Loading...
05-03-89 Agenda and Packet /del- AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, MAY 3 , 1989, 7 : 30 P.M. CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Wetland Alteration Permit for development within 200 feet of a Class B wetland, on property zoned RSF and located at 300 Woodhill Road, Jerry Peterson. 2 . Conditional Use Permit for the location of a temporay office, shop and yard for Edgewood Builders, on property zoned IOP, Industrial Office Park and located at 8301 Audubon Road, Dave Stockdale. (Tabled) 3. Preliminary Plat request to subdivide approximately 7. 3 acres into 9 single family lots and two outlots on property zoned RSF and located directly south of 64th Street and west of Hwy. 41, Reed' s Orchard Ridge, Gary Reed. ` 5L�) 4 . Michael Carmody, South Lotus Villas Townhomes, on property zoned PUD-R, Planned Unit Development-Residential and located in the South Lotus Lake Addition: a. Preliminary plat 1. 475 acres into 14 individually owned townhomes units and one outlot. b. Site Plan Review for a 6 and an 8 unit townhome building. NEW BUSINESS 5. Site Plan Reivew for the addition of 2, 920 square feet onto an existing private garage (Beddor) , on property zoned IOP, Industrial Office Park and located on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Park One Third Addition, Fortier and Associates. (Tabled) 6 . Site Plan Review for Daycare Center on property zoned BN, Business Neighborhood, and located on Lake Drive 4 mile East of Highway 101, G.P. Bajr, Inc. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OLD BUSINESS OPEN DISCUSSION ADJOURNMENT CITY OF P.C. DATE: May 3 , 1989 oaa ��E A 7113 C.C. DATE: May 22 , 1989 � r CASE NO: 89-2 WAP 4 Prepared by: Olsen/ktm STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Wetland Alteration Permit for construction of a house , driveway and lawn within 200 feet of �..� a protected wetland Z LOCATION: 800 Woodhill Road Chanhassen , MN 55317 czC APPLICANT: Brian Kihle 234 Pennisula Road Medicine Lake, MN 55441 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Single Family Residential ACREAGE: 15 , 755 square feet DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- RSF, Single Family Residential S- RSF, Single Family Residential ��' E- RSF, Single Family Residential O W- RSF, Single Family Residential WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site (f) PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site slopes to the southeast and contai a Class B wetland on the southeast corner 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential C:.^•:.CEo.s�F:.� I CHR/ TMA %� I I H N PIN COUNTY C`uRT—, I . : ; uptc • L.JKE H•t ' • • il o,Ecmov , /ml 4 swc I-! i,1111411 ll I 1 • �ti111i►� Ott" . 9' 1, .1�, EAS ¶Wr t TRALNE . . • .y•- '`p9Ot^ •AI' o� Illt it 111.**. CLEe .li,. ' le%Val ".,-�1 � MOUNIEVy, wr /�� ..:, ,kil I ` .. _ COURT w�.1����`���,` , ;zet____, Rat : ispi, 1BLUFF •ig. rr•� .�„�� ' �1rte- *7- • c. ' `qtr , C0 ‘11.1 ',/ H444 • iliiiiiik Atil.pat 40/11114Fi :,44P . H i ‘' 4.• `‘‘;(4-\2:44 VT 7 47rei ,„A,L . 1 ;:vi;.- .au '' mop` _ . mafr. .2111r • \ ' COURT . C ..'MIT11'�1i1„ j♦♦ • : l \ z.,�•`= , X111►oareai, D`► „„ I. :r�� .� - �, til. -_ ��� —_ : 1. 41,..1 _*, '” 11M-4"*- ..,:x., ., IN,_ /- „,, _ ._,.., ,.., 4...,. _ A 41111111.1- got, ,,. ',,,,,,,,, .0.... w ,, ;,/ 'thrif al 1.1 c .1 r 46t..-_-,-,_„-,: Wiiii-,c.?...l, ,li \ ,, . it./ li.. . .. 4ers. mum,tilt. leo �v ----. •. .-w ism it Z.e�a ` RD \. - �I11 y - _ t itti r re - --go. LAMMIra to, _.,..' -WAN. .1' P. 411.4 - 11;., .t- -- 1'Z-WI '! --‘4tILVIral — . ,. . l. .,'An_ _...,._,....,,,,, . itAe.,-iiiffe.d.roa 1,41,,.. . _ - , irilk Pik _ `` 4!„.111114b. __ !/1l�iR •---.- /AMOR.494 '-1/14 al r_ y. ■ .?„...43,..: ".. ,,.. „ \- .., um , ,I... whiniV” " ....ii-4 ,, J41.tainia.41 -ie..ggg ov, 0 c-c. f4A , ________, 1- 0-e' 4 lag" I I ^` SF [��-EI�.�c� X12v��m er,����\ L A AVE a • — m - �Z�ii iiilliV, _ _ rarer UMW �.11 Q 9116 r ;ISI r►w , F"r: _'',�- — • _ ■ i� .�L`L �1 7 a =`�+ �r�tau��� \ _ ,. R 1 . N-. ow/tow .001 0140 Nip st...klatrilvvegr011 i -, C 6 AY ildg 0.0s . a 1:2 -4 0 I • ' . 11,14:1-211111016211FPUI ....r . .: 6 , w • WM � s„ \0 l z . 0f z. IN M i�' �iitt��� l '»'I:�N VIII �P� Brian Kihle WAP May 3, 1989 Page 2 BACKGROUND The subject site was approved as an administrative subdivision to divide a 38 ,003 square foot lot into two lots containing 20 ,000 and 18 ,003 square feet (Attachment #1) . A condition of the administrative subdivision approval was that the applicant must receive a wetland alteration permit prior to issuance of a building permit (Attachment #2) . The purpose of requiring the applicant to receive a wetland alteration permit was to ensure that the 75-foot wetland setback was maintained for the proposed house and that construction of the driveway_and any proposed lawn area would be done in a manner so as to not negatively impact the wetland. This applicant is proposing to maintain the 75-foot setback for the house , but the driveway and lawn would be within 75 feet of the wetland. Staff has visited the site two times with Paul Burke from the Fish and Wildlife Service. Paul Burke has stated that the wetland located on the subject site is of poor quality and will not be negatively impacted by the construction of the house and driveway. The applicant is proposing to install erosion control along the limits of proposed grading which will protect the wetland from any runoff during construction. The erosion control fence should be a Type III design as typically required by the City. The driveway at Woodhill Road will be located approximately 10 feet from the edge of the wetland and the proposed lawn will be located approximately 20 feet out from the edge of the house and approximately 60 feet from the edge of the wetland. There are no specific setbacks for driveways or lawn areas from a protected wetland. Since, it can be damaging to a wetland to maintain and fertilize a lawn area up to the edge of the wetland, staff is recommending that the lawn area around the house only be per- mitted 20 feet out as shown and that the area between the driveway and the wetland, most notably at the southern portion of the site, not be seeded and left to return to its natural state. RECOMMENDAT ION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Condition recommends approval of the Wetland Alteration Permit No. 89-2 as shown on the site plan dated April 25 , 1989 with the following conditions: Brian Kihle WAP May 3 , 1989 Page 3 1 . Type III erosion control shall be installed between the pro- posed grading areas and the Class B wetland prior to any — improvements to the site. 2 . The proposed lawn area as shown on the site plan shall be — limited to 20 feet around the front of the house and the remaining area between the house and wetland shall be main- tained in its natural state. 3 . The area between the driveway and the Class B wetland shall be maintained in its natural state and not be seeded up to the edge of the wetland. — ATTACHMENTS 1 . Administrative Plat. 2 . Letter from Steve Hanson dated February 13 , 1989. 3 . Site Plan dated April 25 , 1989. i -100.0 - . :551 • illom 1555 I _ aim _ rFc`, 255 ,7---,-----:-: 1 y6 IN= K- Z557 0.n i i N' 1555 _ i � - m I o7, ? O 70 2559 r 1 ii I i r_ ' N8 I Lsdo p i Ism. 1 r i ill0 zs.:, f f j ]QI I, _spa I ' I V/ v i ' ' I i ' .20 I I C SLS i ! -400.p I1 s �'�' 2538 �p 0 _ rn 1 ZS 47 l L519 oo , I Zi r IN25-6,11 .:55•00 N 7 I i'-•- -lac).o -- - 7a I N sap 0 _ i 0 0 I ' loo.o Co I CHY3OF — Ey 131,. 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 February--13, 1989 Mr. and Mrs. Jerry Peterson 800 Woodhill Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Lot Split Carver Beach Lots 2554-2568 and Lots 2538-2541 Dear Mr. and Mrs.- Peterson: This is to confirm that you can sell a portion of the above property as a separate lot with some limitations . The southeast — portion of the property is partially within a wetland. This was confirmed on a field visit by Paul Burke and myself on February 9 , 1989 . Mr. Burke is with the Fish ana Wildlife Service and is used by the City of Chanhassen in d3termining wetland areas . Based on his inspection and the topographic map of the area, the wetland boundary would lis between t-:e contour 938 and 936. The edge of the wetland boundary would be the ordinary high water mark. The significance of Lnis is chs General Development Regulations for wetland arras requires a minimum setback of 75 feet from the ordinary high water mark . In addition, any construction within 200 feet of a wetland requires a wetland alteration permit. For your reference, I am enclosing a copy of the wetland protection section of the City Code as well as the _ application form for a wetland alteration permit. I talked with the City Attorney re7ar,:ing the split of the par- cel. When you have a buyer, we can 3oprove the deed prior to recording provided both parcels comply with the zoning require- ments at that time. The present zoning requirements are attached for your reference. Regarding the wetland issues, you have two options . The first would be to apply for a wetland alteration permit to provide for _ an access drive and building envelope for the parcel to be sold prior to sale so the buyer knows specifically what could be built on the property. The other would be to make the sale contingent upon the purchasers obtaining a wetland alteration permit. AP --/////Mr. and Mrs . Peterson February 13, 1989 T Page 2 I trust this clarifies the issue of creating a separate building site on your property and apologize for the delay in determining that a wetland exists on the property. If you have further questions, let us know. Sincerely, Stephen Hanson Planning Director SH:v Enclosures Mil • . . —11 .- . _.._ ZAN- ,. i •••• .4 ppm:170;46.a a . + : ....4. .-... I /_-__ .• I _./ I i 1 I LC" 1 A Ck .--, . •.1 , ....... . '') a 7 ,2 -CE L-7PT::::---.27- ) J 1 •• •,..11 , \, ‘e 4 tr A ... 0 f , it 1 : .v 0 . \ SEEP i 0(; 1,3i II -F e z---v.5 I`'i--i- . ,..... j 11, - or .ow .., , •• " •- , ' 3 mon. .. .' ••••• ....._ ; .m. • ER.,CSC/A,./ P(4/) G Zr?I L'z c /•(- ... ...- •- ........2 ): ) . ..1C..7 V j • • "..t.. • ' . I..; P , e*<114 - ; ,•. 51 c CD*.i .1 i :!.3 1 ..1,,. .....' I j 1•1 1 ".- i di ; 1 C. f)17) 1 (?(_':z-.6') i't 1 :( s* --- --, i I i ...... ; 1.11 ' . i •1 , ..... ....- - : •, i Mg oc\ J1.) io 430\ \ ..---. I ' .0 / .a. 1 j 1. 4PCr.)0 LAWIDI I fi / I ...... .. i / ! ..—• !, i ',. / i ..I • 3 i 1 i. - . .. i / I 1 - , ,i 1 . ...• ./i.../ j :/ ., • • 2 /1 • ull I ..... / I . ,,,. .. ... .•••• I// . ..• S .• IN I .• 8 I / I .••• ., • i : I . - 7 / i . - • . 1 sumo I / ...- .' .-- . .. / : / I / 7 7- : .. / I : / I 12, - ....... _- - ...., , "" -.... s... .„ .. / •f • / I — - • ...2 . ... -• -i 0 G . ./. :.:-,1 ! 4 • 1 f • / 5. • / I : ! i • i •i J I, -:.• ; p A ....rit.„...„ ,...,........, ....._ ‘C&\ . , ...-., v.-. 1 I i ,••••,C-N Li • li •11!. .. r- - 30. EJ•4gl.t,r,r-, I 961x7 10./l 15 b /' Z'''''.....-1 v.1/ `,IC� — % °curb j 7_ ,3-- ` 0 40 I I1.///,... 4-I• ILLI te 7/ . t9- —.., _, ,,...,=.„,-- -- _.....e.'Os- -..- • I , i , • N 944._ i r j! N r � im _- 3 'O. O _ ' N 1 -- N n i V t711 , ., / NZO-o • NN • N,i/ iI'kf tiMviN. 4 II /7 15: \J Ni4ck I (,:-:_z • 0 rrz..._ � • 0 7-:' 4,. • O G I• 1 9isx7 tiI' I .14/ 13Src 1 " 't , I .(o J Ll( -Z2.�Sfi"' ail• A;a,1 R�a,Aa�J. JlL___________R.: 1_,-E041 ai Q.40 r �J�G]�.:n ----,------ ^ I ..4,.., M.14 ua-1 . •-•,* J f0 . }- -ar rC �� L..- 7iv ,9:1 1,(./...... we -.—moi (c(P� -7/6)4i.111 4 LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 - (612) 937-1900 APPLICANT: OWNER: ( 'r, , 01'..r;1-74 ADDRESS 2'.7,1 .c':..•,. ) :-`.i:- �'.i <; ADDRESS ��'� 10<� �1/�/ !cL- r- •_� Yui/ G�r"'AI. .v. _ Zip Code Zip Code TELEPHONE (Daytime ) /-ç7 TELEPHONE REQUEST: Zoning District Change Planned Unit Development Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan Preliminary Plan Zoning Variance Final Plan Zoning Text Amendment Subdivision Land Use Plan Amendment Platting Metes and Bounds Conditional Use Permit Street/Easement Vacation Site Plan Review Wetlands Permit PROJECT NAME PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING USES PROPOSED -!7,"\-J- -1-P"--7 )1( SIZE OF PROPERTY J _ - . LOCATION i:_�`- "`�-+' ' -?= T -✓' -r - _; -4 , F REASONS FORT THIS REQUEST , ' r'> �<'.�� c?/'c'« !' 17`'`'-i:-(;"-- f.%'' — LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary ) APR 0 51989 - CITY CF CHANHASSEN • City of Chanhassen = Land Development Application Page 2 FILING INSTRUCTIONS : 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 City Planner to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application . • FILING CERTIFICATION: The undersigned representative of the applicant hereby certifies that he is familiar with the procedural requirements of all applicable City Ordinances . — Signed B� r " Date Applicant _ The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has been authorized to make this application for the property herein described . Signed By Fee Owner Date Date Application Received Application Fee Paid - City Receipt No. * This Application will be considered h the Planning Commission/ Board of Adjustments and Appeals PPeals at their 41.4 C I TY O F k' P.C. DATE: May 3 , 1989 w 'L C.C. DATE: May 22 , 1989 1 [ 7 CEANEASZN CASE NO: SUB 89-6 , Site Plan 89-4 Prepared by: JO:k STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: PUD Preliminary Plat and Site Plan Review for South Lotus Villas on property zoned PUD-R Z - Q VLOCATION: Northeast corner of South Shore Drive and TH — J 101 _ APPLICANT: Mr. Michael Carmody Mr. Brian Cluts Q 15112 Portland Ave. South 7520 Market Place Dr. Burnsville, MN 55337 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 PRESENT ZONING: PUD-R ACREAGE: 1. 5 acres DENSITY: 9. 3 units/acre ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- PUD-R, Single Family S- R-12, Chanhassen Meadows Fes` E- Park 0 W- RSF, City Outlot W WATER AND SEWER: City services are available to the site. PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site is fairly level with a slope towards TH 101 on the south side of the site. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential , Low Density �, • , •)*4314111.1 - D A, -6900 ... 'Irt4Vt ', iftw. iip ' Net. -iii4.c.;:o leg ,,/�.'5 ge 0111a 7000 _ ', r .♦N --7100 11111 \^ '° %1 X11 ; .i. - 111011 1 i cy•SLC 7200 -j;k ,.;. 