The URL can be used to link to this page

02-19-97 Agenda and Packet FILE AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSIOIN WEDNESDAY,FEBRUARY 19, 1997 AT 7:00 P.M. CHANHASSEN CITY HALL,690 COULTER DRIVE CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Rezoning approximately 13.5 acres from Rural Residential (RR) to Single Family Residential (RSF); preliminary plat approval for 10 lots and two outlots (and revision to preliminary plat for 35 lots) located at 6730 Galpin Blvd., Woodridge Heights (formerly known as Shamrock Ridge), Centex Homes. 2. Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the land use from High Density Residential to Office Institutional; Rezoning of property from R-12 to OI; Lot Area Variance Request; and Site Plan Review for an office building, Scott&Associates and Ryan Engineering, Inc. 3. Conditional Use Permit for multiple buildings on one site and to allow a restaurant in a BN, Neighborhood Business District; and Site Plan Review for a 24,285 sq. ft. shopping center and a 5,129 sq. ft. restaurant, Famous Dave's BBQ Shack, to be located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Hwy. 5 and Great Plains Blvd., Chanhassen Commons, Oppidan Investment Co. 4. U. S. West NewVector Group, Inc. for a conditional use permit approval to allow a telecommunication tower at 78 West 78th Street and site plan approval for a 76 foot monopole tower, 12' x 24' equipment building, and a six foot chain link fence on property zoned Highway and Business (BH) District. 5. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to consider modifications to City Code, Section 20-415, in regard to extensions of Wetland Alteration Permits. NEW BUSINESS OLD BUSINESS APPROVAL OF MINUTES CITY COUNCIL UPDATE ONGOING ITEMS OPEN DISCUSSION ADJOURNMENT NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 10:30 p.m.as outlined in official by-laws. We will make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda. If,however,this does not appear to be possible,the Chair person will notify those present and offer rescheduling options. Items thus pulled from consideration will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting. CITY OF PC DATE: 2119/97 • CHANHASSEN CC DATE: 3/10/97 CASE #: 93-14 SUB, 93-4 REZ B : Generous:v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Request for Rezoning approximately 13.5 acres from Rural Residential (RR) to Single Family Residential (RSF); preliminary plat approval for 10 lots and two outlots (and revision to preliminary plat for 35 lots), Woodridge Heights (formerly known as Shamrock Ridge). LOCATION: 6730 Galpin Blvd —.I APPLICANT: Centex Homes L 12400 Whitewater Drive, Suite 120 �., Minnetonka, MN 55343 (612) 936-7833 PRESENT ZONING: RR. Rural Residential ACREAGE: 13.5 acres DENSITY: 1.35 units per acre(gross) 1.5 units per acre(net) ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N-RR, single family homes S- RR, vacant,wetland E - RR, single family homes, Galpin Blvd. W-RSF, Brenden Ponds, single family subdivision ' WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site (� PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site is partially cultivated for hay. There are severe slopes throughout the site with elevation changes from 1046 feet to 980 feet, a natural wetland in the southwest -- corner of the development and two ag/urban wetlands along the eastern edge of the development. There are concentrations of trees to the north and east of the natural wetland, within the wetland, along the west and north boundary of the site, and around the existing homestead. The Lake Lucy Road extension is proposed through the site. III LI ' - ► • .' - ..- . . I . 11- 1 ► ► . 1 . - . 1. - o a o o o o a o o o o o o a o a o o o o o o a a r- to Lr) V m CI 1-1 o ch co r- ko CI CI 01 (NI CI CI CNI CV pi H 1-1 H City of Shorewood _ r, .er***left 2 2.... 11ill= ** -- :31.4 ell i 14 - --- -72 - IIII AMU. liiiiiffifg a mg follim , , vi e.e IG=lial ViiiiiiilifiliM ON -111111ro 44" ___..--- lietV1 aklpllipaaihi e A ,_ ,L_,____ .-. aiimia Lnoirci ant) WANE • ;awl mad NOM_ 10/11/1/Aill111111514 lik.,, i ' I— IS-- - . 41 ,..,, il i . . s,„et iti...4. . ... .... Ng • , - E102111/112 ,t, .., N....-41Ar/Ifit'EV.'Ylill. ilrifi MIS a Pi ild Patilc 7,- PHU' I. Ti11 1-74...mil.-.%lib v ,., 0 tomit7Pt —Nil%Aa 4111 - • 1417,4 wi,: 6 4s2,1 .:, ...... 5Lsti 1111111- wisirif&D" Illtai I gie . ' \ I I I ! Atru • rh•amint in k keitT --_ _ . . . restview Dz 1 • P. irg 1 0.12 r giM,-.40 Park ak„„, di Lane '1,'Road- 'i' ari pm ---------- ! 4111Pit .,, r cl Ili6 '• V& , • i. , *dtruaV 0 , 2 _ '41111V/Pr 7 t 0, Lake : 'icy ss' ç LOCATION N - Lake ii arrison U P .., ,• b - r 7 1 ,, CO ..S. Lake gil . ..„ 1, t .. , Li ... _ 7;1 A . . i. 41 - XL- ' ------:,, il. 1 .... / , . 4,4414.4 _421. !., • .#741)11, . ti IIP A golf% ow lil .1''i *Villite , La v litylog 4 0;k wrA141 --%2Y AMIN ZS r,...44 re,.*11, ,•1/42740 irli, rin111111111k - 0 aAdifliall vallivatiziMk-Mr i pwliown ' t jomfar vora-.7, 4 AL Am —- ° MI p„.4% MU Mal Zil.! g f /77i(Pltit I 1 1 IL I —"‘' L*1 / \--\ Thr-,--,---- Woodridge Heights February 19, 1997 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is requesting rezoning of approximately 13.5 acres from Rural Residential (RR)to Single Family Residential (RSF);preliminary plat approval for 10 lots and two outlots (and revision to preliminary plat for 35 lots),Woodridge Heights (formerly known as Shamrock Ridge). The proposed development reconfigures the western third of the site. The previous preliminary plat had three lots north of Lake Lucy Road and eight lots south of Lake Lucy Road. The proposed preliminary plat has only two lots (Lots 1 and 2, Block 2) north of Lake Lucy Road. Access to these northerly lots was proposed from the north/south street via a private driveway through one of the northerly lots. This resulted in additional grading and tree removal on a very steep slope. The proposed plat has redesigned driveway access to Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 from Lake Lucy Road through one shared driveway access point. Redesign of the lots south of Lake Lucy Road also permits wetland mitigation to occur in an area already designated to be altered in conjunction with storm water ponding. The storm ponding area is also able to be increased to accommodate future runoff upstream when development occurs. Access to the lots south of Lake Lucy Road shall be through four common driveways serving two lots each. Staff believes that the proposed plat is an improvement over the previous plat and is recommending approval of the proposed development. BACKGROUND On October 14, 1996, the city granted a one year preliminary plat extension for Shamrock Ridge until November 27, 1997. On August 28, 1995, the City Council approved a one year extension, until November 28, 1996 for preliminary plat for Shamrock Ridge Addition to subdivide 37.92 acres into 45 single-family lots and a wetland alteration permit to fill and dredge wetlands located on site subject to the following conditions: 1. Revise the lot lines for Lots 1 through 4, Block 1, to provide a minimum of 90 feet of frontage for Lots 1 and 4. 2. Submit revised utility plans for approval of fire hydrant locations. Fire hydrant spacing is 300 feet maximum. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for details. 3. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs,bushes, NSP,NW Bell, Cable TV, transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance Sec. 9-1. Woodridge Heights February 19, 1997 Page 3 4. A turn-around acceptable to the city's Fire Marshal shall be provided at the end of the private road off of Jennifer Way. 5. The common portion of the private roads shall be signed "No Parking Fire Lane." 6. Either a monument sign or street sign shall be provided for the private roads to aid in the location of homes on private roads for emergency vehicles. 7. Submit turning radius and cul-de-sac dimensions to City Engineer and Fire Marshal for approval. Pursuant to 1991 Chanhassen Fire Code Sec. 10.204(d) and 10.203. 8. Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance. 9. An 8 foot bituminous trail shall be constructed parallel to Lake Lucy Road. The construction will be incorporated into the Lake Lucy Road extension project. The developer shall be reimbursed for the full cost of said trail from the city's trail fund if the developer constructs said trail as part of their project. 10. Obtain demolition permits for any buildings to be removed before their removal. 11. A landscape buffer shall be required along the length of County Road 117, Galpin Boulevard, and along both sides of the Lake Lucy Road extension, section 18-61 (a) (5). This buffer landscaping shall be developed as part of the preliminary and final plat submittal for city approval. Appropriate financial guarantees acceptable to the city shall be required. A woodland management plan must also be prepared as part of the platting process. A landscape plan including the landscape buffer, forestation and replacement planting must be prepared and approved by the city. The landscape plan and woodland management plan must be prepared by a landscape professional. 12. Prepare baseline canopy coverage calculations and estimated canopy coverage removal area. Overlay the tree plan on the grading plan in order to verify tree preservation. 13. Boulevard trees along Lake Lucy Road, Jennifer Way, James Court, and Anne Alcove must be diverse with no more than two trees of the same species in a row. Mary Bay may be planting with one species considering the trees may provide a theme for the short cul- de-sac. 14. Non-deciduous evergreens shall be incorporated into the tamaracks on the north side of Lake Lucy Road and the west side of County Road 117. A minimum of nine non- deciduous evergreens shall be used to create diversity, provide additional screening, and Woodridge Heights February 19, 1997 Page 4 add interest. The evergreens planted on the south side of Lot 1, Block 2, shall be extended east to the rear lot line. 15. The landscaping plan requires an additional 42 trees based on staffs analysis of the tree preservation, forestation, and replacement requirements for a total of 284 trees. Staff recommends that the additional 42 trees be incorporated in the landscaping plan as follows: a. Nine trees staggered for a windbreak along the western property lines of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1. Windbreak trees shall include spruce (Black Hills, Norway, White). b. Five trees grouped near the corners of Lots 4, 5, and 6, Block 1; 10 trees grouped along the rear lot lines of Lots 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, Block 1; and 18 trees in groupings along the rear lot lines of Lots 2 through 11, Block 3. Rear yard tree selection shall be River Birch, Ohio Buckeye, Catalpa, Silver Queen Maple, White or Bur Oak, Hawthorne, Aspen, Arborvitae, and Balsam or White Fir. 16. The following tree conservation and forestation areas shall be dedicated as part of the final plat: a 30 foot easement along the northern boundary of the site; a 30 foot easement along the western lot lines of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1; the southern 100 feet of the eastern 30 feet of Lot 4, Block 1; the southern 30 feet of the western 30 feet of Lot 5, Block 1; the northern 70 feet of the western 30 feet of Lot 6, Block 1; the eastern 30 feet of Lots 8 and 9, Block 1; the western 30 feet of Lots 10, 11, and 12, Block 1; the eastern 30 feet of Lots 2 through 7, Block 3; and the western 30 feet of Lots 8 through 11, Block 3. 17. To provide slope stabilization north of Lake Lucy Road on Outlot B, Sumac shall be planted 7 feet on center. Such plantings shall be staggered to provide better stabilization and aesthetic appeal. Additionally, this areas must be seeded. 18. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post- developed stormwater calculations for 100-year storm events. Normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins and individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition,water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. Woodridge Heights February 19, 1997 Page 5 19. The proposed development will be responsible for a water quantity user fee of$63,360 assuming 32 acres of developable land. Water quantity and quality fees may or may not be assessed dependent upon the Lake Lucy Road improvement project assessment methodology. These fees will be negotiated based on the developer's contribution to the City's SWMP for the site. SWMP fees for water quantity and quality are pending formal approval of the SWMP by City Council. If there are any modifications to the fees, they will be changed prior to final plat. 20. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of all drain tiles found during construction. Drain tile shall be relocated or abandoned as directed by the City Engineer. 21. The existing outbuildings and any septic system or wells on the site shall be abandoned in accordance with City and/or State codes. The existing house on Lot 14, Block 3 shall be connected to the new sanitary sewer line within 30 days after the line becomes available. The well may be utilized as long as the well is on the lot and functional. Once the well fails or the property is sold, the property owner shall connect to city water. 22. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated for all utility lines outside the plat. The minimum easement width should be 20 feet. Maintenance access to the ponding areas shall be provided. Slopes shall not exceed 4:1 over the easement areas. 23. The applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee the installation of the public improvements and compliance of the conditions of approval. 24. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to staff for review and formal approval by the City Council in conjunction with final plat consideration. 25. The applicant shall apply for and obtain the necessary permits from the Watershed District, DNR, Department of Health, MPCA and other appropriate regulatory agencies and comply with their conditions of approval. 26. Upon completion of site grading, all disturbed areas shall be restored with seed and disc- mulched or wood-fiber blanket within two weeks of completing the site grading unless the City's Best Management Practice Handbook planting dates dictate otherwise. All erosion control measures shall be in accordance to the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. Woodridge Heights February 19, 1997 Page 6 27. Upon completion, the developer shall dedicate to the City the utility and street improvements within the public right-of-way and drainage and utility easements for permanent ownership. 28. The existing home shall change its address to be compatible with the City's addressing system once the street has been constructed adjacent the house. 29. The grading plan shall be revised as follows: 1)provide for 2% boulevards and 3:1 side slopes adjacent to all streets in accordance to the City's typical street standards; 2) berming shall be prohibited from all street right-of-ways; 3) the proposed pond between Gwendolen Court and Mary Bay shall be combined/relocated to the west of Gwendolen Court; 4) grading in the rear yards of Lots 4 through 8, Block 2 shall be revised to drain rear to front; 5) an interim sediment pond shall be provided on Lot 12, Block 3 until Lots 1 through 12, Block 3 are fully revegetated; 6) storm ponds shall be designed and constructed with a 10:1 bench at the normal water level (NWL) for the first one foot (depth) of water and then 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 slopes overall; 7) the proposed berm west of the westerly private driveway shall be relocated westerly to improve sight distance on Lake Lucy Road from the private driveway. 30. Lake Lucy Road shall be designed and constructed to meet State-Aid standards. 31. Preliminary and final plat approval shall be contingent upon utilities being extended from Brenden Pond unless other feasible alternatives are provided to the City for review and approval. 32. Lake Lucy Road shall be realigned southerly to be compatible with the intersection proposed in Brenden Pond (Lake Lucy Road and Pondview Court). 33. Direct driveway access on to Lake Lucy Road shall be prohibited. A private driveway shall be required to access Lots 4, 5, and 6, Block 4 in accordance to the City's private driveway ordinance. 34. Outlot B is deemed undevelopable. 35. The private drive servicing Lots 4, 5, and 6,Block 4 must be located outside the 30 foot conservation easement. 36. The City reserves the right to reevaluate the subdivision and require changes to the plat based on the city's approval of any ordinances that may be adopted during the preliminary plat time extension. Woodridge Heights February 19, 1997 Page 7 On November 24, 1994, the City Council approved the preliminary plat for Shamrock Ridge(#94-7 SUB) to subdivide 37.92 acres into 45 lots,2 outlots, and associated right-of-way. On November 14, 1994, City Council approved a motion to reconsider the preliminary plat for Shamrock Ridge. On October 24, 1994, City Council approved a preliminary plat for Shamrock Ridge creating 47 lots,2 outlots, and associated right-of-way,the first reading of the rezoning fo the property from RR to RSF, and a Wetland Alteration Permit. LANDSCAPING/TREE PRESERVATION The applicant's landscaping plan for phase II of the development consists of 16 boulevard trees and 15 side lot plantings for a total of 31 trees. The minimum required number of trees for Phase II is 22. The use of evergreen on the west side of Lot 1 will create an effective and practical windbreak. Applicants' proposal of one deciduous tree in each front yard is incongruous with the current and proposed landscaping for Lake Lucy Road from Highway 41 to Galpin Boulevard. All plantings along the road are staggered groupings of trees or shrubs. Only the proposed Phase II plantings are single and linear. Staff believes the applicant should revise the landscaping plan for Phase II to be consistent with the rest of Lake Lucy Road. The applicant will be supplied with the landscaping plan for Lake Lucy Road to the west of the development. A landscape buffer shall be required along both sides of the Lake Lucy Road extension, section 18-61 (a) (5). This buffer landscaping shall be developed as part of the preliminary and final plat submittal for city approval. Berming shall be included south of Lake Lucy Road. WETLANDS The applicant received a Wetland Alteration Permit on October 24, 1994 for activities to fill and dredge wetlands as part of the Shamrock Ridge Addition preliminary plat approval. The applicant has since been granted extensions of this permit in 1995 and 1996. The applicant has since amended the mitigation design to reduce tree impacts and consolidate the mitigation into one area. Staff has reviewed the current plan and found that it meets the intent and replacement requirements of the original permit and is in accordance to Wetland Conservation Act(WCA) regulations. The following report is from the 1994 approved WAP. According to the wetland delineation performed by Arlig Environmental,Inc. three wetlands have been identified on-site and they are described as follows: Basin 1 is the large wetland located on the western boundary of the site. The wetland extends off- site to the west; approximately 4.7 acres of wetland is on-site. The wetland is classified as a natural wetland under the City's Wetland Ordinance. Woodridge Heights February 19, 1997 Page 8 Basin 2 is located along the eastern edge of the property. The wetland is approximately 0.8 acre in size. The wetland is classified as ag/urban under the City's Wetland Ordinance. It appears that this basin will be eliminated and converted into a stormwater treatment pond as a result of the proposed development and the extension of Lake Lucy Road. As a result,the area filled will require mitigation. The Army Corps of Engineers will require mitigation for fill and excavation at a ratio of 1:1. However,in accordance to state and local regulations,a ratio of 2:1 is required. Basin 3 is located in the southeastern corner of the site. The wetland extends off-site to the south; approximately 0.4 acre of wetland is on-site. This wetland is part of a wetland complex and it drains south into Basin 1. The wetland is classified as ag/urban under the City's Wetland Ordinance. Regulations A replacement plan will be required as part of the State Wetland Conservation Act(WCA) and Wetland City Ordinance (CWO) requirements. The City administers the WCA. In addition to the replacement plan requirements, staff would like the following information as part of the wetland delineation report: a map with the locations of the wetland data points, at least one data sheet for each wetland identifying upland, and a map of the soils. The Army Corps of Engineers will also require a permit application for the alteration of wetlands. They should be contacted for their requirements. The WCA and the CWO require a wetland replacement ratio of 2:1 for wetlands filled. The wetland replacement plan should be designed to meet the existing functions and values that have been removed as a result of filling in other wetlands. It is possible to replace the wetlands at a ratio of 1:1 in upland and a ratio of 1:1 as wetland restoration. The City is going to start a wetland bank in the near future by restoring wetlands that have been drained. It may be possible to purchase banking points as part of the mitigation for this site. Staff believes that wetland replacement should occur in the large wetland to the west rather than creating a small wetland adjacent to a large stormwater pond. The WCA was written to replace wetland values where avoidance of activity is not feasible or prudent. Alternatives for avoiding wetland impacts should be considered as part of the wetland alteration permit process. In addition,to the requirements of the WCA,the CWO requires a buffer strip and buffer strip monumentation around the wetlands. The buffer strip width required for natural wetlands is 10 to 30 feet with a minimum average width of 20 feet and the buffer strip width required for an ag/urban wetland is 0 to 20 feet with a minimum average width of 10 feet. The principal structure setback is Woodridge Heights February 19, 1997 Page 9 40 feet measured from the outside edge of the buffer strip. The proposed grading plan will have to show the buffer strip and the appropriate house setbacks. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP) Storm Water Quality Fees The SWMP has established a water quality connection charge for each new subdivision based on land use. Dedication shall be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of$2.75 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. The proposed SWMP water quality charge for residential developments is $800/acre. The water quality fee for phase II of the proposed development is estimated to be $6,792. The applicant has proposed to construct a water quality NURP basin to manage runoff from this site in accordance with the City's SWMP plan. This pond will waive the water quality fees for this phase. In addition the applicant would be eligible for a$2,500 credit by installing a control structure at the outlet of this plan. Storm Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Residential developments will have a connection charge of$1,980 per developable acre. The total area of the proposed development of phase II is 8.49 acres. Therefore, it is estimated that the applicant would then be responsible for a water quantity connection charge of$16,810. These SWMP fees will be due payable to the City at time of final plat recording. GRADING The replatting of this phase will reduce the amount of overall site grading, but more significantly reduce soil corrections over the house pads south of Lake Lucy Road. According to soil borings, organic soils exist up to 20 feet deep in some areas along the south slope. By relocating the house pads closer to Lake Lucy Road the amount of soil correction is reduced. The previous preliminary plat had three lots north of Lake Lucy Road and eight lots south of Lake Lucy Road. The proposed preliminary plat has only two lots (Lots 1 and 2, Block 2)north of Lake Lucy Road. Access to these northerly lots was proposed from the north/south street via a private driveway through one of the northerly lots. This resulted in additional grading and tree Woodridge Heights February 19, 1997 Page 10 removal on a very steep slope. The proposed plat has redesigned driveway access to Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 from Lake Lucy Road through one shared driveway access point. Redesign of the lots south of Lake Lucy Road also permits wetland mitigation to occur in an area already designated to be altered in conjunction with storm water ponding. The storm ponding area is also able to be increased to accommodate future runoff upstream when development occurs. The previous preliminary plat's grading plan required approximately 110,000 cubic yards of material to be imported on site. According to the developer's engineer,the earthwork for this plan balances on site. The side slopes north of Lake Lucy Road on Outlot A are fairly steep (2.5 to 1). Staff recommends that a landscape plan be developed to take into account the steep slopes such as planting sumac or other various trees. Erosion control blankets are proposed on all slopes steeper than 3 to 1 after the area is seeded. DRAINAGE The proposed plat will create additional area for regional storm water ponding and wetland mitigation south of Lake Lucy Road. The revised lot configuration will also reduce the amount of impervious surface and storm sewer pipe needed to convey runoff through the site. Storm sewers will be constructed along Lake Lucy Road to convey storm water runoff from this development and upstream properties. The storm sewers will carry runoff to the on-site regional storm water pond for pretreatment prior to discharging into the wetlands south of Lake Lucy Road. UTILITIES Municipal sewer and water service will be extended from Lake Lucy Road west of the development(Brenden Pond) to service this site as proposed with the previous preliminary plat. This proposal requires less infrastructure to develop this site. The applicant will be receiving credits against their hookup fees in conjunction with building permits for the oversizing of the watermain from Lake Lucy Road and the sanitary sewer extension through the Brenden Pond subdivision. The amount of credit will be determined upon completion and acceptance of the utility improvements. Detailed construction plans and specifications have been submitted for both phases (Woodridge Heights 1st and 2nd Additions). Staff has performed a preliminary review of the street and utility construction plans and specifications and finds the plans are in general accordance with City standard specifications. A final set of construction plans and specifications will be submitted for Woodridge Heights February 19, 1997 Page 11 approval with the final plat for City Council approval. The applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide financial security to guarantee installation of a public improvement and conditions of approval. The City's Water Comprehensive Plan has identified the need for a future well site in the area. Therefore,proactive planning necessitates that options be preserved for the future. One potential site could be Outlot A. STREETS Access to the development will remain the same via Lake Lucy Road which is a collector road according to the City's Comprehensive Plan. The roadway alignment is fairly consistent with previous feasibility studies conducted by the City. Lake Lucy Road is listed on the City's municipal state aid route; therefore, the vertical and horizontal alignment of the streets must be reviewed and approved by MnDOT. One such requirement is that improved MSA streets be designated as no on-street parking zones. To adhere with this requirement,a no parking zone designation needs to be established through a resolution adopted by the City Council. In conjunction with the final plat process, staff will be preparing a resolution establishing a no parking zone along both sides of Lake Lucy Road for consideration by the City Council. The applicant will be constructing Lake Lucy Road from Galpin Boulevard (County Road 117) to the west end of the plat. An 8-foot wide bituminous trail will also be constructed along the north side of Lake Lucy Road. The remaining portion of Lake Lucy Road between the Brenden Pond subdivision and Woodridge Heights will be constructed later this summer under a City public improvement project. The plans propose on sharing driveway access points along Lake Lucy Road to reduce the number of driveways directly accessing onto Lake Lucy Road. City Code 18-57(L)restricts direct vehicular or pedestrian access from individual lots to highways, arterial or collector streets. Staff believes this development should be granted an exception from this restriction for the following reasons: 1. The revised plat reduces overall grading, tree removal and soil corrections in the development. 2. There are already existing driveway access points along Lake Lucy Road east and west of the development which function without traffic safety concerns. 3. Reduces impervious surface in the development. 4. Retains site characteristics. Woodridge Heights February 19, 1997 Page 12 EROSION CONTROL Erosion control measures will be implemented throughout the development in accordance with the City's Best Management Practices. Detailed construction plans will require installation of erosion control measures and tree preservation fencing. PARK& RECREATION The proposed development is scheduled for review by the Park& Recreation Commission on February 25, 1997. REZONING The property is designated as Residential - Low Density(net density range 1.2 -4.0 units/ac.). The proposed rezoning of the property to Single Family Residential is consistent with this land use designation. Staff supports the requested rezoning. MISCELLANEOUS Structure information. Locations of proposed dwelling pads and the type of dwelling is necessary to enable the Inspections Division and Engineering Department to perform a satisfactory plan review of the structure at the time of building permit issuance. For the same reason, proposed lowest level floor elevations as well as garage floor elevations are required to be indicated on the proposed pad location. Standard designations (FLO or RLO, R, SE, SEWO, TU, WO) must be shown for proposed dwelling types. These standard designations lessen the chance for errors during the plan review process. The memo explaining these designations is enclosed. COMPLIANCE TABLE Description Area(sq. ft.) Frontage(ft.) Depth (ft.) Code 15,000 90 125 Lot 1,Blk 1 26,714 130 216 Lot 2,Blk 1 21,236 105 231 Lot 3, Blk 1 21,497 95 226 Lot 4, Blk 1 21,517 100 230 Lot 5,Blk 1 20,474 121 238 Lot 6,Blk 1 21,951 95 228 Lot 7,Blk 1 20,945 95 220 Lot 8, Blk 1 20,945 95 220 Lot 1,Blk 2 16,780 103 248 Lot 2,Blk 2 22,023 95 226 Woodridge Heights February 19, 1997 Page 13 Outlot A 74,699 623 154 Outlot B 298,611 none NA ROW 81,240 TOTAL 668,646 (15.35 acres) FINDINGS 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential Single Family District. 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable plans. 3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions specified in this report. 4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure. 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage subject to conditions of approval. 6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record. Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements,but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements. Woodridge Heights February 19, 1997 Page 14 7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. b. Lack of adequate roads. c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. Finding: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban infrastructure. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of rezoning of the property from RR to RSF and preliminary plat approval for the subdivision of 13.5 acres into 10 lots, 2 outlots and associated right-of-way as shown on the plat dated January 17, 1997 and subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall revise the landscaping plan for Phase II to be consistent with Lake Lucy Road planting design. A landscape buffer shall be required along both sides of the Lake Lucy Road extension, section 18-61 (a) (5). This buffer landscaping shall be developed prior to final plat submittal for city approval. Berming shall be included south of Lake Lucy Road. 2. The following tree conservation and forestation areas shall be dedicated as part of the final plat: a 30 foot easement along the northern boundary of the site; a 50 foot easement along the western lot line of Outlot A. 3. Revise the preliminary grading plan to show the location of proposed dwelling pads, using standard designations and the lowest level floor and garage floor elevations. This should be done prior to final plat approval. 4. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes,NSP,US West, Cable TV, transformer boxes, mailboxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1. 5. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with the surface so as to provide all-weather, year-round driving capabilities. Pursuant to 1991 Uniform Fire Code Sec. 10.204(b). Woodridge Heights February 19, 1997 Page 15 6. No burning permits for trees removed will be issued. Any downed trees will have to be chipped on site or hauled off site. 7. Submit turning radiuses to City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. These dimensions should be for the cul-de-sac designs of James Court and Ann Alcove. 8. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post-developed stormwater calculations for 100-year storm events. Normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins and individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. 9. The proposed development will be responsible for a water quantity assessment fee of $16,810 assuming 8.49 acres of developable land. SWMP fees for water quality will be waived conditional to the construction of the proposed treatment ponds. Additional credit will be given for the placement of a control structure at the outlet. The total SWMP fee for phase II is then estimated at$14,310. If there are any modifications to the fees, they will be changed prior to final plat. 10. The applicant shall apply for and obtain the necessary permits from the Watershed District, DNR, Department of Health, MPCA and other appropriate regulatory agencies and comply with their conditions of approval. 11. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The city will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and will charge the applicant$20 per sign. The proposed buffer strip shall be shown on the grading plan. 12. Access to Lots 1 through 8, Block 1 and Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 along Lake Lucy Road will be restricted to shared access points shown on the final construction plans. 13. A landscape plan directed towards slope stabilization north of Lake Lucy Road on Outlot A shall be submitted for review and approval prior to final plat. Sumac shall be planted in groupings within the Outlot to provide better stabilization and aesthetic appeal. The quantity to be planted shall be calculated based on plantings seven feet on center. This Woodridge Heights February 19, 1997 Page 16 area shall also be seeded with a seed mixture conducive to the soil and slope conditions. Erosion control mats shall be used after seeding. 14. The applicant should report to the City Engineer the location of all drain tiles found during construction. Drain tiles should be relocated or abandoned as directed by the City Engineer. 15. A 20-foot wide drainage and utility easement centered upon the common lot lines of Lots 6 and 7, Block 1 shall be dedicated on the final plat. 16. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to staff for review and formal approval by the City Council in conjunction with final plat consideration. 17. The applicant shall apply for and obtain the necessary permits from the Army Corps of Engineers, Minnesota DNR, Minnesota Dept. of Health, MPCA and other appropriate regulatory agencies and comply with their conditions of approval. 18. Upon completion of site grading all disturbed areas shall be restored with seed and disc- mulched or wood-fiber blanket within in one week of completing site grading unless the City's Best Management Practice Handbook planting dates dictate otherwise. 19. Upon completion the developer shall dedicate to the City utility and street improvements within the public right-of-way and drainage and utility easements for permanent ownership. 20. Lake Lucy Road shall be designed and constructed to meet state aid horizontal and vertical standards. A no parking zone along both sides of Lake Lucy Road. 21. Preliminary and final plat approval shall be contingent upon the applicant extending utilities from Brenden Pond unless other feasible alternatives are provided to the City for review and approval. 22. The storm water pond south of Lake Lucy Road shall be constructed with the initial phase of grading." ATTACHMENTS 1. Application, letter from applicant, narrative and canopy coverage calculations. 2. Reduced copy of preliminary plat. Woodridge Heights February 19, 1997 Page 17 3. Memo from Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal dated January 30, 1997. 4. Memo from Steve Kirchman, Building Official dated February 10, 1997. 5. Photo of Sumac. 6. Preliminary plat of Shamrock Ridge. 7. Public hearing notice and property owners list. 8. Preliminary plat dated January 17, 1997. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: CENTEX HOMES - MINNESOTA DTVTSTON OWNER: EDWARD ANTI MARY RYAN ADDRESS: 12400 Whitewater Dr. , Ste 120 ADDRESS: 6730 Galvin Boulevard Minnetonka, MN 55343 Excelsior, MN 55331 TELEPHONE (Day time) 936-7833 TELEPHONE: 474-1013 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit _ Vacation of ROW/Easements Interim Use Permit _ Variance Non-conforming Use Permit _ Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development' Zoning Appeal X Rezoning $500.00 Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review X Notification Sign $50fee + $100 deposit Site Plan Review* X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** ($50 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) X Subdivision* $400 + 10 lets & 2 outlots TOTAL FEE$ 1280.00 @ $15/each ($180) = $580.00 A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. 'Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2' X 11" reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. **Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract NOTE-When multiple applications are processed,the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME Woodridge Heights (previously known as Shamrock Ridge) LOCATION West side of Galpin Boulevard, at Lake Lucy Road Extension LEGAL DESCRIPTION see attached TOTAL ACREAGE 13.49 acres WETLANDS PRESENT X YES NO PRESENT ZONING RR REQUESTED ZONING RSF PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION Residential Low Density REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION Residential Low Density REASON FOR THIS REQUEST Subdivision to develop 10 lot addition. This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. 1 will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city regJires an automatic 60 day extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review extensions are approved by the applicant. Signatu5P of Applicant f/ Date Signature of Fee Owner • (7&.%&' L.CC;' / '/ `� bate O Application Received on Fee Paid ( 4./,,),6".0. f Receipt No. 3 The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. if not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. CE HOMES Designed for today Built for tomorrow. January 20, 1997 Dave Hempel Assistant City Engineer 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Preliminary Plat Application,Rezoning,and Final Plat Submission for Woodridge Heights Dear Mr. Hempel: Please accept the following packet of information as submission for the following: preliminary plat application and rezoning for phase II,and final plat application for phase I and II of Woodridge Heights. We respectfully request that this application be reviewed by the Planning Commission at the February 19, 1997 meeting, and by the City Council at the March 10, 1997 meeting. If there is any additional information that you require, or any questions that you may have, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, 11 Kathy aragher Assistant Land Development Manager cc: Dwight Jelle, Westwood Professional Services 12400 Whitewater Drive, Suite 120, Minnetonka,Minnesota 55343 Builders License#1333 (612)936-7833 Fax(612)936-7839 Woodridge Heights Subdivision Narrative Tree Preservation and Landscape Plan Introduction Woodridge Heights, previously known as Shamrock Ridge, is a 45 lot subdivision located within the City of Chanhassen, north of Trunk Highway 5 and west of Galpin Boulevard. Centex Homes has revised the grading plan to reduce grading and increase the amount of tree canopy that is to be preserved. The current topography of the site,the high percent of wetlands,and the requirement to provide a right-of-way for the extension of Lake Lucy Road has made this parcel a challenge to design with the desire to save existing vegetation and limit grading. Since the western portion of the site requires significant grading to allow for the roadway, there is a significant loss of trees in that portion of the site that can not feasibly be avoided. However, every attempt to save trees and limit the impact to the wetlands on the site has been made. Woodridge Heights Tree Preservation Philosophy Centex Homes makes every effort to save significant trees, including attempting to design around preservation areas, and protecting trees during grading and construction. Centex understands the benefit of preserving and replanting trees including reducing erosion, increasing air quality, providing wind and visual barriers, reducing noise, providing a natural habitat for birds and wildlife, and the conserving of energy. Acknowledged also is that home buyers recognize value in tree and wetland conservation. Landscape and Tree Preservation Plan Centex Homes, through Dean Bailey Associates, Inc., a Minnesota registered landscape architect, has prepared a landscape and tree conservation plan for the Woodland Heights neighborhood. The plan details areas of tree canopy preservation, and methods of protection. On the grading plan, the protected wetland areas, storm water ponding areas, and wetland mitigation areas were also detailed. The landscape replacement plan utilizes species that are compatible with the soil characteristics , moisture content, and the overall preferred tree list that the city details in the subdivision ordinance. Trees of the same species were limited to how many could be used adjoining each other to limit the amount of potential disease spread throughout the neighborhood, preventing complete elimination of a clump of trees. The boulevard areas were planted with trees that would establish a canopy look to the streets and provide a quality hardwood tree environment throughout the subdivision. Components of the Plan Entry and Galpin Road Buffer Clusters of sixteen and eighteen foot conifers frame the entrance to Woodridge Heights while providing a noise and visual screen to the lots just beyond the entrance. Galpin Boulevard is designed with a mix of berms, conifers, deciduous trees, and shrubs to provide noise and visual screening to the remainder of the lots abutting Galpin Boulevard throughout the year. This gives the neighborhood a more private feel,while also blending the existing landscape around the Ryan's homestead with the new landscaping and provides a similar feel along Galpin Boulevard as does the Mancino's established buffering to the north. Lake Lucy Road Landscaping In order to provide visual interest to motorists and residence using Lake Lucy Road,the storm water pending to the north of the entrance was designed with a mix of deciduous trees and shrubs, so that passersby could enjoy the view of the pond while still allowing privacy to the lots adjoining the pond. Plantings along Lake Lucy Road were primarily aimed at providing visual and noise screening, as well as a more natural feel to the neighborhood. Between lots 8 through 11 and lots 2 through 7 block 3, lots 1 through 3 block 1, and in phase II lots 1 and 8, a preservation and reforestation area is provided. These areas serve as privacy screening, wind breaks, and noise buffers between residents as well as an area to encourage future plantings. Typically, in the market range of homes that Centex is proposing for this development, homeowners do invest in personal landscaping to supplement what is already established and planted. Boulevard Trees Along all neighborhood streets, boulevard trees will be planted at the time of move-in. Trees will be 2.5" diameter with a mix of two species per street for continuity. The type of tree will vary with no more than two trees in a row being of the same species so that the possibility of eliminating an entire street of trees by disease will be reduced. Conservation Easement Along the northern edge of the property there is a natural buffer between Woodridge Heights and the Mancino's property. Although it is comprised of deciduous trees and brush, the winter screening does not allow for a visual recognition of any structures on the Mancino property. This natural buffer will be protected by a recorded conservation easement that will prevent future homeowners from disturbing or cutting trees within the easement. Tree and Wetland Protection During mass grading and construction,the tree canopies that are being preserved will be protected with a either a snow fence around the drip edge or will be within an erosion control fence area. Tree protection signage will be in place stating that the area is off limits to construction activities including dirt stockpiling. Outlot B The 2.5:1 slope on this outlot will be covered by wood fiber blanket once grading is complete. The area will be treated with a MNDOT roadside seed mix which will be mixed with sumac seed applied at a rate of four pounds to the acre. This will establish a permanent root system over the entire slope, and natural grassland vegetation which will provide soil stability and a natural aesthetic appeal. The boulevard area of the outlot will also be planted with boulevard trees spaced evenly to maintain the feel of a canopied street. Wetlands Mitigation for the wetland to the east of the site will take place at a 2:1 ratio in the existing natural wetland to the west. Wetland soil will line the mitigation area and it will be treated with a seeding comprised of native wetland vegetation in the buffer strip. The natural wetland to the west and the agricultural wetland to the south will be protected by a erosion control fence and there will be no grading in these areas as well as in most of the buffer strips. Chanhassen Canopy Coverage Acres of Developable Land 32.63 Existing Canopy - acres 4.7 Existing Canopy - percent 14.40% Finsihed Canopy required - acres 8.16 Finished Canopy required - percent 25.00% Canopy to plant to reach 25% 3.46 Canopy to be removed - acres 1.6 Canopy to plant to replace removed 1.92 Total canopy to be planted 5.38 Total trees to plant 215.2 Trees on Phase I landscape plan 193 Minimum required trees in Phase II 22.2 01/20/97103:58 PM Ili • a i ; 1 1 3 i 1 1 i i li Il[t 4.--+- 1 I 11 # s =_ $ A A i 111 a J1 ii : R 4 I a Q 1111b. gi a 7411r. a " i 31 . II liii'i0y . . . ,lug=s t..eA> =i I i i HU 131 .. - 1111 I ; 3 i t I lit lig I-- — ` —47,- -k.- L = z fi ';.-----._--- --..:=-:,/� • nrP.**- '�-__-,-_-,-_-_,____________________ Iiii is Eli \.,... • ,--.%. . -1-- I, .......3 / i :4-----,.----__. 