out and colors and how they' re going to relate and use of materials. At least that ' s, I guess what I 'm trying to convey to you some of the things that are going to be happening. You' ll be seeing that you can ' t see off of a black and white just elevation drawing which doesn' t give you any kind of perspective to the thing here. Conrad : You ' re certainly heading in the tight direction. I think your Version A was not acceptable at all , in my mind. What I ' ve seen tonight is certainly getting there . It would , and I know this is all economics as we play with store fronts but this is getting to be something that I think the residents would be real proud of. I would hope that that would be able to be worked in, factored into the equation. The economic equation. You've got a huge building . You ' ve got to break it up and I think the consultants are telling you some of those ways to do it and you' re paying attention and that ' s good . Just to reinforce what they' re telling you, you' re going the Planning Commission Meeting August 2, 1989 - Page 64 — right direction. That' s critical that Let' s you go. . . Let s just open it up fo. anybody' s comments. Tonight is the night for comments. They' re asking fo.. this area to be considered a PUD. Actually they' re changing zoning on it and in my mind this is a far better use of the land than what we had it — zoned for . I 'm not trying to bias you Planning Commission but on the othe: hand, I 'm looking at the clock and I 'm seeing it's 12: 15. I 'm trying to be a little bit expediate here. I just think that the overall use is far — superior to what I had envisioned in this general business district which was a mish mash of stuff . That doesn ' t mean we' re not going to push the general business district down further to the west but this is a terrific — improvment over what I perceived was going to go into this parcel of land and I 'm not too concerned about some of the impervious surface ratios and whatever . I think staff' s done a nice job of detailing some of these things. Jim, what further comments do you have Jim? — Wildermuth: The exterior appearance is headed in the right direction. Something with a spire on it just doesn' t seem to be appropriate for — Chanhassen Lawn and Sport but I think the design evolution is heading in the right direction. I 'd be curious to know what, pursue this PUD idea a little further and see what the City would be giving and what the City _ would be receiving. Batzli : Not having ever I don' t think truly considered what could go in here, I guess I don' t share your total enthusiasm for this being a PUD. — Looking at the PUD ordinance, I suppose this may fit efficiency, density and district integration but it certainly doesn' t meet several of the other categories . Conrad : Let me respond quickly and I normally don' t do it but basically what it was going to be, this area was going to be zoned as a building , parking lot , building , parking lot , building , you know it was definitely — going to be a place for a car center . It was going to be a real mish mash. It was originally thought of Brian of being , what we couldn' t put down into the CBD area , the overflow went out here and that was going to be lots of — little units . They could have been restaurants or car dealers or whatever and I just personally had a real problem with that type of, it seemed to me that we didn ' t need that kind of commercial development. So basically _ you' re right. Going under PUD gets rid of some of the restrictions and gives them a little bit more property to deal with to put in parking lots . You' re right. Batzli : I guess the two biggest questions I had , I agree with the comments that I think the architecture is, Hike this much better than the proposal that we had in our plans . The other question was this open section. When — the impervious surface was calculated , did it take into account that portion? Olsen : I don ' t believe that did , no. — Todd Kristoferson: The calculation that we did assumed that that would be — building . That wasn' t counting on that outlot area'. Planning Commission Meeting August 2, 1989 - Page 65 47 Batzli : So you either took it out of your calculation or you included it as being all impervious? . Jim Winkles : The calculations were based on that area being developed . Batzli : Totally impervious? Todd Kristoferson : Not totally. Bill Brisley: There' s green areas in there. Islands and some landscaping. Olsen: He's asking like a 80% or. . . Jim Winkles : We envision two buildings for a total of about another 12,000 square feet of space. . . The parking necessary to accommodate a. . . Batzli : The plan that we have is changed , as I understand , for the amount of green space that you have in there currently. Is that right? You say there 's been a change in regards to the setbacks with more landscaping and things like that in there? Jim Winkles : Yes . The plan has changed . Some of those have moved and . . . Batzli : The one thing I didn' t understand Jo Ann on this parking that' s — shown in the dotted lines. A comment in your report was that it would be open or green or grassy until you needed it and then it' s going to be a parking lot. Olsen : It ' s shown as future parking and when we were first discussing , it was going to possibly only be used . . . Jim Winkles : While it ' s necessary for when and if people could expand . . . 15,000 square feet for the grocery store which they' re planning, until it' s built, that area , that front needs to be landscaped . What we ' re showing on the plan, we show you the ultimate size of the building and the ultimate parking area . Olsen: One thing that we initially discussed was that if it was even found with the expansion that some of that parking area would not necessarily have to be open all the time. That there could be some creative way of developing it so it still might look like. . . Batzli : Was the impervious surface - calculation calculated with the grocery store expansion and the additional parking in place? Jim Winkles : Yes . • Batzli : So there ' s 17% green space on this plan with that development up here? / Jim Winkles : With the total development , yes . Batzli : I don ' t know where you' re squeezing it all but okay. Planning Commission Meeting August 2, 1989 - Page 66 — Conrad : What do you think? Are you concerned about the PUD? They would like to hear it. What would you like to change? Green space? — Batzli : Yes. Conrad: Bump it up? — Batzli : Yes. Conrad : What would you do? Batzli : I don' t know. Tear down paradise and put up a parking lot. Conrad: Okay. Batzli : Well I should say this. It' s not a concern as long as the grocer store doesn' t expand and that additional parking doesn ' t go in probably bu then I think you' ve got a lot that' s a parking lot. Big parking lot. But it's going to be developed. Wildermuth : But all the businesses are going to take a big parking lot. Batzli : Sure. Well you' ve got a lot of businesses that are going to — require a lot of traffic and a lot of people moving in and out . I agree, PUD is a good way to handle it but I don' t know, we' ve talked a lot recently about PUD is a special deal . We ' re getting something in return. — It sounds to me like the only thing we' re getting here is that we avoid getting a mish mash. Conrad: That' s right. — Batzli : So we ' re not getting anything positive, we' re avoiding a negative and I don' t know that I necessarily agtee with that kind of philosophy for — a PUD. Wildermuth: But there' s a lot of potential things. _ Conrad: There' s a lot more give and take in some of the designs . Wildermuth: There will be some good construction materials or higher grade-- construction materials . Conrad : Yes , and you have that kind of leverage. _ Batzli : Are we leveraging? Conrad : At 25 after , no . We' re just giving them our comments right now. • Erhart: Brian, this is general business. It ' s not central business •L district . This is general and that district requires how much green — normally? Planning Commission Meeting August 2, 1989 - Page 67 Olsen: I believe it' s 70%. Erhart: 70% impervious and they' re looking to go 83%. I think the PUD is a great idea to be applied here. I think the area needs it. It' s truly a commercial area . It' s almost the central business district but I wouldn' t favor changing to that because as it's zoned, it gives us some leverage here to work on the architectural and the landscaping of the 17% or maybe it ends up 12% or something so I think it's a great opportunity for us to get some leverage on this thing . I 'm a little curious on who is it within the City, who is it on the city side that evaluates these proposals from an architectural point of view? Is that us Jo Ann? In this whole downtown redevelopment, don' t we have. . . Olsen : The HRA also reviewed this plan that we' re talking about . Erhart: But BRW has no role in evaluating architectural? Olsen : We' re using Jim Lasher in that capacity, and also with Fred and then myself and we' re the ones who are really stating what we'd like to see in addition to what normally they would give. Erhart: Hoisington group? Okay, so we do have someone professionally sitting on our side evaluating these groups? Olsen: Yes. Erhart : So the process was when they came in with , AmCon came in with this first pass, Fred had the same reaction that we did I assume? Good because I think if the first pass had any serious , I guess if we took the first pass seriously I 'd be surprised. I 'd be questioning whether we really had a way of handling the whole downtown thing so I 'm encouraged to know that that was rejected out of hand. And we' re going the right direction here but I just can' t imagine a development this big with a bunch of flat roofs quite honestly from an architectural standpoint. I think it absolutely needs some roofs on some of these spaces to make it workable. What it ' s going to look like in a few years if it ' s totally flat is it ' s just going to look like a big Kenny' s and I think weren ' t you up here Brad trying to , aren' t you working at trying to improve Kenny' s? Is that you? Brad Johnson: No, that' s the City. Olsen: That ' s HRA. Erhart : Someone . I mean it ' s impossible. You ' ve got a flat roof building and the story was that we couldn ' t add anything on the roof for fire reasons or whatever . Olsen: Building Code. Snow capacity. Erhart : Well then how come these guys can do it? Olsen: They' re building a whole new structure underneath it. Planning Commission Meeting August 2, 1989 - Page 68 1 - Erhart : Oh, because it would require some structural , okay. Anyway, I absolutely think at a minimum, this is a minimum that it' s got to have. I just can ' t imagine having that much flat roof and so I 'd like to not only _ emphasize Jo Ann and Fred, I guess he finally gave up the ghost tonight. Olsen: I told him to go home. Erhart: Is to take a pretty hard line on this architectural stuff . I 'm willing to give the 17% or give the 13% up because it' s truly a commercial area . It' s going to be cars and asphalt but let' s make the buildings look_ neat. Let' s make it look like some of these nice developments you see in Phoenix . Wildermuth : Burger Brothers off of. . . — Erhart: Yes. Hopefully not that dense but that kind of thing . Olsen : They' re using that shopping center as an example for the applicants. Wildermuth: There ' s another new one called Woodlake in Kohler , Wisconsin that will just knock your socks off and I don ' t think the construction is that expensive. It' s the cut stone or block. Exposed aggregate block. Erhart: That' s interesting because that' s the one I had in mind. In fact I mentioned it when someone was saying what are they going to put there, I told Ladd , I said that' s where Burger Brothers goes. Secondly, I think I ' ll be anxious to see it when you come back with the colored one with all the nice roofs on it and I ' ll be very anxious to see the landscaping plan. What do we do with this 170-200. Let' s get some trees in theta. I don ' t think anybody' s going to use this thing for a park but it is going to set — an image for the downtown area . Let' s get some nice trees and bearing in there. So that' s my comments . Conrad : I think it' s a good route to fly. The back of the building . The building that's, Monterey Drive. So we have the back of the center facing that street . What, do we have one building over there right now so it ' s — really not the best of all worlds . Olsen : No , that was one of our problems with it was the fact that it is facing another street and it' s acting as the back, like an alley almost . — Conrad : Why don ' t we close the road down? Erhart: Make it an alley? Conrad : It ' s just really not , what does it mean for folks on the other side that want to build , for the development to the west of that road Jo — Ann? Olsen : That ' s what we' re trying to make them provide. Additional — landscaping and to screen it. I know that they want to also use that as a view or a front . Not a front but for signage and advertising of their Planning Commission Meeting August 2, 1989 - Page 69 17 stores but we' re coming from the viewpoing that that should be considered like as a service area and screened as such and try to reduce the impact to the lots across the street as much as possible. Conrad: I think that' s the thing I don ' t like about it but I don' t know that there's a solution to that particular problem. Erhart: Just have another shopping center facing the opposite direction on the opposite side. Conrad: Back side, what ' s the building materials of the back side? Jim Winkles: We haven' t worked that our completely yet but again, we' ll be using some of the same materials that we have in the front . Carrying some things around. The same type of material . Conrad : Concept for signage on the side? Jim Winkles: Some of the people, particularly the Supervalu and some of the other people along on the south side of the project do want , very important for them to be signed towards TH 5. On the back side, the other people, I 'm not sure. They may or may not want signing . We know that we' ll be developing an overall sign plan for the entire center which will be part of everything else that we bring in too. —C Conrad: I don ' t know that signage will be bad over. there. Again, trying to get away from it looking like a warehouse . Anything that makes that street look a little bit more appealing that the back side of a . . . Jim Winkles : We know it' s going to have to be well landscaped back there too. Create something back there that ' s not just going to be the back side of a building so the materials have to look a little bit better . The landscaping has to look a little bit better and the whole thing has to be dressed up a little bit. Conrad : Will there be loading docks back there? Jim Winkles: We really will only have a couple places with loading docks. Conrad : Really? How do they service the stores? Jim Winkles: Many of the smaller stores for the most part feed right through their front door . They get vans and things like that. The other ones will pull up to the back door . They won' t have loading docks but they' ll have overhead doors and just tear doors but there' s really only Lawn and Sports and the hardware will each have a loading dock. Other than that, it would just be rear doors . As I say, many of the small businesses , they would just simply load through the back door or they load tight through the front door early in the morning with vans or very small trucks . Conrad: I 'm not wild about loading through the front . Planning Commission Meeting August 2, 1989 - Page 70 ( - Jim Winkles : Unfortunately that happens in these kinds of businesses. Whether you get a bakery or some other very small store, materials come in very, very small trucks and they get there early in the mornings and _ they' re in and out. Or the back door . It' s just whatever is most convenient for them to run in and out real quickly. I think any of the larger deliveries would come to the back and they go into the back to deliver it . — Conrad : Like a liquor store. Where would they go? Jim Winkles: They would go in the back. They go in the back because they' ll take, they don' t need a loading dock height but they would have a double door. Typically they' re situated with a double door in back. What they do is most of them, they' ll have it set up so the coolers are going C.' bein back which gets into the whole marketing concept of how you sell liquor . People go to the back of the coolers and they literally will load right from the truck right into the coolers . So it will be a walk-in — cooler . The truck driver will actually load their coolers for them in man - cases so they'd load in the back. Right through just a double door . Conrad : Okay. I don' t think I have anything else to add . I appreciate your comments. Jim Winkles : Your comments are all well taken . We understand what lies — ahead of us and we do appreciate you not tabling us . Conrad : If we make you stay up until 11: 30, we' re going to listen to you._ Erhart: How many acres is it really? Jim Winkles : It ' s about, I think 11. 2 acres . — Conrad: I think recapping. The greenery. Trying to make the parking lot look smaller than it really is . The back side , I think we ' re interested i and then the architectural . I think of all the priorities , we would lean towards a PUD concept , giving up some kind of green space or whatever , I think you ' ve just got to help us improve the exterior . I think you have — the concept and I think that' s probably our top priority. Erhart: When' s it going to be done? Jim Winkles : When' s it going to be done? We want to be back on your next agenda in terms of process wise. We'd like to start mid-October and get the buildings up. It ' s a good size building so it' s not going to be built— over night so we'd really be looking at about a May 1-May 15th. Possibly earlier . Again , the other thing , to have everything done, it might be estimated , there might be some things and people moved in before that but to get everything all done and put together , landscaping and the whole works , sometime around May 1. Thank you very much. City Council Meeting - August 28, 1989 Councilman Workman: You mean to completion September, 1990. That's not going to cause any problems with TH 5? Gary Warren: No. In fact that would coincide with what we would want to see as far as the completion of 184th and Dell Road intersection as a part of TH 5. So I would say it would be very similar to what would happen here on West 78th Street detachment. We'll be working both those projects at the same time next year. Resolution #89-99: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to accept the feasibility study for Lake Drive East and 184th Avenue Improvanent Project 89-6 and call for a public hearing to be set for October 9, 1989. All voted in favor and the motion carried. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW, MARKET SQUARE PUD COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER, SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WEST 78TH STREET AND MARKET BLVD., MARKET SQUARE PARTNERSHIP. Jo Ann Olsen: Just real briefly. The Council is just: to act whether or not they feel a PUD is the appropriate process for the applicant to be going through. The Planning Commission did recommend that a PUD is the right form for the site plan so it's just really a concept plan at this time and they're going through the more detailed review. Mayor Chaniel: What does a PUD do for us other than the fact that... Jo Ann Olsen: Well it allows us to require additional amenities that we normally wouldn't have really the authority to ask for. Additional landscaping. Additional architectural design. It's giving us a lot of power with them, leeway with working on negotiating. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. I just wanted the public to understand that. Councilman Johnson: But at the same time for that we're granting basically variances to the zoning ordinance without the variance process. It is one method, the only method really available for getting a variance for parts of the zoning without showing a hardship. It's kind of a horse trading maneuver. Years ago we didn't do very goad at it. We're doing a lot better now though. It used to be a one way trade. The City never got that much but a new ordinance, new people. f Councilman Boyt: And it takes a four-fifths vote. Mayor Q- niel: Yes. That's a requirement. Otherwise it's a simple majority. Councilman Workman: Can you summarize for us what we're getting with the PUD and what we're not? Jo Ann Olsen: Well we're still working on it so I can't tell you exacly what -IL_ we're getting. Councilman Workman: How can we approve it then? 65 City Council Meeting - August 28, 1989 Jo Ann Olsen: This is just the concept plan. Whether or not really a PUD would be the way to go. They are going through a more detailed plans right at this — time. Like next week, a week from this Wednesday, the Planning Commission will be reviewing the development plan which is more detailed. Like a site plan review but some of the things we're getting is like a pedestrian walkway through the parking lot. The landscaping. Additional landscaping. Signage that we want rather than just your basic wall signage. We're getting additional amenities for the architecture of the building. We're getting sane new designs _ that they were going to propose and better materials. We've got in addition to staff we have BRW, Gary Ehret and Jim Lasher is working on it and Fred Hoisington so we have a big team that's really working on trying to make it a good plan. We're still reviewing exactly what it is we want but getting closer to that goal. Councilman Workman: So tonight we either grant a PUD or we don't? — Jo Ann Olsen: No. You're just approving the sketch plan with the basic concept. Councilman Johnson: What are they asking for in this PUD? Jo Ann Olsen: What are they asking for? Increase in impervious surface. Councilman Boyt: That's them here right? Jo Ann Olsen: Yes Brad was here. (:- Brad Johnson: I think you've got the best version of the plan in front of you. You also have a version that's a, I think you've got the one... — Jo Ann Olsen: No they don't. They just have the sketch plan so that version's not very good. — Brad Johnson: The process we have to go through on a PUD is we come here and we got quite a bit of input fram the Planning Commission and we met with the staff _ probably 2 or 3 times and they translated the feelings of the Planning Commission into a letter and we've been adjusting our plans and resubmitted those about what? A week ago, to the Planning Department and then we'll have a hearing on that on the 6th of September. I guess what I'd like to hear from you, basically as I understand it and I have not done a large shopping center now has there been one done in this community but there is no real zoning that fits, other than our CBD probably. The typical coverage of a shopping center and normally the shopping center, because it's a large parcel, we're in what? A BG or general business district, which was, as I understand it, from the Planning Commission, designated that primarily for small lots and anticipated the lots to be 1 to 2 acres and there you need a lot of green area as a — percentage of the whole thing to just meet setback requirements. A normal shopping center, the feedback I'm getting from the shopping center developers, when you get into the 5 and 10 acre, has a 80o to 90% land coverage. The ones you see at the shop, you know Southdale or over here at TH 4 and TH 5 or down at, they're all much larger because they have a lot more parking requirements than you're used to seeing yet you have+the normal amount of green space. You have the 25 foot setback from the roads all the way around the property and things like that so I think that's our major area where we have some, where we 66 City Council Meeting - August 28, 1989 went to the PUD. Had we asked for a rezoning to a CBD, which is adjacent to that, we would not have had any of those requirements but on the other hard then you'd have to worry about us because we'd have a lot of, CBD grants us a lot of flexibility that longterm probably the City would not want to grant tis so using the PUD we're able to achieve possibly those things we need on coverage and you're able to maintain a control because we just don't have a zoning set up in this, as I understand it. BFdN guys are here. This is kind of a normal way of handling this problem would be through the PUD process. And just seeing how it's working from Jo Ann's point of view, we've increased I believe the asethetic appearance. The Planning Commission did not like the way the project initially showed up in your drawings there and we've changed that quite a bit. We've gone with some peaked roofs and we've changed the front elevations quite a bit and gone with a lot softer feeling and the next time you see it, they'll — have all new colors and it will look like a nice thing. I think it's premature quite honestly to go into detail on that because we don't have the real kind of drawings you need to see that kind of thing but you've all seen the, wouldn't you say Jo Ann, we've done some improvement on the buildings and it's been a big change. I guess that's what is supposed to happen during this process. That was the give and take. I know we've added $100,000.00 or so to the cost in the process. We do have some engineering. It's a tough site to engineer and Gary's working on that right now. I think we've done quite a few things. We've got�a sidewalk now that runs around the whole thing and pretty soon you'll actually be able to walk across the tracks to the pond and turn left and go to the Amoco. It's going to happen and I think all those are good things. There's a walking path through the center of the. You know it's interesting. The retailers would like to see one huge parking lot with no trees, no nothing. So you've got on one hand our customer who don't like things that way and I don't think the developer wants to see it that way and it doesn't look good that way but from a maintenance point of view and people ramming into things, they scorn to want everything cleared out. Mayor Chmiel: In just looking at your landscaping on the plans, and I realize this is just... One of the points I want to bring out is that we make sure in doing that landscaping that we keep the street openings clear so visibility is, from a safety aspect because some of these intersections we've got now, you can't see left or right and you have to creep out into the intersection before you can really see. So one of those I think we should pay pretty close attention to. Brad Johnson: From our end of it, the way we'd like to see it go, as I said, there were two ways to get it done. This seems to be the one. I think this gives you the most control and I think we're comfortable with the flexibility. So far negotiations have been going fairly smoothly. It's hard to see, the only thing you really see, like you say, is the landscaping ultimately and the look of the�building�and we'll have those in color for you, which helps a lot, by the time we come back again. Mayor Chmiel: Yes. This is just preliminary and this will be back to tis. 1 Brad Johnson: Probably in a month. Councilman Johnson: What time frame are you looking at this? 67 City Council Meeting - August 28, 1989 Brad Johnson: I don't know. You never know what kind of alligator is going to leap out at you. We are, in talking to Gary Ehret earlier this evening, he — wandered around but one of the problems we're not quite sure of what the soil conditions are on the southeast corner of that site. And that soil means cost. We are up to about a 70%. A grocery store has just been increased in size and — concept to a 22,500 square foot grocery store and it could be nearing inside the size of a New Market. That has helped us a lot on the leasing. When we did Town Square we were required to have 40% pre-leased by the lending institutions _ and thanks to our tax law changes, the lack of real estate investment, we're not being required to pre-lease 70% and that's a real big difference. We've got a redevelopment agreement. If everything went smoothly, which we'll assume it won't, we could start in October sometime. We might be able to pull a grading permit in October if things go smoothly. We have about 65% to 70% pre-leased but I think I said we'd start this in about May of this year and things just don't move. As I said, the world of real estate is changing and I spent the — whole day being hammered on because the clinic isn't started yet and people just don't realize you know that this is what happens in the development business. There possibly was a subterranean pollution of the water in Chanhassen. Because of that the lenders were not going to lend to anything in Chanhassen so we spent 3 weeks going to the Pollution Control Adminstration. Clearing the name of Chanhassen with this one bank because people just don't understand it all and it's just a lot of little things. — Councilman Johnson: Just from our gas station? Brad Johnson: Yes. Not the one on 78th though. The one down on TH 5. Councilman Johnson: Oh Amoco? Brad Johnson: Yes. It's out of the blue and those ate the kinds of things that we run across. We had some other little minor changes in the clinic deal too and that could happen here but ideally we would be there in October. From the — City's point of view, I think we're moving as fast as we can. Okay? We also have a new planner now so if I have to redesign it but this is, welcome. But that's kind of where we are and ideally we start in October. If don't, but _ we're getting close. I keep saying, the only shopping center that's been started on TH 5 from Rainbow out this way isTownSquare and it's done, in the last 4 years and they've got 4 other ones they've been trying to start. And they're got 3 proposed in town here they haven' t started so hopefully this one will get started here in the next 4 to 5 months. Councilman Johnson: The one thing I don' t want to see is another HSZ where — somebody gets up there, does some preliminary grading, sets it out over the winter. Brad Johnson: Where's that? Councilman Johnson: TH 7 and TH 41. A real mess. Erosion controls isn't done and planting and seeding next spring. It's all the way caning yip to fall — already and no real progress. Brad Johnson: It's tough to do a preliminary grade on this one without _ financing on it because it's not going to be any small price. And you've got a 68 City Council Meeting - August 28, 1989 developer in AMCON that's used to working in town here, or the contractor side of it. Councilman Boyt: How much is HRA going to be involved in this? It's their property isn't it? Brad Johnson: They're helping us finance it indirectly through, we pay the taxes. They give us the money, approach to the whole thing. There are two people that are trying to relocate within the community. Bernie Hanson and the Hardware Store which is about to lose it's situation over there sooner or later. Then they approve, as you do, the site plan. They have architectural control. Just by the fact that they don't want to spend any money. They keep the right because they're supposed to do the town so they could not signourredevelopment agreement. You approve it but this is one other approval that they happen to have. If they don't like the project, they don't sign the development agreement and we don't get the funds. Councilman Boyt: It's going to be an interesting project for the new Council because you're going to get a first hand look at what it's like to design a giraffe. We have two different groups that both feel they have control over this and it becomes quite a balancing act. Brad Johnson: _ I think in this particular case they're comfortable so far so I don't, we've just got to be careful that all the bodies get it at the proper time rather than you find out we're doing something. I think we're done it. This particular plan, unlike a couple other ones we've done, has gone through all the bodies at least once already. Got the comments. We're making the changes so by the time we come back for the foumal presentation, which starts this Thursday with the HRA, everybody's had comments. Councilman Boyt: It's my understanding that the reason you couldn't put this into a central business district is because of outside storage which isn't allowed in a central business district. Is that right? Brad Johnson: You could have done it on a variance but there's other things that we might have had to ask for. Councilman Boyt: Well variances, I would guess your chances are slim. In terms of comments, when you go for a PUD, green area is important. What we're giving up here is apparently green area. Conceiveably this needs a district all by itself. It beats me but if it goes PUD, landscaping is going to have to be pretty impressive to replace that 13 or so percent hard surface that we're picking up. Brad Johnson: I think we've done that and we've also done it in the design of the building but we've already gone through one stage of negotiations to get it there. Councilman Boyt: Then the ultimate stumbling block for me, which the HRA controls. I guess that's why I see this as a particular balancing act, is the size of the grocery store. I'm glad to ccc that it's increased but what's the size of the Super Valu up in Eden Prairie? Brad Johnson: Same size. 69 City Council Meeting - August 28, 1989 Councilman Boyt: 22,500? — Brad Johnson: 25,000. Councilman Boyt: I wouldn't want to ccc us build anything smaller because I think we get into a situation in which we really don't have a grocery store but T..•e have something that's going to make it absolutely impossible for any other grocery store to cane into town. Brad Johnson: It's also expandable but the owner of the store is fighting with Super Value to make it bigger. Okay? Super Value has the purse strings and — what he wants to do is make sure that this store is competitive to any store that's on our fringe for a very personal reason. He doesn't want to die because he doesn't attract our business so he's matching this store against the Rainbow, — fran an internal. He can't get that big and still survive out here but frau the pricing and that kind of thing and he's going to match the size against the Super Value at TH 4 and TH 5. Councilman Boyt: What I recall... Brad Johnson: This is a bigger store than we used to have. — Mayor Chmiel: How many square feet? Brad Johnson: We've got 22,500 now which is almost New Market size. [-T Mayor Chmiel: I was thinking it was only 16,000 or 15,000. Jo Ann Olsen: That's with expansion the 21,000. Brad Johnson: We're expanding right away. We've already just increased the — size of the store. Councilman Boyt: As I recall when this was discussed by the HRA about a year ago, what was being proposed then was a pretty heavy subsidy by the HRA or the grocery business. Brad Johnson: If it didn't succeed. — Councilman Boyt: Are we still looking at that? Brad Johnson: Oh yes. Councilman Boyt: I'm not for that. You know, maybe I could be convinced but I _ would say at this point, I don't think the City of Chanhassen should be subsidizing a grocery store. If it can't make it, then maybe it's not the right time. Brad Johnson: Wall the City's not. It's the tax increment that is. Councilman Boyt: Well excuse me and I don't have any control of the HRA. What we have control over is the zoning and so I'm just telling you that my concerns are that the grocery store's got to be viable. 70 City Council Meeting - August 28, 1989 ir-) Brad Johnson: I guess you can attack, it's a technical issue because you can deal with the development in different clays to make it viable. This was the way the HRA wanted to make it viable. There's all different kinds of ways of making a project viable. Then a direct subsidy to the grocery store. You could write down the land and subsidize the developer which is done pretty commonly. Same difference. In this particular case they did not want the money to go to the developer. So they didn't. That was just the difference. Councilman Boyt: So they're going to put themselves in the grocery business? Brad Johnson: No. The developer would worse case because he's the one putting the money in. There's no money coming frau the HRA directly in that case. It's — -- all provided by the developer but the string is, if it's not needed, the HRA wants it to came back to their development fund. I'll go through that. You just have to start from the beginning. Mayor Qimiel: They're guaranteed x number of dollars for that given year. Over a 3 year period fran my understanding. Councilman Boyt: And maybe I'm over simplfying it to say that then the HRA is getting in the grocery business but that's what it looks like. Mayor Chmiel: When we entice something into the community, of what we don't have, and that's sort of unites the downtown is what I think they were saying. Brad Johnson: And as I said, next time we come through or maybe you could sit in on the HRA meetings and review the development group but there's a lot of rationale but this was just the approach that we decided to take. Everybody felt a grocery store was going to be successful. If it's successful, there is no subsidy the way it's set up. Councilman Boyt: Well I've kind of felt that the City is trying to force a grocery store where the market won't support it. I think that's what Cooper is saying as well. Brad Johnson: Not necessarily so. What has happened is we don't have a Driskill or a Cooper in our community that has built the grocery business over a period of time. We did have somebody who was in the grocery store where Kenny's used to be. This is philosophical but I believe this guy's a policeman now but Kenny's was originally, had it grown the way whatever that was before, it would have been a Cooper's. That family would have continued in a community this size providing groceries and had built a base and you would not have this kind of situation. Excelsior has Driskill's. Hopkins has Tait's. We had somebody but they dropped out of business and it's a million dollar investment on Cooper's part, forgetting all this other garbage we're talking about. There is no proven business here but if we don't do that, you won' t have any retail business in town because it's the main draw. It's just an interesting problem. Mayor Qhmiel: Kenny's is at the point Bill now where they are on a month to month basis. Councilman Boyt: Right, I understand they're leaving. 71 • City Council Meeting - August 28, 1989 Mayor Chmiel: And if they can find someone to take that space, they're gone. Brad Johnson: I guess what I was saying there too is that that site was, I don't know who owned that before but it was a local family but they just decided to get out of the grocery business. At the same time Driskill's was in — downtown, it's just the way it has evolved. Councilman Workman: I guess I don't like, the grocery store is my biggest concern and some of the same Bill and I are philosophically correct together. Boy that's different. We tend to with our retail in town, we have a dry cleaner in town but they aren't dry cleaning in town. We have a bakery in town, although they're not making bakery goods in town and so we'll have a grocery — store and I want it to be a grocery store. A place where we can do these things. My concern is, and looking ahead with the PUD, etc. and if we're going to be asking for all sorts of greenery, doesn't greenery in front of retail — areas kind of block it and kind of defeat the purpose of signage and everything else? It seems to me that the more greenery we pile into town and around these buildings, that people driving by won't even be able to see them. We've got _ Douglas Firs all over the place. They get pretty big don't they? Busineses who are doing business in town probably want to be seen a little bit so I guess I'm just adding my comment that somehow so we don't block it out too much and defeating you know. We have a grocery store over there behind those trees in there or or something. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Councilman Johnson. _ I want to ditto what Tom is saying there. I've said it about the original downtown planning. I thought it was going to interfere too - much. I do have concerns. I want this to be equitable. I believe a grocery — store is a vital thing for the overall growth. I hear many citizens saying they want a grocery store here in town. They don't want to seeitsome little thing. They realize they're not going to get a Rainbow or a Cuub size food store out — her_e. I do believe that it is very necessary for the continued growth of this town. I also agree that in order for anybody to be viable, they have to be seen. If we over plant to the point of blocking the view, then only the people _ that know it's there will shop there and that's not good for retailing and retailing is what these type of places are about. Mayor Chmiel: Right. Further discussion? — Councilwoman Dimler: I do agree with most of what's been said and especially with what Jay said about the grocery store. The people here in Chanhassen do — want a grocery store. I'm not sure they want to subsidize it. That would be my major concern. Also, I think that in a+PUD, from what I read here so far, I didn't sob that the City was getting enough. Or what we're getting even. I'm not real warmed up to it. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? If hearing none, I think staff's looking for direction of whether or not this should be as a PUD development for. the — commercial shopping center. Councilman Boyt: I would say there's really no choice but to come in under a PUD unless we're going to rewrite our zoning ordinance. 72 .City Council Meeting - August 28, 1989 Mayor Chmiel: Right. Very true. Okay. Is there going to be any motion? Councilman Boyt: Is there a need for one? Councilman Workman: I move approval of the sketch plan. Councilman Johnson: We didn't see the sketch plan. Councilman Boyt: You and I didn't receive the sketch plan. Mayor Chmiel: You looked at mine Jay. Councilman Johnson: Yes, I looked at yours but I'm told that this isn't even the current sketch plan. Jo Ann Olsen: That is the sketch plan. Todd Gerhardt: It's a sketch plan but it's not the final. It's not the most current but it's a sketch plan. Councilman Johnson: This is the sketch plan but we've got something better over there. Jo Ann Olsen: That's going to the Planning Commission right now. Staff hasn't even made the final review of it yet. Mayor Chmiel: You still have control on it because it will be coming back, if you're looking for the control. Councilman Johnson: Do we have to approve the sketch plan? We have to approve the concept for a planned unit development? Mayor Chmiel: Yes, you'd have to approve the concept for a planned unit development, right. Councilman Johnson: Yes, that I agree with. The sketch plan, I don't think we want to say we approve it per se. Mayor Chmiel: No. Just the concept plan. Councilman Johnson: The concept that this should be a planned unit development area for what they're trying to do. Mayor Chmiel: Concept plan for planned unit development. Is there a motion? Councilman Johnson: I'll move that. Councilman Workman: Second. Councilman Boyt: I need to know what it is we're talking about here. Councilman Johnson: We moved the concept of PUD. Mayor Chmiel: Strictly. 73 City Council Meeting - August 28, 1989 Councilman Boyt: What does that mean? Councilman Workman: I don't think it means much. Jo Ann Olsen: There's three different stages that you go through for a PUD. The first one is a concept which is essentially, you just look at it as whether or not it should be a PUD. Real sketchy. Councilman Boyt: All we're doing then this evening is indicating that this — could conceiveably be a PUD? Jo Ann Olsen: Right. You're not giving. By doing this is not saying you're — approving... Councilman Johnson: I'll read the staff's recommended recommendation here. The City Council recommends whether they feel a PUD is appropriate for this site. I believe a PUD is appropriate. I move a PUD is appropriate for this site. Councilman Boyt: And I think you got a second to that. -' Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded that the City Council — approves that a PUD is appropriate for the southwest corner of Market Blvd. and West 78th Street. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Chmiel: I would like to move to amend the agenda and have item 11, Mr. (-- Glen Pauls who missed the Visitor Presentation. He's here now and I know he's been waiting patiently so I would like to move that as a motion to amend the — agenda. Councilman Johnson: Second. Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to amend the agenda to heat Visitor Presentations at this point in the agenda. All voted in favor and the — motion carried. VISITOR PRESENTATION: Glen Pauls: I'm Glen Pauls. I represent the Nor_dicTrack Company in Chaska. _ What we're looking at is building a new building across TH 41 from where we're at now. Right across from the Aeration Building. Over on this site here where I guess your public utilities buildings ate right in this first corner. This is 82nd Street and TH 41, along this side. We've acquired this land already. — We're going to start grading on it this fall hopefully if things work out tight with the bids and what not. What we're proposing to do is requesting the Council to let the staff negotiate price in selling your public utility land — there. Moving that. I guess they have some ideas where they'd like to put it. Just in that front corner. Councilman Bovt: I'd like to find out what it's worth. 74 — CITY OF CHANHASSEN .e. -� :. - 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Market Square Partnership — • FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner 4 DATE: August 31, 1989 SUBJ: Market Square PUD - Site Plan Dated August 16, 1989 The following are a combination of comments from Planning Staff, Fred Hoisington, Jim Lasher and Gary Ehret. Site Plan - Page 1 1 . The site plan refers to excess right-of-way to be dedicated to the project. A portion of this right-of-way will be vacated as part of the development process. It is not definite that all of the right-of-way shown to be dedicated to the project will be vacated. 2. As part of the improvements to West 78th Street there are plans to provide an 8 foot wide bituminous pathway along the south side of West 78th Street between Monterey Drive and Market Boulevard. This 8 foot wide bituminous pathway should be shown on the plan. 3 . The 4 foot sidewalk adjacent to Market Boulevard should be widened to 6 feet. 4. There are only three trash enclosures shown for the entire project. Is this the correct number? Trash enclosures will not be permitted within the parking areas . It appears that parking stalls which block the trash enclosures may need to be eliminated to provide access to the trash enclosures. 5. The parking lights shall be to 25 feet in height to match the height of the lights on Market Boulevard. Also, it has been recommended that the parking lot lights match the same design as the downtown lights. 6 . The outdoor storage areas should be enclosed with the same material which is used on the buildings and not with a 100% opaque fence. 43 August 31, 1989 — Page 2 7 . The vehicular circulation throughout the site can still be improved, primarily in front of the hardware store where we feel it is poorly designed. In addition, the Fire Inspector — is recommending that no parking shall be allowed next to the building and that a clear fire lane of at least 24 feet shall be maintained around the perimeter of the building. 8 . The amended site plan shows the pedestrian walkway through the parking lot. We are recommending that the pedestrian walkway be widened to 4 feet and that it should not be — landscaped with fir trees . We are recommending that it be landscaped with deciduous trees and that there shall also be parking lot stripping in the parking bay lanes at the — pedestrian walkway crossings. 9 . It is questionable whether there is enough area for the semi- trailer to exit the Lawn and Sport shop if there are cars parked along the southern edge. 10. The grocery store loading docks are designed so that semi- trailers will exit going the wrong way on a one way street. Site Plan - Access Points 1 . West 78th Street Driveway - The original downtown redevelop- ment plan did not reflect a driveway at this location and — orimary access was intended from Market Boulevard. For this access to work properly, at the very least, a right turn lane should be provided since there is excess right-of-way available to the site. The city is also considering elimina- tion of this access completely and maintain primary access from Market Boulevard. 2. Market Boulevard Driveways - It appears that this access plan from Market Boulevard is suitable, but it is recommended that the entry width of 12 feet should be widened. 3 . Monterey Driveways - The location of the driveway points on Monterey Drive are suitable but information was not provided — to make final determination if the design is proper. 4 How will the outlot be serviced, internally or by individual drives from West 78th Street and Market Boulevard? — 5. It is still unclear as to the exact materials and colors being used on the building. It was recommended that the drug _ store have the wood surface to break-up the expanse of the south side of the shopping center next to the grocery store. August 31, 1989 Page 3 6 . A drive through is shown north of the center. The area available for stacking is very limited and is cause for con- cern by staff. The applicant should show exactly how they see that this will work without causing traffic conflicts. 7. The future parking area adjacent to Market Boulevard should be redesigned in accordance with the attached drawing ( see Fred Hoisington ' s memo) . 8 . Additional details were requested for the veterinary clinic site has not been provided. 9. The site plan should also illustrate where stop signs will be located within the parking area. Civil Plan - Page 2 See Gary Ehret' s memo. Landscaping Plan - Page 3 1. The primary areas needed for screening are along the south and west side of the property. The proposed landscaping in these areas are inadequate using clusters of Douglas Fir and deciduous material where year round and continuous screening is necessary. Deciduous trees would be preferred to be located along West 78th Street and Market Boulevard. 2 . There is also concern about site lines and snow storage within parking areas with the small shrubbery on all of the parking islands . 3 . The shrubbery proposed in the parking lot islands should be reduced and add deciduous trees . Elevations and Signage - Page 4 1. Details are still not being provided signage. We are recom- mending a detailed signage plan be submitted for approval . As stated before, there shall be a maximum of two wall signs per store. Also details on the pylon sign( s) should be pro- vided. 2 . The building materials for the wall mass has appeared to be changed to concrete block. What exactly is the wall surface proposed? 3. The scaling of the elevations seems to be in error . 4 . It is still not clear on exactly what colors of materials are being proposed. We want this to be provided prior to appro- val. Hoisington Group inti. MEMORANDUM To: JoAnn Olsen, City Planner Prom: Fred IIoisington, Consultant — Subject: Review of Market Square PUD Date: 8-30-89 As requested, I have reviewed the Market. Square PUD for commercial development on 1.2 acres of property located on the southwest corner of West 78th Street and Market Boulevard. While a considerable amount of progress has been made with respect to the architecture of the building since the original sumnnittal, there arc still numerous deficiencies in the site plan that warrant either reconsideration or modifications. The following are my comments: I . The four foot sidewalk adjacent to Market Boulevard should be widened to a minimum of five feet and be termed a public sidewalk. 2. Though I • believe they are intended to be wood-sided, I am uncertain about the materials to be used to face the columns. 3. Signage is not identified as to location, type or size as required by the PUT-) Ordinance. Pylon signs have not been designed. Since there are no signs shown on the rear of the building, I can only assume that none are proposed and will not be requested at a later date. 4. The drugstore facade remains a non-wood surface. 5. Douglas fir is used in front of the building where sightlines to the — building should he maintained and Linden or deciduous materials arc used in the rear where screening is imperative. This seems to be _ backwards. 6. 1 am cone:rued about sightlines and snow storage within the parking — lot riven the abundance of small shrubby-type materials in all of the parking lot islands. 7300 Aantro 0'v9. • ?s • nn©apo!is, MN 55435• (G12) 535-9060 — 1 7. The four foot sidewalk through the parking lot should be widened and firs should not be planted on either side so as to impair the movement of pedestrians. 8. The future parking adjacent to Market Boulevard should be redesigned in accordance with the attached drawing. 9. Fence materials to screen outdoor storage areas have not been identified. 10. There appear to be too few trash receptacles. I think they are being handled correctly but since no others are shown, I can only assume that no others will be requested. 11 . Screening is wholly inadequate along the south and west sides of the building. Clusters of Douglas fir occur along the south property line but have large spaces between them, Deciduous materials are used exclusively along the west side of the development where heavy screening is absolutely essential. 12, While we assume that a single-score block wall is a wall surfaced with 11 stucco, we are not quite sure that that is the treatment that is proposed. 13. Parking lot lighting is not specified but could be included to be consistent with or the same as downtown lightiFng� `i' a condition if 14. No additional detail has been shown for the Vet Clinic building. 