1 V l s l 0 ti ��� \ LAKEIll a !R ;i1fitusue. , 0 _ i7300 ./111111111 lieraktilipe 'N ." ---.3A 441111 L`dY:iE r+f \ �1mw, . :.,o. 7400 (11 2 _ L � �iil��'� �1a� R 12 0 co -;4f4 �rM� /F` Oki ` _ -- - o m t**ALVISINIZZ 4 .-\ ' cr, 411Iitisi uNerom son_sort o pc � y--pimoKriampar maw - \ ler % Z 7600 — A��.�i .1 1IW�1 'WI.14::111 ,�._ V!" ui ' �' _ � ��nr� �"�'9 num ► � 7700 ■ 11111 mu - ` �11�■► Q r 7 81 •., ��n 1� �, -TH ST 3 M. 6 — J B D L� ��� t�� R 7800 ore-xi. �0' .•� ��ir�--- p• . ' i OP 7900wlil . .� wt: w.�syAO e- : Dit; _�.� - iWA �.'` ,:• 0 .1,.= :it It4k - _ 17 int 8000 r IA E.•■.110114m coco• .moo g 1W4�v�Iwo ti Ci ,.541 ii ; —8100 _ s , , ,, , , L! 1 7, . - tz-1 • ! ',3 �ii`l -,E. RsF 8200 t J - ,.Ru AMC r -- \_,ScNNaEE A - 8300 �, l , - \ ,�� h'/ C E W/ - SH L AKE- South Lotus Villas May 3 , 1989 Page 2 Referral Agencies City Engineer Attachment #1 Fire Inspector Attachment #2 Building Inspector "Buildings required to be sprinklered" Background On August 5 , 1985 the City Council approved the final development plan for the South Lotus Lake Addition. The PUD contained 58 units (1 single family residence exists in the extreme northwest corner of the site) , a five acre park and a boat access site. The 57 new units consists of the following housing types: 23 single family homes , 28 townhome units, and 6 twinhome units (Attachment #3 ) . The applicant amended the PUD plan on July 7, 1986 (Attachment #4) . The amended final development plan proposed to eliminate the 28 townhome units in the center of the PUD and instead plat 14 single family lots and one outlot. The applicant stated that the overall number of units originally approved would not change and that the multiple family outlot would contain 14 units. Preliminary Plat and Site Plan Review The applicant is proposing to plat Outlot A, which is the outlot that was created as a part of the PUD plan amendment. The appli- cant is proposing 14 individually owned townhome units on 1. 5 acres of property zoned PUD-R. The proposed 14 units is con- sistent with what was approved as part of the PUD plan amendment. Sheet C-2 of the plans shows the proposed preliminary plat. The townhome lots are proposed to be located on Lots 1-14, Block 1 and range in size from 1,184 sq. ft. to 1, 295 sq. ft. Since the property is already zoned PUD and the number of units were pre- - viously approved as part of the PUD plan amendment, the smaller lot sizes being proposed are acceptable. The density of the area is 9. 3 units per acre and the impervious surface is 54%. The density of the whole PUD with the proposed improvements to the outlot is 2. 2 units/acre. The proposed townhomes maintain the required setbacks for the R-12 district of 25 front yard setbacks and 10 ft . sideyard set- backs. The units will be serviced by a private 24 ft. drive from South Shore Drive. The internal drives servicing the units are shown as two 18 ft. drives and one 16 ft. drive ( the most easterly drive) . When scaled, the drives actually are 16 ft. , 24 ft . and 16 ft. The Fire Inspector and Engineering Department are requesting that the three internal drives have a minimum width of 20 ft. The applicant does have room on the easterly portion of the site to widen the driveways and still maintain the typical setbacks for a high density property. South Lotus Villas May 3, 1989 Page 3 The applicant is proposing landscaping along the north, south and west side of the property. There is no landscaping proposed along the eastern and northeastern property line. Staff is — recommending that the applicant provide landscaping along the northeasterly and easterly property line of the site. The zoning ordinance requires 28 parking spaces to be provided. The applicant is providing 63 parking spaces including 7 visitor parking spaces . Staff feels the number of visitor parking spaces — is adequate for the size of the development. Grading, Drainage, Utilities The City Engineer addresses these issues in Attachment #1. Miscellaneous — The Land Use Plan still designates this property as residential low density. Staff will be processing a Land Use Plan Amendment — to redesignate the subject property as residential high density. Recommendation Planning staff recommends approval of Preliminary Plat No. 89-6 and Site Plan No. 89-4 as shown on the plans dated April 10 , 1989 with the following conditions: — 1 . The three internal drives shall be at least 20 feet in width. 2 . Additional landscaping shall be provided along the — northeasterly and easterly lot line of the site. 3 . An additional fire hydrant shall be located at the northeast — corner of the second building and that the fire hydrant located between the two buildings shall be moved to the end of the middle driveway. — 4 . The land use will be amended to Residential-High Density. 5 . All side slopes greater than 3:1 will need erosion protec- tion. 6 . Watermain looping and hydrant locations shall be included in — the submittals, including valves . 7 . The sanitary system shall be 8-inch PVC main line with 6-inch PVC house services conforming to City standards . — 8 . Typical sections of roadway and parking lot are to be shown on the plans for approval with concrete curb and gutter — throughout the site . South Lotus Villas _ May 3, 1989 Page 4 — 9 . All necessary permits for site construction shall be obtained. — 10 . The Developer shall supply hydrological data showing that surface drainage will not erode the existing ditch system. — Attachments 1 . City Engineer ' s memo dated April 26, 1989 . — 2 . Fire Inspector ' s memo dated April 26, 1989. 3 . August 5 , 1985 City Council minutes. 4 . July 7 , 1986 City Council minutes. — 5 . PUD plan . 6 . Proposed plans dated April 10 , 1989. CITY OF - ,,_ 1N i cHANHAssEN _ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 __ (612) 937-1900 "w. MEMORANDUM — TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner FROM: Gary Warren, City Engineer 0)\F — DATE: April 26 , 1989 SUBJ: Site Plan Review for South Lotus Villas Townhomes File No. 89-8 Land Use Review • Location The site is being developed by Gopher State Development of Eden — Prairie. The site was originally known as Outlot A of South Lotus Lake 2nd Addition and is located west of Trunk Highway 101 and north of South Shore Drive. — Sanitary Sewer This site will be served by an existing 8-inch sewer stub at — South Shore Drive which was constructed in 1986 . This site will be served with 8-inch PVC throughout the site and — the house service will be 6-inch PVC conforming to City stan- dards . Manholes in place of cleanouts will also be required for proper maintenance of the system. — Water This site will be served from a 6-inch DIP stub at South Shore — Drive and was also constructed in 1986 . This site will be served with a 8-inch DIP throughout the site — and connect with a wet tap to the 12-inch DIP along Trunk Highway 101 . The Developer shall install two new hydrants on this site. One hydrant shall be located in the grassy area 3 feet from the parking lot between the proposed building (ease side of lot) . The second hyrdant shall be located at the grass boulevard of the — second building (northwest side of lot) . These hydrants will be needed for fire protection and maintenance of the site system ( flushing, etc. ) . — The Developer shall provide water information to the City for proper sizing of the lines . Jo Ann Olsen April 26, 1989 Page 2 Streets The Developer shall show details of typical sections and/or parking lot and streets The minimum width between curbs in the parking lots will be 20 feet. B612 concrete curb and gutter is required throughout the site. The street into the site shall be built to City standards for a urban section in width and depth. Site Grading/Erosion Control It appears that a majority of the site will experience shaping and/or grading to create the building pads . The complete site will have surface drainage. The curb cuts shown to direct water to the Trunk Highway 101 ditch will need erosion control to prevent any damage to ditch and the Developer should obtain all necessary permit approvals from MnDOT. No erosion control is shown on the plans and needs to be addressed for before final approval is given . All slopes greater than 3: 1 will need erosion protection. Recommended Conditions 1 . Revised plans shall be submitted for approval that address the conditions and discussion contained in this staff report. 2 . An erosion control plan shall be included in the submittals. 3 . All side slopes greater than 3:1 will need erosion protection. 4 . Watermain looping and hydrant locations shall be included in the submittals, including valves . 5 . The sanitary system shall be 8-inch PVC main line with 6-inch PVC house services conforming to City standards . 6 . Typical sections of roadway and parking lot are to be shown on the plans for approval with concrete curb and gutter - throughout the site. 7 . All necessary permits for site construction shall be obtained . 8 . The Developer shall supply hydrological data showing that surface drainage will not erode the existing ditch system. CITY OF-A CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 '', (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: JoAnn Olsen, Assistant City Planner — FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Inspector DATE: April 26 , 1989 SUBJ: #89-4 , #89-6 • Comments and recommendations: 1. As per discussion with Allan Larson, an additional — fire hydrant shall be located at the northeast corner of the second building in, and the fire hydrant located between the two buildings be moved to the end of the middle driveway. 2. Driving lanes shall be a minimum of 20 ' width as per discussion with Allan Larson and as indicated on site — plan. 0o Council Meeting, Aug L _ 1985 -12- r Don Ashworth : There were several problems was not just the parkin associated with the Carver Beach area . I any type of a vehicle down to theeboatoad system that if you would attempt to brio capable of aaccess , none of those roads are wide g providing any type of traffic to get down to the site . The secondconcern or was the physical construction watian byof the access itself, concern Mr. Koegler, there is quite an extensive area that you liskbeing showned at the for t My point that I don 't think the parkin tioints isComthatee io that, looking at Carver Beach .the only issue of concern to the Counman Horn : The committee did there was a lot available right look at the Carver Beach site and 9 across the street from what had been the- mooring at one gnt and the committee felt that had the Council and ah been a viableli ahad, at that area Since a housepoint acquired that land that to figure out all kinds of ways to was built on that to the other y get parking in that t having to ups park , which is almost a half area without eo go no other way to get anykinda mile away , and it seemed like there was did exist at one of parking close to the vicinity . point , but when the committee reviewed it we I think that option way to get parking in the vicinity that would be didn ' t see a reasonable at all code . Don Ashworth : The Council did a grant the last meeting approve for the Mayor and Manager to sign the set this meeting_up as discussion, so at and additional action , you need not take any Georgette Sosin : I would like to ask when you had that access withk a Councilwoman Swenson a question, gateheor didhthey put on gate, did that after it was On LakewRileyno itcome on at the beginning. approved with no Councilwoman Swe__n_s=n : No, that was put on because it was determined that i required, it be Geor°` Sosin . That was the point that I wanted to make . Mayor Hamilton : We will be reviewing that I am sure . It will certainly be one of the items that we will want to consider very carefully , PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT DEVELOPMENT Pi 1-- WEST OF AND ADJACENT T —AN RE�UEST FOR 61 ATTACHED AND DETACHED Mavor H 0 HIGHWAY 101 , BLO_____ Hamilton : This item w COMPANIES . recommendations made byas reviewed also on July 15 , 1985 . • There were some li —_—__review those requests thatetheuCouncil had mademand9He askedpfor some time to 11 the item back on tonight so that we he has replied to them. changes that Mr. B can review it again this Wet theve Bloomberg has made , evening and look at Barb Dom_ At the July 15 meetin to how the plan should be amendedg the City Council made several recommendations as were that the duplexes should be eliminIt can be seen by the minutes the recommendations acre1 per which coincides with the Plannin otos to reduce the density to 2.7 units I to We wt 77th inct . g Commission recommendation to close the access A recommendation was made that additional berming be made along TM 101 and that there be individual riparian rights f Lotus Lake, There was an additional recommendationg nr the four riparianxlots on so that there would be two single family in that the lot and lot sbe split ffamily lots . The alots instead L this applicant has reviewed the Citya duplexiu andd two uimge revised plan , which represents the fourth Council minutes has submitted cation . He has reduced the number revised plans since theo initial app y single family units, 14 duplex unitsfand �ts from 66 to 62 . Now proposed are 20 28 condominium C units . The gross density of f o 'n 7 m o Q O1 Council Meeting, Augu:y 1985 � �? ` -13_ ^ o the project is 2.91 units per acre. That excludes the acreage for the boat and park . The net density is 4.23 units per acre . That excludes theaccess way . The average single family lot size is 19,356 square feet , public duplexpof size is 6, 348 square feet . The median The average o _ and 7,500 square feet for the duplex lotst size is 16,500 for the single family lots . In rmance dations, the applicant has indicated a conservationoeasement lto match th the Nthe R e930meleva_ tion contour in the area adjacent to the lake to preserve the slope. He has also amended the drainage and utility easments in this area to conform with staff recom- mendations for the existing ravine between Lot 17 and 18 as well as he proposed a en- retention pond on the northpart of originally a duplex lot and t has now tbeen singlechanged16. An itooaal gfamilye was mlot . Lot 3 was__ dominium units was originally lot . The con_ The landdominium use pattern remainsas 31 and three condominium lots have now been eliminated. as has always been