4,,,';.14,/,------- iz ti . y v 14,...... Y--1 s :6 . N. 41,.., 4,4--,•'-. ,y..-::' V-•/- 4,-----,- ...______ i ....f. 1 ,,,,,,. „, , . 41!„_:::-....... - t_.„ )7 11:1: i s;'4 : I,. of i ''/ .'``p 1 I • ii++, , �' ' +,i "{• ,� 4. �— 7 71 Ili t4 _`i'';.' ; CITY OF 0.40PrCHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Robert Generous, Senior Planner FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: January 30, 1997 SUBJECT: Request for rezoning approximately 13.5 acres from rural residential(RR)to single family residential (RSF), preliminary plat approval for 10 lots and 2 outlots(in revision to preliminary plat for 35 lots) located at 6730 Galpin Boulevard, Woodridge Heights (formerly known as Shamrock Ridge), Centex Homes Planning Case: 93-14SUB(file 2),and 93-4REZ(file 2) I have reviewed the site plan for the above project. In order to comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division, I have the following fire code or City Ordinance/Policy requirements. The site plan is based on the available information submitted at this time. If additional plans or changes are submitted the appropriate code or policy items will be addressed. 1. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps,trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West,Cable TV,transformer boxes, mailboxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1. 2. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with the surface so as to provide all-weather,year-round driving capabilities. Pursuant to 1991 Uniform Fire Code Sec. 10.204(b). 3. No burning permits for trees removed will be issued. Any downed trees will have to be chipped on site or hauled off site. 4. Submit turning radiuses to City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. These dimensions should be for the cul-de-sac designs of James Court and Ann Alcove. ML/be g:\safety\ml\plrevwoodridge CITY of CHANHASSEN 04 , ov 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Generous,Planner II FROM: Steve A.Kirchman,Building Official� j DATE: February 10, 1997 SU BJ ECT: 93-14 SUB(file 2)and 93-4 REZ(Woodridge Heights(formerly Shamrock Ridge),Centex Homes) I was asked to review the proposal stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN, RECEIVED, JAN 17, 1997, CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT. " for the above referenced project. Analysis: Structure information. Locations of proposed dwelling pads and the type of dwelling is necessary to enable the Inspections Division and Engineering Department to perform a satisfactory plan review of the structure at the time of building permit issuance.For the same reason,proposed lowest level floor elevations as well as garage floor elevations are required to be indicated on the proposed pad location. Standard designations(FLO or RLO, R, SE, SEWO,TU, WO) must be shown for proposed dwelling types. These standard designations lessen the chance for errors during the plan review process. The memo explaining these designations is enclosed. Recommendations: The following condition should be added to the conditions of approval. 1. Revise the preliminary grading plan to show the location of proposed dwelling pads, using standard designations and the lowest level floor and garage floor elevations. This should be done prior to final plat approval. enclosure: January 29, 1993 memorandum • \safety\sak1memos\plan 1woodrdg 1 A CITY of - ClIANBASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P:O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORAN P UM TO: Inspections, Planning, & Engineering Staff FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official 4 DATE: January 29, 1993 SUBJ: Dwelling Type Designation We have been requesting on site plan reviews that the developer designate the type of dwelling that is acceptable on each proposed lot in a new development. I thought perhaps it might be helpful to staff to explain and diagram these designations and the reasoning behind the requirements. FLO or RLC) Designates Front Lookout or Rear Lookout This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8'below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to approximately 4' above the basement floor level. R Designates Rambler. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8' below grade with the surrounding grade approximately level. This would include two story's and many 4 level dwellings. SI? Designates Split Entry. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4'below grade with the surrounding grade approximately level. SEWO Designates Split Entry Walk Out. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4' below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to lowest floor level. TU Designates Tuck Under. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8' below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the front of the dwelling. WO Designates Walk Out This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8'below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the rear of the dwelling. SE S� WO or RLO 1111 =L.3 111111111 Inspections staff uses these designations when reviewing plans which are then passed to the engineering staff for further review. Approved grading plans are compared to proposed building plans to insure compliance to approved conditions. The same designation must be used on all documents in order to avoid confusion and incorrect plan reviews. •Orr PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER _/\!_,.,, V; •1. .5± :› `f• !f;'' .i sits-,.' ..o • . .iSl-/ A . • r .r . I.:. � 4 - ; ',.- tit ji: y:1k4 i 1 �,j ,�. '.••,,atm,'s, foliage. Some winter injury is common with this • „, •,� , 1 . • �, > . ^,,., .` selection but it is desirable to cut the shrub back to 1 i •' , •• . ,.. - %f F; • foot from the ground, even if no injury occurs. It • . ,. hL1,1 . ; . i -'1`• ., A. ' makes a quick recovery and is more attractive than if it i~�. ‘ .,, us —' r / is not pruned. It must be grown in full sun to achieve , .. E , ti<<;+ol``;.lh -�`ti,. Cr the desired deep color. This plant seldom blooms •ti 1,' w'1!�; `)': \ ) E �..- •V. because it is cut back. Adapted to zones 3 and 4 if � i... �• t _ . handled as described above. .N , s t`•, �� • . A ao SNOWBALL BUSH — — Cutleaf staghorn sumac (see CRANBERRY BUSH, European) SNOWBERRY SUMAC Snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), 3 ft., is a fine- This is a diverse group that is useful for extensive textured shrub with small pink flowers. It is grown plantings. As a. sumacs are fast growing and primarily for its clusters of white berries borne at the tolerant of dry, infertile sites. Most have an attractive tips of the branches. These are attractive from fall into fall color. Many people are concerned about sumacs early winter. This arching shrub is useful for founda- being poisonous. Although poison sumac is a native tion plantings,shrub borders,and bank covers.Zones shrub,it is nevertheless uncommon.It occurs on moist 3 and 4. sites, mostly in swamps. Poison sumac has hanging clusters of white berries.Sumacs with upright clusters and red fruits are not poisonous. SPIREA Cutleaf Sumac (see Staghorn Sumac). There are many spireas but only a few are offered Fragrant Sumac (Rhus aromatics), 4 ft., grows as a in the nursery trade.Possibly one reason for this is that dense mound, making it useful where large mounds are desired in the landscape. Unlike the other sumacs some spireas have a short period of bloom,sometimes for less than a week.Most spireas have little or no color described here, it has three lobed leaves. The red change in the fall. Spireas grow best in full sunlight berrylike fruits are produced in dense clusters at the and on well-drained soils. tip of some branches. There is usually little fall color. Hardy in zone 4; trial in zone 3. Anthony Waterer Spirea (Spiraea bumalda 'An Smooth Sumac(Rhusglabra),to 8 ft.,depending on thony Waterer'), 2 ft., becoming broad with age. This the site and strain. This native shrub is useful for a tall plant has a bright rosy lavender flower for a couple of bank cover. It spreads over a large area by root months of the summer. Best bloom is achieved if suckers, creating colonies. Some of the colonies will plants are cut to the ground before growth starts in the have upright clusters of red fruits, while others will spring. Zones 3 and 4. have none. Autumn color is normally a bright red. Froebel Spirea (Spiraea bumalda 'Froebelii'), 3 ft., Zones 3 and 4. has flat clusters of bright pink flowers for a long Staghorn Sumac (Rhus typhina), 12 ft., is usually season. Zone 4. • shrublike but if pruned can have a large trunk and Goldflame Spirea (Spiraea bumalda 'Goldflame'), 3 become treelike. This native shrub spreads by root ft., is new to Minnesota. In the spring, it has a bright suckers. It can be differentiated from the smooth golden yellow color that turns to green in the summer. sumac by the dense, velvetlike hairs on the stems. The blooms are a light crimson in color.The fall foliage Colonies may produce fruit, depending on their sex. r� is often red. Adapted to zone 4; trial in zone 3. Fall color is an intense red. Zones 3 and 4. 32 Snowmound Spirea (Spiraea nipponica 'Snow- CUTLEAF STAGHORN SUMAC (Rhus typhina 'Lacini- mound'), 3 ft., is covered with white flowers in May. ata'), 7-8 ft., is similar to the species but has finely cut The foliage is dark green. It has had some severe leaves. The fall color varies from yellow to a red- dieback after severe winters.It makes a quick recovery orange, which is the more common. This selection after pruning. Zone 4. sometimes suffers winter injury, which ranges from Thunberg Spirea (Spiraea thunbergii), 4 ft., is the tip dieback to dieback almost to the ground. Even if earliest spirea to bloom. It has white flowers and fine winter injury is extensive, the plant can be pruned to narrow leaves. Zone 4. the ground and it will make a quick recovery.It is often — Vanhoutte Spirea(Spiraea x vanhouttei), 4 ft., is an used as a tall bank cover but can be used as a specimen arching shrub that has been planted in Minnesota plant. Because of the coarsness of the branching, it j' landscapes for many years. It has an abundance of takes on an almost sculptured appearance. Zones 3 • white bloom,but for only a short period.Zones 3 and 4. and 4. ^y ; M; ! C If it .em:,s,w.4.0.4.1:.s:rar I i ill _act O IMMO fl • , I.. , -01, • • Ailit ArreT•:1'; '.:''- 0 :__;.'L .1411\. .. ..-..milkiiilliillialli...snigli Vial- Iiiat4)." % - ViholliP.'"al ';''. .N191‘ .1 .' n ,Ntrip:..., .__.qhp....._.__....mme...,____,ois. r„,. . , . _... .. , tli.n.„,,. ... .. .„..... ........, ...i.,..„ ,,:. .. ixiiis.. ., _. 1 k. ',.x.,6166...41IM illib , imar..,==.1.=.14411:1-611:::i itx silrr,naL , - . --_ ibbkw-NEE,Etrial ... i .,,,., _Alw ..,.. -.., A W ii` ,_,..,,,mmil,_.,,. _...-411:41 , - : liptair ''s, " . at GC 4-) 8 1 .-.---..1W....., ' ' 7 Of 5%.:rrld: :/( _Ri 1., . IT-: AIM rill ,/, --!,„, 4 . f F4114,_ . v 0_ „., . ,,,,,,e,,,,,„...._ , t8 ,.,, . ,010,11ifogi mt4 wAsol b .061; Arcr&S% < CV lark '14)t , 74 .1 -.1r 4 Pa_ 4...PIII th.) 21 ,., 14441164 iNtakill... .,,,...kli, sirj .. 0 Ow .--- . :....,'''31-. ....4. N firliOW .-.'- `..!..... ..ausify.,A._._,,,, --02:------.:-.---=--....— •:- •, .• ,. ... . ' . . wk' la et/( i '*"."-:----'-'••--7-4111WMalaiellAlisMLoirmiT'iliogra 0 . ' * 4 : r '1; 1 . I � y• i[ .' -m y� e 3 r _ ? •rte- ''f_, I ,-i , A 1 rY..-:1Y O fw 2A..-r.- } k Lg r, H t k. 0• t x ,. 4� Fv= s zi 1: 3x xI.c : :.,. 3 of t1'--# ';:ti $''' i"1 r Q r Q �..'. s� $ 1 • le , .. „. ,, &YIZ • V qo3 e44F IF Cvi �. 1 arca .•.# .. is s II (I 0 U Ili W Z f,•` - a 6t�i 0 QZ e)�t Wz ,^'• dj tea t i W .'.,..41 "� d1 C),r1i 1' �:; 3 �N�y �j xn m 0 \J i+ q11 i fr&.';‘,.}.. LL j m t, ,'i f- 1` in �l` iN y 7 l'T Cl U"t . ?, fi NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING .a i■■, � ► ► �Illll�i �� a PLANNING COMMISSION I ��. = 4�A• Wednesday, February 19, 1997 r at 7:00 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers _ �� MI 690 Coulter Drive -.y. I Oir It MI , .V1111111111, SUBJECT: Rezoning and Preliminary Plat ♦% � POP ,h APPLICANT: Centex Homes a6A egm =1�� cQ LOCATION: 6730 Galpin Blvd. �'i��Vilma ;e��=� Ride �� ' n• (formerly known as Shamrock Ridge) I NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Centex Homes, request for rezoning approximately 13.5 acres from Rural Residential (RR) to Single Family Residential (RSF) and preliminary plat approval for 10 lots and 2 outlots (and revision to preliminary plat for 35 lots) located at 6730 Galpin Blvd., Woodridge Heights. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this proect. During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob Generous at 937-1900 ext. 141. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on February 6, 1997. Dwner JOHN F & MARIELLEN WALDRON MARTIN C& BETH KUDER Dwnadr 1900 LAKE LUCY RD 6831 GALPIN BLVD Dwncty, Location EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 6505 EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 8024 3RECK 0& MARLIESE JOHNSON GESTACH & PAULSON CONSTRUCTION EARL C GILBERT III 3621 GALPIN BLVD 200 CHESTNUT ST N 6901 GALPIN BLVD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 8022 CHASKA, MN 55318 1920 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 8024 VANCY K MANCINO GESTACH & PAULSON CONSTRUCTION CHARLES C S& IRENE L Y SONG 3620 GALPIN BLVD 200 CHESTNUT ST N 7200 GALPIN BLVD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 8021 CHASKA, MN 55318 1920 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 8058 3ETER A& MARY S DAVIS E JEROME& LINDA CARLSON PRINCE R NELSON 3640 GALPIN BLVD 6950 GALPIN BLVD 7801 AUDUBON RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 8021 EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 8023 CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 8201 3ESTACH & PAULSON CONSTRUCTION GESTACH & PAULSON CONSTRUCTION PRINCE R NELSON 200 CHESTNUT ST N 200 CHESTNUT ST N 7801 AUDUBON RD ;,HASKA. MN 55318 1920 CHASKA, MN 55318 1920 CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 8201 3ESTACH & PAULSON CONSTRUCTION GESTACH & PAULSON CONSTRUCTION 200 CHESTNUT ST N 200 CHESTNUT ST N :HASKA. MN 55318 1920 CHASKA. MN 55318 1920 STEVEN W& WENDY LAM BURESH GESTACH & PAULSON CONSTRUCTION 3651 GALPIN BLVD 200 CHESTNUT ST N EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 8022 CHASKA, MN 55318 1920 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O CITY MARTIN G & KAREN M GUSTAFSON TREASURER 6691 GALPIN BLVD 390 COULTER DR PO BOX 147 EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 8022 :HANHASSEN, MN 55317 0147 3ESTACH & PAULSON CONSTRUCTION 200 CHESTNUT ST N , No Address DHASKA, MN 55318 1920 3ESTACH & PAULSON CONSTRUCTION GREENERY COMPANY/DON MEZZENGA C/O 200 CHESTNUT ST N SCOTT MEZZENGA 6931 GALPIN BLVD DHASKA, MN 55318 1920 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 8024 C I TY 0 F PC DATE: 2/19/97 � I ClIANIIASSEN CC DATE: 3/10/97 . CASE #: 97-1 LLP & 97-2 SPR By: Al-Jaff:v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: 1. Rezoning of property from R-12, High Density Residential to 01. Office Institutional 2. Comprehensive Plan amendment to allow office use on property guided for residential high density use 3. Site Plan Review for a 1,600 Square Foot face lift for an existing Z building 4. Lot Area and existing front yard setback variance • V LOCATION: 7720 Great Plains Boulevard - Lot 1, Block 4, Highland Park, north west corner of Chan View and Great Plains Boulevard E Q_ APPLICANT: Ryan Engineering, INC Donald E McCarville • QFor Katie& Joe Scott 3349 Warner Lane 7648 South Shore Drive Mound, MN 55364 Chanhassen, MN 55317 472-1272 or 471-7128 975-0864 PRESENT ZONING: R-12. High Density Residential District ACREAGE: 13,640 square feet 0.3 acres DENSITY: n/a ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N -R-12, High Density Residential, Apartment Building S - CBD, Colonial Center Q E -OI, St. Hubert Church and Scho l- W-R-12,Heritage Park Apartments WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. • PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site has an existing Dry Cleaning/Laundromat facility with landscaping and utilities. The parking lot is located on public right- of-way. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential High Density ...-,1,...... :471 1; CARVER\I -. ' :o°rte . 6 N. y ' kAww i SII_ ,4: ..�+ �� - BEACh+ -• �. .! .1 iinieni �.rifL t_�• `i 1 a PARK i ,.:111 4 SHEN6ND0• �� d 1 / l• • / 4 Q� 1�!l �� aC qui .VIOLET ` `, _ -11: ou I Mr al �t� ,� ROAD 1 `%. NORT/ _•r2 c•. ca• ■ uy u,_ �. . . ,; LOTUS iii iii �� ,!� R R':tri .�� Q '"A-1. - , lPARLAKEK 41k ,r! `��nvii a BM 00 VA dikwb la - 1 6.-44, .0,,,„wrffio, - „cm Alp 73 ,c_tipos..-.-7-- : E--.- ,, 41131tfirAtt znz I WA°II Wilill r"Mativ t‘Ot4 011,41110% ■ _ ._. �� f ,..-.ter.mtll O. moi` ,_ •,i_ •�.. �-.�� vrai - mow �u _____folimmimmall �f;�I� �� .s= t.ei NMI 4111a Wit' AI II ir,v ,49 144444 No. ♦♦ -. V j;,'4,10101P V► 2: 21/ • Mt*,VW 4 inswirs .f Ati40...00/11 .a „,mital LI , ,t4A.Vibtgis -de Al t .......e-...a., at\ A t I Owe fair' 1 1( WOItagakii IIII7 It',sir►6 1111111 d411 11i1� -.i Ag al ��P%% 4` SW L A K E W�w� pow 101 �©k` ,�"0. a '��e0-# 1.- �% A ��` Ate 4aa V ARK Wit' 1�♦ �n �� lti d ;SAF 4.re•,� � .� , till ):--i Tit w_411. -,"44. firm a ._6. a 'um po...,„41C., '-:... ,,111111 00 !Asa los iiii iz -, gi. mum-0LO - Allmn In ,+-:' .111 vA- CI LW&kV aiNftalliii dig IA.' 4irijillA 7:4141. 111P131A qw "lord° Mo. .,A rgi "A ::k_ WO a wcv-lira _ el>g = 'ii �Il ., E+:� �=Pi.�) .hm- e- C 1u O OC MI[•7 NM MIN ma /� n owt ��' f-.it + I IP r_* i.�G=-®; V V , -` iC ii, is �©I. 13- �� li l� ��.,/ �. 1 2 - - new Ir. Iiim 11111111111s - MCAI a- ■■■.■/1 Fri_ Wg. a Com^ Int.11 !r'-''B G .. , - - I..I;;,I ..IP i-VN..., 11i All m 2' 111111PP., 41,41- OM 4. IiIP UD I■III d i ,ITTA CB , , • �, i1 Y �' � , a0.-wAiiiri iiii 10') owase inv f MIWPAIT -- 4 1 , . ...... .„.‘, W EsTER l- ' E IGtAvi 0,,, _ -'` -. - -- :M.... a; lAw _ tr . , ww.,...,. . _ - . wezm NC w��, �`�I*AI 411P-1 DRIVE 3.�, s• .s,,t,�.� g — `. • 0. �P tea, t, / -4 �� riwaiti,„ r ,,•.^ .SU 1 P - 1 rig--sial tto int .j ,r Scott and Associates February 19, 1997 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is requesting multiple approvals to change the use of an existing non-conforming Laundromat into an office. The site is located north of Colonial Center, west of Great Plains Boulevard, north of Chan View, west of St. Hubert Church and east of Heritage Park Apartments. The site has an area of 13,640 square feet. The proposal consists of rezoning the property from High Density Residential (R-12) to Office Institutional (01), a Comprehensive Plan amendment to allow office use on property guided for residential high density use, Site Plan Review for a 1,600 square foot face lift for the existing building, and a lot area, existing front yard setback and depth variance. Country Clean & Launders is the current occupant of the building. They wish to sell and discontinue the business. In 1972, the zoning of the property was commercial which allowed the use. Some time between 1972 and 1977, Country Clean and Launders was built. Between 1977 and 1986, the zoning of the property was changed to High Density Residential (staff was unable to locate records of rezoning the property). The use is not permitted in this district. Therefore, the existing use is now non-conforming and cannot be expanded. The zoning ordinance states "There shall be no expansion, intensification, replacement. structural change, or relocation of any non-conforming use or non-conforming structure except to lessen or eliminate the nonconformity. " The applicant is requesting to change the use of the building to a small office. There are a total of two full time employees and five part time employees. This number should generate a maximum of 8 trips per day. The existing business generates approximately 84 trips to the dry cleaners. There should be a significant decrease in number of trips generated by the change of use. The site is bordered to the south by a service driveway which leads to the rear of the Colonial Center. Heritage Park Apartments and St. Hubert's parking lots border the site along the east and west. Staff visited the site to determine how the proposed (small office) use fit in with the developed properties adjacent to it or to determine if the site was suitable for residential uses. The parcel is less than one-third of an acre in size, and abuts the rear parking lot for Heritage Park Apartments to the west and the service lane for Colonial Center to the south. With these circumstances, staff did not feel that a residential user would find this site to be appropriate. Also, staff felt that the proposed office facility would be a low level office use, with a residential exterior appearance, and would be compatible with the surrounding property and uses. We concluded that residential uses were not likely to be a realistic option in this area and support the request to rezone the parcel to allow for an office use. Scott and Associates February 19, 1997 Page 3 The other option the applicant has is to rezone the property to CBD, Central Business District. We did not wish to open the site up to any commercial use. Instead we recommended the applicant apply for rezoning to OI, Office Institutional. We will still be able to uphold the applicant to the standards provided in the site plan section of the ordinance which will create a higher standard of development. The overall site plan appears to be in order and well designed. Staff has been working with the applicant for a few months and the plans have gone through some changes since it first appeared before us. The intended use of this building is office. Standards are proposed to be incorporated with the site plan agreement that would limit all future use of the site to low impact ones consistent with its surroundings. The applicant is proposing new plantings of over-story trees along the boulevard and hedges as well as planter boxes surrounding the building. This will be an improvement to the existing site landscaping, however, staff is recommending additional landscaping be provided. The existing 1,600 square foot building is proposed to be remodeled. The current building is dilapidated and does not meet the standards set by the City of Chanhassen from an architectural design standpoint. There are approximately 8 exhaust pipes on the roof of the building which are proposed to be removed. The outdoor storage area, located west of the existing building, which is an eyesore, will also be eliminated as part of this proposal. The building will be repainted, new windows, canopies and flower boxes will be added which will enhance the appearance of this corner drastically. The most significant change which will take place is the removal of the existing parking lot which is located 50% on public right-of-way and is not in compliance with ordinance. These parking spaces currently back onto Great Plains Boulevard which raises a traffic safety issue in staff's mind. The applicant is proposing to relocate the parking lot to the south of the existing building and utilize the same access point/curb cut as the Colonial Center. The applicant must obtain a cross access easement to share this access point. The improvements will take place as soon as the City approves the proposal. Staff found that even though the parking lot setback will still require a variance along Great Plains Boulevard,it will still be a noticeable improvement. The variances are basically existing ones. The first is a lot area variance. The ordinance requires a minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet for lots located in an OI District. The area of the parcel is 13,640 square feet. The second variance deals with the depth of the lot. The ordinance requires a minimum depth of 150 feet. This parcel has an average depth of 107.5 feet. The third variance is a front yard setback. The ordinance requires a 25 foot front yard setback. The building is located 8 feet from the property line along Chan View and the newly constructed parking lot will be located 10 feet from Great Plains Boulevard. Again, all these variances are existing ones and are not created by the applicant. To the extent possible, the applicant has attempted to improve the site and bring it into compliance. Staff is recommending approval of these variances. Scott and Associates February 19, 1997 Page 4 The comprehensive plan designates this property as High Density Residential. The comprehensive plan will have to be amended as part of the application process to designate the subject site as office. On January 6, 1997, the applicant held a neighborhood meeting to introduce neighboring property owners to their proposal. Staff believes the proposal, combined with conditions proposed by staff, will be effective in providing satisfactory development. Through the rezoning of the property, the proposed office facility will be allowed and the city will be able to maintain control on the improvements and uses. Staff finds the proposed request of existing variances, rezoning, and comprehensive plan amendment to be acceptable and is recommending approval subject to proposed conditions. REZONING Justification for Rezoning to OI The applicant is requesting to rezone 0.3 acres from R-12, High Density Residential to OI, Office Institutional. The intent of the OI District is to provide for public or quasi-public nonprofit uses and professional business and administrative offices. The rezoning of the parcel will allow the applicants to locate their office within this existing building and give the City an opportunity to require the improvements on the site. Both parties will benefit from this proposal. The use of the 01 zoning also allows for a greater variety of uses, that are compatible with the surrounding area. In exchange for this, the city has the expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal. In return for the rezoning to OI, the city is receiving: • Elimination of outdoor storage area • Additional boulevard plantings and requiring additional trees • Improved architectural standards and appearance including; entryways, roof top screening, and uniform architecture • Elimination of parking lot located on public right-of-way Extension of a side walk along Great Plains Boulevard Removal of an existing pylon sign on the corner of Chan View and Great Plains Boulevard Scott and Associates February 19, 1997 Page 5 Development Standards/Site Plan Review The site is located at the southwest corner of Chan View and Great Plains Boulevard. The existing 1,600 square foot building is proposed to be remodeled. The applicant is proposing that the entire building will be painted. The existing roof will be replaced, and all the chimney stacks will be removed. Existing 3 foot wide doors will be removed and replaced by new ones, and the introduction of new windows and awnings and flower boxes for accent. The current building is dilapidated and does not meet the standards set by the City of Chanhassen from an architectural design stand point. The outdoor storage area, located west of the existing building, which is an eyesore, will also be cleaned and replaced with green space, which will enhance the appearance of this corner drastically. The setbacks of the building is set by the existing building. All setbacks meet the ordinance requirements with the exception of the north side which is 8 feet. The ordinance requires a 25 foot setback. COMPLIANCE TABLE - OI DISTRICT Ordinance Scott & Associates Total Lot Area 15,000 s.f. 13,640 s.f.* Lot Frontage 75' 110' (average) Lot Depth 150' 107.5' (average)* Lot Coverage 65 % 38 04 Parking Setback N - 25' S - 10' N - 54' S - N/A E - 25' W- 10' E - 10'* W -N/A Parking Stalls 7 stalls (calculated @ 4.5 12 stalls stalls/1,000 s.f.) Building Height 2 stories 1 story Building Setback N - 25' S - 10' N - 8'* S - 70' E - 25' W - 10' E - 15'* W - 35' • The City Code requires a minimum area of 15,000 square feet for a parcel zoned OI. This parcel has an area of 13,640 square feet. The parcel has an average depth of 107.5 feet. The ordinance requires a 150 foot lot depth. The front setback along Chan View is 8 feet and 15 feet along Great Plains Boulevard. The ordinance requires a 25 foot setback. The parking setback along Great Plains Boulevard is 10 feet. The ordinance requires a 25 foot setback. This parking lot is being relocated form being 50% on public right-of-way and zero setback to having a 10 foot setback which will be an improvement. There is no way for the site to obtain additional square footage, increased setbacks nor depth, as it is abutted by Colonial Center, Scott and Associates February 19, 1997 Page 6 Heritage Park Apartments, Chan View, and Great Plains Boulevard. All these variances are existing and are of no fault of the applicants. They did not create the hardship. For these reasons, we believe it is reasonable to grant approval of the existing variances. Approval of the variances is recommended. Site Landscaping and Screening The applicant has prepared a landscaping plan that shows the addition of boulevard trees along one street frontage, foundation plantings, and limited parking lot landscaping. To meet ordinance requirements, the applicant will need to provide boulevard trees along the northern street frontage, increase parking lot landscaping to 264 sq. ft. and provide one tree for the parking lot. The additional landscaping will add a positive element to this site. Signage The applicant is proposing to remove the existing pylon sign and the wall mounted sign, and replace them with one non-illuminated wall mounted sign. This is in compliance with the sign ordinance requirements since no illuminated signs may face residential neighborhoods. The maximum area of the wall mounted sign may not exceed 90 square feet. A sign permit will be required prior to installation of the sign. Lighting Two wall mounted, decorative, and shielded light fixtures will be introduced. These lights will be located on both sides of the entrance door along the east elevation. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2 candle at the property line. Streets/Access/Parking Access to the site is obtained via Great Plains Boulevard. Currently the parking is along Great Plains Boulevard which will be abandoned and replaced with 12 parking stalls on site. Entrance to the parking lot will be the same access point/curb cut as the Colonial Center. The applicant must obtain a cross access easement to share this access point. In conjunction with the removal of the existing parking stalls, the existing concrete sidewalk and concrete curb and gutter along Great Plains Boulevard will be extended northerly to Chan View and the boulevards restored. The applicant is proposing to restore the existing parking area with black dirt and seed. Staff recommends that the City's boulevard area be restored with sod to ensure restoration as quickly as possible and minimize erosion. To guarantee that the boulevard restoration is completed, staff recommends that an escrow for S2,000 be provided by the applicant. Scott and Associates February 19, 1997 Page 7 There will be a total of 12 parking stalls. The City Code requires 4.5 stalls per 1,000 square feet. A total of 7 spaces are required. None of the parking stalls are labeled handicapped. The Uniform Building Code requires one accessible parking space. The space must be eight feet wide with a five foot wide access aisle. In addition, an accessible route must be provided from the parking lot to the building along with approved signage. Utilities The site is currently connected to City sewer and water. According to the plans it appears no modifications to the existing sewer and water service will be necessary. Grading and Drainage None proposed. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval the rezoning of 0.3 acres (13,640 square feet) of R-12, High Density Residential to OI, Office Institutional, approve site plan to renovate a 1,600 square foot building, lot area, front yard setback, and lot depth variances, and comprehensive plan amendment from high density residential to office as shown in plans dated received January 21, 1997 subject to the following conditions: 1. Rezoning approval from R-12, High Density Residential to OI, Office Institutional. 2. Approval of the minor comprehensive plan amendment by the Metropolitan Council. 3. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement and provide financial security to guarantee improvements. 4. The applicant must provide 3 overstory boulevard trees along Chan View street frontage and one overstory tree with the parking lot landscaping. Also, parking lot landscaping will be increased to 264 sq. feet. 5. The applicant shall provide to the City a $2,000 letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the sidewalk, curb and gutter and boulevard restoration. The boulevard area between the property line and the street shall be sodded. Scott and Associates February 19, 1997 Page 8 7. Provide a cross access easement between Colonial Center and the proposed development for shared access from Great Plains Boulevard. 8. During construction, the streets shall be kept clean daily in order to prevent erosion from washing off site. Erosion control measures may be implemented later as the need arises. 9. One accessible parking space shall be provided. The space must be eight feet wide with a five foot wide access aisle. In addition, an accessible route must provided from the parking lot to the building along with approved signage. 10. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than %2 candle at the property line. 11. The maximum area of the wall mounted sign may not exceed 90 square feet. A sign permit will be required prior to installation of the sign." ATTACHMENTS 1. Application and Narrative. 2. Site Plan dated received January 21, 1997. • CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE S(44-‘ CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 G1 (612) 937-1900 � ?, 1 -- 17 1 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION Y I J 1 (ezc C . OWNER: 11 olU A M- (4 ite APPLICANT: �4� ��r=-2-t�, if t"v, ADDRESS: --7(-4-, , c- --A--( CD 1-,,,r2_c -- (1._‘.(-)c._ ADDRESS: 33 V4Ida4-11E')' L rt Li , ��, :�ti,.- .Ssc4 , 5-53�-7 / i )�Yrc J); A/) 33-36€7 TELEPHONE (Day time) Qr) S- 0 8L4TELEPHONE:x,7 7 - /2 2-2 - `I7/- 7/-)X -mac Kc-tQ .1 rQ CLO---- ..4, Comprehensive Plan Amendment 4 .s----- , — Temporary Sales Permit 1 Conditional Use Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements — r Interim Use Permit Variance -- Non-conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development' Zoning Appeal Rezoning c0V Zoning Ordinance Amendment a 1 Sign Permits Sign Plan Review >< Notification Sign G 4'` xSite Plan Review' L{ 1 X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" S-0 '?-/7-,, ($50 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) Subdivision' TOTAL FEE $ . .w.'. w f A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application. C.,tN ••1 - (.. IQUIiy1- Crx>r'J -1 -t-e - SS 1t r Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. 'Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81" X 11" reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. , 5 "Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract Lkt V NOTE- hen multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. ?• C ,f\ _Ai:Y x-14 \\N-\),._ )� io < PROJECT NAME �.D Lc'/ /A/ / LOCATION ZD ; A, e,4 /0401/ &::),-"/U...-&::),-"/U...-2".„6./ 'a . / -"1�i'¢S.s�" LEGAL DESCRIPTION �-�C9-C 0LCc_,(L. —` 4410 I (A/` -P4 TOTAL ACREAGE /3, 10 WETLANDS PRESENT YES X NO PRESENT ZONING , — / 7-- REQUESTED ZONING . /� PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION J �i \ NSi ` `��i `I ► �`1 L C, REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION 07--Z- REASON FORTHIS REQUEST (--ozN tie H- Te_—r�%AA- C_-Z(,j—01 6-44-tA,Jcld1 l i�(1 C(00,16-f-- 40 -SLI e',FT ( Sc()It t 4-ricrt(->1-1(47-tf :1-7v6, l This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. t will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day extension for development re iew. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review extensions e approved by applicant. �� / / - � Signature of pplicanti -, D.te ./.,-; "Id--4l 1 t✓ I /0/1 /4 Signature of Fee Owner p Date Application Received on f i 7/C7 7 Fee Paid I/ P�J,. Receipt No. b�q 7 i' The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted,a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. Background: Katie&Joe Scott have owned and operated Scott&Associates, Inc., in Chanhassen since 1993. Along with three employees,they provide corporate customers(Cargill, Walt Disney World, MassMutual,NSP, etc.)with promotional services, products and employee recognition programs, i.e. service, safety and sales awards. Current and projected growth will require more contiguous office space than is now available to them. The Country Clean Laundromat and Dry Cleaning building at 7720 Great Plains Boulevard presents an opportunity for the Scott's to own/occupy their office space, while improving a property which is currently less than esthetically pleasing. Today,the site is guided for High Density Residential land use and is zoned R-12. Here is why the site will probably not be developed under the existing land use and zoning: 7720 Great Plains Boulevard Square Feet per Acre: 43,560 Site Square Footage: j 13,640 Impervious Surface Maximum for a Duplex 5,456 40% Impervious Surface@ units: 5,500 1,150 Parking Sq.'/unit, deck, Zoning: R 12 driveway, sidewalks, eta Maximum R12 Units on Site: 3.76 Max. R12 Units @7,500 Land sqft./unit: 1.82 VARIANCE If a variance were granted to build 2 units on less than 15,000 sq.'of land: Property Acquisition: $ 125,000.00 Construct Demolition:] 15,000.00 $/sq.' Sq.'/Unit #ofUnits Construction: j 224,000.00 $ 70.00 1,600 2 Total: ' $ 364,000.00 • Per Month Mortgage@: 9% $2,928.83 Utilities/mo.: 200.00 Taxes: j 420.00 Maintenance: 100.00 Insurance: 1 75.00 $3,723.83 Break-even Rent/Unit: $ 1,861.91 Equals the PITT for a: $ 231,402.04 home. Livable Communities Act(LCA): Chanhassen's commitment to the LCA requires a fundamental change in the diversity and affordability of the City's housing stock. Residential High Density land use and R-12 zoning allows for the most affordable housing, however,the above example would not fulfill the "affordability" measure. Therefore,the 7720 site, under Residential High Density land use and R-12 zoning, will not aid in Chanhassen's quest for LCA compliance. Land Use Amendment and Rezoning: The subject property, and its underlying land use and zoning,was"left over" when the Heritage Square Apartment project was completed. It is not a desirable R-12 development prospect. A similar circumstance occurred with the property at the end of Kerber Boulevard, in between Market Square and Target. The Kerber Boulevard property, which was guided and zoned for Retail use,was"left over"when Market Square and Target were built. The site's poor visibility from West 78th Street and Highway 5 made it an undesirable Retail development prospect. The City Council agreed to change the land use and zoning so that the property would be developed. Here are some thoughts on why the application should be approved: The neighbor's are supportive of the application: • All neighbors at the January 6, 1997 meeting signed a petition in support of the application; • All correspondence and phone calls received by the applicants were supportive of the application. Office/Institutional Land Use is consistent with a major neighboring use: • St. Hubert's Church& School has a land use of Office/Institutional (east of site, across the street); • The applicants have offered the site's parking spaces to the St. Hubert's congregation in order to ease on-street parking congestion during Mass and Church events. Transition from Retail to R-12 and Residential Single Family: • The"residential" appearance of the remodeled 7720 building will be consistent with the surrounding homes and buildings. The Intensity of the property's use will be greatly reduced: • Hours of operation will be reduced from 84 hours/week(7 days/week, 12 hours/day) to 45 hours/week(5 days/week, 9 hours/day a 46%reduction); • Destination round-trips will be reduced from 420 to 40/week(90%reduction). ...and will occur when most of the neighbors are gone. Virtually all non-conformities will be removed: • Signage on the corner of Great Plains Boulevard and Chan View; • Shed, fence and abandoned equipment behind building; • 6' x 12' discarded sign on ground south of building; • Parking will be moved from the East side to the South side of building; The appearance of the building and grounds will be enhanced:: • New roof,removal of all vent stacks; • New exterior paint plus repaired/replaced soffit and facia; • New/Repaired windows &doors; • New parking lot on South side of building; • Landscaping-addition of planter boxes, boulevard trees and shrubs; • Green space along Great Plains Boulevard to replace the current parking lot. Tax Benefit: Estimated net tax increase of 100%to the City of Chanhassen due to the Land Use Amendment, rezoning, increased property valuation and lessened City service requirements, i.e. Public Safety. This tax benefit is 100%greater than if the site were developed under the existing land use and zoning. Historic Preservation: The building, which was built in 1954 using the "Frontier"architecture style,could very well become the oldest surviving commercial structure in Chanhassen. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING II PLANNING COMMISSION •� INII Wednesday, February 19, 1997 == LIIb� at 7:00 p.m. - - ' City Hall Council Chambers - �: " tiliEl 690 Coulter Drive ;� '' ��Impie- : • . ,I ii . . - 7: • --t , ,. .i, L SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Variance and all ,Site Plan Review APPLICANT: Ryan Engineering and S ' Scott & Associates 5 <s‘k LOCATION: 7720 Great Plains Blvd. 11_T:_ 3 : 1 .7A NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Scott & Associates and Ryan Engineering, are requesting a comprehensive plan amendment, rezoning from R-12, Multi-family to 01, Office Institutional, and site plan review for an office building located at 7720 Great Plains Blvd. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmin at 937-1900 ext. 120. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on February 6, 1997. Owner JOHN R RYAN Ownadr 7613 IROQUOIS Owncty, Location CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 9604 LINDA LENORA KEELER FRANCES M JACQUES DONALD F MCCARVILLE 304 77TH ST W 308 CHANVIEW LN PO BOX 44 3349 WARNER LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 9798 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 0044 MOUND, MN 55364 JOHN T BUSCH &GARY M CHRISTENSON GEORGE P SHORBA CHANHASSEN HRA 7607 HURON 306 CHAN VIEW 690 COULTER DR PO BOX 147 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 9714 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 0147 CARLOS M MARROQUIN& KIMBERLY L IVO& BLANCHE SCHUTROP LARRY A& KATHLEEN A SCHROEDER MARROQUIN 302 CHAN VIEW 7720 FRONTIER TRL 7606 GREAT PLAINS BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 9714 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 9753 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 9717 DOUGLAS J KOCH LAURA A LARSON CHANHASSEN HRA 7609 GREAT PLAINS BLVD 7615 IROQUOIS PO BOX 783 690 COULTER DR PO BOX 147 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 0147 MARTIN H & BEVERLY J BICKER PHILIP & NANCY HILLMAN CO/ TOM & KAY CHANHASSEN REALTY CO C/O MASON 7608 HURON KLINGELHUTZ PROPERTIES CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 9602 9531 JESKE AVE NW 1589 HWY 7 ANNANDALE, MN 55302 HOPKINS, MN 55343 THUNG M & LAN T NGUYEN PHILIP& NANCY HILLMAN C/0 TOM& KAY CHANHASSEN MEDICAL ARTS KLINGELHUTZ 7609 HURON 470 78TH ST W PO BOX 250 CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 9602 9531 JESKE AVE NW CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ANNANDALE, MN 55302 TRACY L&JANE M MESSER JAMES M & PATRICIA D MARTIN 7608 GREAT PLAINS BLVD 3740 UNION TERRACE LN , CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 9717 PLYMOUTH, MN 55441 ARLIS A BOVY PHILIP & NANCY HILLMAN C/O TOM & KAY CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/0 CITY 7339 FRONTIER TRL PO BOX 132 KLINGELHUTZ TREASURER CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 0132 9531 JESKE AVE NW 690 COULTER DR PO BOX 147 ANNANDALE, MN 55302 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 0147 ROBERT T& SUSAN J WELLIVER HERITAGE PARK APARTMENTS C/0 THIES 7611 HURON TALLE MGMT INC • CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 9602 470 78TH ST W PO BOX 250 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ILOOMBERG COMPANIES INC '0 BOX 730 ;HANHASSEN, MN 55317 0730 ;HURCH OF ST HUBERT 707 GREAT PLAINS BLVD ;HANHASSEN, MN 55317 9708 ;HANHASSEN HRA 90 COULTER DR PO BOX 147 ;HANHASSEN, MN 55317 0147 No Address . .. L .4... .. 4.4 ..., _. ,__ , .....1 ril A - c 1111 a • 0 I11111111111111 P-I et ° � � III 7tzi' be oz • W IOW � I �,� � 11� : O •�--.--�F... 4 ' II 11 i ria v al,....64,-,4 "._ ii N .., O 1 '71- !1Il1111::1:1 .— • 1 S- ,i 0- "1 Ii i 2-71. �. J C'...: 2 11 I - - C PCHI _ril 0 N - - O _ I �. - - i _ _ _ i1 H H rri O N rri ci) 0 C rn O H rr - _ _ r� - - C - O _ _ _ trJ - � v� _ _ _ tti O rTl _ C _ _ _ _ SikSil. - Fax Cover Sheet - Scott & Associates, Inc. Suite 225 - 80 West 78th Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 612-949-9606 Date: 2/13/97 Pages: 1 of 6 4lTo: • in Al Jaff, City of Chanhassen -937-5739 F Joseph G. Scott, Scott& Associates, Inc. - 612-934-6494 Su Information for Inclusion in the Planning Commission Packet I have enclosed the following: 1) Invitation to the January 6, 1997 neighborhood meeting; 2) Letter of invitation to the above; 3) e-mail supporting project from Bev, Martin and Natalie Ricker; 4) Petition supporting project signed by Doug Koch & Wendy& Doug Suedbeck 5) Letter to neighbors regarding application submission. All of the above correspondence was sent to the people/organizations listed by Carver County Abstract as property owners within 500 (five hundred) feet of the subject property. 6£69-17£6 :2utuana - 9096-6176 :AT °Jam aq iitM noC jt mom sn jai asraid . pansas aq iii^ sxoEus pug sluauuisa.iau 2utpimq ugaiD ,Cuunoj iapotual suuid mo uo indut moi( (s,Xain2d lxau) - . -- 118H 3$811jA Pio :aiagJJ 8 ' YAId 00.8 YAId 00:L q 9 i(ignugr `Xepuopi :uati j BOOS aO f atie)I :s1soH A4/2/ You're Invited to a Neighborhood Meeting ! SCOTT & ASSOCIATES, INC. Sk\ii. 80 West 78th Street Suite 225 Chanhassen, MN 55317 612-949-9606 • FAX: 612-934-6494 Thursday, January 02, 1997 Ken Talle Chanhassen Medical Arts 470 West 78th Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Ken Talle: The reason for this letter. To invite you to a neighborhood meeting on Monday, January 6th from 7:00 to 8:00 PM at the Chanhassen Old Village Hall (next to Pauley's). We would like to hear your thoughts on our plans for the Country Clean building (7720 Great Plains Boulevard). Refreshments will be served. Who we are and what we do for a living: Katie and I have lived in Chanhassen for ten years and started our company four years ago. We currently office in Chanhassen and, with our three employees, administer service award programs and sell promotional services and products. Our normal hours of operation are from 8 AM - 5 PM, Monday through Friday. What we would like to do with the building and property: Convert the use of the building to office and storage space for our company. Improvements would include repairs to the roof, windows, doors, soffits and facia, removing the pole sign and shed, painting the exterior as well as adding some modest landscaping to generally enhance the appearance of the property. How you can help: To remodel the building and move our business, the City of Chanhassen needs to rezone the property and grant us a variance. Since the granting of rezoning and variance requests are not very common, any input or support from you would help us to get this project completed. Please come to the meeting or give us a call, we'd like to hear from you. Regards, Joseph G. Scott Mary K. Scott JGS:id ASI - 321502 PPAI - 134742 e-mail: scottassoc@prodigy.com web page: www.logomall.com/scottassoc = C I TY O F P.C. DATE: 2-19-97 � CUAI' UAE1 C.C. DATE: 3-10 97 . CASE: 97-1 SPR& 97-2 CUP BY: Al-Jaff:v STAFF REPORT • PROPOSAL: 1) Conditional Use Permit for the placement of multiple buildings on a single site. 2) Conditional Use Permit to allow a 5,129 square foot Restaurant with a liquor license in a BN District 3) Site Plan Approval for a 5,129 square foot restaurant (Famous Dave's BBQ Shack) 4) Site Plan Review for a 1 7,168 square foot strip mall VLOCATION: South of Highway 5, East of Great Plains Boulevard, and north of the Total Gas Station. CL. 0.. APPLICANT : OPPIDAN INVESTMENT CO. Chanhassen Post#580 Q900 2nd Avenue South, American Legion Housing Corporation #1800 P.O. Box 303 Minneapolis. MN 55402 Chanhassen, MN 55317 338-8485 937-7120 George Beniek PRESENT ZONING: BN. Neighborhood Business ACREAGE: 5.58 acres ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N -Highway 5 S-Total Gas Station and Strip Mall/BN E - Vacant Land/BN tQ W-Great Plains Boulevard/PUDNillages on the Ponds r SEWER AND WATER: Services are available to the site. SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The trees on the site are a mixture of significant and 1111 insignificant trees in size and quality. The site contains the existing Legion Building which is proposed to be demolished. 