15. The site plan proposes that the City install the 72 inch St0111m sewer connection along the south property line. It seems to me that that connection should be made by the developer at his cost. 16. The preliminary plat calls for a Lot 3 which I believe we have here-to- for termed an outlot. The whole idea was to maintain it as an outlot until such time as development is proposed. Since no development of any kind is propo.ed for the outlot, we would recommend that it be excluded from the PUD. • I 1 J : - " V , . . • " . (V. k CrI i 1 1 1 911 . Ss . . ,-il( , .�Y i i i.•....•."iiiyiie 4....=,...441,• C. �.- . .e .L.1"-iz:310... ."=---4110' PY - sign C ) . • J 20 20 20 20 2011201.77 •�n - ss 1 N�' existing 5 , �� ''� bus _ { 5.. . - . _y- : ,..-..L ._ • ..r.. t.. ._1 _ Art ... Lr..-.1 ____. t ti t t ...: i - 1 . / i 1 4 ._ % :9' PPL _ 1 t • ' 61 17? ) . 1 . S--� r ST(F_:ALK »� -- � air S�?PI1+6 �S � - 1 . ,o' .y E}�TBY ` L.-...... ' . GROCERY STORE GROCERY STOREN---_------ -- ti — 116' F X 138' D EXPANSION cc \ LSA Design August 30 , 1989 Ms . Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner — City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — Dear Jo Ann, The following constitutes Plan Review for the Market Square Development for plans stamped August 16 , 1989 . P-1 SITE PLAN 1 . There are only three trash enclosures shown for the entire project . Where are the enclosures for the Grocery — Store? 2 . Parking lot lights should be reduced in height to 25 ' to match the height of the lights on Market Boulevard. — 3 . All outdoor storage locations should be enclosed with the same material which is used on the buildings - not a fence as labeled on the plans . 4. Vehicular circulation in front of the Hardware Store is — poorly designed . 5 . There should be pedestrian striping in the parking bay lanes at the Pedestrian Walkway crossings . — 6 . The sidewalk along Market Boulevard should be 6 ' -0" wide and not 4 ' -0" as shown on plans . 7 . The delivery dock at the Lawn & Sports shop does not appear to allow exit of a semi-trailer if cars are parked along the south edge . The outdoor storage area may have to be reduced in size to allow fluid movements . 8 . The Grocery Store loading dock shows that semi-trailers — will have to exit going the wrong way on a one-way street . P-2 CIVIL PLAN not reviewed — suite 307 1624 Humors Place 1:rrrreapulis, .11.\:55403 612-339-8729 P-3 LANDSCAPE PLAN 1 . There should be evergreen trees along the west side of 11••• the project to provide year-round screening of the backs of the buildings . 2 . Evergreens should not be planted in the parking islands next to the Pedestrian Walkway. 3 . Parking islands should have both shrubs and deciduous trees , not just shrubs . 4 . Screening along the south border still appears to be insufficient and tree locations will have to be modified if the 72" concrete pipe is installed as shown on P-2 . P-4 ELEVATIONS 1 . Signage, as stipulated by the City, shall be limited to two signs maximum per store. There are three signs shown for the Super Value Grocery Store . 2 . The building material for the wall masses appears to have changed to concrete block. Is this a misprint? 3 . Elevations do not show materials for outdoor storage area ' s . 4. Building elevations labeled 18 ' actually scale off the drawings at 20 ' . Elevations shown at 20 ' scale at 24 ' -8" . Are these labeling errors? Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments . Sincerel ‘11 aw JameVI. Lasher ,ASLA • cc: Fred Hoisington File 89-12 ING TRANSPORTAPLANTION 4��`-� jl ENGINEERING URBAN DESIGN BRW INC THRESHER SQUARE - 700 IH RD STREET SOUTH • MINNEAPOLIS MINNESOTA 55415 PHONE 612 370-0700 FAX 612:370-1378 August 31, 1989 JoAnn Olson Assistant City Planner City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Plan Review Market Square — Dear JoAnn, At your request, and in cooperation with the City Engineering Department, we have reviewed the plan submittals for the Market Square project. We have reviewed the plan set dated August 16, 1989, which consists of Sheets P-1 through P-5, and a preliminai'y plat. Our review consists of and specifically examines engineering (site) related issues. We have not reviewed the plan for compliance with planning, landscape or achitecturally-related ordinances or issues. Our review comments are summarized below: Site Plan (P-1) #1 A note in the upper corner of the plan refers to "excess right-of-way to be dedicated to the project. " To our knowledge this is right-of-way which is in the control of the City of Chanhassen. Excess right-of-way of this kind must obviously follow the appropriate vacation statutes as required by law. It may not be in the interest of the City to vacate this right-of-way in _ its entirety (see #2 below) . #2 To the best of cur knowledge, it is still the intent of the City of Chanhassen to construct an eight-foot wide bituminous pedestrian pathway along the south side of West 78th Street from Monterey Drive to Market Boulevard. This pathway will likely be constructed as a part of the West 78th Street detachment project (Phase III) in 1990. The site plan should reflect this future pathway. NOTE The City may wish to have the developer construct this pathway to insure better coordination with the developer' s site improvements. =• SEP 0 1989 - 1:11 Y OF CHANHASSEN AN AFFILIATE OF THE BENNETT RINGHOSE WOLSFELD JARVIS GAHDNER INC GROUP DAVIDJ BENNE TT DONALJW RIN(1ROSE RICHARD P WOLSFELD FF IERE JARVIS tAWRFNCE J CARON(R THOMASI CARROLL C.HAIGA AM(JNDSEN DONALDE HUNT MARK G SWENSON J(HN 8 McNAMARA RICHARD D PILGRIM !YALE N BECKMANN JF NMS J SU'L IFF V L �s;1 JIN ::ALPH C BL..M L GRAHAM MINNEAPOLIS DENVER PHOENIX TUCSON ST PETERSBURG JoAnn Olson August 31 , 1989 Page 2 #3 Each of the access points (driveways) to the project should be carefully reviewed. The plans do not currently provide enough information for a thorough review, so we will limit our comments to the following: A. West 78th Street Driveway The original downtown redevelopment plan did not reflect a driveway at this location. Primary site access was intended from Market Boulevard. Although we interpret the driveway to be a right-in, right-out from the plan (given the West 78th Street median) , it should be clearly pointed out that the West 78th Street eastbound does not have a right turn lane for access to this site. Although similar situations exist within the downtown proper, the right-of-way was not available for the construc- tion of right turn lanes. This site and plan do reflect the fact that enough area is available to construct a right turn lane. The City may wish to require this. You may also wish to consider elimination of this driveway instead of attempting to focus all traffic to Market Boulevard. B. Market Boulevard Driveways Although significant information is not available to accurately deter- mine the suitability of both of these driveways, we are in general agreement with the plan layout and location. The northerly driveway shows an entry width of twelve feet. It may be desirable to widen this. C. Monterey Driveways Similar to the Market Boulevard driveways, we are in basic agreement with the driveway locations. Again, there is no radius or driveway width information available to be examined. Although Lot 3 is shown as an outlot, the future development of this parcel is critical to this area. The site plan does not address access to this parcel at all . Some type of access for this parcel should be addressed at this time if this is a future developable lot. #4 Signage Adequate signage (traffic signs) for this site will be very important. With the one-way system along the west and south sides, proper signage locations and quantities are critical . The developer should submit a signage layout for City review. Joann Olson August 31 , 1989 Page 3 #5 Sidewalk The site plan shows a four-foot sidewalk along Market Boulevard from the — south side of the northerly driveway to the south property line. This sidewalk should be carried to West 78th Street to connect to the proposed eight-foot bituminous pathway. If this is to be a City maintained walkway, it may be desirable to increase the width to six feet. #6 Trash Enclosures The developer may wish to eliminate any parking stalls which block the trash enclosures, allowing free access to these enclosures. #7 Drive-thru North of Retail The retail area (5,400 SF) on the north end of the project shows a drive-up window. The available area for stacking is very limited. Depending upon the type of retail , this may be of concern. Civil Plan (Sheet P-2) — A. Sanitary Sewer #1 The sanitary sewer service to the Vet Clinic looks acceptable. The six-ich PVC may be oversized for the clinic. To provide the appropriate cleansing velocity, a four-inch may be more desirable. #2 The existing ten-inch sanitary sewer currently runs in a sixty-foot easement from Monterey Drive to the east side of the site. The deve- loper has shown the construction of a building over this sewer line. The construction of a private building over a public sewer main is highly unusual , and certainly not desirable. Sanitary sewer under a building is not unusual to the extent that all businesses have their own building sewers underneath their floor slabs. However, they key here is that it is a public sewer. If this is deemed acceptable, we recommend that the sewer main be placed in an oversized ductile iron casing which clearly extends beyond the limits of any building footings or sidewalks , and that the sewer main be properly blocked or encased in the ductile iron casing. Although rerouting of the sanitary sewer will be very expensive, it is preferable to the current alternative. Another alternative is to avoid building construction over this sewer. JoAnn Olson August 31 , 1989 Page 4 #3 Service Stubs to Retail Center These service stubs appear acceptable and reasonable for this project. The developer' s engineer should verify all sewer flows to insure proper service sizing. These should also be constructed in accordance with the appropriate building codes for service lengths, cleanouts, etc. B. Water Main #1 The proposed water main plan for the site appears reasonable. Verification of the fire hydrant locations should be made by the Fire Marshall . #2 Because of past experience with water breaks of the ten-inch CIP water main which runs west to east through this site, it may be in the best interest of all partners to have this main replaced with ductile iron pipe now prior to completion of the parking lot. The depth of the existing main may also be of concern. It should be noted that although the downtown project replaced some of the existing CIP in the Filly' s parking lot, we did not replace all of it. C. Drainage #1 The plan refers to the extension of the existing 72-inch storm sewer along the south property line to be designed and constructed by the City. Is the City willing to do this? #2 Some time ago, a drainage easement was acquired from the property owner by the City for storm water retention. Recent hydraulic calculations have indicated that this easement can be vacated, dependent upon the final plans of Mn/DOT along TH 5. Specifically, if Mn/DOT does not expand north of TH 5 farther than originally anticipated, and this does not encroach into the storm water detention pond, there is enough storage availability to accommodate this site. We are currently rerunning these calculations to once again verify this. #3 The developer' s engineer should supply the City with all storm sewer sizing calculations for City review. #4 Initial calculations indicate that there may not be enough storm water catch basins to have adequate capacity to receive all storm runoff. If this is true, the developer should anticipate temporary ponding of storm water in low areas. JoAnn Olson August 31, 1989 Page 5 #5 Based upon the plan, it appears as though all roofs will be drained by a scupper or "external " roof drain system. Careful placement of these roof drains should be considered par- ticularly in pedestrian walkway areas. Additional detail should be submitted on this. Preliminary Plat #1 The preliminary plat does not reflect new easements for existing City — sewer and water lines. It also does not reflect the existing sixty- foot right-of-way which is an extension of the Picha Drive right-of-way on the west, and is carried across the project to the east side. I do not believe the rigAt-of-way documents were ever recorded with the County; however, they were executed several years ago. The City Attorney has these documents on file for further reference. #2 The right-of-way on the north side of the project must be vacated. The drainage easement on the south side must be vacated (at least partially) . Miscellaneous The developer' s grading plan does not illustrate the future grading along the Soo Line Railroad tracks. The intent here should be clarified and approved by both the City and the Railroad, if necessary. -- As the project progresses, additional detail should be provided which further identifies compliance with City standards for signage, utilities, etc. If you have any questions, pease let me know. Sincerely, BRW, cr>.44 ,/ 1- Gary A. Ehret, PE Project Manager GAE/sk cc: Mr. Gary Warren File 7-8815 • g, FIZDV t be_ S-41-A44 o IIEST 78TH STFEET E>trr'F41) lice—it-ERA 7-70 4k4eE 7:0 ftealdirtr BLvQ pippipp. 2g• ` stop nog e FT. smEx U I �� 1 '•• 1111 1 Vi /5 "'..7 _ _ .. X 72' I — ' 13024 SF - - • t 1 1 1211 6'R I I t 1 V • 1 % 1 I \ gl11111111 / •...... .., l 3 iI r 1 ^ I i T 7 _ r / i f , 1: I I 1 i ... 1I 1 1 I 1 I ZO' st1R 1 4 ogy clpi � ;\�—� �� 1 aoAsient ID s!¢l CITY © F CHANHASSEN .>l 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 — �` (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Paul Krauss, City Planner FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Inspector DATE: September 13, 1989 SUBJ: Market Square Shopping Center Site Plan — Comments and/or recommendations: 1 . Curbing shall be painted yellow as indicated on drawing. This is subject to change after construction if problem -- parking areas arise. 2. "No Parking Fire Lane" shall be installed as indicated by _ dots on site plan. Again, this is subject to change 1 f parking problems develop. O. The addition of two fire hydrants as shown on utility site plan. These are shown as approximate area only. mmera CT � _ r . - •ra as. I ...= —1 w. WEST 7TH STREET , I, 14v t..l,—Frit rrrc tw� aal a.� YNIi 1 a` IO4• , i r . ©moi 1 ` I !Ir. r.." k 1--] r —1 i 411..ff _ Ns 0 I 1 Well Tet ibia2 ' 7fi EfMGPRORER1YUE 1 — — I Oa I 111. Mo• P—itiff eit //," 1 1 r. I 1 so' r_ ammo I © 1 I 1 ■ 1" a,OMR MIS Ream Oh bur... , I.. r.■ NI.•.r rr f�AwTrpbWy® I / 11 1/ } a +, 1 - I > I - --- - • -.,erAEr.0 Mo.w 9 RM.tf .. : Q cr.rr91 rw • -1 .ars, ■ i 4 0. ,mil - w 01.1116.. 16- _ 4111 . /�I I^ rr• / [ F17.r ( ) I IMP r 1 1® 4. 37 1 Y or er gPo � ,vr�soa.ca��RrMS r * 11 • _ 1} © ' v' o 1 �� ,�� as. rr��r» sso 'b� 1 M. rN ® El I i w., 1 l I • ,Ni1 1-{as W kali` •l . 11 • 1 11 7. PW•,..10. ere — \ ____ 1 I l . -.F....:... ww.rr r r -Ex6ffIG it STOMA_—� :71 �i4 fW.• I�',' Male w-y ,•.,,Q va• asa.: MARK �•r �' •, Wee0moca.v ..a,. aMytt■arwc Tr STORM MAO(0.7Pµi2C0/1 CHVVMCLw.r• Ye r �wwrt:E STrM►• rte' 965.7 GRADIN IR.p( SCALE:r. asu /71 ,{ fl i c ' ri,41•r.0 r ..I • t c 7 rt .-........ .._.j El b; ' \ - �. \ /TTTI " -',„�� /L111111 I I ----------------) --_____________ g ' -" lel I I I I I f I� AI 4 i 102 X 9F oJ7 V . P .... 1� • 1 HOTEL • QltmOt 4. tt 1 • S� 2tII { IIO � _ . �i� Y • 2x1a 5c - .44 Tl:1 411 1 1 1 ll 1 1 f�� 1 Tl FA/ 4.131.232312SIE M'0 i ` X21 -k - - L_ - 1 .01.3E �� •� le 444424'= Q +s u u is J s ,e w ,e R ,■■A 20 ,•- R _ ( ) — `�� ) R „_ 4 1 . ai • I = y __ y -- 1 f..3. 1—:.1 -- I 1 FILLY'S NIGHT CLUB Alm 141012F 24 i CB g ig ev 10— _i____ -- I i..... — _.,_ --. .T R i i-- R! C=)F (1 ) C ) ( . ) 1_111 I 70 170 70 '•, / 7A,wMoWORT RETAIL - — 7,xn• enoSF O■Gsit. _ �/„ PRD"06� i xFx�o +at.o SL )w sFS� tl0®7,'SRSE i. B _ +,•'F%1300 F7.6d ,.4442 \ 13120 SF. --- me \ \ '_ - _J 2500 SF -,S 44 4 ___ 2, __ •OC1T01 - I2. - t.__ _ — — i 6J1®i II V 4 SLUE J • icer• �� J22 ss AFP°'° 'N .. cep.__ i — SITE PLAN r-50'-0' 7 V e((41_, p _+ 1,.v3 — SEP 1-1 _..� _,,_:-i,_ L..,1 . .�.` 'f!lout Ctf.l�w —J�...� ny UFBAF:,E ..jr: bR7; If1.`: - f-'ES•_F 53.-..ht .,t::�.-�::FE F"_....iH • ti'.1..,,::_ :1 a..E ^' - ��. ., -•i's't_ i'_5'�•c'"•: PAW- G7I3a5-1.i7: September 14, 1989 _ JoAnn Olsen Assistant City Planner City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Review of Revised Plans for Market Square Development Dear JoAnn, We have completed a review of the revised plan submittals for the Market Square project, as requested. The new plans, dated September 8, 1989, include modifi- cations in response to our August 31, 1989, letter of review and comment. The scope of this review includes the examination of these modifications, as well as an additional general overview of the engineering (site) related issues asso- ciated with the project. Our comments in response to the plan modifications are summarized below: Site Plan (P-1) #1 An eiht-foot wide concrete sidewalk has been included along West 78th 4treet in response to our comments. The City may prefer that the sidewalk be specified as bituminous path to match the bituminous bike path ^roco$ed along West 78th Street as a part of the future Downtown Redevelopment Phase III construction. #2 The City ;flay prefer not to vacate the excess right-of-way along West 7Eit Street in its entirety to accommodate the sidewalk/bituminous path, and the right turn lanes at the driveway entrance. The City _ would maintain control over the sidewalk/bituminous path by keeping the northernmost porticn of the right-of-way. #3 The 20 and 16-Foot radii specified at the entrance driveways appear acceptable. #4 No further information has been proviced concerning the development of Lot 3. Access to the parcel , and the construction of a sidewalk along Market Boulevard should be addressed if the issue has not been resolved. ---------------- .:INNEAF aJS C=^:•:ER PHCEtax Tt;CSCN ST r..cnJS:JRG SEP 14 + OS:40 EF-.1 INC. 'P.3 4 JoAnn Olsen September 14, 1989 Page 2 #5 Modifications have been made to the sizes and shapes of some of the parking lot islands. In general , the changes have improved the parking lot configuration. Civil Plan (Sheet P-21 A. Sanitary Sewer #1 The City may desire that casing details be provided on the plans for the ten-inch sanitary sewer which runs under the proposed building on the site. The proper completion of this work is important to alleviate some of the concern regarding this condition. .. B. Water Main #1 The revised water main alignment appears acceptable. Concerns regarding the condition of the existing ten-inch CIP water main which runs west to east through the site are eliminated by the abandonment of the pipe. C. Drainage #1 it is our understanding that the City is not willing to perform the extension of the existing 72-inch storm sewer along the south property line. The plan should be modified to note that the storm sewer work is the responsibility of the developer. #2 An additional catch basin (CB 2A) has been added on the south side of _ the parking lot. This modification will improve drainage in this area. Storm sewer sizing calculations should be obtained from the developer to determine the adequacy of the system and the occurrence and extent of storm water ponding. Preliminary Plat . #1 A revised preliminary plat for the development was not included for review. The comments presented in cur original letter of review should be considered if no changes have been made to the plat to date. — SEP 14 :'? _=!l P.4 41 11 11 JoAnn Olsen September 14, 1989 Page 3 IF ir It is hoped that the preceding information, in conjunction with our initial comments, provides you with adequate information to complete your review of the Market Square development plan. If you have any questions, please do not hesi- i tate to call. Sincerely, BRW, INC. mor rir Yor G- ry A. Ehret, PE Project Manager GAE/sk cc: Mr. Gary Warren File 7-8815 1 LS-1 Design IMMO September 12 , 1989 Ms . Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen .. Box 147 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Jo Ann , The following constitutes Plan Review for plans dated September 11 , 1989 for the Market Square project . SITE PLAN - P1 1 . Trash compactor behind Super Value should have a 6 ' -0" wall around it similar to the outdoor storage areas . 2 . Dumpster locations along the west side should be surrounded by earth, opaque fence, or a combination of both for 6 ' -0" height . 3 . Pedestrian walkway through the main parking lot should extend out to the sidewalk along Market Boulevard . CIVIL PLAN - P2 1 . The City should not have to design and install the 72" pipe along the south property line. — LANDSCAPE PLAN - P3 1 . Ornamental and Shade trees should be planted along the building facades to break up the massing. 2 . There should be additional evergreens planted along the south property line . ELEVATIONS - P4 Suite 307 1624 Hannon!'lace .1Luneapoils..1I.\'55403 ` 612-339-8729 — 1 . Do the new roof sections go through the entire width of the building. 2 . Sections showing the relationship between this — development and Highway 5 were requested but never received . These should be reviewed to verify the Developers statement that the majority of the roof area will be hidden by vegetation and grade change. 3 . The Pylon sign appears to be to large . (60sf to 80sf is City Code . ) Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments regarding this review. Sincerely James B. Lasher LAND USE CONSULTANTS Ho sin ton Group Inc. MEMO To: Paul Krauss, Planning Director and JoAnn Olsen, City Planner From: Fred Hoisington, Consultant Subject: Review of 9-8-89 Market Square PUD Plans Date: 9- 12-89 Hoisington Group Inc. has reviewed the most recent Market Square PUD —' Plans as requested by City Staff. We feel that the plans have been improved dramatically as a result of the last round of comments made by the City Staff and its consultants. We have relatively few comments that should be considered in the course of the approval or attached as conditions to the PUD as follows: _ 1. ,Slenave - Signage details (size and t}•pe) have net been identified as required by the PUD Ordinance. While we assume that each shop will have a sign on the front of the building, we can only assume that signage on the rear of the building will be in accordance with the _ south and west elevation plans and will be limited exclusively to the liquor store, hardware, video store, drugstore and SuperValu. While the pylon sign concept is consistent with the Market Square architecture, these should be limited to E0 square feet. 2. _'l.:' aping and S,ereen n2 - While a considerable improvement has been made .o the landscape plan, the screening of loading docks, and cspcdaily those belonging to the hardware and SuperValu, is soil inadequate. We would suggest that some coniferous shrubs be used in front of the building to provide some color during winter and we would also recommend that compact viburnum be used in front of the building in lieu of regular viburnum. 3. s ^e , -tsc - We agree with the wayt handled �� trash receptacles are but we feel that there will be great pressure to have additional facilities. It must be understood that since this is a I'UD and the plan wilt dictate asp, no other receptacles will be Allowed than those shown on the plan. We can only assume the the hardware store receptacle will be located within the outdoor Storage area based on the .� present Plan. 7300�.1at',`''vd. • ! f S::: a 525 • �.bnneapoUs, MN 55435• (612)335-9%0 — 4. Parking Lot Lighting. - There are still no lighting details but this could be included as a condition to be consistent with or the same as downtown lighting. 5. Storm Sewer - The Plan once again proposes that the City design and install the 72 inch storm sewer connection along the south property line. This should be made to be the responsibility of the developer. 1 _ 6. O a tint - The preliminary plat is missing from this presentation of the PUD. The area for which no cornmittment is being made should be included on the Preliminary Plat as an outlet and a committment made _ to use -since Concept Stage approval is proposed to be given. Such a comrr,ittment should include the number of square feet of commercial floor area and open space and the number of parking spaces. 7 . a. i' t'-u .. indow - This proposed facility has serious stacking !imitations which simply will not work for certain kinds of drive-up ' usinesses. The Planning Commission should reserve the right to approve, tl,e use, on a case bv case basis and should specifically exclude drive-up resoaurants :s a condition of PUD approval. The developer should be i e;juired to demonstrate that the drive-up windows can accommodate the use at the time approval is requested. 8. West Stlt rof-et cc. es,; - The construction of the acceleration/ deceleration lanes should be the responsibility of the developer. `T- I • CITY OF t - CHANHASSEN t -} 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: JoAnn Olsen, Senior Planner _ FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Inspector DATE: August 22, 1989 SUBJ: #89-2 PUD Based on plans submitted, eight handicap parking places are required for initial site. A total of eleven handicap parking places will be required after future expansion is complete. Spaces must be distributed along the length of the building at the spaces closest to buildings. — The building as proposed with 78, 712 square feet must be Type II - F.R. construction. As an alternate, a two-hour area separation wall may be built, creating two buildings. The Lawn and Sport Store will be a B-1 occupancy; this would be an ideal place to build the area separation wall since an occupancy separation will be required. 141 CITY O F P.C. DATE: 9-20-89 C.C. DATE: 10-9-89 7ClIANHASSZN CASE NO: 84-8 VARIANCE 84-8 CUP Prepared by: Olsen :k STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Variance to the conditions for a recreational beachlot and an amendment to a conditional use permit for a recreational beachlot . Z ULOCATION: Outlot B, Lotus Lake Estates I.L APPLICANT: Lotus Lake Estates Homeowners Association 6800 Brute Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family ACREAGE: 92 , 700 square feet DENSITY: N/A ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- PUD; wetlands and Fox Hollow S- RSF; single family ilC E- RSF; single family W- Lotus Lake WATER AND SEWER: PHYSICAL CHARAC. : 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential -.„IA P .z.AN . - a ' WWI lik Iff�I� AIIMIIII IAS�► ''' .' iiiiiii limo ri. • wail gm ./111 • •� ••ej�•�I NUN—FRS • j �4. - cow. i�� \\ ,, \.. Vim, •�� I..1 g �!ris PfeflftrICCtklat .- ,44 4 digliffi !:„:,..... .. istA,. .4,.frms ffr....idua.... . -4-z- w# /#116 III : IP*ttlif .— L '�lh a��1��t).111,,,Si..... _. '�\ ' • € -!!• COURT :i =,,'; NI , wavitiii 1 to fil . _1 ! .a, ,,,,,,„„......, leakson 1, __„,- ‘-- ilir-w 1 I ', ,,, 41111% • ., 1 k _ .iscs wail° faVatTit _, ,. - tv.i•6 4-0 C Arlo t\.t "i'' 1 . i - Z rfgh,t6irl-: irappi'i::,;Nai '' 'Yk it/9 P REc. -iMPAkikvagti cf:i -Ardtig- ' Ilia 1111i..$a \\ ,..v ); RD i*Welter `4 • MI Ma .2 t- �' r4""7 � ems.: V� �� a ` imm-.yam • '• .c ``._1�61141 ■-a .�::OW �Rc ` + . R LOTUS ij - ;ii..._• at.....:1...4:%.:. .4 iir.I.Irrairnmika.: ; ow .... \ (iiiiitert-t. LW. '_ � •,�_ =_- • • y IC ��f-1 - '-� ,z Mt �fir.= ,�� jaAnt • 0 14-4P 1111"411.1 j p,o •Veili 4„ „I , _ . ail •147,5: Ei .- . % i Ago. A fi qUIMIIIIIIIk. WW .* ;j ,( w10;* 1 • iii - �-_ ,•i1••••••��., :: :; I�9r•"I _,_ es.t4wIii. I A Amnia .7? c-c- 1 ,‘ i. 0.� . � a "„� SHAOOWMEREEn �' r UM Ii i• • I .1_;., ytiyti `:4 11�j4%-!. +II L A KE \©f-`� . 00 . _ ' e• RS S Y ►• �� '•�;' �aft�� We6.41ser 'V- 1 7) ues F.cv3: ',• 1410 ,, 11* 01111W4iiVoll I6) Vir A ' \C R e - -- if---''' gi, zwr..f.EZEIV7111 ,_ _Iti.- ,, .----, . , FailliSEdk, -Itr--tP.:-I; - Aiiii .,, IN ma *SW 41124-ii4d*\N\ C:' \S 1� i ME - W. 1111 . V1401+7"; gitaiii&O R4 l l' .:.� . -EVA 4&11141�� 10 I'' -mar. !•6'..se' #nairiffig WWI P-I1\\ aslcrreA1 .sir Mit rieW(Ikr getalte !' R 1 2.s .r .�lick VI z Nom seta NA �q �� ,AdiV1aft SIJ ��61 �p -t// _ ' Ira- --..v • S _ W► n i' tri •1I1l►,11 :pis:-i::111 ;W / I �- `, i• um lily/�, G li gip ..:. ■ • IIT ■- .- . . ' MP Nov c. RP .. .....•iQ W ` Er :, X___ __.....-'"IlL ---------1--°"011111 010P. 14 MINIM � M G ,-% tea• v•' ac\F • �� I err. �•• Lotus Lake Homeowners Association September 20, 1989 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Section 20-263 provides specific minimum standards for a recreational beachlot as a conditional use. Section 20-263( 2) states that "no structure, portable chemical toilet, ice fishing house, camper, trailer, tent, recreational vehicle or shelter shall be erected, maintained or stored upon any recreational beachlot" (Attachment #1) . The ordinance defines a deck as a structure and the Building Department confirmed that it should have received a building per- mit. BACKGROUND The Lotus Lake Estates subdivision was approved by the City Council on January 5, 1979 (Attachment #2) . The City Council approved a conditional use permit for the recreational beachlot on July 21 , 1980 , and approved an amended permit on August 31, 1981 (Attachment #3) . On November 19 , 1984 , the City Council approved another amendment to the conditional use permit authorizing the installation of four sailboat moorings (Attachment #4 ) . In December, 1985, the Lotus Lake Homeowners Association filed suit against the city to allow additional docking and overnight storage of boats. On June 16 , 1986, the City Council approved a — zoning ordinance amendment to allow additional docks and over- night storage of boats on a recreational beachlot and amended the Lotus Lake Estates conditional use permit. The amended con- ditional use permit allowed the following uses: 1 . One sand blanket swim area. 2. A pedestrian walkway. 3 . Four boat racks. 4 . Three docks with no more than 9 watercraft being stored overnight. 5 . One 10 foot by 10 foot swimming raft. 6 . One conversation pit fire hole. 7 . Four sailboat moorings. In the spring of 1989, staff was contacted by a representative of the Lotus Lake Homeowners Association. The Homeowners Association was interested in constructing a deck on the Lotus Lake Estates recreational beachlot. Staff explained that the Zoning Ordinance specifically did not permit structures on recreational beachlots and that it was not a permitted use as part of their existing conditional use permit. Staff further explained that a variance to the conditions of the ordinance and an amendment to their existing conditional use permit would be necessary. Staff was not further contacted by the Lotus Lake Homeowners Association. Lotus Lake Homeowners Association — September 20 , 1989 Page 3 During the summer of 1989, staff was viewing sites with some residents from Lotus Lake and noticed that the Lotus Lake Estates recreational beachlot had constructed the proposed deck on the — beachlot. Staff contacted the homeowners association to state that the deck was in violation of the ordinance and in violation of their conditional use permit. Staff informed the homeowners — association that they must make an application for the deck or that the City would have to refer the matter to the City Attorney' s office and code enforcement division. The homeowners association contacted staff and proceeded with the application process . ANALYSIS — Currently the Lotus Lake Estates recreational beachlot is allowed to have one sand blanket swim area, a pedestrian walkway, four — boat racks , three docks with no more than nine boats docked over- night, one 10 ' x 10 ' swimming raft, one conversation pit fire hold, and four sailboat moorings . The Lotus Lake Estates recreational beachlot conditional use permit also prohibits, — except for alterations previously described, any structure, pier, boatrack, mooring, buoy or swimming platform. The applicant is requesting permission to maintain the existing deck on the Lotus Lake Estates recreational beachlot. The deck is 12 ' x 14 ' and is located on the sand beach approximately 56 feet from the ordinary high water mark of Lotus Lake. Since spe- cific conditions of the zoning ordinance and the conditional use permit for the recreational beachlot state that a structure is not permitted, a variance to the conditions of the Zoning Ordinance and an amendment to the conditional use permit must be received in order for the deck to be maintained on the recreational beachlot. In addition, the deck is within the 75 — ft. setback of the shoreland as required by the Shoreland Ordinance and a variance to the setback must be approved by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. A hardship must be proven for a variance to the zoning ordinance to be granted. variance to the ordinance. A hardship exists when the strict enforcement of the ordinance does not allow use of the property. Since the existing recreational beachlot has several uses - approved for the site, it would be difficult for the applicant to prove hardship if the deck is not permitted to remain on the beachlot. Staff does not feel that a deck on a recreational beachlot is necessarily an inappropriate use, but cannot recom- mend a variance be granted to the zoning ordinance. If the Planning Commission and City Council feel that a deck is an appropriate use for a recreational beachlot, then the proper way — to allow it is to amend the zoning ordinance. It would not be proper to grant a variance to the conditions of the zoning ordi- nance since a hardship does not exist. Lotus Lake Homeowners Association September 20, 1989 Page 4 RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending the Planning Commission deny the request for a variance to the conditions of the zoning ordinance for a recreational beachlot. Should the Planning Commission and City Council feel that a deck is an appropriate use for a recreational beachlot, then they should direct staff to proceed with a zoning ordinance amendment to permit decks/structures on recreational beachlots. If the zoning ordinance is amended, the applicant could then apply to amend their conditional use permit. It should be understood that — the applicant will still have to receive a variance to the shoreland ordinance which requires proof of a hardship. ATTACHMENTS 1. Excerpt from City Code. 2 . City Council minutes dated January 5, 1979. 3 . City Council minutes dated July 21, 1980. 4 . City Council minutes dated November 19 , 1984 . 5 . Current conditional use permit for recreational beachlot. 6 . Letter from Jo Ann Olsen dated July 24, 1989. 7 . Application. 8 . Site plan. ZONING §20-263 d. One (1) percolation test per drainfield site where the land slope is between thirteen(13) and twenty-five(25)percent. (2) Areas where the land slope exceeds twenty-five(25)percent shall not be considered as a potential soil treatment site. (3) The sewage treatment system must be in conformance with chapter 19,article IV. '— (4) School and day care uses accessory to the church use are not permitted unless approved by the city council. _ (Ord.No. 80,Art. V, § 9(5-9-1(7)), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-260. Private stables. The following applies to private stables: (1) Stables shall comply with chapter 5, article III. — (2) Stables must be located a minimum of two hundred(200)feet from wetland areas. (Ord.No. 80,Art. V, § 9(5-9-1(8)), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-261. State-licensed day care centers. The following applies to state-licensed day care centers: (1) The site shall have loading and drop off points designed to avoid interfering with traffic and pedestrian movements. _ (2) Outdoor play areas shall be located and designed in a manner which.mitigates visual and noise impacts on adjoining residential areas. _ (3) Each center shall obtain all applicable state, county, and city licenses. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 9(5-9-1(9)), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-262. Hospitals and health care facilities. The following applies to hospitals and health care facilities: (1) The site shall have direct access to collector or arterial streets, as defined in the comprehensive plan. NOM (2) Emergency vehicle access shall not be adjacent to or located across a street from any residential use. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 9(5-9-1(10)), 12-15-86) m. Sec. 20-263. Recreational beach lots. The following minimum standards apply to recreational beach lots conditional use in • addition to such other conditions as may be prescribed in the permit: (1) Recreational beach lots shall have at least two hundred(200) feet of lake frontage. 1175 § 20-263 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE (2) No structure,portable chemical toilet, ice fishing house,camper,trailer, tent,recrea- tional vehicle or shelter shall be erected, maintained or stored upon any recreational beach lot. (3) No boat, trailer, motor vehicle, including but not limited to cars,trucks, motorcycles, motorized mini-bikes, all-terrain vehicles or snowmobiles shall be driven upon or parked upon any recreational beach lot. (4) No recreational beach lot shall be used for overnight camping. (5) Boat launches are prohibited. (6) No recreational beach lot shall be used for purposes of overnight storage or overnight mooring of more than three (3) motorized or nonmotorized watercraft per dock. If a recreational beach lot is allowed more than one (1) dock, however, the allowed number of boats may be clustered. Up to three (3) sail boat moorings shall also be allowed. Canoes, windsurfers, sail boards, and small sail boats may be stored over- night on any recreational beach lot if they are stored on racks specifically designed L for that purpose. No more than one (1)rack shall be allowed per dock. No more than six(6)watercraft may be stored on a rack. Docking of other watercraft or seapianes is permissible at any time other than overnight. (7) No dock shall be permitted on any recreational beach lot unless it has at least two hundred 1200)feet of lake frontage and the lot has at least a one hundred-foot depth. No more than one (1) dock may be erected on a recreational beach lot every two hundred (200) feet of lake frontage. In addition, thirty thousand (30,000) square feet of land is required for the first dock and an additional twenty thousand (20,000) square feet is required for each additional dock. No more than three (3) docks, however, shall be erected on a recreational beach lot. (8) No recreational beach lot dock shall exceed six (6) feet in width, and no such dock shall exceed the greater of fifty (50) feet or the minimum straight-line distance necessary to reach a water depth of four(4) feet. The width(but not the length)of the cross-bar of any "T" or "L" shaped dock shall be included in the computation of length described in the preceding sentence. The cross-bar of any such dock shall not measure in excess of twenty-five(25) feet in length. (9) No dock shall encroach upon any dock set-back zone, provided, however, that the owner of any two(2) abutting lakeshore sites may erect one (1) common dock within the dock setback zone appurtenant to the abutting lakeshore sites, if the common dock is the only dock on the two(2)lakeshore sites and if the dock otherwise conforms with the provisions of this chapter. (10) No sail boat mooring shall be permitted on any recreational beach lot unless it has at least two hundred(200) feet of lake frontaze. No more than one tl)sail boat mooring. shall be allowed for every two hundred(200) feet of lake frontage. (11) A recreational beach lot is intended to serve as a neighborhood facility for the subdivision of which it is a part. For purposes of this paragraph, the following terms 1176 ...-2:7r ,..1 uuncil Meeting August 3i19S1 -4- d :ouncilwom.in Swenson roved to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Neveaux, Councilwoman Swenson, ouncil:::en i:evin, and Horn. Hearing closed at 9:00 p.m. s :ORTH SERVICE AREA SEVER AND WATER REASSESSMENT: Councilman Geving moved to set a z1= 7ecial Council meeting for September 8, 1981, at 7:30 p.m. and direct staff to provide .hatever answers are needed to the questions asked in the correspondence received :cni;ht. Motion seconded by Acting Mayor Neveaux. The following voted in favor: lo" Acting `favor Neveaux, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. 1 otion carried. :F`:' HORIZON HOMES: Frank Kurvers asked why the disturbed lands in Chaparral have not -een seeued. The Engineer will check into this and take appropriate steps, if needed. ':ORT!p..•:EST LOTUS LAKE ROAD SYSTEMS: Homeowners in the area were present to discuss "' annecting various roads within those areas presently being considered for development. ':c action was taken. it FRONT YARD VARIANCE REQUEST, 7616 FRONTIER TRAIL: Mr. Coulter is requesting an eight foot front yard variance in order to construct a detached double garage. The Board E .adjustments and Appeals recommends approved. ::+uncilwoman Swenson moved to approve the front yard setback variance request, Planning I 'Ise 81-6. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Acting "iyor Neveaux, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. tion carried. a r%r:rIT1ONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT REQUEST, LOTUS LAKE ESTATES BEACH LOT: The Lotus :..1;:e ::states Homeowners Association is requesting an amendment to their conditional :se ,permit for the following changes: 1. Lve, 30 foot seasonal docks. Each dock to contain eight boat slips. 2. :',.:o additional canoe/small sailboat racks storing six watercraft each. Cen .;ailboat mooring buoys for sailboats. 2 ••ae LU' .. 10' swimming raft of wood construction with flotation. i Conversation pit - fire hole, three feet in diameter with a six foot apron of brick . or masonary construction. n ':nresidents of Lotus Lake Estates as well as residents around Lotus Lake were present. ` - :e Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 12, 1981, as recommended approval of the amendment to be modified as by the recommendation of the Lake Study '- mmittee in memo of June 24, 1981 as follows: Only one dock should be permitted (not to exceed fifty feet in length, unless necessary to reach a water depth of four feet) . -'. Two additional canoe racks should be permitted allowing a maximum of four racks. 3. :o sailboat mooring buoys or overnight docking of boats should be permitted ( including on-land boat storage) . .l LU' x 10' swimming raft should be permitted if it is located in water having f .a minimum depth of seven feet, is not more than one-hundred feet from the nearest 1 :.tke ;liorei.ine, and projects a minimum of one foot but not more than five feet 3. hove the lake surface. nronosed conversation pit should not -be so constructed as to be of a permanent acture (i.c. using brick or masonry material) . `• Hlae i t man Geving moved to deny the Lotus lake Estates Homeowner's Association I ':Pl! icaticn for an amendment to their present conditional use permit as applied for -4 :!.sir .:one LU, 1981, unsigned letter and referencing all illustrations and all -•'•r. r i.i i._; relating to the ecology of Lotus Lake as presented in the Council Agenda. >ti;•n seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. rhe following voted in favor: Acting Mayor "eve.aux, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion irriuu. O 0 ---4 r • Council Meeting Aug4I0 31, 1981 -14- Councilwoman Swenson moved to accept the Planning Commission recommendations of August 12, 1981, page 8, with modifications as follows: r: 1. One dock should be permitted (not to exceed 50 feet in length, unless necessa to reach a water depth of four feet) . Said dock may have the configuration o: 40 feet with a ten foot platform at the end. Said dock to be located in the position of the southerly most shown dock. .. 2. Two additional canoe/small sailboat racks should be permitted allowing a maximum of four racks. 3. No sailboat mooring buoys or over night docking of boats should be permitted — (including on-land boat storage except as in #2 above) . 4. A 10' x 10' swimming raft should be permitted if it is located in water having a minimum depth of seven feet, is not more than 100 feet from the nearest lake shoreline, and projects a minimum of one foot but not more than five feet above the lake surface. The corners to be reflectorized. _ 5. A conversation pit - fire hole, three feet in diameter with a six foot apron erected of brick or masonry material placed on the landward side of the — walkway and no further north than the northerly lot line of Lot 32. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. Acting Mayor Neveaux voted no. Motion failed. Councilwoman Swenson moved to accept the Planning Commission recommendations of August 12, 1981, page 8, with modifications as follows: 1. One dock should be permitted (not to exceed 50 feet in length, unless necessar, to reach a water depth of four feet) . Said dock may have the configuration of 40 feet with a ten foot platform at the end. Said dock to be located in the — position of the southerly most shown dock. The overnight docking of four 16 ' non-motorized rowboats will be allowed. .e 2. Two additional canoe/small sailboat racks should be permitted allowing a — maximum of four racks. VI 3. No sailboat mooring buoys or overnight docking of boats should be permitted (including on-land boat storage except as in #2 above) . 4. A 10' x 10' swimming raft should be permitted if it is located in water having a minimum depth of seven feet, is not more than 100 feet from the nearest lake shoreline, and projects a minimum of one foot but not more than five feet above the lake surface. The corners to be reflectorized. 5. A conversation pit - fire hole, three feet in diameter with a six foot apron erected of brick or masonry material placed on the landward side of the walkway and no further north than the northerly lot line of Lot 32. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Neveaux, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. — Acting Mayor Neveaux noted that the Council considered a moratorium for the consideration of motorized boat usage on homeowners and beach lot proposals for this application and future applications but that no official decision was taken. A review of the matter will be prepared by the City Attorney and submitted to the Council by September 14 at which time consideration of scheduling a public hearing will be held. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW, PARK II, INSTANT WEB: Frank Beddor was present. C The City Planner presented the Planning Report. Since the Planning Commission .rs meeting the applicant has agreed to delete the lot line between Lots 1 and 2, — Block 2 :is the Planning Commission did not recommend for a direct egress from proposed Lot 2 onto County Road 17. The Planning Commission has recommended t� approval of the request for C-2 zoning for Lots 1, 2, 3, Block L and Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 and Lot 2, Block 3. However, a new public hearing will have to be held to approve this zoning as the initial hearing was held for P-3 zoning. • . Council Meeting Nover;t- 19, 1984 -5- 1J. Councilman Gevina - Other than changing the names of the streets, I don't have any other questions. Barb Dacv - It is a fairly large subdivision and in case of an emergency it would be best to differentiate between the street names. Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the preliminary plat for 20 lot single family resi- dential subdivision, JCB Partnership, Planning Case 84-7. Motion seconded by - Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REQUEST TO ALLOW OUTDOOR STORAGE, WAREHOUSING AND COLD STORAGE AS CCNDITIONAL USES IN C-3 COMMERCIAL SERVICE DISTRICTS: Councilman Horn moves approval of a Zoning Ordinance amencurent to allow outdoor storage, warehousing and cold storage as conditional uses in the C-3 Commercial — Service District, Planning Case 84-5. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. CHANHASSEN ESTATES SEWER PROBLEM: Don Ashworth - It did hit over a weekend and we do not pay for stand-by time so we have to look to, hopefully, finding someone at home. We had a little more problem with this one in terms of getting someone out there. I think it was maybe a half hour before we got somebody there. The problem is corrected. It was a back up of a sewer line. There were two homes on Dakota Avenue. The claim has been submitted to — our insurance carrier. The adjuster was supposed to be out there today. He did not make it today. He will be out there tomorrow morning. They have been notified that if the City is a fault that our 'insurance coverage does cover that. If am confident f that it was a main line back-up. It does not happen very often but when it does + happen it is a real problem. PROPOSED LOTUS LAKE ESTATES EEACHIDT ROVE; PI'S: Mayor Hamilton - Two parts to it, variance request to install one additional dock and to allow the overnight storage of 10 watercraft, and conditional use permit ..request to allow certain recreational beachlot improvements. This request goes back „. a ways, I am not going to go all the way back to 1978. I don't think that's necessary. However, I will go back to August 20th when the Council considered this item and that evening there was a request for four items made. One was an addi- tional dock on the northern portion of the outlot. Another was for four sailboat moorings and that was approved. The third one was for the overnight storage of ten motorized boats and the fourth one was the continuation of the walkway along the north portion of their outlot and that was already allowed. There was a motion made — that evening to deny items 1 and 3, the additional dock and the overnight storage of boats. Final action to be delayed until the City Attorney submitted findings and decisions as what came out of all the discussion that ensued that evening. The City _ Council received those findings and decisions, we made some comments about them. The Council did not take final action and still has not taken final action on those findings and decisions. We delayed action on than so that the City Manager and myself could meet with the Lotus Lake Estates Han`eowners Association and see if we — couldn't find a suitable solution to the problem. One that would satisfy both sides. What we have before us this evening is a proposal that the hareowners and myself and the City Manager have agreed upon. The options that we have before us -. this evening it seems to me, I am sure I'll be corrected, but this is the way I see it, we can have a motion to deny that anything is going to happen this evening really, that following discussions on the 20th meant denial. There was a motion to deny on the 20th and if the Council feels that that motion was in fact to deny and not to continue this item any further, that is one thing that we have to decide. If , 07 Council Meeting November 18 984 -6- the Council feels that way then there needs to be a motion accepting the findings of fact. If the Council agrees that no final action has boon taken, a motion to that - affect should also be expressed. The proposal before us can be interpreted as a new proposal since it asks for five motorized boats at the existing dock and a new dock at the north end of their outlot. We can discuss that and vote on it right now at this meeting this evening. We can return that to the Planning Commission and ask for their input. Last time they reviewed this item they chose to send it directly to the Council because they didn't want to deal with it and felt the Council should deal with it and I suspect that may be the case again. Also, this evening, if 1) — which I had mentioned, if the motion to deny was in fact in the Council's opinion the final decision, if that's accepted then six months must pass prior to a new pro- posal being submitted which in my estimation would be February 18th meeting at the earliest, at which time there would be a public hearing and we would review this item again. As I eco it, those are our options. That's what has happened since August 20th. The Council at this time needs to decide what we would like to do this evening. Councilman Horn - One clarification on the Planning Commission action, it was my recollection that they had voted on it and requested denial unanimously. Mike Thcmoson - As I recall, we denied it. Rarb Dacv - It's in the last part of your attachments. Councilwoman Watson - The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the petition August 8th. The Commission voted unanimously to deny the Lotus Lake Estates Recreational Beachlot improvements in a.motion by J. Thompson and seconded by Albee. Councilman Gevina - I would like to ask at this time since we don't have the legal _ services tonight, I am a little disturbed that we don't have our legal counsel because I think this is a very imaortant issue but I think we need to ask ourselves and clarify before we proceed with this, whether or not we are following all of the recommended procedures that we deal with as a City Council and that we will not violate any procedure by concluding with this issue and I would like to at this time ask Don Ashworth for that opinion. - Mayor Hamilton - It's up to the Council to decide whether or not we felt that the motion mane ay Pat Swenson on August 20th was in fact a motion to deny. If that's what the Council felt our action was, then there is nothing to deal with. Don Ashworth - That is Roger's opinion. Recognizing that that question would come pp I did pose that exact question to Roger. I had him go back through those minutes twice. He is slightly disappointed with how that was actually worded in the minutes — from the standpoint that the finding of fact recommendation came from the City Attorney. He had anticipated that you may end up in a court case with this par- ticular item frau one side or the other and that the City would be best served by placing those findings into a written form. If the Council determines that the action was final on August 20th then those findings of fact really mean nothing frau September 10th. In other words it was his intent in making that recommendation that the Council's position be known but in fact the action of denial would be based on the findings of fact rather than having your vote occur first then you cane along later and decide why it was you voted that way. He has a problem with that. His opinion is that it is your decision as to was it your intent on August 20th to see — this item closed out that evening or was it your intent to go to September 10th. Mayor Hamilton and I have talked on this item so he was aware of Roger's comments [E7..7 and Tan had again suggested that your first vote on this item be, what was your intent and however you answer that you will be following your procedures. In other Council Meeting Novec;t_• 19, 1984 words, if your intent was not to see it go any further, then your procedures would — be simply that item would be done and we would have no other business here this evening except to agree to the findings of fact. Again, you would be making those findings in a retrospect manner. If, on the other side your decision is that is was — not your intent to close it out that evening, then all options that were open to you on August 20th are still open to you tonight. MEW Councilman Gevina - You indicated Mr. Mayor, that if that were true this would go back to the Planning Commission? Mayor Hamilton - If, in fact, we decide that our decision on August 20th was final, — then they could re-apply on February 18th to the Planning Commission. What the Council need to have clearly in mind is hopefully you know what your intent was on August 20th. You voted for the motion which read: "Councilwoman Swenson moved to deny the request for the variance 84-8, items 1 and 3, on the basis of the fact that they are not in conformity with the existing ordinance and there is no basis for variance in the criteria setforth and based on the discussion this evening. The City Attorney will prepare findings of fact and set out the reasons for the denial." The thing that is missing out of there is the discussion that followed the motion which my recollection was that it would remain open and if you recall Peter even brought that point up that the whole item would be concluded until the findings of — fact were presented and it would not be closed. I want each of you to comment on whether you thought it was final or not. Councilman Horn - We always tell people things are not final in a sense. We act on eacn motion but we always have methods of bringing subjects up again. We have a six month waiting period and they come again for consideration to see if there are new facts involved. I felt the proposal that we were dealing with that evening which was-- for the ten boats, the extra dock, the sailboats ana whatever, it was closed that evening by this motion. That was certainly my intent and understanding that this criteria of findings was exactly what the City Attorney had recommended to more solidly document our reason for denial of the petition. Councilwoman Watson - I guess basically 1 agree with Clark in that we voted on that ten ooat proposal that was turnea down unanimously and the continuation seemed to be ` for those findings that Roder felt we should have in order to back up our decision at that time. I guess, I agree with that and at the same feel that I guess the six months is written in granite I suppose and it has to proceed in that manner. Is - that true? I do see this as a new proposal. I don't know if it necessarily has to wait the six months to go back to the Planning Commission. Councilman Horn - Can't that be waived by a vote of the Council? Councilman Gevina - The vote I made on August 20th I felt was a clear and final decision to deny the request for that particular proposal. We always handle one — proposal at a time and I think that it would be unfair to our citizens not to give them the right to comment in a public forum on a new proposal. I think it should go back through the Planning Commission and through the procedures that we have established for these kinds of things. I know it takes time but I think that's the way this should be handled. My decision on August 20th was a firm denial. ( Mayor Hamilton - Based on what my recollection was of all the discussion that ensued atter the motion was made it was that the action of that evening was not final and 1 that we were going to, after we received the attorney's comments, review it again and be certain that that was exactly what we wanted to do and then when we did — review tnose comments we didn't take action again at that time because we felt that perhaps if we talked to the homeowners group that we could reach a mutual understanding, something that could be discussed again. — Council Meeting November 14 984 (( _8_ Mayor Hamilton - It wasn't my intent to make it final. I still don't think it's final. Peter Beck - I remember that August 20th meeting, I asked, is this final, should I r even aotner to come back at the next meeting and I remember real clearly saying, we haven't adopted our findings yet, you should probably be here and then. I came and detected that both frau my clients and frau the Council that there might be some flexibility and some room to resolve this without everyone having to incur a whole lot more expense. We did meet with the Mayor and the Mayor made a proposal which I — don't really think is a new proposal. Everything in it is contained in, it's a reduction of what we had. There is nothing new. It's just a reduction of what we did have, offered by the Mayor as a way to resolve this without any further cost or expense to the City of the people frau Lotus Lake Estates. That's how we have been proceeding until today and I still think it's a good suggestion, a reasonable one, a good way to resolve this without having any party required to bear any more expenses or invest any more time. Mayor Hamilton - I need a motion, based on what I am hearing the Council members say, to maxi this official, that the Council is in fact adopting the findings and decisions. Councilman Horn - Were those ever modified. There were some questions about those. Don Ashworth - You made notifications to those. Councilman Horn - I don't think we ever got a final version of those. Mayor Hamilton - Regardless, what I am hearing the Council say is that the minutes of August 20th are approved then the findings should be approved to make the action final. Don Ashworth - The Council did not vote on the conditional use amendment for the four moorings. It was approved as a variance. You did not review it as a City Council because i,: went to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals but as a part of amending the conditional use permit your motion should be amending the conditional use permit to allow for four moorings and to adopt the findings and decision as sub- - mitted to the City Council on September 10th and as modified that evening and that should pick up any changes that you did make that we have not incorporated. Councilman Horn - Same of those as I recall are just questions. I think Dale had a few questions about where the comprehensive plan was addressed. We didn't get a response back from Roger, at least I don't recall that we did. I think we need a final version of the findings and intent from Roger based on the input before we can — approve then. Councilwoman Watson - I can't remember exactly what the questions where frau that time. Councilman Horn - I think the only part that is open is the approval of the findings of intent. Mayor Hamilton - The decision portion, you agree with. Coun clman Horn - Yes. Councilman Covina - I don't think you are going to get a better version of that September 10th findings and decisions. • Council Meeting Novem` Jr 19, 1984 ( (� Mayor Hamilton - The evening that we discussed this I still feel that item #8 was the center of our discussion because we really hadn't discussed water quality as part of that whole discussion. If we just deleted that whole section it probably would answer most of the questions that came up. •• Don Ashworth - Realize the issue at this point is really moot because, again, if the decision was that it was closed off and a final decision was made on August 20th then you really can't be adopting findings of fact on September 10th as to why you voted the way you did. The necessity to finalize this really is not there. Councilman Horn - I guess I don't understand the original purpose. ^j Don Ashworth - The original intent, it's a matter of how the motion was worded and staff's ability to convey what the attorney was recommending. He was recommending that you not take final action that night. You established the point that you wished to see included in a findings of fact document and have that presented back so then your final decision would be based on a document. It doesn't change the vote and it doesn't change the minutes as a valid representation of what it was you did. Councilwoman Watson - Regardless of these facts and findings in September, the took place in August and I didn't see that waiting for these made the vote non existent. Mayor Hamilton - We don't need to vote on the findings and decision and to one vote me Council has said that they agree that the vote that they took ons August 20th was final. • • Councilwoman Watson - Where is there — any allowance for the process to begin on this more quickly than six months because I do remember the discussion that night, I don't think that discussion changed the vote or made that vote on the ten boats and stuff null and void but I do remember the discussion. I do remember the Mayor saving that he was going to talk to them. I can remember all these thincrs and so I have a little trouble with six months and all that business about starting that part of the procedure again because we did have that discussion. It should go back proceaurally but not necessarily wait six months. Barb Dacv - Under the variance provisions in the Zoning Ordinance it says, no appli- cation for a variance which has been denied wholly or in part shall be resubmitted for a period of six months frau the date of such order or denial except on grounds of new evidence or proof of change of conditions found to be valid by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. If the board finds that there are new grounds of evidence or a change of conditions, then the case could be reheard before that six month period. Councilwoman Watson - They could begin the process again right now by • Board of Adjustments and Appeals for that finding. colo ng to the Councilman Gevinc - I would propose that that be done with the waiver of the fee for the Boara of Adjustments and Appeals. I think that's appropriate. 1 Barb Dacv - That same clause is in the conditional use provision as well. 1_ Mayor Hamilton - The Board of Adjustments ana Appeals will meet C Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986 Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded that this item be tabled until the July 7, 1986 Regular City Council meeting. All voted in favor and motion carried. APPROVAL OF ACCOUNTS: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded to approve the bills dated June 16, 1986, check numbers 023757 through 023869 in the amount of $1,859,271.77 including the 11 bills as shown on page 15 of the Accounts Payable dated June 16, 1986 in the total amount of $94,591.65, and check numbers 026646 through 026752 in the amount of $204,625.05. All Council menebers voted in favor and motion carried. Beachlots: a. First Reading of an Amendment to Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance No. 47 to Amend Section 6.04, Section 7.04 and Section 14.04 (Recreational Beachlots) , City of Chanhassen. b. First Reading of an Amendment to Section 3.04 of Water Surface Usage Ordinance No. 73. c. Conditional Use Permit Amendment to Allow a Total of 3 Docks to be Constructed on Outlot B and to Allow Overnight Storage on these Docks of a Total of 9 Watercraft without Restrictions as to Whether said Watercraft are Motorized or Non-motorized. Don Ashworth: When the Planning Commission reviewed this item, there appeared to be a great deal of emphasis placed on the fact that the lawsuit and that was really the reason that this item was coming back to the City Council. I disagree with that position. This issue is being considered on its merits. The lawsuit potentially did hasten that process, but is really not the reason for such. The City Staff is responsible to process and review applications that come before the City. In that process we look at the reasonableness of an ordinance and its consistency of enforcement. The reasonableness of an ordinance is very subjective. The best example would be the City Council has a lot of discretion in terms of establishing a new ordinance that would require a 50 foot setback. A developer can come in and question the reasonableness of that type of ordinance. He could contend that you were depriving him of his ability to develop. His ability to sustain that position really would not be very good. In adopting the ordinance, especially one that represents a leading edge, one which there is not a great deal of other communities that have similar type of • ordinance. You always chance questions as to the reasonableness of this new ordinance. The beachlot ordinance and water surface usage ordinance really represented that type of an ordinance. They represented a leading edge and the question as to could we defend or is this ordinance reasonable, could only be answered by continuously monitoring the ordinance itself. Looking at it in terms of development proposals that came before the City. From its very beginnings, and I go back to the Derek Development proposal, you have 10 riparian lots and some of the initial questions were one of should the developer be allowed to have a beachlot, should there be 6 Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986 riparian rights associated with that? The Council looked to trying to establish a protection of the spawning area that existed in that area. In — doing that, looked for mechanisms to have some give and take and to be able to allow the developer potentially the right to share docks or share usage and still preserve that area that was the spawning area. That really became a kind of first test of the reasonableness of the ordinance. Since that point in time you've had questions associated with the Will Thompson development, Red Cedar Cove, Sunnyslope has been back in front of you asking for consideration under the beachlot ordinance and Lotus Lake Estates has been in several times as well. In each instance, the parties have questioned the reasonableness of the ordinance. That reasonableness can be determined in a court of law but typically the question of reasonableness will come back and be answered by the City Council themselves. The second issue is really one of consistency of enforcement. In the Plocher-Geske variance that was approved, really questioned again the reasonableness of the ordinance and our ability to consistently enforce it. The issue before the Council was one of a developer attempting to develop a piece of property where he had the right to develop 10 single family lots. As part of that process he could have put in 10 docks each having five boats. In total you would have been looking at 50 boats and instead the developer presented to this Council the position that the City of Chanhassen needed and could use condominium type of housing, that he could live with and in fact would be willing to reduce the total dockage rights from 50 to 15. Under the current ordinance the Council could not do that. The Council made a decision to provide a variance to that developer _ as part of that process. That variance has created in fact, back to the ordinance itself because again, the two tests become one of reasonableness and consistency of enforcement. The issue of the ordinance amendments that you have in front of you are the same ordinance amendments that were introduced by Councilwoman Swenson at that point in time, one year ago. I do not again believe that they in any way are related to the Lotus Lake Estates lawsuit. They were hasten by Lotus Lake Estates. There is no _ question they were hasten by Lotus Lake Estates but they were not presented at the same time. At the time Plocker-Geske arose, the ordinance amendment again of Councilwoman Swenson was presented. The issue presented at the Planning Commission was one of what makes you think that if you change your ordinance at this point in time that you won't have another change or that this is any different than where we were 2-3 years ago. I will go back to the same two positions and those are reasonableness and consistency of — enforcement. If the City Council believes that the amendments before you are reasonable and that you can consistently apply those in cases in the future, the ordinance will remain intact, be enforceable and be law of the _ City. At this point I would like Barbara to go through the specific • amendments. Barbara Dacy: First I will discuss the amendment to the recreational -- beachlot ordinance. Just to remind everyone, as everybody knows a recreational beachlot is a conditional use in a residential district in the zoning ordinance of the City. After this I will talk about the proposed _ amendment to the water surface usage ordinance. That ordinance is not part of the zoning ordinance but is a general ordinance of the city. I will • just highlight the major changes between existing beachlot ordinance and 7 Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986 the proposed ordinance. The first one is in regards to the first section. Originally under the existing ordinance chemical toilets are permitted subject to them being located 75 feet back from the ordinary high. The proposed ordinance those facilities are prohibited. What remains the same in this section is the prohibition against any type of structure. Secondly, while the proposed ordinance continues to maintain existing restrictions to probibit launching over the beachlot, the proposed ordinance does allow overnight storage of watercraft at docks to number no more than three motorized or non-motorized watercraft per dock. The proposed ordinance also allows up to four sailboat moorings, the storage of canoes, windsurfer, sailboards and other small sailboats overnight if they are stored on racks specifically designed for that purpose. The third change between existing and the proposed ordinance is in regards to the size of the beachlot. The existing four dock, right now you have to have 100 feet by 100 feet for a beachlot. The proposed ordinance regulates the number of docks by requiring that it have at least 200 feet of lake frontage, 100 feet in depth plus 30,000 square feet in area. Additional dockage can only be granted for another 200 feet of lake frontage and another 20,000 square feet in area. You have to have both lake frontage and the lot area requirements in order to have the docks. The ordinance does restrict the total number of docks per beachlot to a total of three. Another difference in the ordinance is that the ordinance does specifically regulate sailboat moorings. No more than one sailboat mooring is allowed within 200 feet and each additional mooring has to have an additional 200 feet of lake frontage. It should be noted that the proposed changes to the beachlot ordinance does not effect existing beachlots. Your packets stamped for informational purposes, analyzed existing beachlots to see _ how the proposed regulations would effect those if they all came under the proposed standards. Only three beachlots would be allowed to have docks. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the proposed amendments wanting to convey to the City Council that the existing ordinance should be maintained. The water surface usage ordinance proposed amendment is simply to reduce the amount of boats stored at a dock where private riparian lot from five boats to three boats. The Planning Commission action on this particular item was to recommend approval to the Council. At this point I would like to refer the Council to Councilwoman Swenson's concerns regarding the consistency between the two proposed ordinances. Basically the concerns are that while existing beachlots are grandfathered, the proposed reduction in the number of boats in the water surface usage ordinance, the existing boats are not grandfathered. Secondly, the proposed beachlot ordinance does not limit the number of additional watercrafts such as canoes, sailboards and small sailboats. While the water surface usage ordinance simply says three watercraft period. Third, the water surface usage ordinance is conflicting with the beachlot ordinance in concern to the ownership of the lot. At this point if Council would like I could talk about the conditional use permit amendment request or would you like to discuss the ordinances at this point. Mayor Hamilton: We will take the ordinances first. I think what I would like to do at this time is ask if there are any citizen comments dealing 8 Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986 with the amendment to the ordinance. Margie Gargalotty: 7413 Frontier Trail. You said not to give any new evidence so I won't but I would like to present to the Council a petition that was circulated among Chanhassen residents and on here are 290 signatures of people who would like the Council to uphold the current ordinance with no changes. — Councilman Horn: I got a call today from Mr. Dave Prillaman and we discussed this issue. He asked me to pass onto the Council that he would _ like his named removed from the petition opposing this ordinance. • Henry Sosin: I live at 7400 Chanhassen Road. I would like to ask a couple of questions and make a couple of points and I would like Mr. Ashworth and — Mr. Knutson to pay special attention because I would like to hear an answer. One, the point you bring up about reasonableness and enforcability. They intrigue me. The definition of reasonableness first of all, how you come — about that. I would think that one of the laws from one of the state agencies, namely the DNR might be considered as one judge of reasonableness. They assume that for safety purposes alone, that the number of boats on a lake should be restricted at any one time to one power boat per 10 acres of — water. They assume that the people who live on the lake get 50% of that and therefore when they put in a boat launch, such as you know they are doing here now, they take the number of one boat per 20 acres, which is 50% — of the usable capacity of the lake and they assume that is a reasonable figure. What you are doing by changing this ordinance and allowing essentially in this particular one spot with reference to one lake at _ least, this change in ordinance would allow nine additional watercrafts, motorized plus other boats by the way, onto the lake which would account for 75% of the "off-lake" usage of the lake surface. Any more than that, according to the DNR, promotes an unsafe situation. The argument is that — if you add all of these extra boats, then it is almost like adding another portion of usage to the lake and I wonder if that is reasonable. The other thing I would like to mention is what you said was consistency of — enforcability. I would like you maybe to expand on that or maybe Roger can explain that to me. Just because the Council thinks something is reasonable doesn't seem to mean that it is enforcable or that they would enforce it. We have had laws on the books, there have been persistent violations of those particular laws and regulations which to this date continue. Assuming that these laws which are not up for change are reasonable and enforcable, they haven't been enforced. The point being — is that the Council doesn't seem to enforce the rules or the law and it is maybe not up to the Council to do that, City Staff whatever. Fhforcability is determined in a court of law. At least that is my understanding of it. What I would like to ask, and maybe I can get an answer to this, is it seems in its current form the ordinance says that for all the reasons that the ordinance was written, it was written this way and we are limiting usage of the lake to riparian owners except for all the usage that is allowed through normal access. That is a principal of the law and that to me seems defensible. What I don't understand is your presumption that making 200 feet plus 100 foot depth plus 30,000 square feet is reasonable and defensible. If I were in the position of owning a 9 Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986 beachlot or having a lot that had 175 feet or 190 feet and you passed this law, then you tell me that now the Council is comfortable with this and this is defensible, you tell me how that is anymore defensible than our current law because I think it is less defensible because that is being arbitrary. You have no basis upon which to say 200 by 100 by 30,000 square feet has any scientific merit. Where is the merit of that argument? I would like that answer if possible. Councilwoman Swenson: Henry, if I might respond to your DNR comment. It is my understanding that when the DNR establishes that 20 acres as you . say, they take 50% of the people that are using it and they include all of the lakeshore, not just the riparian rights. Our regulations are based on the premises of 75 foot lots. With the riparian rights for instance, with 1,000 feet on riparian rights, they would allow 13 docks depending on the DNR which allows four boats par dock without additional permits so that would be a potential 52 watercraft. Now when a beachlot is processed this triggers what they call a PUD count which takes one boat for each of that 75 feet then they add 50%. So in the case of 1,000 feet, the DNR would allow 20 boats. This is their regulations so they do take into consideration PUD's in that form. Just clarification. Don Ashworth: The question of reasonableness is a decision of a City Council. Other cities typically define reasonableness of an ordinance to mean one of the ability of existing beachlots, in this case or whatever the use happens to be, to conform to the existing ordinance or the ordinance that is proposed to be passed, and reasonableness in terms of your ability to require new developments to comply with that same ordinance. Again that is typically a test used in other communities. The question on consistency of enforcement, the Lotus Lake Homeowners have made Staff aware of various violations during the past 2-3 year period of time. I think that we have responded to each of those. I think there has to be a recognition that the Court process and the ability to enforce an issue is very difficult. It can take a period of time. The one noted by the homeowners is Mr. Harrison Winters. That has been in court several times. The Court just made a ruling in the last two weeks in favor of Mr. Winters. In light of that, the other one noted which is Mr. Gordon Talk really becomes very questionable for the City to continue to pursue recognizing his number of years on the lake and that he is a victim of polio. The other violations that are referred to, I'm not sure what they are. I know there has been some questions on Outlot 12. Outlot 12 has existed since the City was incorporated. I know of nothing they are doing there today that was not done there 50 years ago. If there are other violations, Mr. Sosin, I guess I would like to know of them. Tom Merz: I live on Lake Minnewashta. Rather than go through my list of the many things that you have heard before, I would hope that all of us are here to, our primary concern is that 10 years ago we started out to preserve the lakes and the natural resources that we have. For that we implemented that Lake Study. We had a findings and we spent a lot of time on it. At that point we had certain guidelines that we were all willing to follow. Less than three years ago with the implementation of the DNR and their public access to the lake, we again in my mind in reading these books 6! 10 Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986 — T' that we all site laws, we have gone over that and gone over that. At this point, we are not maintaining the lakes that we all moved out here for. The clarity is gone from 10 feet to 7 feet, the wildlife is disappearing and we are not maintaining what we've got and I guess I'm up here to say we've got to stop someplace. We are abusing our lakes at this point, why should be allow any more abuse. Henry Sosin: Can I have an answer to the 200 feet question? _ Mayor Hamilton: That was one of the items I wanted to discuss dealing with this amendment. I had some questions about that also and I intend to bring it up when the Council discusses this, we will get into that. I was uncomfortable with that same issue and that was one of the points I wanted to bring up so perhaps in our discussions here, that will answer your question. I have some comments that I would like to make prior to the — Council's discussion of this issue. There are a few statements that I am going to read to you. Based on comments made by residents and Commission members, there seems to be a need for clarification of some questions. The City Council has responsibility of maintaining and directing growth and development in this community for all interested persons. That includes residents and non- — residents alike. All ordinances are open to challenge at any time. It's not a this year, not next year arrangement. It is anticipated that at the time of passage, ordinances will stand the test of time. Unfortunately — situations arise that can diminish the legality or usefulness of a particular ordinance. When that occurs, the ordinance will be reviewed and changes made, if necessary. The Council has a responsibility to be fair _ and impartial to everyone. The residents, future residents, commercial organizations and employees of commercial organizations, visitors and guests. Chanhassen is not an island or a community that is suddenly stopping development. I refer to this as "I have mine now don't let — anyone else in" syndrome. Some residents have suggested that the Council knuckles under to pressure or to developers. We have an obligation on this Council to listen to each and every request made. To consider an issue, if _ it is requested every year and to review that every year it is requested. This Council continually examines questions and dissects all proposals brought before us. In my opinion there are very few errors made in our decision making process. Unfortunately, in today's society experts can be hired to give an opinion on anything and if you don't like what the first expert said, hire another, who for a price will also be an expert. Most of these experts are attorneys, in my opinion, looking for something to do. I — heard a story the other day that I actually thought was humorous. The fellow said that he understands that experimental laboratories are going to start using attorneys in their experiments rather than white mice for two reasons, because there are more of them and because you don't become quite as attached to them. The City of Chanhassen has assembled a team of professionals to advise the Council on technical matters. Outside consultants are also used to advise the Staff and Council when necessary. One of the major factors in building a team is trust and confidence in their abilities. I have a great deal of trust and confidence in the entire staff of the City of Chanhassen. The Council and Staff goes out of its way to — 11 .L tom• Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986 solicit input from the community. Most of the time input is constructive and useful and is greatly appreciated. At no time has an issue ever been ramrodded through or acted upon without input from all commissions and the public. Everyone has an opportunity to submit some sense of information about why or why not a project should or should not be acceptable. This proposed ordinance amendment before us tonight is no different. All information is looked at in an objective, unbiased perspective, one will find that there is very little, if any, net change to the use of the lakes and fair treatment to all residents in the future will occur. I would like to now have the Council make their comments and questions about the amendment to the recreational beachlot ordinance 47. — Councilman Horn: I think some of the comments Tom made really go a long way for what happened in my thought process in reviewing this. I have been involved in this since the inception as part of the first lake study committee that was appointed and I understand what we set out to do with this ordinance and know a lot of the reasoning behind it. I didn't follow the committee all the way through but I did follow their recommendations. I think one of the real issues to me that really had any question when we originally had done, was the comparison of saying a piece of property with 900 feet of lakeshore doesn't at least have the same amount of rights as one who has maybe 50 feet of lakeshore. Believe me, I am one of the most emotional advocates of saving lakes and saving trees and those things, I would say of anyone of the Council, but I have a little trouble with that when it came to reasonableness and I had a little trouble when I equated that with what we were trying to do, which was to keep down the density on the lake to a reasonable level. To the issue of when ;these ideas originated, the night Pat brought up her proposals to the Council which was prior to any lawsuit that we had and was prior to the approval of the property on Lake Minnewashta, I was willing to go along with that and listen to those arguments as long as we would apply that equitably to the proposal that was before us and also to reduce the number of boats per dock to three. I felt this was a reasonable compromise. I think if we take all of the docks on the lake that now could have five boats and put three boats on them, we are going to decrease the amount of density on the lake and that will compensate to a great degree in allowing other docks for large property owners. I think, first of all, I don't favor the the idea of outlots. I tend to favor riparian lakeshore owners not so much for the idea of crowding in this case, but for the idea of maintaining the lake. As we toured the lakes we saw many inconsistencies on how well people maintained their properties. There was a lot of inconsistencies in the riparian lakeshore owners but there was an even greater inconsistency in outlot owners. My concern with outlots at that time was that some type of a community ownership doesn't seem to bring about the sense of pride that an individual owner does, but there are exceptions to every rule. The Sunrise beach outlot situation is very well done. It is immaculately kept. If we had all outlots like that, I couldn't question it but I feel that what we have come to this evening, is a reasonable compromise because of the density issue. I tend to feel that new residents, new developers have some rights to lake use also. I'm not sure that I followed Henry's comments completely but it seemed to me like we were talking about using up a quota with the ilm number of uses we had. If we were to look at that, it would appear to me 12 r 3.L Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986 F— that a lot of the small lots along any of our lakes, would use up this — quota much faster than what three docks is going to do for us so I don't feel we can shut the new developers and the new home builders out of the uses that other people get priviledged to. For that reason I have changed — my original concept of what I felt was reasonable on this and feel that if we do have the restrictions of 200 feet or whatever a reasonable criteria is, so that we don't have the 25 foot outlot with 100 homes on it that we will adequately control their use. Councilwoman Swenson: I think that Don and you and Clark have covered pretty well my feelings on the subject also and I think it was important, I — thank you Henry for giving me an opportunity to mention the alternative were we without an ordinance in remote possibility that we might be forced into one with 20 watercraft which would be 7 more than the current amended ordinance would allow and 40 less than would be permitted under riparian ownership. By no means do I mean to imply that I disapprove of riparian ownership. Being a lakeshore owner myself, I do confess to being as sensitive to the condition of our lakes as anybody else which may or may — not make it more difficult for me to come to some of these decisions. Sometimes these decisions are personally difficult because it costs relationships with people you admire and respect but in the capacity of an — elected official one has to override these things. I think that perhaps the time to make the recommendations would be after everybody has their comments done so I will pass with that. Councilman Geving: My comments are that I don't know of a single issue in the last four years that we have spent more time on then docks, the number of docks, the number of boats per dock and the whole issue of the — recreational beachlot ordinance along with the water usage. During the last 10 days I suspect I have received as many phone calls as the rest of the Council, but it is interesting that as I tallied up the scores, I had almost equal number of fors and against on this whole issue. There are as many people that wanted to amend the ordinance as to leave it alone. I think that for anyone to suggest that at any time this Council has ever been intimidated or an attempt to influence the Council by developers, if you have that feeling it is totally false because it just doesn't happen. If you look deep enough you will usually find that the people that are behind the developers are the people who are trying to market their land. They are the farmers, the local citizens and they are the ones, not the developers who are intimidating or attempting to put pressure on whoever, to market that land, so it isn't an outside influence. It is generally _ local. The main thing about this particular issue tonight is that I think . we have studied it fairly, we have had public hearings on this issue, we have had input from literally hundreds of people and we have spent a lot of time on it and even though we were party to the original ordinance, we are — a dynamic community and changes do take place. There are at any one time, 500-700 building permits issued and available in the City of Chanhassen right now. Houses are being built all over the lakes and the lakes are a big issue with Chanhassen because I know how many people live out there. Approximately 15% of all our citizens live on lakes and because of that, they are very sensitive to what is happening around them. Changes are _ taking place and as the ordinances that we put into effect need to be 13 _ C Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986 changed because of some reason, whatever that might be, we have to take another look at the issue. On this particular case, I feel that as long as we are consistent and we try to be fair and we try to make every attempt to be deliberate in our sound decision making process, we are going to come up with a good solution tonight. Another thing is that we can't hurt the existing homeowners. If we are fair to those people and grandfather those people in where necessary, I think we will have accomplished that objective. I am very much in favor of reducing the density of boat traffic on our lakes. I have been attempting to get to this point for some time. This may surprise a lot of you but we have been considering this particular amendment very early this spring. It is nothing new. We have talked about it for the last six months and we have had several large meetings, lengthly meetings. This isn't something that we just arrived at so the issue of reducing the boats from five to three on a dock, I have gotten many good comments on that and that seems to be one issue that people are in favor of. As far as violations are concerned and the enforcement of those violations that are brought to our attention. I think it is a citizen's duty to bring those violations to our attention. We have 24 square miles in this City Henry, and it is very difficult at any one time to catch everybody who is doing something wrong, but you as citizens have a responsibility. When you see a violation taking place and you know it is a violation, report it to City Hall and it will be carried out swiftly. That is how I feel about answering that particular question. We can't be all places at all times. In terms of the ordinance itselves, I am very much in favor of the way we are moving here on this particular issue. I think the beachlot ordinance has to be amended. We probably don't like beachlots but they are a fact of life. If we can eliminate and at least attempt to come up with some standards as proposed by Councilwoman Swenson, I don't know where her criteria came from but I believe it is reasonable and I believe we can enforce that. At least we will have a standard. We didn't have a standard before so I think that will work. Again, if we can grandfather those people in tonight that are existing riparian homeowners on the lakes and take care of the other issues, I think this will be fine for the community. Councilwoman Watson: I feel like everyone else. Most of the comments have been made. I will just repeat one that we take great pride in that regardless of whether there is a public hearing held here, everyone gets to talk. There is always an opportunity to speak here even though these are not public hearings and I think that is something we all take a great deal of pride in. The other comment I have to make is I'm not opposed to the amendment, more my opposition is to the timing. The action that some feel percipitated the change of the ordinance involved the variance process. The variance process is used in conjunction with other ordinances and doesn't necessarily compromise the ordinance. Mayor Hamilton: I have two issues that I would like to have the Council discuss. One is when I was reviewing this change that has to do with what Dr. Sosin said earlier, I was looking at 200 feet and 30,000 square feet of land and I thought that if we are going to be fair with the ordinance, that isn't necessarily being fair to everyone because you can have a 100 foot lot on the lake, we may allow 100 lot now. Consequently, I thought it 6! 14 Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986 ��SS _ might be a good idea to at least consider having a scale of sane kind so if you reduce 200 down to 100 by 10 foot increments or whatever increment you want, I just took 10 feet, for each 10 feet that you reduce the frontage on the lake, you increase the square footage of land space by an increment. Whether that is 2,000, 5,000 or 10,000. Again, it would have to be an arbitary number that would need to be selected and see how that would work once it is put into place. I worked out two ways. One using going down in 10 foot increments on frontage on the lake having 100 foot setbacks though, and then going up in 10,000 foot increments so when you get down to 100 foot frontage on the lake, you would need to have 130,000, that is if you go up 10,000 square feet for each 10 feet of frontage you go down, that would give you 130,000 square feet of land space to have your outlot. Now it you went up in 5,000 square foot increments, you would have 100 feet on the lake and 80,000 square feet of space. It is a question I discussed with Barb and Don this afternoon and we just kicked it around some and _ thought it was an interesting concept and to me we need to have something like this to make it fair to everyone so we aren't just saying 200 is the only size you can have and you can have something smaller than that but you have to meet the rest of the criteria. Councilman Geving: Using your example then Tom, if you had the 200 feet what would you come up to. — Councilwoman Swenson: At 200 feet you would have 30,000. £ Councilman Geving: So you would have the basic 30 and there is no problem there. Moving down then, 100 would give you 80. Mayor Hamilton: In applying that ratio to the outlots that are in existence, the only outlot that does effect would be Frontier Trail. They have 180 feet of lake frontage and 105,000 square feet of space. The rest of them don't have the square footage required or they don't have the _ frontage required but again it is an arbitrary number that would be selected and I'm not sure how you would select that number. It could be 1,000, 2,000, 5,000, 10,000. Let's say you had 150 feet of lakeshore, you would then be required to have 55,000 square feet. Councilman Geving: That is exactly what the Sunrise Hills would fit into. Mayor Hamilton: That is grandfathered. Councilman Geving: That type of thing. _ Mayor Hamilton: Yes, right. Councilman Geving: Do we have any idea at this time, how many of these potential beachlots we have? Where there are large acreages of land next to a lake. I'm talking about future. Councilwoman Swenson: Since there is only one and that will be grandfathered in, doesn't this become a fundamental requirement of future beachlots? We're not really effecting anybody who is already existing so 15 Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986 actually the 200 isn't any more arbitrary than the 100 was before or the 4 feet per dwelling or anything like that. Would that be correct? Councilman Geving: I guess there is really no answer to the question. Councilwoman Watson: It will all be on the decision we make. Councilman Horn: My response to that would be that typically the area that you have to use on a lake is dependent on the shoreline, not how much area is behind the shoreline. That is why I don't really feel that is really relevant to what the purpose of the ordinance is, which is density of the lake surface itself. Lake foot frontage is relevant to that overall usable size but the amount of area is not. Councilmen Geving: I'm thinking of developments Clark, in terms of those developments that might come to us in the future with beachlots permissions. I can think of 2 or 3 right off the top of my head. Councilman Horn: I understand what you're saying but what I'm saying is the purpose of the ordinance was not to promote development. The purpose of the ordinance was to kccp the lake from becoming overcrowded. Councilwoman Swenson: If I may, I think there were also considerations given to the surrounding area and adjacent property owners and as a result of that I think, for instance you can't take something that is 150 feet and 100 feet deep or 200 or 50 or whatever it happens to be. I think the square footage of the lot is pertinent in that there is more expanse for people and not as much immediate effect on the adjacent property owners which is why the 20,000 feet was important and the 200 satisfied that the lake usage to 20,000 hopefully satisfied 30,000, satisfied the area which could be used without hopefully effecting riparian adjacent property owners. I have no argument with what you are saying, I just wonder whether it would be effective inasmuch as we don't have anybody that is going to be... Mayor Hamilton: I was thinking more of the future. If another one comes in I thought there should be guidelines to deal with. The other question I had in dealing with this issue was the area of the lake. For instance, and Pat has brought this point up before but I will bring it up again, Lake St. Joe, we will use that as an example, small lake. If a person were to purchase the whole lake or half the lake, the property around it and decide to put docks in there and rent boats out or something. They could do that with this ordinance so I was merely thinking of that and thinking perhaps somehow we should try to tie in the acreage of the lake. Again I don't know exactly how you do that but it is something that I think we need to consider in light of the different size lakes we have. Councilman Horn: If lakes were perfectly round, that would take care of itself in just the number of people who could build around it but because of the odd shapes that some of them have, you might run into something Like that. That is why we run into the crowding problem on Lotus Lake for instance, is because of the shape. Theortically a small lake would allow a 16 • • Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986 small number of boats just with the strict front footages. That is why I — think the front footage is a reasonable method to use when we establish a criteria. Mayor Hamilton: Roger is using a scale any more reasonable or is something in your opinion would be better. Roger Knutson: I think that really is a judgment call for you to make. I would be comfortable frankly with either one is fine. Maybe Barb could help us. Are you going to have any situations where you would have 100 feet of lakeshore and 140,000 square feet, are you going to get plans like that? Barb Dacy: Here is an overhead of Lotus Lake. Vacant properties, the Kerber area on the east side, the Moulton property on the west side may redevelop and so on. The remaining frontage along Lotus Lake is either in riparian ownership or Carver Beach lot and this is Fox Chase so there could be two potential areas on that lake for some type of subdivision request that may request a beachlot. On Lake Minnewashta it is a different situation in that on the east side you have the regional park obviously occupying that area and then there are obviously a number of existing _ beachlots. Vacant areas that stand out in my mind right now are this area on the west side of Minnewashta Parkway, south of Pleasant Acres. These property descriptions are tied across Minnewashta Parkway. As a matter of fact, we did have an inquiry on this piece a couple of months ago that the Planning Commission considered a beachlot request on it on an informal basis. The depth of these areas is 100 to 150 feet. I don't know what the area is but as you move south down toward the beachro p perty becomes less _ deep or shorter and shorter so that possibility of a beachlot in this area is remote. Other vacant areas on Minnewashta would be southeast corner of Minnewashta Parkway and TH 7. The remainder of the lake appears to be in riparian ownership unless some of these lots down in here would be developed. Councilman Geving: I think you are forgetting one area. I recognize 2 or 3 spots there but I think Lake Riley on the south side has tremendous potential for future growth. Councilwoman Swenson: There are 130 acres for sale right now. Councilman Geving: That is the only other big area that I can think of. Mayor Hamilton: There is the Gagne property. I think he has about 800 feet. Barbara Dacy: Yes, I'm sorry I neglected to make a transparency of that lake but this piece... Councilman Geving: That's okay but that is the only one that I can think • of. MED 17 Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986 Councilman Horn: I think developers with 200 feet, they always have the option of putting single family homes with riparian lakeshore. This isn't taking away use of their property. In fact if you hear all their arguments they will tell you that is greater intensification of the lake. Councilwoman Swenson: What we are talking about are, I have the opinion that when we discussed this at other meetings that we have been talking about the 200 feet and the 30,000 or then the additional 200 feet with the additional 20,000 as all being a solid, contiguous piece of property not broken up by a road. I don't think any of us want to see a narrow strip along the lake taken by 100 feet by 100 feet. Let's say 10,000 square foot lot and then have the other 30,000 feet on the other side of the road. This defeats the purpose all together. Henry Sosin: I would like to point out a couple of things. Pat, when you were talking about the number of boats and the length of the shore and that sort of thing. You seemed to dwell on the 9 boats. The 9 boats on the docks. You didn't count the four sailboats and you didn't count the 30 canoes and other sailcraft and as we all know, usage by one boat per family is far different that usage by three boats per family so that when you make the assumption, as example the only one I know the numbers on is Lotus Lake Estates, if this were to go through, you're not talking about nine boats and you were telling me the DNR would allow 20, you are talking about maybe 40 boats when you count all of them. Councilwoman Swenson: These are 20 slips though Henry and an unlimited amount of storage on land for the DNR. They don't control the number of boats and canoes. Henry Sosin: But Council does or has in the past. Councilwoman Swenson: What I mean to say really is the fact that the 20 boats would be 20 slips so we would have in this particular one that you are talking about. Incidentally one of the recommended changes that I have is one sailboat mooring per dock, not four sailboat moorings so future developments there would be a limit of 12 boats in the water in storage. Henry Sosin: Stored in the water but utilization.. . _ Councilwoman Swenson: One rack with a limit of six canoes or small sailboats per dock so you have three of those. These things are already there and if we are going to refer to Lotus Lake, Lotus Lake which is what we are all familiar with, the only thing we would be adding there Henry, are the two additional dock and the motorized, and there are already four boats allowed so we would be allowing five more boats. They already have the sailboat moorings so the only thing we are doing is saying they can have nine watercraft and they can be motorized. Henry Sosin: I'm not talking about the differences. I'm talking about _ utilization and numbers. You are talking about in that particular spot 40 watercraft in that area. That seems a lot more than what riparian owners6! currently use now. Riparian owners, they may store more than one 18 d c_ Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986 — watercraft but they only use one at a time. Utilization is far different. — Councilwoman Swenson: This is, I think subjective but I understand what you are saying. MEM Henry Sosin: Can I point out one other thing. You are talking about future lots and I think you should make sure that this doesn't happen and I don't know what language you are going to need to do this but I could readily visualize if I were a developer and I had a lot that stretched from here to here and whatever you are talking about is the minimum number of feet required for a dock. I could take this portion or any