considered to match the existing single family uses which propose single family uses and to surround the 'perimeter of the plan with single family lots. There has been a reduction in the number of duplex lots. Seven lots remain as duplexes. The intent of the land use pattern is to con- centrate the highest density of development in the center of the parcel adjacent to the cluster street , the park and across the existing high density development . The traffic issue is also a major issue discussed both with the Commission and the Council meetings . The Council concurred with the Commission recommendation to not connect the proposed South Shore Drive with West 77th Street . Staff is maintaining its previous recommendation that a connection be made with a right on only , turning movement at the westerly access onto TH 101 . The grading and drainage features have also significantly changed since the initial time of that location . The cul-de-sac in the northwest corner of the plat has been pulled back in conformance with staff recommendations and the necessary easements identified as mentioned earlier . DNR approval : As you know, the PUD must be approved by the Department of Natural — i_ Resources. We discussed at the last meeting the issue re ardin rights for each of the four riparian lots. g 9 taffff rvregal yingkt Council ' s desire to have each of those riparianlotsen,oyto ed. ey staff normally m ll al — low thee one dock per lot . The DNB ' s adamant that not only thatthe slope be but that the number of docks in that area would be minimized as well . They will not approve the plan if the docks in this area exceed two docks . I also indicated in the report that they would approve up to eight slips. That was incorrect . They now indicate that is now four slips. They will only approve two docks and four slips . Ma or Hamilton : Which lots? Barb Dacv : Lots 16, 17, 18 , 19 and dock s 20 , I believe on Lot 16 they already have a o it is Lots 17 through 20 . Councilwoman Watson : That would be one slip per lot . Barb Dacv : Correct . Two docks and four slips . Ma or Hamilton : — —� o_ The existing dock is not included in the numbers. Barb Dacey : Yes, that is correct . — Mayor _--Hamilton . So it would be three docks then . Councilman Hnrn : So there can only be four boats there . f Barb Dacv : Correct , Mayor Hamilton . On the two docks . There is one dock there already . c m/ Council Meeting, August , 1985 ( -14- \ o 0 o, I 4m A. — Councilwoman Watson : So there would be six boats making multiple use out of the pre- sent dock . Councilman Gevino: The dock on Lot 16 remains as is , that is excluded. — Councilwoman Swenson. Then it would be two in addition to that? CouncilmanGevino: Yes . Councilman Horn: Do we need the DNR approval on this? Barb Dacy : Yes . Councilman Horn : When does the DNR supercede our lake ordinance? Barb Dacy: The most restrictive rules will apply , local regulation or state regulation, which whePe there is a conflict between 4 The shoreline management ordinance is adopted vby er this the most City ordinancesect6will clearly states that the DNR has to approve a PUD orefinal #65. apply . That plans . Councilman Horn : What basis do they have for limiting the number of docks , what is their precedent for that? Barb Dacv: They believe the unique nature of the site beyond the slope and they want to protect the integrity of the lake and the shoreline in that pa and minimize the number of structures and the number of slips per dockrticular area -- Councilman Horn : I guess if we are concerned about the challenge ordinance , I would really concerned be ability of our about9 that one. Barb Dacv: The parks and k d mended that a trail easement eben sidentified , betweenpace issuethe Pactheancondominiumnareamand1TH 101 provided pedestrian access from the neighborhood to the west to the1t1 Also the Park and Recreation Commission recommended that the Citypost parkusite . negotiations with the developer to acquire what is known CouncilI pursue lar in shape and approximates two-thirds of an acre . as Block 4. It is triangu- lar Commission this would be suitable for tennis courts , volleyballing othe Park basketball areas. and Staff concurs with the Park ssoand recommen- dation and would recommend that the Cityand Recreation Commission 's Council strongly ark — charge per unit in view of a land dedication g f consider reducing the agreement of this two- Park parcel . In summary , staff is recommendingthirds acre final development with rezoning to P_1 approval of the proposed preliminary planned residential development , y and the plans received on July 31 , 1985, and subject to the following based on conditions: 1 . DNR formal approval . 2 . No more than two docks and four slips for Lots 17_20 , Block 1 ,. 3 . Watershed District approval . 4. Recommendations in the City Engineer 's memo dated 5 . Dedication of a trail easement between TH 101 and theee 10 , lin u area , condominium 6 . Authorizing staff with City Council final approval to negotiate the dedication of Block 4 for park purposes , 7 . Revision of the landscaping plan to show one tree per duplex unit 6 at the rear of the duplex lots . fv council Meeting, Augu.,'�, 1985 ; ) -15- 0 ~co Herb Bloomberg: I don ' t know if I understand exactly what the DNR is restricting in regard to the shore. They are limiting the four lots to two docks, I understand that , but are they going to jeopardize the Fenger lot? Are they taking jurisdiction there? I would rather take that lot out of the plat . My sister won 't sign this plat if she loses her dock. She has lived there for 17 years and has dock rights. Barb Dacv : If there is an existing dock there on your sister 's property , their recommendation does not include that existing dock . This is for the four proposed new lots . Herb Bloomberg: We had planned a dock there before . But she hasn ' t been using the dock and so she certainly isn't losing rights because she hasn 't been using the lake, I hope . Councilman Geving_ That is something that we better check on, but I am sure that it 's not true . Barb Dacv : It has always been my understanding that those two docks were for the preliminary proposal and would not affect your existing dock . Mayor Hamilton: We will clarify that for you, Mr. Bloomberg, to make sure. Herb Bloomberg: We got involved in acquiring this strip of land where the blue house is over on the east edge because we have been trying to develop without it and that has been happening for two years. I didn't think that we would be losing the dock rights for this home that had a dock and there is even one there today on the shore. It is a sandy shore and that is part of my reason in wanting to cooperate to get this _ lake access on this end of the lake because it is such an ideal one from an ecology standpoint . There is no way that boats can stir up the soft bottom and hurt the eco- logy of the lake . There has been concern in regard to the activity , and I think that anyone recognizes that that could be a problem, but you have grandfathered in two —' lake residences , both with lake rights . What I would like to do would be to find if we couldn ' t trade those two dock rights for one single dock that could be used for four slips which would let them maintain their dock . Another advantage would be that , for whatever concern there is in being the last dock in the line next to the public access, that this be a buffer dock . I would think that Mr. Melby would maybe appreciate four friendly neighbors that would help police that . Mayor Hamilton : Did you have anything else , Mr. Bloomberg, that you wanted to relay to us? Herb Bloomberg: It is quite obvious that this will be going through the next phases . One thing that I built from the start , I love this view down the lake . You can see the hills that over look Christmas Lake two miles away . I would like to see it writ- _ ten into the park board stipulations for maintaining this landscaping and that this would be forever a site line so that when you are driving north on TH 101 you will get a nice glimpse of that lake . We all know that with one building and with some trees and shrubs in the way we have lost that forever . We named that road South Shore Drive and I think it would be nice to see what shore you are talking about . Councilman Geving: I think you could help with that by when you develop that area , make sure you leave that view open with the homes that you are planning . If you plan it that way , it will stay that way . Herb Bloomberg: I have problems on a couple of building sites , too , which restricts me too, but I think it is well worth the effort . C _ '\ c Q/c Council Meeting, August . 1985 j ° '�/`. ` -16- k Councilwoman Watson : Here again we come to the drainage problem and I realize we -- discussed that in relationship with the park , but if we could keep the water from this site and try and minimize any water that leaves . It is all the same problem and I am sure that it can all be dealt with at that time . I don ' t know when we will be dealing with crossing TH 101 . There will be people crossing TH 101 . One suggestion was a pedestrian overpass and I realize that would be extremely expensive . Don Ashworth : Mr . Koegler, I know you did look at that issue briefly on the pedestrian/traffic issue . Mark Koegler Yes we did . We had taken a look at the pedestrian issue in regard to the park . TH 101 is, admittedly , a difficult situation . .� is well aware of that . The apartments across the way from Athe opotential dy that spain the area rk is really the concern that we were looking at . In order to look at that we reviewed the project and talked to the apartment management people. They indicated that there are approximately 20 - 25 children in the entire apartment complex right now . Two of the buildings are adults only . From their observations, the smaller children are kept within the complex and they said they have only seen teen-age type kids walking into town along TH 101 . Regardless of that , we still need to provide the safest crossing as possible . What we have looked at , opposite the driveway that comes in with the parking that is close to TH 101 at that point is probably the best location for a marked crosswalk across there. We also talked to the Minnesota Department of Transportation about the possible installtion of the flashing warning signs for pedestrian crossing in that area and they agreed that this would probably be appropriate there . I would like to point out that they would not share in the cost of that and that would be a city expense. That can be done reasonably and economi- cally . . Another reason that we proposed the crosswalk here is because it would tie into the trail , which I believe is one of staff's recommendations that leads behind the condominium units over into the park itself, which would allow people to get across TH 101 either into town or in the park or whatever the best connection might be . We have addressed that as a preliminary fashion . Councilwoman Watson : The access on South Shore , is this a right out only? BillMonk : The original plan that was submitted called for two access points onto TM 101 and a connection onto W. 77th Street . At the last meeting the Council had — talked about leaving the two access points onto TH 101 completely operational with all turning movements and not making any connection to W. 77th Street . That has to be made a part of whatever motion the Council makes on this item. That should be specified. Councilwoman Watson : Okay . The only logical thing would be to have peopleto make either a right or left turningmovement out of those two streets , e be able since the desire is to cut off W. especially 77th Street . Mayor Hamilton: If you want to talk about the movement of traffic , perhaps you could address the Hill Street intersection issue. BillMonk : Since the very beginning, I have always thought that as the series deve- loped, one of the primary concerns would be a realignment of the southern most Hill Street access onto TH 101 on a really bad curve with severe sight distance restric- tions in either direction . I proposed that the existing southerly access point of Hill Street be closed off and realigned into this plat , that street would not be built to a full section , the section would be built more along the lines that already exist there right now . You could eliminate that dangerous access • always been a part of the point . That has right now . Plan and is a part of the plan that is being recommended Q 'Council Meeting, Augusii, 1985 d. y side of -17- Wes Arseth : You know , Bill , the east aHill Street exiting onto TH 101 is an ` extremely dangerous area . As the traffic from the development exits out there , you are going to have that multiplied many times over . Is there any thought of putting .00.11 the dead end on that . Mr . Powers has talked to me about giving some land of his that he owns back there and trading it off for the front part of it and making it a cul- de-sac back there , which would make it a lot safer than what we have right now . Mayor Hamilton : Is there any chance of tying the Horr property into that also so that he could come up and go out through Hill Street because his access has been really bad . Bill Monk : I don ' t believe so . I think that actually is frontage onto TH 101 . I would not pursue the cul-de-sac option . I believe that the straight forward approach with having lakeshore come right up on TH 101 , most or all of the traffic would use the access points on TH 101 . Hill Street was going to be designed somewhat now so it looks not much more than a wide driveway . In order to try and stop people from making that move , since it is not a difficult move onto TH 101 , almost 100 percent of the traffic would go directly to TH 101 where there would be turn lanes and those type of improvements . You could pursue the cul-de-sac idea , but my approach on this is just to get rid of the one right on the curve . If the Council would give me direction , I would be more than happy to meet with the homeowners and take a look at the possibilities . Councilman Gevino: I would recommend that we get a petition from the homeowners on Hill Street to close off their home street and we start from there . Unless you do that it looks like we are taking the initiative . Councilwoman Watson : I am amazed at the OYR ' s decision . I think there is a lot of lana like this on a lot of lakes and I am surprised that they have chosen this par- ticular moment to be arbitrary about that particular issue . Councilman Gevinc: As a result of our last meeting we asked Mr . Bloomberg to go back and realign his plat and he has done some of those things that we had asked him to do . One of the recommendations that we made is that he reduce the number of con- dominiums and he has now reduced his condominiums from 31 to 28 and the front end of the north side of the plan now looks very nice to me . I believe that there is a cer- tain amount of riparian rights that are available to Lot 16 , there should be no _ question about the lot and the dock on that particular lot , nor should there be any question , in my mind, on the dock for Block 2 . Secondly , I had spoken about closing off West 77th Street . I believe that should still happen . I had recommended that we take Lots 1 , 2 and 3 and create two single family homes facing onto South Shore Drive , so if we would remove one lot there , which means that instead of having three small lots , we would have two very nice lots of approximately 13, 400 square feet each . They would be facing South Shore Drive , which means that would have no impact on what happens on West 77th Street . I would recommend that we do like I initially said at the last meeting, make that line between Lots 2 and 3 all the way from the east to the west and create two lots rather than three . My next comment has to do — with the berming along TH 101 . I want to back off from that comment a little bit because I do believe what Mr . Bloomberg had to say is exactly correct . We want to retain the view of the lake . Along with that , I believe we ought to think seriously about putting in a trail way , a bike way , or some way of accessing the entire length # of this plan from the downtown area across the plan and continuing on up TH 101 . i We received a letter from Chuck Hurt . He is the president of the Lotus Lake Betterment Association . What he is proposing to do is just exactly what we said . _ I think that would be a very nice betterment to our community to make that happen . On the right-out that was proposed for the west most entry way to South Shore Drive , f C 4 Council Meeting, August'', 1985 r ° 1 -18- Qo v I believe that we should have all turning movements there and not just a right out . I don't believe that we could ask people to drive north all the way up to the northern most and eastern most entrance to this planned community to enter their home . I would like to see that be all turning movements on both of those accesses . In regards to the docks, I don ' t believe that the DNR is correct in their assumption of what they are trying to do to us with giving us two docks and four slips . It is totally unreal and we have not been faced with this before from the DNR. This is the very first time we have had this kind of comment or request from the DNR. I think we ought to vote to have it for this development and see if we can 't push that through . The two docks I don ' t have any problem with , but we shouldn ' t treat Mr. Bloomberg or anybody else differently . We should give them four slips or five slips for each one of those docks. In regards to the gross density , we are now getting down , in terms of gross density , to the area that we talked about before and that was an'ebjective of 3.0. We are at 2.91 on our gross density and I think that is very acceptable . I believe that we should not provide for any decrease in the park dedication fee , nor make any attempt to acquire Block 4. I think Block 4 will take care of itself in due time. We have adequate amount of space dedicated to the is that there should not be a reduction in the rdedication o . My peon ees oroany of ofithis development . I also agree with the City Engineer thatweshould eliminatethe this existing south access to Hill Street . Coun_ c_ i_lmann Horn : Councilman Geving covered most of the comments that I would have made with the exception that the Council had also recommended the elimination of the duplex lots . I read in Mr . Ashworth 's recommendations on August 5th that Mr. Bloomberg is concerned about the duplexes on Lots 21 through 23 . I think those con- - cerns are valid in that case . However, we also have the duplexes on Lots four through nine that have not been addressed and I don ' t see the arguments used on Lots 21 through 23 being valid for those lots , so I would like to reinforce the recommen_ dation that we had made the last time we reviewed those that they would be single family lots along that section . Mayor Hamilton : I think ! -- lots . ots 6 and 8 are not duplex lots, they are single family Councilman Horn : I could share Dale ' s and Carol 's comments about the DNR. I think they have expressed them adequately . It is hard to find any ency with what they are doing with a recommendation like that . But other than nthe trecommendation for Lots 4, 5, 7, and 9 and concurring with the recommendation to close off W. 77th Street and make the South Shore exist a right in , right out , that would conclude my recommendations . Councilwoman Swenson . I certainly agree with Councilman Horn . When I was working on this , I was concerned about the size of the duplex lots . If, are eliminated as I also feel they ought to be along the west side , we rarelypsmile at anything less than 15,000 square feet for a single family dwelling a request here for 12 ,200 square foot buildings sites that are being dividedand yetine wove I am not pleased with that . The first option that I would have would be to eliminao . te the duplexes . By eliminating the lot , which I thought we had recommended last week , we have 11 lots going through Lot 12 and through 11 down which constituted about 157, 500 feet . If we were to take those 11 lots and divide them equally , we would wind up with a 14, 300 square foot lot , which for a single family dwelling is usually what we request . My first preference would be the elimination of the duplexes . In regards to the rest of the things , I am in complete agreement with everyone else . r r' 9 N F t 0 o Council Meeting, August, 1985 ;, C. -19- — Mayor Hamilton : I am very pleased that Mr . Bloomberg came back and responded to our Comments and concerns about changing some of the items in the development . I am not convinced that closing off West 77th Street is the best idea . — II Councilman Gevinn: I am now proposing that this development contain a total of 57 units . That total consists of the elimination of one of the single family lots in 1(/ Block 1 , the elimination of the four duplex units identified as Block 1 , Lot 4, 5, 7 and nine and making those single family , leaving the duplexes on Lots 21, 22 and 23 and we have eliminated five units for a total of 57 units for this plan . Mayor Hamilton: I am wondering how far we are going to ask Mr. Bloombergto go . He was here three weeks ago and we asked him to cut out several lots again , he responded _ to and solved nearly everyones concerns and now he has come back and we .are asking him to reduce some more . So the next time that he comes back , we ask him to reduce t again, pretty soon we'll be down to one house . I can' t agree with cutting out another five. I think you are asking him to do too—much . — Councilwoman Swenson: May I review our minutes for the 15th of July when we discussed this? I suggested, should we review our recommendations and Councilman Geving replied , "I think we need to identify them." Councilwoman Swenson: "Our first recommendation that we would make would be to eliminate the duplexes , which reduces the density to 2.7, close W . 77th Street and the berming would be appropriate and the individual riparian rights for docking would be retained ." Mayor Hamilton: — "And that the development contract states that there be no cutting other than to put a walkway down to the dock ." Councilman Geving: "I made a recommendation on the corner, making 2 lots out of the proposed Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1 ." According to the minutes that we have , what we are recommending tonight is consistent with what we recommended on the 15th of July . Barb Dacv : I need some additional Council direction as to the status of Block 4. I know it is the applicant ' s concern that it is not to be used for park uses , that some type of determination be made if he could locate a couple of the condominium units on that lot or try and subdivide it for single family or duplex use . I believe the applicant is concerned that if it is not used for park purposes that he will have two-thirds of an acre of land that is just sitting there and not being used . I need some Council direction to give to the applicant as to what to do with Block 4. Mayor Hamilton : I think Dale ' s comment was that that will take care of itself in the long run . He felt that we had enough park space. I guess I would think that purchasing Block 4 would certainly be advantageous to the City . To have parkland -- combined with the property that is at the well house right now would make a very nice park . But I think Dale felt that it would take care of itself in due time and perhaps some time in the future maybe we could think of making use of that . Councilman Gevinn: I just don ' t want to mix that issue up with the whole plan , because it has not been a part of the plan . It is silent in the plan . Mayor Hamilton : But it is a part of the overall property . Councilman Gevinn: It is a part of the property . If Mr . Bloomberg wanted to designate that for condominiums or something, I wouldn ' t have any problem with that . — Don Ashworth : There would be a change though , in that all the waythrough in the `, park commission at looking at this , that has been part of the park plan that has been considered by the Park and Recreation Commission . In the negotiations , that has included the lot . But if the Council determines not to pursue that , Mr . Bloomberg should be able to use that . u ` C N Council Meeting, August;,, 1985 -20- ` o c Councilman Gevinn: Maybe we should just indicate that we will continue negotiating -- clearly Mr . Bloomberg as our original intention . I withrlr stated thawe shori attemptnalien negotiateThe Park enn toCommission 's mecommendatien future. I don ' t know when that would be, purchasing that sometime in the amount money . onlybecause that could cost us a considerable amount of o4 by Theredoother consideration that I would make is that we equal the cost of Block 4 so parkthahargason sensall ]f the 57 units that are could we would proposed to T park dedication process. acquire Block 4 through the Councilwoman Watson : How do we establish the value on that property? Ashworth-shworth: In all the discussions that we have had regarding propertyonfrom Mr, Bloomberg, thissparcel hasthe always been included in those ase of the discussions. As far as the total amount doiscer a periodnf time. of money is concerned, that would be f �' theWe did discuss whether or not there would be anyg of acquisition charges that would be left parktht issue openapplied against the property , and have not saying that the citywouldPro nrt have make a reduction or not . Councilwoman Watson : I would prefer to see it done in that manner purchasing the land . as opposed to Mayor HamiThat is what the recommendation was, Wes Arseth : I have a question on Hill Street . to TH 101 , it makes a sharp left and then makes a sharp eright ad the gain . Every always have troubles with the snowgoing adjacent there anyplows making that bend by winter we problem on separating those two southerly putting inger ' s ween that? house . Is That seems to be a lot more wise , y lots and putting Hill Street bet- Bill Monk : We did review that , b house onthebut the problem is the placing of the existing property . We are waiting blue there . It seemed best to bring it u for the potential layouts for the P. I do believe that we canProenin we will separate those lots that much more from TH 101 as thatmake it looked at and in workable and trying to separate itaccesssrohe . That was the flat area . you lose too much of the use of the s I do believe that the layout that is there is workable . Mayor Hamilton : We could do that . That is an alternative that we should keep in Judy Sch�eQ. I guess I resent the comment that that asking Mr. Bloomberg to do somethingdifferents made, Mn .he was ,hereon the fact Along with everybody else and in the minutes it was than when was also as to the number of units that there would belast time , veryetheearlp stated andecutby and everything else . I don ' t think after du it has been unfair . It has beenveryexes upwprf and Planning Commissioners have said it , the Council members have said it feel that that is front . The a fair statement , and I don ' tm then to come back and completely ignore tall k you' ve been very up front with him and your requests, I found Councilman Geving moved to a quite startling , with reonin pprove the preliminary and final development g to P_1 based on the plans stamPed "Received July 31plan request to the following conditions: , 1985" and subject .. 1 . DNR formal approval ; J � , .