2000 LAND USE: Commercial ♦ �22W.2, Green illi. - n ?� \ �. '- \`rte r `LLLLIJ y✓/• 3- - • ,od Nam wawa Park / • \'` >.V • x a ; ws' \1�//'u� i 6 %`.�,-1,- i r i i • ` \e-�co..., ',per • . - Twin•_::;::'--714----- 4 . iZ�1 :" - ,., L(r /.- _ itire15 frop 00 Williall♦ I • •• ea �,1i ■MM!!\ \s ,---'? :•svev.',d---- � 11E7 ' •"111111111* Vir illfr- 111. MOW ir,_iii f:1 VAllip.„ ab Mei III 1111 0111 --• • �'!„ Foie4 ,!ea .0-3 vs wg. ri - 14.4,4 O. "Awl-r .r -in(Tea " ' II . .g4 l 1,_ , . k, :4 `�� ,IIw ►7, toDr i2 '. r.,..a..x_ in i% *8.10411i ' it p • : .a OM 1. iipa o girp, �, % %S 11, MU, IW _SSIL o = :4*;1 . H W o SI et t, -3 th • 2 IR go, .l Yo l ®®gem::1> a City Hall _ ..... . r. ' 1111111111111111111 I. % ♦ K iulicistiiise . t um k illCoulter D 'g X111 I I I l l i ` / � ! .:. � �`� 11111 11.....4.1 ed 11//,, F71-1 ' -141w: -' — � •.• ,:, sem.<• a. ake Dr ./- ( :=%' s�'IN" 4111 Char oad tern Ratl �-d 1� ) Apir.‘ :0/11ri> a: ;n cm gt Wes tiLi....._ • = = . � Mia: Tw State Hw 5 •1, Nei Bilk vee 2w-tir-..2q44... a , ..-:---,Ew lair Y l - A al mil atp 04.:44.447,4, �_ iiiiiiis414..............................e, L' -: Naiigi ...z.i. r:,:. .. - si i_l 4 At raj. Rice Mar-h �� .- , Lake P..rk �, in Lake Susan o Rice tIA « #, ,..1"‘ .?,. ET_ _ arsh Lake s _ lO u) E illk e ar f . At 4 s*„•-•• lhaiiti co 13. � • •'••;•'®tE at11 C 1 C ** 4 AIR. ' it:Mt Ig&.17' 16, •• •VIM r;141 re _ -1- N•►12 _ _-�" U ��,�,si Or*�,�� ME = I ‘..)R,. SES _ - • or , Chanhassen Commons February 19, 1997 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY There are four actions being requested with this application -- two conditional use permits and two site plan reviews for a shopping center and a restaurant with a liquor license. The site is zoned BN,Business Neighborhood District, and bordered by Highway 5 to the north, Great Plains Boulevard to the west, Total Gas Station and strip mall to the south and a vacant parcel to the east. The lot area is 5.58 acres. The Hwy. 5 Overlay District applies to the site. The site is visible directly from Highway 5. It has full access from Lake Drive East and a right in/out only from Great Plains Boulevard. (The access issue will be discussed in detail in the street section of the staff report). The first conditional use permit application deals with locating multiple buildings on a single lot. The ordinance states that Groupings of buildings in commercial districts may only be permitted by conditional use permit. The applicant is proposing to locate a strip mall, a restaurant, and a third free standing building on the same parcel. The second conditional use permit is required to allow a restaurant with a liquor license in a Neighborhood Business District. The site plan is for a restaurant(Famous Dave's BBQ Shack) and the strip mall. The site plan is reasonably well developed. The building is proposed to utilize the same color scheme with different architectural styles. Face brick,wood, and block is proposed on the Famous Dave's building. There are pitched roof elements on the structure. The strip mall is proposed to utilize stucco and rough face block as their main materials. Accents are provided through the use of canvas awnings, aluminum store fronts and decorative lighting medallions. The unifying element consists of colors and building materials (samples will be provided at the meeting). The third building on the site will appear before the City for a site plan application at a later date. It is shown on the plans as a concept only. Parking for vehicles is located in the center of the site between the buildings. A main drive aisle, running east/west, bisects the site, and parking lots are located along the north and south sides of this drive aisle. Staff's concern stems from locating parking lots along Highway 5. The applicant has provided berming and some landscaping along the highway to screen the parking lot, however, staff believes the parking lot will be visible from the highway. Highway 5 has an elevation of 960 which is the same elevation as the top of the berm. The majority of the proposed vegetation consists of shrubs which will provide minimum screening. Additional landscaping will be recommended along the north portion of the site. Staff must point out that the applicant agreed to reduce the number of parking spaces by 21 spaces by showing proof of parking along the highway. Should parking problems arise in the future,the applicant will be permitted to construct these spaces. A pedestrian trail runs along the south side of the main drive aisle which bisects the site. Staff intends to see this trail extended through the site to the east and eventually connect with the pedestrian bridge,which runs across Highway 5. Chanhassen Commons February 19, 1997 Page 3 Staff regards the project as a reasonable use of the land. Based upon the foregoing, staff is recommending approval of the site plan, without variances, and conditional use permits requests for this proposal. GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE The proposed Famous Dave's restaurant with an area of 5,129 square feet will be situated on the northwest corner of the site while the strip mall with an area of 17,168 square feet, occupies the southern portion of the site. The site is bordered by Highway 5 to the north, Great Plains Boulevard to the west, Total Gas Station, strip mall, and Lake Drive East to the south. Access to the buildings is proposed from Great Plains Boulevard(right in/out only) and full access from Lake Drive East. Parking will be located in the center of the site. A meandering berm with landscaping, 3 to 4 feet in height, is proposed to be installed along the north center portion of the site to provide some screening. The strip mall is located 220 feet from the north, 55.7 feet from the east, 41.5 feet from the south, and 200 feet from the west property line. Famous Dave's restaurant is located 50 feet from the north, 400 feet from the east, 150 feet from the south, and 45 feet from the west property line. Staff had several meetings with the applicants and their architects on this development. The issue that we faced dealt with providing a theme that would tie the development of the strip mall and the restaurant together. Each building has a different architect, with their own style. When we met with the applicants, we explained that a theme must be developed through the use of similar architectural elements, color, or materials. The architects, with the applicant decided to provide a theme through color and materials. Materials used on the strip mall building will consist of stucco and rough face block. Metal facia, awnings, and metal flashing are used as accents on the building. The entry ways into each tenant space has a curved shape. The tenant spaces grow larger from west to east. As each space increases in area, the building is stepped out approximately 10 feet. This will provide some visual interest. The Famous Dave's building is proposed to use face brick, wood, block and a pitched metal roof. The design of this building has gone through some revision since staff first saw it. The building had a frontier style design with colors that were dark. The design has improved considerably; however, we are concerned with the brick portion of the building which houses the kitchen. These are large tall walls. During meetings we had with the applicant, we agreed to use decorative light fixtures on these walls and add some landscaping. This is an improvement, however, additional trees will be required to provide additional screening of these walls and to Chanhassen Commons February 19, 1997 Page 4 distract from their size. At the time of writing this report, we only had a colored rendering to see how the colors flow together. It is proposed to match the color of block on the strip mall which is a dark sand color. The second issue deals with the painted wood. Painted wood tends to peal and could become an eye sore if not maintained properly. Staff recommends the applicant stain the wood instead. (Country Suites Hotel used a stained wood finish. The building is approximately 5 years old and the finish is holding up well). Each building has its own identity and is well designed. They meet the standards of the site plan ordinance requirements. SITE PLAN FINDINGS In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance with the following: (1) Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted; (2) Consistency with this division; (3) Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing or developing areas; (4) Creation of a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development; (5) Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: a. An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community; b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping; c. Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and Chanhassen Commons February 19, 1997 Page 5 d. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. (6) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. Finding: The proposed development is consistent with the City's design requirements, the comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance, and the site plan review requirements. The site design is compatible with the surrounding development. It is functional and harmonious with the approved development for this area. The parking lot along Highway 5 will require additional berming and screening. This development falls within the Highway Corridor Overlay and must comply with the district's design standards in addition to the Industrial Office Park Standards. The purpose of the overlay district is to promote high-quality architectural and site design through improved development standards with the corridor. The design standards should create a unified, harmonious and high quality visual environment. The plan and design of the proposed development meets the intent of the overlay district with the following features: • The buildings will be one story and the architectural style is unique to them but will fit in. The buildings will provide a variation in style through the use of stepped back units within the strip mall with awnings,decorative lights, and curved facia as accents. The restaurant building uses a pitched roof as well as brick, block and stained wood for material and has a design unique to it. The buildings are utilizing exterior materials that are durable and of high quality. The applicant must show the colors proposed to be used on the restaurant building. • The trees on the site are a mixture of significant and insignificant trees in size and quality. Developing the site will result in the loss of these trees. The landscaping plan provides a variety of plant materials that are massed where possible. However, staff has some concerns as to the screening of the parking lot from Highway 5. We believe that the landscaping and berming requires additional work. This item is discussed in detail under the landscaping section of the site. Additional plantings will be required. Chanhassen Commons February 19, 1997 Page 6 • A parking lot light plan is required. The plan should incorporate the light style and height. Staff is also requiring a more detailed sign plan which should include lighting method. • The lay out of the site as proposed, has merit. The strip mall was located to the south of the site because the rear of this structure will face the rear of an existing strip mall. The service lane is screened from views. If the strip mall was shifted to the north, it would have meant that the service doors would face Highway 5. The two free standing buildings are located at the northeast and northwest corners of the site with the parking lot centered between them. This seemed to be the most reasonable layout. However, in return for allowing the parking lot to be placed along Highway 5, the applicant must improve the landscape plan to the point were the parking spaces are screened from views from the Highway. • The site plan shows the trash enclosure located south of the restaurant building and west of the strip mall. The materials match those used on the buildings. Current state statutes require that recycling space be provided for all new buildings. The area of the recycling space must be dedicated at the rate specified in Minnesota State Building Code (MSBC) 1300.4700 Subp. 5. The applicant should demonstrate the required area will be provided in addition to the space required for other solid waste collection space. Recycling space and other solid waste collection space should be contained within the same enclosure. WETLANDS The applicant has indicated on the plan sheet that no wetlands exist on this site. These findings have been reviewed and confirmed by City staff. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP) The City has adopted a Surface Water Management Plan(SWMP)that serves as a tool to protect, preserve and enhance water resources. The plan identifies, from a regional perspective, the stormwater quantity and quality improvements necessary to allow future development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In general,the water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100-year design storm interval for ponding and a 10-year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan uses William Walker, Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at each drainage area based on the projected future land use, and therefore, different sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies. The development will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan. Chanhassen Commons February 19, 1997 Page 7 Storm Water Quality Fees The SWMP has established a water quality connection charge for each new subdivision based on land use. Dedication shall be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of$2.75 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. Although the applicant is not subdividing, the proposed development will increase the impervious surface of this area and result increased runoff rates similar of subdivisions. Because of this, Staff is asking for SWMP fees as part of the conditions of the CUP. The proposed SWMP water quality charge for Commercial developments is $5,909/acre. Based on 5.6 acres of developable land, the water quality fee for the propose development will be$33,090. Storm Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts,open channels and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Industrial developments will have a connection charge of$4,360 per developable acre. The total area of the proposed development is 5.6 acres. Therefore, the applicant would then be responsible for a water quantity connection charge of$24,416. These SWMP fees will be due payable to the City at time of final plat recording. GRADING AND DRAINAGE The site generally sheet drains westerly and northerly. Runoff is conveyed from the site through existing storm sewers along Trunk Highway 5 and Great Plains Boulevard. The southerly portion of the site drains out to Lake Drive East where existing catch basins convey runoff. The proposed grading plan maintains the overall drainage pattern. The plans propose on extending storm sewer throughout the site to convey runoff to the existing storm drainage facilities. On- site ponding for water quality and quantity purposes will not be necessary since the existing storm drainage system will convey site runoff to downstream ponding facilities for treatment. Therefore,the applicant will be responsible to pay SWMP fees to the City according to City ordinances. There is an existing catch basin/manhole on Lake Drive east which falls within the proposed Lake Drive North driveway. If street grades permit, a new catch basin should be extended to the northeast radius of the intersection of Lake Drive East and Lake Drive North to intercept runoff before it reaches the intersection. Since the proposed storm sewer system in the site will be private it will need to be inspected by the City's Building Department. The applicant and/or contractor will be responsible for obtaining the necessary permits. Chanhassen Commons February 19, 1997 Page 8 The entire site is proposed to be graded to develop building sites, parking lots and berms. Grades throughout the site will be relatively uniform; approximately two to four feet lower than Trunk Highway 5. A small berm is proposed adjacent to Trunk Highway 5 to help break up the overall parking lot. Grading on the east side of the site will encroach upon the adjacent parcel up to 70 feet in order to match existing grades. The applicant will need to receive permission and/or a temporary construction easement from the property owner to achieve this. UTILITIES Municipal sanitary sewer and water service is available to the site. The plans propose on extending sanitary sewer and water through the site to service each individual building site. The existing sanitary sewer service for the Legion building is to remain in service as shown on the plans. However, there is also an existing 6 inch water service to the Legion building for which no as-built drawings are available. To maintain consistency, this water service should be abandoned and a new service installed as shown in the plans for the new restaurant building. At the intersection of Lake Drive North and the main east/west drive aisle both water and sanitary sewer service need to be extended to the east property line to serve future development east of this site. Since these utilities will be serving more than one property owner, drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated over the public portion of the utility system. The easement width will depend on the actual depth of the utilities. The utilities to be owned by the City would be those located in the main east/west drive aisle and Lake Drive North. These utilities shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required for staff review and City Council approval. The applicant should also enter into a development contract with the City and provide a financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements. STREETS A traffic study was conducted by BRW, Inc. for the Villages on the Pond development which is just west of this site. The study recommended that the Legion site access onto Great Plains Boulevard be limited to a right-in/right-out due to its close proximity to State Trunk Highway 5 and the additional traffic volumes generated by development in this area. The developer of Villages on the Ponds will be performing traffic safety improvements along Great Plains Boulevard this summer. Due to timing considerations, the southerly extension of the concrete median along Great Plains Boulevard across from the new right-in/right-out access may be required of the Chanhassen Commons development. Currently, a raised concrete median exists along Great Plains Boulevard down to the current driveway access for the Legion site. A painted median extends from the concrete median down to the intersection of Lake Drive and Great Plains Boulevard. The purpose of the median(concrete and painted) is to delineate northbound and southbound traffic and restrict turning movements along Great Plains Boulevard. Under the site plan for Hidden Valley 2nd Addition(site plan for Total Service Station) the right-in/right- out access onto Great Plains Boulevard(old Trunk Highway 101) was approved as an interim Chanhassen Commons February 19, 1997 Page 9 exit/entrance with closure required upon the construction of an access along the north property line at a future date(see Attachment 1 of Engineering Memo). The intent was to share the access with the Legion site when it developed. The plans have been drawn to facilitate the access from Total Service Station to the new development. However, since the Chanhassen Commons project access will be restricted to a right-in/right-out only, it is not necessary to close off the existing right-in/right-out access off of Great Plains Boulevard for the Total Service Station. The connecting access drive between the two developments as shown on the plans could still be constructed to provide continuity for vehicular traffic and pedestrians wishing to utilize services provided by both sites. This drive aisle connection between developments should be the responsibility of both the Total Service Station and Chanhassen Commons. The main east/west drive aisle and Lake Drive North are shown at 26 feet wide. The drive aisle should be increased to 28 feet wide with a minimum turning radius of 30 feet at the intersection to provide access for emergency vehicles. The remaining radii should be a minimum of 15 feet throughout the development. The proposed access onto Lake Drive North south of the main east/west drive aisle should be eliminated as it is too close to the intersection and would create unnecessary traffic turning movements. The drive aisle on the south side of the proposed retail complex should be a minimum of 26 feet wide. Lake Drive North is proposed to be a shared driveway access with the parcel to the east. The driveway is centered upon the property line. Cross-access and maintenance agreements will need to be developed and recorded against the parcel to guarantee future ingress and egress to the property east of this site. To minimize traffic congestion on Great Plains Boulevard during development, construction traffic should be limited to Lake Drive East drive aisle(Lake Drive North). The appropriate traffic control signage will need to be implemented throughout the site in accordance with the Minnesota MUTCD. EROSION CONTROL Type 1 erosion control fence is proposed to be installed and maintained around the northerly portion of the site. Erosion control fence will also be needed along the southerly and westerly property lines and in front of the existing storm sewer inlets. Rock construction entrances to minimize tracking of mud onto public streets shall be employed and maintained at all access points until the site is paved with a bituminous surface. In addition, catch basins shall be protected with hay bales and/or silt fence until the parking lot is paved. Erosion control measures shall be in place and maintained at all times until the site has been fully restored,revegetated, and removal is authorized by the City. PARKING The City's parking ordinance for this development requires a design capacity of one stall for each 60 square foot of gross floor area. The total number required is 85 spaces. The strip mall must Chanhassen Commons February 19, 1997 Page 10 provide 1 parking space for each 200 square feet of gross floor area. Eighty six spaces are required. The future retail building will need 29 spaces to meet ordinance requirements. The total number of spaces for this development is 200 spaces. The applicant is providing 237 spaces with 21 proof of parking spaces for along Highway 5. The parking spaces provided, exceed ordinance requirements. The Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA) has specific requirements for van spaces which currently are not part of the MSBC. These requirements are not enforced by the Inspections Division, but should be incorporated into the site plan. The Preliminary Site Layout Plan indicates 135 parking stalls in the north lot, with the five required accessible spaces shown. The two most northwest accessible spaces are in an area that will likely be used for deliveries. One or more of these spaces should be relocated. LANDSCAPING Landscaping on the east and south sides is satisfactory. The staggered grouping of aspens along the southern wall will help to break up the brick expanse while reducing safety risks associated with shrubbery plantings near entrances. The three large spruce planted in the southeastern corner will also contribute to framing the entrance while diluting the bare brick wall behind them. Plantings on the north and west sides are minimal and act to maximize visibility of the restaurant from Highways 5 and 101. While staff agrees with the developer's need for prominence on the corner, landscape plantings should be added to increase aesthetics of the site and to screen the delivery and trash areas. Chanhassen Commons Proposed landscaping plan will meet city ordinance requirements for parking lot landscaping after one additional island is added to the larger parking lot on the north side of the development. The proposed parking lot contains areas that are larger than 6,000 sq. ft. without a landscaped island or peninsula. This the maximum amount of parking area allowed without a landscaped island or peninsula. Concerns with the proposed plan include the need for increased screening of parking lots and buildings along Highway 5 and Great Plains Boulevard, potential tree/sidewalk conflicts, and preservation of existing trees. Proposed screening of the parking lot includes a four foot berm on top of which will be planted only three ornamental trees and a few shrubs. The rest of the landscaping will be at the same elevation as the parking lot and Highway 5. Staff does not feel that screening needs have been adequately met. The applicant will need to add more berming, evergreens and other landscaping features to reduce visibility of the parking lots. On the same issue, minimal landscaping has been provided in the northwest corner of the development. This area, too, will need more landscaping materials. Chanhassen Commons February 19, 1997 Page 11 Along the sidewalk that traverses the development are a number of proposed overstory boulevard trees. Staff likes the look and feel of the boulevard trees along the interior road, however, there is concern that the space provided for the trees is minimal at best. According to landscaping plans there appears to be approximately only three feet of unpaved surface into which the trees will be planted. Overstory trees will have a difficult time maturing in such confined spaces, and if they do mature, tree/sidewalk conflicts are almost assured. Staff requests the applicant increase the amount of unpaved surface around the trees and use wood mulch as a cover instead of sod or rocks which will compete heavily for nutrients and water or increase soil temperature and compaction, respectively. Currently existing at the southwest corner of the site are a number of significant oak trees. They range in size from 22 to 40 inches in diameter. Staff recommends that the developer explore all options in an attempt to preserve any of the existing oaks by shifting roadways and/parking areas. The oaks are in good condition and extremely valuable. Preserving them would enhance the development by providing an attractive and interesting focal point at the entrance. LIGHTING Lighting locations have been illustrated on the plans. Only shielded fixtures are allowed and the applicant shall demonstrate that there is no more than %2 foot candles of light at the property line as required by ordinance. A detailed lighting plan should be submitted when building permits are requested. Staff recommends decorative lights not exceed 15 feet in height be used. SIGNAGE In the BN - Neighborhood District the following signs are permitted: • Ground low profile business sign defined as "A business sign affixed directly to the ground, with the sign display area standing not greater than two (2)feet above the ground. " The area of the sign may not exceed 24 square feet and 5 feet in height. The sign must maintain a 10 foot setback from property lines. • Wall mounted sign defined as: "A sign attached to or erected against the wall of a building or structure with the exposed face of the sign in a plane approximately parallel to the face of the wall, and which does not project more than twelve (12) inches from such building or structure. Wall signs shall not include product advertising. Wall sings shall include tenant identif cation, tenant logo, center name, or any combination of the three. " Only 1 wall mounted sign is permitted on the street frontage for each building occupant. Chanhassen Commons February 19, 1997 Page 12 STRIP MAt.i.1 ThP annlicant has not suhmittecl a cntnnlete simnage nlanmainly hecausP not Printed on 01/07/97 at 09: 25 Prodigy (R) Mail Page: 01 From: BevRicker Subject: Country clean bldg Date: 01/05 04 : 08 PM ET iC Return-Path: BevRicker@aol. com Received: from emoutl9.mail.aol.com (emoutl9.mx.aol.com [198 . 81 . 11. 45] ) by pimaialw.prodigy.com (8. 6. 10/8 . 6. 9) with ESMTP id QAA10896 for <scottassoc@prodigy.com>; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 16: 07 : 29 -0500 From: BevRicker@aol.com Received: by emoutl9.mail.aol. com (8 . 6. 12/8 . 6. 12) id QAA27201 for scottassoc@prodigy.com; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 16: 07 : 18 -0500 Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 16: 07 : 18 -0500 Message-ID: <970105160718_1043817793@emoutl9.mail.aol .com> To: scottassoc@erodigy.com �Subject: —ubj ect: Country clean bldq 'We have long thought of the building at Chanview and Great Plains as one of the worst eyesores in Chanhassen. I am glad someone wants to take a neighborly and responsible approach and clean it up. I can't imagine why the city would block such an effort . If you need support, we would lend it. Bev Ricker M. D. Martin Ricker Natalie Ricker Chanhassen Commons February 19, 1997 Page 13 8. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be permitted on the sign. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the signs on site. A detailed sign plan incorporating the method of lighting, acceptable to staff should be provided prior to requesting a building permit. COMPLIANCE TABLE -BN DISTRICT Ordinance Chanhassen Famous Dave's Building "B" Commons BBQ Shack (7,616 s.f.) (17,168 s.f.) (5,129 s.f.) Total Lot Area 15,000 s.f. 243,210 s.f. - - Lot Frontage 75' 546' - - Lot Depth 150' 259' - - Lot Coverage 65 % 62 % - - Parking Setback N - 35' S - 0' N - 35' S -N/A N - 35' S - N/A N - 35' S - N/A E - 25' W - 25' E - 42' W - 104' E -N/A W - 35' E - N/A W - 35' Total Parking 200 237+ 21 proof of - - Stalls parking stalls Building Height 1 story 1 story 1 story 1 story Building Setback N - 35' S - 30' N - 55' S - 42' N - 35' S -N/A N - 55' S - N/A E - 15' W - 15' E - 15' W - 35' E -N/A W - 35' E -N/A W - 35` CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Restaurants with a liquor license are permitted in the BN District as a conditional use. Also, the placement of multiple buildings on a single site require a conditional use. The following constitutes staffs review of this proposal against conditional use permit standards. GENERAL ISSUANCE STANDARDS 1. Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or city. FINDING - The site is zoned BN which means it is located close to a residential neighborhood. The only concern is the location of an establishment that serves alcohol next to residential neighborhoods. However, the site is Chanhassen Commons February 19, 1997 Page 14 located in the farthest possible corner from the residential neighborhood, located south of the proposed development. There is a proposed strip mall, an existing strip mall and Lake Drive East that separate the restaurant from the neighborhood. This is a very reasonable distance and the restaurant should have no impact on the neighborhood. The applicant must apply for a liquor license which will appear before the City Council as a public hearing item. The restaurant will serve beer and wine only. The proposed use will not create any significant or unexpected impacts from this use. We must also point out that it will replace an establishment that has a full liquor license. 2. Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter. FINDING - The proposed use would be consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan. It also meets the standards described in the site plan/architecture section. 3. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. FINDING - The site is located adjacent to a highway, and is in a commercial district. A restaurant is fully consistent with this site. 4. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. FINDING - A restaurant with a liquor license could be perceived to be disturbing to existing and planned neighboring uses. There is the possibility of increased traffic and activity on the site due to the restaurant's later hours. However, as noted above, the potential for such disturbances will be minimized by the location of the restaurant. 5. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. FINDING - Full city services are available to be extended to this site. Roads serving the site, which will include Great Plains Boulevard and Lake Drive East, are fully capable of handling the access needs of this proposal. Chanhassen Commons February 19, 1997 Page 15 6. Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. FINDING - Staff is not aware of any excessive requirements for public facilities and services generated by the restaurant. 7. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash. FINDING - This site will not create adverse impacts to persons, property or the general welfare of the area. Hours of operation, orientation of the building, and lighting standards will comply with city ordinances. 8. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. FINDING - The site is visible from a major highway and is accessible from Great Plains Boulevard and Lake Drive East. One issue that remains is the right in/out only via Great Plains Boulevard. If this access point was left as proposed by the applicant, then there could be some direct traffic impacts to the area residential neighborhood. Staff is recommending it be limited to right in/out only. 9. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. FINDING - The development of this site will result in the loss of some mature trees. We investigated the potential of saving some of these trees, however, due to relocation of access point to Great Plains Boulevard, this will not be possible. The applicant will be required to replace these trees. We are recommending the applicant work with staff to explore alternatives in site design to preserve existing oaks. 10. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area. FINDING - The site plan is well designed. Conditions have been attached to the site plan application to ensure the site design is improved farther. 11. Will not depreciate surrounding property values. Chanhassen Commons February 19, 1997 Page 16 FINDING - The site is being used for a restaurant operation which is consistent with its designation. It will not depreciate surrounding property values. 12. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article. FINDING - The following is our review of conditions of approval and appropriate findings: a. Standard restaurants shall not be permitted within one hundred (100) feet of any residential parcel FINDING - The proposed restaurant does meet the one specific standard for a conditional use permit for a standard restaurant in the Neighborhood Business District. Based upon the foregoing findings, staff is recommending that the conditional use permit for a restaurant with a liquor license be approved with appropriate conditions. As to locating multiple buildings on a single lot, staff believes the advantages include compatible design, shared parking, and compatible signage. We are recommending it be approved. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: I. SITE PLAN REVIEW "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review#97-1, for a strip mall and a restaurant as shown on the site plan received January 21, 1997, subject to the following conditions: 1. The materials used to screen the trash enclosure shall be the same type of brick used on the building. 2. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site. Provide a detailed sign plan for review and approval. The signage shall meet the following criteria: a. All businesses shall share one monument sign rather than the non-permitted pylon sign. Monument signage shall be subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance. b. Wall signs are permitted on no more that 2 street frontages. The total of each wall mounted sign display areas shall not exceed 40 sq. ft. Chanhassen Commons February 19, 1997 Page 17 c. All signs require a separate permit. d. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and add an architectural accent to the building. e. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights. f. Back-lit individual letter signs are permitted. g. Individual letters may not exceed 2 feet in height. h. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be permitted on the sign. I. A detailed sign plan incorporating the method of lighting,acceptable to staff should be provided prior to requesting a building permit. 3. All roof top equipment shall be screened from views. 4. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping. 5. Fire Marshal conditions: a. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs,bushes,NSP,US West, Cable TV, and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1. b. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy 29-1992 regarding premise identification(copy enclosed). c. When fire protection, including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for water protection, is required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. Pursuant to 1991 Uniform Fire Code Sec. 10.502. d. No burning permits for trees removed will be issued. Any downed trees will have to be chipped on site or hauled off site. Chanhassen Commons February 19, 1997 Page 18 e. Add an additional hydrant to the extreme southeast corner of the proposed strip mall. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. f. The main"east-west" thoroughfare shall be given a street name. Submit proposed street name to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. g. Submit radius turn designs to City Engineer and Fire Marshal for review and approval. Currently, from north bound"Lake Drive North," west on the new east- west thoroughfare, the radius turn does accommodate the turning of fire apparatus equipment. We will be reviewing submitted radius turn designs for fire code compliance. 6. The applicant shall provide details on material colors used on the restaurant building for review and approval. 7. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted. 8. Building Official's conditions: a. Relocate one or more of the most northwesterly accessible parking spaces to provide a minimum 14 foot width for deliveries. b. The developers and designers shall meet with the Building Official as early as possible to discuss commercial building permit requirements. 9. Any islands or peninsulas with trees that are less than 10 feet wide will require aeration tubes to be installed. 10. Screening along Highways 5 and 101 will be increased through the use of berms, evergreens, and/or other landscaping materials. 11. The delivery and trash area of Famous Dave's will require increased screening. 12. The applicant shall work with staff to explore alternatives in site design to preserve existing oaks. 13. Unpaved surface area around boulevard trees shall be increased. Wood mulch shall be used as cover instead of sod or rocks. Chanhassen Commons February 19, 1997 Page 19 14. The applicant and/or contractor shall notify the City upon encountering any existing drain tile on the site. The City will determine whether or not the drain tile can be abandoned or relocated. 15. All construction vehicles shall access the site from Lake Drive North and not Great Plains Boulevard. Rock construction entrances shall be installed and maintained until the site is paved with a bituminous surface. Haul routes, if necessary, shall be pre-approved by the City. The applicant will be required to maintain haul routes and clean the streets of any dirt and mud accumulated from vehicles tracking. Any damage to City streets, curbs or other public facilities will be the responsibility of the applicant. 16. Type 1 erosion control fence shall also be installed around the westerly and southerly construction limits. Existing and proposed storm sewer inlets shall be protected with hay bales and/or silt fence until the parking lots are paved and removal is authorized by the City. 17. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve prior to final plat approval. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post developed stormwater calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins,created basins,and or creeks. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. 18. The proposed Commercial development of 5.60 net developable acres is responsible for a water quality connection charge of$33,090 and a water quantity fee of$24,416. These fees are payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. 19. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County,Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission,Health Department,Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources,Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. 20. The existing catch basin/manhole on Lake Drive east falls within the proposed Lake Drive North driveway. If street grades permit,a new catch basin should be extended to the northeast radius of the intersection of Lake Drive East and Lake Drive North to intercept runoff before it reaches the intersection. Chanhassen Commons February 19, 1997 Page 20 21. Grading on the east side of the site will encroach upon the adjacent parcel up to 70 feet in order to match existing grades. The applicant will need to receive permission and/or a temporary construction easement from the property owner to achieve this. 22. The existing 6-inch water service to the Legion building should be abandoned and a new service installed as shown in the plans for the new restaurant building. 23. At the intersection of Lake Drive North and the main east/west drive aisle both water and sanitary sewer service need to be extended to the east property line to serve future development east of this site. Since these utilities will be serving more than one property owner, drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated over the public portion of the utility system. 24. The utilities to be owned by the City shall be designed and constructed in, accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required for staff review and City Council approval. The applicant should also enter into a development contract with the City and provide a financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements. 25. The applicant shall obtain and receive the necessary permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies such as MnDOT, the Chanhassen Building Department, MWCC, PCA and MN Department of Health. 26. Access onto Great Plains Boulevard shall be restricted to a right-in/right-out only. The developer may be responsible for extending the concrete median along Great Plains Boulevard to their south property line. The connecting access drive between the two developments as shown on the plans should be constructed to the south property line of the site. 27. The main east/west and Lake Drive North drive aisles shall be paved with a bituminous surface a minimum of 28 feet wide. The remaining two way drive aisles should be 26 feet wide and the one way drive aisle should be 20 feet wide. Radii shall be a minimum of 15 feet with the exception of the main intersections which shall have radii of 30 feet. The drive aisles and parking areas shall be constructed to a 7 ton design. The proposed access onto Lake Drive North south of the main east/west drive aisle should be eliminated as it is too close to the intersection and would create unnecessary traffic turning movements. 28. Lake Drive North is proposed to be a shared driveway access with the parcel to the east. Cross-access and maintenance agreements will need to be developed and recorded against the parcel to guarantee future ingress and egress to the property east of this site and also Chanhassen Commons February 19, 1997 Page 21 for the property to the south (Total Station) should the access connecting the two properties be constructed. 29. The appropriate traffic control signage will need to be implemented throughout the site in accordance with the Minnesota MUTCD. 30. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. The City boulevard areas which are disturbed along Lake Drive East and Great Plains Boulevard shall be restored with sod." III. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit #97-2 to locate three buildings on a single lot and a restaurant with a liquor license in a BN District subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with conditions of site plan and plat approval. 2. Obtain a liquor license from the City." ATTACHMENTS 1. Memo from Anita Benson and Phillip Elkin dated February 7, 1997 2. Memo from Mark Littfin dated January 31, 1997 3. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated February 11, 1997 4. Application 5. Notice of Public Hearing 6. Project Narrative 7. Site Plan dated January 21, 1997 CITY OF CHANHASSENto. iogir . ._ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II FROM: Phillip Elkin, Water Resources Coordinator fr Anita Benson, Project Engineer :' • DATE: February 7, 1997 SUBJ: Review of Site Plan for Shopping Center and Restaurant State Trunk Highway 5 and Great Plains Boulevard Chanhassen Commons, Oppidan Investment Company Site Plan No. 97-1, Land Use Review File No. 97-2 Upon review of the site plan documents prepared by HKS Associates, Inc. dated January 17, 1997, we offer the following comments and recommendations: WETLANDS The applicant has indicated on the plan sheet that no wetlands exist on this site. These findings have been reviewed and confirmed by City staff. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP) The City has adopted a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP)that serves as a tool to protect, preserve and enhance water resources. The plan identifies,from a regional perspective, the stormwater quantity and quality improvements necessary to allow future development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In general,the water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100- year design storm interval for ponding and a 10-year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan uses William Walker,Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at each drainage area based on the projected future land use, and therefore,different sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies. The development will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan. Sharmin Al-Jaff Chanhassen Commons February 7, 1997 Page 2 Storm Water Ouality Fees The SWMP has established a water quality connection charge for each new subdivision based on land use. Dedication shall be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of$2.75 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. Although the applicant is not subdividing,the proposed development will increase the impervious surface of this area and result increased runoff rates similar of subdivisions. Because of this, Staff is asking for SWMP fees as part of the conditions of the CUP. The proposed SWMP water quality charge for Commercial developments is$5,909/acre. Based on 5.6 acres of developable land, the water quality fee for the propose development will be$33,090. Storm Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average city- wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition,proposed SWMP culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Industrial developments will have a connection charge of$4,360 per developable acre. The total area of the proposed development is 5.6 acres. Therefore,the applicant would then be responsible for a water quantity connection charge of$24,416. These SWMP fees will be due payable to the City at time of final plat recording. GRADING AND DRAINAGE The site generally sheet drains westerly and northerly. Runoff is conveyed from the site through existing storm sewers along Trunk Highway 5 and Great Plains Boulevard. The southerly portion of the site drains out to Lake Drive East where existing catch basins convey runoff. The proposed grading plan maintains the overall drainage pattern. The plans propose on extending storm sewer throughout the site to convey runoff to the existing storm drainage facilities. On- site ponding for water quality and quantity purposes will not be necessary since the existing storm drainage system will convey site runoff to downstream ponding facilities for treatment. Therefore, the applicant will be responsible to pay SWMP fees to the City according to City ordinances. There is an existing catch basin/manhole on Lake Drive east which falls within the proposed Lake Drive North driveway. If street grades permit, a new catch basin should be extended to the northeast radius of the intersection of Lake Drive East and Lake Drive North to intercept runoff before it reaches the intersection. Since the proposed storm sewer system in the Sharmin Al-Jaff Chanhassen Commons February 7, 1997 Page 3 site will be private it will need to be inspected by the City's Building Department. The applicant and/or contractor will be responsible for obtaining the necessary permits. The entire site is proposed to be graded to develop building sites, parking lots and berms. Grades throughout the site will be relatively uniform; approximately two to four feet lower than Trunk Highway 5. A small berm is proposed adjacent to Trunk Highway 5 to help break up the overall parking lot. Grading on the east side of the site will encroach upon the adjacent parcel up to 70 feet in order to match existing grades. The applicant will need to receive permission and/or a temporary construction easement from the property owner to achieve this. UTILITIES Municipal sanitary sewer and water service is available to the site. The plans propose on extending sanitary sewer and water through the site to service each individual building site. The existing sanitary sewer service for the Legion building is to remain in service as shown on the plans. However,there is also an existing 6 inch water service to the Legion building for which no as-built drawings are available. To maintain consistency, this water service should be abandoned and a new service installed as shown in the plans for the new restaurant building. At the intersection of Lake Drive North and the main east/west drive aisle both water and sanitary sewer service need to be extended to the east property line to serve future development east of this site. Since these utilities will be serving more than one property owner, drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated over the public portion of the utility system. The easement width will depend on the actual depth of the utilities. The utilities to be owned by the City would be those located in the main east/west drive aisle and Lake Drive North. These utilities shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required for staff review and City Council approval. The applicant should also enter into a development contract with the City and provide a financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements. STREETS A traffic study was conducted by BRW, Inc. for the Villages on the Pond development which is just west of this site. The study recommended that the Legion site access onto Great Plains Boulevard be limited to a right-in/right-out due to its close proximity to State Trunk Highway 5 and the additional traffic volumes generated by development in this area. The developer of Villages on the Ponds will be performing traffic safety improvements along Great Plains Boulevard this summer. Due to timing considerations, the southerly extension of the concrete median along Great Plains Boulevard across from the new right-in/right-out access may be required of the Chanhassen Commons development. Currently a raised concrete median exists Sharmin Al-Jaff Chanhassen Commons February 7, 1997 Page 4 along Great Plains Boulevard down to the current driveway access for the Legion site. A painted median extends from the concrete median down to the intersection of Lake Drive and Great Plains Boulevard. The purpose of the median (concrete and painted) is to delineate northbound and southbound traffic and restrict turning movements along Great Plains Boulevard. Under the site plan for Hidden Valley 2nd Addition (site plan for Total Service Station) the right-in/right-out access onto Great Plains Boulevard (old Trunk Highway 101) was approved as an interim exit/entrance with closure required upon the construction of an access along the north property line at a future date (see Attachment 1). The intent was to share the access with the Legion site when it developed. The plans have been drawn to facilitate the access from Total Service Station to the new development. However, since the Chanhassen Commons project access will be restricted to a right-in/right-out only,it is not necessary to close off the existing right-in/right-out access off of Great Plains Boulevard for the Total Service Station. The connecting access drive between the two developments as shown on the plans could still be constructed to provide continuity for vehicular traffic and pedestrians wishing to utilize services provided by both sites. This drive aisle connection between developments should be the responsibility of both the Total Service Station and Chanhassen Commons. The main east/west drive aisle and Lake Drive North are shown at 26 feet wide. The drive aisle should be increased to 28 feet wide with a minimum turning radius of 30 feet at the intersection to provide access for emergency vehicles. The remaining radii should be a minimum of 15 feet throughout the development. The proposed access onto Lake Drive North south of the main east/west drive aisle should be eliminated as it is too close to the intersection and would create unnecessary traffic turning movements. The drive aisle on the south side of the proposed retail complex should be a minimum of 26 feet wide. Lake Drive North is proposed to be a shared driveway access with the parcel to the east. The driveway is centered upon the property line. Cross-access and maintenance agreements will need to be developed and recorded against the parcel to guarantee future ingress and egress to the property east of this site. To minimize traffic congestion on Great Plains Boulevard during development, construction traffic should be limited to Lake Drive East drive aisle (Lake Drive North). The appropriate traffic control signage will need to be implemented throughout the site in accordance with the Minnesota MUTCD. EROSION CONTROL Type 1 erosion control fence is proposed to be installed and maintained around the northerly portion of the site. Erosion control fence will also be needed along the southerly and westerly property lines and in front of the existing storm sewer inlets. Rock construction entrances to minimize tracking of mud onto public streets shall be employed and maintained at all access points Sharmin Al-Jaff Chanhassen Commons February 7, 1997 Page 5 until the site is paved with a bituminous surface. In addition,catch basins shall be protected with hay bales and/or silt fence until the parking lot is paved. Erosion control measures shall be in place and maintained at all times until the site has been fully restored,revegetated, and removal is authorized by the City. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The applicant and/or contractor shall notify the City upon encountering any existing drain tile on the site. The City will determine whether or not the drain tile can be abandoned or relocated. 2. All construction vehicles shall access the site from Lake Drive North and not Great Plains Boulevard. Rock construction entrances shall be installed and maintained until the site is paved with a bituminous surface. Haul routes,if necessary, shall be pre-approved by the City. The applicant will be required to maintain haul routes and clean the streets of any dirt and mud accumulated from vehicles tracking. Any damage to City streets, curbs or other public facilities will be the responsibility of the applicant. 3. Type 1 erosion control fence shall also be installed around the westerly and southerly construction limits. Existing and proposed storm sewer inlets shall be protected with hay bales and/or silt fence until the parking lots are paved and removal is authorized by the City. 4. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve prior to final plat approval. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post developed stormwater calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins,created basins,and or creeks. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segrrent will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. 5. The proposed Commercial development of 5.60 net developable acres is responsible for a water quality connection charge of$33,090 and a water quantity fee of$24,416. These fees are payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. 6. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County,Watershed District,Metropolitan Waste Control Commission,Health Department,Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,Minnesota Department of Natural Sharmin Al-Jaff Chanhassen Commons February 7, 1997 Page 6 Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. 7. The existing catch basin/manhole on Lake Drive east falls within the proposed Lake Drive North driveway. If street grades permit, a new catch basin should be extended to the northeast radius of the intersection of Lake Drive East and Lake Drive North to intercept runoff before it reaches the intersection. 8. Grading on the east side of the site will encroach upon the adjacent parcel up to 70 feet in order to match existing grades. The applicant will need to receive permission and/or a temporary construction easement from the property owner to achieve this. 9. The existing 6-inch water service to the Legion building should be abandoned and a new service installed as shown in the plans for the new restaurant building. 10. At the intersection of Lake Drive North and the main east/west drive aisle both water and sanitary sewer service need to be extended to the east property line to serve future development east of this site. Since these utilities will be serving more than one property owner, drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated over the public portion of the utility system. 11. The utilities to be owned by the City shall be designed and constructed in, accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required for staff review and City Council approval. The applicant should also enter into a development contract with the City and provide a financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements. 12. The applicant shall obtain and receive the necessary permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies such as MnDOT,the Chanhassen Building Department, MWCC, PCA and MN Department of Health. 13. Access onto Great Plains Boulevard shall be restricted to a right-in/right-out only. The developer may be responsible for extending the concrete median along Great Plains Boulevard to their south property line. The connecting access drive between the two developments as shown on the plans should be constructed to the south property line of the site. 14. The main east/west and Lake Drive North drive aisles shall be paved with a bituminous surface a minimum of 28 feet wide. The remaining two way drive aisles should be 26 feet Sharmin Al-Jaff Chanhassen Commons February 7, 1997 Page 7 wide and the one way drive aisle should be 20 feet wide. Radii shall be a minimum of 15 feet with the exception of the main intersections which shall have radii of 30 feet. The drive aisles and parking areas shall be constructed to a 7 ton design. The proposed access onto Lake Drive North south of the main east/west drive aisle should be eliminated as it is too close to the intersection and would create unnecessary traffic turning movements. 15. Lake Drive North is proposed to be a shared driveway access with the parcel to the east. Cross-access and maintenance agreements will need to be developed and recorded against the parcel to guarantee future ingress and egress to the property east of this site and also for the property to the south (Total Station) should the access connecting the two properties be constructed. 16. The appropriate traffic control signage will need to be implemented throughout the site in accordance with the Minnesota MUTCD. 17. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the CitYs Best Management Practice Handbook. The City boulevard areas which are disturbed along Lake Drive East and Great Plains Boulevard shall be restored with sod. Attachment: 1. City Council meeting minutes dated June 2, 1986. c: Charles Folch, Director of Public Works Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer g:'eng'an ita\pc'chancom.doc • CITY of 1/rcz CHANHASSEN H141:0111‘4.-- 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 September 19, 1994 Tom Lander Mortenson Corporation P.O. Box 710 Minneapolis, MN 55440 Dear Mr. Lander: I Pursuant to our conservation last week, I reviewed the site plan and conditional use permit for the "Blue Circle Association" or Hidden Valley 2nd Addition. r 4, One of the conditions of approval of this development was that the access to the commercial center from Highway 101 be eliminated when the American Legion site develops (see attached minutes dated June 2, 1986). The access to the existing commercial center will then be from Highway 101 just to the north, off the access io the Legion property. The possibility of the Mortenson property gaining access from the Legion property, via this access from Highway 101, is dependent upon the type of development that occurs on the properties. Staff would recommend access between the Legion site and the Mortenson property if both parcels were developed with similar or compatible type uses. If you have any questions regarding this 'matter, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, 4'tf'• 7)C-k/i4/1,-0CrYl Kathryn R. Aanenson, AICP Planning Director KRA:k Attachment: City Council Minutes dated June 2, 1986 ■ Z 'Nw c r.: 44;rNr.4; '1 . . lsvw �1. sltv�'-1 1 to I .1.."..t.4bi‘-{ at►1 w4 --- /- ja- =-•-=' 'a1ltPra&, 6;n.,dioVS sn►-343 .*Q'-1 I ..=(No b- all 11' " 1 ' k•t......I t ri A -- 1 1 I . e 6, _ ._-,, z , . :. _,..„ E rg 2 : 5. I. A- ..-A •`- W o -' :°E� 2 aV ,� = W *2 z -St: ✓ \ ; \ - o > -. £7..$.g • �al i _ _D_ (iJ cy , g \\ \. ,\ n V [r W . E. li cW 2 ( a5 . i \ .% �_ . - \ \ ' .-1 r--- \ , o \ s \ q -1*-0."21411, t * • % \ v \ \\\ - 2 z _i. _ Jr \\ 4'44'4 e-r ,l t i) •• i . .4-6. {, „, _ _.- \ \ r,' _1 a 0 \ 1 4 7 .127 I IIt; 1 •_. �` 1 Sgt , - j - / it 1, ._—,,----_-____--_-- - s ,_.,..: .. 1; t ,., a 1 . . • iil IL ------- - '.b 4.1. E -16 of ti Z -s .i1. •m 41W4 It'41 i .-.1 . ! . ; ed . \ 1- .5 rS J � 1� 1 N , . 9 4,1 .K1 i v.4 I I (/1 Y.l� I, yo-b—`7-k-'1---'2 S of tbz - t� ` '" F '-- 1 ,cts • 17-in � Q .n -1._.— }1 p \ Wit. 2en • ft z a i , � r ZS' z, 'I . I Li 7f 4b . City Council Meeting - June 2, 1986 nnto retained by whomever's property they happen to be on, but we don't see how the City can place that into a condition form. I am recommending that 5 be made concerning the requirement for an easement for driveway purposes across Lot 4 be executed and granted to Mr. Hughes. Councilwoman Watson: When there are only six lots. I don't see any reason why we have to see just the average lot size and median lot size. I think we could have gotten the six lot sizes. Dacy: The lot sizes are the plat too. Mayor Hamilton: Have any trouble with that condition 5 Tom? Tom Klingelhutz: No, no problem at all. I think it would be foolish to make him move his driveway when the lot is so large anyhow. Dave Hughes: I live on the east side of the property line and I acknowledge the Council is not setting legal property lines. I am appreciative Mr. Monk's willingness to enter that easement and Mr. Klingelhutz's willingness to go along with it for my driveway and I paid special note to his comment that he wouldn't bulldozed those trees subject to finding just whose trees they are. Councilwoman Swenson moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded to approve the Final Plan Amendment Request #83-1 for platting six single family lots in Outlot D as presented on the plans stamped "Received April 24, 1986" and subject to the following conditions: 1. Creation of a 10 foot landscaped strip along the two lots abutting Lake Lucy Road. 2. Shorten the cul-de-sac ten feet. 3. All construction meet urban design standards for utilities. 4. Site grading be required to route runoff away from the already developed property to the east. • 5. An easement be granted across Lot 4 for driveway- purposes for the adjoining property. All voted in favor and motion carried. Blue. itcl:e,Associaton,._Northeas i"""' , `~s�- t;;Cbiner of Hig�iway,�81enc Lake •Drive• East: — a. Preliminary Plat REquest to Subdivide 1.93 Acres into Two Commercial Lots of 1.35 Acres a g Acres. b. Conditional Use -Permit `••'�` Request for Gesoline=5'ales on Property zoned•��2^."Cixrmerc r1, — 42 • • �...rr _ . ` C3 it =Meeting Ju e 2/ 198,6 • • • c. Site Plan Review for Commercial Uses on 1.35 Acres of Property Zoned C-2, Commercial. Dacy: I will quickly run through this request. The plat request is to divide the parcel into two lots so the free standing build on the eastern portion of the lot can be conveyed to separate ownership. Condition of plat approval that the two lots file across easement access agreement between the two lots so that those lots can only be used as proposed from Lake Drive East. As you recall, the lot was platted in conjunction with the Hidden Valley Estates plan and you will recall that Lake Lucy is going to connect eventually down to Dakota. It was a condition of approval along the south side of Lake Drive East that there be a 6-8 foot berm along this area. This Outlot and the Outlot to the east of the American Legion Property was zoned to C-2 at the time of the Hidden Valley Plat approval. So the applicant's site plan requires two approvals by City Council. One is a Conditional Use Permit for the sale of gasoline. Two is the site plan review for the commercial use itself. Retail uses are permitted uses in the C-2 district so the conditional use only pertains to the sale of gasoline. The site plan for determining the location of the pumps does meet the setback requirements for the C-2 district. Of concern maybe the gas pump signage that is proposed. I think most of you will recall that earlier request of the Holiday station and at the Lincoln Properties has prohibited any type of gas pump can't be signaged. However, if it is considered by Council as recommended that the signage only be located on the north and west side and not the south and east to only promote the ability to sec the signs from that direction and not from the neighborhood. As far as the pumps are concerned, the Fire Marshall was consulted and he is recommending conditions of approval. As far as the site plan is concerned, we have noted 12 conditions that would be made a part of approval. What I would like to do is briefly go through those so we know what Staff is recommending. 1. As far as signage is concerned, there will be one pylon sign on the west side of the site. It is also being recommended that along the south side, along with a basis of signage in and around the profile sign rather • than a pylon sign to give it a different character. 2. Additional landscaping in the northwest corner of the site. However,at this time Staff wants to withdraw that condition because of the issue that is raised with the access from TH 101. What is being proposed is a one-way in or one-way out from TH 101 into the site. MnDot has come back and said that in the future when the American Legion property develops to the north, that this access will be closed and a new access be built along t+ north lot line and that the traffic design of this site be reoriented tc the north to access into the driveway. Thus is condition 12 that the City Engineer added at the time of Planning Commission approval. 3. Is to direct on-site catch basins and not to Lake Drive East. 4. That the access island on Lake Drive East be lengthened 10 feet to the north to assist with traffic channelization. This will alter the turning movements of cars entering the site and also coming out of the site. We 43 / l City Council Meeting - June 2, 1986 propose two lanes as you exit the site for a right hand turn and left hand turn. 5. Requires that lanes in here be clearly striped. 6. That the developer acquire the MnDot permit and comply with all of its conditions. 7. The standard condition requiring all bituminous areas shall be lined with concrete and curbs. 8. That the root-top equipment be screened as shown on the plan dated April 24, 1986. 9. Installation of landscaping. 10. Refers to an installation of a fire hydrant along Lake Drive East. This is to insure proper water supply for fire protection services. 11. One of the parking spaces along the front of the shopping center be at least located to provide for fire lane. Fire lane access and the elimination of one parking space will not affect parking requirements. The Planning Commission recommended approval on the plat, conditional use permit and the site plan approval with the 12 conditions as presented. Pat Hallasee: I guess I have nothing to add other than the fact that we have worked very closely with the Staff in developing our plan and feel the recommendations they have added are very wise and are consistent with good planning and we intend to follow those recommendations. Mayor Hamilton: I think I saw that you are planning on putting in a Q-Superette in there. Pat Hallasee: That is correct. Mayor Hamilton: Don't they generally sell 3.2 beer. Pat Hallasee: 3.2 beer, yes. Mayor Hamilton: Personally I have a problem with that. I would -.- e that a condition that a 3.2 beer license not be allowed at the Q-Super +-e. Pat Hallasee: I think that would be a substantial problem. Councilwoman Watson: Why. Mayor Hamilton: We would just have so many problems, we've had problems with other facilities in the City and I work continually with the Carver County police department and that seems to be a major source of minors purchasing alcoholic beverages is buyingthrough a 67../ g Q-Superette or that type 44 Ar. 7 1 • City Council Meeting - June 2, 1986 of establishment, whether it is a Tom Thumb or whatever types sell it. That is a major problem. We've had those problems in this community before and it is an important problem that we have a hard time dealing with because you can't have someone sitting down there all the time. You often times have 16 year olds working in those type of facility and they are selling to other 16 year olds. Police departments tend not to patrol those type of facilities simply because it is a 3.2 and you can't get drunk on 3.2. Dacy: The only comment I was asking for clarification was, is that the liquor license is not a zoning issue pertaining to this application. Mayor Hamilton: I brought it up because I want the applicant to know that is an issue. A discussion followed on what other facilities such as Holiday, Super American and Kenny's sold 3.2 beer. It was established that Super and Kenny's did. Holiday does not, trying to decide if a America been established with respectprecedent has of facilities, a to issuing of liquor licenses to these type gas station facility with a store attachment. Don Ashworth: Council has great discretion in terms of liquor licenses. You have issued a license to SA and have not issued one, nor have they applied for one, to Holiday. Pat Hallasee: I think it is an issue that's of some fairly major importance though. I'm not going to say it is a real major factor in Q's business, I know it is an important part of their business and I've never really specifically questioned the gentlemen about whether he would go forward on this site or not without it, but I do know they are in competition not only with Holiday but with Kenny's market also and they would certainly be at a competitive disadvantage if they were not allowed to compete on the same basis as Kenny's. Councilman Geving moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded approval of Subdivision Request 86-12 as depicted on the plat stamped "Received April 24, 1986" and subject to an easement across Lot 1 being recorded in conjunction with filing the plat to insure permanent access for Lot 2. All voted in favor and motion carried. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded approval of Conditional Use Permit Request #86-2 for installation of gasoline pumps as dep?:ted on the Site Plan stamped "Received April 24, 1986" subject to the fo_ awing conditions: 1. Gasoline tank storage shall be in compliance with the Uniform Fire Code and a permit must be obtained from the State Fire Marshal. 2. Gas pump canopy signage shall only be located along the north and west facia of the canopy. 3. Approval of site Plan Request #86-1. 45 City Council Meeting - June 2, 1986 Councilwoman Swenson: Is it anticipated that there will be any automobile repair or maintenance on this site? Pat Hallasee: No, it is strictly gas sales, self service gasoline and convenience food. Dacy: The canopy signage would be part of this request. Councilwoman Swenson: I looked diligently through here I thought and I could find no copy of what they wanted to put on this sign. Is there a copy of what the signage on the canopy was going to look like. I know we were very specific with Holiday that they couldn't put anything on this sign... The signage would have to be restricted to the name of the station. Dacy: The nine foot square sign, that is the Q sign, the other one lists prices. Councilwoman Swenson: Oh no. You can't have it up there because if you have it up there. You can put the name of the establishment but no the gas prices. We went through this with Holiday. That is a main corner there. They want rotating pylons. Dacy: No, they understand that it is not to be rotating. That is prohibited by ordinance. Councilman Horn: What is the difference if the prices is on the canopy or on another sign. Councilwoman Swenson: I think it can be pretty "icky" lookinges as you are entering the City. If our whole especially policy is going to change than I think we should establish it before everyone else is going to be wanting signs all over the marquees. Do I understand that the area that is going to be facing TH 5, the north lot line is the rear of the shopping center or are we talking about something else. Dacy: Yes, the north side is the rear. Councilwoman Swenson: The pumps are going to be facing Lake Drive East? Dacy: Yes, at the corner of Lake Drive East and TH 101. Councilwoman Swenson: What provisions are being made for the arch' tectural appearance on the north side of the building. Pat Hallasee: It is all brick. The building will be brick all four sides. Councilwoman Swenson: Where do you intend to have trash containers? Pat Hallasee: We have indicated two positions on the Site Plan. We L understand the trash containers will be screened. We would want to do that tffanyway. 46 '••J 4 Y J City Council Meeting - June 2, 1986 Councilwoman Swenson: Now we are having two signs. on the northeast side and another one on Lake Drve East. e Yes, a sign ordinance provides that you can have one sign for every street�frontageso as a corner lot they are allowed two signs. Councilwoman Watson: What does the pylon say as opposed to what the canopy says? racy: The detail on what the sign say was not submitted. for a sign permit and they have to meet the location ani They will apply requirements as stipulated by the signthe size the location on the site plan so the Council i Saware rthat ithe eels goi going to be a sign on the particular site. Councilwoman Swenson: We approve the signs then. Council approves the signs? Dacy: No, it is processed administratively. Thegas is included in the conditional usagepump r,canopyhsignagee standing pylon signs are administratively permit approved approval however, the free sign ordinance provides. If they meet the standards ofbecthat is whatithe on the free standing signs, they file an application and Staff ordinance the permit. processes Councilwoman Swenson: I noticed in the Planning Commission Minutes, according to you, one of the conditions for a be no gas canopy signage. Copproval was that there was to the one on Lake Dsiven gest in page Thirty One of May 14, 1986 Minutes. Okay profile and the one on TH 5 iseightfeet tall. believe type, the groundI read. I that is what I Dacy: On TH 5. No. Councilman Geving: You are down to number 9. Councilwoman Swenson: On the back here it says going to 6 feet side and 8 feet high on a 12 fot it rotating says it is size as McDonalds. post. Which is the same Dacy: 20 feet is the maximum. The Planning Conditional Use Permit as Commission did approve the The maximum for a commercial sign in the Staff Report. 48 square feet. that requirement. 9n is 80 square feet so they are underneath All voted in favor except Councilwoman Swenson who o + carried. opposedMotio:� Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Geving seconded approval Review Request #86-1,'as depicted on the site plan spedof Site Plar' 24, 1986" and subject to the following "Received April conditions: 1. The free-standing sign along Lake Drive East shall be a ground profile sign. 1 47 City Council Meeting - June 2, 1986 2. All site drainage be directed to on-site catch basins and not to Lake Drive East. 3. The access island on Lake Drive East be lengthened 10 feet to the north to assist with traffic channelization. 4. The exit lines to Lake Drive East be clearly signed and striped to designate proper turning and directional movements. A detailed plan be submitted with the building permit denoting signage and stripage of the access areas. 5. The developer acquire a permit from MnDot for the TH 101 access and adhere to all conditions of said permit including maintaining ditch drainage. 6. All bituminous areas shall be lined with concrete curb, including the islands at both access points. 7. Roof-top depicted onequipmentm a stamped trash enclosures shall be screened as P Received April 24, 1986". 8. Installation of landscaping as depicted on the plan stamped "Received April 24, 1986". 9. An additional fire hydrant will be located on Lake Drive East. this will insure proper water supply and availability for fire aparatus. 10. Fire lane access will be provided in the front of the building. The specific location to be determined after final building plans -- are submitted. _\ 11! The TH 101 access is approved as an interim entrance/exit with tt r ( closures idR, require upon the construction of an access along the sf, north property line at a future date. Such closure shall be �' U:` required only upon the legal right of Lot 1, Hidden Valley 2nd Ti; Addition to use said access. Also, site plan revisions to allow for this access shift shall be approved by the City to insure property vehicular movements; All voted in favor arra motion carried. Dacy: Mr. Mayor I just noticed that on the plat request, the ager.:3 should have read preliminary and final plat. They have submitted both. As a matter of fact, the plat in your packet is a final plat. For the record could you entertain a motion. Mayor Hamilton amended his motion and Councilman Geving seconded to amend the Preliminary Plat Request to subdivide 1.93 Acres into Two Commercial I___ . Lots of 1.35 Acres and .58 Acres to include Preliminary and Final Plat approval. �, I 1 48 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: January 31, 1997 SUBJECT: Request for conditional use permit for multiple buildings on one site and to allow a restaurant in a BN, neighborhood business district; and site plan review for a 24,285 square foot shopping center and a 5,129 square foot restaurant to be located at the southeast corner of the intersection of State Highway 5 and Great Plains Boulevard, Chanhassen Commons, Oppidan Investment Company. Planning Case:97-1 SPR,97-2 CUP. I have reviewed the site plan for the above project. In order to comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division, I have the following fire code or City Ordinance/Policy requirements. The site plan is based on the available information submitted at this time. If additional plans or changes are submitted,the appropriate code or policy items will be addressed. 1. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps,trees, shrubs, bushes,NSP, US West,Cable TV,and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1. 2. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy 29-1992 regarding premise identification(copy enclosed). 3. When fire protection, including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for water protection, is required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. Pursuant to 1991 Uniform Fire Code Sec. 10.502. 4. No burning permits for trees removed will be issued. Any downed trees will have to be chipped on site or hauled off site. 5. Add an additional hydrant to the extreme southeast corner of the proposed strip mall. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. 6. The main"east-west"thoroughfare shall be given a street name. Submit proposed street name to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. Sharmin Al-Jaff January 31, 1997 Page 2 7. Submit radius turn designs to City Engineer and Fire Marshal for review and approval. Currently, from north bound"Lake Drive North",west on the new east-west thoroughfare,the radius turn does accommodate the turning of fire apparatus equipment. We will be reviewing submitted radius turn designs for fire code compliance. ML/be g:lsafety\mllpl revchancommons CITY 4 F CHANHASSEN690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin 1-Jaff,Planner II FROM: Steve A.Kirchman,Building Official ' )<- DATE: February 11, 1997 SUBJECT: 97-1 SPR and 97-2 CUP(Chanhassen Commons,Oppidan Investments Co.) I was asked to review the site plan proposal stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN, RECEIVED, JAN 21 19 9 7 , CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT." for the above referenced project. Analysis: Accessible Parking. The Preliminary Site Layout Plan indicates 135 parking stalls in the north lot,with the five required accessible spaces shown. The two most northwest accessible spaces are in an area that will likely be used for deliveries. One or more of these spaces should be relocated. Recommendation: Add the following to the Conditions of Approval: 1. Relocate one or more of the most northwesterlyaccessible parking spaces to provide a minimum 14 foot width for deliveries. I would like to request that you relay to the developers and designers my desire to meet with them as early as possible to discuss commercial building permit requirements. g:\safety sak\memos\plankhancom 1 DEC-13-1996 16:32 EATON CORP. HYDRAULICS DU 6129377394 P.01 • 11'N , ' CITY OF CHANHASSEN 1r 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN,MN 55317 (612)937.1900 1'EVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION GRA,-.)1-1/41‘566,--) PcrS7'* 9 54t) Poteg9APPLICANT: i L7� itJI��FT'ttt`f- e_Q OWNER: lc.4+-� - o+.� F-eits'�,�*.tt: ADDRESS: �t 2 qv S le ADDRESS: Oi XO M I Jn QerL-I.S.t_PAN S 40 2— C141pw-3 t •sse,.' , rw►a c 3 0 I • : T•ELE=PHONE(Day time) 'BUJ- 3115 TELEPHONE: 9S-1-112.0 ( Bre+ t Gorrrprohetnlve PIBn Amendment ____ Temporary Sates Pena i , _ Conditional Use Permit g J�' A,€, _.__ Vacation of ROW/Easements interim Use Permit Variance • Non-contoz'rriing Use Pereitf _ Wetland Alteration Perrwt Planned Unit Development' Zoning Appeal 1 Rezoning zoning Ordnance Amendment . Sign Permits • Sign Pian Review ....X__, Notification Sign -, Site Plan R-e' ew' .. .. Escrow for Filing FeeslAttomey Co -st``--1 •- - ''`--- ($50 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP/Metes and Bounds,$400 Minor SUB) -- -.-._. 5ldvision' TOTAL F` .E$ 11 51 Q •�. �..`.:. . - '---. _ ._ .' ......_.. ..<.. . A list of alt property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be Included with the applicatlorti Building material samples must be submitter with site plan reviews. 'Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plana must be submitted,including en SW X 11"reduced-pi iir P t 4ti>plY 014r1 iNt •r*%%wpm mit IP ithltitfool ter then t#1►plie*t1 throve'the development eentreeet NOTE-'Wh�Ynuitiple appticatians'are-pi ed,the,appropriate fee shall be charged for each apptication. r i. k tS:ST 9E, ET DEQ E -d ISL-1 ESE-z' NCSd?E=dE Aifled ENt'1 ETLEEcEGIS LDC-13-1996 16 33 EATON CORP. HYDRAULICS DU 6129377394 P.02 • PRWECTNAMI` 61f*•t+•' 3S Mtn at-rr LOCATION !t-4N S M TF fIie__ `-t l lsz 5 FLA 04 t31...1-3 LEGAL DESCRtPT}ON arJ rail S u2--LJ 1 TOTAL ACREAGE 5.5 ._.�. WETLANDS PRESENT YES NO PRESENT ZONNG SP.-I - REQUESTED ZONING ty PRESENT LAND L1SE DESIGNATION C�O^ f�G� -' .-._ REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION caoritN i (A-—- C►� C44-0;-►..Yrs) _ REASON FOR THIS REQUEST =45-v-)-p cry -- uss- P .tr Atm s This application must be Computed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by ail information pnd plarks required.by appticable,City Or!trsance provisions- ,Before filing this application,you should,confer with the Planning D9partmentlp'datermlrkrttie specific briiiiiinEeendtkitadurainiouiremeras ap¢(ldabte to your application. • T -'7�det ertess otthe-.ippflcatiOrt thall -Made within ten-butt ess days of applicaton-subrnInat:A-writren - notice of appitcation deficiencies shall be mailed to the appicent within ten business days of application. This is to certify fljat I am making application los the descr t1ed action by the Cay and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements'With regard to this teguest This application should be processed in my name and I am The pat'ty_.w,how the City should contact regarding any mailer pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owners Iiiplicate C�hes of 'rifle, signed(Abstrad of opp kilo purchase agreement),or I am the authorized person to.rnake this application and the fee 1 will keep myself Informed of the del renes for subrn ion of material and the progress of this application. I further understand fhkat-additional fess may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior_.to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an somatic 60 day extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless aoaf review extensions are approved by the applicant. . ..1 _ S . •,Er of Applicant Date w . ' ap.11 '- X530 •I,- 'can f.-•ion Housing Corpora �..._...- - . A�.. I► ,i4._ a ! ., : of Fee 6 _ - George Eeniek, Its .President Date lfeaiJen Keestreee+rt� __. ._: iaee Pab .=.�._ .H,.....- .a I�ieeelat Ne, The 'tit should Cor1teet;stiff tar a copy of the staff report which will be eveltabbe CC Friday prior lathe moerNn4;n It ,10 ,a colliptUtappogtetifbelaatiadic the pppllcant's address( i; • • • . -r • ~ ( - • *ft _• .-b1Se 55:57 96. £T Cal €22-d TSL-I me-4 NC S .S' 1.Td L-TLP_EZE2T5 -- im IL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING T� iris l IL ® 1.1111 '® ..■.ailC� PLANNING COMMISSION H I I IBM 3 Wednesday, February 19, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers ' ' 690 Coulter Drive k �d • ,�� , ,,,` � . at LL iilkOr 3 '`6 g SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit and � r Site Plan Review of �� i Chanhassen Commons _,�•'� ,�. �� -lei`` ff and Famous Dave's BBQ :'t�� &Om i )caner MICHAEL J SORENSEN ESTATE OF MARTIN J WARD CIO JEROME )wnadr RT 2 BOX 187K RAIDT PERS REP )wncty, Location BELLE PLAINE, MN 56011 9305 6950 FRANCE AVE S-STE 113 EDINA, MN 55435 2402 JAMES S&SHELLY A BABUSEK 280 HIDDEN LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 9616 WARREN 0& COLLEEN M WATSON 300 HIDDEN LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MORTENSON DEVELOPMENT CO CORY S& BRENDA J PLOEN 700 MEADOW LN N 310 HIDDEN LN MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55422 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 9618 HOLIDAY STATION STORES INC CHANHASSEN NH PARTNERSHIP 900 2ND AVE S 1100 INTERNATIONAL 4567 80TH ST W CENTRE BLOOMINGTON, MN 55437 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 THADDEUS E KORZENOWSKI 0/0 STATE BLUE CIRCLE INVESTMENT CO BANK OF Y A 6125 BLUE CIRCLE DR 800 FAXON RD MINNETONKA, MN 55343 YOUNG AMERICA, MN 55397 ;HANHASSEN HRA CHANHASSEN INN TODD D MICHELS 90 COULTER DR PO BOX 147 531 79TH ST W 320 HIDDEN LN ;HANHASSEN, MN 55317 0147 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 9618 AMERICAN LEGION - CHANHASSEN POST 580 CHRISTOPHER&JEAN POLSTER PO BOX 264 8020 HIDDEN CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 0264 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (ALVOLINE INSTANT OIL CHANGE DAVID A LYONS &JULIE TENHOFF-LYONS X01 MAIN ST E SUITE 1200 330 HIDDEN LN .EXINGTON, KY 40507 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 acr,',oa i'�►citetie. 'AMY OF CHRIST LUTH CHRUCH TACE R& CARMEN M WIECZOREK STEVEN L& DEBRA J KIND !75 EAST LAKE DR PO BOX 388 250 HIDDEN LN 261 HIDDEN LN HANHASSEN. MN 55317 0388 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 9617 JAMES P ADANK NANCY L HELLAND MARTIN J &TIMAREE FAJDETICH 350 HIDDEN LN 8091 HIDDEN CIR 8100 MARSH DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 BRIAN D &JEAN M STECKLING JON STECKMAN & LAURIE M PIEPER RANDY G & KIMBRA J GREEN 8040 HIDDEN CT 8080 HIDDEN CT 8103 MARSH DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JIMMIE D & MARIETTA M REID ROBERT J & LOIS A SAVARD 271 HIDDEN LN 8080 MARSH DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 9624 JAMES A & CAROL A UDSTUEN THOMAS M PERRIER 360 HIDDEN LN 311 HIDDEN LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 9618 CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 BARRY S& LISA L THOMPSON MICHAEL C& MARGARET BUCHNER 8000 HIDDEN CIR 8081 HIDDEN CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 PETER A KNOLL& MARY Z SHANNON N MCCLARD & SHERRIE R STAUDOHAR-KNOLL PETERSON 370 HIDDEN LN 8030 HIDDEN CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 9620 MICHAEL H & RHONDA W COLLINS ANDREW G &JEANNINE R CONE 8060 HIDDEN CT 321 HIDDEN LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 9622 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 9619 MICHAEL& MIRIAM CREWS BRIAN E SEMKE & DEBORAH C DUETSCH 8020 HIDDEN LN 331 HIDDEN LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 BISRAT& DENISE ALEMAYEHU JAYS ANDERS 380 HIDDEN LN 8090 MARSH DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 9618 CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 ANTHONY& MARY PAVLOVICH ULRICO& LAURIE SACCHET 8010 HIDDEN CIR 8071 HIDDEN CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 9620 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 i • A c1TY of ---- PC DATE: 2/19/97 CHANHASSEN N ! CC DATE: 3/10/97 CASE #: 97-1 CUP B : Generous:v EP STAFF REPORT 4 PROPOSAL: Conditional use permit request to permit a 76 foot cellular communication tower and 288 square foot equipment building I- z Q LOCATION: 78 West 78th Street 0 l APPLICANT: US West NewVector Group, Inc. Q. c/o Jaymes D. Littlejohn Q. Hessian, McKasy& Soderberg, P.A. Q 4700 IDS Center Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 330-3003 PRESENT ZONING: BH. Highway and Business Services District ACREAGE: approximately 4 acres DENSITY: not applicable ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- BH,vacant,railroad line; R-12,apartments north of railroad; City of Eden Prairie a S-BH, Highway 5 r"_.„4. E-IOP, Redmond W-BH, Chanhassen Office Complex lii WATER AND SEWER: Available to site • LPHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site is currently occupied by Lotus Lawn Garden Center,Inc. A wetland exists on the northern portion of the property. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial M=-e _' - 1_ fir ruuu 1 P+ + II. : k �, .,7:iill --7100 '♦ t-- -..7-..-a I�1/4-,1 -N./1164.1111/16A ,.: sum litTres 1 IMP . . _ II 72.0 0 g� LAA'E \‘ - • • • . ,..•• 111/ ir14 ' - ;se lire (;13 Yf!I! + . .,._,,62 ., ..... .._ ....._ -Hall _ R1 - o t41 all ,e-milatisigr.fir. I - - . - - 7500 wz;a4rlistg,r i e 4- 4& ' ,• Q IT / -r. M . ter: u �� I �� \�� . f .• 7b00 l MEPC •r" r•° 1_ _ / -, :,: I- illr-.....111M1 ,!tgW:"1::111 ' • • a ..... _ 7700 2 fir3rI-' : 11111'Illlf� r .iE�1i` -:IIIIIII�' a`- '" w. T" sr _ �:r. �'� �' : i �NV � 7800 ;BD « 1x.. ■11 �141 , %_ fli � ::•11� ._ 3 1 o P 7900 i .0. • 7 a nowt lit,1. lir Ix__ t .z.,, tor at..a..... lik &tji I Ali A.1 — ��-� �4111101100c `�� w :i �I14 IZIE �Of, 0 0 b.4 11111h- 8000 co 4,01,:::mi • V:..a Iv, -e •i1'1��i's.`��• e',` 8100 <" 1.> S ‘?)3 •��ki PAVE�-tet — 8200 �_..� IvViiiri �� RSF \44. C!' - t 1NNEN ,,,\\ 8300 „......„,c,„ CIRCLE •1 -r� RICE A/ - SH L AIDE ,- 3T. 116 '�� — : mi A 8600 R - US West NewVector Group, Inc. February 12, 1997 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is proposing a 76 foot tall cellular communication tower with twelve(12)directional antennas(4 per sector). The monopole is to have a galvanized finish,which tends to blend in better with the sky than other colors. Within this area,a 12 foot by 24 foot equipment building and a 20 foot by 15 foot fenced enclosure is being proposed. The prefabricated equipment building has an aggregate,neutral finish. According to ordinance,accessory buildings shall be constructed on wood,brick or stucco(Section 20-1514). The applicant indicated that they are flexible in the material selection. In order to comply with fire code,a service road must be installed for assessing the equipment building. The tower is proposed to be surrounded by a six foot fence with three strands of barbed wire at the top. The chain link fence is permitted in this district, however,City Code requires a separate conditional use permit for the use of barbed wire(Section 20-1018). The site for the proposed telecommunications tower is a garden center. The tower and equipment building are to be located along the eastern boundary of the property. The proposed tower and accompanying equipment building would compete with the dominate feature/use of this property. According to ordinance, a wireless telecommunication tower proposal shall not be approved until it is demonstrated that accommodations cannot be made on an existing tower within a one-half (1/2) mile search radius for towers between 120 feet and 80 feet in height(Section 20-1510). Although this proposal is 76 feet in height, that should not exempt the applicant from the responsibility of co-location. In terms of landscaping, screening is required by ordinance for the base equipment,but the applicant has not provided for any landscaping to be installed as part of the project. Plantings should be done along the sides to reduce the visual impact of the equipment. Landscaping would enhance the location and offer a softer alternative to the chain link fence, barbed wire, and windowless equipment building. Staff is recommending denial of the conditional use permit/site plan for the wireless telecommunication tower and equipment building. A more appropriate location for the telecommunication tower is co-location with the proposal located at 80 78th Street West. BACKGROUND In November 1996,the City of Chanhassen adopted Ordinance 259 pertaining to towers and antennas. This ordinance provided criteria for the design and location of wireless telecommunication facilities in the city. US West NewVector Group, Inc. February 12, 1997 Page 3 The city has been advised by wireless telecommunication companies that this area of the city is a dead zone for current service users. Part of the impetus for revision of the tower and antenna ordinance was this dead zone for wireless telecommunication. FINDINGS When approving a conditional use permit, the city must determine the capability of a proposed development with existing and proposed uses. The general issuance standards of the conditional use Section 20-232, include the following 12 items: 1. Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort,convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. Finding: The proposed tower should not endanger the public health, safety or welfare of the city. 2. Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter. Finding: The proposed use is not consistent with the city's comprehensive plan, ordinance requirements for Highway 5 Corridor District or the tower ordinance. 3. Will be designed,constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. Finding: The proposed tower does not comply with city ordinance requirements. The proposed tower and equipment building will alter the character of the general vicinity as it will become the dominate feature of the property. 4. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. Finding: The proposed tower will not be hazardous to existing or planned neighboring uses. 5. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets,police and fire protection, drainage structures,refuse disposal,water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. Finding: The proposed development is provided with adequate public services. US West NewVector Group, Inc. February 12, 1997 Page 4 6. Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Finding: The proposed development will not require excessive public services. 7. Will not involve uses,activities,processes,materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare,odors, rodents, or trash. Finding: The proposed tower should not create conditions that are detrimental to persons property or the general welfare of the community. 8. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. Finding: The proposed development will not interfere with traffic circulation. 9. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. Finding: The proposed development will not destroy or damage natural, scenic, or historic features. 10. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area. Finding: The proposed tower will not be aesthetically compatible with the area and would become the dominate feature on the site. 11. Will not depreciate surrounding property values. Finding: The proposed development should not depreciate surrounding property values. 12. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article. Finding: The proposed development will meet standards established for communication towers. The following revision must be made to the plans: • The equipment building shall be screened from view by suitable vegetation and a service road shall be constructed for accessibility purposes. US West NewVector Group, Inc. February 12, 1997 Page 5 • The applicant shall document that the tower is designed, structurally, electrically, and in all respects, to accommodate both the applicant's antennas and comparable antennas for at least one additional user. Towers must be designed to allow for future rearrangement of antennas upon the tower and to accept antennas mounted at varying heights. • A letter of intent committing the tower owner and his or her successors to allow the shared use of the tower if an additional user agrees in writing to meet reasonable terms and conditions for shared use shall be submitted to the city. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends denial of conditional use permit 97-1 for a personal communication service(PCS) wireless telecommunication facility, including site plan,prepared by Design 1, dated 12/12/96, denial for a 76 foot monopole tower and associated equipment, at 78 West 78th Street for USWest NewVector based on the findings for conditional uses contained in this report." ATTACHMENTS 1. Development Review Application 2. Letter from Jaymes D. Littlejohn to the Planning Commission dated 1/3/97 3. Statement of Compliance with 12 General Standards for Conditional Use Permits 4. Letter from Jaymes D. Littlejohn to Richard Buckley, SBA, Inc. dated 1/28/97 5. Letter from Scott Peters to Robert Generous dated 1/28/97 6. Memorandum from Mark Littfin, Fire Marshall to Robert Generous dated 1/30/97 JAN 07 7.397 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CITY CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ($12) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPUCANT:U 5 WEST NewVector Group, Inc. OWNER; Lotus Lake .arden Center, Inc. Corp. c/o Jaymes 0.71-17ego n Hessian , McKasy & Soderberg, P.A. ADDRESS: 4700 -DS_ Center. Mpl s . ,, MN 55402 ADDRESS: 78-78th Street West Chanhassen, MN 55317 TELEPHONE (Day time) .330-3003 TELEPHONE: 49-0726 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW/Easements P. X Conditional Use Permit _ 12. Varianoe I3. (Mt dlrO/Excavation Permit 13. Wetland Alteration Permit 4. irnerim Use Permit 14, Zoning Appeal 5. Pl4nned Unit Development 16. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. Rezoning T 814n Permits 8. Sir Plan Review Notification Signs / `, C 9, r _ She Plan Review � Esorow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" $100-CUP/SPFZ/VACNARAVAP $400 Minor SUB/Metes & Bounds 10. S.1LdIvislon TOTAL FEE $ 500.00 A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must Inclut4d with the application. Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted. 8W" X 11" Reduced oopy of transparency for each plan sheet. ` NOTE • When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. " Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract ' iii OJECT NAME MINDOVETAIL Cell Site ' " 78-78th Street West LE3AI. DESCRIPTION See Attached Exhibit A PRESENT ZONING BH - Highway and Business Services District i FREbUESTED ZONING BH (No change) PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION Garden Center Rf3OUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION Garden Center and Commercial Communication Tower (Pole) REASON FOR THIS REQUEST To permit installation and operation of 76 feet monopole and. 12 feet by 24 foot equipment building for cellular service. See attached letter. T s application must be completed In fu I and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans retired by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Dep rtment to determine the spectflo ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. This Is to verty that I am making applloation for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying Ainall City re ulrements with regard to his request. This application should be processed In my name and I am the party m the Olt should contact regardln any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (eh er copy of Owners Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized per'eon to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I w1)I keep myself Informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that addlliOnai fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization t� proceed with the study. The documents and Information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of thy knowleti�e. I also understand that atter the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded against the this to the property for which the approvaVpermit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Fleoorder's office and the original;document returned to City Hall Records. 0 jo., / 7 Sr; aturrant 1 l6 f/ JaymesjD 'e ttl - ohn , Esq. 1 /i , .7. 1 I S. urof Fes Obwner Jay L. Kronic , President D e tion Received on Pae raid -.. f Receipt No. -_G .__ The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If nbt contacted, a Dopy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. AS TO: (Legal Description) Carver County That part of Tract C, Registered Land Survey No. 59, files of Registrar of Titles, which lies South of a line drawn East perpendicular to the West line of said Tract C from a point thereon distant 103.00 feet South, as measured along said West line from the Northwest corner of said Tract C; And that part of Tract D lying Easterly of the Southerly extension of the West line of said Tract C, Registered Land Survey No. 59, files of Registrar of Titles, all in Carver County, Minnesota. Hennepin County That part of the West 149 feet of the Southwest Quarter of Section 7, Township 116 North, Range 22 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, lying North of State Highway No. 5 and which lies South of a line drawn East perpendicular to the West line of Tract C, Registered Land Survey No. 59, files of the Registrar of Titles, Carver County, from a point thereon distant 103.00 feet South, as measured along said West line, from the Northwest corner of said Tract C, Hennepin County, Minnesota. EXHIBIT "A" LAW OFFICES HESSIAN, MCKASY & SODERBERG PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION 1 Minneapolis • Saint Paul • Washington,D.C. 4700 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-2228 (612)330-3000 Facsimile 371-0653 Jaymes D. Littlejohn (612) 330-3003 January 3, 1997 VIA MESSENGER Planning Commission and City Council City of Chanhassen c/o Ms. Kate Aanenson Planning Department 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Re: Proposed Cellular Telephone Antenna Site 78 West 78th Street To the Commission and City Council Members: Accompanying this letter is a Development Review Application for a Conditional Use Permit for a cellular telephone antenna site proposed to be located at the above-referenced address. The application is in the name of the fee owners, Lotus Lake Garden Center, and of our client, U S WEST NewVector Group, Inc., who provides AirTouch Cellular service. AirTouch Cellular is one of two companies licensed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to provide cellular telephone service to the City of Chanhassen and to the rest of the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Cellular telephone usage is on the increase in Chanhassen, and particularly in areas of high traffic concentration and business activity, such as in this section of Highway 5. The cellular telephone usage in this area has reached the point where the system is at its capacity, resulting in an interruption of service and a loss of calls in this area. Since you have recently completed an exhaustive study of the factors considered by companies providing wireless telephone service to Chanhassen, this letter will be limited to the facts specific to this site and to AirTouch's need for this installation to provide better cellular service to your community. Cellular Telephone Antenna Site 78 West 78th Street January 3, 1997 Page 2 The application is made to permit the addition of a new cellular telephone site on a portion of the property located at 78 West 78th Street, creating additional capacity to serve the increased demands of the area. AirTouch Cellular has entered into a lease with the owner of the site. The Proposed Use. We propose to install a cellular telephone antenna site approximately 150 feet from the front lot line of this site, near the eastern boundary of the subject property. Consistent with your newly adopted Tower and Antenna Ordinance, the proposal includes utilizing a monopole to support the antennas, the total height which will be 76 feet. We also propose building a small equipment building near the base of the monopole. The site plan and elevation drawings enclosed with this letter depict this proposed use, the property lines, existing structures, the required setbacks, and the setbacks for the proposed installation. Location and Zoning. This site is in the BH (Highway and Business Services) Zoning District. Under the new amendments to the regulations for the BH District, "Commercial Towers" are a conditional use under section 20-714(10) of the Zoning Code. As you can see, the setbacks for this installation comply with your new ordinance. Both the building and the monopole are setback from the wetland located on the northern portion of this property more than the 75 foot requirement. The same is true for the side and front setbacks. At 288 square feet, the building is within the size limitation set forth in section 20-1513 of the ordinance. Pursuant to section 20-1510(1), no co-location study is necessary for this site since AirTouch simply did not need a monopole that was 80 feet or taller. Indeed, the proposed monopole will be of a similar design and height as the high tension electrical transmission standards along Highway 5 at the southern boundary of the subject property. Access to the site will be from West 78th Street, through the parking lot for the Lotus Lawn and Garden Center. Many factors went into choosing this location. These include market factors, technical considerations, cellular grid size, zoning and land use compatibility, land forms or topography of the surrounding area, accessibility of the site, and land owner willingness to sell or lease. Indeed, this last factor has caused the need for this site to be changed from our original proposal made in August of 1996, before your zoning amendments were adopted. The Equipment Building. The equipment building will house radio, computer, and climate control equipment for this site. The site will be connected to our central switching office via traditional telephone lines. Each cellular antenna site requires extensive supporting electronic equipment in close proximity to the monopole. This equipment requires periodic maintenance. AirTouch engineers will visit the equipment structure about twice a month to insure that the equipment is working properly. As such, the operation of the cell site will not be an occupied use, and public facilities for refuse disposal or water and sewer systems will not be required. There will be no measurable impact on traffic or other conditions. Cellular Telephone Antenna Site 78 West 78th Street January 3, 1997 Page 3 The cell site is electrically powered and produces no noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odor. The cellular telephone equipment which is located at our cell sites is powered with 200 amp, typical household power. The cell site is operated and monitored remotely. Our personnel in Minneapolis and in Bellevue monitor the site around the clock and are alerted by silent smoke, fire and forced entry alarms. The proposed use will not materially change the need for public services at this site. Cellular is a low-power system. The amount of energy generated from a cellular phone channel is typically about the same as a 100 watt light bulb. This is less energy than is generated by the typical cordless telephone which is in use in many homes today. The Monopole. The area in which cellular coverage is needed largely defines the required antenna height. Naturally, topography also plays a role in arriving at the appropriate height. The monopole and antenna is proposed to be coated with a galvanized finish like that used on most high tension transmission standards. However, the pole can be painted in any manner that the city chooses to best minimize its visual impact. AirTouch Cellular Service. The cellular mobile phone system operates on a specific set of channels set aside by the FCC. The filtering of spurious signals is very tightly controlled. Cellular telephones operate within a strictly regulated set of allotted frequencies between 835 and 897 megahertz, which were once used to provide UHF television signals in some areas of the country, although not in the Twin Cities. AirTouch Cellular is currently operating over 1,000 cellular antennas around the country with no case of unresolved television or radio interference reported. Naturally, the proposed site would be built in accordance with our FCC license to provide cellular service in this area. Users of cellular telephone service include members of the business community as well as the public sector. Doctors, builders, salespersons, business owners, and realtors all benefit by using cellular phones. Also, cellular telephone users can contact "911" to report accidents, fires, or other emergencies without first having to search for a telephone. Additionally, cellular telephones are extensively used by fire and police departments. The system allows police and other emergency response agencies to conduct private communication in the field. This can be important from the scene of a crime. Immediate, direct communication can also be made with other specialized agencies when a relay through a dispatcher would be cumbersome, and cause dangerous delays. Cellular telephones continue to function in areas where telephone wires are down because of tornados or ice storms, also aiding in emergencies. We have enclosed several articles that discuss the public safety aspects of cellular service. Increasing demand for cellular service has required AirTouch Cellular to search for a location for an additional antenna site in this area of Chanhassen. The need for this site is based upon the use of cellular phones in your city. At the present time, owners of cellular phones are experiencing lost connections, or "dropped calls," and they often may have trouble placing calls Cellular Telephone Antenna Site 78 West 78th Street January 3, 1997 Page 4 in the first place. Our communications engineers have performed field studies, and determined that in order to function properly, the new cell site must be located in the area of the subject property. The site will service an area about a mile and a half in radius from the site. Conclusion. If any reader of this letter has questions concerning the application, the drawings, or any other related matter, please feel free to contact me at the above address. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, HESSIAN, McKASY&SODERBERG, P.A. Jaymes D. Littlejohn Enclosures cc: Mr. Kent Sticha (w/o enclosures) 121207-1 0530200-008400 LAW OFFICES HESSIAN, MCKASY & SODERBERG - - PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION Minneapolis • St. Paul • Washington, D.C. ..1.71 i 2 t 1:37 4700 IDS Center,80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis,Minnesota 55402 G3 ;;F. "_N (612)330-3000 Facsimile 371-0653 Federal Identification #41-1751152 Jaymes D. Littlejohn (612) 330-3003 January 28, 1997 Mr. Richard Buckley SBA, Inc. c/o Aerial Communications 1701 East 79th Street Bloomington, MN 55425 Re: Antenna Site Sub-Lease Agreement 80 West 78th Street, Chanhassen Dear Mr. Buckley: Thank you for calling me last week regarding the collocation request of my client, U S WEST NewVector Group, Inc., who provides AirTouch Cellular service. As you indicated, Mr. Wallace was mistaken as to the interest of Aerial APT in allowing my client to collocate at the above site. As we discussed, you are currently attempting to gain the landlord's consent to moving the lease area as set forth in the conditions proposed by the planning commission. Concurrent with that work, you agreed that you would obtain permission from the landlord to increase the size of your leased parcel to accommodate the 12 by 24 foot, AirTouch equipment shelter. I appreciate your stated intent to have these items taken care of so that the entire installation can be presented to the city council for consideration at its meeting on February 10, 1997. As I indicated, AirTouch's architect, Robert Davis of Design One, can provide you with elevations of the required equipment shelter, drawings for typical antennae (Antel LPD-7905/8- EIA of which 12 are required) and all other information related to site design so that this information can be incorporated into your site plans. Design One's telephone number and address are: Mr. Richard Buckley January 28, 1997 Page 2 DESIGN ONE 9973 Valley View Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Telephone 903-9299; Fax 903-9292 In a letter that I received today from Mr. Wallace, he stated that "if AirTouch is not interested, APT would of course pursue co-location." Just so that there is no misunderstanding, AirTouch is committed to collocation at this site, as long as the landlord agrees to allowing our installation, the agreement contains standard terms, the antennas are mounted at a tip height of 78 feet, and AirTouch has 24 hour access to the shelter and monopole for maintenance and repairs. If you would like to discuss this further, please contact me at your convenience. . Sincerely, HESSIAN, McKASY & SODERBERG, P.A. v<:43- Jaymes D. Littlejohn JDL/ cc: Mr. Robert Generous, City of Chanhassen Mr. John Wallace Mr. Mike O'Rourke Mr. Kent Sticha 125348-1 0530200-008400 o.► , Minnesota Department of Transportation 1(01 Metropolitan Division aK Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B2 _ _ Roseville, MN 55113 January 28, 1997 Robert Generous City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Robert Generous: Subject: U.S. West New Vector Group: Conditional Use Permit Public Hearing Notice Review PH97-004 North Side of West 78th Street, 1/4 Mile East of TH 101 Chanhassen, Hennepin County CS 1002 The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has reviewed your request for comment regarding a Conditional Use Permit for a telecommunications tower at 78 West 78th Street. We have no major concerns regarding the application. However, we would like to take this opportunity to remind the applicant of certain stipulations regarding development of property adjacent to Mn/DOT right of way. • A Mn/DOT access permit is required for access to or across state highways or rights of way, including Mn/DOT owned frontage roads. A change in the intensity or type of use of an existing entrance also requires a permit. • A Mn/DOT stormwater drainage permit is required for any change in rate of runoff to trunk highway right of way, or any alteration of trunk highway stormwater drainage systems. • Any other use of or work within Mn/DOT right of way, including but not limited to grading, utility work, and landscaping, also requires a permit. The permit necessary depends on the nature of the proposed work. • If property adjacent to Mn/DOT right of way is to be platted, the preliminary plat must be submitted to us for review, along with a site plan and grading and drainage plans if prepared. An equal opportunity employer Robert Generous January 28, 1997 page two Copies of proposed plats and site plans may be sent to Sherry Narusiewicz, Local Government Liaison Supervisor, at the above address. Questions regarding permit applications may be directed to Bill Warden of our Permits Unit at 582-1443. Please contact me at 582-1654 with any questions about this public notice review. Sincerely, Scott Peters Senior Transportation Planner/Local Government Liaison ii- CITY OF C2 t 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. B:One 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 _fity (612) 937- FAX (612) 937-5739 oi .t, MEMORANDUM TO: Robert Generous, Senior Planner FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: January 30, 1997 SUBJECT: Request for conditional use permit approval to allow a telecommunications tower at 78 West 78th Street. Site plan approval for a 60 foot monopole tower, 12 foot by 24 foot equipment building and a 6 foot chain link fence on property zoned highway and business(BH)district, US West New Vector Group, Inc. Planning Case: 97-1 CUP. I have reviewed the site plan for the above project. In order to comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division, I have the following fire code or City Ordinance/Policy requirements. The site plan is based on the available information submitted at this time. If additional plans or changes are submitted the appropriate code or policy items will be addressed. 1. Supply plans to the Fire Marshal that a service road is to be installed for accessing the equipment building. ML/be g:\safety\ml\plrevteletower r.-- C I TY ;CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Phillip Elkin, Water Resources Coordinator DATE: February 5, 1997 SUBJ: Revisions to Section 20-145 of City Code The following is a recommended revision to the City Code section 20-415. This ordinance outlines the expiration and renewal of a Wetland Alteration Permit. Currently, there is a conflict between two of the subparts. Subpart C states that"the (City) Council may renew a void permit at its discretion." However, Subpart D states that the applicant must make a written application to the council before the original permit expires, in order to receive an extension. The proposed change eliminates the ability for"renewal by Council discretion." Because of staff time and legal expenses incurred with a renewal, staff is recommending that if a permit is not renewed in accordance with the ordinance, the applicant will be required to apply for a new permit. The proposed revision reads as follows: Sec. 20-415. Expiration and renewal of Permit. (c) If the permittee fails to commence work within the time specified in this section, the permit shall be void. The permittee may make a written application to the council for an extension of the time to commence work,but only if the permittee submits the application prior to the date already established to commence work. The application of an extension shall state the reasons the permittee requires an extension. If the council does not extend the permit, the holder of the void permit may apply for a new permit. G:\eng\phillip\adminToderev.CC § 20-413 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE included in an approved comprehensive wetland management plan per Minnesota Rules 8420.0240. The city council may seek and consider recommendations, if any, made by the technical evaluation panel in making replacement plan decisions. (c) Decisions made under this article may be appealed to the board of water and soil resources under Minnesota Rules 8420.0250, after administration appeal rights under the official controls have been exhausted. (Ord. No. 180, § 1, 12-14-92; Ord. No. 202, § 8, 4-25-94) Sec. 20.414. Inspection of work. The city may cause inspection of work for which a wetland alteration permit is issued, at the applicant's expense,to be made periodically during the course of such work and shall cause final inspection to be made following the completion of the work. (Ord. No. 180, § 1, 12-14-92) Sec. 20.415. Expiration and renewal of permit. (a) Unless otherwise specified by the city council, the person issued a wetland alteration permit shall begin and complete the development authorized by the permit within one(1)year after the date the council approves the permit application. (b) The permittee shall provide written notice to the city twenty-four (24) hours prior to the commencement and completion of the development project. No project shall be deemed to have been completed until approved by the city after receipt of notice of completion. (c) If the permittee fails to commence work on the development within the time specified in this section,the permit shall be void. The council may renew a void permit at its discretion. p146e5 If the council does not renew the permit, the holder of the void permit may make original -1A`5 application for a new permit. (d) The permittee may make written application to the council for an extension of the time to commence work, but only if the permittee submits the application prior to the date already established to commence work. The application of an extension shall state the reasons the permittee requires an extension. (Ord. No. 180, § 1, 12-14-92) Sec. 20-416. Exemptions. Activities exempted by Minnesota Rules 8420.0120 shall be exempted from the provisions of this article. However, certificates of exemption must be obtained from the city prior to starting work. (Ord. No. 180, § 1, 12-14-92; Ord. No. 202, § 9, 4-25.94) Sec. 20.417. Variances. Variances from the requirements of this article may be granted in accordance with the variance provisions of this chapter as regulated by article II, division III of this Code so long -� as the variances do not violate the Act or Rules. (Ord. No. 180, § 1, 12-14-92; Ord. No. 202, § 10, 4-25-94) Supp. No. 7 1190 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE The City Council of the City of Chanhassen ordains: Section 1. Sec. 20-415 (c). Expiration and renewal of Permit, is hereby amended to read as follows: (c) If the permittee fails to commence work within the time specified in this section, the permit shall be void. The permittee may make a written application to the council for an extension of the time to commence work,but only if the permittee submits the application prior to the date already established to commence work. The application of an extension shall state the reasons the permittee requires an extension. If the council does not extend the permit, the holder of the void permit may apply for a new permit. Section 2. Sec. 20-415 (d) is hereby deleted in its entirety. Section 3. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1996, by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen. ATTEST: Don Ashworth, Clerk/Manager Nancy K. Mancino, Mayor (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on ) CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 15, 1997 Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jeff Farmakes, Ladd Conrad, Bob Skubic, Kevin Joyce, and Craig Peterson MEMBERS ABSENT: Alison Blackowiak STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer; and Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II PUBLIC HEARING: T.F. JAMES COMPANY FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT (REPLAT) APPROVAL OF 3 LOTS INTO 3 LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED BG, GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF POWERS BLVD. AND WEST 78TH STREET, WEST VILLAGE HEIGHTS 3RD ADDITION. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: As we talked earlier Bob,just to maybe give us some sense for the rest of the commissioners as to the probability of a driveway and where it might go. Generous: There was a site plan submitted last fall for this property and the driveway came in right on the common property line between Lots 1 and 2. In addition there is a service road, frontage road within the West Village Heights development connecting the West Village Center, which the Byerly's all the way over to...so someone could conceivably internally go to all of the developments on that block. Peterson: Thank you. Does the applicant or their designee wish to make a presentation? Generous: The City is representing the applicant on this. It was due to our vacation and realignment of the roadway. We're bringing this forward for the applicant. Peterson: I assume you refrain from making any further comments? Generous: Yes sir. Peterson: Do we open this for a public hearing then? With that, do I hear a motion to open it for a public hearing. Joyce moved, Farmakes seconded to open the public hearing. 11= 111111111111111111111.111111.110 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 Peterson: We have a motion to open it to a public hearing. Anyone who would like to make a presentation. Seeing none, is there a motion to close the public hearing? Conrad moved, Farmakes seconded to close the public hearing. Peterson: Commissioners. Ladd. Conrad: No, nothing. Looks fine. Peterson: Bob. Skubic: No comments. Peterson: With that, I have none either. is there a motion? Conrad: I make the motion Planning Commission recommends approval of the replat for West Village Heights 3rd Addition subject to the conditions in the staff report. Skubic: Second. Conrad moved, Skubic seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the replat for West Village Heights 3rd Addition subject to the following condition: 1. Access for Lots 1 and 2,Block 1, West Village Heights 3rd Addition shall be limited to a joint driveway off West 78th Street." All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT,INC. REQUEST FOR A LAND USE AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY TO RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM DENSITY FOR THE NORTHERN HALF OF THE PARCEL; PUD REZONING FOR APPROXIMATELY 50 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD-R, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL; CONCEPTUAL AND PRELIMINARY PUD REQUEST FOR MIXED DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR 67 COTTAGE HOMES AND 192 VILLA HOMES; PRELIMINARY SUBDIVSION REQUEST OF 295 LOTS,2 OUTLOTS AND ASSOCIATED RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF GALPIN BLVD. AND HWY 5,THE HIGHLANDS. 2 Planning Commission Meeting- January 15, 1997 Public Present: Name Address Bill Scose 2187 Brinker Street Brian Erdman 2091 Brinker Street Brian&Jennifer S. Monteith 2159 Brinker Street Nancy Mancino 6620 Galpin Blvd. Julie Wojfanowski 2145 Brinker Street D. Cook-Ronningen 7471 Tulip Court William Thompson 7491 Tulip Court Steve Janson 2199 Brinker Street Tom Campbell 2065 Majestic Way John Hennessy 7305 Galpin Blvd. Mark S. &Wren Feyereisen 7501 Windmill Drive Cindy& Henry Wanserski 7521 Windmill Drive David&Cinda Jensen 2173 Brinker Street Joan Joyce 2043 Brinker Street Bonita Mihalko 2198 Brinker Street Naomi Noddner 7511 Crocus Court Allan Olson 7461 Windmill Drive Virginia Bell 7476 Crocus Court Amy O'Shea 7475 Crocus Court Rick&Margaret Manning 7460 Windmill Drive Steve Monson 8850 Audubon Road Pam Schwarz 7509 Tulip Court Rick Murray 15 Choctaw Circle Lee Glover 15 Choctaw Circle Tim Whitten The Rottlund Company Bob Payette Sathre-Berquist,Wayzata, MN Joe&Jean Bray 2126 Majestic Way Dean Gregory 2101 Majestic Way Andrea&Mike Salvador 2086 Majestic Way Wendy Stone 2103 Brinker Street Richard Neff 2150 Majestic Way Terri&Hani Gidani 2117 Majestic Way Joan&Ken Weis 2101 Majestic Way Jon Noeldner 7511 Crocus Court Charles Peterson 7496 Crocus Court Susan Reimers 7495 Crocus Court Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Technical question first. Due to the fact this is now a conceptual approval, will that require a motion this evening or not? 3 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 Aanenson: Yes. It does go to the City Council. Although technically the conceptual approval has no legal standing. If it came back under the preliminary. If you were to give it conceptual approval and even added to conditions and made any modifications,when it went to the City Council they would also review those and make any modifications they would have. If the application came back under preliminary, and you felt it didn't meet what you gave it conceptually, it doesn't have a legal standing. If they haven't reviewed responded to what our issues were,we're not going to give you preliminary approval. So whatever direction you give them tonight, if you've missed something, you still have another opportunity under the preliminary process to add additional. Joyce: So nothing's binding as far as what we do tonight? Aanenson: That's correct. Peterson: Questions of staff? Joyce: I have a couple quick questions here Bob. Number one, a couple times in our packet it said 8 and 10 unit townhouses. It says it on page 1. It says it on page 7. I just wanted to clarify. They're 8 and 12 units aren't they? There aren't any 10 unit houses at all. Generous: That's correct. Joyce: All right. I just wanted the Commissioners to be aware of that. This might be a premature question but I was just curious to ask, because of the comparison to the North Bay cottages. Is the City considering targeting those cottages for the kind of financing that was used in there? The TIF financing or anything like that that you're aware of? Generous: Not at this time. Aanenson: It's never been discussed. Joyce: Never been discussed. One other item. On the project there was a pond on the eastern side of that project. I understand that's temporary. Dave,maybe I can ask you that. I understand it's kind of a temporary pond right there. Hempel: That's our request. We do with our regional stormwater management plan show a regional pond just to the east. There's a low lying area that's very conducive to stormwater ponding. This easterly pond that you see would be a temporary sedimentation pond and also rate control to meet the pre-developed runoff rates so we would not be flooding the properties downstream. Joyce: Once it went from temporary to another status,would it connect to another pond or would it? 4 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 Hempel: It would remain there until the downstream regional pond was constructed on the property to the east. Once that was constructed the pond could be removed. Joyce: What would be slotted to be in there? Hempel: It could be slotted for open green space. It could be placed on a buildable lot. That's been done in the past in some developments. Joyce: So there could be an option to build on that? Hempel: If the plat is designed that way,yes. If the intent is in the future,yes. Aanenson: To take that further Kevin. If you're concerned about something like that, I think that's certainly something you can certainly address in the PUD contract. That's the purpose of the PUD. If that's something that you wanted to address. Skubic: A little bit more clarification of the proposal. Would we be voting on the rezoning,the land use amendment tonight? Generous: No. Skubic: That is not part of the. Aanenson: That's never done until we're ready to record the plat because we wouldn't want to rezone it unless the project's for certain and ready to go and be recorded. Skubic: But wouldn't we be implicitly approving it if we approve the concept? I mean because that would be required for concept approval wouldn't it? Generous: Concept has no standing. It provides direction for the applicant. It's almost like,the way it's advertised tells people if they want to do this project, these are all the things that have to be done. Joyce: If we deny this,will this still go to City Council? Aanenson: Correct. Peterson: Other questions? Conrad: Just a couple things, and they're probably not questions but I think as we,at our public hearings some issues that I'm real interested in and maybe staff, Kate or Bob you can talk about it right now but maybe we'll flow into it. I'm real interested from the neighbors talking about the transition from their property, from the Windmill Run subdivision into this. I'm curious about specifics and the transition. From staff's standpoint I'm curious about the Hennessy property incorporation or lack of incorporation. Also interested in how Bluff Creek fits in here visually, 5 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 which we probably haven't seen,and maybe that will be a later on issue but it's the most significant asset in the property and it's not visualized for me so those are issues that I sure hope we talk about in the upcoming minutes. Peterson: Bob, do you want to address any of those prior to the applicant making a presentation? Generous: They might be able to address it. They've already been working on some revisions. We haven't had the plan sets to look at. We are requiring that access be provided for the Hennessy's. There is the PUD requires a larger setback between the properties so we are getting some separation from that. They did try to,they contacted Mr. Hennessy to see if they could purchase the property. Aanenson: As far as the Bluff Creek, if I could just to that. That's one of the issues that we think needs to be further articulated and again under the concept, we're just trying to flush the issues out but that's something certainly we think that needs to be further developed. Peterson: A couple of the conditions that I hadn't seen before that I was more interested in. Item number 15 where it says that it shall include a draintile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump discharge from the units. I haven't seen that before. Is that...to this property or? Hempel: Mr. Chairman, actually that has been incorporated over the last few years. A lot of times we've just brought that forward to the applicant before even doing the report. Be aware that this is going to be a requirement and make it a requirement as a part of the construction process. This was taken out of the previous staff report from back in 1994-'95 when it was first coming out that we did have a problem with sump pump discharge. Streets creating ice problems this time of the year or the algae slim build-up in the summer so it's been working very well for us and the last few years we've incorporated that in the recent construction projects. Peterson: Thank you. Talk about, staff you made a recommendation that the lots shall be,a certain amount wider in the single residential area and you didn't really specify how wide. You kind of left it open. Was there a specific reason why you didn't give a recommendation as to the width? Slightly. Generous: Well no, it was to get input from Planning Commission, residents. Peterson: Probably my questions also. With that,would the applicant or their designee wish to address the Planning Commission? State your name and address please. Rick Murray: Yes Mr. Chairman, I'm Rick Murray with Residential Development and with Bob's help, since there's a number of our neighbors in the audience behind us, it's probably easier to view it on the screen than it is the boards. Commissioners, good evening. Thank you for allowing us to have this presentation and thank you for the opportunity to get input from both yourselves and the neighborhood. We have had a couple of meetings with the neighborhood and with Mr. Joyce. We had them at the Rec Center last Saturday and some of the input that we received was very helpful. The staff,the ongoing conversations with staff over this past month and a half has also been very helpful. The plan that's up there and the plan that's in your booklet 6 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 was not the plan that the neighbors and I discussed Saturday. The plan that the neighbors and I discussed Saturday, and the plans that you received on Saturday, most of you, were revised to reflect meetings that we had with staff about density and the distribution of units. A couple of road locations. The parts of your staff report that talk about the separation from property lines that are permissible in a PUD. There was some information that we simply didn't have in the original drawing. Bob, if you could put up. This plan still incorporates our basic concept, and the concept is literally having us absorb the transition between the single family housing to the north, within our own plat, and transitioning that down to the high intensity use that we, well is exhibited along Highway 5 and that we feel will be exhibited along Arboretum Boulevard when it's constructed. The north end of the site, the loop road that connects Galpin to the existing neighborhood is designed as a residential loop. The T intersection was at the direction of staff and the intent there was to slow traffic down and discourage a short cut or cut thru through our site down to Arboretum Boulevard when it's constructed. The low density transition through the site comes about 2/3 of the way through Mr. Hennessy's property. It's the north 33 acres. I don't happen to have that on an overhead. If you walk through our densities on this particular site, we tried to stay within the low density features of your ordinance. The top tier, Bob if you could put the next overhead up,just a moment. And the reason I'm jumping into densities is that's what the neighbors and we discussed for the most part of Friday, or I mean on Saturday. And I'm sure that we'll listen, that we'll hear that again this evening and hopefully be able to address some of the specific questions. The low density that transitions through the site is about 2/3 through Mr. Hennessy's property, which is just north of the access road. I'm just south of the access road. In that first tier of,just south Bob. Right there. Just to that tier and it goes across to where the pond is on the eastern property line. North of that is approximately 33 acres and that's what the comp plan designates as 1.2 to 4 units per acre. Now the north side of our site, that north 13 acres has got 33 units on it and that's at 2 %2 units per acre. The area that's contained in the cottage homes is approximately 15 acres. There's, well it's actually slightly more than 15 acres because the density that's calculated in the cottage homes is 3.9 units per acre. The density that's calculated in the villas is 10.7 units per acre, and of course the south end of the property where the Bluff Creek corridor is 5 acres and obviously there's no density in either that or the right-of-way. The density that would have been on that Bluff Creek area and the right-of-way area,both areas which will be owned or restricted and benefit to the community, has been transferred and is transferred to the medium density area of the site. Transitioning on this site was actually much easier to do prior to the movement of the Arboretum Boulevard to the south as a frontage road along Highway 5. When Arboretum Boulevard actually came through the middle of this site, approximately where the access road to Mr. Hennessy's site is. Bob you might point that out because that's, and that's exactly where when we did our first calculations we were under the impression that north of that line or where the old, or the existing preliminary plat is, was the low density area and south of that line, the line's just a little bit higher than that I think Bob. Anyway, the initial calculations that my engineering firm had received was 26 acres north and 24 acres to the south. We thought we were dealing with 300 units. That's why the previous plan had 292 units on it. We were in error. The information that we picked up was inaccurate. When it was pointed out to the staff, we revised that plan and this is the plan that's been revised to address the 268 units. The density is transferred off of, the area has been put over into the medium density area, which is shifted from literally the south part of the property to the south and eastern part of the property. It's shifted there because we were looking for reasonable 7 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 transition between our own product lines. The transition between the single family to the north and the cottage homes, or the detached townhomes in the central area, takes place across the back yards and the ponding area. The transition between the cottage homes, which are 3 %2 - 3.9 - 4 units per acre, to the villa homes, is more intense and we tried to do that through the public road, which is a pretty standard transitioning tool. When the road was on an east/west axis, that transition more or less took care of itself within the aspects of your comp plan. Because it had low density, low density housing to the north and medium density housing south of Arboretum Boulevard itself. When we revised this particular plan, the 5 acres that's on the Bluff Creek corridor was revised to be 100 feet from the creek bottom and the line that goes across there is a surveyed line. That is not in compliance with your staff recommendations at this time. The staff recommendations would move that line about 125-150 feet up into the soybean field. The surveyed line is the edge of the vegetation and we were proposing a 20 foot setback from the edge of that vegetation with our buildings. Staff has indicated that the Bluff Creek