portion, whatever it is, as long as this linear footage meets your requirement and put my outlot back here in some kind of wetland that I can't touch anyway, get my required square footage and have four docks down here or x number of docks down here. You were talking about a road not be acceptable. I would suggest that is not acceptable either. Georgette Sosin: As all of you on the Council know, I live at 7400 — Chanhassen Road and I swore I wouldn't speak tonight. However, I do want to respond to a few comments that were made to set the record straight which is why I'm here tonight to be counted really. First of all, this new amendment to your ordinance was brought up for the first time to my knowledge at an August meeting of last year to which I was present. It was voted down by I think all but two voted against it. To my knowledge there has not been a public meeting about this other than the public hearing — which took place several weeks ago in front of Planning Commission and I'm sure all of you studied your notes very diligently and you knew that it was roundly defeated by all of the Planning Commissioners who felt that the ordinance was excellent as it stood. You read all of our comments I'm sure. There are a few points that you made that I think shouted be in the record as being corrected. We, as a group, were the ones who wanted the _ reduction of boats from five to three. We as riparian owners recognize the problems of crowding on the lake and even though it effects a number of people in our own group who are going to have to give up some boats, are willing and wanting to do that so I think some recognition of that fact — should be made at least for your records. I also understand the position that you are all in and I understand the tone of the evening and I think that might account for your group making the statement that we don't make mistakes. I think everybody makes mistakes. Mayor Hamilton: I don't think any of us said we don't make mistakes. MEM Georgette Sosin: Well, that we try not to, I appreciate that and I know that all of you work very hard and that you study very hard and you try to responsive to everyone. I think this is an unusual situation this evening. — Tom Merz: One last thing and I guess to only follow what Georgette said is that we do have a Planning Commission, we do have a study and as I heard you Clark and Pat, the four of your, if I understood, for the change in this beachlot and I wonder what kind of study or information you four can have that can be so different than these other two committees. What type of knowledge or research could be possibly be done that we have two groups 19 = (7 r- • Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986 that are amicably against this and you people are for it. It is all the same. We are using the same criteria. I don't understand it. Mayor Hamilton: Probably the Council discussed this issue, as Pat said, a couple years ago. I have been one of those who wanted to discuss it and probably was I who asked to have it on the agenda because I thought the ordinance was unfair to the city. I have not been in favor of not allowing overnight storage on the lakes. The Council has discussed it perhaps more than the Planning Commission has. I don't know if we had any information that the Planning Cmmission did not have. Everything that we have had should have been passed on to the Planning Commission. I think it was simply a matter of this body has been more in favor of change to the ordinance at this time rather than the Planning Commission. Councilman Geving: I think too Tom, that this body has been together for the last four years and we put this ordinance together. I think the Planning Commission has turned over somewhat during that time and there are probably some new commission members that are not as familiar as we are with this subject. I do know that all the information, all the notes and data we have was given to them so Tom, I can only respond the same way that I think we were quite a bit more familiar with this issue than the Planning Commission. Jack Melby: 40 Hill Street. I would like to know if you think that the ordinance with these changes is as defensible or more defensible than the old ordinance. Roger Knutson: As you know I am in an awkward position but I think Mr. Ashworth summarized things. It involves reasonableness and consistency of enforcement. Looking forward, I think what you have in front of you would be enforceable ordinance consistently applied. Mayor Hamilton: He said looking at the ordinance we have in front of us, he thought would be enforceable in a consistent manner. Councilwoman Swenson: I would like to add one condition be made to the ordinance and I would like the Council to consider it. In view of the fact that one of the reasons that this entire beachlot ordinance was initiated in the first place was because there are certain lots, the Derek property was one, when dockage would interfer with the wetland area which since that time we haven't discussed or initiated in the past the wetlands ordinance specifically identifying (a) and (b) but we all know that have certain . shoreline that is so classified specifically which is still habitat for wildlife and so forth. I would like to have as a stipulation in the beachlot ordinance, not just as part of the conditional use but the Council must approve the placement, docks, bouys and I suppose diving ramps would be important also and also the racks because in that way we can monitor and protect the wetland area. Since we do have the clause in the ordinance that allows a clustering of docks, there is no great necessity for three docks. If they are allowed three, they can have one or two if this will better protect the wetland ordinance. Therefore I would like to add Council approval is required in the placing of docks, bouys and whatever 20 r - Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986 would be pertinent to the subject. — Councilman Geving: Don't we have that now? Councilwoman Swenson: It is not specifically stated. Councilwoman Watson: We have used that discretion but it is not stated. Councilwoman Swenson: It has not been stated and I would like to make it quite clear. Mayor Hamilton: Since this is the first meeting, that could be a condition for Attorney's review and adoption for the second reading. Ladd Conrad: Just two quick points. First one, Dale, as far as your comments. The Planning Commission has been pretty aware of the lake issues and there hasn't been much turnover until the last couple of months so we _ are really pretty convinced of the validity of the current ordinance. The recent two weeks ago when we looked at it, there was no new information and there were three new Planning Commission members. My other point that I think is real relevant and I think Clark has brought it up, as far as — reviewing the ordinance that you have in front of you, the best control on lake usage is lakeshore and Clark made that point. Whether it be riparian owners or whatever. Lakeshore does control the use. It does promote safety and therefore I guess, pay real good attention I think Tom, to your particular interest of a pie shaped type of development on the lake. I L- don't think that serves the lake whereas lakeshore itself is a barrier or it does tend to promote the safety in the things we are interested in. — Thank you. Mayor Hamilton: Did I suggest a pie shape arrangement? I don't think I did. Ladd Conrad: You suggested an area which really goes back off the lake and _ I don't believe that is a valid use when you do have lakeshore which is a better way of controlling the use on the water. Councilwoman Swenson: I have a real problem here with passing this without the amendment for 73. Inasmuch as they are, at the present time as you know, inconsistent and the fact that they are open. Councilman Horn: Your recommendation is correct then if we pass it. Councilwoman Swenson: If we accept these. Councilwoman Swenson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to accept the amendment to the Recreational Beachlot 47-AB as amended by Councilwoman Swenson's recomendations and concerns listed in the letter to the Council of June 10, 1986 which states: No recreational beachlot shall be used for the purpose of overnight storage of more than three (3) motorized or non- motorized watercraft per dock. If a recreational beachlot is allowed more _ than one dock, however, the allowed number of boats may be clustered. Up 21 _ i Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986 to one (1) sailboat mooring shall be allowed per dock. Canoes, windsurfers, sailboards and small sailboats may be stored overnight on any recreational beachlot provided they are stored on a specifically designed rack having no more than six (6) such watercraft, per rack, per dock. Docking of other watercraft or seaplanes is permissible at any time other than overnight. Overnight docking, mooring and storage is further restricted to the owner/occupants and renter/occupants of dwellings within the Homeowners Association. Simulataneously to accept the water surface usage ordinance amendment No. 73-A with the recommendations as stipulated in my letter to the Council dated June 10, 1986 which states: Except for privately owned commercial resorts and commercial boat landings established prior to the adoption of this ordinance, no person shall dock overnight more than three (3) watercraft. Overnight docking, mooring and storage is restricted to the owner/occupant or renter/occupant of the lake site home to which the dock, storage or mooring site is an accessory use. I would like the stipulation be included that the Council approve placement of docks, bouys and so forth be included. All voted in favor except Councilwoman Watson who opposed. Motion carried. Roger Knutson: Just so I have it clear in my minutes. I have added to the Recreational Beachlot Ordinance the following: the City Council may regulate the placement of docks, if allowed, bouys, diving ramps and boat racks. I will place that into the recreational beachlot ordinance. Now is there any other change? Councilwoman Swenson: Do you have the stipulated changes in the amendment of June 10, 1986. Why don't I give you my copy. The one for the beachlot ordinance will replace item (e) and the one for the water surface usage is Section 3.04 of the Zoning Ordinance No. 73. Roger Knutson: Those are the three changes then? I have the two changes you mentioned here in the letter of June 10, 1986 and the one change you said earlier this evening. Councilwoman Swenson: That is correct. Mayor Hamilton: We now have the Conditional Use Permit Amendment to Allow a Total of 3 Docks to be Constructed on Outlot B and to Allow Overnight STorage on these Docks of a Total of 9 Watercraft without Restrictions as to Whether said Watercraft are Motorized or Non-Motorized. Does Council want to discuss this item. Councilwoman Swenson: I would like to review this approval location in this contract requiring the Council approval of the location of the docks, etc. Roger Knutson: That is what Barb recommended be approved, the site plan they bring in. Councilman Geving: No, we want to see the physical site on the lake by a Staff member and maybe even some photos that would prove to us that they are not into an area where there is a habitat problem. 22 Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986Jr- _ Roger Knutson: You are going to approve a site plan. How you get there... Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Conditional Use Permit Amendment to Allow a Total of 3 Docks to be Constructed on Outlot B and to Allow Overnight Storage on these docks of a Total of 9 Watercraft without Restrictions as to Whether said Watercraft are Motorized or Non-motorized with the following conditions: 1. Submission of a revised site plan indicating the proposed location of the two additional docks. 2. Compliance with requirements of the Recreational Beachlot — Ordinance. All voted in favor except Councilwoman Watson who opposed. Notion carried. Councilwoman Swenson: That the previous contract of the Conditional Use Permit is still effective as regards to limitations of the four sailboats and racks? Roger Knutson: Yes. Councilwoman Swenson: Everything else is as stated. 1 Roger Knutson: It is noted that this will have to be continued upon your approval before the next meeting is before us. Dacy: Mr. Mayor did your motion include the two conditions in the Staff Report also? Mayor Hamilton: Yes it did. Request for Water Obstacle Permit, Minnewashta Water Ski Club, Dana Johnson. Dacy: The water surface usage ordinance requires that the Council issue a permit for a water ski slalom course. This particular request though is put before the Council for in excess of 72 hours which is allowed only in the ordinance. The attached materials that you have in your packet includes a letter from the applicant as well as petition from the property owners along South Shore Drive and Ironwood in favor of the proposed application. Use of this ski slalom course would begin immediately and is _ proposed to last until the end of September. Use of the course would occur on weekday mornings and the primary users would be the parents and by the Sheriff's office as well as the Public Safety Director and their comments are attached. It should be noted that they submitted an original application in 1984 but have since changed the location of the ski slalom course in reaction to the Sheriff's office comments and those comments have now been resolved. On the second page of the memo, the ordinance lists five standards which the Council can use as a basis for approval or denial. Approval would require at least 3/5 majority vote. Should the Council approve the applicaton we are recommending implementation of two 23 CITY of CHANHASSEN690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 July 24 , 1989 Mr. Nicholas Gassman Lotus Lake Estates Homeowners Association 6800 Brule Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mr. Gassman: It has come to my attention that a deck has been constructed on the Lotus Lake Estates Recreational Beachlot. I was contacted this spring by residents from Lotus Lake Estates questioning whether or not a deck could be located on the recreational beachlot. I explained at that time that it would require a variance to the shoreland ordinance, a building permit and an amendment to the conditional use permit for the recreational beachlot. No effort was made to obtain any of these required permits prior to the construction of the deck. The deck on the recreational beachlot is in violation of the following: 1 . The 75 foot setback of the Shoreland Ordinance. 2 . Requirement to receive a building permit. 3 . Violation of the conditional use permit for the recreational beachlot. You are required to apply for a variance to the 75 foot setback, apply for a building permit and apply for an amendment to the conditional use permit for the recreational beachlot. Application for the variance, conditional use permit amendment and building permit must be made by September 11, 1989. If the city does not receive an applica- tion by that time or hear from the association, it will be necessary for this office to refer the matter to our City Attorney' s Office and the Code Enforcement Division. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Jo Ann Olsen Senior Planner cc: Don Ashworth Scott Harr Roger Knutson August 28, 1989 — Ms. Jo Ann Olsen Senior Planner City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Dear Jo Ann: On behalf of Lotus Lake Homeowners Association, I am submitting to you a formal request for a variance to our existing Conditional Use Permit. I am enclosing the following: — -Site plan including names and legal description of lots within 500 feet of the deck. — -Names , addresses (in label form) of all current Lotus Lake Homeowners in our Association. -Proposed wording for the variance to the existing Conditional Use Permit. -Land Development Application -Check for $150 for Conditional Use Permit. Please let me know if there is anything else required. I will be nappy to provide it for you. Thank you Jo Ann for your help and assistance. Sincerely, Nic D. Gassman 6800 Brule Circle — Chanhassen, MN Phone: 934-8408 or 829-7600 • LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 • (612) 937-1900 APPLICANT: Lotus Lake Estates OWNER: • Homeowners Association ADDRESS ADDRESS Zip Code Zip Code TELEPHONE (Daytime) 829-7600 TELEPHONE 934-8408 REQUEST: Zoning District Change _ Planned Unit Development Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan Zoning Variance Preliminary Plan Final Plan Zoning Text Amendment Subdivision Land Use Plan Amendment Platting X Conditional Use Permit Amendment Metes and Bounds Street/Easement Vacation Site Plan Review Wetlands Permit PROJECT NAME Lotus Lake Estates Homeowners Beach Deck PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION OUTLOT B - Neighborhood Rec Area REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION OUTLOT B - same PRESENT ZONING OUTLOT B - Lotus Lake Estates REQUESTED ZONING same USES PROPOSED same SIZE OF PROPERTY same LOCATION OUTLOT B Lotus Lake Estates REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST Variance for existing Conditional Use Permit LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary) August 26, 1989 _ Proposed Amendment to Conditional Use Permit — Lotus Lake Estates Homeowners Association is proposing to the City of Chanhassen an addition to the existing Conditional Use — Permit for the Beachlot — Lotus Lake Estates (Outlot B) . The addition is to Section 2 . 04 entitled "Certain Site Alterations Authorized" : h. One 12 ' x 14' Recreational Deck, to be located in the manner depicted on the modified site plan (Exhibit A) . The recreational deck will be constructed above grade and without permanent footings to minimize the environmental impact . — CITY OF CHANHASSEN RESTATED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BEACHLOT - LOTUS LAKE ESTATES This restated conditional use permit and agreement made and entered into this 7th day of July, 1986 , by Lotus Lake Estates Homeowners Association (hereinafter the "Association" ) , and the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "City" ) ; WITNESSETH: That the City, in exercise of its powers pursuant to M.S. §462.357, and other applicable state law, and §14 of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance, hereby grants to the — Association herein a restated conditional use permit to maintain and operate a private neighborhood association recreational area upon Outlot B, Lotus Lake Estates, Carver County, Minnesota (hereinafter the "Subject Property" ) , subject to the following terms and conditions , all of which shall be strictly complied with as being necessary for the protection of the public interest. SECTION 1. RECITALS. 1 .01. Prior Platting of Lotus Lake Estates. BT Land Company (hereinafter "BT" ) has previously platted tract of land in the City as Lotus Lake Estates, consisting of 44 residential lots and 3 outlots. 1 . 02. Outlot B. In connection with the platting of said Lotus Lake Estates, BT entered into a development contract with the City of Chanhassen, dated January 5 , 1979 , wherein BT agreed to organize a homeowners association for the purpose of owning and operating the Subject Property for the benefit of the owners of properties lying within said plat. Section 28 of said develop- ment contract provided that BT suffer no alterations of the Subject Property except after first having obtained a permit from the City setting forth a plan for the alteration and development of the Subject Property. Said Section 28 also provides that, for purposes of said development contract, said permit would be deemed to be a conditional use permit and that the application process and pro- cedure would be as set forth in Section 23 of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance, which sets forth the application procedure for actual conditional use permits . 1 . 03 . Homeowners Association. BT incorporated the Association for the purpose of acquiring and maintaining certain common properties including the Subject Property for the benefit of the owners of lots in the plat of Lotus Lake Estates. 1 . 04. March 10 , 1981 Conditional Use Permit. Upon appli- cation of BT, the Chanhassen City Council on July 21, 1980 , approved the issuance of a permit for the alteration of the Subject Property. Said permit, entitled "Conditional Use Permit _ Beachlot - Lotus Lake Estates" , was executed by BT and the Association on March 10 , 1981. 1 . 05. June 1 , 1981 Application for Amendment of Permit. On June 1, 1981, the Association, with the knowledge and consent of BT, filed with the City an application for amendment of the March 10, 1981 Conditional Use Permit, requesting City approval of further development of the Subject Property. 1 .06. City Council Approval. On August 12, 1981, the City' s Planning Commission held a public hearing on said June 1, 1981, application and approved issuance of a revised permit authorizing further development of the Subject Property. 1 .07. April 22 , 1982 Conditional Use Permit. The above described March 10, 1981 Conditional Use Permit was superceded by the Conditional Use Permit executed on April 22 , 1982. 1 . 08. July 18 , 1984 Application for Amendment of Permit. On July 18 , 1984, the Association filed with the City an appli- cation for amendment of the Restated Conditional Use Permit — requesting City approval of further development of the Subject Property. 1 . 09. City Council Approval. On August 8, 1984 , the City' s Planning Commission held a public hearing on said July 18, 1984 application. On August 20 , 1984 , the City' s Board of Adjustments and Appeals held a public hearing and approved a variance to allow four sailboat moorings . The City Council, by its motion of November 19 , 1984 , approved issuance of a revised permit authorizing the installation of said moorings . — 1 .10. May, 1986 Application for Amendment of Permit. The City of Chanhassen initiated a Conditional Use Permit Amendment application requesting further development of the Subject Property. 1 . 11. City Council Approval. On May 28, 1986 , the City' s — Planning Commission held a public hearing on the amendment appli- cation. On July 7, 1986 , the City Council approved the issuance of a revised permit authorizing further development of the Subject Property. SECTION 2. SPECIAL CONDITIONS. 2 . 01 . Permit Not Transferable. This permit is personal to the Association, and is not assignable or transferable, except upon the written consent of the City. .r -2- 2 . 02. Rights Under This Permit Not Expandable to Other Owners. This permit is issued for the benefit of the owners of the 44 lots in Lotus Lake Estates. The Association agrees that the use and enjoyment of the Subject Property shall be limited to the owners of lots in Lotus Lake Estates . The use and enjoyment of the Subject Property may not extend to persons other than such owners . The term "owners" as utilized in this §2 .02 shall mean and refer to any natural person who is either (a) the record owner of fee simple interest, or (b) the recorder owner of a contract for deed vendee' s interest, or ( c) the holder of any possessory leasehold interest, in the whole of any lot in Lotus Lake Estates , including authorized guests and family members of any such persons. 2 .03. Description of Property Subject To This Permit. • The premises subject to the within conditional use permit are described as follows: Outlot B, Lotus Lake Estates, according to the map or plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of the County Recorder, in and for Carver County, Minnesota. 2 . 04. Certain Site Alterations Authorized. The Association is hereby authorized to install the following improvements on the Subject Property: a . One sand blanket swim area, as shown on the revised plan, Exhibit A, dated June 25 , 1986 , said swim area to be marked with a minimum of three anchored "swim area" buoys that are in accordance with the Uniform Waterway Marking System; said buoys to be anchored a reasonable distance from shore; and b. a pedestrian walkway connecting Choctaw Circle with the sand blanket swim area; said walkway to consist of wood chips installed on a sand base with boardwalk steps on the steep slope area of the walkway; and c. four boat racks to be located on land with a storage capacity of either six canoes or six small sail boats per rack; and d. Three docks, not to exceed the greater of fifty ( 50 ) feet in length or that number of lineal feet necessary to reach a water depth of four ( 4) feet; at the option of the Association, the final ten ( 10) feet of any dock may consist of a ten foot by ten foot ( 10 ' x 10 ' ) square platform; and e. One ten foot by ten foot swimming raft, to be located in water having a minimum depth of seven ( 7 ) feet, not more than one hundred ( 100 ) feet from the nearest lake shore- line; said raft shall project a minimum of one ( 1) •'foot but not more than five ( 5 ) feet above the lake surface, and the corner of said raft shall be reflectorized; and -3- • f. One conversation pit-fire hole, three ( 3 ) feet in diameter with a six ( 6) foot apron constructed of brick or masonry material, to be located landward of the walk- way and no further north than the northerly line of Lot 32 , Block 1 , Lotus Lake Estates, extended northwesterly; and g. Four sailboat moorings, to be located in the manner depicted on the site plan stamped "Received June 25 , 1986" . Except as provided in this permit, no portion of the Subject Property may be developed, altered , or disturbed in any way. 1 .05. Trees. In carrying out the above described altera- tions , the Association agrees to use every effort to keep tree loss at an absolute minimum. 2 . 06 . Reserved. 2 . 07. Erosion Control. The Association, at its expense, shall provide temporary dams, earthwork or such other devices and practices , including seeding of graded areas , as shall be needed, in the judgement of the City Engineers, to prevent the washing, _ flooding, sedimentation and erosion of lands and roads within and outside the Subject Property during all phases of construction. BT and the Association shall keep all public streets free of all dirt and debris resulting from construction upon the Subject Property. 2 . 08 . Certain Structures Prohibited. Except for the alterations described in Section 2 .04 above, no structure, pier, boat rack, mooring buoy, or swimming platform shall be constructed, erected, or maintained on the Subject Property or in the waters abutting the Subject Property. 2 .09. Camping Prohibited. No owner, as defined in Section 2 .02 hereinabove, or other person shall camp overnight on the Subject Property. 2 . 10. Motor Vehicle Parking and Boat Storage. No _ watercraft shall be parked or stored overnight or on a permanent basis on the Subject Property, except as follows: a . not more than twenty-four canoes or small sail boats may be so stored overnight in the four boat racks described in Section 2 .04 of this permit; and b. not more than nine boats , motorized or non-motorized, may be docked overnight at the docks described in Section 2 .04 of this permit. _ c. not more than four sailboats at the mooring describes in Section 2 . 04(g) of this permit. -4- Except for construction equipment necessary for the exe- cution of the plan and as necessary for the maintenance of the Subject Property, no motor vehicle shall be driven upon or parked upon the Subject Property. No boat trailer shall be allowed upon the Subject Property. Nothing in the preceding three sentences shall be deemed to prohibit the launching of any watercraft from the Subject Property if accomplished without the assistance of any motor vehicle or trailer or wheeled dolly upon the Subject Property. SECTION 3 . MUNICIPAL DISCLAIMERS. 3 .01. No Liability to Suppliers of Labor or Material. It is understcod and agreed that the City, the City Council and the agents and employees of the City shall not be personally liable or responsible in any manner to the Association, its contractors , or subcontractors, materialmen, laborers, or to any other person, firm or corporation whomsoever, for any debt, claim, demand, damages , actions or causes of action of any kind or character arising out of or by reason of the execution of this permit and agreement or the performance and completion of the work and improvements hereunder and the Association will save the City, the City Council, and the agents and employees of the City harmless from any and all claims, damages, demands , actions or causes of action arising therefrom and the costs , disbursements, and expenses of defending the same. 3 .02. Written Work Orders. The Association shall do no work nor furnish materials, whether covered or not covered by the plan, for which reimbursement is expected from the City unless a written order for such work or materials is received from the City. Any such work or materials which may be done or furnished by the Association without such written order first being given shall be at its own risk, cost and expense, and the Association hereby agrees that without such written order, it will make no claim for compensation for work or materials so done or fur- nished. SECTION 4 . MISCELLANEOUS. 4 . 01. Severability. In the event any provisions of this permit shall be held invalid, illegal , or unenforceable by any court or competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invali- date or render unenforceable any other provision hereof , and the remaining provisions shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby. 4 . 02. Execution of Counterparts. This permit may be simultaneously executed in several counterparts , each of which shall be an original, and all of which shall constitute but 'one and the same instrument. -5- • 4 .03. Headings. Headings at the beginning of sections and paragraphs hereof are for convenience of reference, and shall not be considered a part of the text of this contract, and shall not influence its construction. — 4 .04. Proof of Title. Upon request, the Association shall furnish the City with evidence satisfactory to the City — that it has acquired fee title to the Subject Property. 4 .05. Notices. All notices, certificates and other com- _ munications hereunder shall be sufficiently given and shall be deemed given when mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, with property address as indicated below. The City and the Association, by written notice given by one to the other, may designate any address or addresses , to which notices, certificates or other communications to them shall be sent when required as contemplated by this permit. Unless _ otherwise provided by the respective parties, all notices, cer- tificates, and communications to each of them shall be addressed as follows: To the City: City of Chanhassen City Hall 690 Coulter Drive — Chanhassen, MN 55317 Attn: City Manger To the Association: Lotus Lake Estates Homeowners Assoc. Attn: President P.O. Box 63 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — 4 .06 . Owners to be Notified of This Permit. The Association shall furnish each owner, as that term is defined in Section 2 .02 above, with a copy of this permit within thirty ( 30) days of the signing of this permit and shall furnish each future owner, as that term is defined in Section 2 .02 above, with a copy of this permit, within thirty ( 30 ) days of any such owner' s initial occupancy of any residential structure in Lotus Lake Estates. 4 .07. Term of This Permit. This permit shall expire on July 21, 2010 . SECTION 5 . ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS. — 5 .01. Reimbursement of Costs . The Association shall reimbure the City for all costs , including reasonable engi- neering, legal, planning and administrative expenses incurred by the City in connection with all matters relating to the admi- nistration and enforcement of the within permit and the perfor- _ mance thereby by the Association. Such reimbursement shall be made within fourteen ( 14 ) days of the date of mailing of the,.. City' s notice of costs as provided in Section 4 .05 above. -6- , This reimbursement obligation of the Association under this sec- . tion shall be a continuing obligation throughout the term of this — permit. 5 . 02. Remedies Upon Default. a. Assessments. In the event the Association shall default in the performance of any of the covenants and agreements herein contained, and such default shall not have been cured within ten (10 ) days after receipt the Association of written notice thereof, the City, if it so elects , may cause any of the improvements described in the plan to be constructed and installed or may take action to cure such default and may cause the entire cost thereof, including all reasonable engineering, legal and administrative expense incurred by the City, to be recovered as special assessment under M.S. Chapter 429, in which case the Association agrees to pay the entire amount of the assessment roll pertaining to any such improvement within thirty (30 ) days after its adop- tion. The Association further agrees that in the event of its failure to pay in full any such special _ assessment within the time prescribed herein, the City shall have a specific lien on the Subject Property for any amount so unpaid, and the city shall have the right to foreclose said lien in the manner prescribed for the foreclosure of mechanic' s lien under the laws of the State of Minnesota. In the event of an emergency, as determined by the City Engineers, the notice require- ments to the Association shall be and hereby are waived in their entirety, and the Association shall reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City in remedying the conditions creating the emergency. b . Legal Proceedings. In addition to the foregoing, the City may institute any proper action or proceeding at — law or at equity to prevent violations of the within property, to restrain or abate violations of the within permit, or to prevent use or occupancy of the Subject — Property. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these presents to be executed on the ...5" day of NDVE"•bFR /1Q'O LOTUS LAKE ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION By )1 (. ' /t1 YVA° Its !/_ccr _/?-'44 -7- — • CITY OF CHANHASSEN -. B ��'� /� � ^„ / Z-...., It Maor Clii.Attest4(),.., -) City Clerk/Manager — STATE OF MINNESOTA) 1 ss — COUNTY OF ) / On this TD�t! day of �fetitt?-Q{ , before me, a notary _ public, within and for said county, personally appeared Cary il . L.1cht.h and Tt're}1c V" (2'1 'rrc , to me personally know, who, being each by me duly sworn did say that they are respectively the President an Vice-President of Lotus — Lake Estates Homeowners Association and that said instrument was signed on behalf of said authority of its Board of Directors , and said (_-a r v 4 1,d are_i, and 7erei m.c2 V. C',5/-; „ acknowledged said instrument to be the free ac..t,and deed of said corporation. / ��.- RICK D. MURRAY �� . NOTAAT PUBLIC—Y16L,-- #l1� CARVER COUNTY Notary Public L---- My CpRHnb>i+on LipHi.AUS.14,lflif STATE OF MINNESOTA) ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) On this i-51-11 day of 4,,,..( cam,,,-_( -4 ' , 19 S', before me, a notary public, within and for the county, personally appeared — Thomas L. Hamilton and Don W. Ashworth, to me personally known, who, being each by me duly sworn did say that they are respec- tively the Mayor and the City Manager of the municipal cor- — poration named in the foregoing instrument, and that the seal affixed to said instrument is the municipal corporate seal of said municipality, and that said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said municipal corporation by authority of its City — Council and said Thomas L. Hamilton and Don W. Ashworth acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said municipal corporation. — i - ,�.L.�ti�- ;C t t��t� — 1 S KAREN J. ENGELHARDT ) ary. ublic NOTARY PUBUC • MINNESOTA CARVER COUNTY •r My aimmission winos 10-1601 -8- a I 0 H ti • 1141> Y J , O F� C m , LW CI b ` cm Y — c� T iii — V) Y 4- > Z E U o , -� co 0 J J .r. r.. • m U C 3111116 \ C) W } cW W ›,- = cr) T Q o U = \ 1 z 5 Z.': N LC) U V1 c•-) G) ^'U +- • U O 0 b r- J S . J m T U d.) VI N et _ Y M U Y N U +) N s_ 0 O O Y L1. J 0_ o '=1 0 GOV//// L o 4 C ti � O N N M C M ro Y 3 U +.' N O O r- J CO co N Y N 4-) Y M = U O 0 +a L r- 0 a) C] J a CO V) F- C N — co O J (CI Co) w C Y H n ro U +-) = 0 0 0)v) U r- J W O� mm W Lt.. QY -, J J V) W H W Q 5 V ZISIHX3 September 1, 1989 Ms. Jo Ann Olsen Senior Planner City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Variance for 75' Setback Ordinance Dear Jo Ann: Thank you for meeting with me on Monday. I appreciated the time you _ took to discuss our Associations beach deck and the items I presented to you for review. Per your instruction, I am enclosing a check in the amount of $75.00 so the Lotus Lake Homeowners Association may apply for a variance to the 75' Setback Ordinance. On behalf of the entire Association, I want to assure you we will do whatever the City feels is necessary in order for the deck to be acceptable. We are grateful for your input and direction. Please let me know if there is anything else I can provide to resolve this matter. Sincerely, Nic Gassman 6800 Brule Circle Chanhassen, MN Phone: 934-8408 or 829-7600 Encl r11; 51,.89 r_r. i Y OF CHANHASSEN CO kq0_ v 0 4a a) 11. 3.4 0 ‹ w . v.__4 4 b - i c -4 144 1; _ HJ a 1 1111 1111‘ 111111LS‘ A,,tz 20* 110 Ail It * \ J g P _ :1! r g K I CITY OF s CHANHASSEN A. 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Paul Krauss, Director of Planning DATE: September 14, 1989 SUBJ: Approval of the Official Map for Trunk Highway 212 BACKGROUND/PURPOSE As the Planning Commission is aware, planning, design and review of T.H. 212 has been proceeding. A draft Environmental Impact Statement has been completed and is currently in the review pro- cess. A preliminary construction schedule has been prepared by MnDOT. Recent press releases indicated the letting of construc- tion contracts in 1994/95 with construction up to Lyman Boulevard/ Hwy. 101 by 1997/98. Sections of the road west of Lyman are pro- - jected for completion by the year 2000. The Planning Commission and City Council are now being asked to review and approve the official map of the TH 212 alignment that has been prepared by MnDOT. The adoption of an "Official Map" is a procedure outlined in both city ordinance and state statute. Its purpose is to identify land that is needed for roadway development or other public pur- poses . Property owners are officially put on notice of the high- way location and are thus in a better position to make decisions affecting their land. The adoption of an official map enhances the city' s existing ability to identify and require the dedica- tion of land in the corridor when subdivision approval is requested. The official mapping ordinance also creates a mecha- nism that allows the city to deny building permits in the corri- dor if the property owner has other opportunities for economic utilization of the parcel. Under sepcified conditions, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals may issue variances to grant building permits at which time construction can be delayed for 6 months to give the city and other public agencies an opportunity to pursue acquisition of the land. The ultimate goal of the procedure is to minimize the cost and disruption associated with the acquisi- tion of land for public purposes. Planning Commission September 14, 1989 Page 2 MnDOT Highway Alignment The detailed highway corridor alignment prepared by MnDOT is to serve as the Official Map (see attached information) . The final alignment is the product of a long series of reviews and hearings resulting the incorporation of numerous revisions requested by the city. Three public hearings on the alignment were held in the city on January 29 , march 26 and June 23 , 1987 . As a result of city input the "north Lake Riley" route that minimizes neigh • - borhood disruption in the city, was selected for the "Official Map" alignment. The city then went through a detailed design study of the Hwy. 101 alignment and 101/212 interchange that _ resulted in a modification to the draft official map. A detailed copy of the Official Map is available for review in the Planning Department. Other information concerning the alignment supplied by MnDOT is attached to this report. On July 24 , 1989, the City Councl approved the preliminary plat for the TH 212 official map. The next step in the process is review by the Planning Commission for consideration of its impact on the city Comprehensive Plan and a recommendation on the adop- tion of the map. A final public hearing will be held by the City Council prior to final adoption of the official map. Impact of the Official Map on the City Comprehensive Plan The direct effect of the official map on the Comprehensive Plan is difficult to assess . TH 212 has been a consideration in the development of plans for the city for many years and an alignment is illustrated on the current plan. A detailed study of the Hwy. 101 realignment and 101/212 interchange has been prepared and has been incorporated into the Official Map. This study contains a land use element that is designed to be taken into con- sideration with the overall Comp Plan update that is currently under study by the Planning Commission. The city is fortunate to be involved in the plan update since it will allow for timely adjustments to the plan to respond to the Official Map. Given the present situation we do not believe that adoption of the official map will have a detrimental effect on the Comp Plan. Preservation of Land Located Within the Highway Corridor Ideally, land located within the corridor would remain undeveloped or in its current state until MnDOT is ready to proceed with acquisition . However, due to the length of time that is involved, it is probable that property owners will make decisions that would create development pressure on many parcels located in the corri- dor. When a parcel comes under development pressure, the city has ser- veral courses of action. If a subdivision is proposed, the city Planning Commission September 14 , 1989 Page 3 can require dedication of some or all of the proposed right-of-way. In cases where the requirement of dedication is feasible, we believe it is in the public interest to do so. There may be prac- tical limits to the amount of dedication that can be required due to ordinance and court cases. Building Permits: The city will be obligated to deny any permits to construct or expand structures lying within the corridor. The property owner could appeal the decision to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. The Board may grant a variance to issue the building permit ony when it finds that: ( a) the entire prop- erty of the appellant of which the area designated for public purposes forms a part cannot yield a reasonable return to the owner unless such a permit is granted, or (b) that balancing the interest of the city in preserving the integrity of the official map and of the comprehensive city plan and the interest of the property owner in the use of his property and in the benefits of ownership, the grant of such permit is required by considerations of justice and equity. The official mapping process gives the city an opportunity to restrict development in the corridor. However, if variances to allow the issuance of building permits are approved as outlined previously, the city and other government agencies have up to 6 months to initiate acquisition of the land. In theory, the city County or MnDOT could purchase the property if funding is available, however, due to funding constraints it is unlikely that this method would be utilized extensively. Recognizing the problems and burdens that identifying and pre- serving highway corridors place on government and property owners, the state legislature has created the Right-of-way Acquisition Load Fund (RALF) . The RALF program allows the Metro Council to require up to a 5/100 ' s of a mill levy to create a revolving loan fund to be used by city' s to purchase and hold land located within the official highway corridors. The fund is to be used to acquire land threatened by development and parcels where the designation of the corridor has created a hardship for the property owner. The prop- erty owner must agree to a sales price established by an appraisal certified by MnDOT. If the loan is approved by the Metro Council, the city would acquire and hold the land until MnDOT is prepared to proceed with acquisition. All net rents and proceeds from the sale of the property to MnDOT are returned to the Metro Council when acquisition is completed. Full details on the program are attached to this report. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the TH 212 Official Map and forward it to the City Council for public hearing and final adoption. City Council Meeting - July 24, 1989 Councilman Johnson: There's 50 some homes in this area. Gary Warren: Park and Rec might have to use it. Councilman Boyt: I don't know, the neighbors I've talked to and maybe Ursula you've got a similar reaction, I haven't talked to anybody yet who didn't want the project. Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, but they'd like to have some input into it. Gary Warren: I think if it's alright with the Council, what we'll do is get - back to the schedules and check out all the conflicts before we resolve that final meeting date and if you have any preferences or want to make me aware of any of your conflicts, I'll be happy to factor that in. APPROVE PRELIMINARY PLANS FOR TRUNK HIGHWAY 212 OFFICIAL MAPPING; LAYOUT S.P. 1017-7. _ Gary Warren: This is the map and we can lay it out here if we need to. Basically what we have is a revised final layout from MnDot concerning the _ TH 212 official mapping. This is a layout and in MnDot's...it is just that. It's not the official map but the official map will be prepared frau this approved layout once we get our input back to MnDot. I understand basically that Eden Prairie and Chaska I believe have approved layouts and possibily even —` the official mapping so we're right in the mode with that. This layout is based on the northern Lake Riley alignment which is the anticipated approved alignment from the environmental impact statement which will be done this year. If for sane reason there's a surprise in the environmental impact statement and the alignment is not accepted, which would be a surprise to everybody I guess, then Council would be requested to approve another layout. What this will do is allow MnDot then to have the official map prepared which we will then have a public hearing on and invite the public before we go through the actual adoption of the ordinance for the official maps. As you can see, I tried to pull together as much from the staff report and meetings and history on this. It's — gone through quite a number of those and a lot of it predates myself. Mayor Chmiel: It starts back on 1987 and goes on through. The official map, where's that going to be posted in City Hall in the event people would like to come in and look at it? Gary Warren: The official map, one copy of this map is up in engineering right now and the official map, when we get that, will be the same scale and we would put that up in the same place. It covers one whole wall, the length of the building. Mayor Chmiel: Is that accessible for people to come in and look at it? Gary Warren: Yes. People cane back on a regular basis for as build and stuff so they can easily come back to look at that map. Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Discussion? Hearing no discussion. 18 City Council Meeting - July 24, 1989 Councilman Boyt: We discussed this in depth, I think it must have been about 2 years ago. A year and a half ago with the roan filled with people so we've kind of boon over this. This is another one of those issues where we've gone over it. I would move approval of preliminary plans for Trunk Highway 212. Mayor Chmiel: I'll second it. Resolution #89-83: Councilman Boyt moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to approve the preliminary plans for Trunk Highway 212 official mapping; Layout S.P. 1017-7. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND CITY CODE SECTION 20-237, REVOCATION AND INSPECTION REGARDING CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS. Jo Ann Olsen: Real briefly, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed amendment which essentially states that the City Council can require annual review. The Planning Commission, their only comment was that they felt that it shouldn't be shall. They felt that it should be a requirement that they have an annual. Their only comments again were whether or not we had the staff to do that. Councilman Johnson: I've got a couple comments on it. I've been talking about this for 2 years now. One thing I've always said is that there should also, there's two things. One is, some of them don't need, it says annually or more frequently in here. There are sane that probably need to be done every 2 or 3 years and not annually so I'd like the flexibility to go from 3 years or less versus annually. Some of the conditional use permits we put out there. .. Mayor Chmiel: Conditional uses are forever right? Councilman Johnson: Yes. They're forever. Some of them you don't really need to look at every year. A house or something. There's just not that much to go wrong with some of the conditions we put out. There's others which have a great potential for envirnomental harm or whatever if the conditions aren't complied with and I think they need the annual inspection. However, I think there should be a fee associated with that they're asking for special permission to do something special and when there's a potential for great harm and you have to be inspected annually, that cost should be born by the person who's getting special permission to do something different. Not by all the citizens in the City of Chanhassen. Mayor Chmiel: I guess in a way I agree with that but maybe it should be in our permit fee in the first place rather than having to go back and double billing. I think that presents some problem. Roger, can you. . . Roger Knutson: Maybe Don would be the best one to deal with that but I can see it would be a less administrative problem collecting it up front than trying to get it after the fact. Say, I don't know what your number would be, like $20.00 or $50.00 or whatever it is, if they don't pay, then you're faced with now what -1 are we going to do about it. Are we going to take them to conciliation court. Axe we going to try to revoke the permit. 19 CITYOF -I\ CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 _ (612) 937-1900 ';^n t•, , ;nwr r MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth , City Manager - -771717;,7 FROM: Gary Warren, City Engineer _ems .. DATE: July 19 , 1989 SUBJ: Approve Preliminary Plan for Trunk Highway 212 Official Mapping; Layout No. 4, S.P. 1017-07 File No. PW067C The official mapping of the Trunk Highway 212 corridor through Chanhassen moves closer to completion. In February of this year, _ the City received a revised layout, Layout No. 4, which reflected the City ' s input on a number of items from the earlier public information meetings . As noted in the attachments, the City has held three public meetings on this matter, namely January 29 , March 26 and June 23 of 1987 . The City then approved the "Concept Layout 3A" with the addition of the proposed Trunk Highway 101 interchange on June 29 , 1987 . Since that time, the .� City has approved a revised alignment for Trunk Highway 101 interchange and as such MnDOT has provided a new "Flap" to reflect the City ' s preference on this alignment. The preliminary layout map covers one entire wall in the Engineering Department and is available there for review. Once the City has approved the preliminary layout, MnDOT will finalize the "official map" based on the construction limits shown on the preliminary plans. The "official map" will then be transmitted to the City for adoption in accordance with our official mapping ordinance which will require a public hearing. It is therefore recommended that the City approve preliminary Layout No. 4 , S.P. 1017-07 ( 212 = 051 ) for the proposed Trunk Highwayh 212 corridor ( staff approval dated 1-9-89 ) including the Trunk Highway 101 revised alignment flap. Attachments 1 . Planning report dated May 29 , 1987 . 2. July 6 , 1987 letter to MnDOT. 3 . February 1, 1989 letter from MnDOT. 4 . Resolution . 5 . Preliminary Layout No. 4 (available in Engineering Department) . CITY OFCHANHASSEN -_ r `\ J 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 = ~: MEMORANDUM E:icree_✓ TO: Planning Commission o _L12S1� 7r Dste -r..t FROM: Barbara Dacy, City Planner _ ire ,u3n.: t: — DATE: May 29 , 1987 G/29 /� SUBJ: Review Conceptual Alignment of the T.H. 212 Corridor Purpose The purpose of the Commission' s review is to receive public com- ments on the proposed alignment through Chanhassen and to make a recommendation to the City Council as to whether or not the pro- posed alignment is appropriate. Several factors important in the Commission' s decision are summarized in this memorandum. In some cases, detailed plans or more information will be presented at the meeting. Please note that Eden Prairie and Chaska have completed their review process. The proposed TH 212 project extends from I-494 , through Eden Prairie, Chanhassen and Chaska to Colgone where it will connect with existing Highway 212 . Process Since notification by MnDOT to begin the conceptual alignment review process (Attachment #1) , two informal meetings were held with property owners directly and indirectly affected by the corridor (January 29tH and March 26th) . Comments received during those two meetings have prompted staff to work with MnDOT in revising the conceptual alignment to show different frontage road connections or new alignments of intersecting roadways. After Planning Commission acti•1n, the matter will be reviewed by the City Council. Once the Council approves the alignment, MnDOT then conducts the centerline survey of the alignment and prepares the official map showing general construction limits and prelimi- nary elevations. At this point the City Council must conduct another public hearing based on the official map prepared by MnDOT. If City Council action at the public hearing is to approve the map, the alignment has been established as defined in Minnesota Statutes 462. 