� ouncil Meeting, August 1985 -21_ r. *' 7 4) ' 2 . Two docks with 5 slips each on riparian Lots 17 through 20, BIock 1 , excluding the Fenger property and the blue house on the eastern part of the property . Staff will contact DNR regarding their requirements / as to the amount of the dockage that can be permitted; 3. Watershed District approval ; 4. Recommendations in the City Engineer ' s memorandum dated June 10, 1985 excluding recommendation #4: a . Four drainage design modifications be adopted: -Lowering the center island area of the townhouse turnaround — so it can function as a landscaped detention basin with a controlled outlet . Should this location prove unacceptable , equal area must be provided elsewhere on the upper shelf area . -Using catch basins with sumps to retain large sediment par- ticles (now that the City has a vacuum truck for removing the silt build-up) and drop manholes to dissipate energy — and reduce runoff velocities . -The two outlets be released into elongated swales on the ._ lower shelf adjacent to the lake so disturbance from the discharge on the lake is minimized and additional area is provided to allow sedimentation in a location that can be readily accessed and maintained . These swales will have to be located so as not to interfere with the existing forcemains . b . The northwest cul-de-sac be shortened and lots realigned to avoid disturbance of the steep slopes adjacent to Lotus Lake . c . All Streets be constructed to City standards including a 28 foot width , and 18 inch gravel equivalency and lined with concrete curb and gutter. d . eliminated . e . All MnDot requirements for drainage and access within TH 101 right- _ of-way be included as a part of City approval . f. That an additional 17 foot wide strip be dedicated along TH 101 for future highway improvements. g . That all DNR and Watershed District conditions concerning density and drainage be incorporated as a part of the City ' s approval . — 5 . Dedication of a trail easement between TH 101 and the condominium area; 6 . Authorizing staff, with City Council final approval , to negotiate the ded- 1 ication of Block 4 for park purposes and for park fee credits; 7 . Revision of the landscaping plan to show one tree per duplex unit; — c Council Meeting, Augus 1985 , \ t v k. -22- c 8 . Connection into West 77th Street is not permitted , \ have full traffic movements; All access points shall 9, Lake views from TH 101 shall be retained; 10 , !ots 1 , 2 and 3, Block 1 , shall be combined into two sin facing South Shore Drive , and lots 4 gle Tamil ► 5, 7 Block and 9Y lots 1, shall be single family lots; 11 . Staff should investigate the possibilit between the Melby propert Y of bermingpoealong the lot Y and the Bloombergline property; — 12. Staff will continue to look into a crossover of TH 101 . The last two conditions tion of finalwos are items that will be pursued by City staff in '. specifications for the boat access and park , its prepara- tion Horn, Motion was seconded by Bill Monk : I have a problem with the condition to allow dock rights with the existing blue house . That might involve allowing the I don 't know with the DNR regulations if commended. in a public park . that will be . Don Ashworth : ... We may have to bring the issue back . Bill Monk : The Council may want t Bili whetherok - thateis actually o direct staff to pursue that , property Possible. If but I reallykdon ' t Y off. That you look at the plan, the park cuts that property no longer extends all the way down to the lake , caught me a little bit by surprise with that st . If the dock is to be sYou traight re ue down , it could definitelyq cause major problems with the park access site. Mayor Hamilton : -�_ It will remain as is in the motion with the understanding that staff will pursue it and it will then come back to this body . Roger Knutson : I have not discussed this with Mr. Bloomberg, Recedes thao he wohad rnther oe lee stha wheh ouldthem, go along with the DNR request and have if Mr, Bloombergrtai it would be the Council 's willingnesshave a cimfonotwit two docks with two slips each rather than five, twa to allow him if that was his desire . to go with -- Mayor Hamilton - We would amend the motion at that time . The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton , Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes . Motion cWatson arried. and Swenson , Motion carried, Herb Bloomberg: There are a number ee blue house . I know the Citynof factors . One is in r seems to me , of Minneapolis they regard to docking for in view of the circumstances , losing rent fyo ancwhorages involvedto boats. 1t trade taking five acres with no lake and trading it dockrif you esre h0int a — beautiful lake shore , for five acres with beIt doesn ' t sound like very30ybe feet thereof something done that would help that . good business to me , candanllotsOne othereliminate and maybe you want to consider s angle it if towe beover the foot lots when you put them together , The squeezing them to toe d together f l v t100y development with this wholeother thing is that I f park scheme , that there will come aetime ewhen lthe w� Lh public would want to make a connection potion of the road as there and I would like to roadway . a park with the stipulation offerto donate that ay . I can see a few years from nowthatsomeday it mig be used as a s to 6 that little lee ague baseball is going over a mCieCouncil Meeting, Auguz., , 1985 -23- here and you have bicycles and walking and all of that , and I think you wouldn ' t have trouble getting a few hundred signatures of people to the west to say that they would like their youngsters in the middle of that park without going onto TH 101 . So maybe_ things can change . I am satisfied that we don ' t need the connection now , and maybe forever. But I think that we could maybe keep some of those options open . • VARIANCE TO THE 75 FOOT SHORELAND SETBACK FOR A DECK , 7300 LAREDO DRIVE, ALAN FOX: FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A DECK , 801 PONTIAC LANE, PAUL NAAB : LOT AREA AND SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR-A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, 1565 BLUFF CREEK DRIVE. ALBERT DORWEILER: — VARIANCE TO CONTRUCT AN ADDITION TO A NONCONFORMING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, 2821 TANGERS LANE, OLSEN/HAWLEY: The above four items were approved unanimously at an earlier Board of Adjustments and -- Appeals meeting. Therefore, no action was required by the Council . ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO THE RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT ORDINA NCECITY Barb Dacv : Attachments #9, 10 and lZ. are going to be the primary .points 0ofF CHANHASSEN:_ discussion. 09 is the existing beachlot ordinance, 810 is the proposed ordinance and 012 is the proposed ordinance proposed by Councilwoman Swenson . I would like to run through the differences between the existing ordinance and the proposed ordinance. The first item in the beachlot ordinance is conditional uses of any R-1 District per- taining to the location of the chemical toilet facilities . The current ordinance allows that they be placed on the beachlot but they be required to be placed 75 feet back from the ordinary high water mark . The proposed ordinance only allows these facilities for administratively authorized special events or if the Council finds it such , the facility will not entirely affect adjacent properties . The Planning Commission felt that this particular proposed language was too vague. So that was their major concern with this item and that the present language be maintained . Secondly , the current ordinance does not permit any motor vehicles to be driven or parked on the beachlot . The proposed ordinance does permit those if you launch from the beachlot by a motorized vehicle but does not allow any vehicle to be parked on the beachlot . The Planning Commission was very much opposed to the proposed ordi- nance amendment regarding this particular section . Item C. remains the same . That prohibits overnight camping on a beachlot . Item D . , the current ordinance does not allow the overnight storage or mooring of watercraft or overnight docking of watercraft . The proposed ordinance allows overnight mooring or storage of up to five watercraft . The rest of this section regarding storing of items remains the same . Item E . refers to launching on the beachlot . This is mentioned again just because the way the proposed ordinance is structured . Item F. , the current ordinance requires that a beachlot be 100 feet in width at the ordinary high water mark and landward 100 feet . The proposed ordinance requires 200 feet of lake frontage for a beachlot to have a dock , plus another 200 feet for each additional dock . There is also an area requirement for a dock and this is that a beachlot must have at least 30 ,000 square feet for the first dock and 20 ,000 square feet for each additional dock . So the proposed beachlot would have to meet both the frontage requirement and the area requirement in order to have a dock . Items F. and C. remain the same in the proposed ordinance as to the number of units a beachlot can serve . The final item that the proposed ordinance allows and is not included in the existing ordinance is that in areas that are designated as conservation easements shall not be considered as part of the beachlot . So that is more restrictive than the existing ordinance . I _ would now like to review attachment #12 and highlight the items that are different Council Meeting, October i: 1985 - 10- RESOLUTION #85-60 : Councilwoman Watson moved to adoption of a resolution approving the modified feasibility study for phase I of the South Lotus Lake improvement project . Resolution was seconded by Councilman Geving . The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton , Councilwomen Watson and Swenson , Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes . Motion carried . B . FINAL PLAT APPROVAL , SOUTH LOTUS LAKE, HERB BLOOMBERG: Mayor Hamilton : I believe there were no substantial changes to this other than the addition of two lots . Is there any other changes that we should be aware of? Barb Dacv : No. Wes Arseth : On the angle of the turn on Hill Street , it seems more abrupt now to where the changes are made . I am concerned about the snow plowing and things of that nature . I don ' t know if that is possible . Bill Monk : Mr . Bloomberg wants to attach a garage to that existing residence . By doing that and even getting a minimum setback , the offset that is shown has to be there , but we have been out and looked at it and feel quite confident that we can make that work . We will cut that corner as much as possible . It is workable and I think it will be a improvement over what is there right now . Mayor Hamilton : I think all they are asking for is to round that corner a little bit so it is not quite' as sharp . Bill Monk : That can be done . Councilman Horn : Why does this plan show the extension of Hill Street still there? I thought that was going to be vacated . Bill Monk : That exists on another piece of property as a right-of-way . The City will have to go through a separate process to vacate that . We cannot do that as a part of this plat because that property is not a part of the plat . So we will have to go through a vacation proceeding. We will do that after the Hill Street alignment is done . Councilman Horn : I have another question . Why is West 77th Street shown on this plat? Barb Dacv : I believe they are just reserving the right-of-way cul-de-sac . The cul-de-sac extends into the property . We are just reserving the right-of-way . Councilman Horn : But this isn ' t shaped like the cul-de-sac . It doesn ' t show that it exists . Bill Monk : Because the outside of the edges of the bubble exist by easements . He is just buying the right-of-way out to the road that will be there in the future . The outside edges of the cul-de-sac will continue to exist and be the City ' s by easement . Councilman Horn : The one case because it hasn ' t been vacated y it is , but in this case because it is an easement , it is shown asatroad . shown as it Bill Monk : The other way to do it is we could have asked them to plat the house , but in essence he would be platting part of the exception and the City would have had to become a part of the plat . It was decided that would not be the way to go . tI r`jZf67V1 T71-i7 Council Meeting, Octobc 7 , 1985 -11- Councilman Horn moved to approve the final plat for South Lotus Lake , Phase I . Motion was seconded by Councilman Geving . The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton , Councilwomen Watson and Swenson , Councilmen Horn and Geving . No negative votes . Motion carried . - FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST , 3713 SOUTH CEDAR DRIVE , CLIFFORD PEDERSEN : This item was approved at an earlier Board of Adjustments and Appeals meeting . _ Therefore, no Council action is required . PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CREATING FOUR LOTS CONTAINING MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL UNITS LOCATED ON PINE CIRCLE , GARY KIRT : Barb Dacv : One recommendation that I would like to point out is that we recommended the lot line be as close to 2 .5 acres as possible . Especially in the northwest corner . This lot is shown as 2 .4 acres . The surveyor has contacted me and said that — it may actually be 2.5 acres when they do the final plat . This represents the recom- mendation of staff and Council . Councilwoman Swenson : I have only one problem there . On the second recommendation there should be no increased density . In looking at the structure of the lot , it would appear that , from past experience , it is not inconceivable that someone would want to separate one of those in the future . I wonder if we could word this some way so that would encompass the future as to opposed to just now . There should be no increase density at any time . There is always somebody who is looking for some tech- nicality that puts us in a difficult position down the road . I would welcome any — suggestions as far wording is concerned . Councilman Geving: The only concern would be the multiple family unit . They are so large and it seems to me that they could be split even further . Councilwoman Swenson : I wasn ' t so concered about the apartments as I was about the actual lots and the subdivision of the lots . — Mayor Hamilton : If they want to subdivide it a couple of years down the road that is something we can ' t decide today that they can ' t do 20 years from now . — Barb Dacv : If someoody does want to plat lot 3 onto lot 2, they do have the right to make that rotation and a future Council could simply base their decision on the fact that the increase in the structure is too intense for the intent of the district itself. The Planning Commission is just trying to say that what is there now is appropriate and that is it . Councilman Geving: I would like to refer to the City Engineer ' s memo of December 5, 1984 particularly in terms of the street recommendations . Do you feel strongly about that , Bill ? Barb Dacv : 'That has been implemented on the plat . Councilman Geving: How about the private wells and septic systems? — Bill Monk : There will be no change with that either because of the present zoning and the utility availability . Councilwoman Swenson moved to approve the preliminary and final development plan request (184-2 for Ches-Mar Farms including rezoning to P-1 , Planned Residential _ Development based on the preliminary plat stamped "Received September 4, 1985 . " Motion was seconded by Mayor Hamilton . The following voted in favor : Mayor Hamilton , Councilwomen Watson and Swenson , Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes . Motion carried . — City Council Minutes - July 7, 1986 ir- Final Plan Amendment Proposal to Replat Outlot C of the South Lotus Lake Addition into 14 Single Family Lots and one Outlot for 14 Multiple Family Units instead of the Originally Intended 28 Townhouse Units, West of and Adjacent to TH 101, Herb Bloomberg. *Note: At this point a tape malfunction occurred during Staff's presentation by Barbara Dacy. Barbara Dacy:...parking spaces and dumpster location, and as you tell, there is more than enough room to meet the setbacks, etc. Withthenrevised plan amendment, there are four or five double frontage lots that are created between the cul-de-sac and South Shore Drive. Recommendation is that access to these lots be gained from the cul-de-sac and that the landscape strip be maintained in this area to provide somewhat of a buffer between the street and those houses. There is a concern raised by one of the neighboring residents regarding buffering between the public park and private property and so on. This is an overhead transparency of the original landscaping plan that applicant submitted. It is very busy in this particular shot, but basically what Staff is recommending is that in essence, this concept be retained. That there be landscaping adjacent to TH 101 and adjacent to the park boundary and a revised landscaping plan be submitted to reflect the lot layout, etc. and show continuation of the screening between South Shore Drive and the proposed single family lots. If Council is to approve the final plan amendment tonight, there are four recommendations. One, as I eluded to earlier, access for Lots 8 through 12, Block 2 be gained from the proposed cul-de-sac. Secondly, the landscaping plan should be revised to create a ten foot landscaped area along the double frontage lots. Landscaping along TH 101 and the park boundary should be maintained. Third, utility and street construction comply with applicable City standards for urban design. Finally, a detailed drainage and erosion control plan be submitted for approval by the City, Watershed District and DNR. Councilwoman Watson: We increased the size of those 14 lots and we decreased the size of the outlot and we decreased the number of units on the outlot. It just seems like that is going to be a little scrunched in there if you ask me. The outlot is decreasing but the units aren't. Barbara Dacy: That is why Staff went back and tried to determine whether or not a 14 unit building or buildings could be accommodated, built to setback standards and meet parking standards, etc., and it can be done. Councilwoman Watson: I guess I'm trying to visualize the single family lots, which are not large lots, but they are single family lots. Then over here we stick this little area, and it is going to be very high density, suddenly sitting on the end of this street is going to be this, the rest of it is going to be single family and we are going to have this one little pocket of quite high density housing and I guess I can't visualize in my mind how that is all going to work out. I don't think visually I find that very appealing and I don't know if it is compatible in such a little area stuck right on TH 101 there. I guess I just think the density of that 9 i_ City Council Minutes - July 7, 1986 outlot is too high. There just can't be that many units within that. I don't think the density of the other part is low but I certainly think that the density within that outlot is pretty high because 14 units, to make them look anything like they match the rest of that neighborhood. I'm not opposed to the attached housing theory but I think that is way too many units for that 66,000 square feet. I'm not just wild about the 12,000 square foot lots, frankly. There are some big lot in here which always raises the average so that it looks better than it really is because you take a couple lots that are large. We've got a lot up here, for instance that is 48,000 square feet. Councilman Horn: Those are all previously approved. We are just talking about the center issue tonight. Councilwoman Watson: I understand that, I really do, I am just trying to see if this little center area, the single family part isn't that big but you try to put 14 units on this 66,000 square feet, I think the density is too high. _ Councilman Horn: The tradeoff was the previous proposal and that was to have smaller single family lots and have a larger outlot. I think this concept makes more sense because typically, you put the larger size with the single family and here we are putting the smaller lot on the multiple family so, between the two tradeoffs I prefer this alternative. With regard to the lot sizes, I think the minimums are compatible with what has already been approved and in fact, there is one at 11,400 on the previously approved portion so I guess I don't see a problem with this. Councilwoman Swenson: Barb, on this Staff Update, is that up-to-date? Barbara Dacy: Yes, after the Planning Commission meeting. Councilwoman Swenson: For the 9.3, is the units per acre on the reduced outlot size? Barbara Dacy: Right, 14 units divided by 1.5 acres whereas before it was almost two acres so it would have been 7. Councilwoman Swenson: Of course, it is no secret that I completely concur with the lot sizes. I would much prefer them larger and I don't like to see 10,000 square foot lots but as Councilman Horn has pointed out, that is not the point for tonight. I just want to confirm my total agreement with Councilwoman Watson that I also disagree with that. I have a couple of concerns with that apartment building. One being that it is a rapid switch from apartments to single family. We have always tried to have a more — transitory development with maybe apartment houses, then townhouses, then maybe single family. I can't remember a time when we have gone abruptly from an apartment complex. That proposed change down in Chanhassen Hills actually sets aside. It is really not quite the same because this is right on top of the street. 10 i City Council Minutes - July 7, 1986 — Jr- Barbara Dacy: In the Chanhassen Hills case, the area for the multiple family was at the intersection of TH 101 and there was a new street and there were 8 single family lots across the street from that area. Again, that situation and this situation is similar in that you are approving the number of units. The applicant at this point, is indicating that it may come to this type of development pattern or it may be a singular building but the issue is whether or not the multiple family area is appropriate at that location for 14 units. Councilwoman Swenson: Are we required then to accept the designation of the outlot now or can that be done when the developer comes back for approval of development on that outlot? Don Ashworth: Did you address that issue with the Attorney? Barbara Dacy: The issue that I asked the Attorney was whether or not the Council could, through the plan amendment, actually reduce the number of units that have previously approved and Mr. Knutson's response back was that the Council in 1985 established that 57 units was an appropriate density and number at that particular location. I guess if you wanted to make your motion to approve the 14 single family lots and development on the outlot would be resubmitted at a later date with no s plans direction as to the number of units could be specific possible. Councilwoman Watson: Do we have an opportunity to ever change that number? _ Councilwoman Swenson: When it comes back, does it come back as a new L proposal or does it come still as a portion of this one? Councilwoman Watson: Where we have to take the 14 units regardless? Barbara Dacy: It would be part of the PUD proposal because it is part of the 57 originally approved. Councilwoman Swenson: So we have a 14 unit development on there whether we accept it now or whether we accept it when they come in for a proposal. Barbara Dacy: I guess what I am suggesting is that if you want to review it and make a specific condition that it go through the Planning Commission and Council at time of development to assess the impact of 14 units. A separate review process. Councilwoman Swenson: I guess that was what I was thinking of today, maybe wait and see because by that time it is reasonable to suspect that the development will be developed and we will be able to tell whether an apartment complex of that size will be incongruous with what is there. I think it is a little difficult looking at a vacant piece of property. It seems that this setting up on TH 101 being higher also that the single family's are going to be, may make it seem like a towering building but I think we can t conjecture what it might look like. It is going to be a lot easier I think -4 for Council to decide whether or not this is an acceptable application after the development has progressed to a farther extent. Does that seem 11 City Council Minutes - July 7, 1986 reasonable to you? Councilman Horn: I can envision it being a single story unit. Councilwoman Watson: Yes, what specifically are these units that we are talking about, these 14 units? Brad Johnson, representing Herb Bloomberg: What we tried to do since the Planning Commission meeting the last time, was to adjust for the various problems or questions that were raised by the neighborhood, even to the point of catching Judy before the meeting to see if she would go along — maybe with what it is. I believe it is correct that you approved 57 units in the PUD. One of the things that we are trying to deal with here is that it was not a specific project. We didn't know exactly what was going to go in that over a period of time. — Councilwoman Swenson: Wait a minute. I don't think I can agree with that. We have a plat here that is approved so don't tell us we don't know what we — approved. Brad Johnson: Okay, what we are coming back with, let me just explain why we are coming back. We are saying you have approved 57, 28 units and strictly from a market point of view, todays world, the next couple of years, single family homes, lots will sell in Chanhassen. There is a question as of whether we could attract a developer of townhomes at this time in that type of project. That is basically why the change was made. The second reason was, after a couple of us had looked at the this, Herb said why don't you do it this way because it would be a nicer subdivision when it is all done because you would have single familys. You have some fairly expensive lots down along the lake and we are going to abut that with fairly high density townhomes, so we came back but the problem we are having is that this road, South Shore Road is already in so you have to deal with that situation. We've got some very large lots on the other side where we can steal land from if you are going to start this whole process all over. The Planning Commission was concerned about the size of the lots because they said they were approving things over 12,000 square feet but anything under 12,000 they had not approved or just did not feel good about so we adjusted the size of the lots in the PUD up to the 12,0470 and that is what the Planning Commission said so that is why that adjustment was made. The second concern was why don't you exit onto the street here and the real reason there is that there is a 14 foot drop from Lot 9 down to South Shore Drive and that just is not a good way to come into a parcel, so that is why it exits that way. The City, Barb has suggested and Herb has agreed, that we landscape this section here so now we are down to dealing with the outlot. As Judy says, this just keeps changing. as — undernd PUD, when we get into the final multiple unit, andVtellmeIif Imsrightaor not Barb that we put on that property, don't you actually when it gets into a multiple, approve the unit design also? Barbara Lay: The design of the building? Brad Johnson: Yes, in some cases we are actuallyhavingto do that. C 12 City Council Minutes - July 7, 1986 -- jr- Councilwoman Swenson: Architectural design approval. We haven't done it recently but we used to do it. Brad Johnson: We are doing it some places so that is why I asked the question. Barbara Dacy: In the past, for example in the Chan Hills development, there has been a specific number of units assigned to were no specific developmentg an outlot but there plans at that time. Brad Johnson: What we did then is said it is a little confusing, this is a transitional area. Okay, there's no doubt about that and I think a lot of -- people envision the apartment buildings to the east and just plotting one on that particular parcel. As Herb said, it would be very difficult for him to sell those lots and then plat a big blob of a building on there and not deal with the transition. So what we did is we drew pp over here an example of a transitional development which is basically cluster homes of fours and twos. When you drive into the area you will see a two family located here, and these would be for rental, they are not big scale units in square footage. Chanhassen needs some smaller rentals with garages other than houses so what we have here is a concept. There would be a two family home with attached garages, then four units with attached garages here, here and here. Now that was just one example of how you could lay • that out to solve this transitional problem which we all agree exists. You leave a lot of open spaces, there is no outside parking andlks somewhat residential and in scale, some of the homesthislar aawill probably be as big as these four units when they are all done because these will be maybe in the area of around 1,600 to 2,000 square feet of living space plus the garages and these would be in the area of 3,200 square feet of living area plus the garages so they are not overly normally be two stories. Probablynot big and they would That is how you build them for rental rather realyexp sive e fobarzale. That is just an example and then there is also a requiremento that for part of this development that we have to put in a walkwayto the parks which again takes away something. These are all concessions that have happened over a long period of time trying to get this plot together, but that is the idea. I talked with Judy before the meetin neighborhood and is concerned g because she is in the tthat that we could agree upon, and I guess we would just as moon othe hapeothes14 units taken away at this time by directive, and as long as Herb owns the land and maybe there is some way to do it, we agreed we would start with the neighborhood the next time around so that they could have their input then come back to the Planning Commission for full approval for whatever would go on there. I would say there are probably two, in todays world of ; development, two things that could happen to this site. One would be -- something like this or even a little less, a little more scattered than this is or the other one is a little senior project that we keep talking about which would be more of a group home or something like that. More of a 14 unit house basically is what it would look like. I think that might be too small and Chanhassen still doesn't have enough olderle bu probably the only kind of building You could PnP t that is that kind of a scale. 