corridor, the City's spent a lot of time, energy and effort on looking at that and they wanted to see a greater buffer area. Greater protection area. We haven't had time to address that yet. That would be the impact, or roughly the impact on this particular plan. If that is incorporated and it ends up being 5 V2 or 5.2 acres. The issue gets back to where would we get to this 10.7 units per acre on a medium density because it exceeds your medium density. And the answer is, we got it from the donation, so to speak, of the right-of-way to the south. The excess right-of-way to the south and the Bluff Creek corridor to the City. There literally are somewhere around 40 or 45 units that need to be displaced. To the north where we kept the single family in lieu of 4 units per acre, there's 13 acres and we displaced another 1 %2 units. Or 20 units to the north so the redistribution of units on this site was approximately 60 units and that's where, although the densities stay within the low density requirements for the 13 acres to the north and for the 15 acres to the west, the grouping of the density within the villa areas hit 2.7. Adjacent to the villa areas, which is transitioned to the west by the public right-of-way, adjacent to it to the east is the area that Dave referred to as this stormwater management plans. Regional ponding area and it's to the south of that is medium density guiding property. So it would be a similar usage with a regional or community ponding area incorporated around it. The pond that we show there, to answer Kevin's question, will be much reduced from as it's shown here. When we drew this it was, we were under the impression that staff had wanted a permanent pond that would be kind of a tier to the regional pond. Since talking with Dave again and after we had finished this particular plan, that pond would be a temporary pond. It would probably end up being about a third or a half of the size that it is represented there. Most of the area in that back yard, or all of it will eventually be green space. About 50% of it at this point in time would end up being green space and be incorporated into our plan. Single family. Each of these units, and I'm going to introduce Mr. Whitten from Rottlund Homes in a few moments and he's going to go through the particulars of both the cottage homes and the villas. I'll speak to them very briefly before I introduce Tim. The single family area, the lots that we're proposing there range from 65 feet, in the southeastern tier, to 80 feet along the northern tier. They all face the public right-of-way. They would all be served by a public road. There's a large percentage of them which will end up being walkouts. Especially those in the southern tier of lots. Where the opportunity exists in the northern tier of lots we're encouraging our engineers to incorporate those as walkouts as well. They're just better received in the marketplace. The cottage home, these single family of course transition across back yards and the ponding area to the cottage homes. The cottage homes reflected 8 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 stepping down through the site, using the terrain of the site. We have a slope that runs from the north to the south down to Highway 5. The cottage homes on, and this is being a little bit broad brush but the cottage homes on the north side of the private roads will predominantly be slab on grades. The cottage homes to the south side of the private roads will predominantly be walkouts. So we step our way down the site. The cottage homes are all served by private road which are association maintained and association owned. As far as a burden on the public works department, that's a burden on the homeowners association and not the public works department. The cottage homes are bordered on the west by the new public road running north and south. On the south by the Bluff Creek corridor and on the west by Mr. Hennessy's property. Mr. Hennessy's property is about 50% guided for low density and about 50% guided for medium density. The units in the space that we have abutting his property, actually abutting his property in that very northeastern, northwestern section is 3.4 units per acre. It's slightly less dense than the rest of the cottage homes as a whole. Staff recommended that we supply an access to Mr. Hennessy's property. We supplied an access approximately where it would best use or might best fit the area of his property that would logically be developed. There would be an association covenant that would allow him access through and across, ingress and egress through and across our private roads incorporated in our association documents. Transition into the villa units is through the public road and they abut the properties, the abutting properties to the east, as I mentioned, we medium density and the regional park area. Staff report spoke to a contour line, and that's the contour line in dark blue. That's along Bluff Creek. We haven't addressed that yet. We are looking at several options to see how that will best fit. We're here today, or this evening to solicit your comments and your suggestions. We're also here to listen to our neighbors and encourage them to make their comments and hopefully come out of this evening's meeting with some suggestions that we can go onto the City Council with incorporating them into a plan that works well for the community, the neighbors, and our property. With that I'll introduce Mr. Whitten from Rottlund Homes. He's going to speak to the particular types of homes. Tim Whitten: Thank you Rick. Good evening. I'm Tim Whitten. I'm Vice President of the Rottlund Company and I'll try to cover the things that Rick didn't cover. I'm going to use some boards...the best position for the easel I guess. I guess I jump back and forth a little bit. First I'll speak about the cottages. There 61 cottages proposed on the site that Rick had mentioned, and the cottages are detached townhomes. They're targeted towards the empty nester market and the retiree market. As mentioned before we have this product going in the North Bay project,just north of Lake Riley. We also have introduced this product in a project in Plymouth, Minnesota, and so we have a little bit of history and our buyers are kind of halfway between empty nesters and retired buyers. And it's designed specifically for that product for most of the product on this site and what we proposed in the past, it fit on one level and that's what our buyers are looking for. And what's a little bit different on this site is that because of the terrain we're introducing a new version which is the walkout version. So you still have the same living space on the main floor, but included is a walkout expansion space. The units vary in two types basically. There's a two bedroom unit on the main floor, and three bedroom unit, and they vary in square footage from 1,350 square feet to about 1,600 square feet. And we have designed it in the site plan orientation purposely to angle along the street at about a 30 degree angle. And that is to create more variety in the site plan and to create private spaces. So along this streetscape as opposed to 9 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 the lining up all the units straight onto the streets and having all the garage fronts face the street. You turn it at an angle so you get a broader view of the units and to get a view of the front door. Now on half the units we're really promoting the front porch and the other half of units will have side entrances. It also creates private spaces so that this becomes a private entrance space, front yard, this unit as well as this one, this unit. The same with the rear yards. Creates more private spaces. As opposed to being zero lot line where you really have one side that has no windows of the adjacent unit, we're actually mixing it up a little bit where this portion has no windows... landscape screening and this becomes private space for this unit. It also allows for the units to have exposure on all four sides of the units. It also lessens the amount of units that we have within the narrowest portion of... These are platted as townhomes so our plats are, they actually have the property line with a box around the units. To equate it to a lot, it'd be approximately a 47 foot wide lot by about 120 feet deep. Rather than platting it as individual lots, we're platting it as townhomes. That is mostly for the reason of the association and the maintenance of the property. That's one of the things that these buyers are looking for. No maintenance advantage. These are going to be priced, and we have history in Plymouth of this product, between $140,000.00 to about $200,000.00. Right now we're going up to about $180,000.00 but with the walkout version, of which we have quite a few, that will move the price up a little bit higher. On the plans themselves we have a number of different exteriors,just a couple of example exteriors that we have. To give you a little bit of an idea of the two different types. One is the...which promotes the front porch. It also allows for side entry garages. It's shown in the plan that we can create some variety down the street by having some of the garages load in the side. Then we have the three bedroom version, which is a side entry to that. But in effect with the four different plans, basic plans that we have and each plan having two to three different elevations,just kind of the sampling of the number different elevations that we can create, that we would have, like I said, two elevations for each plan. Vary from two to three elevations per plan. They vary from hip roofs to hip and gable combinations. The gable roofs. And then with the four different plans that we have and then with the four to five different color palettes that we would incorporate, in fact those units can be flipped from one side to the other and side loads. We could virtually have a different unit on every site. Every 61 of the units on this site. To talk about the villas a little bit, and if you're familiar with the villas in Mission Hills. It's something along those lines where we have the, as mentioned before, we have the 8 unit buildings and the 12 unit buildings. With the new site plan that Rick presented, we're incorporating some, what we call row type villas where they're actually more traditional townhomes where they can have walkouts and the reason staff request was to because of some of the grading situations that if we can incorporate a product that would not only give the diversity but also adapt to the grades a little bit more. So we are also including that into the mix. Here, this is a focus on an 8 unit building. So we have the back to back type units, which this is, and we also have the more traditional row. As another, also on the cottages we incorporated the walkouts type to adapt to the topography. We kind of come from a history of grading sites to adapt to the product and here we're trying to actually create the product to adapt to this particular site. We have two types of units in this building where we have the end unit, which have two car garages and the interior units which have single car garages. The difference between this building and the Mission Hills, like I said, we've actually enlarged the interior units slightly. We added 2 feet. That allows us to get a little bit bigger unit on the inside but it also allows to add that space to the single car garage so we oversized the single car garage. It's a little bit compared to what we have done. The row townhomes are similar to this where 10 Planning Commission Meeting- January 15, 1997 they're arranged in 2 car garages on the outside and single car garages on the inside. They're slightly larger and they have the walkout expansion option. This particular product, our smallest unit approaches 1,200 square feet and our larger units are about...square feet on the ends. When we get into townhomes, we're approximately 1,250 square feet for the interior ones and about 1,450 square feet, not including the lower level of the walkouts. That type of product. The architectural style is really we're focusing on a colonial townhome type of look. Where we're adding some shutters and lap siding and that's the kind of look that we're probably...work with staff as far as the, and the Commission and the Council regarding the color palettes and so forth, and how much variety deemed appropriate. All the products that we're showing are, would be vinyl siding with asphalt roofing and brick accents and to promote the maintenance free aspect. Price range in these go from, it shows $80,000.00 in the packages. It's probably going to approach a little bit more of a $90,000.00. The lowest price range for this type and probably moves up to about $110,000.00 to $115,000.00 price range. Here, as in our townhome version, we go from about $100,000.00 to about $150,000.00, depending on the location of the site. Some of the points I just want to highlight on this particular product, or both products, is that it's all owner occupied. One of the things that historically that we have found is that both these markets have very few children. In the villa products we have about .2 per unit. And in the cottages, .1 is actually a little high than what our history so there's very few kids. In one development we had, in 40 units there are 2 children in the cottage type. As mentioned, it is all private streets and that we have associations that will maintain the exterior and the landscaping with sprinkler irrigation systems. And they have regulations to, and covenants of which to guide them. And the empty nesters and the townhomes, we get this information from our traffic consultant, is that to factor in just an understanding of the traffic because I'm sure that's going to be one of the issues that are brought up. Is that the amount of trips per day in the empty nester product is about 4 trips per day. In our villa is about 6 trips a day and that compares to single family which is about 10 trips per day. One of the things that we're kind of focusing on and we're doing this in other projects is the product diversity. We're finding that in established communities like Chanhassen where the people that have lived in Chanhassen for 30 years are looking for an alternative. Don't really have that alternative so the cottages are an answer to that. Also to the children of the families of Chanhassen, to have a place where they can actually buy a home in a moderate price range or below $120,000.00 is something that isn't as available to them as we might like and so it's really addressing those two markets and giving some diversity in this housing type, that I think this development does offer. And I'd be happy to answer any questions regarding the housing type at this time or at any point. Thank you. Peterson: When you talk about the townhome villa...what percentage of those units are there from the total? Approximately how many units are there going to be from the townhouse down? Do you have any idea yet? Tim Whitten: I'm sorry, could you repeat that? Peterson: How many of the townhome villa style, the number of what those would be. Tim Whitten: The villa style, we have a total of 174 and how much would be row townhome and how many would be the back to back? We have three buildings of the row type to make up for 11 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 the grading. The grade issue along that pond and I think there's 18 of those units. So it would be subtract 18 from 174. Joyce: Are those sixplexes? Tim Whitten: Yeah. Peterson: Will there be two associations within this development then? Tim Whitten: Correct. Peterson: The villas would have one and then the townhomes will have the other? Tim Whitten: Yep. They have some different interests and concerns and so we found it best to have it separate. We've also, if there's common elements, we have developed master associations that can be an umbrella so you can tie the two together. So if that's of interest, that's something we can certainly look at. Peterson: One of the points that staff recommended was more play area perhaps or, and part of your rationale for not putting it in there was some of the...earlier? Tim Whitten: Yeah, that's something that we come across with both these products on occasion is that, is putting in the totlots. We're open to putting in an amenity. We're not always sure that a totlot's the appropriate one. And so in some cases we actually make recommendations to the City and we could even put aside the same amount of money and the same amount of land and put it in escrow and have the association kind of decide what's appropriate. Or if the City could determine what it is. We're not against the land space or totlots or anything. It's just really what is appropriate for that type of user is the only issue. Rick Murray: ...that area that will become green space...it might be more appropriate that that gets incorporated into some sort of gathering spot. In discussing with the staff...maybe it's a better gathering spot...so that's been, we're investigating that too. Peterson: Thank you. Conrad: Different designs you mentioned of the cottage type. How many would there be? Tim Whitten: Well we really have four plans. We'd have two types of the sod line grade. We have two types of the walkouts. And we are actually looking at generating another type of plan. So somewhere between 4 to 5 different plans of which each of those would have different elevations so as you would go down, I guess if you multiplied it by at least 2, and in some cases we have 3 elevations for some of the plans, there'd be somewhere between I suppose a dozen to 16 different elevations available. Then what we do is for the colors, we're trying to be that balance between better alternative townhomes but not as diverse necessarily as single family so you get some threads and consistencies of architectural elements and colors and materials. So as 12 Planning Commission Meeting- January 15, 1997 opposed to having five different bricks, maybe we'd have two. Having five different colors, but we'll mix them up. We typically have about a five color palette so then you take that 12 to 16 elevations and multiply it times the 5 different color palettes and that's what we, plus like I say, this could be reversed. There could be a side loaded garage or it could be a front loaded garage. And with that we can create a lot of diversity. Skubic: The elevations you're speaking of are due to the terrain, is that correct? We don't have different sizes or profiles of these units? Tim Whitten: I'm sorry, could you say that again? Skubic: The elevations you're speaking of are due to the terrain. Tim Whitten: These elevations? No, it's actually just the designs as I'm speaking about the elevations. Along with that there will be a variation due to the fact that some of these will be walkouts and that's added to this. Peterson: How many meetings have you had thus far with the neighbors? One? Rick Murray: We had the one open house on Saturday and then 4 or 6 neighbors that met with us on Thursday. Peterson: Questions from commissioners? Thank you. I'd like to have a motion to open this for a public hearing. Joyce moved, Farmakes seconded to open the public hearing. Peterson: With that in mind, obviously we have a lot of people in the audience this evening. We want to hear your respective thoughts and opinions, and also realize that time is, we don't want to have you or us be here until 3:00 in the morning so if you would please limit your comments to those that you feel are relevant and that may not have been said before. As the meeting goes on, 1 will apologize in advance if I interrupt. With that, would anybody like to make a presentation to the commission? Cinda Jensen: I'm not bringing up water because I'm going to talk long but just because I have a little sore throat here so. My name is Cinda Jensen and I live at 2173 Brinker Street and my husband David Jensen is going to help me out with a couple of transparencies here too so. Now I think we're going to work from transparencies that show this second site plan, as opposed to the first site plan since, even though we're talking conceptually, if we do get into a few details, we're going to work with the developer's second site plan which shows a total of 268 units. Okay. And Chair, I think I was at one of the last meetings with the twin home development that ran until 1:00 in the morning so I will try to keep my comments concise and non-repetitive, but at the same time I do have several points to make so I'd like to refer to my notes if you don't mind. Okay. First of all I need to point out that several of my neighbors in the Windmill Run and Royal Oak neighborhood, which is just north of the proposal that we're talking about tonight, have 13 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 asked me to speak on their behalf, so I am representing more individuals. We'd like to voice a very strong opposition to the proposed Highlands development plan. And we're opposed to this plan for a number of reasons but bottom line, we feel that this plan is not in keeping with the City's comprehensive land use plan. We think that it is not also in keeping with the City's preliminary recommendation for low density for the majority of this area that was made back in March of 1995. We also think it's not in keeping at all with information that several of us received directly from City Planners before we purchased our homes in this area. And we also feel that this represents dramatic increases in density, not only to our neighborhood but also to the comprehensive land use plan. We do not feel that the City should amend it's comprehensive land use plan and we don't feel that the density should be increased in this area. I want to point out here that we certainly recognize the field that's behind us is going to be developed someday and we are not opposed to development. We're also not opposed to Rick Murray and his development staff. It's his current plan that we're opposed to. With that said however I just want to reiterate that we do not want to see the City amend it's comprehensive plan and increase the density in this area and instead we would rather see the City endorse development which is consistent with the comprehensive plan which still can achieve some of the objectives that the City would like to see. I think we can be creative here. This particular property can be developed in other ways besides amending the comprehensive plan, and we feel that it can still be developed that will show natural and gradual transitions of density and still incorporate different housing types. In just a little bit one of my other neighbors will speak and part of what she would like to share is a rough proposal of an idea of how we think this land could perhaps be developed that would recognize diversity in terms of housing styles but would still stay within both the letter and the spirit of the comprehensive plan and would not move away from what the comprehensive land use plan is showing right now. At this point though I would like to discuss two items, and the first item I think is very important. It's a reminder for those of you who were on the Planning Commission 2 years ago. Mr. Conrad and Mr. Farmakes and regarding the situation with the twin home development proposal that was in front of us at that time and the concerns that our neighborhood had with that twin home proposal. For those of you who are new to the commission since then, hopefully you've had a chance to find out some of the history on this particular twin home development proposal that was in front of the commission 2 years ago. Either by reviewing the Minutes of both the Planning Commission and the City Council Minutes surrounding that particular proposal. But at any rate I believe it's important to recall, and I should qualify that. I think we believe it's very important to recall the fact that many of us in the Windmill Run and Royal Oak neighborhood specifically received information from the City Hall that informed us that this particular 33 acres of this land was to be developed as single family homes detached, SFH. Another reason that we were opposed to the previous development is that we did not see a gradual and natural transition of density types with the way that the plan was laid out, and if you review the notes you'll see that. I'm sure many of us in this room have selected to live in Chanhassen for a number of reasons, many of which we probably share. Maybe it's because of the less crowding,parks, the open space, great churches,great schools, neighborhoods, and businesses and so forth. But whatever we all chose reasons to live in this community. I want to say in the case of my family,we looked and saved for just the right community for over 3 years and approximately 2 years ago we moved our family from St. Louis Park to Chanhassen. And when we were looking for a place to live, I can remember at the very top of our list we had, we were looking for a community with a small town feel and we looked at 14 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 a number of communities. I can remember dragging all 3 of our kids along in the car and checking out Afton and Stillwater and Delano and St. Michael and Anoka and Chaska and a whole lot of them but we felt that Chanhassen offered what we were looking for and we felt that it really did have that small town feel. From our first interest, and this is I think real key here. From our very first interest in Windmill Run we visited City Hall on two occasions and we specifically talked with city planners and we asked them exactly what was to be developed around the Windmill Run and Royal Oak neighborhood. We were shown the comprehensive land use plan and we were told that this land,approximately 30 acres south of us, was to be zoned the same as Windmill Run with similar homes and similar lot sizes. And I want to underscore zoned the same as Windmill Run with similar homes and similar lot sizes. And it was upon that information that we made our decision to build our home at 2173 Brinker Street. The fact is that several families in our neighborhood, and if you look at the Minutes from the meeting from November 2°d of 1994 or December 7`h,or if you review letters that this neighborhood sent to both the Planning Commission and City Council members, you're going to find that a number of people did the same thing that we did and they took the steps to contact City Hall to get information of how this land was going to be developed. Many of the individuals in our area were told that this area was going to be developed as single family detached homes. Similar to our neighborhood. And I've got to just tell you that I had a picture and my picture was, we have about 30 acres in our development with 58 homes and they weren't all developed at the time that we moved in. But I had a picture that about, approximately that same amount of area to our south was going to be developed very similarly with similar homes and similar lot sizes, and that was my vision. I mean that's what I picture this,a continuity of our neighborhood to the south, and I know that I'm not alone on that and a number of neighbors feel the same based upon the information they received from the City. But here we are today with another developer, a different developer who's proposing to even further increase the density on the same 33 acres of land than we were told would be developed as single family homes. We don't think it's right and we also don't really enjoy bringing up this issue of misrepresentation but the fact is it happened. And we think it's important to the development plan that's in front of you today. The second item I would like to discuss is with regards to density,which is obviously a very big issue and Rick brought that up earlier. We'd like to point out, actually I'm going to take one step further back and I'm going to come back here. I do want to show one transparency at this time that also speaks to the fact that we were,received misinformation from the city. This is a map,most of you have seen this because this has been sent to your house by one of our neighbors, Dawn Ronningen,who lives in Windmill Run. This was a map that she was given when she visited City Hall before she purchased her home and one of the city planners used this map to outline what was going to be developed to the south of Windmill Run. And you can see up there where the HC/2 letter is. You can see SF, single family showing for about 33 acres right south of us and then there's an indication of mixed medium density below that. At that time when this was shown to her she was told that SF would be developed with similar homes and similar lot sizes. She also looked at several other communities before they moved here and Eden Prairie and Chaska were two of the communities that they looked at, and in their guidance SF stands for single family detached. So I think it just is another point showing that, how obvious it was to us that this was is exactly how we thought this land was going to be developed and we were going to see an extension of our community. Thanks for letting me go back. Now David do you want to just put the next transparency up? 66%, 66%or 33 of the 50 acres that this 15 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 developer wants to develop is currently designated for low density development, and obviously this would be an enormous benefit for the developer if they could have all of this land reguided as medium density. We do not think that this makes sense for our neighborhood or for the City to increase the density here. The developer's currently showing a site plan that places 268 units on approximately 50 acres. This represents 180% increase in density as compared to our Windmill Run/Royal Oak neighborhood where we have 58 homes on 30 acres. Now granted the developer is showing single family homes up on the upper tier, but many of those homes are on smaller lots sizes than what would even be called for under R-4, low density zoning. I want to point that out. Plus if you look at the definition for low density, it says predominantly single family detached, so once again our expectation from our neighborhood, all the way down to the line. David, do you want to point the line across. That is,we've overlayed two transparencies. The one that has the line on it with the slash marks. That's showing, that's picked up exactly from the comp plan that shows where the land designation is. R-4 to the top, low density and R- 8 medium density on the south. Another big density issue for us is that this developer is introducing high density, I repeat high density housing into an area that is not guided by the comprehensive plan to show high density housing. We are showing right now 15 acres. Dave, do you want to point that out? 15 acres of property, or one-third, approximately one-third,just short of one-third of this entire area is showing high density housing right now. And that is you know clearly not on the comprehensive plan. In addition you can see how far it climbs into the low density housing designation. I understand in talking with Kate Aanenson that 6 acres of the 50 acres is required for, a full 50 acres is required for public roads and a small wetland. And I also understand that these 6 acres are calculated into the net density for the land, which according to the site plan we would have looked at would have been 6.8 as a net density. I also understand though in talking with the City and the developers that several other acres are, of this land, are seen as land that should not be developed. For example the Bluff Creek easement. The City has informed me that although these items are necessary for the development, they need to be there, they do not count toward the density calculation and instead the density is transferred or compressed back into the developable land. In addition I think the developer does benefit with all of these private roads. The private roads through the cottages, the private roads through the villas, because these roads also do not need to be included into the density calculation. So I ask, with a sizable chunk of land that's already seen as land that should not be developed, which already compresses the density into a smaller area of land, it does beg to question why would the City even want to consider amending it's comp plan and even further increasing the density on this property. Particularly in an area which contains the headwaters for both the east and west branches of Bluff Creek. Recently I asked Kate Aanenson if all of the land in Chanhassen were to be developed as designated in the comprehensive land use plan, would we have sufficient land for medium and high density and she said yes, according to the calculations based on our growth numbers. She also showed me the progress that has been made with the 1995 land use effort, which I understand has allowed us to be able to increase medium density to the overall comprehensive land use plan. So with all of that, I ask again why would we want to take the comp plan and amend it and further increase density in this area when we have a very sensitive area and we're already compressing density back into this land? I want to point out one other thing in terms of density. That on November 2nd of 1994 when the previous twinhome development was being proposed, Kate, you made a clarification to the commission stating that the City was not recommending medium density for this area. And I'm certainly not trying to put 16 Planning Commission Meeting- January 15, 1997 you on the spot but I do want to recognize that the staff has supported staying within the comprehensive land use plan previously for this area. The last thing I'd like to say on density is just, I find it odd that the community has to come out to defend the comprehensive land use plan and that if the City put that much effort into developing a land use plan, and then when it comes down to actually needing to use it,which is today. I mean this is the time, and we don't use it, what good is the plan? What's the effort, you know all the effort that goes into it. It seems like lost effort. If diversity of housing types is an objective of our city, we believe that this still can be done without amending the comp plan. In closing we'd like to simply ask that you, commission members, reject or deny the developer's current proposal to amend the comprehensive land use plan and to increase the density on this area. We do not believe amending the plan is in the best interest of our neighborhood or our city. Instead we ask you to look for thoughtful development of this land which stays within the comprehensive land use plan, benefits the neighborhood and the city, and incorporates the ingredients of a well planned community. And in just a minute one of our other neighbors,Joan Joyce will speak and one of the things that she plans on sharing is again a rough outline of a possible way of looking at developing this land that would still stay within the current land use make-up as well as introducing diversity of housing types and keeping natural and gradual transitions with regards to density levels. Thank you for your time. Peterson: Thank you for your comments. Joan Joyce: My name is Joan Joyce. I reside at 2043 Brinker Street, and I'm one of the many property owners in the Windmill Run/Royal Oak development that was told by, told that the majority of the land south of my neighborhood was going to be single family homes on lots similar in size to the lots on Windmill Run. A majority of our decision to build our home, to build where our house is, was based on the concept communicated to us from the planning staff at the City Hall. A continuation of our neighborhood would be in fact single family homes, detached, on lot sizes, on lots that are equal in size to ours. We were not at the time told single family housing included twin homes or any other diversity of housing other than single family detached. It is very unfortunate to feel as though we must continue to compromise our expectations of what the City had in mind for this property as compared to what is now being proposed. It is also unfortunate to see that there isn't more of an attempt to create a more definitive neighborhood that allows for safe streets, less traffic, and a sense of community for the neighborhoods in this area. I've become very familiar with the term diversity of housing over the past 2 1/2 years, and although I think every community needs some diversity of housing, I strongly believe that there is a right way and a wrong way to accomplish this goal. I'd like to show you an overview of this area that we're considering with regard to this proposal. I thought it necessary to take a look at this with regard to how this whole thing connects with the existing property to the north, Windmill Run/Royal Oak development, and as you can see the lot sizes in the Windmill Run/Royal Oak development are about 3 homes per acre. This gives you a comparison of exactly the density difference between the two areas. Personally I think it's ridiculous. There's very little green space to the south. I can only imagine the view of any one of a number of homes from the northern tiers looking up to the top of the knoll that a lot of this development is going to be placed on. To me it's almost going to be as close to looking at some sort of a skyscraper when you see row after row after row of homes looking down upon this single family 17 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 neighborhood of detached homes to the north. To me it's a hodge podge of overly dense,poorly planned, cookie cutter houses with little or no green space and no personality whatsoever. This is diversity at it's worst in my opinion. It makes absolutely no sense to me at all. I don't see any transition between the housing types. The high density in the cottage homes, the high density villas and the cottage homes are to me thrown together. There isn't any natural break between the two. I think the developer's claiming that division to be a road, which to me is not a transition. It makes no sense to me at all. We do have another overlay here that I would like to put up. And I'd like to say that I'm certainly not a developer. Therefore I don't claim to know specifications needed to reflect setbacks, easements, drainage, or anything like that so this is more of a conceptual plan. I think it reflects a better match with what the comprehensive plan really is. I've also drawn in the line noting the difference between the low density on the comprehensive plan and the medium density. Dave, can you point that out please? Right there. That I believe is where the line is reflected, upon referring to the comprehensive plan. I think this makes a lot more sense. It also incorporates the Hennessy property, which we all know pretty much where that is. That is a single family detached house on that property. 1 think it's important to be sensitive to the idea that this ought to be incorporated into a neighborhood and not just left unconsidered and stacked up against a bunch of cottage homes on very small lots. I firmly believe that these proposals definitely need to be turned down. I don't think it's even a matter of approving a conceptual plan. It just, I think there's so much to be done to better accommodate what ought to be put in this area that I think the whole thing ought to be just turned down. And I'd like to give you a copy of the overview of the two comparisons between the two so you have these for your files. I'd like to thank you for your time and I'd like to ask if you have any questions at this time. Peterson: Commissioners, any questions? Joan Joyce: Okay, thank you. Peterson: Anyone else wish to address the commission? Virginia Bell: I'm a little shorter so I'll move this down. My name is Virginia Bell and I live at 7476 Crocus Court which is part of the Windmill Run development as well. I'm also opposed to the concept and to the idea of amending the comprehensive plan here and I wanted to talk for just a few minutes about the comprehensive plan. When this proposal came out I went to the library, or actually I asked one of my neighbors to go to the library and get a copy of the comprehensive plan and I read through it. And I might admit at the time that we moved in we did not move, I did not read through the comprehensive plan. But in reading through it I was struck by the fact that the vision that is encompassed in the black and white here in the comprehensive plan is the vision of Chanhassen that I had when I moved in and when we chose to move here. Looking at one of the sections called housing, I read that Chanhassen's adopted goals and policies call for a diversity of housing types and styles. While providing this diversity the City has established a policy of being primarily a low density community consisting primarily of single family homes. That's the vision of Chanhassen that was included in the comprehensive plan that was approved by the City Council, approved by the Met Council and it's frankly the vision that I had of Chanhassen when I moved here. It's the vision that was communicated to me by the planning 18 Planning Commission Meeting- January 15, 1997 staff,by the people at the schools and the other people that I talked to. I too, like my predecessors, visited the Chanhassen planning staff before we moved in and spoke with them. What is being proposed here is obviously not low density and it's obviously not predominantly single family homes. As you've heard from the speakers who preceded me,most of the property that is being discussed here is guided in the comprehensive plan for low density. And low density is defined in the comprehensive plan as from 1 to 4 units. It is also defined as predominantly single family housing. What is being proposed here would transform the neighborhood that I live in, the Windmill Run neighborhood,and the Royal Oaks neighborhood, into a neighborhood that is not predominantly single family but instead is predominantly multi- family housing. If you look at the numbers,I've heard the fellow from Rottlund Homes tonight talk about his product. He's talking about entirely a townhome product. Everything that is going in there, the cottage homes and the villas are a townhome product. So what we have left is a neighborhood, including ours, an extension of our neighborhood going down, that becomes predominantly multi-family. That was not the expectation that I had or that my neighbors had and that's not what it is guided for and is represented in the comprehensive plan. I think the issue before you tonight is whether or not you want to approve an amendment to the comprehensive plan that is such a fundamental and basic amendment to the plan that results in the transformation of an area that's been guided for low density into an area that will become high density and medium density. That is a profound change to the comprehensive plan, particularly in a community which has stated that it has a policy of being primarily a low density community consisting primarily of single family homes. As many of you probably know, the State legislature has recently enacted a statute which gives even more weight to our comprehensive plans, which says that we can't put in a zoning ordinance that is contrary to the comprehensive plan. Obviously the legislature believes that there is a lot to a comprehensive plan and as Cinda said, why put in our effort into this comprehensive plan if we're simply going to amend it every time a developer wants to make a change. I think reading through the comprehensive plan I was struck with the way it all sort of fits together. It's a web. In guiding the various areas for low density or medium density and high density, the other services in the community are tied to those densities. And by amending the plan and upping the densities, you're obviously making changes. Impacts to the schools, transportation and other things. Another reason not to amend the comprehensive plan. In conclusion I, on a personal note, I think I live in a wonderful community and a wonderful neighborhood and the kind of neighborhood that I think we ought to be trying to emulate. There are 50 or more kids under the age of 10. There's a lot of diversity. We have a lot of people. We have single parents. We have people from other places, other countries. It's an absolutely wonderful neighborhood. And I'm really, I'm happy and proud to live there. I think by doing what we see in this plan tonight and transforming this neighborhood from a single family neighborhood into a multi-family neighborhood,predominantly multi-family,there's a possibility to destroy that wonderful sense of community that we have here in Chanhassen and I hope you don't vote for that,thank you. Peterson: Anyone else wishing to address the commission? Ken Weis: I'm a little taller. My name is Ken Weis. I live at 2101 Majestic Way. I'd like to talk a little bit about services. The gentleman from Rottlund discussed services in the fact that the community would be serviced by their own system,but the road is not specifically the 19 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 problem. Today we have service problems with the growth of Chanhassen, specifically on the mail side. The delivery of mail is getting later and later in the evenings. Density of housing. As he suggested in his plan, we have multiple families in the area with a higher density in his proposal which creates a larger avenue of cars and activity, which just puts additional strain on Galpin, on the service roads and on Highway 5. We currently have, as you well know in the last couple days, several incidences of traffic accidents on TH 5 with the density. If you add another 150 homes over the normal allotted density, it creates that much more traffic. So Galpin will have to be expanded. Highway 5 will have to be addressed, so on and so forth. Thank you for your time. Any questions? Thank you. Peterson: Anyone else wishing to address the commission? Jon Noeldner: I'm a little taller yet. My name is Jon Noeldner. I live at 7511 Crocus Court and all of you probably received a letter my wife and 1 authored dated January 6`h. That was mailed to you. I just want to reiterate a couple points that my neighbors have made, and those being we're new neighbors to the neighborhood. We just moved in the end of October. Like the previous people who built there before us, we bought an existing home. 1, myself went to the City Hall. Looked to check where the frontage road is going to be going. Looked to check how the land uses south of us was going to be, and at that time which was about 6 months ago I'd say, I was told this is zoned as this under the comprehensive land use plan, that's how it's going to be built up. Single family homes and I wasn't told anything else and that played a big important factor in us purchasing our home. I just wanted to reiterate that fact and hope that you vote not to approve this development. Thanks. Brian Monteith: I guess I'm short. My name is Brian Monteith and I moved in about 2 years ago February and I also authored a letter to you all and sent it to your homes, I hope you don't mind, dated January 6`h, and I just wanted to say a couple things. I moved here from Washington D.C. area, the suburbs of Maryland where it's very, very highly dense population with a lot of development that went on, that's very similar to what's being proposed here. And just what I'd like to say is that the overall quality of life that we enjoy today in Chanhassen is going to be severely compromised if we're able to allow this to continue. And I state this because I know it because I've lived it and you really don't want to go through anything like that. It really detracts from the overall things that we take for granted today as being overall the part of life in Minnesota that we've come to enjoy since moving here. The other thing that I'd like to say is that the figures that were proposed earlier by the gentleman from Rottlund, .1 kids per house in the Mission Hills development over there must be very,very highly questioned because once again coming from an environment where I came from, there