359. h e Planning Commission May 29 , 1987 Page 2 What Is An Official Map? The official map is a statutory authorized means in which munici- palities can reserve existing and proposed right-of-ways for major streets and highways as well as existing and proposed public lands and facilities . The purpose of the map is to pre- vent the conversion of the land to non-public uses and to allow property owners to adjust building plans before significant investments occur (Attachment #2) . Is There Need For T.H. 212? TH 212 is a needed highway improvement for the following reasons: 1 . The southwest metropolitan area provides an important link to out-state Minnesota because it is within a major farm to market route. TH 212 will provide a direct link for truck traffic characteristic of farm to market trips. 2 . The population and employment projections for the south- west area are growing rapidly placing pressure on the transportation system in the area. TH 212 will relieve existing road systems, namely TH 169 and TH 5 , by pro- viding an alternative corridor for flow through traffic. 3 . Because of the increasing use of the existing roadway system, accident reports are increasing. Therefore, because TH 212 will provide another route for flow through traffic, congestion will be relieved in that local vs. flow through trips will be separated. The recent Transportation Study conducted by Benshoof and _ Associates, estimated that Highway 5 , even with TH 212, will be approximately 30, 000 to 40,000 ADT. At this level , Highway 5 would require an improvement of six to eight lanes . This level of improvement may be difficult to construct given location of — existing land uses and right of way constraints. Thus a need exists for an alternate corridor. Fred Hoisington will be present to further explain the need for the highway (Attachment #3 ) . Alignment History Of the originally considered nine alignments affecting all com- munities, five have been eliminated by the 1980 scoping report ( included in your background packet) . Attachment #5 depicts all original alignments. Those indicated by a solid line are the routes which have to be studied by the required Environmental Impact Statement. R 1+ Planning Commission May 29 , 1987 Page 3 The two alignments affecting Chanhassen are commonly referred to as the North Lake Riley Route and the South Lake Riley Route. Prior to the 1980 scoping report, a Citizens Advisory Committee was established. Candy Takkunen and Dick Vogel, Chanhassen' s representatives , will hopefully be present to offer their perspective of the process . Chanhassen, through the advisory committee process , identified the North Lake Riley Route as the preferred alignment . A city staff member at that time, Mark Koegler, will also be present to provide background on the Citizen Advisory Committee process (minutes were included in your background packets) . He will also describe the review which took place in preparation of the current Comprehensive Plan (Attachment #6 ) . Two major reasons for the selection of the North Lake Riley Route were as follows : 1 . The route would provide better access to the downtown area and the industrial park via the proposed interchange at CR 17 . 2 . It would not sever the existing West 96th Street neigh- borhood which voiced opposition of the South Lake Riley Route. As Koegler will relate, alignment evaluations at that time resulted from an analysis of the pros and cons of each route . The results of the recent transportation study also reinforce the necessity to have an alternate corridor to provide relief to TH 5 . The south route cannot meet this objective. Secondarily, an interchange at TH 101 along the north route will improve access to Chanhassen and reduce turn movements at the proposed TH 5 and Dell Road (West 184th Street) intersection. Also, please note that the north alignment is not located within existing or proposed subdivisions that would require relocation of future homes . The Commission should recognize however, that potential impacts to wetlands , Rice Marsh Lake, and Lake Riley will need to be eva- - luated in the Environmental Impact Statement. Wetlands will also be affected along the south route (Gagne, Vogel , and Hansen properties ) . Environmental Impact Statement The city is currently in the process of entering into a joint powers agreement with Eden Prairie, Chaska, Hennepin County, Carver County, Metropolitan Council and MnDOT to jointly fund the Environmental Impact Statement . The City Council has authorized C, - Al Planning Commission _ May 29 , 1987 Page 4 the expenditure of no more than $30,000 over the next three year period to provide Chanhassen' s share of the completion of the EIS. The Commission should expect to receive comments from property owners on both alignments. It is expected that there will be a request that the city not officially map a corridor and wait for _ the results of the Environmental Impact Statement. Although not recommended, the city could make that determination. Advantages to mapping the corridor now are as follows: — 1 . Prevent development within corridor which would cause greater social impacts in the future (relocation and eli- mination of neighborhoods) . 2 . Establishes centerline survey, peliminary elevations and construction limits. This preliminary data will be use- ful for development occurring adjacent to the corridor. Given the activity likely to occur ( from Sever Peterson' s land to the Eide parcel) , the information will help to — better plan for the highway in terms of buffering and relationship of the land use to the highway. 3 . The construction timetable for this type of project requires at least eight years of planning and design. If for some reason MnDOT cannot construct the highway, a corridor is at least reserved for a traffic improvement. Developers, cities, and counties may have to assume the cost. 4. The official map also enables cities to use a "revolving fund" of money from the Metropolitan Council to purchase property if it is subject to imminent development (Attachment #8) . The disadvantage that has been cited by homeowners near the alignments is that it will influence the recommended alignment of — the EIS. The official map is only a statement of the communities ' preferred alignment. It does not imply a decision as to environ- mental issues. Land Use Considerations The informal hearing process generated concerns about the types of land uses that would occur around the TH 101 and TH 212 interchange. Other concerns were expressed regarding land uses along the remaining portion of the corridor. •• Because the urban service area line runs along Lyman Boulevard, the alignment southwest of Lyman Boulevard exists within the rural service area. That area is now zoned A-2 , Agricultural i - 4) • a Planning Commission May 29 , 1987 Page 5 Estate and should remain as such. However, the TH 101 and 212 interchange are within the urban service area. Realignment of TH 101 and existence of the interchange will pose pressures for land uses that are not currently provided for on the current zoning map. Attachment #9 contains an existing land use map and contains two proposed alternatives . Alternative #1 represents a land use pat- tern which does not contain commercial around the interchange. Instead, it proposes a variety of medium to high density residen- tial development to buffer the interchange from existing single family uses. Alternative #2 proposes commercial land use at the southwest corner of TH 101 and TH 212 but limits it at that point. The neighborhood around the interchange is primarily con- cerned with the pressure for commercial development along TH 101 to TH 5 . Because of the impacts that commercial uses would impose, it is not recommended that the Commission consider those land uses. No action is required on these land use alternatives, however, this forum could be used as a starting point for discussion on future land uses in the area. If the official map is approved by the Council as proposed, it is not recommended that a specific land use pattern be generated along the official map, rather it is recommended that the update of the Comprehensive Plan discuss general guidelines for land uses that would be located in the area. The Proposed Alignment The North Lake Riley Route would contain an interchange at TH 101 including realignment of TH 101, an interchange at the exten- sion of County Road 17, and a new connection to Pioneer Trail and Bluff Creek Drive. Attachment #10 shows the MnDOT proposal (a larger scale map will be presented at the meeting) . Attachment #11 reflects changes generated from the informal hearing process . The changed alignment eliminates the need for frontage roads west of the CR 17 interchange and provides for _ better continuity of Pioneer Trail. Also, the Lake Susan neigh- borhood requested further study to shift TH 101 to the east in order that traffic would not be heading directly into their neighborhood. MnDOT is continuing to study both of these align- - ments in more detail; however, these general alignment guidelines are sufficient for this concept review stage. RECOMMENDED ACTION Because of the need for the TH 212 corridor and because the northerly alignment provides more advantages to creation of a proper transportation system serving Chanhassen, it is recom- mended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the northerly alignment as depicted in Attachment #11 . Planning Commission May 29 , 1987 Page 6 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Commissioners unanimously recommended approval of the northerly alignment of the TH 212 corridor as depicted in Attachment #11 identified as the Revised Conceptual Alignment dated June, 1987. STAFF UPDATE Fred Hoisington and Mark Koegler were not asked to attend — tonight' s meeting. The verbatim minutes contain their comments as referenced earlier in this report. Evan Green, the project manager from MnDOT, will be present to answer questions. CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve the northerly alignment of the TH 212 corridor as depicted in Attachment #11 identified as the Revised Conceptual Alignment dated June, 1987 , as recommended by the Planning Commission. — ATTACHMENTS 1 . Letter from MnDOT dated January 28 , 1987 . — 2 . Copy of state statutes regarding the official map. 3 . Data regarding existing and forecasted population and employment figures , traffic volumes , traffic forecasts, and accident reports . 4 . Planning Commission minutes on Comprehensive Plan dated October 1 , 1980 and October 15 , 1930 . 5 . TH 212 Alternatives dated October, 1985 . 6 . Excerpt from Comprehensive Plan. 7 . Construction time table. 8 . Revolving Fund information. — 9 . Existing and proposed land use alternatives at the TH 101 and TH 212 interchange. 10. Proposed conceptual alignment. 11. Revised conceptual alignment. 12 . City Council resolution establishing the official map process dated February 23 , 1987. 13 . Citizen comments. 14. Letter from Steve Alderson dated June 3 , 1987 . 15 . Planning Commission minutes dated June 3 , 1987 . Minnesota a Department of Transportation District 5 �,jr 5e 2055 No. Lilac Drive OF Tal' Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 (612; 51#5t:324i1 593-8403 January 28, 1987 Mr. Gary Warren, City Engineer City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: S.P. 1017-06 & 07 (T.H. 212) From CSAH 17 to W. Hennepin County Line In City of Chanhassen, Carver County Concept Layout 3A Dear Mr. Warren: Transmitted herewith for review and approval is a preliminary plan for the above referenced project. What we are asking for from the city is approval of this conceptual layout so that a centerline alignment can be established and we can proceed with development of the "Official Map." As you know, the city has been working with our staff during the devel- opment of these plans and the Chanhassen "Year 2005 Land Use and Trans- portation Study." Based on input from that study, the city reccrmended that an interchange be added at T.H. 101. We have attached an overlay to the layout which indicates an interchange design that would fit the area. The proposed interchange is designed as a folded diamond to the east so as to maximize the spacing between the proposed ramps at future CSAH 17. The additional overlay on the proposed layout shows a revised alignment moved slightly northeast of proposed T.H. 101. This alignment revision is in response to Eden Prairie's desire to move the proposed alignment as close as possible to the proposed Mitchell Lake Park just east of future Dell Road. If you have- any questions in regard to this project, please contact our project manager, Evan Green. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sin��ly, (/7/ /' W. M. Crawford, Y.E. y District Engineer Attachment: JAN 2 8 i987 �- C{1 Y ter t,riMHP SSEN An Equal Opportunity Employer i i k 446235 HOUSING, REDEVEL PM NT, PLANNING, ZONING 7752 7753 _, Subd. 5. "Comprehe :lye municipal plan" means a compilation of policy statements. goals, standar s, nd maps for guiding the physical. social and oul ot economic development, bo ' rivate and public, of the municipality and its - filing environs and may include, but is not limited to, the following: statements of men'—'s policies, goals, standards, a land use plan, a community facilities plan, a transpor- and r. i cation plan, and recommendations for plan execution. A comprehensive plan Sul 1 I represents the planning agency's recommendations for the future development of sectigp the community. it Subd. 6. "Land use plan" means a compilation of policy statements, goals, tions •I- standards, and maps, and action programs for guiding the future development of thereof • private and public property. The term includes a plan designating types of uses hensi+p for the entire municipality as well as a specialized plan showing specific areas or visio. c specific types of land uses, such as residential, commercial, industrial. public or maps. i semi-public uses or any combination of such uses. Sub Subd. 7. "Transportation plan" means a compilation of policy statements. pall t')i goals, standards, maps and action programs for guiding the future development of oblig is • the various modes of transportation of the municipality and its environs such as In accor streets and highways, mass transit, railroads, air transportation, trucking and water ble st&d • transportation, and includes a major thoroughfare plan. revie' a Subd. 8. "Community facilities plan" means a compilation of policy state- withc ments, goals, standards, maps and action programs for guiding the future develop- parcels t I ment of the public or semi-public facilities of the municipality such as recreational, drainage educational and cultural facilities. I it i Subd. 9. "Capital improvement program" means an itemized program set- 153: 19, ting forth the schedule and details of specific contemplated public improvements by fiscal year, together with their estimated cost, the justification for each 4623." improvement, the impact that such improvements will have on the current ` a 1 operating expense of the municipality, and such other information on capital sive mur improvements as may be pertinent. ment.g.f �..,„,„..--- Subd. 10. "Official mip_rneans a map adopted in accordance with section munit >: • 462.359 which may show existing and proposed future streets, roads, and highways accor r i of the municipality and county, the area needed for widening of existing streets. Sub .l roads, and highways of the municipality and-county, and existing and future muni ; :} county state aid highways and state trunk highway rights-of- way. An official illustr 14 • map may also show the location of existing and future public land and facilities publicize i- •' within the municipality. In counties in the metropolitan area as defined in section ute rez) 7.,..7/ il 473.121, official maps may for a period of up to five years designate the scope�f i- .. 1,i•,, boundaries of areas reserved for purposes of soil conservation, water suppi% . S conservation, flood control and surface water drainage and removal includiit_ moneys r i appropriate regulations protecting such areas against encroachment by buildings. t y 1 other physical structures or facilities. planning , i ' ' plann Subd. 11. "Governing body" in the case of cities means the coun,il 1 " g whatever name known, and in the case of a town, means the town boar,i. overing I• , planning Subd. 12. "Subdivision" means the separation of an area, parcel, or tract of S7> I land under single ownership into two or more parcels. tracts, ots, or long-tens } 'II 1 leasehold interests where the creation of the leasehold interest necessitates the cosa ;; • creation of streets, roads, or alleys, for residential, commercial, industrial, or other I for an at 462.3i�t use or any combination thereof,except those separations: contrc • (a) Where all the resulting parcels. tracts, lots, or interests will be 20 acres or ordina__: larger in size and 500 feet in width for residential uses and five acres or larger in 1 M size for commercial and industrial uses; Hist s • (b) Creating cemetery lots: 46• 235 • (c) Resulting from court orders, or the adjustment of a lot line by the Sub relocation of a common boundary. nances,r 74 /r IG . f • 7763 HOUSING. REDEVELOPMENT, PLANNING, ZONING 462.359 . the issuance of building permits to any parcels so divided, pending compliance . - •with subdivision regulations. • . Subd. 10. Limitations. Nothing in this section shall he construed to require a municipality to regulate subdivisions or to regulate all subdivisions which it is . authorized to regulate by this section. . History: 1965c670s8; 1971 c842s 1; 1973c67s 1: 1973c 176s 1; 1975 c 98 s 1; 1976 c 181 s 2; 1978 c 786 s 16,17; 1980 c 560 s 6; 1980 c 566 s 25-33: _ '. - 1981 c85s7; 1982c415s2; 1982c507s23 462.3585 JOINT PLANNING BOARD. Upon request of a home rule charter or statutory city council or county or `' j town board by resolution presented to the county auditor of the county of the affected territory a board shall be established to exercise planning and land use control authority in the unincorporated area within two miles of the corporate n - •_ limits of a city. The board shall have members in a number determined by the •. city, county, and town. Each governmental unit shall have an equal number of M - members. The members shall be appointed from the governing bodies of the city, county, and town. Upon request of more than one county or town board with respect to the unincorporated area within two miles of the corporate limits of a single city, the parties may create one board rather than a separate board for each ..... county or town, with equal membership from each affected governmental unit. The board shall serve as the governing body and board of appeals and adjustments for purposes of sections 462.351 to 462.364 within the two-mile area. The board shall have all of the powers contained in sections 462.351 to 462.364 and shall have - .- authority to adopt and enforce the uniform fire code promulgated pursuant to _ section 299F.011. The city shall provide staff for the preparation and administra- : - tion of land use controls unless otherwise agreed by the governmental units. If a . municipality extends the application of its subdivision regulations to unincorporat- ed territory located within two miles of its limits pursuant to section 462.358, subdivision la, before the creation of a joint board, the subdivision regulations which the municipality has extended shall apply until the joint board adopts , 1 subdivision regulations. ' History: 1982 c 507 s 24 't • 462359 PROCEDURE FOR PLAN EFFECTUATION; OFFICIAL MAPS. .)1‹ - . Subdivision 1. Statement of purpose. Land that is needed for future street purposes and as sites for other necessary public facilities and services is frequently diverted to non-public uses which could have been located on other lands without hardship or inconvenience to the owners. When this happens, public uses of land may be denied or may be obtained later only at prohibitive cost or at the expense of dislocating the owners and occupants of the land. Identification on an official . — map of land needed for future public uses permits both :he public and private - . property owners to adjust their building plans equitably and conveniently before - investments are made which will make such adjustments difficult to accomplish. — Subd. 2. Adoption.. After the planning agency has adopted a major thor- ,-1- :-.. „ oughfare - oughfare plan and a community facilities plan, it may. for the purpose of carrying out the policies of the major thoroughfare plan and community facilities plan, __• prepare and recommend to the governing body a proposed official map covering — the entire municipality or any portion thereof. The governing body may, after . holding a public hearing, adopt and amend the official map by•ordinance. ,A__ notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing shall be.published_in the ,.; official newspaper of the municipality at least ten days_prior-to the date of the hearing. The official map or maps shall be prepared in sufficient detail to permit Y. t i '"... e"�i.' +� ....?.....-•" 4..j : -7 '�,!5��.'3:j;, t, �f+= �.w.J.`..t if��•i:..•: <•:.,. .':-: ate,. t .. •.r:. -'� ..• •, '°�^.•;4ti.. .psi 1�+••►.. .,t.wt1SL �s..: T•:.u: i�'.. • J c� • I r — • 1 I 462.359 HOUSING, REDEVELOPMENT. PLANNING. ZONING 7764 I . establishment of the future acquisition lines on the ground. In unplatted areas a minimum of a centerline survey shall have been made prior to the preparation of the final draft of the official map. The accuracy of the future acquisition lines shown on the official map shall be attested to by a registered land surveyor. After — adoption, a copy of the official map. or sections thereof with a copy of the adopting ordinance attached shall be filed with the county recorder as provided in sections 462.351 to 462.364. 1 i 1 Subd. 3. Effect. After an official map has been adopted and filed, the — ,ii issuance of building permits by the municipality shall be subject to the provisions 11 ., of this section. Whenever any street or highway is widened or improved or any �� i new street is opened. or interests in lands for other public purposes are acquired by 31,i. ; the municipality, it is not required in such proceedings to pay for any building or • •tif'• structure placed without a permit or in violation of conditions of a permit within ..Ft ?n the limits of the mapped street or outside of any building line that may have been - ::, established upon the existing street or within any area thus identified for public MO `l'i`I purposes. The adoption of an official map does not give the municipality any }x?' right. title. or interest in areas identified for public purposes thereon, but the _ ;a; adoption of the map does authorize the municipality to acquire such interests ';:: .: without paying compensation for buildings or structures erected in such areas — without a permit or in violation of the conditions of a permit. = Subd. 4. Appeals. If a permit for a building in such location is denied, the ,k. board of appeals and adjustments shall have the power. upon appeal filed with it "..i;tY' by the owner of the land, to grant a permit for building in such location in any -:A. case in which the board finds. upon the evidence and the arguments presented to it, (a) that the entire property of the appellant of which such area identified for 4. , public purposes forms a part cannot yield a reasonable return to the owner unless _ -:....1•-', such a permit is granted. and (b) that balancing the interest of the municipality in ',:;, ! preserving the integrity of the official map and of the comprehensive municipal •:...-• . plan and the interest of the owner of the property in the use of his property and in �j the benefits of ownership. the grant of such permit is required by considerations of _ ,~:•mss f justice and equity. In addition to the notice of hearing required by section _%:,..: ' ' 462.354. subdivision 2, a notice shall be published in the official newspaper once at '• `tw44.7 least ten days before the day of the hearing. If the board of appeals and •"i:' adjustments authorizes the issuance of a permit the governing body or other board :ri;i or commission having jurisdiction shall have six months from the date of the r.-1::-..:::1: decision of the board to institute proceedings to acquire such land or interest --".'---:•7-...14-. .-i, therein, and if no such proceedings are started within that time, the officer :::;-7".52z! • responsible for issuing building permits shall issue the permit if the application t• :,•44.;i•-.i a ,;, otherwise conforms to local ordinances. The board shall specify the exact ` _ location, ground area, height and other details as to the extent and character of the t'�''- !` building for which the permit is granted. — ::..:, t � ,i History: 1965 c 670 s 9: 1976 c 181 s 2 ---• ••••••...: ;;1'..' •, `. :.-."Alt 462.3595 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS. t:t :'•.•-:t:i.I IISubdivision I. Authority. The governing body may by ordinance designate • • : �,1; ' certain types of developments, including planned unit developments, and certain ` ''•tit- land development activities as conditional uses under zoning regulations. Condi- r-...- .:,.4: i; I tional uses may be approved by the governing body or other designated authority ,: ..-:•-.. ,i4 I •l by a showing by the applicant that the standards and criteria stated in the - .:'•-tt+ +S ordinance will he satisfied. The standards and criteria shall include both general �_ ,J • 11 requirements for all conditional uses, and insofar as practicable, requirements ` 4specific to each designated conditional use. ;i-=,':'•i. • '.A�; Subd. 2. Public hearings. Public hearings on the granting of conditional use , permits shall be held in the manner provided in section 462.357, subdivision 3. ....:;•E Is _ ,.....4.i.,,;., r . FIGURE 1 POPULATION & EMPLOYMENT — 1980 & 2005 TRUNK HIGHWAY 212 CORRIDOR 1980 2005 % INCREASE Population 46 , 297 90 ,070 95% Employment 20 , 030 62 ,000 209% Source: TH 212 Traffic Forecasts , BRW, July 1985 CITY OF CHANHASSENI RECEIVEC APR 2 H CHANHASSEN PLANNING CEI • 4¢71 tOM X44.3 FIGURE 2 EXISTING & FORECASTED POPULATION & EMPLOYMENT SELECTED CITIES WITHIN TRUNK HIGHWAY 212 CORRIDOR POPULATION EMPLOYMENT 1986 2005 % INCREASE 1986 2005 % INCREASE Chanhassen 8 , 000 10, 000 2 , 700 4 , 700 Eden Prairie 26 , 247 50 ,000 25 , 000 45 , 000 Chaska 9 , 582 11 , 220 4 , 980 7 , 250 _ TOTALS 43 , 829 71 , 220 62% 32 , 680 56, 950 74% Source : TH 212 Traffic Forecasts, BRW, July 1985 a • (- FIGURE 3 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES - HIGHWAYS 169/212 & 5 - 1984 (PRE CANTERBURY DOWNS) HIGHWAY 169/212 * West of Chaska 9 , 200 East of Chaska 10, 800 West of Hwy 101 11 , 500 East of Hwy 101 20,000 West of I-494 31 , 600 HIGHWAY 5 West of TH 41 10, 100 East of TH 41 10, 700 West of TH 101 16 , 600 East of TH 101 14 , 100 West of I-494 33 , 200 * All two lane roadway except from I-494 to Prairie Center Drive and vicinity of Hennepin Technical Center and Flying Cloud Landfill 7- %. FIGURE 4 — The following is a summary of accidents on the trunk highway system in the southwest corridor from 1980 to 1985 : — Accident History Year - 169 212 5 Total 1980 Fat ( 1 ) 1 0 0 1 — # ( 2) 133 127 184 444 Sev ( 3) 5. 5 6 .0 4 .8 1981 Fat 3 1 2 6 — # 137 113 164 414 Sev 6 . 4 5 . 3 4 .4 1982 Fat 1 1 2 4 # 82 112 185 379 Sev 3 . 5 6 . 0 4 . 2 — 1983 Fat 3 2 2 7 # 139 109 226 474 — Sev 5 . 4 4 . 2 2 .0 1984 Fat 4 1 1 6 # 159 138 252 S49 Sev 6 . 4 1 .9 1 . 0 1985 Fat 1 2 1 4 .. # 189 110 256 555 Sev 6 . 1 4 . 1 4 .9 a ( 1 ) Fat = Fatalities ( 2 ) # = Total Accidents ( 3) Sev = Severity (a severity factor approaching 6 . 0 is considered serious ) a a a FIGURE 5 TRAFFIC FORECASTS 1984 2005 2005 2005 No Build Build 212 Max Growth HIGHWAY 169/212 West of Chaska 9, 200 19 , 400 9, 800 10, 500 East of Chaska 10, 800 24 , 800 9, 000 9 , 700 West of Hwy 101 11 , 500 32 , 600 17 , 000 19 , 400 East of Hwy 101 20,000 35 , 400 19 , 600 22 , 100 West of I-494 31 , 600 41 , 200 25 , 000 29 , 700 HIGHWAY 5 West of TH 41 10 , 100 21 , 600 18, 600 20, 600 East of TH 41 10, 700 27 , 000 21 , 800 24, 100 West of TH 101 16 , 600 34 , 600 27 , 600 31 ,000 East of TH 101 14 , 100 33 , 400 28 , 600 31 , 500 West of I-494 33 , 200 54 , 600 71 , 200 85 , 500 t� C Minutes of the 10-1-80 Planning Commission Meeting _ Page 2 housing should be incorporated within future large residential development proposals. He felt the financial commitment Chan- hassen could feasibly make toward subsidized housing construc- tion was a key point and should be evaluated. r. Chairman Horn felt a good location for subsidized elerly housing was near the downtown business core which was not proposed for redevelopment. In repsonse to the Planning Commission, Mr. Koegler explained the family and elderly percentage breakdown for subsidized units was determined by HUD and, in most cases, could not be exceeded. Discussion followed on the numerical housing goals for Chanhassen, and possible funding programs the City could implement to meet its housing goals. Mr. Johnson felt a general approach to implementation would be best, whereby they would not designate numerical goals for particular programs and housing types. — It was felt the industrial park was a prime determiner of housing needs for the community. — CIn the discussion of the policy for the placement of subsidized housing, Mr. Koegler indicated the intent of the policy was to ensure similar review practices for both subsidized and market-rate housing developoments so that subsidized housing units would not be placed in "inferior" locations due to inconvenient locations of services . The Commission wished to eliminate a reference to "inferior" location and felt it was adequate to just ensure similar review practices — would occur for both market-rate and subsidized housing develop- ments in the housing practices. For the policy on alternative housing in the city, Mr. Johnson felt it should be noted we will encourage alternative housing but -specific types should not be included. The Commission wished to include the issue that the City of Chanhassen has traditionally been predominantly a single-family community but will consider, as the need arises , alternative housing. Discussion closed. . 4(Discussion, Transportation Plan: Mr. Koegler reviewed the Transportation Plan. He indicated the construction of Highway 169-212 would not occur prior to 1990 due to lack of available construction funds; — this would result in increased traffic on State Highways 5 and 41 . He said he had asked the Metropolitan Council to Minutes of the 10-1-80 Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 do computer runs on volume analysis without the construction of Highway 212 for the period of 1980 through 1990. In their traffic projections , the Metrpolitan Council had assumed Highways 169-212 would be constructed and this showed lower traffic volumes for Highways 5 and 41 . The traffic projectsions were accomplished through the definition of Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZ) , which is a geographic modeling by which the estimates can be made. Mr. Koegler noted that bus transit was currently limited to two routes in Chanhassen, the Commission felt this was inadequate for the City' s needs. The plan showed a proposal for additional buses on existing routes and route expansion. Discussion occurred on the designation of the Highway 169-212 corridor. Mr. Koegler explained existing transportation systems and deficiencies within them. The Commission generally felt a temporary controlled intersection should be placed at the entry to the Industrial Park. Mr. J. Thompson felt the entry from the Minnewashta area unto Highway 7 should be more controlled. Discussion occurred on whether the policy should be to pave streets in the undeveloped areas of the community Z Mr. Koegler displayed a graphic delineating a draft major street plan which incorporated the old transportation plan of 1972 and recent changes with the city' s transportation systems. The plan included major arterials, intermediate arterials , and collector streets. Chairman Horn felt something should be done to help deter the curvature problem of Highway 101 . Mr. Johnson was concerned about Highway 5 ' s adaptability to the future increased traffic flow. Following further discussion of Highway 5 and its construction, the Commission felt it would be best to connect Highway 101 to Dell Road just north of Highway 5 and to bring Highway 101 down to Highway 5 south. The Commission asked Mr. Koegler to express this concept to the City of - Eden Prairie for their reaction and response. Discussion occurred on Bluff Creek Drive and possible connection to Highway 17. The Commission felt this action should be deferred at this time. Discussion closed. Adjournment: Mr. Hamilton moved to adjourn the October 1 , 1980 , Planning Commission. Mr. W. Thompson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned . I' Minutes of the 10-15-80 PC Meeting Page 5 Mr. J . Thompson : He felt it was a suitable use of the land and the date of the subdivision was at such a time whereby the property owner may not have been aware of the ordinance restrictions placed on it by Ordinance No . 45 . Mr. Partridge : He felt that it would be best to restructure Ordinance No . 45 prior to the granting of variances such as the subject request . Chairman Horn : He felt the same as Mr. Partridge with it being best to wait on approving variances such as this until the Ordinance No . 45 has been reviewed . He also indicated that as an advisory body they must act objectively . 3 . Comprehensive Plan - Community Facilities Discussion : Mr . Koegler explained the Community Facilities Section was primarily concerned with public facilities and support systems . He commented on existing and proposed municipal buildings , fire services , schools , and the library issue . _ He indicated the facilities with the exception of the proposed municipal buildings would be adequate until 1990 . It was anticipated that further expansion of the municipal offices would be required in approximately 1985 . The Commission generally — agreed with the contents of the Community Facilities section of the Comprehensive Plan . No motion was necessary . 4 . Comprehensive Plan - Housing Discussion : Ms . Rust reviewed the numerical housing goals for both subsidized and modest cost housing . She explained possible methods for implementing these housing goals which included various federal and state funding programs , local practices — which included the provision of alternative housing types and density transfers which allowed a greater density of housing in some locations . Ms . Rust also discussed housing quality and how local review procedures and government funding programs can come into play to ensure it is provided . The Commission generally — agreed with the Housing Section discussed . No motion was necessary . 5 . Comprehensive Plan - Transportation Discussion : Mr . Koegler recalled from preliminary discussions of the Transportation Section of the plan that that section was primarily tailored for the time- frame of 1990 to 2000 . Minutes of the 10-15-80 PC Meeting Page 6 Discussion occurred on the area including Highway 101 north of Highway 5 and Dell Road with Mr. Koegler saying the City of Eden Prairie did not wish to connect Highway 101 with Dell Road . He then further explained Eden Prairie ' s plan for Highway 5 . The Commission was concerned about the traffic situation which could potentially occur on Highways 5 and 101 . Mr. Koegler discussed the situation involving Highways 169-212 , Highway 41 , Bluff Creek Drive and its connection to Pioneer Trail , and the plans for other arterial and collector roads within the city. Discussion occurred on seaplane operations and what the City policy should be regarding them. Discussion closed with no motion necessary . 6 . Adjournment : Mr . Partridge moved to adjourn the 10- 1 -80 Planning Commission meeting . Mr. J . Thompson seconded the motion . All voted aye . Motion carried . Meeting adjourned at 10 : 30 p . m. i, _ *4 '/' ' ..,(W.. IPA ( IMP • ♦ O • V F 11111tA . ' tir • Ss O O Y. I A ' �� i ..-V._ ,... ' -` Y�� y ;CC a _ ;_ _may - — i o aka I 3 fPIRS M.' 2 IF D owl c I4 r xIr y I 1.i- _, f S V J +• • J O J ATi s .- laN Air( 4. n ' I. p l 0 _mead ' 'J:'ofr 411* , • ▪ ; 0.0c.„) . . y A . : i. _j ,dirdtij No • �y r. '1t '^ �- • 02 • 1 O L.L1 CC CO .eO t -O • A:\ -;,;'O • .�Jb 1— Q N w rn v c — p. T. - 4.LI,•' '.4 i - , I3 eciNv ; \ y..T�- , 11.-• ___±,____1111 f S D • ® ;i • jr i; \� ',1\1.1.::: :-.J.„„.... .r ; (IL-..2...,;.4....._ ....-1 1, LV i 1•44 \ r \'..- o , .o ...‘„„.....,___„___. ,...1•ACtI 1102 :t. \*.... 1 I I ON i \' .W,/1lCI Nib • , \,,:...„4.. ,, , : ...---......\........\\---7:-.:\•Ji \ •••, .O \\1 :.- 7. : 7,,.....,i7___;;;147) i. r ,..... t -- !I : ‘ . ,_.),.\ ___ .. .. i \.,,,,).- v, !. -., -.. :I • , ..__ 1 . i.... ) �+ is p_- o - \:,..k...4,, ' , 3: %;1 -1 `�.:„..../ I • `•j i • •:' C 1). ..j.-----I.-.) <,./ • ' \ ...• tv I ea!i , j. / /(') t-20 /- Transit Bus service to Chanhassen is presently provided by the Metropolitan i Transit Commission (MTC) in the form of both local and express routes . The express route , 53J , consists of two round trips daily which provide service to downtown Minneapolis . Local service is provided on route 67 which connects Chanhassen to Minnetonka , Shore- _ wood , and other points north . Service p trips on weekdays with one additional triesently consists of 7 Identified stops are located at West 78thpStreet on nand s101 , Wests78thand Thus � Street and Laredo Drive , and at a shelter located outside the — American Legion Club at 101 and 5 . Because the ridership of routes 53J and _ . 67 are rela- tively low, the Metropolitan Transit Commissionarticulhas ynot formulated any future plans which would provide additional routes or service to Chanhassen . As the community continues to escalate , the grow and energy costs public ' s awareness of and demand for transit service will increase. Therefore , the City of Chanhassen recommends that the MTC plan for expanded future service. _ In analyzing Chanhassen ' s future transit needs , two areas of improve- ment seem feasible : expanded express service and the coordinated usage of park and ride sites . Additional express service will be necessary due to added residential growth and the continued number of employment opportunities outside of the community . The area surrounding Lake Susan should be considered as a priority for ex- panded service since significant residential growth is anticipated there prior to 1990. Park and ride sites should be used to compliment express transit service . At the present time , the stop at the Chanhassen American Legion Club serves as a park and ride site. This facility effect- ively serves the eastern portion of the community , however , on the west side of town , no such facility exists . Therefore , the City should actively work with the MTC in providing an appropriate Consideration should be given to the former Chanhaso enublic worksrk . site at the corner of West 82nd Street and Highway 41 for such — use. The accompanying Transit Service map depicts Chanhassen ' s existing and proposed 1990- service . .i p K Trunk Highway 169-212 For the past 20 years , the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has been working toward the construction of T. H. 169-212 . The route , as generally proposed , begins east of Norwood in Carver County and, terminates at Interstate 494 in Eden Prairie . The por- tion of the roadway designated as Highway 169 crosses the Minnesota River in Shakopee and heads north generally along the Chanhassen- _ Chaska border. In southern Chanhassen , 1G9 joins 2. 12 and the • t • ARiwtakir446 t-23 combined roadway traverses Chanhassen and Eden Prairie to its terminus . At the present time , planning and environmental studies for T . H. 169-212 have terminated due to a lack of available construction funds . The postponement of the construction of the road will have , r a negative impact on the City of Chanhassen according to the Minnesota Department of Transportation , without the construction of 169-212 , Chanhassen can expect higher traffic volumes on exist- ing 212 as well as on State Highways 5 and 41 . Additionally , the Metropolitan Council as part of its regional transportation . planning has always promoted the construction of 169-212 as a means of satisfying regional transit needs and of alleviating traffic on 5 . Without construction prior to 1990 and unless improvements on existing T. H. 5 occur , the City of Chanhassen as well as Eden Prairie can anticipate further congestion and the likely failure of 5 as a minor arterial . As the previous discussion should indicate , the City of Chanhassen positively supports the construction of T. H. 169-212 . As a result of the projects review by a citizens committee , the Planning Com- mission , and the City Council , Chanhassen officially prefers what is generally referred to as the North Lake Riley route. The City has consistently indicated , however, that other routes may be feasible and that they should be considered if they contribute to the timely completion of the project. T. H. 169-212 is consistent with local plans , the plans of adjacent municipalities , the Metropolitan Council , and the State of Minnesota . — Because of this , the City will continue to pursue the eventual construction of T. H . 169-212 . • Chanhassen ' s 1990 Transportation System map as well as the gener- alized 1990 Land Use map depict the construction of T . H . 169-212 along the northern alignment . The southern route , commonly re- ferred to as System D , is shown as a possible alternative . Devel - opment occurring in the vicinity of either of these routes should be cognizant of the fact that the City supports the development of T. H . 169- 212 as a principal arterial and that such an action will lead to increased traffic along the selected corridor. System Deficiencies The function of a transportation plan is to not only accommodate future needs but also to analyze existing problems and to pose appropriate solutions . Frequently , existing problems are closely related to future needs . As a result , a specific action in a given area can remedy existing deficiences while at the same time provide for future needs . _ In examining Chanhassen ' s existing transportation system , two gen - _ eral problems become apparent . First , the system provides adequate north-south access but is deficient in east-west routes . In the northeastern part of the City , Highway 5 is 3 . 5 miles from Highway t-30 woe L0- h_ ` =uglier ,,_,. , ��o _ "7"---; .�, - t'\_77.1W c• --Z ' .__.._.______.,;(3----1_ iiph ii,_ --\\Ta7;. -- , ._ 7-: r • (-7-'s..'";---4, 's . .4,. : ! L... ,-......--4,4 UlP ‘ 1'.7...C20...._, ..„0.6_. 0-, ! 1 ! . : ..----47_1-1 - r. — \\-- ..-.:-._- ) 0 —IT;.ri.‘„,1 I , ...., ; 4, !, � TJ ` ' r �. _ yLL:V � I i ! i 111I11111U:1111111111111ll ll- llllll CITY OF i �\• CHANHASSE�1 r __�`�' 'r 1 z - MINNESOTA 1 \-- I _rte/ i '\\ i Proposed 1990 -2000 ��`\ '� - Functional Classification -7- ___1„, ' Illlllllliilltl Principal Arterial \\\\\\\� ' . ` I I ( mg. . Intermediate Arterial r_ . _ �' : : _ 0 0 © Minor Arterialc' all-S:rj . -\,\-_ ,: :., ,\- L7E1 '4. _. �— Collector I • 0 0 Q r \ • ..<4L'____-ek.'<-1x-o- ; 1---% Lt- . 167.... Jr i 0 -.•——— CONSTRUCTION TIMETABLE OFFICIAL MAP 1987 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND PRELIMINARY DESIGN 1988-1992 DESIGN 1993 RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION 1992-1994 LETTING PHASE ONE 1994 CONSTRUCTION 1995 PHASE TWO merArie7 f • GUIDELINES TO ALLOCATE FUNDS FOR METROPOLITAN HIGHWAY RIGHTS OF WAY June 1986 Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities Area 300 Metro Square Building, 7th and Robert Streets St. Paul , Minnesota 55101 Telephone: (612) 291-6359 Publication No. 561-86-041 MICt0115i7l GUIDELINES TO ALLOCATE FUNDS FOR METROPOLITAN HIGHWAY RIGHTS OF WAY Revised And Amended: June, 1986 INTRODUCTION The Metropolitan Council is charged with planning for the orderly and economic development of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. As part of that work, the Council plans for the direction transportation investments should take through the year 2000. The Council ' s Transportation Policy Plan outlines a metropolitan highway system consisting of interstate highways and other major arterials. The interstate system is almost completed. Several other parts of the metropolitan highway system, especially in the developing areas, will not be built for several years. Many highways are not far enough in the planning process to enable the constructing agency to purchase right of way. In some instances, counties or municipalities have attempted to protect a proposed highway right of way from development by adopting an official map. However, these local governments have not always had sufficient funds to acquire small parcels of land, which has sometimes forced them to grant building permits within a highway right of way. In 1982 the Minnesota Legislature acted to help counties and muncipalities acquire these parcels by adopting the Metropolitan Right-of-Way Reservation Act (Minn. Stat. Sec. 473. 167, Subd. 2) . The law authorized the Metropolitan Council to levy a regional property tax of up to 5/100ths of a mill to establish a revolving fund for advance acquisition of metropolitan highway rights of way threatened by imminent development. The funds are used by the Council to make loans to counties, towns and cities, to be repaid at a later date to purchase property within rights of way of state trunk highways or highways on the metropolitan system. Such loans accordingly are made without reference to the actual acquisition and construction schedules to be developed by the constructing agency. The first proceeds of the tax (about $ 1 million annually) were available in July 1983. Since then several cities have received loans to purchase land within the rights-of-way of two planned highways. An annual status report on the revolving fund is prepared for the Council by staff to assist the Council in determining a levy amount by October. In 1985 the Minnesota Legislature amended the Metropolitan Right-of-Way Reservation Act to allow the Council to use the revolving fund for loans to purchase "hardship" properties in a proposed State Highway project. These loans also can be used to pay for relocation costs. Although the law is fairly specific regarding eligibility and procedures, certain aspects require clarification. The Council proposes the guidelines below for distribution of these funds. Part A describes the procedures for advance acquisition loans to purchase land when development is imminent. These procedures have been modified slightly since the original guidelines were adopted in December 1983. Part B reflects the amended legislation and describes the procedures to use for hardship loans to purchase homestead properties. 1 f- PART A: Advance Acquisition Loans I . Eligibility Guidelines 1 . Any county, town or statutory or home rule city within (or partially within) the Seven-County Metropolitan Area is eligible to apply for a loan. The Minnesota Department of Transportation is not eligible. 2. Loans are for the purchase of property within a proposed right-of-way of a state trunk highway shown on an official map adopted pursuant to Minn. Stat. 394.361 or 462.359. Loans are also for the purchase of property within a proposed right-of-way of an interstate freeway or major arterial highway designated by the Metropolitan Council as a part of the metropolitan highway system plan and approved by the Council pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 473. 167, Subd. 1 . 3. The Council shall make loans only to avert the imminent conversion or the granting of approvals that would allow the conversion of property to uses jeopardizing its availability for highway construction. 4. Loans will be made only for the purchase of property from a willing seller, not by condemnation. 5. Property to be acquired must have a marketable title and may not be park land or land which is either on or eligible for inclusion on a historic register. 6. Applications will be considered as they are received, not on a periodic funding cycle. - II . Advance Acquisition Loan Application Procedures A. Preliminary Approval 1 . The applicant submits, for preliminary Council approval , an application including, as a minimum: a. Resolution of local jurisdiction authorizing loan application and purchase of property. b. Statement of need to acquire property, including evidence regarding imminent conversion. c. Amount of loan requested. d. A legal description of the property to be acquired, its acreage, and a map showing the property in relation to the highway right-of- way. e. A statement of the applicant' s eligibility to incur this debt. (Form available from the Council .) • 2. For land within state trunk highways, Council staff will forward the application to Mn/DOT for advisory comments within 45 days. At this time, Mn/DOT will have the option to acquire the land itself. 3. The Council , as part of #2, will request that Mn/DOT determine whether or to what extent the land lies within a proposed right-of-way. If MnDOT determines that any part lies outside the proposed right-of-way, MnDOT shall be requested to determine whether such part has economic _ value. If MnDOT determines such part to be an uneconomic remnant, the entire parcel shall be eligible for purchase with a right-of-way acquisition loan. If MnDOT determines such part to be an economic remnant, only such part as lies within the proposed right-of-way shall be eligible for purchase with a right-of-way acquisition loan. The Council shall accept Mn/DOT' s determination regarding the economic value of excess property. 4. Within 75 days from original receipt of preliminary application, the Council must consider the application, including any Mn/DOT comments, and will either disapprove or give preliminary approval and authorize the applicant to proceed with the application process. B. Final Approval 1 . After receiving preliminary approval , the applicant must obtain and submit to Mn/DOT an appraisal (two appraisals if purchase price is over $100,000) made by an appraisor on the list of Qualified Appraisors Available for State Contracts . Mn/DOT will have 30 days to certify the appraisal . No offer can be made to the property owner until Mn/DOT certifies the appraisal . _ 2. After Mn/DOT certifies the appraisal , the applicant may begin negotiations with the property owner . If the negotiated sale price is above the appraised value of the property (i .e. , an administrative settlement) Mn/DOT must approve it. In cases where the property to be acquired is not within a state highway right-of-way, the appraisal review would be performed by the constructing agency. — 3. The applicant submits the appraisal certification, purchase agreement, (administrative settlement, if required) , statement of cost, and draft — loan agreement to the Council as a final application. 4. The Council finally approves or disapproves the loan. If the loan is approved, a loan agreement for the purchase price of the property and the costs incurred by the applicant may be executed. III . Loan Agreement After the Council approves a loan application, Council legal staff will prepare _ a final loan agreement that will include at least the following points and any others the Council might specify as a condition of approval . I . Loans bear no interest. 2. A private property owner may elect to receive the purchase price either in a lump sum or in not more than four annual installments without interest on the deferred installments. If the purchase agreement provides for installment payments, the Council shall make the loan in installments corresponding to those in the purchase agreement. 3. Advance acquisition loans may not include relocation costs of persons or property. Relocation will be provided in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 117.50 to 117.56. _ 4. The recipient of a loan shall convey the property for the construction of the highway to the constructing agency at the same price that the recipient paid for the property. 5. In the event the loan recipient is also the highway constructor (such as for a county highway) the loan shall be repaid at a time prior to actual construction. 6. Loan recipients shall submit an annual report by June 30 on the status of the loan. 7. Upon notification by the Council that the plan to construct the highway has been abandoned or the anticipated location of the highway changed, the recipient shall sell the property at a market value in accordance with the procedures required for disposition of property. 8. All net rents and other money received because of the recipient' s ownership of the property, and all net proceeds from the conveyance or sale of the property, shall be paid to the Council . 9. Every consideration should be given to renting and maintaining acquired improvements (including buildings) in a manner compatible with the surrounding environment until full project acquisition. PART B: Hardship Loans I . What is "Hardship"? On occasion, a homeowner must sell his home but is unable to do so only because the property lies within the right-of-way of a planned road. This is known as a hardship situation. If certain factors are satisfied the Metropolitan Council may lend a community the funds to buy the homestead property before the property is acquired for highway construction. Hardship situations fall under one of the following two categories: 1 . Health. a. Advanced age, debilitating illness or injury, or other long-term handicap where present housing facilities are inappropriate or cannot be maintained by the owner. • b. Other extraordinary conditions which pose a significant threat to the health, safety, or welfare of the owner-occupants or household member for whom they are responsible. 