14 unit apartment buildings, 2 uun t a in there in apartment 13 ti _ i - City Council Minutes - July 7, 1986 buildings just aren't built even on those big of sites. They just aren't economics so he may end up subdividing this off into four lots with three fours and a two. I guess it is a matter of proving that the site plan would work at the time we come in for approval and we all appreciate what you said Carol, but this is the kind of transition we envision. We don't envision a big apartment building and I think at the last meeting, I don't think anybody really explained that. If you can put it in Barb, we agree that we have to come back through for approval. Councilwoman Watson: Would you have trouble with our holding off on the actual design of that outlot? Brad Johnson: The outlot has to be there. Councilwoman Watson: I understand the outlot has to be there but the 14 units there.. Councilwoman Swenson: I still feel when they come to develop that outlot, that what we would like to do would'be to have full site approval and design approval and the whole bit at the time. Brad Johnson: I think that is fair. We talked about that with Judy this morning or just now, I think you agree, that is what we would like to do because that is how that should happen. We would just as soon not lose the right to the 14 though if we can show we can put them on the site and we think that is a fair transition but this is the last of a fairly cumbersome thing and one of the things that we will promise to do is start with the neighbors so the people will have a better chance of feeling out what the look would be. Normally in this kind of thing we would probably come in with an elevation so you have a fairly good feeling of how it would look and look at it from one direction. Herb's problem is that if he doesn't do that he isn't going to sell those lots backing onto there and he understands the partical part of that. Councilwoman Swenson: I would just have one comment. I have no problem with the number of lots but I would still like to reserve specifics, if we can legally, on that 14 units until we see how the rest of the development shapes up. Brad Johnson: I think that is a legal questions more than... Councilwoman Swenson: Agreed, but in any event I wouldn't want to see you go through the whole cycle over. Brad Johnson: We are assuming that is exactly what would happen. — Jack Melby: I guess I had one question. Lots 11, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 22 it looks like, are those all multiple family units? Barbara Dacy: Those were the previously approved townhomes. [17- 14 — L7 City Council Minutes - July 7, 1986 jr- Councilwoman Swenson: The only amendment to the original plan now concerns the Block 2 and the outlot. Councilman Horn: I have a question for Barb. Did you say you were recommending some type of a screening between the two rows of sngle family homes? Barbara Dacy: What I am recommending is being maintained is along TH 101, the park area and along South Shore Drive which goes through the double frontage lots along the edge. On the new plan, the lots at the end of the cul-de-sac are double frontage lots. Councilman Horn: So it is because of the double frontage lots? Is that consistent with what you are requesting with other people? Barbara Dacy: Yes, it is a specific requirement of a subdivision ordinance. Jack Melby: I have a question and it relates to this, but I don't know how directly. On June 20, 21 and 22 we had all kinds of water problems with runoff from this development into Lotus Lake. I would simply ask, Bill was involved with this a great deal and I think Don was there that weekend, that those instances simply be recorded in the public record, the kinds of problems that they had. I have to thank Bill too for responding so quickly. Wish we could have had all those things done before he got there. — There was runoff and I want to thank Bill for responding so quickly. Barbara Dacy: That is all a matter of public record. Bill Monk: There is a memorandum on file. Councilwoman Swenson moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded to approve the Final Plan Amendment Request #85-4 for 14 single family lots and one outlot on Outlot C, South Lotus Lake Addition, based on the plan stamped "Received May 28, 1986" instead of the originally proposed 28 townhome units, reserving any definition or designation of the outlot, development site or density until the new proposed development for that outlot comes in based on the following conditions: 1. Access to Lots 8 through 12, Block 2 be gained from the proposed cul-de-sac. 2. The landscaping plan should be revised to create a ten foot landscaped area along double frontage lots. Landscaping along T.H. 101 and the park boundary should be maintained. 3. Utility and street construction comply with applicable City standards for urban design. 4. A detailed drainage and erosion control plan be submitted for —i approval by the City, Watershed District and DNR. All voted in favor and motion carried. 15 City Council Minutes - July 7, 1986 Don Ashoworth: The only thing I would add is that we did state that we would relook at the drainage from this area and I just wanted to make sure it was clear, for the record, that the reanalysis would be done as part of this project and may change the actual project itself. — Sian Variance Request for an Off-Premise Temporary Leasing Sign at the Southeast Corner of Highways 5 and 41, Chaska Investment. Barbara Dacy: The sign is located in the southeast corner of Highways 5 _ and 41. Staff advised the applicant that the existing sign was illegal under the terms of the sign ordinance and advised them either to apply for a variance or have the sign removed. Therefore, you have this application before you. The sign ordinance only allows off-premise real estate signs for example, for industrial and commercial parks such as Opus Development. However, there are specific restrictions on that allowance, that being that the sign has to be located in the same property of the business park and has to be removed within a certain time period. This particular application is advertising a sign that is not within the community. It is zoned in an agricultural area and Staff and the Planning Commission recommended denial of the sign variance request based on the fact that it is contrary to the intent of the sign ordinance. The applicant dropped off the letter that is before you tonight to me today. He couldn't attend tonight's meeting and he asked me to distribute the letter and convey his apologies for not being able to attend. Councilwoman Watson: It almost sounds, when you read (1) that based on ownership, the sign isn't off-premise. They own all the land where the sign sits all the way back to the proposed site. It is and it isn't on the same piece. Based on ownership you would have to say that he owns all the land between the sign and the property. Barbara Dacy: Typically sign ordinance regulations are regulating signs for on-premise structures advertising the sale of goods or the offering of _ a business on-site. I could own parcels all along TH 5 and have each of those parcels developed but the sign ordinance is not allowing me to have the right to erect signs that are on another piece of property advertising. Councilwoman Watson: I understand that but when you read it, it is almost like.. Councilman Horn: The sign is there now? Barbara Dacy: Yes. Councilman Horn: I drive by there every day and I've never seen it. Councilwoman Watson: I drove by there today and didn't see it. — Councilwoman Swenson: We haven't permitted and the first time we do we are going to establish precedent and how do you get out of it. 16 \ 'on I , \ GOTtIs LAKE b ` �..\# NO➢i-CCNSECVAT.CI✓EAg,.1ENT ' ..wr. � `\ .\ \--4,'1.0.19_A.CO 6,:_a..,AT 0 43Sas _ \ .. cuvsE.vAnoni- ` ' 6ASf..ffNT vt ice' \ / .4Cmtr 93000, \N. ' --- �� • \�•♦ \ 11 \ ie3Ov M ....... wSeMF.yr , ,,% I. 9✓ ' � ' � 14 / a\ ` C 1 Z/000 — \y:4Mw6 = 1 1 ?3Aewi6S �ti • `` s.w..a.•.w 0�\\ cwf.wrlr, '� Q • N. -In h I / r' o ,8. /'N• h Vg0 \ CCN3fQvAT/ON a:-.,E•MINT Is. I '� /9 /r 4Elow 930 o ate) - \ S • I < I i 167C0 \ Zoo �` ' �: u 13 as 8 (` v 12 i"� I ,1940 > 3 ` S ` O 13 s / 14 11 `.�Oo-- \.: s s� 3. \ \ .\\ _ �' X10 I I I �� +1s iw 15//16 '11' 23 T ! Z 1,• e p ,V / \ _ I 2W 81 1G ';q -J500 ••+I, Q , / \ ` K M190 ,• ry �� �+ ~� 2 'I 1 �, ilk// - _ I tl Y t \ It.500 'moo , v �f - .. \ 3 I wj ,z<00 ,°i 1:100 / /yi 1,3 t000 • SS'o e , — ! 6 of ; -- s sy �0 s /: 1s,000 so- L Ip/ /j /i �+ / it j -\,/�/"\3 8 �v �y� N. \ \ , 1 Va I p� / - /• 125 r r 12,000 \ '\,� ,` `I wry0 / r 8 / / \\ q .% - 'r \` . '`uy � 1 'z / /� 15,700 0: / 115 �, O •., !' / / —r / / 12 5c 0 / # / to / Ila 1 �� Oyo �`X30 1 S / -!' G / 0. / ,o r' ,2,200 C \ \, ,• , t , j / tr o/ 14 g •C'K ,° :8 \ 1 -\i / 'woo .,y 0/ 12,300 i o,' 1 1 1 i - 1 ✓` ,0 A. I /7b • / 12,000 .`\• ii. �_- 6 .3 -�io— 10/' e d PARK i _� J I .j5. -no, ,' — — s S 9 ol I i 1 l0 ' of i� IAI� •. / y7• /' 2 i" i, 2 3 4 N 9 °I / / ./ vs.. ,1 -- 1c700 -i / / 0 '3 1 14500 14,000 I4 -- -- I 0 s /.. 'F' /� // r ° ay ,>Ft00 iw I 1 A b,t ♦ y ' _ ,n -4' 7 12,100 345 R♦ / 7 ....i." \ try ♦ / Nr ....." 67- 77 r+/ 5TREET 1 \ )(.. . -x / .• 7 ) NB9'Z3'4S w \ b. " �j� �\ \ Yl/� / /, ,W \\ �• \` �_ / OWNER/DE \ • W BLOOMBERG o J�vOo / I ^, I ) s JA 7'7 l'r A i �� 1r 21 C IT�/ 0 P.C. DATE: May 3 , 1989 �' C.C. :: 895 CSE Site Plan Prepared by: Hanson/v K STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Site Plan Review for New Horizon Daycare F.- :2:Z Q = LOCATION: Lot 2, Block - 1, Hidden Valley 2nd Addition 1.� APPLICANT: G. P. BAJR, Inc. — 1100 International Center 900 Second Avenue So. Minneapolis, MN 55402 4 PRESENT ZONING: BN, Neighborhood Business District ACREAGE: . 5833 acres DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- BN; vacant — S- PUD-R; single family 5(... E- PUD-R; single family QW- BN; commercial — W WATER AND SEWER: Municipal services are available PHYSICAL CHARAC. : Generally a level site 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial We: iii ` \1 .;(1o;�ir. �j �i Tom•` e 1 l r .'1911 it - 1 .41 0041 C. ...� :lgo IN _/II11N11111 VI • , "_4(;,: iia.. L A WV UD-R ..---. ...armlis 0 4 - 117, c.•40711130 Zi4 ,) .:0_ ,0114,10111eit - �. km- 1Q ir- . el OMNI - t, d } 0 ., .-, CO i P ,��\ LAAO ` _ - t ia Mi: eine r N„0RIV7 �I� �N _ Evia T , R k I, mie gm 4-. au ii viii ogissv ZET.L46.1-/OPP- 4 ,‘1,0” 41Mosommiewly" N. • UM !. a. \ 4 r011100 e.41-0111 /IV 1. R I • (Y • -" (-- \ ; c I ;ORE '�t _ Z.,e*,,,,,' i ��� R 12 01 G = - man— .Er 4:NI 1111:2 IN •• • � • �- ,rm., A _ Ala. . �, ; �. W IMP In= �j u►11 pfy, lit ,: Ci r I • fes: turn -�/ _ - ccu -- • : 11111111111. ; - I • I WEIST 315Tf`L' • ( , C -c..D 1 iii'7,-,'''.- - ., .,.. BG P DRi1� r .).__H., _. _ INN _ .. :• T A -_ ,..iitialtr1 "P-Aps ulna -- RR. BGi-- ,� : - .13 .:..,,A pli._ - _ _ - - IA 7W.rill ll PAC F ..... ' I STATE IGHWAY �,� ;j ,�,�` ;i �= ��� � • i ni zv • reirehab r -- 7:1141P't " tV ply C �1\: .� -i A� - .�;- _ .r .; : �✓ !� I`'- �t�� - _Ail I OP ' 1► �'F �i �' / _ f I - CL.GLE - L .-J XE SUS,-a N - . __ " + i R/C -- '�/r '611/ ,L UD R �� '/ Y 36 T9 ;T I. 1 - Daycare Center May 3 , 1989 Page 2 BACKGROUND The applicants applied for variances to the front, side and rear setback requirements of the BN (Neighborhood Business) district. At the Board of Adjustments meeting of February 27, 1989, the Board unanimously denied the requested variances. The applicants appealed the decision to the City Council. Revised plans were submitted for City Council review. After the Board of Adjustment' s action, staff found the maximum occupancy of the facility was for 100 children and 20 staff. Based on this infor- mation, Council was advised the project did not meet parking requirements. The City Council reviewed the request and reversed the decision of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals by a 3 to 2 vote. The approved variance allows for the following: 1 . Parking can be reduced to 16 spaces. 2 . The rear setback for the parking could be reduced to 5 ft. 3 . All parking area shall be setback 25 ft. from the front property line. 4. The side setback on the west side shall be a minimum of 5 ft. 5. The building was to meet the 35 ft. front setback. 6 . No other variances from the City standards are allowed. ANALYSIS OF SITE PLAN The proposed building and the parking as shown on the site plan comply with the approved variances. The eaves of the building encroach into the setbacks, but the zoning code allows eaves to extend 2i ft. into required yards . The plan shows the trash enclosure and one HVAC unit located in the required setbacks. These are considered accessory structures and subject to setback requirements. Therefore, the trash enclosure needs to be located 5 ft. from the side setback as established by approved variances. The HVAC unit on the rear of the building needs to maintain a 5 ft. setback pursuant to Section 20-908( 5)d of the the City Code. The BN district allows up to 65% coverage. The plans show 63 . 