were absolutely more than 2 kids per house in those types of homes and I just find it very hard to believe. The reason I bring that up is that the impact to the schools, Bluff Creek in particular, who if you've been there and if you have children that go there, you will know that they really can't even afford to have one more kid attend that school because it's over crowded as we speak. I haven't heard any plan, or I haven't seen anything that says that we're going to add additional schools in the time frame that would be consistent with the building of this development and I would urge you to take that into consideration. The last point that I'd like to make, which hasn't been brought up yet, is the overall impact to traffic in our neighborhood in Windmill Run. Today, in a typical summer, my 20 Planning Commission Meeting- January 15, 1997 children will be out with the other children in the neighborhood riding their bikes in the street. I think by extending the road of Windmill Drive into this new development, it will severely impact the overall affect of traffic increase in our neighborhood. What I think that does is a bigger issue than what we're talking about here, which is density. It puts my children and other children in danger and I am very much against that as a part of this overall development, so I would urge you to take my comments under consideration and hopefully voting this down. We moved to Chanhassen, very happy to live in Chanhassen but we didn't think we would be impacted by something like this and I believe us all to be reasonable people here. I'm not here for any other reason than to do what's right and hopefully you will be as well. So thanks. Peterson: Before we get too much farther, I guess I'd like to pause just for a second before anybody that would be in support of this, loses their fortitude to come forward. So if there is anybody in support of this project, I'd ask that they come forward now. I had to ask. Anyone else that would like to address the commission? Seeing none, is there a motion to close the public hearing? Farmakes moved,Joyce seconded to close the public hearing. Peterson: The public hearing is closed. Thank you all for your comments. Commissioners. Ladd, do you want to take a stab at this one? Conrad: Sure. Someday we'll get this land developed and we won't have to keep meeting like this. I appreciate, I think the last time you were in I said this and I'll say it again. I appreciate the work and effort you've done. It's always a pleasure when people present as well as you have and makes some good points. Again we're hit, and it's hard to tell you what we know and maybe we don't know much up here but it's hard to get into issues and get us out by 1:00. It becomes a balance. Obviously what we've got to do is figure this out. A few things, as I've always said, I really support neighbors and their neighborhoods and try to meet expectations. On the flip side of the coin, before I say too many positive things that way, Chanhassen really does have some problems. The housing diversity is, we don't have it. We're not providing the homes that we need to have so this plan, and I'll state up front in terms of PUD, is not bad. It's looking, if you can do PUD's, which we never get to do. We do cookie cutter things basically. That's what we do. That's how Chanhassen develops. Here's a chance on the positive side for Chanhassen to do something that's a little bit different. And again I heard you say a lot of valid points. It's just hard to not appreciate what you said. Yet, and it's easy to discount diversity but we don't get it. We don't get developers coming in here with diversity. Period. And when you do, you've got to take a look at it so, that may tell you, I'm not real popular today but I'm willing to look at this. From the standpoint. There are 50 some points of staff concerns. I guess what I'm saying tonight, I would entertain looking at this again. I'd sure be interested how City Council reacts to that because I think, as we talked about before, there were expectations and communications made and that always bothers me what people bought versus what we're thinking of doing if we make a change. Specifically on the plan, the concerns, I think we've talked about them but I'm just going to relate to my concerns that I saw here. Besides maybe the 50 some points that have to be addressed and some of them are template things in the staff report. The issues that I really have, when you get into mass,bigger projects like this is visual diversity and I tell you, that's a 21 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 tough one to deal with. I really don't want, if we ever get into housing diversity in Chanhassen, that doesn't mean it's stamped out. It means that we have some variety here. I just don't want to put up quonset huts when we start building more of the lower income or townhome. The products that are selling, we don't have products in Chanhassen that are selling right now so that's why Rottlund's considering this. To put up things that are selling. That doesn't mean we have to take it. It's got to fit but on the other hand,we need the design alternatives and that's why I was asking some of those questions on design alternatives. I've got to be positive we're not putting in blocks here. There has, and I just have to be positive about that. Every time we preach bringing in denser things and every time you see it on paper it looks awful. I tell you, it scares you when you see it all of a sudden, you see them all and you say well is that creative and is that whatever and it makes me nervous. Yet on the other hand, there's some nice things to what I saw. The overall, if we were to go forward with this, the overall density or the overall quantity of housing has to be under what it was originally guided for in terms of density, and I think the developer's coming back and saying those things so that's maybe not appeasing to the neighbors but it has to fit into what it originally was guided for, overall. The Hennessy property has to be incorporated. I think I heard some things that it is, but it, I wish it was part of this overall property. It looks like it's going to be a chunk out there that's not incorporated but that incorporation is important. The totlot was an issue with me. I really like,again you want places for people to recreate and gather and do those things. Whether it's the totlot or a gathering place, again every time you see a footprint of stuff like this,you say well where are people going to go? Well that leads me to the Bluff Creek aspect and Bluff Creek is the biggest asset this project has and I didn't see how it fit. There are a lot of words here that said we've got to do things but I just didn't see how Bluff Creek fit into the overall plan of this and that's got to come back. We have to see how it's integrated. We have to see how it becomes an amenity to Chanhassen and to this development and to everybody in the area. I need to see the Park and Rec recommendations on this also, and 1 don't think they've met yet. That's just, again that always bothers me when we don't get to see what they are talking about and incorporating it into what we see. We have to turn the ponds in this property into an asset. The holding ponds rather than just being there so I'd like to see how those can be turned into an asset. Those are my comments Mr. Chairman. Those are my comments. Peterson: Bob. Skubic: I have a question of staff regarding the 92 twin homes. Is that still a possibility if this does not go forward? Generous: Sure, they can come in and final plat that. Skubic: Thank you. Aanenson: It does expire in. Generous: In March. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 Skubic: March 13th it says. I concur with what Ladd has said. That we certainly need some diversity in the city, but at the same time on this particular development we certainly are concerned about the neighbors and preserving their investments and I think their investments are both financial and emotional. I'm sure you're not pleased with what you see when you look out your back yard. It certainly has a price of some sort associated with it. I think that both the applicant and the residents have to make a better case. There is an economic sacrifice if this does go through as proposed here. I know it's talked about on both sides but I'm not convinced that this development will decrease the value of the homes in Windmill Run. Perhaps that can be quantified somehow. And I also agree that the Hennessy area, the homes around it should be single family or residential homes as opposed to what's there right now. I think I could support something, some sort of a PUD here. Not nearly as extensive as what we have here. One of my concerns is, when I look out from Windmill Run and I look at the knoll area and I imagine all these symmetrical homes on a hill there that's not going to look like what you expected out there. It's not going to look like a single family development. So that's one thing that I would hope could be alleviated in some way so that the visual view on that knoll is more pleasing. I'm not sure what that means, probably single family homes. There's also questions about the contour required around Bluff Creek. I think there was a contour line of 966 feet and...from the creek to that contour varies significantly and I understand part of it goes onto what was previously a cultivated field and I don't understand what benefit it would be to preserve the creek to have the preservation area extended to that area beyond the tree line. Regarding, more regarding the density, I suspect that with this development so close to the elementary school, that we probably would see a greater population of children in this area...what the applicant has suggested. This is a different geographical location than what it was compared to I suspect. I don't, I doubt that the other ones were across from an elementary school. That's all I have to say. Peterson: Thank you. Kevin. Joyce: Well I'm a little more, a bit more familiar with this property than the other commissioners I think but I will try to be as objective as I can about my comments. First off, looking at this, maybe you fellows have more insight than I do but I'm totally confused. I've seen three plans so far tonight and I don't know which ones to follow. I mean we got a plan Thursday. I know I met with the developer and looked at another plan and then there was a plan presented tonight that took into consideration the Bluff Creek easement and I guess this is a conceptual plan but I look at it as kind of a conceptual, conceptual plan. I'm really kind of uncomfortable about it because I just, I think having 50 conditions like this, that the developer really is just kind of throwing something up and seeing if we'll bite is my feeling. I would have liked to have seen a lot more preparation. I think a couple phone calls could have reduced a lot of these conditions. Given us a better view of what they're trying to present to us. It's very difficult for me to take the three plans and incorporate them into something that, see what they're trying to do here. I know that Rick Murray tried to explain it verbally but well it's an important project I think. 50 acres with a PUD and I would have liked to have seen something a little more organized and I didn't see that tonight. So that was just I guess a consideration of the process itself. Specific points I'd like to address is that you have the 33 acres that are guided for low density and 17 acres are guided for medium density. We've already heard, obviously there were expectations from the neighborhood about what those 33 acres were to consist of. They thought, 23 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 were led to believe,whatever that the lots were 15,000 square foot lots with 3 per acre. In actuality the City's guided the 33 acres at a maximum of 4 units per acre or lots of at least 11,000 square feet. I guess I'll revert back to the first plan. I looked at the single family portion of the first plan that had 34 single family homes on it and of those homes you had 5 of the 34 exceeded 15,000 square feet. 17 of the 35 were between 15,000 and 11,000. Then we had 12 of the, excuse me, 34. 12 of the 34 were below 11,000 square feet. So even in the single family portion of this development, over a third are below what we consider R-4 square footage. The plan also suggests putting, not only high density in the 17 acres that it's guided for medium density but it's actually putting 12 plexes, high density in something that's guided low density. I think that's a stretch. I have a very hard time considering a proposal which is just 8 plexes and 12 plexes on R- 4 guided land. You know you're in essence doubling and tripling the guided density. I think that really should be considered in any sort of conceptual plan. The developer's using a PUD to distribute the density inside this project area to get it to medium density. My opinions of, or ideas of what the intent of a PUD is, there are various that we get in our packet. Preservation, desirable site characteristics, sensitivity development in transitional areas, create a unified internal order. Gives us some flexibility for higher quality than a standard zoning district. It certainly allows for diversity of housing types that the City certainly does need. I think the PUD essence is really to enhance a property. That would be more than what normal zoning would allow for. And I think there should be a compelling reason to have a PUD. I think that's part of the idea of a PUD. That we're doing this for a certain purpose. The way I look at this project however, I don't see any green space. I don't see any gathering areas. To me it's really not that imaginative. It's certainly not that unique. And I see that the developer's using the PUD process to kind of use some mathematical gymnastics to put as many units as he can on this property to make it available for as many possible units as he can under the guise of a PUD. So I've got a problem with that. One aspect of this development that is addressed through the PUD is certainly the intent of the diversity of housing. Or I'll use that, how many letter word. More than four letter word, affordable housing that we hear so much about. I believe that's really the catalyst for this project. We all know the City is under a lot of pressure because of the mandate of the Livable Communities Act. I know that the planning staff, Kate and Bob, are under a lot of pressure by the goals that were set by the Metropolitan Council. I also know developers are eager to build these 8 plexes and 12 plexes because they're profitable and they're easy to sell. But if this is the only criteria we're using to develop these things and change comprehensive plans for the sake of diversity or affordable housing, I kind of see it as the tail wagging the dog rather than the other way around. I just, if that's the purpose for all our planning, what's left. There's property due east of this development that is guided medium density and high density, but once again going back to the PUD,I don't see the compelling issue why we have to change to an R-4 density up to medium density with pockets of high density in this area. I also don't think the citizens of Chanhassen that happen to live near or adjacent to an open field would have to worry about 12 plexes being rather close to their homes because, regardless of land use,because of this issue of affordable housing. I think the City has a comprehensive plan that should be followed. I think my neighbors made a huge decision, certainly the biggest investment of their life,and they use the comprehensive plan as a guide post and I think the City should live up to it's agreement with the people who bought in this neighborhood that the comprehensive plan will be followed. But I'm very uncomfortable moving this even past the conceptual stage and I would vote against it. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 Jeff Farmakes' microphone was not working and did not pick up his comments. Peterson: ...direction you could give the developer. Farmakes: I would like to see these...to put with, in other words not be cut off...the point was made to the development to the east. That's an important point... We don't want to see a wall of high density corridor for 4 miles running down Highway 5. The point is that's probably what we're going to see based on what proposals are coming forward... Peterson: Thank you. My comments are not that dissimilar to my fellow commissioners. I think that I am actually not opposed certainly to having a PUD on this property, or on these properties. I think that there is strong potential of having that. What I have seen tonight I don't feel as though presents me with a compelling reason to rezone,particularly we talk, Jeff mentioned the Highway 5 corridor. I think that we are having this development in the Highway 5 corridor even puts a higher standard on what we put on that property. That means that it needs to have a higher standard of a uniqueness that a feel is there within the design. I think that the single family homes were kind of left out of the conversation tonight. I do like the, I think the townhouses have... architectural lines. From my perspective they still may be a bit dense but I like the styles and the way they've integrated them into the contours of the land and they seem to have...at least a certain amount of variety and I got some sense of that tonight. Again it's conceptual but I certainly want to see more definition to that before 1 move ahead. That was one part of the presentation tonight that I did find interesting. I too agree that the open space is an issue. The Hennessy property is an issue. Bluff Creek integration, or the lack of integration needs to be worked on. ...density of the villas...closest and most visual to Highway 5 doesn't fit in there as densely as it is presented. I too, I think we need to do some more work before we move it onto Council. I don't think that I'm comfortable at least with...something that is still at this stage of progress. With that, do I hear a motion? Joyce: I'd just like to throw this motion out. I don't know how far it will get but I'd like to throw the motion out that the Planning Commission deny this conceptual plan. Skubic: ..discussion? Peterson: I think we're going to need to. Comments to that. Skubic: That would mean it would be passed onto City Council is that correct? Aanenson: Correct. Skubic: If we table it it would come back before us and... Conrad: My preference is to get it to City Council. I think the neighborhood is here. They've expressed their concerns. Their concerns will stay the same. I'm interested in where the City Council would be in terms of their commitment to certain of the issues that this brings forward. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 And I don't want to, personally I don't want to screw around with it. If we don't see a commitment on their part to even consider this. So my recommendation would be to so note this case and to have staff. I'm not making a motion right now, but I'm telling you if Kevin's doesn't pass. I would so note this without a recommendation pro or con but to have the developer and staff incorporate our comments and prepare better material for the City Council to review. And to get their feedback. We are in the concept plan right now and I think, I'm really interested in how much more time we want to use if the City Council's not interested in exploring a PUD. If they're not, I really don't want to, I don't want to fine tune this because we're going to be wrong. And these folks are going to be back and I guess my perspective is they should hear what the City Council has to say. Joyce: Kate, this is not binding then? If this goes to City Council and they approve it, we can really come back to square one again, is that correct? Aanenson: Absolutely. Conrad: Yeah, we're not committing to anything Kevin. Joyce: Well that's my motion. Peterson: Okay. Is there a second? Is there another motion? Conrad: Yeah, I'd make the motion that the Planning Commission notes this planning case, whatever it is staff, and recommends that the staff and developer works to prepare better materials for the review by the City Council and to incorporate the recommendations that they heard tonight by the Planning Commission and to eliminate or to work out many of the 50 some points that were addressed in the planning staff's report. Peterson: Is there a second to that motion? Skubic: Second. Conrad moved, Skubic seconded that the Planning Commission notes PUD #96-4, The Highlands, and recommends that the staff and developer work to prepare better materials for the review by the City Council and to incorporate the recommendations that they heard by the Planning Commission and to eliminate or work out many of the 50 some points that were addressed in the planning staff's report. All voted in favor,except Joyce and Peterson who voted in opposition, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. Peterson: Kevin, would you share with us your opposition. Joyce: I think Ladd made a good point. I think, in my opposition I have to ask you a question. Are you saying that you're denying this? Conrad: I said I've noted it. No, I have not denied it. 26 Planning Commission Meeting- January 15, 1997 Joyce: So how's this going to City Council? Conrad: The way you see it. The staff will work on it. They'll probably, I would assume the developer will have one firm plan presented. I would assume the developer and the staff will incorporate many, well I hope they'd incorporate some of the things that we've been talking about. You know I've got some issues on Bluff Creek and issues on gathering spots and what have you and Kevin you've got issues on, you've got a lot of issues. They probably can't incorporate those but views and vistas and design. You know my assumption would be that there's going to be some work done by the developer and staff to make the presentation a little bit more solid to the City Council. My hope would be that the City Council expresses some kind of opinion about whether a PUD is appropriate here, and the densities. That's my, because there's no use in us screwing around with it if the City Council is not prone to doing this. And a lot goes back to communication that's had in the past and expectations and see how sensitive they are. They are the elected body and I guess I, normally I'd want to send up something a little bit better and I'd want to see what it is but right now I think there's some overriding issues that no matter what we do in terms of sending them a prettier piece of paper, the overriding issues may be more important than the specific detail that we have. Joyce: I agreed with your position on not tabling it. I think bringing people back in every Wednesday night to try and figure this thing out is not right. I feel that what you're saying though is a neutral stance and I can't vote for that so I have to take a negative stance to that. That's my reason. Peterson: My primary reason for voting nay is simply I would rather send a cleaner plan to, and ensure that the clean plan is going to Council prior to that and I can empathize with your position. I'm almost on the fence but I'm more biased towards sending Council a cleaner plans for them to review prior to. Thank you all for coming. Appreciate the comments. PUBLIC HEARING: SBA, INC. REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 150' TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER TO BE LOCATED AT 1455 PARK ROAD. Public Present: Name Address Gary Goll 1455 Park Road Jason Funk 2900 Lone Oak Parkway, Eagan Terrie Thurmer 7625 Metro Blvd., Edina Doug Cowan 1701 East 79th Street, Bloomington Michelle Johnson, APT 1701 East 79th Street, Bloomington 27 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Farmakes: These power lines that come out here... Al-Jaff: It would blend in with existing electric poles that are behind that building. There's a row of electric poles back there. It doesn't have the reflection. When the sun shines on it, it won't be that bright reflection that you would see. Aanenson: Similar to what we did on the pedestrian bridge. We explored painting that. We actually looked at the two and there's actually less reflection when we left it. If you look at it, that actually kind of blends into the sky. Al-Jaff: That's all I had, thank you. Peterson: Are there questions for staff? Conrad: Is there barbed wire on this fence? Al-Jaff: On? Conrad: On the fence. Al-Jaff: On the fence. The last of the fence, it is barbed wire. There are three strands of that. Conrad: And that's legal? Al-Jaff: Under a conditional use permit. It has to be 8 feet, yes. Actually I had to look that one up because I was under the impression that we couldn't do that either and I discovered that yes, they are permitted to do so as long as they apply for a conditional use permit. And as long as it doesn't, the overall height does not exceed 8 feet. Peterson: Meaning we don't have to approve the conditional use permit for the barbed wire. Aanenson: And findings why you don't want it, sure. Conrad: I guess I'd have to defer to staff's judgment on this. On barbed wire but I've never seen barbed wire on anything in Chan in the last 12 years so. Aanenson: We had one and we went to litigation on it. A residential area. Conrad: Really? It just, somebody could make a case I guess but, and actually this was not the one. The next one coming up with barbed wire is more of a concern to me but again I guess that one sort of bothers me. Peterson: Other questions? 28 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 Joyce: I'll just, for what it's worth, as far as the landscaping. Al-Jaff: Pardon? Joyce: I said for what it's worth as far as the landscaping and the arborvitae. I went away for Thanksgiving and came home and I had six beautiful arborvitaes in my back yard completely stripped by deer. Not a leaf on it. So I wished they develop my area behind my house so no deer come running through. I'm just throwing that out. Peterson: No more questions? Does the applicant or their designee wish to address the Planning Commission? Terrie Thurmer: Hi. My name's Terrie Thurmer and I'm with Steven Bernstein and Associates. Their address is 7625 Metro Boulevard, Suite 235 in Edina. I'm here tonight on behalf of Sprint PCS and I worked with your former planner, John Rask on the draft of your recently adopted ordinance from November. I just wanted to let you know that our proposal does meet all these requirements and it will be in compliance with all of the performance standards of the city, including the landscaping plan. As for the barbed wire, we don't care. If you want to not approve the barbed wire, it's not a big deal at all. My preference personally is it's ugly but you do what you want to do. With me tonight is Jason Funk. He's the sight selection specialist with Sprint PCS and if you have questions related to this specific site, he'll be glad to try to answer those. And I just wanted to add that the presentation in the staff memo by Sharmin was very thorough and I'm not going to be redundant. I just wanted to like to add that both SBA and Sprint PCS are in agreement with all the conditions, modified, being recommended by staff and ask if you have any questions for me or Mr. Funk. Peterson: Questions. Terrie Thurmer: Thank you. Peterson: May I have a motion to open this for public hearing. Conrad moved, Farmakes seconded to open the public hearing. Peterson: Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission, please do so now. Seeing none, is there a motion to close the public hearing. Farmakes moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. Peterson: Comments from commissioners. Jeff. Farmakes: I don't have any questions. Peterson: Kevin. 29 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 Joyce: No, I don't have any questions. Peterson: Bob. Skubic: The fence and the barbed wire are a little different than what I expected for these sites. 1 was expecting nice concrete buildings like we have for the lift stations. However in this location here where it's between the railroad grade and the loading dock, I'm not so concerned about that but I would like to remove the barbed wire. Peterson: Ladd. Conrad: Yeah the same. Barbed wire I'd just rather not have there. The only other thing, and this seems funny that I'm concentrating on it. On the fence itself. When it's a chain link fence and there's not a top rail to it, that seems strange to me. So again there's some minor stuff but it doesn't look finished. It doesn't look you know, we've got a major facility here and we, I don't know. My recommendation is no barbed wire and then to finish the top of the fence off somehow. So it can feel more professionally looking, if that makes sense. Peterson: One more question came to me. What I asked of staff earlier today, is there a potential, even though this plan is not requesting it, but is there the potential for a building to be needed on this site? The future potential. Did you hear the question? Terrie Thurmer: Is the question is do we need a building? Peterson: Potentially. is there the potential to need a building in the future? Terrie Thurmer: No. The equipment that we're using...it's all the quality control inside the building. There is no need for a building. With cellular towers they had to have the air conditioning and all of that. These are self contained. We don't ever need a building with what we're proposing tonight. Peterson: Okay. My only comments would be that the detailed landscape plan be completed and agreed to by staff before it goes to Council. With that, is there a motion? Conrad: Sure. I'll make a motion the Planning Commission approves Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit#96-5 for the 150 telecommunication tower and an 8 foot chain link fence as shown on the site plan received December 11, 1996, subject to the conditions of the staff report with the following changes. Number 1, you're to add on the words before it goes to the City Council and then I'd add, I guess point number 6. That there is no, that the fence does not have barbed wire and that the fence has a better finishing top to it. Boy, isn't that well worded? Peterson: Very well. Conrad: Yeah thanks. 30 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 Peterson: Is there a second to that? Joyce: I'll second that. Conrad moved, Joyce seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit#96-5 for a 150 foot telecommunications tower and an 8 foot chain link fence as shown on the site plan received December 11, 1996, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan before it goes to the City Council. 2. The tower shall comply with requirements in ARTICLE XXX. TOWERS AND ANTENNAS of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The tower shall have a galvanized finish. 4. There shall be no artificial lighting or signage. 5. The applicant shall submit documentation at the time of building permit application showing the height above grade for all potential mounting positions for co-located antennas and the minimum separation distances between antennas. A description of the tower's capacity, including the number and type of antennas that can be accommodated should also be provided. 6. There shall be no barbed wire on the fence and the top of the fence shall be changed to look finished. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: AMERICAN PORTABLE TELECOM FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 135' TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER TO BE LOCATED AT 80 WEST 78111 STREET. Public Present: Name Address Gary Goll 1455 Park Road Jason Funk 2900 Lone Oak Parkway, Eagan 31 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 Terrie Thurmer 7625 Metro Blvd., Edina Doug Cowan 1701 East 79`h Street, Bloomington Michelle Johnson, APT 1701 East 79th Street, Bloomington Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions of staff. Joyce: There was no need for notification on this to anybody? There was no one within 500 feet I take it, because I didn't see any. Generous: It was notified. I just didn't, I forgot to attach that. Joyce: The only concern I have is looking at some of the residential areas that I know aren't 500 feet away and that's our policy to just, it concerns me that someone's going to look up in the air one of these days and see that thing and not know why it's up there. I don't know how, I don't have any direction on that but it's obviously, it's an issue. I mean you know. Aanenson: You're right. You're right. There's 20 names that were identified. Property owners. Joyce: Okay. Conrad: Is it staff's feeling that this is not a visual issue at this location? It was a lot easier accepting a tower in an industrial area. Now we're in a commercial, residential, very easily seen from TH 101 and TH 5. Do we have so much pollution, visual pollution there already that the position is this ain't going to make any difference. Aanenson: The eastern end of the city was the, was what triggered the whole ordinance amendment. We knew that area was deficient. Providers have been, have identified this area as deficient as far as service. That's what kind of forced us to provide a mechanism for a tower being placed. We felt visually that this was probably the best, as far as aesthetic. We didn't want it right on the entryway to the City. It's interesting to know, we went back and we were looking at the high tension power lines that went through the city 10 years ago and there was a lot of discussion about the visual impacts. The negative side is we kind of lose, after a while we just get used to that negative pollution, which is kind of bad. We certainly don't want to encourage them but it's try to look at,but the building in front. Hopefully that would take away, the professional office building in front. Some of the impacts of it. Setting it back instead of having it right on the corner of TH 5 and Dell Road. But certainly it's something we look at every time it comes in. Is this probably the best location we can get. Especially when we find there's another one in close proximity that wants to come in, which is the better of the two, even though one's ahead of the other. ...500 feet, it might be the people that are 1,000 out that might see...more offended by it. But I guess I tie it back to when we went on the tour, we went down off of Lyman Road. The one that was there. A lot of people forget that that one was... Yes, to answer your question, we do try to look at... You've got to keep in mind that they need to get a 32 Planning Commission Meeting- January 15, 1997 certain topography elevation in order to make it work, but it is nicer putting it in an industrial park. Peterson: Questions of staff? Is the applicant here and do they wish to address the commission? Michelle Johnson: My name is Michelle Johnson. I represent American Portable Telecom, which is also referred to as APT. It's located at 1701 East 79th Street, Suite 19, Bloomington, Minnesota, 55425. Also here with me tonight are Doug Cowan, John Barstow and Duke Winn representing APT if there are any further questions from our engineers or anything that come up. I think the staff has prepared a very thorough report. Rather than just duplicating everything I'd like to comment on a couple of things that were raised here. First the barbed wire. We said we do intend to build an 8 foot fence but we have no problem eliminating the barbed wire from the top of that fence so that is no longer an issue. In the planning report there was a statement about the,a concern that there might be some encroachments onto some city easements. We're willing to configure the site so that it will not encroach upon any of those easements. As far as moving the site to about 50 feet away from those trees that were existing, we are willing to work with the staff on that as well. In our preliminary discussions with the property owner on that, he had expressed an interest in possibly removing those particular trees and replacing them with evergreens or something that would be a little more fuller because apparently he's had problems with those trees having to continuously cut them back in order to prevent them from going onto his parking lot and destroying that parking lot. So he did profess an interest in that so we might be able to work out something with staff and I guess I will have something a little more definite worked out before the City Council meeting on that. As far as the aesthetics point that was brought up, we do feel that because of the utility poles and the light poles and stuff that go along those highways there, it actually serves to lessen the visual impact of the tower. It's the vertical elements,just the series of vertical elements rather than if it was just out in a flat field where it'd be a lot more noticeable. When there are all of those other things,people tend to get very used to it very quickly and no longer notice it anymore. I don't have any further comments at this time but we are open to questions. Peterson: Questions from commissioners. Skubic: I have a question regarding co-location. You say that you're at the edge of your range right now at this location. Now if we co-locate somebody on there who might be 20 feet, the separation distance is 20 feet I believe it is. Will that further restrict their range and make it more difficult to co-locate? Michelle Johnson: Different systems require different heights on the towers. We are, our towers are capable of holding another system,another co-locator. That's another thing I wanted to mention that we are willing to provide that letter saying we're open to co-location,and we have had two companies express a preliminary interest in looking at that site to see if they could possibly co-locate on that in the future. It doesn't limit,because the systems are different, they require different heights of their antennas. They require different distances between the towers. So it really doesn't limit the ability to co-locate as far as other towers. Towers are only capable of holding a certain number of antenna structurally so it won't hold an infinite number of co- 33 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 locators but depending upon the type of company that comes in, what height they need, we would be open to allowing them to work with us. Skubic: Thank you. Conrad: I guess I don't understand the plan. Is it, visually the previous one was a little bit easier for me to understand. On this site, in this area that's 35 x 30 feet, we have a tower and then what else? Maybe Bob you can answer. What is the building? Generous: It's not a building per se. It's like boxes. Conrad: Okay. It's still similar to the other one then, that we just approved? Michelle Johnson: Yes it is. The cabinets are about the size of a vending machine so they're not in any way considered a building. They're about 3 x 5 x 3. Conrad: So the 40 meter monopole, that is the pole we're talking about right? Michelle Johnson: Right. Conrad: Okay. I get the schematic a little bit better. An arrow was going through what I thought was a building, not the pole. It runs through the building to the pole. No more questions, thanks. Peterson: My question is...but is in reality, are there going to be any cellular towers even put up that require buildings? Are the buildings essentially done with the progression of technology as we see it today? Michelle Johnson: I can't really speak for other companies. I can only speak for what we're doing. I know it depends on the technology for how much they need. The technology is progressing so that smaller and smaller buildings are required. So it's possible that no one will come in again asking for a big building but I can't guarantee that. It depends on what their system requires. If there's a cellular company still working. I know one of the ones we were talking to, they do require a building so. Generous: The Chairman of, the cellular tower next to this had a building. Joyce: How quickly after the approval process, how fast do these things go up? Is that a very quick process? Michelle Johnson: Maybe for construction I'd better refer to John. Joyce: You can answer from there. John Barstow: Yeah, we would...immediately after we get approval... We'd have to get a permit and start construction. 34 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 Joyce: How long, when would it be completed? John Barstow: A month. Joyce: It's like a month process then. Two weeks? John Barstow: ...dig the foundation. Wait a week for the foundation to carry the stacked steel...so it's about 2-2 1/2 weeks... Peterson: Other questions? Thank you. Can I have a motion to open it for a public hearing and a second. Farmakes moved, Skubic seconded to open the public hearing. Peterson: Anybody that would like to make a presentation, please come forward and state your name and address please. Jay Littlejohn: I wouldn't go so far as to characterize this as a presentation. My name is Jay Littlejohn. I've been before you many times. I represent Air Touch Cellular. We have the other application that has been filed. It is on the corner property that is directly east of this. The pole that we need, I don't remember exactly, is it 76 feet or 78? Generous: 72 and then there's. Jay Littlejohn: It might be 76 or 75 to the tips of the antennas. The pole's considerably shorter. We are, we've been in touch with John and everybody else in this company and tried to work, to see whether it's possible for us to go there but I sense some trepidation as to whether this site is a good location as opposed to ours. There is that option open that perhaps they'd be on our tower as opposed to us on theirs. I don't know what your position is but mostly I'm here tonight to just answer questions as it relates to the other application if you're going to be looking at which one comes first or if it's just a matter of they filed their application first and so we'd be looking at going on their site. I'll throw that out. You can deal with it as you will. Aanenson: Mr. Chairman, I'd be happy to comment on that if you'd like our. Peterson: Please. Aanenson: ...lot for visual... Jay Littlejohn: That's all I have. Thank you. Peterson: Anyone else like to make any comments? Seeing none, is there a motion to close the public hearing and a second? 35 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 Farmakes moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. Peterson: Comments from commissioners. Any comments? Joyce: Not really. The only reason I asked this fellow how long it would take to build it is I guess we'll get some feedback real quickly. There's really no other comments. It's certainly not as desirable a place as the industrial site. So I'm kind of interested in seeing how it goes, how it's received but I don't have any problems with it. Peterson: Bob. Skubic: Looks good without the barbed wire on there. This is, I think a little more visible site than the previous one. I think we have good landscaping around this fence here. More so than the previous one. Peterson: Ladd. Conrad: I'm kind of uncomfortable. This is not my vision for where these towers were going to be, and I do agree. I'm not going to, we've got some towers, we've got some utility poles that are just, it's terrible that we have utility poles,power poles running up and down TH 5 the way we do but, and I think visually from TH 5 this may fit in but I guess I can't see it and I've got to say that I didn't go there today to try to figure this out. The other area I felt real comfortable with. This one I'm just really, it's fitting into neighborhoods. It's fitting into traffic areas and I can't tell. I guess that's my bottom line. I just don't know. I didn't see a landscape plan which we don't require for this. There was some verbiage about landscaping but it really, I just don't, I just have a real funny feeling that I'm approving something that I really don't know what I'm approving. And maybe that's my fault folks for not going out and taking a look. I know the site very well you know. I know the site very well. I've just not gone out there with the express thought of saying, how does a 130 foot pole fit here and what's the visual impact. So I don't know. I can't make a real good. I think the staff's comments are right. I think there can't be any barbed wire. I'm nervous about how finish looking this looks. But on the other hand I don't know who's going to see it other than the apartment buildings. But if they see it, I want it looking decent so I don't know. I'm sorry for such bad, not expressing myself better on that but I'm not real comfortable. Peterson: Jeff. Jeff Farmakes' microphone was not working and his comments were not picked up on tape. Peterson: I agree with Ladd. I really want to protect the Highway 5 corridor as much as we absolutely can but I have a sense that we really can't do anything about it. Aanenson: Well like I say, we know that this area is the area that we're deficient, even in city use. If you look at what's there in that area. If you put it on the south side, even on the south side of TH 5, you've got residential back up there. You're limited so. 36 Planning Commission Meeting- January 15, 1997 Joyce: There is no option. You're going to have a pole somewhere. Aanenson: It's not the best place to put one from the beginning so if you were to take, taking that position, there's no good place. This is the next best. You've got residential behind all the areas there. Peterson: Other that that, I think the comments other commissioners made about landscaping, and integrating that formally into the conditions... With that, do I have a motion please? Joyce: I'll make a motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit#96-6 for a personal communications service wireless telecommunications facility, including 135 foot monopole tower and associated equipment at 80 West 78th Street for American Portable Telecom subject to conditions 1 through 7. 7 being a formal landscaping plan. Peterson: Is there a second? Skubic: Consider a friendly amendment to alter number 5 to completely exclude barbed wire from the fence. Is that necessary staff? Aanenson: That's fine. I think if you want to just make sure that's clear. Joyce: I'll certainly accept that. Skubic: I'll second it. Peterson: Any discussion? Joyce moved, Skubic seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit#96-6 for a personal communication service (PCS) wireless telecommunication facility, including a 135 foot monopole tower and associated equipment at 80 West 78`h Street for American Portable Telecom, subject to the following conditions: 1. Filling within the City's drainage easement shall be prohibited. If the site improvements encroach upon the City's drainage easement,the applicant and property owner shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the City. The applicant shall escrow$50.00 with the City for drafting and recording of the agreement. 2. Ground mounted equipment shall be screened from view by suitable vegetation. 3. The applicant shall document that the tower is designed structurally, electrically and in all respects, to accommodate both the applicant's antennas and comparable antennas for at least one additional user. Towers must be designed to allow for future rearrangement of antennas upon the tower and to accept antennas mounted at varying heights. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 4. A letter of intent committing the tower owner and his or her successors to allow the shared use of the tower if an additional user agrees in writing to meet reasonable terms and conditions for shared use shall be submitted to the city. 5. Barbed wire at the top of the fence shall not be permitted. 6. Applicant shall move monopole site to the west to reduce tree removal and visibility of equipment. 