2. Financial . a. Litigation (probate) . b. Loss of employment and the need for distant relocation for other employment. c. Retirement and financial inablility to maintain current residence. d. Pending mortgage foreclosure. e. Job transfer to a distant site of employment. f. Any documented circumstance similar in impact to those stated above. II . Documenting Hardship Qualifications for hardship acquisitions must be fully documented. Examples of acceptable documentation include, where appropriate: 1 . A doctor ' s statement fully and clearly describing the medical reasons for which the patient should relocate. 2. A certificate from a real estate agent indicating the price for which the property was listed on the open market for at least 90 days. The agent must also certify that his good faith effort to sell the property was unsuccessful . 3. A financial statement explaining how financial difficulties constitute the basis for hardship. 4. A letter from employer affirming that the owner is to be transferred to a specified location, or similar documentation regarding loss of employment. 5. Court records and documents relating to any legal actions which provide support for the hardship basis. 6. Those portions of an income tax return supporting the hardship circumstance. The above cannot be construed as being all inclusive for every situation. Since it is conceivable that there will be times when the above documentation would not constitute appropriate or sufficient documentation. it would be acceptable to provide alternative data that will accomplish the required verification. III . Eligibility Reauirements For a jurisdication (i .e. , an "acquiring authority") to be eligible for a hardship loan, the property to be acquired must meet all of the following requirements: 1 . Be an owner occupied single family dwelling which may include the surrounding land of 10 or fewer acres. 2. Be located in any county, town or statutory or home rule city within the Seven-County Metropolitan area. - 3. Be located within a proposed state trunk highway right-of-way. 4. The property may not include park land or land that is either on or eligible for inclusion on a historic register. 5. In addition, the owner and/or applicant must document that a hardship exists. IV. Hardship Loan Application Procedures A. Preliminary Approval I . The Acquiring Authority submits to the Metropolitan Council for preliminary approval : a. A statement that the five eligibility requirements are met. b. A written request from the property owner asking for hardship acquisition, setting forth the nature of the hardship. c. Documentation of inability to sell property at the fair market value as a result of highway project development. (Submit realtor ' s certification that property has been on the market and unsold for 90 days) . d. A statement that federal or state participation is not available. e. A statement from the authority that relocation will be provided in accordance with Minn. Stat. 117.50 to 117 .56. f. Mn/DOT statement that the acquisition will not influence the environmental assessment of the project, including the "no build" alternative. g. An estimate of the loan amount based on estimate of the fair market value of the homestead property plus relocation costs and less salvage value. h. A legal description of the property to be acquired, its acreage, and a map showing the property in relation to the highway right-of- way. i . A statement of the applicant' s ability to incur this debt. (Form available from the Metropolitan Council) . • A j . Identificaiton of any known or obvious cleanup problems (such as hazardous waste) on the property. 2. The Council staff will forward the application to Mn/DOT for advisory comments within 45 days. At this time, Mn/DOT will have the option to acquire the property itself. 3. The Council , as part of #2, will request that MnDOT determine whether or to what extent the land lies within a proposed right-of-way. If Mn/DOT determines that any part lies outside the proposed right-of-way, Mn/DOT shall be requested to determine whether such part has economic value. If Mn/DOT determines such part to be an uneconomic remnant, the entire parcel shall be eligible for purchase with a right-of-way acquisition loan. If Mn/DOT determines such part to be an economic remnant, only such part as lies within the proposed right-of-way shall be eligible for purchase with a right-of-way acquisition loan. The Council shall accept Mn/DOT' s determination regarding the economic value of excess property. 4. Within 75 days from original receipt of the preliminary application, the Council will consider the application, including any Mn/DOT comments, and will either disapprove or give preliminary approval and authorize further negotiations by the applicant. B. Final Approval 1 . After receiving preliminary approval , the applicant will obtain and submit to Mn/DOT an appraisal (two appraisals if purchase price is over $100,000) made by an appraisor on the list of Qualified Appraisors Available for State Contracts . Mn/DOT will have 30 days to certify the appraisal . No offer can be mace to the property owner until Mn/DOT certifies the appraisal . 2. After Mn/DOT certifies the appraisal , the applicant may begin negotiations with the property owner . If the negotiated sale price is above the appraised value of the property (i .e. , an administrative settlement) Mn/DOT must approve it. 3. The applicant submits the appraisal certification, purchase agreement. (administrative settlement, if required) , statement of cost, and draft loan agreement to the Council as a final application. 4. The Council finally approves or disapproves the loan. If the loan is approved, a loan agreement for the purchase price of the property and the costs incurred by the applicant may be executed. V. Loan Agreement After the Council approves a loan application, Council legal staff will prepare a final loan agreement that will include at least the following points and any others the Council might specify as a condition of approval . 7 1 . Loans bear no interest. 2. A private property owner may elect to receive the purchase price either in a lump sum or in not more than four annual installments without interest on the deferred installments. If the purchase agreement provides for installment payments, the Council shall make the loan in installments correspondeing to those in the purchase agreement. 3. A real estate agent may not receive a commission or any other compensation from a property owner if the property is purchased with a hardship loan. 4. The recipient of a loan shall convey the property for the construction of the highway to the constructing agency at the same price that the recipient paid for the property. 5. Loan recipients shall submit an annual loan status report by June 30. 6. Upon notification by the Council that the plan to construct the highway has been abandoned or the anticipated location of the highway changed, the recipient shall sell the property at a market value in accordance with the procedures required for disposition of property. 7. All net rents and other money received because of the recipient' s ownership of the property and all net proceeds from the conveyance or sale of the property, including relocation costs, shall be paid to the Council . 8. Every consideration should be given to renting and maintaining acquired improvements (including buildings) in a manner compatible with the surrounding environment until full project acquisition. R 1�,/1 • 1. 1 ■�,/'�� 11- 18111.1111 �il� �� / ✓ . ga� DR ®f i;ii, ■ 111111111111 st—i-c -..../- : • NB NEN , 0 a FIN - is ---'dillmelliliAl °Iiir "dsAillAK I ih, li'r 34&____.,..„.....-- ;-----Liff .1.is 1 1146.--/- ,K,Sieria ...___52— e......____: 001 Ad _ . _ ,:+2,....PAC1F � (......, Sr. �I iZ • 11.10 E HIGHWAY 9:j' •l moo, "I v°%(laz ©. mit% . / � jj��J,�` Ei �ii' . _ 17P5a4 Ci / 1 � P/0 i �� .. .��■■.�. ns��►�• -, . ,i -."'"'" ......„._____ ____%..,4., II ORA if go sikK \c"-.7 j-- ;L .-------—4 riVe4t0e ]:, D 12 ( „_-_,-----=- . 4014 LD ;' LAKE SUSA !' �r �' V N 11.604— ----''''----____--_—� �— -, '''11, E R/C E Mx 'i1 ••�' � ak* LD j MD 4Adr: Dt5- .U - `� IP/o 1. N MILL, �G1Y -_ ..11.■■: r_ D i 1414, iw -, LD LD ��, a 1 HD12Li • LAKE S SA •- 17" rpios11_, 11);ONO „/o , A AI 0 --. .„,, L-Ilk . ‹w CC - , % - .,i.,.. . 1) 4: Ci AND USE • MUSH ,...,...../!, - ROW ./rla ,e4.-.:-.....%.4.3 �l N r '� � ��j/ LAKE ..L ';QH._e.: • ----__. t ji , u a DR. Minerft _ ....._,..tf,„ „Ad ,.. wp- P DRea C W IIIII 11111. 41.9 0.J 1:40:t D f ¢ NM �5 _wawa LE DRI' , ..„..„,,,, T SrgTf —�N I G HWA ', t �rNowi.sam' 1c�� I ,rs ili,I�j Il rrrrrrrrrrrrrviva. ego' rrrrrrrlrrrr�r++++,`,,,, i,ain '��'� �a••' r. Si :F �)194cIFI.R61, • D 12 __ , : pipt#44,- )-:-.•'4/' - alium an waif' is\ .111,"'"---------- . : /11-k ...qv- 4- - \ 04 - ...difth.i/dik ,; 1 Fr- QRCI[ >� LA XE SUS 4� ); �J� P/OS T ,,•.: Rices Id,z . 41 . ----'----% 111V ..- _......7 ,. ;Y MD 4 Ar LD ha ei, ._:YH P/O 'S NI NI,L4 ; , ,' 7 LD 1111111 ih 11 MA 6all ,;,,,�,lrrrrr ►•r,,,,,rrrr �, „�M"�►,rrrr / /' /OS LAKE 5 5A 8 = >>�'''''' . 1111"1"1"1"t"li LD HD12 1 . r ,srrrrrr,, ' `%' - = ry L J `,-1 •-It* I • i • • .— g EN DR- : i 1111111111p Eglifillb- gin:_ � / iii � - X11 Illy ....iii rN PM � EIRT.ilso �� - . . ri ';' ,.. so, 4.0. Il , ps„, ,,s . ii,..ill opidko,. , rig% ii...,_, 1 .„.........._, 0 . . .1....0„,„..... ma .... .r., . r_ ...1....„ ..40 L., _1 _ lowly, . pAcIF . ...- -. CII ` TE HIGHWAY wo4O:r. 3, • I ----"Nlir...r..i — ''' il lr1l11lll1lrt1rlr1l'trr1rr1rrrrr„ rrr,,,,,,•lirr��rl��`�,,,,, IF'S MI” ,1A f= �•••� M fS" Ill I . ;411.11041 V" am_ b,411111111111 ow ink N.AMM am �/ — ,111111111111 c..5L. 1 D12 �,� %I — ��AW vAil grailtlall. .. 1 'g I .c,- LAint' SUS. N pcmcur, ��. Py--gr4/Nt• j \,. ,R/CE lox hiIllk 4/' t II ,r"):%% H 0 P/O -► i LD ,, imp' n MD 8 LD Awl •,•:Trllrlr�••r,,,•r, tit „��illi Ll%11I�� <<11. 11111111-1 ik %.-7. ez -7- /O RE = s� ►� . 8 —„..„0�� - . LD . HD 12 Filfr . .0%....a1111111% ' • w/w/.K►/w t •` •-es s _[ _ D. ,.#1 ONO - s•• - „•01,1%°% %7 ... _ 11,00, A . __,-/ 111 ---4 . '1""- -. -i . p ,iipsss. .. i 4.-/ ,....,,,_- -----, 1,' , ' J. , ice. - � --� _ IL • -s'sk1 \ • • 1 ,` 1:"' ) l • • %,, • W 111111111111 �: — • •• �` ,/ - N •...00s, /y, �. I1 1.110 /''z, ODO — MAP KEY A - Agricultural LD - Low Density MD 4 - Medium Density 4 units/acre MD 8 - Medium Density 8 units/acre HD 12 - High Density 12 units/acre C - Commercial I - Industrial OI - Office Institutional P/OS - Parks and Open Space - g g-- s g g I f i i f $je, I � tp I<`V -. s. Owl 1 pa1.0 i; . . I1 ( 1' ' I 1HIIIIH II I• j - ` .illii .j..�i,6'nr �� ,� 11- . Illt . I , . .1 --;' N IfF,__,,.-• --ii..:, .:` . ' fic \\1, 11 Ai ---1_ ...„.„,,,„ __ ., - --'? '..41-s- . . i -..k, :I A it* %,___ .„ se. I �� i A� _ Ne ik At, it a :W..: I ` • I 111, r 0 - I& -‘11.11a It A \\..., iiii ii ...,- \- 1 - . �rik.. '�: I art •;INIK - I . I / �J. ' a I • I i� - rd r -� _ :,. ?\, .. Is = I , r I ' I, • . , r , ,, , . , , ," , , • , , . . . , , „ _ ;, , ! , • ., \---.. „ , g . „ .,, g „. „ .. „ .„ ,. c,=, • :---i , ., , , O , <J '2' j i I ,,., i ilk .. t II • 2- r - S. —._Deas } • —mon '4 esti G : LU a- (1) CL v%Z2 L.w < _ o • q ty:) Z o I__ ,,,, 3 >". tu 8 t t-- W w - i co. V...4-71-- _ ^ �J . I g . $ ! illi C C .'g~7.":7 b�': ' �, • L. .� to AO. ill rn I , - II 7 , t I I I 1 I I ( j 111 I I It In I I \. I I I I i 1 .,.� MeA,_ w' � Cuilseicv: a Nolir II - , =,-` _� , '` r° t\ � ' ti� sY�./tf. i‘-.--44;"A;1 . --i-c-5---14---:---- , ' 0 , :, 11 \ . • ,.. \)kNimi, , ,, , \ r 1illIE a • .� �P2 i k. . . 1,11 mir .7,r, J.,. Ea.<414 41' u IT kik ( • _____ Urft/4 .r, 1 • :II' Me t A1110" - P a. 1,..A ! ..:,, . - v.„1...4 At , „0„, a my, 1 n... Ili, ‘ II. ,, r--= ' NB II* I--44 ''1 ii *ASV"A4. 15' i• . , . . - latiiik\\ I MC , h&, . \ :, a .. ,, -1:: o 1 4411 - : -. � I �- I I I I i r ; t; i �., g I , II 1 1 _il ao.. i 8 I 'q 8 i S 8 3• - $ $ i I i 8 8 8 8 MI f L-0000 —000t I col, 00.0 0� ,1 ` —._00l. \ �b000 a OOM Q z L . . z I . ala I` W • �'a -ate W = I Q t I m, (/) w Z o U 4p Q •..... .-IS" —H I I ! I ! III MWt -1 C CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA DATE: February 23 , 1987 RESOLUTION NO: 87-15 MOTION BY: Hamilton SECONDED BY: Horn — A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE OFFICIAL MAP PROCESS FOR TRUNK HIGHWAY 212 WHEREAS, for almost thirty years various agencies of the State of Minnesota, Metropolitan Council, cities, counties and special interest groups have discussed and planned the TH 212 — corridor through the cities of Eden Prairie, Chanhassen and Chaska to serve said cities and the southwest sector of the state; and WHEREAS, throughout this time period Chanhassen has experienced significant residential, commercial and industrial development; and WHEREAS, the City Council has participated in citizen and technical advisory committee meetings regarding the TH 212 corridor; and WHEREAS, in certain areas of Chanhassen the increased _ development is encroaching upon land area available for the TH 212 corridor; and WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes the need to accomplish the official mapping process in a timely manner. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Chanhassen hereby initiates the official map process to designate lands within the TH 212 corridor and to accomplish said process by September 1, 1987. Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 23rd day of February, 1987. ATTEST: - Lo co o .4? Don Ashworth, City Manager Thomas L. Ham lton, Mayor — YES NO ABSENT Hamilton None Boyt Johnson Horn Geving • • re, Pad/A February 20, 1987 177.9 Margaret St. Saint Paul , MN 55106 City Council City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P. D. 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Gentlemen; In reference to the proposed T. H. 212 alignment as presented in — the public meeting o4 January 21 , my finacee, Patty Smith, and I feel the alignment should remain as presented. We own land in the Pioneer Hills development and feel the completion of T. H. 212 _ as proposed will provide the much needed access to the area and allow continuation of the growth Chanhassen has experienced to date. Please accept our support in this project. To keep apprised of the situation concerning development or T.H. 212 we would appreciate continued notice of applicable public hearings and council meetings as was done for the January 21 meeting. Sincerely, / 1 114,1k,-c--/71 4,4, "/,/( Nevin J. Ellsworth Patricia A. Smith RE%E: .'E� FEB 2 3 67 CITY Ur CHANT-1A SEi•I 17Cr ' #3 Lir titi0- Z ic,/�7 F�. f , 3 3////1-7 February 24, 1987 Ms. Barb Dacy City Planner — City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Dear Ms. Dacy: I am very concerned about the official proposed route for Highway 212. I _ would like the City to reconsider the South Lake Riley Route before making a decision. Even though the North Lake Riley Route would run approximately 700 feet from my property line, I have tried to be very objective in my view of why I- think the south route would be much more appealing. My view on this — matter is as follows: 1. The North Lake Riley Route chops up the real estate of our city — too much because of its diagonal run, and destroys the beauty for residential build-up. 2. I feel the property running parallel with the highway will become a target for commercial build-up. This is not at all appealing to the North Lake Route and could also hurt our downtown business community. I feel the South Route would restrict commercial build-up because of the residential placement now in that area, and the now present Highway 14. 3. The reason I feel commercial build-up will take place along the North Lake Riley Route is: the property which would run parallel with the highway would become unlikely sites for private dwelling use. As house lots, this property would be — hard to use or dispose of. Thus, maintaining them as empty lots would be a hardship for the owner. Also, since most of the land in this area is agricultural right now, I feel the — City would have no choice but to grant zoning variance requests for commercial, when development occurs. Because of this, I urge you to review the law and its quoted requirements for the - granting or denial of a zoning variance. A variance request that falls within these quoted requirements can be court ordered if denied by the Variance Board. 4. I feel our business community in town will also be hurt because of loss of traffic on Highway 5 and loss of traffic from our own industrial park. I feel this would take place because of - the close proximity of Highway 5 with the North Lake Riley Route. People will tend to travel Highway 212 instead of CITY OF CHAN HASSJ Highway 5. Less traffic, less business. The South Route R EC EIV g(— would eliminate this problem. MAR CHANNAASEN PLANNIN4 • . . � Ms. Barb Dacy Page 2 February 24, 1987 Would you please consider my views when making your decision? The Minnesota Department of Transportation is still open to doing an Environmental Impact Study on the South Lake Riley Route. Sincerely, J nne L. Larson 8590 Tigua Circle Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 934-3794 u_c 8501 Tigua Circle Chanhassen,- MN 55317 — March 17, 1987 Mr. Tim Erhart 775 West 96th Street Chaska, MN 55318 — Dear Mr. Erhart: I am a resident of Chanhassen, and I am writing to protest against our City's acceptance of the North Lake Riley Route for the proposed T.H. 212 . — Permitting the highway to pass between Lake Riley and Rice Marsh Lake not only, very likely, could cause damaging silt to enter — Lake Riley, a prime recreational lake, but also could seriously affect Rice Marsh Lake if the water level were inadvertently lowered. Rice Marsh lake is mostly only a few feet deep, and would turn into a muck hole, offensive to both the nose and the eye, if this occured. I spend a great deal of time studying bird life, and have located over 125 species of birds in the Rice Marsh Lake area in the last several years . Of these, 33 are migratory waterfowl or shorebird species. Rice Marsh Lake, having no public access or beach, sees only an occasional canoe or duck boat. It is an ideal stop over spot for migrating waterfowl, and, indeed, serves as such every year. The proximity of the anticipated traffic of the North Lake Riley Route to Rice Marsh Lake, not to mention the construc- tion, equipment noise and the potential of accidental drainage, could very possibly bring an end to this hidden - but environmentally valuable - use of this natural asset. — Another point : a casual look at the North Lake Riley and the South Lake Riley Routes causes me to wonder which would be less _ expensive to build on. Following the right-of-way (on part of the South Route) , of a railroad line that may be abandoned in a few years - I 'm told - may make some sense! Sincerely yours , A.W. (Mike) Mul igan AWM: sw MAR 2 6 i:87 — CITY OF CHANHASSEN L Z( .1.1,,zit( (, ( - To 11 1 IAA...A-Qs- v , I i L 2 1(.. , i " " /..'., f 6--2 L J./. /. -., -).- '), .., ' 1. ,A._�� -, ,, - . _.._ ‘14..e:-•% `'. =' _-tJ; ". - . ::J /;�=,f�r�-.�.. I.-- � . . . ' -'� / l 3 i ems .. {tee `/��S:r.4l .. ri.) .7),),' I%- , -. . ... _ . , - i , A yr�. ' ., /-5'I - •J`_. -- ►_ .•/•-�.,; . ; /f v C e '......-e Gem, ` ...tt'« /Y7 I -5` C d ge/ C0 C-' ,'"',) e.- S,s3 �' ' ' 57 - c.,7 4„ ... .__ , , 1 i i`,, -)N‘ 4 ,••••• •/ . i •,frI�r• - 'te •r , . ? ` t G .-9/ il(..._. - i c. '. e i-! P.- / ...- •. _ ......,i / t Z. ,..)1----7 4').--r i . iai.-:-.?- '-le \\"--. - A- 1 - c?h 4- ! cz-1 1. . c-,----.....--- ••••„ --"••. ?, :', alt. - • i •I. 0 /72:: .,......e. ji i / / . . ..ik:tt. 7.,..-•,---_-•• •••••kt _ --LCf • f I ice. _ _ • - ...u... • , - __• _ • . • , C.('-' •.+ - / / //!J • • /L.,T`C !�/, �.. '.`i//` _ T - - __ ♦ _ _ - .-yam /.:. V -- --- •-....". , a c Acry3Ur 4..- _ '1'-q-1-5--0 ., ,,17&r/‹.ik.l(/G`ca .frX-c ( • ..... . t /,/! c l'. (-x) L).r =..I ELi cif 4,-4aiscw C /OS-").(1014)241V- !c,/ did:45-5J - • ir;12-e--,---7.-•-e-k....-- /-; ,,-/:'. : ss / .acc4O // 7/ fes7646 4,A/ CHA.../_ 55 3i f . f--\ t, 4F, �, Metropolitan Council _ f; ' G 300 Metro Square Building UI(Iifs Seventh and Robert Streets ,;; St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Telephone (612) 291-6359 June 3, 1987 Barbara Dacy, City PLanner City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive, PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Ms. Dacy, I have conferred with Nacho Diaz, director of transportation regarding your question on the official map and the Highway 212 envirionmental impact study (EIS) . We will recommend to the council that we not participate in the EIS if the cities in the corridor fail to adopt the official map. In 1983 when we reported to the city councils on a strategy to develop a new Highway 212, the concept of official mapping was strongly supported by each city including Chanhassen. In addition, we understand that the official map will not compromise the EIS process. That is the advice we have from MnDot after they conferred with the Federal Highway Administration. As the responsible governmental unit, MnDot is in the best position to determine that question. If we can assist in this matter further please contact me or Nacho Diaz. Sincerely yours, Stephen R. Alderson SRA010 PHTRN3 An Equal Opportunity Employer /1 7Th A1 /�. J / ' ) . I i CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING JUNE 3, 1987 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7: 35 p.m. . MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steven Emmings, Robert Siegel, Ladd Conrad, James Wildermuth and David Headla MEMBERS ABSENT: Howard Noziska STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner and Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner. PUBLIC HEARING: REVIEW CONCEPTUAL ALIGNMENT OF THE TH 212 CORRIDOR. — PUBLIC PRESENT: Name Address Karen Hasse 630 West 96th Street Carol Dunsmore 730 West 96th Street Kevin Finger 9151 Great Plains Blvd. Avlen Finger 9201 Great Plains Blvd . Jo Larson 8590 Tigua Circle Corrine Nagel 8550 Tigua Circle Kyle & Sandra Colvin 701 West 96th Street Ken Pung 620 West 96th Street _ Bob & Maggie Petersen 9250 Great Plains Blvd . Kevin Ellsworth 1739 Margaret, St. Paul Jim Curry 4817 Upper Terrace, Edina Al Klingelhutz 8600 Great Plains Blvd . Mary Jane Klingelhutz 8600 Great Plains Blvd. Kathy Miller 1200 Lyman Blvd . Larry Klein 9170 Great Plains Blvd. Steve Burke 340 Deerfoot Terrace Dennis & Polly Denton 1144 Cheery Lane, Columbia Heights James & Janet Brownell 1190 Homestead Way Richard Vogel 105 Pioneer Trail — Karen Henrickson 9651 Flintlock Terrace Dixon Blosberg 530 Lyman Blvd. Karen Blosberg 530 Lyman Blvd . — Mike Mulligan 8501 Tigua Circle Frank Fox 27990 Smithtown Road , Excelsior Sandra Prom Pioneer Hills _ Roy & Heidi Schwappach 5207 Black Friars Lane , Minnetonka (Owner Property at Tigua Circle) George & Patricia Dorsey 4609 Browndale Avenue, Edina (Owner Property Lyman/CR 17) Stevan S. Yasgar 5500 Thomas Avenue So . , Mpls . Craig Mertz 1100 First Bank Place West , Mpls. (Representing Lake View Hills Apts .) — Evan R. Green MnDot District 5 Planning Commission Meeting June 3 , 1987 - Page 2 Cheri Olson MnDot District 5 — Fred Hoisington City of Chanhassen Councilman Geving , Councilman Johnson and Councilman Boyt were also present . Barbara Dacy: I would like to review the purpose of tonight's meeting and review the process that will occur after tonight's meeting and then introduce the other people that will be following up my report with another - presentation. The review process for the TH 212 concept alignment was initiated by the Minnesota Department of Transportation in their letter to us at the beginning of this year asking us to begin review of a conceptual alignment which is hung on the wall behind the Commissioners here. Upon reception of that letter , Staff initiated two meetings with homeowners directly and indirectly affected by the alignment and those were held on January 29th and March 26th I believe were the dates. We completed an — initial step of identifying key issues of which were of concern by the neighborhood and followed up on some of those comments and will discuss that later in the presentation. Tonight is a Planning Commission meeting — conducting a public hearing for the opportunity for the homeowners to make comments and put it on the record regarding the proposed conceptual alignment of TH 212. As the Chairman stated earlier , after action tonight, the Planning Commission's minutes and so on will be forwarded on to the City Council who at that point will decide whether or not to approve the conceptual alignment. If they do approve the conceptual alignment, they will be authorizing MnDot to prepare the center line survey, construction — limit and preliminary elevations on the TH 212 alignment. That is known as the official map. When MnDot completes preparing this official map, State Law requires another public hearing to be conducted by the governing body of — the municipality, which is the City Council. At that point they will take final action. To clarify maybe some people may or may not know , what is the definition of an official map. An official map is a statutory authorized means by which cities can reserve existing or proposed right-of-ways for — major streets and highways as well as existing and proposed lands for public uses. The purpose of the map is to preserve the corridor so that that particular corridor is not converted to non-public uses. At this point I — would like to introduce some of the agency representatives that are here tonight. From the Minnesota Department of Transportation , Project Manager Mr. Evan Green. Mr. Green's assistant, Ms. Olson. At this point I would — like to introduce the two consultants who have been working with the city, not only on this topic but on related items. First Mr. Fred Hoisington who is the consultant for our traffic study in Chanhassen will present the reasons for the need for the TH 212 corridor. Then Mr. Mark Koegler who is — the City's consultant on updating the Comprehensive Plan and who also was employed by Chanhassen during the time when the Citizen Advisory Committee _ process was occurring in Chanhassen. He will go through the history of the — alignment review through Chanhassen and update the Commission as to the process that went into creating a Comprehensive Plan as it relates to this issue. So after Mr. Hoisington's and Mr. Koegler's presentations, Mr. Chairman I would like to follow-up with some final comments before opening — it up to the public. ! /- Planning Commission Meeting June 3 , 1987 - Page 3 Fred Hoisington: As a few of us in this room can attest, this has been one of the most frustrating projects many of us have or will ever experience. The same goes probably for all of us in this room because of the continuing cloud that hangs over all our heads and yet we've seen very difficult matter to resolve. We were reading the last time , just before we met with the public in an informal session, we happened to read a newspaper article from _ 1955 that indicated that TH 212 was to be constructed in 1957. 30 years ago the need for TH 212 was already known to exist and yet today it remains unbuilt. For the most part living with a 1950 street system , two lanes on TH 169, two lanes on TH 5, when in fact we need probably three or four times — that much laneage to accommodate for the year 2005 traffic. What I would like to do is go through and cover some of the growth factors, some of the things we see ahead and give you some impressions of the magnitude of growth _ within the corridor. The corridor extends from Young America on the west to Eden Prairie on the east and within that corridor there is a population of about 46,000 in 1980. Employment of 20,000 and by the year 2005, which was the forecast for the broadened study area study that we did for the City of - Chanhassen, we expect to see that population number double and the employment number triple, 200% increase in employment throughout the entire corridor. These forecasts were made by BRW in 1985 and they tend to be very — conservative forecasts as far as we're concerned. I'm going to show you in just a minute why we think those are conservative. Nonetheless, there is going to be a substantial amount of new growth within the corridor over the next 20 or so years. To look at where a lot of that growth is occurring, certainly not all of it, but where a substantial amount of growth is occurring within the corridor. We look at the three primary cities there and while it needs to pass through Eden Prairie over this past few years to know that it's population has something like quadrupled since 1970 and we expect to see it double again from 26,000 to 50,000 people by the year 2005. Chanhassen numbers, 8,000 aporoximatley in 1986 and these again are BRW's _ forecasts, 10,000 population in the year 2005 forecast. We are looking at substantially more growth. We did some of the traditional study and the input we made with the broadened study area shows forecasts higher than this so the numbers you're going to see will kind of bracket a low range of — traffic and a high range for traffic. You can see that Chaska is not forecast to grow very much either. Talking something less than 2, 000 people over the next 20 years. With employment in both communities being fairly substantial but Eden Prairie can almost double over the next 20 year period. Just in the three cities, we're talking about 62% increase in population during that period and a 74% increase in employment. What we've concluded from that is that not only is growth occurring within the corridor and especially within the communities, the major cities within the corridor, plus this part of the metropolitan community and this part of the state is really part of a larger community. It's a community that is growing not only in terms of population employment but in terms of sheer traffic volumes which we all know are growing at a higher rate than the population itself is. What we ' re seeing more and more of here in this community is that people don't live and work here which means they have to come from someplace and in the case of Chanhassen, many of those people come from further west and they do use the trunk line system to get here. Many of the people who _ live here use that same trunk line system to go east and they work in Eden Planning Commission Meeting June 3 , 1987 - Page 4 Prairie, Edina, Bloomington and Minneapolis. As Chanhassen is a very small part of that, and even looking at the most conservative of forecasts, we're going to see substantial growth and that growth we believe is going to occur even if TH 212 is not built. One of the things the Metro Council has conceeded, after a number of years, is the availability of streets and — highways don't necessarily, of the lack of the availability of those, don't necessarily retard growth. At least population growth. After a while they will have some effect on industrial/commercial growth. They certainly - normally don't have any effect seriously depressing population growth so we've got a problem now and that problem is going to increase as time passes. All of the system through the City of Chanhassen, Eden Prairie and further to the west, for the most part is two lanes wide and it is carrying volumes that range from 9 , 200 west of Chaska on TH 169 to as much as 33 , 000 on TH 5 immediately west of I-494. MnDot's rule of thumb for an offered limit for traffic on a two lane roadway is 7 , 500 vehicles per day and yet _ most of the system exists within this community and within the communities surrounding us is a two lane system designed, hardly designed , the system that was put into effect many, many years ago and was better able to handle 1950's traffic than 1980's traffic. Let's look a little bit at accidents as well. The southwest corridor is becoming quite well known for severe accidents. Accidents causing death to people who happen to- use that and that's becoming increasingly critical in the past year or two. Between 1980 — and 1985 there were a total of 13 deaths on TH 169 , primarily Eden Prairie. Since 1985 we know that there have been another 7, 8 or 9. Unfortunately, many of those happen to be in Anderson Lakes Parkway and TH 169 in Eden Prairie where you have some unusual things happening. Where you have some two lane , four lane , some real question as to what people ought to be doing there and that's understandable that you would that kind of problem. If you look at the third thing, the SEV, the severity of accidents on that list, — anything approaching 6 is considered very severe warranting some kind of solution and TH 169 has had that or approached that in 1980, 1981, 1983, 1984 and 1985 and certainly since then. The funny thing about TH 5 is that, — most of you folks know about that because you travel it all the time , is that TH 5's traffic is generally slow because of the big trucks and because it' s only two lanes wide and the trucks slow traffic down so there are a lot of accidents but there are not as many severe accidents on TH 5 as on the other. One of the things that the southwest corridor transportation coalition is trying to do is to try and get some improvements going within the corridor based on the need for safety improvements and we think that's — probably the best chance we'll have of somehow getting the legislature to do something about providing the dollars necessary to solve these kinds of traffic problems in the metropolitan area. As you can see, those numbers - are pretty small. These are the forecasts that came out of the broadened study area and what we've tried to do in this instance is to give you a high and low range. You will see that TH 5 running through the center of — Chanhassen, has a range to the east of between 28,000 and 38 ,000 vehicles per day on TH 5 after the construction of TH 212. 30,000 to 40,000 vehicles per day just east of downtown and 20 , 000 to 26 , 000 per day west of downtown along TH 5. At the same time, TH 212, after it's constructed, will carry —- between 27,000 and 36,000 west of TH 101. 31,000 to 41, 000 between TH 101 and the east city limits of Chanhassen and then in Eden Prairie between Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1987 - Page 5 35,000 and 47,000. One of the things we found in the study was that in spite of the building of TH 212, TH 5 will still carry a substantial amount of traffic in the future and that was very frustrating for us because with the problem we already have with TH 5, it has such great traffic volumes that we can't get traffic across it and that's what we struggled throughout the broadened study area. If you can think of the lower end of those ranges as being a much slower growth scenario including the construction of CR 18 and the bridge across the river. The higher range represents the forecast we made during the broadened study area and including or not including the CR 18 extension across the river. All the numbers I showed you before were also pre-Canterbury Downs so you can see that the problem that we already have on that system has been compounded both by growth and by new improvements in the southwest corridor that generate large volumes of _ traffic. I'm concerned that TH 212 might once again be delayed. In the course of the process of reviewing, doing an EIS or updating the EIS and doing the official mapping process. I'm concerned that any debate, continuing debate at this point in time which would delay the actions of the — city, consistent with your sister cities, would have the tendency to delay that process and delay and perhaps curtail or stop any future construction of TH 212. Let me just say that if that happens, TH 5 will need at least four additional lanes. TH 169 will also need at least four 'additional lanes and TH 169 can not accommodate four additional lanes in certain locations because of the river bottom. We have a very severe situation that will be compounded by trying to get people back and forth across TH 5 and TH 169 and — not having sufficient green time to get across that highway in the future creating substantial congestion on both of those roadways. Another thing that the Planning Commission needs to consider is that probably if TH 212 is not construction, even if it is not, you will still get a population growth here. We will begin to see a shift however away from commercial/industrial. We begin to see a shift in tax base more to the residential part of the community than trying to put more, as you have in the past, on the industrial/commercial tax base. With that Mr. Chairman, I will only say that the need is very great for TH 212 and whatever can be done to continue that progress that we have made is extremely important right now. — Mark Koegler : My role this evening is to talk a little about the chronology of events that have occurred. As Fred indicated, this issue is one that's not new. It started in 1950's. I think what we would like to focus on tonight is perhaps more recent events. We basically go back to about 1978- 1979 time period. In April of 1979 MnDot developed a series of alternatives for the alignment of TH 212, TH 169. Probably the Eden Prairie Center area — down to the existing road alignment on the west side of the city of Chaska. In July of that year, 1979, there was a citizen advisory committee appointed to provide input to MnDot on the scoping report that was being _ prepared for the alignment. For any of you that are familiar specifically with what scoping reports are, essentially it's a document that begins to kind of narrow down the alternatives in documents prepared prior to the draft of the Environmental Impact Statement. Chanhassen was well represented on that committee as was literally every other community in the corridor. The City's representatives consisted of Councilman Dale Geving who is here this evening. Gordon Freeburg who at the time was on the — Planning Commission Meeting June 3 , 1987 - Page 6 Planning Commission. Richard Vogel and I saw Dick walk in earlier and Candy Takkunen. I don't know if she's here or not. I attended a number of those meetings because at the time I was serving as the City's Planning Director. As a result of discussions that occurred at that level and focusing specifically on various alignments and on the scoping report itself, the — City of Chanhassen went on record in August of 1979 as favoring the north Lake Riley route. In January of 1980 the work of the Citizen's Committee was essentially completed and the group was disbanded. In February of that same year, the scoping report was released. There was another map similar to this one that was contained within that document and the scoping report identified at that time, both the south alignment and the north alignment and did state the city's preference for thenorthern route. I should also indicate that prior to the time that the Citizen's committee did disband, it did pass a resolution endorsing the recommendations contained within the scoping report. As I think a number of the members that are in this room — tonight can attest, the City was very actively involved from 1978 through 1981 with updating the City's Comprehensive Plan. A Comprehensive Plan was required in the Metropolitan Land Planning Act and transportation certainly was one of the components. The Plan was officially adopted by the City Council in April of 1982 and there were several references in the plan itself again to this issue, both verbally and in graphic form. There were a couple of references, this is one in the text which you can see states as a — result of the projects reviewed by the Citizens Committee, the Planning Commission and the City Council, Chanhassen official prefers to what is generally referred to as the North Lake Riley route. In addition to the references that were offered in the text, a numbef of the planned graphics were also consistent with that in showing the TH 212 alignment to the north being the preferred alignment and the alignment to the south as being an alternate alignment as a part of the planning process. From 1979 to the present time, the City of Chanhassen as well as Fred indicated in the sister cities, primarily Chaska and Eden Prairie have annually adopted resolutions in support of the TH 169/TH 212 construction. There has never really been — any issue that everyone wants to see the road built. This is an example of one of the resolutions that was passed in 1984 encouraging the preparation of the draft of the Environmental Impact Statement which at the time was the next step in the process. The City of Eden Prairie in their version of that same resolution went a little bit further. It showed a map of what they perceived as their preferred alignment through the City of Eden Prairie and you will note that it does show the connection to Chanhassen being on the — North Lake Riley side. More recently even yet there have been additional actions which really now factors for consideration as well and that is specifically the City and the Planning Commission in particular has been involved with the review of a number of development proposals that have come to light in recent months , a number of those in the southern part of the community. In each case the actions that have occurred have been consistent with the Citizen's Advisory Committee recommendation with the Comprehensive Plan and with the 1980 Scoping Report in specifically looking at some of the development proposals that have come forward down in that area in granting approval to those. The Halle piece, the Gagne property, the Pioneer Hills — area, the existing 96th neighborhood sits right in here. The City has allowed those to continue forward. In the instances where the development • Planning Commission Meeting — June 3, 1987 - Page 7 came into contact with the north alignment, which was the preferred alignment in the Comprehensive Plan, action on that particular one I believe was delayed for perhaps a year and a half or so, hopefully until an _ alignment could be confirmed and there was a little better feeling for what the relationship between the roadway and the development actually would be. That is an important factor to note because once again, each action the City has taken since 1978 has followed a consistent pattern and that consistent — pattern has really been to stress the fact that the northern alignment is still the preferred alignment as it has been as far as the City of Chanhassen goes and that's the policy the City has put forward. So that's just a very brief overview of some of the history, some of the context of how it's come to the point of time where we are tonight. I think with that, Barb's got a few more comments to offer and I would certainly be glad to entertain any questions you would have. — Dacy: Mark referred to the two alignments as they run through Chanhassen and directly effect Chanhassen. What we see behind the Planning — Commissioners is the map that was sent to us by MnDot to be considered. The line it's proposing is an interchange and realignment at TH 101 proceeding southwesterly to an extension of CR 17 with an interchange there then _ southwest into Chaska. In this area, the proposal was that Bluff Creek would connect into Pioneer Trail and Pioneer Trail would cul-de-sac to the west of the Pioneer Hills subdivision. Then frontage roads or connection roads from the interchange would continue on west. Major comments that came out of the two informal hearings was that this option is really proposing a discontinuous route of Pioneer Trail and these frontage roads are basically not necessary. It forces the turning movement to come west on Pioneer Trail to go up to the interchange and west. The other comment that we had from the informal meetings was from the Lake Susan neighborhood. They were concerned about the intersection of TH 101 directly in front of their neighborhood and requested that we look at shifting the alignment a little "- bit to the east. What is being recommended for Com mission and Council adoption is this conceptual alignment which shows a realignment of TH 101 to the east all the way up to TH 5 and the old alignment of TH 101 would exist as a frontage road or public street to serve those properties. Then in this area, to address the discontinuity issue I was talking aaout before, is proposing Pioneer Trail to go west, construct a bridge and still have the _ connection of Bluff Creek into Pioneer Trail. That eliminates the frontage roads that were originally proposed. To give the Planning Commission a feel for typical construction time table. If the official map is adopted this year, the next step would be to conduct an Environmental Impact Statement -' and preliminary design. That typically takes three years. After that point the final design phase is conducted by MnDot then right away acquisition begins after that and that is estimated at a two year time frame than construction bids are awarded, etc., so you can see that the basic planning ' period for a project of this size takes at least 8 to 10 years at minimum. This time table was based on some earlier projections before the legislation acted on allocation of transportation funds so I think we can adequately estimate that it's at least 10 years before construction could occur and everything depends on whether or not money is available from the State to construct the project. Finally, the Commission should be aware that Chaska — — • Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1987 - Page 8 and Eden Prairie have completed their review of the conceptual alignment this year and have authorized MnDot to begin with the official map in their communities. So the Staff recommendation is that the Planning Commission consider and approve this revised alignment and make the recommendation to the City Council to authorize MnDot to prepare the official map based on — this alignment. Conrad: Their recommendations were? Their mapping supported this particular alignment in both of those cities. Tonight we're going to open it up for public comment and hear what you have to say about the location. I think there obviously is a traffic need. Transportation in the community along with highways. There's development and one thing the Planning — Commission looks at when you put a highway in, what occurs around that highway. I'm sure some of you are going to be interested in that and I'm guessing you're going to talk about that. Barbara, could you relate to the - group and myself how we should address those development issues? We will listen to people's comments tonight in terms of development and commercial encroachment, getting close to their housing. How would you like us to field those concerns and how do you see us, the Planning Commission, taking — it forward and dealing with the Comprehensive Plan? Dacy: At the last informal meeting, the land use alternatives that are — included in your packet were discussed at that meeting. I think maybe what I would suggest is that you go ahead and open the comments and if there are questions about that I can address those at that time. I could give another presentation on the land use alternatives. I don't know what type of comments they want to address first. I'm merely suggesting that we kind of handle it as we go. If you like I can discuss the three alternatives . — Conrad: No, that's okay. I was trying to give those that are here an idea , we're not going to make decisions about land use plans tonight and that's really not why we're here. We're here to decide where the highway goes if - it goes someplace. If the Planning Commission recommends it goes someplace. After this meeting there is going to a process that we're going to follow to update Comprehensive Plan, decide what goes alongside this highway and I guess what I'll have to say is that you'll probably hear some reaction from the Planning Commission and we'll take that forth and make sure that there are public hearings scheduled to review those particular elements that effect you in terms of what goes in the neighborhood. Again, sort of a map — for the plan for the city for what we feel is appropriate next to the highway, wherever it goes. That's a lot of mumbo jumbo but I think it means in my way of thinking that we' re going to talk about highway tonight. We want to hear your comments about development around it and we will incorporate that into some of our planning that we're going to take forward from tonight's meeting. With that aside, what I would like to do is open _ this up for public comments . Jim Curry: I own property on the south and west shore of Lake Susan and it's nice to be here. Very well done I thought on the presentations. Just — a couple of things that I wanted to add to what was said and that is that in your showing of the activities that have been done in accordance with Planning Commission Meeting — June 3, 1987 - Page 9 this long time thinking of the north route, Chanhassen Hills last year of course was preliminary plat approved with that in mind and I don't have a thing to show here but you remember how we laid it out with the road in _ mind. The buyers, of course, is building models. He's moved millions of yards of dirt and has no problem with TH 212 going on the north route. In fact being close to it he thinks is an advantage and I remember we spoke with you and the Council about making the lots on the highway itself larger so there would be more backyard, that sort of thing so again, this was done keeping in mind the northern route preference which had been spoken of in the past. The other thing that you will be seeing very shortly, as a matter — of fact next week I think it is , between the west shore of Lake Susan and Audubon Road there's another PUD coming in that's, I think it's the largest one Tom Hamilton told me, in the history of the city. It's actually just under 300 acres. 297 acres and according to down zoning, even from the Comprehensive Plan, it's about 800 more units. Just for you peoples information, there's about 126 units in the five phases of Chanhassen Hills. The first phase has been finally platted and like I say it's going up now. This other one, 800 more units so I really got a kick out of your figures Fred because there will be 1,000 units there from those two within not too long a time and that would probably make 3, 000 people so when you speak of 2005, it sounds way out in the distant future we'll be far more than that with all the activity also going on in the north side. From my standpoint anyway, the important thing is that we've taken the north route into account in our planning and the approvals we've gotten and the buyers of the land and the lots have taken that into account and want it. They want to be that close so we don't have a problem with the north route, we want it and I just thought that was something that should be said . Jo Ann Larson: I live at 8590 Tigua Circle in Chanhassen. The first time I heard about this route was last year when MnDot was out scoping the area so I did a little investigating. I don't have argument that we need a new — transportation system out in this area. My argument is, did the City in 1979 choose the best route for a preferred route for Chanhassen? In looking up information, I noticed in 1979 a Citizen's Advisory Committee was appointed. On that committee were two people that lived rather close to the south route. No one on the Citizen's Advisory Committee lived anywhere in the area of the north route. The other three people were far away from both _ routes. I'm wondering why the north route wasn't better represented on this Citizen's Advisory Committee where the issues could be looked at a little more fairly. I just have a concern that sometimes when developments are in your neighborhood, you have a tendency to hear everything that's going to go on in your neighborhood and not listen so closely to the other neighborhood. One of my concerns is Lake Riley. The north route could adversely affect the lake where the south route would not affect the lake at — all. There are other concerns with wetland with the north route. Also concerns with fish migrating up to Rice Marsh Lake. I believe the fish would be able to get through in the Highway Department's hydraulic method for building but a concern is with spills into the stream and spills and run-off running into Lake Riley. That's why I'm mentioning the fish because the fish can get through but if there is spilling in there, there could be a problem there. Right now I can't think of any of the other major issues. I — Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1987 - Page 10 guess the main thing is I think it's premature to officially map this route right now when there is going to be an EIS done on the south route also. I feel that an Environmental Impact Study is done to determine the environmental impact of the community and to look at them and determine which route is best for the city. I feel if we officially map the north route right now and an environmental impact study is done on the south and it turns out that the Environmental Impact Study favors the south route, that building will have taken place along the north route which would — encourage the north route if chosen later on. Also I feel if the north route is officially mapped right now, that building will be escalated on the south route because they would say that this isn't the route officially mapped. I'm talking about building occurring on the north route that could accommodate the highway like rezoning changes of commercial and so on before the highway is definitely a go. I'm not sure if this is what could happen but I would like to bring that up. Conrad : Is there anything we can respond to in terms of Jo Ann's comments in terms of the Citizen' s Advisory Committee Barbara? Dacy: I was not here when they were appointed but Mr. Vogel is here. Maybe he would like to respond to that as to the method of selection. — Dick Vogel : I think Mark asked me to be one of the people on the Advisory Commiteee. Is that right? - Mark Koegler : I don ' t know. Dick Vogel : Anyway I was asked to be on and that's why I was on and at that time, from what I remember of it, the development where Mr. Curry is now, I don't know who owned it then but at that time the builder seemed to want to get that moving. I think it had been started, proposed to be started. Also, from the first time, we had a hook-up with highway 17 which was going — to be a new highway at that time to TH 212 which I think was changed. But I was asked to be on the commitee, that ' s why I was on there. Conrad: And you obviously felt that the northern alignment at that time was preferable alignment . Dick Vogel : I think_ where the most people are is where you would want the — road the easiest to yet on if you're going to take traffic off TH 5. That's my feeling. They're saying, I think the MnDot people when they were out before said that even if TH 212 is built and TH 5 is upgraded, TH 5 is still — going to keep a little more traffic than TH 212 does but I think we will find that if there is a way they can get to TH 212 and this to TH 5, they will do it and I would expect they will have a TH 101 interchange to do • _ that. If TH 101 is going to be realigned. Dacy: In addition to that, some of the other primary reasons for the north alignment was at that time, the intersections of CR 17 , it was felt that the -- north alignment would provide better access to the Industrial Park and the downtown area and also the north alignment traverses through property and • Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1987 - Page 11 does not sever any existing neighborhoods in the south alignment. The West 96th Street would be impacted by that particular alignment. The Eide House is within the alignment. Dick Vogel : I think that ' s the only house it touches . Dacy: Right and finally as Mr. Hoisington has stated, the transportation — studies that have been conducted have supported the need to provide a reliever to TH 5. Conrad: The EIS will be run strictly on the route that we collect, is that right? Dacy: No, what the EIS will address is that the Scoping Report originally — considered nine alignments and the conclusion of the Scoping Report stated that the following alignment should be studied. Those alignments are indicated by the solid black line. Mitchell Lake residential and System B alternative in Eden Prairie, North Lake Riley, South of Lake Riley in Chanhassen and then on out into Chaska. The EIS would study all those routes. The intent of the official map is not to force the alignment onto _ any one route. The intent is merely to state a preference for the community's preferred alignment. The Scoping Report did identify potential impacts along the north alignment between Rice Marsh Lake and Lake Riley. Mrs. Larson is correct. They stated fish migration as one example. However, as some of you may recall on the Gagne subdivision came in and Mr. Vogel will be coming in with a plat fairly quickly here , there is a Class A wetland in the southern part of Lake Riley or I should say the land that abuts the southern part of Lake Riley drains into that wetland and then eventually out into the lake. People from the Lake Riley homeowners association were concerned about the impacts from the septic systems and so on so there is no question. The Environmental Impact Statement is going to — have to evaluate a number of issues on each corridor. Some corridors provide more advantages than others envirnomentally. Other corridors provide more advantages for traffic system and so on but again, the basic need is that we need to preserve some type of corridor and state an official alignment. Also, in order to even conduct the Environmental Impact Statement, agencies such as the Metropolitan Council and MnDot are saying _ that no longer are budget monies available to fund the EIS strictly out of MnDot. In this case, communities have and are in negotiation with a joint powers agreement to fund the Environmental Impact Statement. We're estimating the total cost is going to be approximately $320,000.00 over the next three year period. The three communities and the two counties have authorized expenditure of $30,000.00 over the next three years. Metropolitan Council has indicated that they would participate with $50,000.00 and then MnDot with $120,000.Q0. If the official map is not adopted, I do have a letter from the Metropolitan Council that says they will not authorize their expenditure. In order to get the project we need to have the EIS completed and in order to get the EIS completed,�gwe have to have a joint effort from all jurisdictions. - • o Planning Commission Meeting June 3 , 1987 - Page 12 Conrad : Jo Ann , the last comment I can remember that you made or one of them, related to commercial development and what's going to happen to land around there, north, south whatever. I eluded a little bit to that before we opened it up to public hearing. I think obviously a highway is going to stimulate something. There's going to be demand for development. It would be our intent to review those land use issues appropriately, as quickly as we can, that would make sense. I think that's real important to do and I don't know that we can come to grips tonight with those land uses but it's _. something that the Planning Commission would forward on and review and hopefully you stay in touch with those issues. There will be public hearings and time to comment on how that land is really used. What I think you're seeing though with Mr. Curry around and a whole lot of other residential , there is a lot of residential development occurring down there and there's also a major downtown that's being planned and commercial growth planned for right downtown Chanhassen so I think there's a general feeling — that commercial development should be in downtown Chanhassen and as you can see realistically, there's a lot of residential growth along that corridor whether there's a highway there or not. That might tell you how we're going to plan things in the future. That doesn't mean that's the way it's going to be but it might tell you the leanings of the City Council or the leanings of the Planning Commission. I wanted to respond to some of your comments because sometimes we forget as we get into the public hearing a little bit — more . Craig Mertz : I 'm here as Attorney for the lake owners of the Lakeview Hills Apartment complex. On the map behind you the complex is located right between the two lakes. The Lakeview Hills property is bounded on the north by Rice Marsh Lake and on the south by Lake Riley and the east boundary, the property is the Eden Prairie line. There is approximately 177 apartments units. It extends from shoreline to shoreline. Approximately 177 units of multiple family on the property right now. The proposed alignment creates two problems for the owners of the complex. First it has an effect on the — owner's development plans for the property and second they believe that it has an effect on the existing residential units out on the property going at those one at a time. As to the development plans for the property, the alignment of the highway in this whole selection process creates a dilemma for the owner of such a property. We've been shown a rather extended time frame from today's meeting to when construction might actually start. The dilemma for people like my clients is what do you do in the meantime? Do — you assume that it's going to go through or do you carry out your long term plans that you always had to develop the property? The owners asked me to advise the City that if we get to the point that we think it's economically — prudent to pursue a development plan on this property, we're going to do so and file necessary applications to try to get city approval for such a development of the residue of the property notwithstanding the fact that 3 to 4 years after that the City may be seeking to buy that very same property. The second problem that I want to go back to is the effect on the residue of the existing residential units. The owners view the alignment as being an attack on their marketing plan. Right now in a nutshell , the — marketing plan is that these are apartments that we' re offering to folks who want country living, wide open spaces , etc. and the location of this highway Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1987 - Page 13 adjacent to the complex is obviously going to destroy that particular marketing complex and we feel that we're going to go from a high amenity type of marketing presentation that we can show to potential renters to a buiding that's going to be essentially a highway buffer. — Conrad : Craig , how close is the nearest unit to the highway? Craig Mertz: I think somebody could reach out their bedroom window and touch the cars. It's going, from the looks of the map, it appears that the center line of the corridor is approximately half-way between the north edge _ of the northerly building and the south edge of the open water of the lake. It effectively destroys the development potential of the property. Dacy: The scale of the map there is about one inch equals 200 feet so we — could be taking anywhere between 300 and 500 feet. Jo Ann Larson: I would also like the Planning Commission to know I talked to the EPA, PCA and the Environmental Quality Board of Minnesota and neither of them like to see cities officially map a route before the EIS is done. They also stated the same reason that an Environmental Impact Study is to determine the environmental impact of the corridor and that the corridor — could change after the Environmental Impact Study is done. Right now they stated all that we have is Environmental Impact statements and a study looks greater into these problems. I also brought up a problem with Barb. She was going to check into it. I was talking with the PCA. I wanted to know how badly this would affect the lake and a gentleman at the PCA said, isn't Lake Riley one of the lakes up for a grant and I said yes , I believe it is. _ The gentleman at the PCA, they were concerned about the effects of the run- off into the lake and issuing a grant with the taxpayers money if they are going to have this problem. I mentioned that to Barb and I think she was going to check into it but that ' s what I was told when I called . — Dacy: Yes, I did follow up with Mr. Mark Tomizak with the PCA and Mr. Cliff Anderson. First of all regarding the Lake Riley chain, of lakes grant. It's — a program approximating about $500,000.00. It has been authorized from an environmental protection agency to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The monies have been awarded to Chanhassen and Eden Prairie subject to execution of how exactly those funds are to be distributed. The Lake Riley — chain of lakes program addresses not only Lake Riley but Rice Marsh Lake, Lake Susan, Lake Ann and Lake Lucy. As you all are aware, those lakes eventually reach into Lake Riley and the service area encompasses a good — one-third to one-half of our urban service area. They confirmed that the TH 212 construction project would not adversely impact that grant program. In fact, some of those monies have to be matched by the City, Watershed District and the DNR. The grant is aimed at what I would call two types of programs. One to address point source pollution and one to address non- point source pollution. An example would be our downtown redevelopment project we're installing a storm sewer system that does not exist today. We're installing a sedimentation pond that will hold back a volume of the run-off that is now going down into Rice Marsh Lake and into Lake Riley. Those type of improvement programs, even a Fertilizer Ordinance program, — Planning Commission Meeting June 3 , 1987 - Page 14 those are all covered under the grant scope of activities and what needs to be done at this time is that all affected agencies have to actually execute how monies are going to be spent. What programs are going to be implemented within the entire chain of lakes project. Yes, the TH 212 project as I said before was identified in the scoping report. There are potential impacts — from the highway onto Rice Marsh Lake and Lake Riley however to address her one concern , they did confirm that it would not effect whether or not that grant would be effected. As to what she also mentioned as to that reference that the City's not officially map before the EIS, Mr. Tomizak is employed in the Water Quality Division. He was not directly involved with the scoping process. He is not aware of a history that has occurred on TH 212. I spoke to Mr. Anderson who is the head of the agency, of PCA and he related to me that under the EQB rules, the Minnesota Department of Transportation is the responsible governmental unit. They are advising the cities to conduct an official map and they are the most likely ones to determine _ whether or not the official map is going to compromise the results of the EIS. As I stated earlier, we feel that is not the case. That we need to reserve the corridor. All alternatives will be studied and addressed. All environmental impacts , traffic issues , relocation neighborhoods, acquisition costs , social impacts , economic impacts , etc . . Roy Schwappach : I recently purchased a lot on Tigua Circle and excuse my — ignorance of the whole matter but this is my first meeting and my first knowledge of something like this happening. We thought we covered it thoroughly. We purchased the lot for a quiet country setting and thought we covered any obstacles of this size. Apparently we were wrong. I would just like to go on record as saying I support Jo Ann's contention and concerns that nothing is done before a thorough EIS study. Also, that the cost of the alternatives of the second less charge. The costs asscciated behind all — those. They may have been let out since the meetings in January and March but I would kind of like to see the costs associated with each alternative and again, just the contention that a thorough study is done before anything is mapped out . Dacy: Let me address his first issue. After the Citizen Advisory Committee — process was completed and the scoping reports completed and so on, there should have been, under the ideal conditions , adopting an official map at that point and completing the EIS after that and so on , that would have been the ideal condition. Unfortunately, because of the process the way it is, — that was not conducted so I can understand the frustrations from the homeowners about now knowing about the project when they bought the lot. As far as the cost of each alternative, I was showing the cost of the EIS but as far as what the North Lake Riley costs versus the South Lake Riley route . . . — Evan Green : I'm the project manager for this project over at MnDot and this project has been through a lot of environmental studies up to this point. The Citizen's Advisory Committee that worked on this took into account a lot of the environmental considerations such as lakes, wetlands, housing and — things such as that. Out of that study came this document which we call the Scoping Report. Before that document or before that study was started there Planning Commission Meeting — June 3 , 1987 - Page 15 was also a corridor location study done and a draft EIS was started so there was a lot of information available to that study group on this particular project. I think that they made an honest effort during their meetings to review all of that data. I know for a fact that they had many meetings where we provided them experts, Fish and Wildlife did, the DNR and they came out and reviewed these various alternatives with the Committee. After that study was done, we produced what we call a scoping document to reduce the — number of alternates that would have to be studied during the EIS process. And the North Lake Riley and South Lake Riley are still included in that scoping process. Unfortunately, the project was dropped out of the planning — program and we decided that we did not have the money or the time and effort and staff to complete an EIS and the EIS was dropped. In the meantime, the cities out here continued to grow day by day. I normally review the plats _ at the office that abut the trunk highway system and we try to coordinate our future plans as much as we can with those of the proposed developments. That just keeps going on and on and on. Now, to wait another four years there are not only going to be problems on this north route, significant — problems if you don't do something, but also the south route will have those same problems. There are on the south route several developments down there that have already occurred and people are living there too so I know it's _ going to be a hard decision for you to determine if you should go ahead or not but we fully stand behind the City Staff's position that a route should be officially mapped and protected. That's the only way to preserve something out here to do something in the future. — Conrad : One of the comments I wanted you to react to was what are the costs of those two alternatives? Have they been specifically costed out? The two different routes and were those in anybody's review in terms of the Citizen's Advisory Committee or is that strictly not a Chanhassen function at this time? Evan Green: As far as the cost of the two different alternates, I don't have specific costs on them. They are fairly similar in length and design, number of bridges. The main thing that would make the difference on cost for a segement of highway would probably be the number of interchanges that we stuck in. An interchange could go anywhere from 5 million up to 10 million dollars to construct depending on what you build . Conrad : Funding for_ the highway comes from where? Evan Green: From the road user. The person paying the gas taxes. You and — I . Every time we drive. Bob Peterson: i live on TH 101 just south of the proposed TH 212. I guess — I would like to just throw out a couple of things that I 'm sure the Planning Commission and MnDot obviously knows. I think my priorities in the whole thing would be that we use the old TH 169, TH 212 corridor and if the bluffs — are in the way and the watershed's in the way, I guess as citizens we all own it and there ought to be some way to work that out. I can see that that's not going to be done. Of course, the other way is to take the northern corridor. Fine. Now the interchange on TH 101, and I think what I — • Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1987 - Page 16 want to bring up is to make sure that everybody is a little bit aware of the dollars that are going to be involved to the city of Chanhassen. First of all you are running a 300 foot right-of-way for approximately five miles through the city of Chanhassen? — Evan Green : I don' t know the measurement. Dacy: It's between 3 and 5. Bob Peterson: Without interchanges. We're talking roughly a couple hundred acres of prime property in Chanhassen. You developers obviously know what acres are selling for now. I see some choice acre lots going , with some — limited improvements, $30,000.00 to $40,000.00 per acre and these up to the year 2005 or whever we are talking about this highway being done, these dollars are going to come off the tax rolls: They're not going to generate — taxes to pay for things. Things like TH 101 being extended from the TH 212 up into the downtown area at a big cost to the city of Chanhassen I understand. Am I right? Is Chanhassen going to have to pick up some of the costs of TH 101 to be brought up into the city to downtown? Dacy: That has not been decided yet. There has been no committment as to who is going to improve the highway. Bob Peterson: Okay, then the other thing would be, eventually the traffic load at the intersection of TH 101, the exodus at that intersection from the Minneapolis people and all over, which is fine, exiting and going down to the race track is also going to make us one day take TH 101 all the way down to the river and expand that. That's going to be more loss of tax land to the city of Chanhassen. It's probably going to be more expenses to us. My feeling, and it's a very selfish one and I assume most everybody that's here has some selfish reason for being here, is that I wouldn't really like to see the interchange on TH 101. If TH 212 goes on the northern corridor, my — personal feeling is fine, we'll move the traffic through the city of Chanhassen but the interchange on TH 101 concerns me as I'm sure it concerns the people at Lake Lucy. I look at down the road, the income. The extra expenses that the city of Chanhassen, and it's going to be the taxpayers that's going to end up paying for all these improvements and I just hope the Planning Commission understands some of these things and maybe looks down the road that far and sees really where we're going. Friday Chanhassen is — going to let the downtown award go and I believe that's coming out of the TIF's money and I believe that's future tax income money. That's about 3 million dollars and in the same token we're talking about wiping other — income lands off of the tax rolls. It concerns me because I intend to stay in Chanhassen for a long time. It's a beautiful community. I'm new here and I really like it and I just wanted to throw that in for some kind of comment . Conrad: Do we ever pay attention to money on the Planning Commission Barbara? • (• • Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1987 - Page 17 Dacy: Let me say that for example, as to the downtown issue , that has been a primary concern of the Planning Commission. Yes, tax increment funds are being used for a portion of that. The remainder of that is being assessed. — The tax increment district is proposed to be ended by the mid 90's. The development that's within that district that is existing now and will be generated because of the tax increment program will come back on line and start paying into and start sharing the overall burden. The value though — that the City is getting is marketedly improved downtown area. The other issues as to who pays, acreage lost and the right-of-way improvements and so on, that's a typical situation as far as typical highway improvements that any community has to address. They have to provide roads to handle the traffic that other areas of the community are generating traffic. As Mr. Green eluded to, we're all paying gas taxes, we're paying excise taxes on _ your cars and so on. It's part of the process that has occurred up to this point. There are a lot of unanswered questions as yet about the jurisdiction of TH 101. However, that's the best I can respond to his questions at this time. Conrad: Very seldom do we as the Planning Commission get involved in economic matters. Dacy: Yes , that' s true. Conrad: We do look at issues in terms of the public health, safety and — welfare and I'm not sure welfare, how broad that scope is but I guess generally, and I'm not sure if I'm taking the Planning Commission out of this issue, typically it's City Council when there are economic decisions, they incorporate those factors because they have to look at budget. We, as the Planning Commission are looking at some philosophic things and we have the liberty of not worrying about the cost. It's not the fact that we don't _ worry about it because we are all citizens and sooner or later sombody is going to pay for it but generally my interpretation of what the Planning Commission does is not to review financial matters. We'll pass forward those comments . They are public record right now but I don ' t know that we — can deal with cost matters. They are certainly issues that the City Council will have to address . Evan Green: Could I say just one thing about the cost of the land. As you know as time goes on-, land only increases in value so that makes it all the more imparative to define this corridor and define the limits and then to reserve it for something you know you're going to need. Whether we build that there or not and you do develop your city, you are going to need some sort of transportation facilities regardless. If the land isn't provide , that's when the real problems come. There are buildings there. There a re _ people to move. Costs associated with that sometimes reach the value of land . That ' s how important it is to get this thing resolved . Kevin Finger: I live down on Great Plains Blvd. I talked to you guys a couple years ago. I own my own business and it's a small business but gentlemen, if I were you and I had all the facts that you have in front of you by MnDot and by the Staff , I would throw my arms up and say how can I — • Planning Commission Meeting June 3 , 1987 - Page 13 make a decision? You've got major items that are out there that you just have no idea about. It's not well, we're leaning one way or the other. You just have no idea. We are looking at a major part of this plan, as I understand, is taking TH 101 up to downtown Chanhassen. Who is going to pay for it? If Chanhassen has to pay for it, to me that's a whole other issue because I don't think, I've got a daughter in school and I see how the school is. It's not going to be long and Chanhassen is going to be building schools. I know we don't deal with economic issues here but going on, - another item, we've got the EIS issue. We don't know where we're sitting on that. Do we go north or south? At the last Chamber of Commerce meeting we had an individual from the DNR come in. We are probably going to have one of the nicest fishing lakes in the Metropolitan area within 3 or 4 years , Lake Riley. They are going to kill off all the fish and they are going to restock it with prime, good fish. Now, I hate to see that ruined and you can bet if it goes to the north it's going to ruin it. Now I don ' t know. — Somebody said there are wetlands to the south and maybe they drain into Lake Riley and maybe that does the same thing , I don't know, but that's a major item that nobody has answered. How can we make a decision tonight and say we're going to block off all this land and we're going to throw all of our eggs in this basket and hope and pray every night before bedtime and everything else and hope that everything goes right because if one thing goes wrong , we throw it out the window. Look at how long they had to wait on 18 and when will that ever be done , who knows? Other concerns that I 've got is at the last Chamber meeting we also talked about TH 5. Let's be selfish, let's talk about Chanhassen. Forget about TH 212, let's get TH 5 — developed. Get MnDot going on TH 5 because that's going to help us. That's going to help the economic downtown pay for that 3 million dollars that is going out of our funds. Let's do something that's going to be more directly beneficial. TH 212 is not going to benefit Chanhassen no way. Anybody here who thinks that Chanhassen has a major benefit out of this , you are dreaming. The people are going from Little America to Eden Prairie Center back home. That's all they're going to do. Maybe they will come in and — take TH 101 down to the race track. They aren' t going to Chanhassen downtown. They aren't going to the Dinner Theater. They're going someplace else. If they're going to Chanhassen, they'll take TH 5. Another concern, and I'm happy that you addressed it and I guess I want to emphasize, if we're stuck, which it sounds like everybody has said that since 1979 , it's a real shock to me because when I bought my property two years ago , I got your long range plan and you didn't have anything on there about TH 212, but anyway, if we're stuck with TH 212, I'm concerned about the industrial development along there. If I'm stuck with that road , I don't want to have any industrial development along that at all. Residential only. Like you — say, they can go to the Industrial Park or downtown. One quick point, Barb mentioned about the best of doing it would be to get the final map to MnDot and then to get the EIS done and then come to the Planning committee and that stuff, if that's the best way of doing it, let's do it that way. Why, because Eden Prairie which has all the bucks around here which we all know about and Chaska has approved it, Chaska it doesn't matter to them, but why since those two have approved it why do we have to hurry up and approve it — and get into that pressure. Heck with it. It doesn't benefit us, it benefits them. • • Planning Commission Meeting - June 3 , 1987 - Page 19 Conrad: You make the assumptions that highways are definitely going to be bad and maybe that's an appropriate assumption but I think you also have control on how that highway goes in. I can recall , I'm not really necessarily an advocate of highways but I can sure sight some examples of maybe some of the bridges that MnDot has put in over the Minnesota River that have been done with a great deal of sensitivity to the environment so it doesn't necessarily mean that it's doom and gloom when you put a highway - in . Dacy: I would like to clarify something if that's possible. Number one, the Planning Commission is not acting on it just because Eden Prairie and Chaska just approved their conceptual alignment. Again, this corridor affects all of Chanhassen, Chaska, Eden Prairie, Hennepin and Carver County. All five jurisdictions have been involved in the process all at once. It's been a joint group effort to look at the problem. TH 5 is programmed to be improved to four lanes by 1992. As you heard Mr. Hoisington say, four lane TH 5 is not going to solve the overall growth projections of Chanhassen. Even with TH 212 , there will still be a significant amount of traffic on TH 5 that would technically call for the need of a 6 to 8 lane improvement. Without TH 212 it's going to fail. Chanhassen can not be pulled out between the two communities and say that this is not going to benefit us. The three communities are served by these corridors and are growing at a pace that generates traffic that is going to affect the liveability of these communities. We're talking about traffic safety. Mr. Hoisington referred - to the number of accidents and so on. There is a clear need not only to upgrade TH 5 to four lanes but an even clearer need that we need an alternative corridor to help relieve the traffic. As far as the land use issue, Mr. Finger here, you are well aware that you are located out of the urban service area and you're in the rural service area. Development in that district is limited to a 1 unit per 13 acre basis as authorized by the new Zoning Ordinance that was passed by the City in February of 1987. That - district only permits development on that basis. As far as the long range plan, if you lock at the Comprehensive Plan, there was a discussion on TH 212 in there. The discussion on TH 212 is within our Comprehensive Plan and - as shown by Mr . Koegler . Conrad : I thought it was a dotted line in there. Wasn' t it a dotted line in the Comprehensive Plan? Mark Koegler : Two years ago it was. Both alignments have been on the plan since 1978 , 1979 consistently in that configuration . - Dacy: This is a copy from the Plan map and there is a copy of the exerpt from the Comprehensive Plan in your packet . Conrad : I just had the impression that I 've always seen it. Forever and ever and I 'm not sure what I ' ve been looking at but I thought it was there . Mike Mulligan: I also live on Tigua Circle, 8531. Mr. Finger if you can find a highway without any commercial development I would like to see it. I've been sitting here making some notes that I would like to go over. They - Planning Commission Meeting June 3 , 1987 - Page 20 are somewhat disjointed and not in any particular order. I bought my property four years ago and built a house three years ago. I would like to say that at that time neither I nor several of my neighbors who are sitting here were told about the prespective highway. I also attended the last two meetings that Ms. Dacy mentioned and I brought that up then and was told the City just doesn't have any mechanism for informing people about that. When I appeared before this group with a construction model of the home and request for a variance, I wasn't told about it then either. When we applied for a built permit we weren't told about it then either and I can't believe the statement that the City doesn't have a mechanism for contacting homeowners or property owners or home builders at least when they are at the permit stage. I kind of feel like I've been had frankly and so do my neighbors. I'm being real selfish here. We didn' t know and weren't told about this. I didn't find about it myself perhaps mostly through my own ignorance until this last series of meetings was announced. We kind of — trickle up here one by one giving our sort of unprofessional opinions kind of against the pros that seem to be lined up against us. The same fellas that were here at the last meeting or two to talk about how wonderful the north route is what our great need for moving the automobile is and I haven't heard anybody speak against that yet we continue to have to go through that part of the meeting before we get into this part of it which is what most people are here for. Mr. Curry just happened to stop by give a — ringing endorsement to the north route. Obviously, we're kind of bucking the whole program here. This is why I say I feel that I at least was kind of had on this. I don't know whether I would have bought my lot or not had I known what was going on or I may not have paid that price for it and yes , I do realize that over the period of the 30 years that you've been involved in this thing, property prices do go up. The trend is up. As I say these notes are kind of disjointed. I can believe the statement that we don't have any economic consideration here. That seems to be some kind of fantasy land that we're operating a planning group without any consideration of cost. I'm not sure I heard you right but that's kind of the way it came — across to me. Conrad: When I explained roles , there are different groups in government that do different things. It's sort of like having a company, you've got a finance department here and a marketing department there. I just wanted to make that very clear that when you speak to us, we concentrate on certain issues and we play certain roles based on how we're chartered. We have a — charter and I wanted to make sure that those of you here were listening to that. That charter's not unique, it's pretty much a charter that all cities have. Economics are certainly a factor. This is not the group that manages — those economics . The City Council does that . Mike Mulligan: I'm sure that you're goals and the goals of the City Coucnil theoretically are all the same and that is to construct a better and higher quality way of living in this city and as any organization that has a number of departments, your specific tasks may be different but your goals are the same. We have accumulated a petition of some four pages that I mentioned at — the last meeting. Frankly I 'm not sure what to do with it now that we have it but there a great number of people who aren't here. You don't have room Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1987 - Page 21 for them to tell the truth, who are not in favor of the north route. What I would like to see and I'm not sure yet that we'll get that, is that the south route be given a fair shake on this. A consideration by the environmental, whatever is going to occur and I'm not sure that's going to happen because it seems to me that the organization is in favor of the north route and I'm not sure that the system is going to allow for the south route to have that chance. I'm familiar with the wetlands issue. I live on the — western tip of Rice Marsh Lake. Have any of you been out on a canoe on Rice Marsh Lake? I doubt it. That is a wonderful habitat. It's a very shallow lake. It's a beautiful spot that is going to be dramatically, drastically affected by the construction project regardless of all the silt that's going to run into Lake Riley which is a whole different issue which is downstream from it. You can't make that construction that close to Rice Marsh Lake _ without damaging that habitat and that's a wetlands habitat too. I don't know the specific designation of it. That's a lake that is a wildlife area that has no people on it except people like myself and one or two of my neighbors who have a canoe. There is no public access to it. It's well named. It's swamp or marsh all the way around. Marsh is a classier word but it's a swamp, a good share of it. It's getting a little swampier this spring without the rain but I kind of feel you're meeting to death on this. You've got more stamina on this than maybe we do but I sure hope that somehow in all of this that this south route, despite the fact that it was recommended by a committee which had nobody living on the north route on that committee. That's history. We can't do anything about it and I was kind of sneered at a couple of meetings ago when I brought that up. That we're above that type of consideration. Well, I'm not sure that I am. I don't who was on that committee by name because I didn' t live here then but I understand politics and I understand needs and i understand a little bit of selfishness because I'm selfish too but i just hope the system allows for a reasonable and fair consideration of the south route. Where you've got a __ right-of-way already. We don't know what the costs are but I've got a feeling it's going to cost less and you're going to make a pass through some present residential areas which are residential because you guys allowed it. I guess that' s all I have to say. _ Conrad: You gave us about 10 issues to think about. One that rings real clear is communication. I think the City Council and Planning Commission always we hear that concern. What's going on in Chanhassen and we talk about it quite a bit-. People that run for City Council run on tickets to communicate clearly and more of it. It still becomes a major issue. I'm _ not going to defend it. I think if you have concerns of communication you should somehow bring them forth. Whether it be with Staff. Whether it be with the Planning Commission some night. If you think there are appropriate things that should be done. A lot of issues are based on cost and to be real frank with you, the publications that we list our meetings in and the official announcements, when we come to issues like the Comprehensive Plan and we tell the community that we have a new Comprehensive Plan to review and these things are going in. Or when we have a new zoning ordinance that we've worked here as volunteers for years and nobody shows up, we wonder. That's the only issue I'm talking about. I'm sort of throwing it out there because it typically takes an event like this when it gets close to home to — • Planning Commission Meeting June 3 , 1987 - Page 22 get the interest going and there are so many other issues happening in Chanhassen that we sure would like to hear input on better communication and the needs that you have. I think there's just nobody wanting to cut that out. We're just not sure exactly how to do it and how much to pay for it to get it done. When we do pay for it, not many people show up. That's just a — little bit of dialogue for those of you who are here and sensitive to something you didn't know was happening. We're always looking for ways to communicate better and more often. If there's a better way, we would like — to do it. Other comments? Jo Ann Larson : I would like to make a recommendation for a way to preserve the corridor is that anyone who comes in to get a building permit be told that this is a proposed corridor for the highway. If a developer fills in that corridor , he has a moral obligation to tell anyone who buys a home in that corridor that this is a proposed route for a highway. If he doesn't, — he ' s opened a lawsuit. That ' s just one suggestion . Ken Pung: I live on West 96th Street and granted I haven't lived here as — long as.—but I remember when I moved out here about 22 years ago and I think at the time I was the second or third person on 96th Street , but at the time I moved out there I was looking at investing in a golf course just immediately to the south. Fortunately I didn't but one of the concerns I — had was , at that time there was talk of this highway going in 22 years ago so one of the concerns I had was how that would affect not only myself but my proposed investment. I called the highway department right away and I - was told that there were no decisions made where the highway was going and that was way out in the future yet , about 5 years down the road. That was in 1966. At that time there were some proposals thrown out and I think if my recollection is right, at that time the proposal was to pretty much follow north of Chaska High School and then pretty much follow CR 14 and then tie in with going on the south and then following the railroad right- of-way into the crosstown area. The comments were made that there was no — information about the south corridor. I guess I can maybe add to that because I just sort of left it go out of my mind way back then because this thing kept being pushed out into the future. About in January when I received a letter if there was any interest in the south corridor so I guess I can add to the comment about correspondence or communications. That was the first official word that I had heard of a south corridor so there was a gap of maybe 15 years from when I first looked at it until I got that — notification . Just for your information . Erhart moved, Emmings seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor — and motion carried . Erhart: Can you give us a little information if we used the north route, what care would you take to protect Rice Marsh Lake? What kind of current procedures does the Department use to protect that kind of amenity? Evan Green: I can't explain exact procedures we might use but we do in fact — okay highways near lakes and we do take extreme care providing sediment basins, ponding areas. Things that take into account possible spills. Our Planning Commission Meeting June 3 , 1987 - Page 23 plans are subject to review by all the other governmental agencies just as anyone else developing some land. Our plans go through the PCA, the EPA, all federal agencies, the DNR and there are ways to take care of those things. We've done on other projects, in this particular case I guess I'm not qualified here to tell you exactly how it might be done. I do know it will be done. Whether we go on the north side or the south side, we would take those same considerations on the water quality. We normally have a water quality study with every project in determining what actions or mitigations we might take. Mainly your pondings, sedimentations, stuff like that. Creating additional wetlands. I don't think that's something that — can't be overcome on either route. I think it would be a problem on both of the routes. Erhart: One more thing, I might comment. I bought my property here six years ago. Somehow, I don't exactly how, I found out about the freeway so I was aware of it but I would think there was a period of time up until two years ago, I'm not too sure anybody seriously thought this thing would ever — go in. If you weren't aware of it is probably because nobody here believed it was a serious consideration. Then all of a sudden in the last year and a half, it seemed like this thing is breathing new life again. That might be just my impression. Is that the way you sort of look at it too Dale? Councilman Geving : It sure is . Erhart : It did seem about the time you guys bought your property that this thing was kind of a dead issue. But on the other hand, right now with getting the thing on the map, one of the reasons we're doing that is for any — future purchases of property that these people will know what our long term plans are. I think that's one of the benefits for getting this thing passed and on the official map at this time. Regarding the whole thing here, I guess in my mind coming into the meeting tonight hasn't changed. I'm in favor of the north route. I think there are six major reasons we should favor it. It has the least effect on the existing neighborhoods. That doesn't mean that it doesn't effect any neighborhoods but there are more — people currently in the south that it would effect. Not only that but we have already approved a number of subdivisions in the south that would have severe impact on that have already gone through. Maybe we got a little ahead of ourselves but we already planned in some of the divisions on the north route with the- right-of-way going through there as in the Curry subdivision. I think the north route will better assist the people living in Chanhassen. Most of the people live north of TH 5 and there are an awful — lot of people who use TH 5 to get into work. I think the freeway will be a great assistance for them getting back and forth to work. Whether or not it brings business into the city or not, I think that's the overwhelming need — because people who live in the city have to get in and out. We all. know TH 5 is really bad. I think recommending the north route is consistent with the recommendations the city has made all along and I can' t see any reason to contradict that. Lastly, for as many times as this thing has been postponed, if we don't go along with Chaska and Eden Prairie, if you want to look at it that way, I think we' re going along with something that makes sense. If we don't go along with it, we're going to kill this project. The r Planning Commission Meeting June 3 , 1987 - Page 24 adverse part of course is Rice Marsh Lake. It is a beautiful place. I've walked around it and am aware of it. I do believe, I think one of the things that the Cedar Avenue Bridge really brought to MnDot, it forced them to learn the skills of behaving in wetland areas and I do believe what they learned there will apply to the Rice Marsh Lake and as long as I 'm on here and I think everyone else would say that we're very concerned that every consideration is taken on that . Emmings : I guess I similarly think that it's important to get this on an official map. I guess I'm persuaded about that but I think, I don't know anything about the environmental impact and nobody does for sure yet because the Environmental Impact Study hasn't been done but I guess the comments from the public has caused me to think about whether or not I 'm being honest here. I guess what I mean by that is are we really going to give due consideration to an alternative to this route that's been laid out north of — Lake Riley because if we're not then it's a charade and I don't think we ought to do that. I think we ought to say that we've chosen the north route and that's it. I've seen these situations before where this normally is correct. It seems like everybody who spoke on behalf of the city or anybody else very obviously favored the northern alignment and if that's where we're at as a city, maybe we ought to acknowledge that rather than pretending that we're really looking at two things. Maybe we are so locked into the north route by the history and by our more recent actions. Just the Gagne property as an example, we just approved that subdivision and no one ever brought up the south route that I recall. We didn't consider it yet when we — did Chan Hills meaning the Curry property, we gave it a great deal of consideration. In fact we even tabled it once so it would be planned better and then they brought it back. It would seem to me that if we are going to and I don't know if we should or not, but if we're going to give full consideration to the different alternative and that is the southern route, it seems to me is it possible to put them both on a map? If they are approximately the same difference as Mr. Green said and for that reason — maybe the costs aren' t vastly different, why could we put both routes on our official map until we get the rest of the information that we need to really make an informed decision? Dacy: To answer your first question as to whether or not the study is going to be a charade or whether or not the south is going to get an adequate study, a consulting _firm will be hired by MnDot as the responsible governing unit to fulfill the requirements as stated by the Federal Highway Administration for Environmental Impact Statements. They are required to evaluate all the routes that are indicated on this solid line. Each route — has to go through the same type of evaluation process to determine the recommended alternative. I think Mr. Green would want to speak to that but federal requirements are that each route has to be evaluated. I guess at this point I don't think it's going to be a charade. The intent of the official map, as I stated before, is to preserve a corridor to prevent that corridor from being lost and to help work with those developments that may occur along it so we can better plan if in fact it is built. As to whether — or not you officially map the south corridor, we have approved a number subdivisions within that corridor. As Mr. Koegler referred to earlier, <7 < Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1987 - Page 25 since the Citizen Advisory process and the scoping report process, the City, at least on an informal basis, has been looking toward the north corridor as our preferred alignment. To officially map the lots that exist now, there — will be existing homes placed within the right-of-way. Potential lots created within the official map. I don't if anybody is here from the southern route or not but one of the advantages of the north route again is that except for Eide home, it does not affect directly going through any existing neighborhoods. Emmings: What you just told me makes it sound more and more like we're — locked into the north route. Both by the history and the position the city has taken in the past and all of the actions that have been taken based on the departments for the north route because that problem is going to continue. As more and more developments come in, whether they are along the north route or south route, as we look at them. If they are along the north route we are going to take the location of the highway into effect. If they are along what would be the south route, we're not going to take the highway — into effect because it's not on the official map so we become kind of locked in deeper and deeper. That what makes we wonder if we really are looking seriously at the southerly route. — • Dacy: What I hear you saying is that you really want to reconsider the original action that was done by the Citizen Advisory Committee. Emmings: No, not necessarily. I guess what I'm saying is, if we're already locked into the northerly route, if that still is the position of the City, let's just say so. Instead of saying we're still considering two — alternatives because I don't feel like we are considering two alternatives. I don' t know if we are. I guess I don' t think we are. I think each of us has to ask himself, are we being honest when we say we' re looking at the alternatives because I don't get any sense that we're really looking at any alternatives . Dacy: Again, there is a clear need for a corridor. If the EIS comes back — and it does site the southerly alignment is appropriate and all jurisdictions effected are going to have to try to work together to try and achieve that alternative. Up until the Scoping Report point, there were a — number of studies done and so on and the transportation study has also reinforced the fact for an alternative .to TH 5. Staff is really concerned that if there are any more delays in the project or any more reconsideration as evidence from the Metropolitan Council, we are just concerned that we may lose it all together. There have been a number of windows of opportunities here that have gone by. We have one to at least start looking at the process. The EIS needs to be funded. It needs to get completed to address — some of the concerns that have come up tonight. Conrad: Can I take off on your point Steve? I think it's valid. We pick a corridor. I think there are a lot of reasons for picking the northerly corridor but let's say the EIS comes back and I think a lot of us are sensitive to the environment, let's say it's horrendous. During those, how _ long does it take to complete it, 3 or 4 years , so for 3 or 4 years we've i Planning Commission Meeting June 3 , 1987 - Page 26 kind of built in additional things . Wildermuth : We ' re building additional reason to take the northerly route . Conrad: Yes, that's well worded. We are basically putting other things probably in that southerly alignment that will re-encourage us to do the northerly alignment because we've done all these things. I think that's how I would interpret Steve's comment at least from my perspective is that we — really, after 3 or 4 years, there are going to be additional reason for not using that so we really don't have a second alternative. We really are putting the eggs in one basket. Dacy: I want you to think of , if there was a clear statement by the City preferring the northerly alternative as concluded in the Scoping Report, the development that has occurred since then, because it was the preferred alignment we were able to work with Mr. Curry in reserving the corridor. Now the development on the southerly route, you read the Scoping Report and so on and you read the Comprehensive Plan at that time, we would have no — legal means outside of buying the corridor property within those plats to prevent them from developing. Another advantage to the official map, if there is a development eminent and the City can apply to the Metropolitan Council to obtain funds to acquire the right-of-way in order to preserve it but that's only to be used in cases where it's going to be clear that the corridor is jeopardized . — Mike Mulligan: I'm not sure if it's proper to address you during discussion but another point I would like to make if I may, I 'm not sure why you tell us we can't talk about economics when Barb is bringing up funding, you're - not telling her that. Conrad: If you want to talk about economics , go ahead. I' ll open that up. I was just trying to let you know what we listen to so go ahead and talk — about economics . Mike Mulligan: My understanding is that Eden Prairie and Chaska which is — less important, could live with the southern route. Am I wrong in this Barb? Dacy: To the best of my knowledge, they have proceeded with their conceptual review alignment and have approved the northerly route. Chaska is less involved because it is the same touch down point into Chaska so it's primarily Eden Prairie. Mike Mulligan: That is my understanding. I would like to mention also that those of us including the