7. A formal landscaping plan must be submitted before it goes to City Council. All voted in favor, except Conrad who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Conrad: And let me just make a note. I think when we, and this goes back to policy here. When we put something like this that's so visible in a very public area, I need far better materials than I got tonight. This just does not do it. It just, we're putting, because it's a technical product we're assuming it's just going to technically fit in and I don't buy that and that's a, I need a landscaping plan which Kevin's got in there now but I just have to see how this fits better. I think we need better presentation materials when something like this comes in. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Aanenson: The City Council did approve the site plan for Jay Kronick, the greenhouse with the addition to the retail space. They also approved the first reading of the wetland ordinance. So that can go on for second review... If I could maybe just take a minute and talk about ongoing items. Our next regular meeting will be February 19`h. To let you know what's on. We're doing a minor comp plan amendment regarding wetland. When somebody can extend a wetland permit that's not recorded. Just a minor change on that. We'll be looking at the Legion site as far as a site plan review. That will be a big item. Conrad: What's going in? Aanenson: Restaurant, ...bank, strip center. Conrad: Do you like it? Aanenson: Yeah. I think it's moving the right direction. Just so you're aware of it. There is somebody working on trying to put the car dealership on the property right next to it, which is the Mortenson piece which will probably be in March. At this point staff has said that they wouldn't support the recommendation but they're still going to go forward with it so,just so you're aware of that. Peterson: Is it the same people but a different? 38 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 Aanenson: Correct. Same people. Same people, different location. Then we continue to work on some other large projects, including the Gateway property. They're going to come in and do a PUD. That will be for the 19`h. We do have a work session scheduled for the 56 and that will be in the senior center. You'll get a notice. It will probably start earlier. Just to let you know what we're looking at putting on there. I want to go through with you the comprehensive plan process. We'll be updating the comprehensive plan for 1998 to get in compliance with the State law. Kind of laid out a plan and we'll be meeting with Mark Koegler. We've actually done quite a bit of it already but we want to kind of explain you the process... Also lay out for you the process we'll do for the Bluff Creek. We're calling it the overlay district but the implementation of that and the process we'll take for that. Also Bob's finished doing the past, present and future trends going on to share with you where we are as far as development trends. Some of the information that we've gathered as far as, not only population but housing. Where we are in meeting your goals. Kind of give you a check and balance on that. Another thing that was brought up, kind of a continuation of last year. Just discussion that kind of kicked off with the Post Office docks in industrial/commercial and abutting residential. Those standards. Looking at that. Also we talked about the PUD ordinance. Discussion of what we've looked at that. And then also just to talk about some goals. Kind of carry over what we did last year. Kind of a review. What we accomplished last year and then kind of establishing what you want to look at into the next year. So we do have a pretty full plate but I think it will be a good meeting. So that's for the 5th. And again we'll send an agenda out to you... Oh, one other side note. Hopefully on the 276 Council will be able to interview potential Planning Commissioners and we should hopefully have everybody on board for that 5th meeting. That would be kind of nice. Conrad: We saw some great candidates tonight. Aanenson: You need to approve the Minutes too tonight. Peterson: I was interrupted. Aanenson: I'm sorry. I just kind of zinged right past there. Peterson: Would somebody note the Minutes from the last meeting please. Joyce moved, Skubic seconded to note the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated December 4, 1996 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Peterson: Ongoing items? Aanenson: I don't have anything unless you had something you wanted to share with me. Peterson: Is there a motion to adjourn? Conrad moved, Skubic seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. 39 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 40 Administrative Section ia311W11 SI 30VdS `AVaO1I:i31SID3a 'nog( Jo; an sdoys pone asayl £896—Lt£SS NW N3SSVHNVHO 8Q 831"1f10D 069 dDIV ' NOSN3NdV y NAdH1V 1 SZ dVH0 d0I"d 8S171700 LE LE 'oN i!waad NW Tied 19 OIVel 10199 eloseuuiW 'Fled lu!eS 3OVISOd 'S-fl l0k alin5 �It/W SSVIO 1Sa13 laaalS aepa0 08t +y 1 aoinaas 6u!ulealluawuaanoD � LAND USE PLANNING WORKSHOPS FOR PLANNING COMMISSIONERS AND ELECTED OFFICIALS � ' a /. INCLUDES: MARCH AND • ANNUAL PLANNING APRIL 1997 , '( INSTITUTES ft" • BEYOND THE BASICS °?► • INFORMATION ABOUT NEW UPCOMING • ��' . 'R HALF - DAY CLINICS r Introducing Newly Redesigned Workshops on Timely Topics! Sponsored by: WI it; GOVERNMENT TRAINING SERVICE GENERAL INFORMATION We are pleased to once again offer workshops REGISTRATION/CANCELLATION designed especially for citizen planners. This year's newly-redesigned sessions are better than ever Register at least 7 days prior to the workshop date with more opportunities for in-depth study of using the forms in this brochure. (Space is limited.) current topics and more hands-on application. Fill out one form for each workshop; duplicate forms if Participants will enhance their knowledge of various needed.You will not receive confirmation of your regis- areas of planning and, as a result, become better tration, but we will notify you if the session you equipped to make recommendations and decisions requested is full. Fees will be refunded less a $15 about the communities in which they live. service fee if the registration is cancelled 3 work- ing days before the program. Substitutions for regis- Program Features Include: tered participants may be made at any time. Should • An accomplished faculty with extensive backgrounds inclement weather (or other circumstances beyond our in both planning and instruction control) necessitate program cancellation or postpone- • Presentations focusing on current issues and timely ment, registrants will be notified via announcements on information WCCO radio and other local radio stations. • Handy reference materials designed to make your job easier FEES • Practical workshops designed by a committee of Registration fees for all workshops include a meal, planning experts and local officials refreshment breaks and handout materials. See inside If you would like to make your contribution to solving for details about group discounts for three or more land use problems as informed and effective as puss participants attending. ble ... REGISTER TODAY! THESE PROGRAMS ARE IMPORTANT:To qualify for the group discount, regis- FOR YOU. trations must be mailed in the same envelope! WHO SHOULD ATTEND? CO-SPONSORS Members of planning commissions, boards of adjust- • Association of Metropolitan Municipalities ment/appeals and governing bodies in Minnesota • Association of Minnesota Counties cities, counties and townships. Also valuable for mem- • Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs bers of other advisory commissions, housing and • League of Minnesota Cities redevelopment authorities, staff (especially those with- • Minnesota Association of Townships out degrees in planning), real estate professionals, • Minnesota Chapter, American Planning Association and others working in areas related to specialized • Minnesota Planning Association workshop topics. • Minnesota Planning ATTENDANCE AT THESE WORKSHOPS PROVIDES FURTHER INFORMATION ADDITIONAL BENEFITS FOR CITY ELECTED OFFICIALS! Contact Barb Wright (Registration) or Vivian Hart If you are enrolled in the League of Minnesota Cities (Program) at Government Training Service (612) 222- Leadership Institute for Elected Officials (or want to 7409 or Minnesota Toll Free (800) 652-9719. be!), these courses count towards the 40 credits About Government Training Service (GTS) required for Certification. Each Land Use Planning Workshop is worth 7 credits.The Certification Recipient of Organizational Support of Program was inaugurated in January, 1996. ' Excellence in Training Award (American Application forms are available by calling Cathy Society for Training and Development) Dovidio at the League offices at (612) 281-1250. Call Sharon Klumpp at (612) 281-1203 with questions GTS is a public organization whose mission is to pro- about the Leadership Institute program. vide innovative, comprehensive, practical training and REAL ESTATE CREDITS consulting to address the changing management and leadership needs of policymakers, staff and appointed Participants of"Annual Planning Institutes" and officials in publicly-funded organizations in Minnesota "Beyond the Basics" can earn Continuing Real Estate through educational services designed to enhance Education credits. individual competency and through organizational ser- vices designed to strengthen group effectiveness. g3c9 Printed on recycled paper ANNUAL PLANNING INSTITUTE: THE BASICS Thursday, March 6, Saturday March 22 or Thursday, April 17, 1997 9:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. Understanding the Nuts and Bolts of Planning,Zoning and Subdivision Regulation =- For those new to land use planning and zoning or interested in a review of fundamentals. ALL ABOUT PLANNING -- Learn how to explain to others what you do in your planning role —The History --Why do we plan? —The Process --What can it do for your community? —The Products --What's in a plan and what are the tangible results? IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN -- Find out how to exercise your authority and responsibilities —The Zoning Ordinance and its relationship to an adopted plan — Understanding Amendments„ Conditional Use Permits and the Variance — Enforcement -- How and When —The Subdivision Ordinance and its relationship to an adopted Plan KNOWING YOUR LEGAL LIMITS -- Explore ways to avoid expensive litigation — Understanding the Laws of Planning, Zoning and Subdivision —Avoiding Conflict of Interest — Ensuring "Due Process" — Conducting a proper Public Hearing and recording your Findings PARTICIPANTS IN THE PLANNING AND ZONING PROCESS -- Discover where you fit in —The Elected Official —The Planning Commissioner —The Applicant —The Planner —The Attorney —The Zoning Administrator —The Building Inspector —The Constituent —The Neighbor —The NIMBY THE SUCCESSFUL PLANNING COMMISSION -- Learn how to maximize your impact as a commissioner —Your responsibilities as a member —Your opportunities to influence the future — Learning the magic word -- Cooperation PRACTICE MAKES PERFECT ... or at least better -- Put what you've learned to work — Hands on simulations of actual planning and zoning dilemmas — Hot issues -- Answers to your specific questions CORE FACULTY William Griffith, Attorney, Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren Robert Lockyear, Director of Planning and Public Affairs, Washington County LOCATIONS Thursday, March 6 and Saturday, March 22, 1997 -- Earle Brown Center, U of M St. Paul Campus, 1890 Buford Ave. • St. Paul, MN 55108 • (612) 624-3275 Thursday, April 17, 1997 -- St. Cloud Civic Center, 10 4th Ave. S., St. Cloud, MN 56301 • (320) 255-7272 FEE $89 per person or $75 per person for 3 or more people from same jurisdiction.This course has been approved for six hours of Continuing Real Estate Education credit. BEYOND THE BASICS Saturday, March 8,Thursday, April 10 or Thursday, April 24, 1997 9:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. Learn about preparing and using planning tools to deal with a wide variety of development problems, plus an in-depth review of the planning process -- from proper legal notice to development of sophisticated findings of fact. OVERVIEW OF LAND USE TOOLS -- Review the history of land use regulation — Source and Limitations of Authority to Plan and Zone — Fundamental Legal Principles, Balance Between the Police Power and Private Property Rights —Comprehensive Plan -- Look at the plan elements in depth • Design for Community • Summary of Process • Review of Elements —Zoning -- Develop a complete understanding of the tools and standards of zoning •Official Zoning Map • Zoning Ordinance: Permitted, Accessory Uses, Standards,Variances -- Standards for Approval, Conditional Use Permits -- Standards for Approval, Interim Use Permits • Rezonings —Subdivisions Regulations —Advanced Zoning Applications-- Explore Innovative ways to guide land use development •Overlay Zoning • Interim Development Moratoriums • Performance Zoning •Zoning for Community Aesthetics, Environmental Protection —Community Participation -- Learn how to improve community involvement • Planning Commission -- Staggered Terms •Visioning •Task Forces, Planning Committees • Newsletters •Attitudinal Surveys •Open Houses • Issues Workshops SMALL GROUP SESSIONS APPLYING PLANNING AND ZONING PRINCIPLES --Apply what you have learned through hands-on activities LEGAL ISSUES, EFFECTIVE PROCEDURES -- Examine the legal issues in depth —What Are Takings? —Applying the Principles — Living With the 60-Day Limit SMALL GROUP SESSION -- Apply what you have learned through hands-on activities —Hands-on simulations of actual planning and zoning dilemmas — Hot issues --Answers to your specific questions A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF MINNESOTA'S ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROGRAM-- Learn about your roles and responsibilities. — EAW, EIS, AUAR PRACTICAL ADVICE-- Discover effective shortcuts plus ways to avoid planning and enforcement pitfalls — Procedures Manual —Advice for Handling Controversial Hearings — Prototypical Planning Report —Working Relationships —Sample Findings of Fact — How to Handle Conflicts QUESTIONS, DISCUSSION CORE FACULTY Karen Cole, Attorney, Popham, Haik, Schobrich John Shardlow, President, Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban, Inc.; planning consultant LOCATIONS Saturday, March 8 and Thrursday,April 10, 1997-- Earle Brown Center -- U of M St. Paul Campus 1890 Buford Ave. • St. Paul, MN 55108• (612) 624-3275 Thursday,April 24, 1997-- St. Cloud Civic Center, 10 4th Ave. S., St. Cloud, MN 56301 • (320) 255-7272 FEE $99 per person or$85 per person for 3 or more people from the same jurisdiction. This course has been approved for 6.5 hours of continuing Real Estate Education Credit. HAVE WORKSHOP - WILL CONSIDERING A GOAL-SETTING OR TEAM TRAVEL! BUILDING SESSION FOR YOUR GOVERNING BODY OR AN ADVISORY COMMISSION? GTS can provide trained facilitators who have extensive experience Government Training Service can customize the workshops in this brochure and other planning topics, especially for working with local governments like yours! We can also facilitate a your community! process designed to gather citizen input, to guide problem solving, to help re-allocate scarce resources and made budget decisions, or to help strengthen existing teams. You choose the topics, date, location, and supply the partic- ipants.We'll provide the faculty and materials. Using professional, objective assistance can be even more beneficial when you are faced with these times of reduced resources and tough Some possible in-house planning workshop topics include, decisions. but are not limited to: • Updating Your Comprehensive Plan Call Mary Sabatke(612)222-7409 for all the details. • Planned Unit Development • Environmental Issues Municipal Finance Workshops for Elected Officials • Housing & Economic Development Tools Friday, March 21, LMC Building, St. Paul •The Art of the Deal •Visionary Leadership or • Hanging Tough in Tough Times Friday,April 18, St.Cloud Civic Center Elected officials are called upon to make a variety of decisions relat- ed to city finances. This half-day workshop will provide an overview More and more cities and counties are taking advantage of this convenient, cost-effective way to make such education- of what's involved and focus on several key areas of fiscal responsi- bility:what fiscal policies should be in place, how to spot fiscal warn- al opportunities available to those involved in local planning. ing signs,what should be considered in financing decisions as well as OTHER BENEFITS: various financing methods,types of debt and bond financing process. •The content can focus on your current issues. The last hour will be devoted to in-depth roundtable discussions. •The program can be presented for a diverserou 9 P -- Participants of this practical and informative workshop will leave with advisory commission members, elected officials, staff, an understanding of financial terms and "jargon" as well as four interested citizens. LMC Leadership Institute credits! • Costs can be shared by two or more jurisdictions. Scheduled for your convenience, the dates and locations of these Call Vivian Hart (612) 222-7409 to explore the possibilities. sessions piggyback with Annual Planning Institutes. Call Maureen Weslander at GTS (612)222-7409 or(800)652-9719 for a registra- tion brochure. NEW HALF-DAY CLINICS ON TIMELY TOPICS! GTS plans to offer half-day clinics on the following much-requested topics in the Fall of 1997: 1. Growth Management Tools -- Discover how good planning and managed growth can have positive effects on your community. Discuss, in-depth, annexation and infrastructure capabilities. 2. Community Visioning -- Learn practical techniques for involving citizens and community leaders. Look at opportunities for involvement from visioning sessions to plan implementation. 3. Environmental Planning -- Learn what to do to protect environmentally-sensitive areas, watershed districts, and shorelines. Apply the environmental review process in practice scenarios. 4. Rural Planning -- Explore innovative land-use techniques designed to work effectively in rural set- tings with limited resources. 5. Community Development -- Find out how to integrate community planning objectives and economic development efforts. 6.Working Together Effectively -- Learn the basics of personality types, communication styles, and individual motivators. Develop methods to build a stronger, more effective team of planning commissioners. Please indicate your interest in attending a session on one (or more) of the above topics by listing it on the registration form in this brochure.Feel free to list other topics that may be of interest to you. Send us this information even if you're not registering for Annual Planning Institute or Beyond the Basics.You will then receive all the details about the clinics in a future mailing. (Indicating interest does not obligate you to register.) LAND USE PLANNING WORKSHOPS REGISTRATION FORM (PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT) This form may be duplicated.Please fill out one form per workshop. You will not receive confirmation of your registration. Name Daytime Phone( ) Fax Title How long in position Jurisdiction/Agency Billing Address City/State/Zip Workshop Title Workshop Date/Location Fee O Enclosed is $ per person payable to Government Training Service 0 Bill me(registration fee plus$8 billing charge). Check# P.O.# l Enclosed is$ per person for 3 or more people from same jurisdiction Check# Mail to: Registrar, Government Training Service, Suite 401, 480 Cedar Street, St. Paul, MN 55101 or fax to (612) 223-5307 AT LEAST 7 DAYS PRIOR TO WORKSHOP DATE! O Send me more information about the following half-day clinics: LAND USE PLANNING WORKSHOPS REGISTRATION FORM (PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT) This form may be duplicated. Please fill out one form per workshop. You will not receive confirmation of your registration. Name Daytime Phone( )_ Fax Title How long in position Jurisdiction/Agency Billing Address City/State/Zip Workshop Title Workshop Date/Location Fee El Enclosed is$ per person payable to Government Training Service 1 Bill me(registration fee plus $8 billing charge). Check# P.O.# 7 Enclosed is $ per person for 3 or more people from same jurisdiction Check# Mail to: Registrar, Government Training Service, Suite 401,480 Cedar Street, St. Paul, MN 55101 or fax to (612) 223-5307 AT LEAST 7 DAYS PRIOR TO WORKSHOP DATE! Send me more information about the following half-day clinics: LAND USE PLANNING WORKSHOPS REGISTRATION FORM (PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT) This form may be duplicated.Please fill out one form per workshop. You will not receive confirmation of your registration. Name Daytime Phone( ) Fax Title How long in position Jurisdiction/Agency Billing Address City/State/Zip Workshop Title Workshop Date/Location Fee O Enclosed is$ per person payable to Government Training Service 1 Bill me(registration fee plus$8 billing charge). Check# P.O.# O Enclosed is$ per person for 3 or more people from same jurisdiction Check# Mail to: Registrar, Government Training Service,Suite 401, 480 Cedar Street, St. Paul, MN 55101 or fax to (612) 223-5307 AT LEAST 7 DAYS PRIOR TO WORKSHOP DATE! 71 Send me more information about the following half-day clinics: • 12 UR PWS February 12,1997 � iN ' , The New Urbanism promises a • renaissance for cities, Minneapolis included, but there's more (and less) hI._ With • to it than meets the eye. . by Julie Caniglia .- the OldY r M ....._..... ...._._ ,,, ,..... 4.-''';-'‘ -., - (CORNER STORE' ,ESPRESSO SHOPPE tkrari t:anrocu. When it comes to deciding hoods;as it turns out,my old Minneapolis neigh- Victorian on up to modern'60s-era buildings, The Walt Disney Companies officially'founded' how our cities will look and borhood,not far from downtown,has quite a bit though everything is built on the same modest the town of Celebration in the same state,which work,everything old is sad- in common with the New Urbanism.First of all, scale,no more than three or four stories high. brought no small amount of attention to the New denly new again—or more you can walk places.There are plenty of cars,to There are porches and front stoops,harking back Urbanist movement.Now everyone wants to precisely,everything old is be sure,but this place dates back to a time when to an age when they served as outdoor parlors for get in on the act.All manner of developers,city being re-fashioned into pedestrians werelust as common as drivers.And socializing,and the small yards also encourage planners,and architects have eagerly taken up some variant on the`New whether you're on foot or in a car,the plain-and- regular encounters with neighbors.(If you want the New Urbanist label,if not its strict principles. Urbanism.'In case you haven't heard,New simple grid of streets is easy to navigate.One some green,open space,you go to the nearby Those principles—among them a commitment Urbanism is the bit.;est architecture and planning never has to follow an endlessly winding Elm park.)There are no malls,just stand-alone hard- to rebuilding in core cities—were laid out in a char- movement to come along in decades.Unlike Boulevard into its sudden dead-end at Elm Court, ware stores,groceries,dry cleaners,all kinds of ter signed at last year's meeting of the Congress of most movements in architecture,however,it all in a vain effort to find Elm Place.The streets bars and restaurants,music and video shops— the New Urbanism,a group of like-minded archi- strikes a popular chord—by appealing to a sense are narrow,and shaded by a green canopy of indeed,most anything you'd need on a day-to- tects,planners,developers,environmentalists,and of place that most people have never known, mature trees;garages and parking spaces are rel- day basis.If none of this stems remarkable,that's city officials.The CNU charter gathering was but wish they had. egated to the back of the residences along alleys. the point The New Urbanism aims to make less flashy than Celebration's opening,but in the Most New Urbanist projects have so far been The New(or old)Urbanist neighborhood cities(or suburbs)more livable by bringing back broader scheme of city planning,far more signif- built in the suburbs,though they're nothing like also has a range of housing types for its resi- the good parts of the good old days. icant Just as the 1893 World's'Fair in Chicago the typical subdivision.They're largely inspired dents:big single-family homes,others remodeled Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk and Andres Duany of kicked off the nationwide City Beautiful move- by the design of pre-World War 11 neighbor- into duplexes or apartments,condos,apartments. the planning firm DPZ first hit upon this idea merit,so with the New Urbanism at the end of this See related Internet links at[itypages.com And these places don't have that cookie-curter when they created the resort town of Seaside, century,and its mission to pull cities back from a suburban homogeneity;styles range from Florida in the early 1980s.And last November, one-way journey into obsolescence. • February 12,1997 CITY PLUS 13 mems and senior housing.St.Louis Park also No doubt Mill Ruins Park will be a nice addi- received a grant to help in creating a 25-yeartion to the city.A brochure about the West master plan for its downtown an area just east Side Milling District,however,makes no bones he American city as we know it,from of Highways 7 and 100 that will eventually ndeed there's the world of utopian mixed- about one of its major attractions being the lew York to Columbus to Omaha to Seattle,is include about 1,000 additional residences,as income villages,and there's the world of Target tony private development it's expected to attract. v and large a creature of the 19th century and the well as more office and retail space—quite Centers—and garbage burners,and megamalls, Looking at renderings of the project at a recent idustrial Revolution.Today cities are no longer unorthodox for a site that's already considered and a propensity to tear down anything vaguely meeting about metro-area development on the tecenters of all things commercial;encircled by "fully developed.' historic.As a set of beliefs and ideals that are riverfront,I asked a representative from the nd in competition with suburbs that feature On a larger scale,the Design Center has devel- inseparable from porches and picket fences,the Historical Society(which is excavating the ruins) seir own office towers and industrial parks,the oped ideas for transforming ailing first-ring sub- New Urbanist ideology may seem old-fashioned whether people like me would be able to live in ore city increasingly finds itself less an employ- urbs into thriving'metropolitan towns,'which and full of common sense,who could object to this new district.`There will be a few affordable tent center than a place that tries to cater to were unveiled at a two-day conference last the kind of vibrant,people-friendly environs it units,probably,'lie said—meaning condos in .burbanites'whims and desires.Minneapolis has December.Part of the strategy involves holding promises?But like the sunlit lawns and cheerful the$90,000-5120,000 range—"but with these slowed a national trend in making itself over as onto the the middle-class population that's still mechanical robins in David Lynch's Blue Velvet, kinds of places the city wants to go upscale,to n urban theme park,and the Mall of America's left in these suburbs,while making them more the New Urbanism has subtler and perhaps more get the tax base." pening only intensified the push-Now down- attractive to newcomers.For instance,the cities disturbing undertones. In fact,this is one of the chief missions of >wn development efforts are shifting from busi- another urban development project known as ess to sports,entertainment,shopping,and Hennepin Community Works.In the words of nectacle:Consider its assortment of special John McLaughlin,a manager at Hennepin vents(block parties,car races,the Mill City - County's Department of Training and lusic Festival);the so-called Hennepin Theater Employment Assistance,"The idea is to address )istricq the bars and clubs clustered around r c _ three things:job creatio,tax-base enhancement 'argot Center,and the ongoing attempts to build r.w•:'4..70- ' -' -' or stabilization,and natural systems enhance- n'entertainment center'for Block E and an 1 ' �.��a merit or restoration.We want to combine as pen-air baseball stadium. F r;•W f'4 '- many uses for a public infrastructure as possible.' What's missing from Minneapolis's vision of . *-1' „•. (r. ._ _ Combining uses means,for example,that tax- New Urbanism is a critical mass of residents— t„ c• _ base enhancement and natural systems enhance- a •• �' ment can go hand-in-hand."There are lots of enhance- le right kind of residents,that is.It's all fine and , . r' ood to bring people downtown for a brief bit of 4 t; a %''f' '4."'•t,+ buried streams and wetlands that could be re- .elry,but that's not the ultimate object.The rat- S -t-�.�� rr- +' -• used to filter water and build housing around,' ral next step involves making the city safe and ori". 4•"!**,'.'; • he notes.Moreover,the first projects funded ttractive enough to lure more affluent residents. 'i'.f' `•lt:._ - by HCW are aimed at what are called"dis- he potentially huge housingmarketin aging %-.1t . •4. ". tressed'neighborhoods with the purpose of Bt g ....., t aby boomers can only help matters.'In the r. j- a r.'- a raising property values and,theoretically any- ext 20 years,this enormous bulge in the popu- ,.'•y' +' ' � way,bringing in jobs—first in the parks them- ntion will become 50-and 60-year-olds,' R '. AT �M1 .¢ ,��. selves,and then in the businesses and develop- bserves Paul Farmer,the director of planning for �;S .' �' -+ + ments the parks are meant to attract linneapolis."A lot of households will be look- - i r t' ` v tg for options other than big suburban houses. - .00king at those basic demographic factors, Rhetorically at least, -ere's cause for a lot of excitement We think we _ an be very aggressive in growing the city in the ext 20 years here." the New Urbanism Indeed,Farmer,along with MCDA execs- t" vedirector Rebecca Yanisch,recently spoke ate much makes of the luncheon seminar titled`From Planning to .. mplementation:The Coming Development • oom in Central Cities";and the Star Tnbune,as .,.. ' J mixed-income ideal, art of its"Downtown's Pulse'series last ..-> . ' g )ecember,outlined numerous'moderate-to • igh-income residential projects in the works. ' ^' o of providing choice ' ce 'et the New Urbanism has become much more ian a planning movement or an architectural in housing options,also much more than a new wave of of Richfield and Roseville have undertaken pro- "Like all the architects who come off as form- entrification.It's a system of long-range,large- grams that reconstruct houses from the'50s and givers,[the New Urbanists)want us to live in rile plans to re-conceive the city. '60s with amenities that contemporary home certain ways,'says Tom Martinson,a planner and making them The Twin Cities don't yet have any by-the- buyers want things like first-floor family rooms, based in Minneapolis who hopes to contribute ook New Urbanist projects,but as with cities bigger bathrooms and kitchens,double garages, to the Sumner/Glenwood redevelopment'And •affordable.' But in an II across the country,a number of developers and'couple suites.' sometimes that ideology doesn't come off in nd others are cashing in on the cachet of the Another New Urbanist-inspired plan is practical or universal ways."Justis modernist, :ew Urbanism and its aesthetic of picket fences, underway in the Sumner/Glenwood area just International Style skyscrapers were visual sym- • age when incomes a r e 'itched roofs,and front porches.The trade west of downtown Minneapolis.For decades bols of America's corporate power and effn- nagazine Builder recently placed on its'hot list" this area has been an isolated neighborhood ciency in the 1950s and'60s,the New Urbanism, he strategy of"marketing a project as a'trath- dominated by public housing for low-income which is in large part a reaction to the ravages polarizing at an Tonal neighborhood development—even if it's and poor people,but plans for its redevelop- spawned by that era,embodies fairly specific .ot,'and even businesses like Lunds and ment—a result of the Holtman housing dis- beliefs and ideals.And while the forms may be unprecendented rate,have renovated some of their crimination lawsuit—are on the cutting edge familiar,that doesn't mean the social agenda is totes along New Urbanist lines,using lots of, of public housing policy.Newsweek calls it a the same as in the good old days those forms .rickwork,wrought-iron fencing,and awnings. "reverse-scattered-site"approach,the idea being want to conjure. ' what's affordable— "If you break down the style games and a lot that if suburbanites protest low-income housing Take parks,for instance,an area in which h the high-profile,Celebration-type stuff,the sites in their communities,why not redevelop Minneapolis has built a golden reputation.If the view Urbanism doesn't just mean a retro town," public housing sites and make them attractive city is suddenly reviving its commitment to them, and for whom? ays William Morrish,a nationally prominent enough,in a New Urbanist kind of way,to it's not necessarily for old-fashioned reasons, v'ew Urbanist who co-directs the UM's Design appeal to better-off people as well?Over the next such as the restorative effects of fresh air and :enter for the American Urban Landscape. few years Sumner/Glenwood is supposed to open space upon the citizenry.The Park Board, There's a lot more to it,but unfortunately the become a neighborhood with 50 percent of its the MCDA,and the Historical Society have vay it's presented in the media is as a sort of housing in the public and low-income class, plans for a new riverfront green space,Mill Ruins An HCW report says plans for one of its pro- etro thing."The Metropolitan Livable and 50 percent renting or selling at market rates. Park,in an area where the Whitney Hotel and its jests,the transformation of Humboldt Avenue communities Act,passed last year,has alio- "The core of what people are talking about accompanying offices have stoodasalonebeacon North into a parkway,"will require the acquisition :atedgrant money for several projects with the with livable communities is a mixed-income of elegance since the late'80s.With its excavated and removal of some exising housing along ntention of encouraging cities and developers to neighborhood,'says Morrish,whose Design remains of several old mills,the park will anchor Humboldt Avenue.Much of this housing s declin- troceed down the path of New Urbanism.West Center also played a key role in this project. a larger development in which mill buildings ing in value and represents a potential for urban t.idge Market in Minnetonka,for instance,is in 'From a design standpoint,a range of options in will be restored for housing and retail;the area to blight if not restored.'But is the"stabilization'and arge part just another link in the chain of strip housing can have all kinds of effects from a the west,now a moat of parking lots that stretch- "enhancement"of these downwardly mobile nallsalongHighway394,butitalsohastrails long-term,social and economic standpoint.' es over to the Milwaukee Road Depot,is also tar- neighborhoods simply a euphemism for the kind :onnecting it to nearby parks and wetlands and The big challenge now,he says,is getting it geted by the city,as a prime area for development of gentrification that drives out the previous res- sousing—everything from luxury condomini- built,'because this is a city that so far only The whole site is eventually to be known as the idents?"That's a huge concern that can't be tins and family townhouses to rental apart- knows how to deliver Target Center." West Side Milling District. ignored,"acknowledges McLaughlin. -+J :3 t -. - TEXAS:OAKWELL FARMS . ;1 c;ti liness of gated subdivisions i.1.. ,-e..1."•. _ restore a lost sense of commu- Ai •,1 , .t.,,;...t.• -_ • -, nity.Others worry they have the ,. tir.`+r•�+�kr• �, ' y opposite effect,walling off the t _ E' � ':.4•••i. "haves"from the"have-nots," _ negating America's already frog ile sense of common ground. 0 Dn. ' +CeI1Se - r -4 The debate highlights the issue +i Y of safety vs.community that is S i - _ i ' at the heart of how we live,now • - and into the next century. "Gated communities will ±. accelerate the economic and L social fragmentation of the *�� .. nation,"warns Edward Blakely, �. •' �='� dean of the School of Urban 'I I° -y " `. t• .:`'- :+ Planningand Development at - - P_ _ _ the University of Southern Cal- "• : i - • '�w''% —----_- - ifornia. Such economic segre- -- �._� gation "could divide the corn- ',- J">R ti• •..L �► • munity in ways similar to the E,- divisions caused by racial seg- - .` NI! regation in years past,"accord- ing to a study of gated com- munities conducted by the city of San Antonio last year. Others see gated communi- BEHIND CLOSED GATES i ties as just an extension of the all-American concept that "a man's home is his castle." In 1 that view, gates and walls ' ;become modern versions of drawbridges and moats — If you don't?Keep out. justified not merely by crime fears or a concern over More and more Americans Oakwell Farms is one of the USA's approximately property values but by the"pursuit of happiness" are choosingto live in 20,000 gated communities, and the middle-class that is the essence of the American dream. Gorhams(he's a lawyer;she's a part-time registered "Part of it is people seeking to get the kind of restricted-access communities, nurse)are among the estimated 8 million people for community they want and the kind of services whom this is the best way to live the American dream. they're willing to pay for,"says David Boaz of the fueling a values debate In such unexpected places as Eden Prairie,Minn., Cato Institute,a conservative think tank."That's a and Tulsa, middle-class families made fearful by positive trend." over safety vs. community. crime statistics are hunkering down It's undeniable,he says, that"cities behind gates.As many as 15 percent of There are are getting more dangerous,crime is ByDavid Dim onA new homes in the South are built behind 20,000 gated rising, the garbage doesn't get picked walls, estimates Gopal Ahluwalia, anup, the streets have potholes. All of economist at the National Association communities those things have caused people to ranburg Place could be the set for Leave It to of Home Builders. In the West, it's 10G in the USA. respond by creating private communi- Beaver II. It's a street of two-minivan families percent;in the North,3 percent.In San ties where they can have more control. in pleasant beige-brick homes on lawns so Francisco, a housing project recently Critics fear ... Don't forget 28 million of us live in flawlessly landscaped not a crepe myrtle leaf is was gated to restrict access and reduce they will lead a locked apartment building.That,too, out of place.On this Sunday afternoon,ayoung crime.And sometimes even gates aren't to`economic is a small gated community." dad teaches his daughter how to ride a bike as an old enough:In Santa Clarita,Calif.,25 miles and social No fear Inside the gates woman still in church clothes waters her tiny garden. north of Los Angeles,a 400-home gated And the Texas sun shines down on Nicholas Gorham, community called Hidden Valley dis- fragmentation: The Gorhams bought their piece of the 13,as he tosses a football to Max,11.Their parents, courages intruders with a military anti- American dream in 1985.(While there Charles and Ceal Gorham,cheer each completed pass. terrorist device that launches a 3-foot-long metal cyl- are no national statistics on house prices in gated If this little scene seems a world apart,you're right. inder from underground into the bottoms of cars that communities vs. non-gated communities, one San This perfect patch of San Antonio exists in a 225- sneak through the gate.So far,at least 100 vehicles Antonio real estate agent estimates home buyers in home enclave, Oakwell Farms.To enter,you pass have been impaled by the device,each to the tune of that area pay 5-8 percent more to live behind gates.) through a metal gate where a uniformed guard bear- several thousand dollars in repairs. (At press time, The Gorhams pay homeowner dues of$85 a quarter ing a"Neighborhood Ranger"badge and a.38 pistol the device itself was under repair but was to be oper- to keep up the swimming pool,recreation center, checks for your name on a visitor list. If you live ative again with a few months.) basketball court,baseball diamond,wood-structure here,you open the gate with a remote-control clicker. Proponents say the safety,livability and neighbor- playground and three miles of jogging path. 4 USA WEEKEND•Jan.31-Feb.2,1997 COVER PHOTOGRAPH BY REID HORN FOR USA WEEKEND 1 i .-_,--,.4.0,c.,,-- .4 S -r /Sur '� 4fka1r i - ' '1:. tions may run out of funds to maintain roads,con- .., on WNICN SIDE ARE YOU ON? i ;4.7_ . . sidered private property. �.•<t� �:.j, o,J• The issue of gated communities pits safety against • !_ r Even emergency vehicles are shut out . `":.1 rge cY social interaction.Call now and tell us what you think We're driving the Gorhams'tan Ford Explorer back would you live in a gated community? `If,S:'t Ey t •-• ', : • from church, taking a road that runs along the• , �.> ,-.,...:;/,‘--, � ; perimeter of Oakwell Farms.On one side is the 6- ® 1-900-370-1222:1g �-- r• `••--, s foot-high white stone fence behind the subdivision. NO• 1-900-370-1555 • - -' "'-'"-"'- "We tried to buy this road,but the city wouldn't let eal and Charles The'great thing'about us,"Ceal says."They said it was critical for firetrucks Each call costs 50 cents.One call per household will be accepted.The lines are open from 6 a.m.ET Friday,Jan.31.to midnight Tuesday.Feb.4. orham moved then' Oakwell Farms,says emergency and emer vehicles to obtain access." Callers names will not be used for mailing-list purposes.tf you can't call, write your cats on a postcard or the back or an errvelope and mail by Imily to San Antonio's manager Barbara Lowry, Such access is a new concern among gated commu- Monday,Feb.3,to:-Gated Communities,-USAwEEKENo,1000 Wilson BWd., akwell Farms 12 years is that everybody nities.In East Lake,Ha.,rescue workers must rum- Arlington.Va.22229-0012.Look for results in the Feb.28-March 2 issue. go.'I'm not scared here knows everybody. mage through a briefcase containing as many as 50 ' separate gate-opening devices for unmanned entries. munities in the U.S.Former San Antonio mayor Nel- Y myself;she says. Everybody waves.' They also complain of time lost in maneuvering over- son Wolff's car was stolen from his driveway in a sized emergency vehicles into narrow gates."When gated community.And in 1984 the residents of 4,800- Amenities aside,the Gorhams say they moved to people have heart attacks,every second counts,"says unit Sudden Valley in Bellingham,Wash.,voted to )akwell Farms primarily to feel safer.Even before Dwaine Booth,fire coordinator for Florida's Pinellas tear down their five gates,which cost nearly 515,000 an Antonio's crime rate rose to record heights in County Fire Administration,which is drafting an a year to maintain and which many thought enticed, he late 1980s and early'90s,the Gorhams wanted to ordinance requiring a standard door-opening device rather than deterred,burglars.Apparently,they were aise their family in a neighborhood where they format and regulations on the size of entrances. right:Once the gates went down,crime dropped. ould feel comfortable letting the kids bike to theBut crimes against the person go down and stay iool,walk to friends'homes or catch the school bus Real safety or'false sense of security'? down in controlled-access developments."You don't in their own,especially during the hours both par- Then there's the crime issue.The Gorhams say they find very many rapists in gated areas,but you do find :nts work."I'm not scared here by myself; I'm not definitely feel safer inside the walls of Oakwell Farms. some,"says Blakely,who points out that such crimes cared to have my kids here by themselves,"Ceal "Here,if there's a burglary,it's a big deal and every- also are lower than the norm in non-gated neighbor- 3orham says."I wouldn't feel that way in a non- body hears about it," says Charles Gorham. San hoods where the streets are laid out in a pattern that sated community." - Antonio now is embarking on a project to determine makes it difficult for perpetrators unfamiliar with It was easy to find the kind of neighborhood the if controlled-access communities really are safer than the neighborhood to find their way out. 3orhams wanted in San Antonio, the USA's most their non-gated counterparts."People are living with Still,critics of gated communities say all it takes to ;ated city. One in every three new single-family a false sense of security,"says Ed Cross,a real estate weaken the fortress is for one errant resident to share comes here is built in a"controlled-access"commu- broker and member of San Antonio's planning com- a keypad code with one criminal-minded pizza deliv- iity—there are more than 100 in this city of just mission."It's a marketing gimmick;it's a fad."But in ery person. Or, in the case of communities where )ver 1 million residents. a city plagued by one of the nation's highest crime entries are guarded and laws enforced by security The boom in gated communities led San Antonio rates,any sense of security is better than none. guards earning$9 an hour,a whole new set of issues to become the nation's first city to officially study the According to preliminary research,crimes such as is raised."How far can private security guards go to phenomenon.A 1996 draft study recommends that burglary drop in the first year or so of gating,but enforce internal laws on private property?It's some- a task force be created to address such problems as then rise back to the level of the arca outside,say thing to be determined by the courts in the years to the possible inability of emergency vehicles to gain Blakely and researcher Mary Gail Snyder,authors of come,"researcher Snyder says.At issue:the Fourth access or the possibility that homeowners associa- the forthcoming book Fortress America:Gated Corn- Amendment prohibition of illegal search and seizure. Gated citizens'political clout • LIFORNIA:HIDDEN VALLEY , But the bigger issues go beyond access and traffic .a.. r. Keep out or else laws to a sense of community and how to nurture it. % The Hidden Valley Fences may make good neighbors—at least within .:- y community in Santa gated communities—but do they make good citi- zens? Some worry that residents cloistered behind l r no-entry sign and ~ �, a gate with obstacles. the gates,whose homeowners association dues fund DO NOT ATTEMPT TO PENETRATE 'itt�. �` - recreational amenities,will vote down bond mea- .• g Ti.e device below SECURITY BARRIERS OR � - r pops up and disables sures for public facilities that would serve the whole SEVERE VEHICLE DAMAGE WILL OCCUR Y- unauthorized cars region. Meanwhile, the power of gated citizens is ONE CAR PER GREEN of being felt in places like New Jersey,one of a handful TAILGATING WILL RESULT IN ��a i a that sneak past. SEVERE VEHICLE DAMAGE _ /��®� ; g of states where residents have won the right to ��,a,xo T e> '�,, _ _�r,Lyr _ rebates on property taxes because their dues pay for 1 r.aRs;,s m-`�.`',pr-ser+..-- _----', - .---7-".", services such as street repairs and lighting. �S�t.�LIF-� �-� ' h,''�:'2' . - -- _ _ \ • _� f- r• .� -• - Ultimately,says Blakely,gated communities may ,/, � r contradict American values:"The nation's dream - - •� :- - was equality and mutual assistance and the melting t < < � �-� ." • " z �� .-- _ pot....Take that away and we're just people who live ; -0 i. .- •jt: t , '7 .1 •4z • i ' �1�t , : _ on a piece of territory." _, - - . ' Al i----i1.--_7-4.:;/... ...._/ ••`3 -rs David Diamond is a writer based In California.His last article for USA WEEKEND` :�' l • --\--• ,,. / --"i - "----- i--',-- -"�i was about parents'high-tech efforts to monitor their teenagers USA WEEKEND•Jan.31-Feb.2,1997 5