gentleman who spoke a few minutes ago, earlier — this evening who just bought a lot on Tigua Circle, he has a restriction in his purchase agreement regarding a portion of his property as I do in mine and as the neighbor next to him does, part of our property is open to the public. Part of it we can't even cut a tree down off of because it's supposed to be some kind of park and I'm sorry I can' t give the specific type of parkland. On my property that I paid for, I can't cut a tree down • Planning Commission Meeting —' June 3, 1987 - Page 27 because that was supposed to be a parkland. The decision made by the City Council I assume at some earlier time when that land was platted. The person who developed the property, Jerry Hendrickson who just sold his home — a few weeks ago and moved out because of this, spoke at an earlier meeting. He said we developed that property because it was supposed to be a kind of wilderness retreat. That's a little grandious but kind of an area away from the hussle and the bussle and they accepted that restriction from the City — for the restriction of cutting the trees for instance, the public access onto my property, onto his property, onto the Hendrickson property. Emmings: My position on this would be that if we are seriously considering the alternative of the southerly route, it ought to go on with the northern route on the official map if we can do that. I don't know if it can be done _ but if we are going to do it, let's put it on there so that future developments that we look at that come along on the south would be as aware of the potential as developments that are going on in the north so we don't become locked into it. If we are not looking at an alternatives and I don't even necessarily think we should. For myself, I prefer the northerly route and I guess based on the history that we had and the past action that we've taken, we ought to just acknowledge the fact that we've chosen the northern route and recommend the northern route and just have it done with. Because if that's the facts, studying an alternative route just to study it is just a waste of money as far as I'm concerned. I think that for the downtown, the northerly route is essential. We are already worried about the — downtown, the potential for commercial development leaking out of downtown down to the highway and further away it is from downtown I think the more likely that is to happen. I think if we're ever going to have a city here, — we got to have the downtown and I think the closer this road is to the downtown the better so I favor the northerly alignment. Dacy: Mr. Green, could you address the possibility of whether or not the southern route could be officially mapped? Evan Green: Your decision here is strictly the city's, it's not ours. — Whether or not you chose the northern or southern route, based on the input we had from the Scoping Report and all the agencies involved , we are required to study both of them. Emmings: So it's just a question of whether we want it on our map or not. We can do that in other words if we want to? Evan Green : The southern route? Emmings: Both. — Evan Green : I would recommend against both for the City. Emmings: Why? Evan Green: Then you wind up holding open two corridors whether you are able to do that financially or not I don't know. There are funds available C • Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1987 - Page 28 from the Met Council to provide the city an opportunity to purchase property loans interest free and then we would buy them back from you but as the city's part of the input to the EIS process, you're still going to have to make a choice of the alternative you favor. Whether you make that now or later is up to your perogative. Emmings: If I can interpret what you're saying and tell me if I'm wrong, when we vote for a route on the official map, all we're really doing is saying that we recognize there are alternative routes but this is the one that, at least based on the information we have now, that we prefer? Evan Green : That' s right. The City prefers. Emmings: And we're not necessarily locked into that forever but we have seen that actually you wind up being locked into it. Evan Green: Right. Erhart: Isn't it true Barb that once we get this thing on the map, if a developer comes in and wants to develop within that corridor that the city will buy that land? Is that what you're talking about the interest free loan? Evan Green: The official map process provides an opportunity to buy the property from the owner if there is a hardship on the owner. We have several properties in Eden Prairie where people are strapped with a home, can't sell it because of the highway corridor that is supposedly going to be built someday running through their property and they are stuck. One fellow was transferred out of Eden Prairie to out east. He still owns his house and it's a real hardship on him. This provides a means to relieve that hardship. They were able to make application for a loan by that City or the County also can do that . Erhart: What happens to the apartment complex with all the amenities decides they want to build an additional apartment building in the corridor after we put it on the map? Evan Green : Then they would have to come to the City and if you gave them a buiding permit to do. that, or excuse me, we would assume that once it's — officially mapped, you would not give them a building permit. If they added any buildings after it's officially mapped, they would not be compensated for any value added to the land such as that. Erhart: And we could also not provide a subdivision . . . Evan Green: Right, within those limits of the official map. Then one thing — the official map does also, it's filed with the County. It goes on record and we' re able to see where it goes . -. Siegel : I won't be redundant or I hope not too much but I wanted to point out to the residents that our concern as Planning Commissioners is the _• r' Planning Commission Meeting June 3 , 1987 - Page 29 overall development of the City. That also includes it's economic survival so when we look at these plans and when we recommend a route for a corridor , we're looking at it as the necessary growth for this community to survive in the metropolitan area and what is the best way to do so which is one of the reasons why we looked at TH 101 and an access route off of the corridor to TH 101 to facilitate an expanded downtown area of Chanhassen. The further south we get with that corridor , the less impact it has as far as an access route for the economic growth for the downtown business district. As to considering, I think we already talked about considering the alternative route of the south, we have to leave that door open in case the Environmental Impact Statement comes through with some dire reason why we can not put a northerly route through. I can empathize very much with new residents who are not aware of a corridor but this is part of the reason why we want to take some definite action right now is because of the lack of knowledge and communication that has existed in the community and the lack of action. That definitive action that would have probably alerted you to the facts that your properties or the properties that you anticipated buying - at the time were in, not jeopardy but in consideration of being included in this route. That's why we've got to take some action that is going to make some economic and political and social impact for this area. I don't think I can add any more to that except to say that the longer we wait and like the man from the State Highway Department said, the higher the cost in terms of more people later on. If we cause any delay to this kind of action, years on down, we will have the same kinds of problems with people coming in - like you who believe that you were not aware of the fact and we are faced with three times as many people with the same kinds of problems you anticipate facing now saying that they were not aware and the higher the cost for the land and all the other factors involved . Wildermuth: I certainly sympathize with the people who were not aware of _ the pending possibility of a highway when they purchased their property. I am also convinced that the closer the central business district and industrial area is to a major highway the better off the community is going to be. The more prosperous that business district is going to be. I guess - I see a couple things here that I really don't understand why in the original considerations , for example in 1979 , there wasn't more thought given to the Chicago-Northwestern Railway right-of-way which I understand is _ under some consideration for abandonment. That looks like it would be a very plausible opportunity and would probably result in minimal disruption to private property. That would very much parallel the southern route as it's drawn on the map once you get south of Lake Riley. Although I guess somewhere in the Chaska area there is an issue there that probably the Chaska people favored the northern. No where in the reports did I see very much discussion on that . - Dacy: Lake Riley is here and here's the railroad that you are referring to. TH 5 is up here. The residential , what they call the residential route, TH _ 5 comes down and then the South Lake Riley route was proposed along the railroad and continuing on the north side of Pioneer Trail. That was the alternative that was studied during the Scoping process in 1980 . Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1987 - Page 30 Wildermuth: Why not bring it down even further? Dacy: Down to this point here? Wildermuth: Yes . Tthe right-of-way is already there. Dacy: You are getting into the Bluff Creek bluffs and the topographical changes in here and the steep ravines plus the need to get over into Chaska - and not fight the Hesse Farm and the topography that exists in the Hesse Farm area . Conrad: Wasn't there problems connecting to that railroad track in the first place? Not necessarily connecting but Eden Prairie had some problems with access there and I 'm not sure. . . — Dacy: The major item that I'm aware of it just the School Road, that neighborhood and the issues regarding industry in the residential route. Mr . Hoisington, did you have anything to add on that? Conrad: Why not that corridor where the railroad track came down out of Eden Prairie? Do you recall if there was any particular reason why that never was one of the final alternative routes. Fred Hoisington: That still is one of the considerations. Dacy: Your question is about why it ' s on the Scoping Report? Conrad: Yes. Dacy: It was identified as an alternative corridor and the Scoping Report addressed each issue area of the wetlands, traffic, land use, etc., etc.. Mark do you have anything else? Mark Koegler: Not on the Eden Prairie segment. In addressing the concern of the Chanhassen segment, I don't know that the railroads were any more profitable 9 years ago than they are today. At that time there was no discussion of abandoning that rail line, at least as a factor of these negotiations. The only other observation that Barb touched upon is it's easier to put in a 100 foot railroad right-of-way than it is a 300 foot roadway right-of-way as part of the area of improving traffic concerns with the intersection of TH 101. That was not part of the original consideration. Wildermuth : I think it ought to be part of the MnDot study for the southern route. It seems that the impact, private property, Hesse Farm particularly I guess. Headla : I believe the numbers show we definitely do need a highway. As far as the environmental part, talking about Rice Marsh Lake, I can look at — three things. I can look at TH 5 went straight through the south end of Lake Minnewashta. I think there's more wildlife there now than there ever Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1987 - Page 31 has been. I've seen more birds. I see fox in there. I think of Wood Lake on 35W on the west side of Wood Lake. I think Wood Lake is very nice bird santuary. I see many, many different types of wild birds. In two weeks I'll be going out just taking Highway 12 straight west getting into South Dakota. There's one santuary there. I don't know how many acres, several hundred acres. It's a real pleasure to go through there. We slow down just to see how many birds we can see and it's all marsh on either side. I think the precautions that the highway departments have taken, I do not think it destroys and I think it gives us a better chance to enjoy so what's been set up, I think they can send development along Rice Marsh Lake — and not detroy it. I just don't believe that will happen. I question why the northern route was chosen. Not based on the information I've heard tonight but I think the die is cast. I think the down side is so bad that if we try to turn it around. I think we ought to be up front and say we're going to go all out for the northern route and if it turns out we absolutely can't do the northern route than we'll open up something else. Let's just be upfront and say go ahead. We' re going to go with the northern route. -' Conrad: Generally I'm not an advocate of highways, new highways to encourage development. Jim you must love to hear that. I would rather wait — for pressure to make the highway necessary and that's because I moved out here quite a while ago and I really like the environment that we've got and yet, right now what I see is a whole bunch of need. I see that every morning and every evening. I'm also very much aware, my belief is that the TH 5 improvements is not going to solve the problem so I have a posture that basically says there's a need for highway improvement and we have to have it. If TH 5 is not going to solve the . problem, we have to do something — else. I think the northerly alignment from what I can tell is the preferred alignment. It has been historically. It still makes sense to me that it's the right alignment. It's going to be of more benefit to Chanhassen. I think TH 5 is still going to be the main benefit to Chanhassen. That's the road that I really want to see improved because that's the road that really is going to direct people into the commercial part of town. It's going to direct more people into the residential part of town but it's not alone enough and I think TH 212 has got to go in. The alignment on the north does more for Chanhassen than the one on the south. Does more for downtown. Does more for the industrial park and more for the residential community. — Has the least impact on existing neighborhoods and I think the history is there. I really like the design that I saw tonight. The tentative design. The accesses and I think it's very sensitive to the needs and has incorporated some things that the community has asked for. The down side I think is the environmental impact statement and I'm still real concerned about how that reads. That's why we're going through it. I think the die is cast however. I think over 10-20 years this is the corridor and if this — one doesn't work, there may not be a TH 212 which that's the way it is. I " think if the EIS looks bad , I would have to take a real good look at it myself and say, hey, it's not worth destroying what is in it's way. Yet, I don't see the need to preserve a southerly route right now. I don't see the need to map a second route. I think our intention is to go the northerly route. I heard a lot of good comments from the public tonight and I'm still _ very sensitive to their concern with the environment and we' ll watch that 1 . , . C C Planning Commission Meeting June 3 , 1987 - Page 32 through the EIS. Obviously, the longer that EIS is out there, the more we get locked into that route so I guess I'm not giving any promises, at least — on my part, that we're going to change that route to a southerly location. That's where I'm at. I think what I would like now is a motion from the Planning Commission . Emmings moved, Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the northerly alignment of the TH 212 Corridor as depicted in Attachment #11 identified as the Revised Conceptual Alignment dated June, 1987. All voted in favor and motion carried. Headla moved, Conrad seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor _ and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10: 00 p.m. . Submitted by Barbara Dacy City Planner Prepared by Nann Opheim CITY OF - \,\J l — 1.... CHANHASSEN N.:,-,!t,,, _'; 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 — (612) 937-1900 July 6, 1987 Mr. Evan Green — 2055 N. Lilac Drive MN Dept of Transportation Golden Valley, MN 55422 Dear Mr. Green: This is to notify you that the City Council at their June 29, — 1987 meeting, approved the North Lake Riley route�L.orthe TH. 212 concept ,alignment_revieproces . The City Council has therefore authorized your office to begin the necessary task to prepare_an — official for adoption. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you and Cheri Olson for your diligent attendance at these public meetings , as —well as your help and advice on this process . I look forward to working with you on this item in the future. — Sincerel if Babara Dacy BD:n C tr- . { 404 Minnesota do Department of Transportation District 5 cp 2055 No. Lilac Drive of Golden Valley. Minnesota 55422 February 1 , 1939 (612i593- 8403 Gary Warren, P . E . City Engineer City of Chanhassen — . 690 Coulter Drive P .O. Eox 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 S . P . 1017-07 (TH 212 ) From W. Chanhassen Limits to E . Carver Co . Line Layout No . 4 City Approval Dear Mr . Warren, Transmitted herewith for review and approval are the preliminary plans for the above referenced project . These proposed plans are the result of many months of study and close coordination between the City of Chanhassen and Mn/DOT. As you may recall , The City held three public meetinc§ ( Jars. 29 , March _ 23 and June,3 )...?. 2.7 ) on the proposed "Concept Layout" . The City Council then approved "Concept Layout with._the__addition'of, a Proposed T.H. 101 interchange , at their June29 � 9871,�ieet r_g _..- . - ...,,., . This l=vo'1t is essentially the same except we have made the following additions : - Areas needed for ponding and or wetland replacement have been shown on the layout . - Approximate construction limits have been shown on the layout . - Improved connections to existing TH 101 in the nanhassen Hills area have been added to the layout . - A frontage road was added l7ft of approx. Sta . 1030± and 1090- . This is needed to serve the existing farmstead . An Equal Opportunity Employer • (' Gary Warren, P.E . February 1, 1989 Page 2 Once the city has approved the preliminary plans , Mn/DOT wi?I finalize the "Of_fic alLMap"y3asedon the. construction limits shown on the plans . The "Official Map" will then be traysmit*e_ct_. o.__th.e_city_for adoption. If you have any questions in regard to the plans or project; please contact Carl Hoffstedt, District Transportation Planning Engineer, or Evan Green, Project Manager. Thank you for your cooperation on the project. Sincerely, W.M. Crawford District Engineer CC : J. Povich • C. Hoffstedt E . Green A. Poletz/J. Balluff E. Howe K. Slater • WMC:c s (E . R. Green) CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA DATE: RESOLUTION NO: MOTION BY: SECONDED BY: A RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIMINARY LAYOUT NO. 4 S. P. 1017-07 ( 212=051 ) FOR THE PROPOSED TRUNK HIGHWAY 212 CORRIDOR, INCLUDING THE TRUNK HIGHWAY 101 REVISED ALIGNMENT FLAP WHEREAS, the Commissioner of the Department of Transportation has prepared a preliminary layout for the improvement of a part of Trunk Highway Number 051 renumbered as Trunk Highway 212 within the corporate limits of the City of Chanhassen, from west Chanhassen limits to east Carver/Hennepin County line and seeks the approval thereof; and WHEREAS, said preliminary layouts are on file in the office of the Department of Transportation, Saint Paul , Minnesota , being marked, labeled and identified as Layout No. 4, S.P. 1017-07 ( 212=051 ) construction of proposed Trunk Highway 212 on new loca- - tion. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that said preliminary layouts for the improvement of said Trunk Highway within the corporate limits be and hereby are approved. Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this day of , 1989 . ATTEST: Don Ashworth , City Manager Donald J. Chmiel , Mayor YES NO ABSENT Chmiel None None Boy t Johnson Workman Dimler ft ORDINANCE NO. 104 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 15 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO OFFICIAL MAPS AND THEIR EFFECT AND — PROVIDING PROCEDURES IN CONNECTION THEREWITH THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: — Section 1. Chapter 15 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding Article III to read as follows: — 15-20 Purpose. Land that is needed for future street purposes and as sites for other necessary public facilities and services is frequently diverted to non-public uses which could have been located on other lands without hardship or inconvenience to the owners. When this happens, public uses of land may be denied or may be obtained only at prohibitive cost or at the expense of — dislocating the owners and occupants of the land. Identification on an official map of land needed for future public uses permits both the public and private property owners to adjust their building plans equitably and conveniently before investments are made which will make such adjustments difficult to accomplish. It is the purpose of this ordinance to provide a uniform procedure for the proper use of official maps as authorized by the Minnesota — Municipal Planning Act, Minnesota Statutes, Sections 462.351 to 462. 36. 15-21 Official Map Defined. "Official map" as used in this ordinance means a map adopted in accordance with this ordinance showing existing streets, proposed future streets, and the area needed for widening of existing streets of the City. An official — map may also show the location of existing and future land and facilities within the City. An official map may cover the entire City or any portion of the City. — 15-22 Initiation of Proceedings. Proceedings for adoption, amendment, or repeal of an official map or any part thereof may be _ initiated by (1) a recommendation of the Planning Commission; or (2) action by the City Council on its own initiative, recommendation of an advisory commission, or request of an outside governmental body. _ 15-23 Sketch Maps and Reports. Every proposal or request for an official map or its amendment or repeal, however initiated, shall be accompanied by a sketch map or plat showing the lands proposed to be included and the public purpose to be served. 15-24 Reference to Planning Commission. Except when proceedings — have been initiated by recommendation of the Planning Commission, r05/09/89 ORDINANCE NO. 104 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 15 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO OFFICIAL MAPS AND THEIR EFFECT AND PROVIDING PROCEDURES IN CONNECTION THEREWITH THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: Section 1. Chapter 15 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding Article III to read as follows: 15-20 Purpose. Land that is needed for future street purposes and as sites for other necessary public facilities and services is frequently diverted to non-public uses which could have been located on other lands without hardship or inconvenience to the 'owners. When this happens, public uses of land may be denied or may be obtained only at prohibitive cost or at the expense of dislocating the owners and occupants of the land. Identification on an official map of land needed for future public uses permits both the public and private property owners to adjust their building plans equitably and conveniently before investments are made which will make such adjustments difficult to accomplish. It is the purpose of this ordinance to provide a uniform procedure for the proper use of official maps as authorized by the Minnesota Municipal Planning Act, Minnesota Statutes, Sections 462. 351 to 462 .36. 15-21 Official Map Defined. "Official map" as used in this ordinance means a map adopted in accordance with this ordinance showing existing streets, proposed future streets, and the area needed for widening of existing streets of the City. An official map may also show the location of existing and future land and facilities within the City. An official map may cover the entire City or any portion of the City. 15-22 Initiation of Proceedings. Proceedings for adoption, amendment, or repeal of an official map or any part thereof may be initiated by (1) a recommendation of the Planning Commission; or (2) action by the City Council on its own initiative, — recommendation of an advisory commission, or request of an outside governmental body. 15-23 Sketch Maps and Reports. Every proposal or request for an official map or its amendment or repeal, however initiated, shall be accompanied by a sketch map or plat showing the lands proposed to be included and the public purpose to be served. 15-24 Reference to Planning Commission. Except when proceedings have been initiated by recommendation of the Planning Commission, r05/09/89 • every proposed official map or change in a map shall be referred to the Planning Commission for advice and recommendation thereon, and such recommendation shall be submitted to the City Council within forty-five (45) days after reference to the Planning Commission along with the report of the Commission on the effect of the proposal on the comprehensive plan of the City. If no recommendation is received by the Council from the Planning Commission within forty-five (45) days after reference of the proposal to the Commission by the Council, the Council may take such action as it may deem proper upon the proposal without further action by the Planning Commission. 15-25 Notice and Hearing. A. Notice. Upon receiving the recommendation of the Planning Commission or after forty-five (45) days from the submission of the proposal to the Planning Commission without a recommendation from the Commission, the Council may call a public hearing on the proposal. A notice of the time, place, and purpose of the hearing and a description of property to be included in the mapped streets and public grounds shall be published in the official newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing. At least ten (10) days prior to the hearing the Clerk shall also mail a copy of the notice to each owner of land situated within or abutting any street or other public ground _ shown on the official map. For purposes of this notice the owners shall be determined by the records of the County Auditor and the notice shall be addressed to the last known address as shown by the Auditor's records. Failure to serve any such notice shall not — invalidate the proceedings. B. Hearing. At the time and place specified in the notice, the Council shall hear evidence and arguments concerning the proposal. The hearing may be continued from time to time without further notice. The Council may direct the Planning Commission to conduct a hearing and following the hearing to report its recommendation to the Council. 15-26 Preparation and Filing of :laps. The official map or maps shall be prepared in sufficient detail to permit the establishment of future acquisition lines on the ground. In unplatted areas a minimum of a centerline survey shall be made prior to the preparation of the final draft of the official map. After — enactment of any ordinance adopting an official map or amending or repealing a previous official map ordinance, a certified copy of the official map or section to which the ordinance relates _ together with an attached copy of the ordinance shall be filed with the County Recorder. 15-27 Effect. After an official map has been adopted and filed, the issuance of building permits by the City shall be subject to the provisions of this ordinance. The City shall deny every application for a permit to construct a new building or structure _ or expand an existing building or structure within any area -2- — designated on the official map for street or other public purposes. Whenever any street or highway is widened or improved or any new street is opened, or any interest in lands for other public purposes is acquired by the City, the City is not required in such proceedings to pay for any building or structure placed without a permit or in violation of conditions of a permit within the limits of the mapped street or outside of any building line that may have been established upon the existing street or within any area thus identified for public purposes. The adoption of an official map does not give the City any right, title, or interest in areas identified for public purposes thereon, but the adoption of the map does authorize the City to acquire such interest without paying compensation for buildings or structures erected in such areas without a permit or in violation of the conditions of a permit. 15-28 Appeals. Whenever a building permit is denied pursuant to this ordinance, the Board of Appeals and Adjustments shall, upon appeal filed with it by the owner of the land, grant a permit for building in an area designated on the official map for a street or other public purpose in any case in which the Board finds, upon the evidence and the arguments presented to it, (a) that the entire property of the appellant of which the area designated for public purposes forms a part cannot yield a reasonable return to the owner unless such a permit is granted, or (b) that balancing the interest of the City in preserving the integrity of the official map and of the comprehensive City plan and the interest of the property owner in the use of his property and in the benefits of ownership, the grant of such permit is required by considerations of justice and equity. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments shall hold a public hearing upon the appeal after notice of the hearing has been published in the official newspaper once at least ten (10) days before the hearing. If the Board authorizes issuance of a permit, it shall specify the exact location, ground area, height, and other details as to the extent and character of the building for which the permit is granted. If the Board authorizes issuance of a permit, the Council or other Board or Commission having jurisdiction shall have six (6) months from the date of the decision of the Board to institute proceedings to acquire such land or interest therein, and if no such proceedings are started within that time, the City shall issue the permit if the application otherwise conforms to local ordinances. 15-29 Publication and Filing. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to publish this ordinance in accordance with law and to file a certified copy of this ordinance in the office of the Carver County Recorder. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and publication. -3- ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen this 22nd day of May 1989. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: IV I _ Donald J. 1-1, Mayor ' �f ATTEST: 2 • Don Ashworth, ager/Clerk (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on June 8 , 1989 ) -4- _ GUIDELINES TO ALLOCATE FUNDS FOR METROPOLITAN HIGHWAY RIGHTS OF WAY June 1986 Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities Area 300 Metro Square Building, 7th and Robert Streets St. Paul , Minnesota 55101 Telephone: (61 2) 291-6359 Publication No. 561-86-041 GUIDELINES TO ALLOCATE FUNDS FOR METROPOLITAN HIGHWAY RIGHTS OF WAY Revised And Amended: June, 1986 INTRODUCTION The Metropolitan Council is charged with planning for the orderly and economic development of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. As part of that work, the Council plans for the direction transportation investments should take through the year 2000. The Council ' s Transportation Policy Plan outlines a metropolitan highway system consisting of interstate highways and other major arterials. The interstate system is almost completed. Several other parts of the metropclitan highway system, especially in the developing areas, will not be built fcr several years. Many highways are not far enough in the planning process to enable the constructing agency to purchase right of way. In some instances, counties or municipalities have attempted to protect a proposed highway richt of way from development by adopting an official map. However, these local governments have not always had sufficient funds to acquire small parcels of land, which has sometimes forced them to grant building permits within a highway right of way. In 1982 the Minnesota Legislature acted to help counties and muncipalities acquire these parcels by adopting the Metropolitan Right-of-Way Reservation Act (Minn. Stat. Sec. 473. 167, Subd. 2) . The law authorized the Metropolitan Council to levy a regional property tax of up to 5/100ths of a mill to establish a revolving fund for advance acquisition of metropolitan highway rights of way threatened by imminent development. The funds are used by the Council to make loans to counties, towns and cities, to be repaid at a later date to purchase property within rights of way of sta _ trunk highways or highways on the metropolitan system. Such loans accordingly are made without reference to the actual acquisition and construction schedules to be developed by the constructing agency. The first proceeds of the tax (about $1 million annually) were available in July 1983. Since then several cities have received loans to purchase land within the rights-of-way of two planned highways. An annual status report on the revolving fund is prepared for the Council by staff to assist the Council in determining a levy amount by October. In 1985 the Minnesota Legislature amended the Metropolitan Right-of-Way Reservation Act to allow the Council to use the revolving fund for loans to purchase "hardship" properties in a proposed State Highway project. These loans also can be used to pay for relocation costs. Although the law is fairly specific regarding eligibility and procedures, certain aspects require clarification. The Council proposes the guidelines below for distribution of these funds. Part A describes the procedures for advance acquisition loans to purchase land when development is imminent. These procedures have been modified slightly since the original guidelines were adopted in December 1983. Part B reflects the amended legislation and describes the procedures to use for hardship loans to purchase homestead properties. PART A: Advance Acquisition Loans I . Eligibility Guidelines 1 . Any county, town or statutory or home rule city within (or partially within) the Seven-County Metropolitan Area is eligible to apply for a loan. The Minnesota Department of Transportation is not eligible. 2. Loans are for the purchase of property within a proposed right-of-way of a state trunk highway shown on an official map adopted pursuant to Minn. Stat. 394.361 or 462.359. Loans are also for the purchase of property within a proposed right-of-way of an interstate freeway or major arterial highway designated by the Metropolitan Council as a part of the metropolitan highway system plan and approved by the Council pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 473. 167, Subd. 1 . 3. The Council shall make loans only to avert the imminent conversion or the granting of approvals that would allow the conversion of property to uses jeopardizing its availability for highway construction. 4. Loans will be made only for the purchase of property from a willing seller, not by condemnation. 5. Property to be acquired must have a marketable title and may not be park land or land which is either on or eligible for inclusion on a historic register . 6. Applications will be considered as they are received, not on a periodic funding cycle. _ c .4e y✓ .( c�zc_l r f� '�rLozc.1 i L:1 t_� 1 64 II . Advance Acquisition Loan Application Procedures A. Preliminary Approval 1 . The applicant submits, for preliminary Council approval , an application including, as a minimum: a. Resolution of local jurisdiction authorizing loan application and purchase of property. b. Statement of need to acquire property, including evidence regarding imminent conversion. c. Amount of loan requested. d. A legal description of the property to be acquired, its acreage, and a map showing the property in relation to the highway right-of- way. e. A statement of the applicant' s eligibility to incur this debt. (Form available from the Council .) 2. A private property owner may elect to receive the purchase price either in a lump sum or in not more than four annual installments without interest on the deferred installments. If the purchase agreement provides for installment payments, the Council shall make the loan in installments corresponding to those in the purchase agreement. 3. Advance acquisition loans may not include relocation costs of persons or property. Relocation will be provided in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 117.50 to 117.56. - 4. The recipient of a loan shall convey the property for the construction of the highway to the constructing agency at the same price that the recipient paid for the property. 5. In the event the loan recipient is also the highway constructor (such as for a county highway) the loan shall be repaid at a time prior to actual construction. 6. Loan recipients shall submit an annual report by June 30 on the status of the loan. 7. Upon notification by the Council that the plan to construct the highway has been abandoned or the anticipated location of the highway changed, the recipient shall sell the property at a market value in accordance with the procedures required for disposition of property. 8. All ne_ rents and other money received because of the recipient' s ownership of the property, and all net proceeds from the conveyance or sale of the property, shall be paid to the Council . 9. Every consideration should be given to renting and maintaining acquired improvements (including buildings) in a manner compatible with the surrounding environment until full project acquisition. PART B: Hardship Loans I . What is "Hardship"? On occasion, a homeowner must sell his home but is unable to do so only _ because the property lies within the right-of-way of a planned road. This is known as a hardship situation. If certain factors are satisfied the Metropolitan Council may lend a community the funds to buy the homestead property before the property is acquired for highway construction. Hardship situations fall under one of the following two categories: 1 . Health. • a. Advanced age, debilitating illness or injury, or other long-term handicap where present housing facilities are inappropriate or - cannot be maintained by the owner . 2. For land within state trunk highways, Council staff will forward the application to Mn/DOT for advisory comments within 45 days. At this time, Mn/DOT will have the option to acquire the land itself. 3. The Council , as part of #2, will request that Mn/DOT determine whether or to what extent the land lies within a proposed right-of-way. If • MnDOT determines that any part lies outside the proposed right-of-way, MnDOT shall be requested to determine whether such part has economic value. If MnDOT determines such part to be an uneconomic remnant, the entire parcel shall be eligible for purchase with a right-of-way acquisition loan. If MnDOT determines such part to be an economic remnant, only such part as lies within the proposed right-of-way shall be eligible for purchase with a right-of-way acquisition loan. The Council shall accept Mn/DOT's determination regarding the economic value of excess property. 4. Within 75 days from original receipt of preliminary application, the Council must consider the application, including any Mn/DOT comments, and will either disapprove or give preliminary approval and authorize the applicant to proceed with the application process. B. Final Approval 1 . After receiving preliminary approval , the applicant must obtain and submit to Mn/DOT an appraisal (two appraisals if purchase price is over $100,000) made by an appraisor on the list of Qualified Appraisors Available for State Contracts. Mn/DOT will have 30 days to certify the appraisal . No offer can be made to the property owner until Mn/DOT certifies the appraisal . 2. After Mn/DOT certifies the appraisal , the applicant may begin negotiations with the property owner . If the negotiated sale price is above the appraised value of the property (i .e. , an administrative - settlement) Mn/DOT must approve it. In cases where the property to be acquired is not within a state highway right-of-way, the appraisal review would be performed by the constructing agency. 3. The applicant submits the appraisal certification, purchase agreement, (administrative settlement, if required) , statement of cost, and draft loan agreement to the Council as a final application. 4. The Council finally approves or disapproves the loan. If the loan is approved, a loan agreement for the purchase price of the property and the costs incurred by the applicant may be executed. III . Loan Agreement After the Council approves a loan application, Council legal staff will prepare a final loan agreement that will include at least the following points and any others the Council might specify as a condition of approval . 1 . Loans bear no interest. b. Other extraordinary conditions which pose a significant threat to the health, safety, or welfare of the owner-occupants or household member for whom they are responsible. - 2. Financial . a. Litigation (probate) . b. Loss of employment and the need for distant relocation for other employment. c. Retirement and financial inablility to maintain current residence. d. Pending mortgage foreclosure. e. Job transfer to a distant site of employment. f. Any documented circumstance similar in impact to those stated above. II . Documenting Hardship Qualifications for hardship acquisitions must be fully documented. Examples of acceptable documentation include, where appropriate: 1 . A doctor ' s statement fully and clearly describing the medical reasons for which the patient should relocate. 2. A certificate from a real estate agent indicating the price for which the property was listed on the open market for at least 90 days. The agent must also certify that his good faith effort to sell the property was unsuccessful . 3. A financial statement explaining how financial difficulties constitute the basis for hardship. 4. A letter from employer affirming that the owner is to be transferred to a specified location, or similar documentation regarding loss of employment. 5. Court records and documents relating to any legal actions which provide support for the hardship basis. 6. Those portions of an income tax return supporting the hardship circumstance. The above cannot be construed as being all inclusive for every situation. Since it is conceivable that there will be times when the above documentation would not constitute appropriate or sufficient documentation, it would be acceptable to provide alternative data that will accomplish the required verification. III . Eligibility Requirements For a jurisdication (i .e. , an "acquiring authority") to be eligible for a hardship loan, the property to be acquired must meet all of the following requirements: 1 . Be an owner occupied single family dwelling which may include the surrounding land of 10 or fewer acres. 2. Be located in any county, town or statutory or home rule city within the Seven-County Metropolitan area. 3. Be located within a proposed state trunk highway right-of-way. 4. The property may not include park land or land that is either on or eligible for inclusion on a historic register. 5. In addition, the owner and/or applicant must document that a hardship exists. IV. Hardship Loan Application Procedures A. Preliminary Approval 1 . The Acquiring Authority submits to the Metropolitan Council for preliminary approval : a. A statement that the five eligibility requirements are met. b. A written request from the property owner asking for hardship acquisition, setting forth the nature of the hardship. c. Documentation of inability to sell property at the fair market value as a result of highway project development. (Submit realtor ' s certification that property has been on the market and unsold for 90 days) . d. A statement that federal or state participation is not available. e. A statement from the authority that relocation will be provided in accordance with Minn. Stat. 117.50 to 117.56. f . Mn/DOT statement that the acquisition will not influence the environmental assessment of the project, including the "no build" alternative. g. An estimate of the loan amount based on estimate of the fair market value of the homestead property plus relocation costs and less salvage value. h. A legal description of the property to be acquired. its acreage, and a map showing the property in relation to the highway right-of- way. i . A statement of the applicant' s ability to incur this debt. (Form available from the Metropolitan Council) . j . Identificaiton of any known or obvious cleanup problems (such as hazardous waste) on the property. 2. The Council staff will forward the application to Mn/DOT for advisory comments within 45 days. At this time, Mn/DOT will have the option to acquire the property itself. 3. The Council , as part of #2, will request that MnDOT determine whether or to what extent the land lies within a proposed right-of-way. If Mn/DOT determines that any part lies outside the proposed right-of-way, Mn/DOT shall be requested to determine whether such part has economic value. If Mn/DOT determines such part to be an uneconomic remnant, the entire parcel shall be eligible for purchase with a right-of-way acquisition loan. If Mn/DOT determines such part to be an economic remnant, only such part as lies within the proposed right-of-way shall be eligible for purchase with a right-of-way acquisition loan. The Council shall accept Mn/DOT' s determination regarding the economic value of excess property. 4. Within 75 days from original receipt of the preliminary application, the Council will consider the application, including any Mn/DOT comments, and will either disapprove or give preliminary approval and authorize further negotiations by the applicant. B. Final Approval 1 . After receiving preliminary approval , the applicant will obtain and submit to Mn/DOT an appraisal (two appraisals if purchase price is over $ 100,000) made by an appraisor on the list of Qualified Appraisors _ Available for State Contracts. Mn/DOT will have 30 days to certify the appraisal . No offer can be made to the property owner until Mn/DOT certifies the appraisal . 2. After Mn/DOT certifies the appraisal , the applicant may begin negotiations with the property owner . If the negotiated sale price is above the appraised value of the property (i .e. , an administrative settlement) Mn/DOT must approve it. 3. The applicant submits the appraisal certification, purchase agreement, (administrative settlement, if required) , statement of cost, and draft loan agreement to the Council as a final application. 4. The Council finally approves or disapproves the loan. If the loan is approved, a loan agreement for the purchase price of the property and the costs incurred by the applicant may be executed. V. Loan Agreement After the Council approves a loan application, Council legal staff will prepare a final loan agreement that will include at least the following points and any — others the Council might specify as a condition of approval . 1 . Loans bear no interest. 2. A private property owner may elect to receive the purchase price either in a lump sum or in not more than four annual installments without interest on the deferred installments. If the purchase agreement provides for installment payments, the Council shall make the loan in installments correspondeing to those in the purchase agreement. 3. A real estate agent may not receive a commission or any other compensation from a .property owner if the property is purchased with a hardship loan. 4. The recipient of a loan shall convey the property for the construction of the highway to the constructing agency at the same price that the recipient paid for the property. 5. Loan recipients shall submit an annual loan status report by June 30. 6. Upon notification by the Council that the plan to construct the highway has been abandoned or the anticipated location of the highway changed, the recipient shall sell the property at a market value in accordance with the procedures required for disposition of property. _ 7. All net rents and other money received because of the recipient' s ownership of the property and all net proceeds from the conveyance or sale of the property, including relocation costs, shall be paid to the Council . 8. Every consideration should be given to renting and maintaining acquired improvements (including buildings) in a manner compatible with the surrounding environment until full project acquisition. a Subdivision 3, is amended to read: _ Subd. 3. (TAX.) The council may levy a tax on all taxable property in the metropolitan area, as defined in section 473. 121 , to provide funds for loans made pursuant to subdivisions 2 and 2a. The tax shall be certified by the council , levied, and collected in the manner provided by section 473.08, the tax shall be in addition to that authorized by section 473.249 and any other law and shall not affect the amount or rate of taxes which may be levied by the council or any metropolitan agency or local governmental unit. The amount of the levy shall be as determined and certified by the council , except as otherwise provided in this subdivision. The tax shall not be levied at a rate higher than five one-hundredths of one mill . The tax shall not be levied at a rate higher than that determined by the council to be sufficient, considering the other anticipated revenues of and disbursements from the loan fund, to produce a balance in the loan fund at the end of the next calendar year equal to twice the amount that a tax levy of five one-hundredths of a mill would raise in that year. Sec. 3 (AFFECTED COUNTIES.) Sections 1 and 2 are effective only in the counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota (excluding the city of Northfield) , Hennepin (excluding the city of Hanover) , Ramsey, Scott (excluding the city of New Prague) , and Washington. (b) The council may make hardship loans only when: (1) The owner of affected homestead property requests acquisition and relocation assistance from an acquiring authority; (2) federal or state financial participation is not available; (3) the owner is unable to sell the homestead property at its appraised market value because the property is located in a proposed state trunk highway right-of-way or project as indicated on an official map or plat adopted under sections 160.085, 394.361 , or 462.359; (4) the appraisal of the fair market value of the homestead property has been approved by the council . The council ' s approval shall not be unreasonably withheld; and (5) the owner of the homestead property is burdened by circumstances that constitute a hardship, such as catastrophic medical expenses; a transfer cf the homestead owner by his or her employer to a distant site of employment; or inability of the owner to maintain the property due to physical or mental disability or the permanent departure of children from the homestead. (c) For purposes of this subdivision, the following terms have the meaning _ given them: (1) "Acquiring authority" means counties, towns, and statutory and home rule charter cities in the metropolitan area. (2) "Homestead property" means a single-family dwelling occupied by — the owner, and the surrounding land, not exceeding a total of ten acres. (3) "Salvage value" means the probable sale price of the dwelling and other property that is severable from the land if offered for sale on the condition that it be removed from the land at the buyer ' s expense, allowing a reasonable time to find a buyer with knowledge of the possible uses of the property, including separate use of serviceable components and scrap when there is no other reasonable prospect of sale. DPF020/2 in T1H .212 S.W. CORRIDOR PROJECTS IN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES FROM COLOGNE To 1-494 IN EDEN PRARIE Ilk \i.110 01# ......••••••••••.... ........ .,. l'..1 406 'r' 1 •/4;9 i•i's.• /it,. if(1 \'.1 i ki t0:'1 • MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION GOLDEN VALLEY DISTRICT 5 1 August 1989 a I.rte �,- - ; •:� �� • _ 6r _ `yat Iii . . If p ti a 1 a*iiii. ./tp II `� `� �li'�i 04,9 %y, f` i P,tir „ d *al -I- jr 11 711 1..5.. _1 25 -% -. 43 . ...... Iiiilk,---• j � � � it_ rI ' / o • .. Y `�\-... ;0.74-- Ir. � fC u . VyO iV �` ,t• uq. ,cmF ticY 7i:4'W 'a1tQ � ' y'V + C ' � � 1,41/4,*,,ori -kt_ji / _ � W „ npp V =r.,`-1111101 : ♦_ f 1 IWM mtt, A '4.' n il . VV Of MOE I % l + y N i . 4.1 CIF 1 NV X11 P.0 4.Fu. . k - 1 ,Nuillit,:y kkmml 4. E"' • Pir '... If./#2. II -1r...)_ filkA: Orlikap II II z ., i‘„ rr r N r, , i: i „,r, .__ ..,. .mon. ■.■/I��IJ�� iii .: \. y•moo• •::,illa: 1 • O s m #11., N H wc) ..Tr ar 0 - . V 41 Y - Ile� C. 111 ki , O *Ali 1 aE Y Y tY 4 M a 0 © �nd l7 Y Y d J 4 M.. 8 .5 1`kir , ,= A ' � =E-1 1 .�• u a.m,H Il tlO �`\ rYC a tiu d 4 0. ti....Z I g -4 1-1 V 11111 i . � w.o� yw ti,,,,„: \ - . `` i O VC m O C 0. w V b !,90T '-vi _Ir. , •` `IN � ::s y� ® 0 › .,• o na ter°e G - . 211P- 2'' -- -- u C A▪ ■u ,:,-,4 M J> C u y — �7 `` �� Oa .- - ,--, / - i a1 - 4 ev, .. e t a.- a r 0.O m ] ]� . eC,Yam Qm 4. `� r,2 . . : O q Y m .1 ^ T m.e ic , i K9 ao:yYo aY .qua vr.- --...t .ii, 1 1 4. 1 w I -,:„lii vi j371 b- '7 1,11"11 �' W v 4 s w e a o a o `, H Y i. .i C C Y.v c� 1 (�� t mispa, G4.W d�� Yc prilwayig 0. Y ti t 11104111, . HV m ud ,. .7 kr. ....., _ W, �� k4� 44\� a: ` HCp C4 t,.. . • 6. iii M ilky .v- � VYHY 9 . '4 16 I F UiII-S 11 .51 V. { iZ1,I1111 u 1 m H Y u H s Y Ilk m�EeMtl9 �i __ i Z ga.86] r� m m . -A b 18, " .O'� UY N O m111 ani�` / r%,,. Y�0.V TM 6.Y�.1 i �� OV.miC u�� m ■i F � _ MY mO H'^�11 _ 0 :::.:;;;:e" N I `11, • a.0 6Y..EM 40. H yw 4 OA to tAtt I 1 1 W ■ i.� 0 ., '7 to Ib