4% of impervious coverage. It is unclear how the gravel clay area has been figured. The plans presented for the variance includes a landscape plan which indicated more plant materials than the plans presented for approval at this time. For the variance, the applicants proposed 19 trees and 69 shrubs . The landscape plan submitted with the Day Care Site Plan May 3 , 1989 Page 3 site plan shows 15 trees and 50 shrubs. Based on the zoning code, 17 trees are required. The intent at the time of the variance was that the site would be landscaped beyond city stan- dards as a means for compensating for the reduction in the set- backs which would be landscaped. The landscaping should be revised to provide tree canopy along the roadway. The spruce trees by the north edge of the parking lot area will conflict with the parking. A tree other than an evergreen should be used in this area. There is no detail for the retaining wall. If it is not at least 24 inches high, then parking stall curb stops — should be installed to prevent cars from rolling forward and damaging the trees. These curb stops should also be installed on the other spaces to prevent damage to the shrubs . There are no limitations on fences in the front yard, but staff is concerned that the landscape buffer is not provided when the area is fenced even if chain link. Also the visibility may be — hampered when leaving the property. Staff would prefer that the 25 ft. along the fence be landscaped and questions whether asphalt and gravel play areas are appropriate uses for the front — yard. The applicant and Commission should be aware that Lake Drive is signed for no parking. — RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission table this site plan to allow for the applicant to make the following changes to the plan: 1. Relocate trash enclosure. 2. Relocate HVAC unit on rear of building. — 3 . Revise landscaping to include at a minimum the number of materials as shown on the plans presented when the — variance was approved. 4 . Replace spruce on north with other trees. 5 . Add parking stops to parking spaces . 6 . Revise play area to have landscaping along fence. — 7 . An erosion control plan shall be included in the submittals . 8 . Typical sections of roadway and parking lot are to be shown on the plans for approval with concrete curb and gutter throughout the site. Daycare Site Plan May 3 , 1989 Page 4 9. A construction/permanent easement by Total Mart will be required since the proposed utility is crossing private property. 10. Add sanitary cleanout to proposed 6-inch line between existing and proposed manhole. 11. Revise grading plan to direct surface water to Lake Drive East and not to neighboring private property. ATTACHMENTS 1. Memo from City Engineer dated April 26 , 1989. 2 . Memo from Fire Inspector dated April 26 , 1989. 3 . Application form with attachments. 4 . Letter to Patrick Hallisey dated March 29, 1989 . 5 . Staff Report for Variance Request dated March 21, 1989 . CITY TF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 — (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM — TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner FROM: Gary Warren , City Engineer���\ DATE: April 26 , 1989 — SUBJ: Site Plan Review for New Horizon Daycare Facility File No. 89-6 Land Use Review Location This site is being developed by iv. H. Chanhassen Partnership and is located on the north side of Lake Drive East just east of the Total Mart complex. Sanitary Sewer Service to the building will be provided by connecting to the — existing manhole at Total Mart ' s easterly driveway. Caution during construction will be required due to the 4-inch service line to Total Mart located within the same area. A _ construction/permanent easement by Total Mart will be required since the proposed utility is located on private property . One cleanout on the 6-inch line will be needed between the new — manhole and the existing manhole. Water — Water service to the building will be provided by tapping the 8-inch watermain at Total Mart' s easterly driveway with 14 inch copper line. The same caution and easements apply as outlined in — sanitary sewer above. Streets/Parking Lot — The site shows a 30-foot driveway with parking capacity for 16 cars . The developer needs to show detail drawings of the concrete driveway/valley gutter at Lake drive East and a typical section of the parking lot to determine the depth of material used . The — driveway radius shall be 15 feet. Jo Ann Olsen April 26, 1989 Page 2 Storm Sewer/Site Grading The site shall be completely graded to develop the building pad and parking lot configuration. No storm sewer is proposed as the entire site will have surface drainage only. This method will cause a problem in the southwest corner of the lot. Water in this area will be directed to the bituminous parking lot of Total Mart instead of having water directed to the storm sewer system of Lake Drive East. The grading plan should be revised so that all water goes to Lake Drive East. All slopes 3:1 or greater shall have erosion control. No erosion control is shown on the plan and needs to be addressed . Miscellaneous The proposed New Horizon sign is encroaching on the dedicated easement line along the north right-of-way line of Lake Drive East and should be moved to the north. A typical detail drawing for the concrete retaining wall and timber retaining wall needs to be developed for proper construc- tion. Recommended Conditions 1 . Revised plans shall be submitted for approval that address the conditions and discussion contained in this staff report. 2 . An erosion control plan shall be included in the submittals . 3 . All side slopes greater than 3 :1 will need erosion protection. 4 . Typical sections of roadway and parking lot are to be shown on the plans for approval with concrete curb and gutter throughout the site. 5 . A construction/permanent easement by Total Mart will be required since the proposed utility is crossing private property. 6 . Add sanitary cleanout to proposed 6-inch line between existing and proposed manhole. 7 . Revise grading plan to direct surface water to Lake Drive East and not to neighboring private property. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: JoAnn Olsen, Assistant City Planner FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Inspector DATE: April 26 , 1989 SUBJ: #89-5 Comments and/or recommendations : 1 . Entire building and attic are to be sprinklered per _ Appendix E. 2. Detailed drawings of fire alarm and smoke detection system shall be submitted to Fire Inspector for approval . LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 APPLICANT: G. P. BAJR INC. OWNER: G. P. BAJR INC. ADDRESS 1100 International Center ADDRESS 1100 International Center 900 Second Avenue South 900 Second Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Zip Code Zip Code TELEPHONE (Daytime) 720-6723 TELEPHONE — REQUEST: Zoning District Change Planned Unit Development Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan Preliminary Plan Zoning Variance Final Plan Zoning Text Amendment Subdivision Land Use Plan Amendment Platting Conditional Use Permit Metes and Bounds X Street/Easement Vacation Site Plan Review Wetlands Permit PROJECT NAME New Horizon Daycara PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION Commercial REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION No Change PRESENT ZONING B-N REQUESTED ZONING B-N — t USES PROPOSED Daycare Facility SIZE OF PROPERTY LOCATION Lake Drive East - East of Hwy. #101 REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST • LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary) On plans CONSTRUCTION 70, INC. LETITEQ OEF UQQRSEII L, 1430 W. County Road C ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55113 DATE JOB NO. (612) 636-4390 April 10, 1989 ATTENTION Joan Olson — RE TO City of Chanhassen New Horizon Day Care WE ARE SENDING YOU 15: Attached 0 Under separate cover via Hand Carry the following items: • O Shop drawings Iffi Prints 0 Plans 0 Samples 0 Specifications O Copy of letter 0 Change order 0 COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 25 Civil, Site Floor Elevation Drawings 24 X 36 1 Civil, Site Floor & Elevation Drawings 81' X 11" THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: — ❑ For approval 0 Approved as submitted 0 Resubmit copies for approval M For your use 0 Approved as noted 0 Submit copies for distribution ❑ As requested 0 Returned for corrections 0 Return corrected prints ❑ For review and comment 0 O FOR BIDS DUE 19 _ 0 PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS COPY TO — SIGNED: OUCIRD7 %NES im Qua Km 0!47: If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. Pro iecro iect. Krause �IIOt Manager C. .11), u ii�;is [y{ ' --Ly 1 / „EC Iii! : i I 1 Ki I , II I I I S . ,; ,.4 I L i ' litItilt • L. \ • , Lit 4' � � 1: 111 r1 ; I ,,.__ �V xI. E W �' j�11(I �� .'- ii i! •�' �"' „ ' \1: �i it/ �e S h :L - Ns \\: cirlj':t� # 1L� �'' fl.'1....., 01 . : :if: ° t-�1\ `` \ \fit` 'l . 1 1 is \• • i I j \�- z1 r t- i 21 t 4, \ i ‘ss. ' . '\-- - Is \ ' r-----. 06.-.....in.we' HHiflU • i • i/- ; i a \ ` - C h iii t _ • irtilly.c 1 ,, \ "ir \ � _� o ,-\ ‘ Nie -111111'.-- /1,11i,----. • 1 4110, il . • Ili III : ! • \ 1 ''V , 'T ' I, 1. .. a 1 . I 11 t \NY\\*If,... 1. it i 1 i. I j _ i _i; ` PI k % \i !t _ ia.f II I $ M _ iI II iI I •.. or U % g • \\::.e.i if c3 a jj � � Imol \ !ii N '-- " \‘‘‘1 ‘ !.. 5- 1 Tri • tAUV. li -‘, \ \ t • . .• mr.,Lt \ , t Z•' w-11',- ;:".* )ii- \ . .. ,\ %.! 1 1 B toil \ 2\, \ - / _ / pro. mwm. ' \ \ PI .mud. ufJ.0.44 MJ.7:h1IGY 1 J',L.(-(PJ+4 _ _ __ _ Ia.. Or.asatms o... Is...n..w..ru N6w I kKtmov N.It(1{yw1L.SLS Pwrr!srvar G.E Wutx&Assw ' ... ;"..".'� •••,••'• OIU�GNEQ.Tx naoex..n..acw.. sxaw....sn... ..— ..o.u..�...-...-.e..w.. au� sn.n Ran ;:i.-..Ci/ al� -a;�� (,......a. u.,.,.w. u...w..oa u....w. c,r..a wwrv.. ',AIMrA. i ... i . r : , a1LL I 1 LIE / u . • .... ——• 1i f E ......__ : 1 . • --r-, ' q '"•-•- . • • _ I - • ___.= : P •-•?,i ' \ .....) 1 ..e490* •.• i It i. • iir i ; . 0 i •- ... • . ? . - — ,_,.. :----.•-- , _....„ , a • i • i le I ,II,; 1,1,01i: ,f. I . 1 0 I i g I g ;11411ill •.(h. 4 1 ._—.—, . r— . I • — 0 ! ;5. 4 4,..r. :ci, ..0 .. , \ 1..../" ' - g,-- -2 "\ 1 a ii $ ( 1 1 W A •tr. ' ' \ . 1 f ' / -4 z • --I . r \ . it • • :. • II i g c : ,__ 0 .. i t FA > -i • 0 , 1 1 ,.... si it 6 a 2i 74 i t itlitatri, __.apos 1 -1 se ' Ill fi 33 : 5 - 11110 f A 1311 r. : L . _ ' iftX.-— ,I, •T co 4.t ' :•-r mr.-74 - i I 1 Lk I 61 _ . ,•\•+1.4..*.,1'.1";• PROJECT: HW liortilori t7Aycolro- c-17— DATE L L. io., REVISIONS •,e,,,,, P 1, 444AH".4 ''''''-','14 SCALE ,..... 4 e;CEFEWT- DRAWN BY.SAAH , 110,1. HEINS CHECKED By: ''' TURSERYto: , TITLE: 1.-'H ' r . 9-AN SHEET: • " • IMMO .... - . --,T4'!:::'•L---=-7.117.!11",'-', — : ..; •i Ji 77.0 V1- ,.. 3•:,:.rAll 1 Mei • s-:lit ra-;I V. 1•:'.- : — il (..L-mi.11 fwk•sz.? 1. 4.1 r ,s.tillii*-•0."S:-.' .j , . " i IR !Jr-1'4 • 111.4.It !I . ..— @Eir ..1 ' -•••.-• i •Dr i till :'. Fill . !! . ;• — i 'II-•'. .- N3 — _ rn re ' Pfd 4 =-- II, :---III' --' Off • - 5 _ M .... 1' - . • . 1 • - A . r,4 i lilf ; (MI.: 21 . — f . I • • ; SE 1111 — 12. eV ----- Iff ilual ,fa'' 1. ' I (---/-7---4 ......c,.......,,,,,, , 1. ' 3 ., i . \ ij rli• U!. a. . ! If . 1101', ii — _ vi it g g ir-i. Or .0o. . r-r.: "••• f . - I \ , .., i rIrri 1 /\ A----t---11 t.--"-.=-7 • • B:111 % [1,,,, c \' - * ----•p- Z 1 I < , ' 0 . :0;;O*F\ 1 IN I -- ..... 6‘ 1 I I 1 i ,4---(' 6 , : , , s ,, _ A ; 1 1 i 1 1 I 1 illb2r D , . , $ ..-11 3. is sar vt xo' I , 1: '' " : --• HI 1 iikkiltt . , , A , .-- Ih. , IR : r . -ii'l.li dILI .e' s',• 1- • : to eeti,li 4,, 1,i, . • .,1 f Ni tli A 0..):.t......1101.. \ i , ; I 1 gil ili 1 If I;./ a . — ii 11: ., p.,1; cn \-' -i-ig i b.. '-. • 1 t 1 m ip \ • ' \_ . • - --ori- II ' • •=4'-----.- h -o . PI i l'--kk 4 I t 11 4-4-1 I .. If e ,- a • • . r k 14 • .i. 1 : IL) 4 " c's 14 ...--.•—•••••••• 11 ..— , -. i .1 ill !!! . - i t V •I El: I} 1 0 .1\e ..j P ..%i..•11.“. . • • . ik 1 . tiiil' I . 1 3 t . 0 Citp. I \ k s $1 ill I 1 i :: • ioP - e — .1, 11,1: - 1 11 1,11i1.14 I p 0‘ ii 1 \. Rosewood t Construction.Inc HORIZON chitd C.2r0 i711 WorCounly Pow B „3,2,63,32s..) C.1.4...•.1.-.ASSE"4, •11..INCSOTA .1 I -I) OM . . • • 1 . . . •••••4 s...... '. 1 ..."..r t___S_)__., •,—``r--1 i •1/0. .....- —6_1L • 1 •(> ‹.) M i--". ' 1 0 <> I F-1— . _ ', t•' 'e ...ft •‘,... A MI .EI °,6• tR _,._ ii... kr:1 6-1F4 I — mg' •1 Si -mt. ••.. . 4 1 1171g .*I'li_r i •* ; ,iiMelf15-i •1 .,-.- Q •°• IA * 't g : A -- ------"_0 1 . 0 i- ii 7 --.-. e 1'0 st i , _ . 1, ER.ilF• ''. ; , .., 1 . ... 4 o ... e „z-- - . tb,1 t•'”' ' . i' / 1 Itn • ',..' 1 r .r./_ .. ..,4/ pqn 3/, -:,,,At: Liav,.':•• '.\0 ! —. S i X,.. f -. wiiiin 1231L— ' \1.-1 I i; .i r....t. [ I ® il:NINI , 1 i — at KR LI • • iii 443' 11 -S • • -.- . •........._....\ ,.„, Li_ . ik re - -. • . .,-,--, 1 , . - Igu • ti. , i _ z * .., • \ ' ' 1 1 4. ,,,....0 , ..-• • %.0 a• 1 ,,,, '---------- ....t. , ..---41:_ll -..41;1.- : . . ; ® IP PN , — ! ..! ,_,_____ ,.._ _________„......_4______•...f ., . _0 .. 1 . . .. .WE?-.- m.,"--•, rIt . , img ''4)' • . , i . 515:n. 211111!.\13. ® -4--- -. • i _ji_Am' It 1 1--.i -0 • 0 • -. . -----ii -- • I 0 //g . :-- - - • ----• .. . --- — 1\ .....• i . 5 . 0;1 • 0§ ' 7: ,I1.> a c.• ; 1 • Mr------- n , • .. ... . ...— . . .. ..._„ ., .... 1 , 0 NEI I t•0 , I 1 . . ...: 4- ......_. ., ..,..t_/.1.3.•tn. ' ' 'n-1/4•''''r.1.-41.6.1iL4.5.,.' : I[ • ••I•• • 'it .111111 . .. a . . .- . i i 11 lig r00000 0000000 0 f„'' ....ti g z 0 P Ili 1 !ii IP !Hi; If g — 1m. .. . Lum AT_ 11.,itilirsifitr : - " Eli !Fi. A .4.bj_ 4 1.1.11, 01 tit I j LI : i . *1:•••! 1 ,t : I o II' •,".: i il 1 p . ..i!P i :I g : I 1 i 1: i.1.4 11 0 1; .L_,..r © 4 r•••' • : i i. 5 1 a AI q 'I -4 — r%..i i i i 1 ' il . • :; '-:.,• .i ri..4,',.:-7-74.---J;k4 'A 2 2 :. i:•• gi 1 i i I t t ii I/0 Ai 4e 3,"is ii Ls r, ... 1.. - 'i-,)----'-rt-ft,1-4e;.`t"V 2 Ai▪ n I _. .. -.',T, .1 -41-fr-fr--Vipt.: - - I '..,1111,1!-112.1:.:;f: -1-11-0.., 4; col to -t. u'i 1 i; p 1 1 1 il i i: ii ti li _ i......_.••...........•••....................i., lio If 1 t 1 1 I !ii itg lit -..f,..v.a.,,,217 .--,+..t 7 k;• PI jq • { ' ! i ; '• =, .0.4 . , 1 • 1. r.o.••• • ih" i 1 I PI if ; 1 _ 4.1"..... 1? $1 k • P r 1 I , 1 1 i i Ili 0 I' 1 '-lii:?.- --, /gr_e-Des.c.Neta4 iiiihi Rosewood Construction.Inc /- NEW HORIZON Child Care .-- , — OM . Nil i 1 iml. 0-)1M . 1711 west Cowry Road a Raw...NM 95,•3 41121631.3254 Co4•44‘1\1•-1A55 EN , r•liNNEWTA -7 : if ..4 o . cn 11 r,...7 _ ., ..,_..,.__icm _ o ti gas. . r ti . 0' MI 1 ik - - m 133 .,I=vi / 4,0„, 0 ,.. 1111 i ��1 •� tle� � '1 Ii I'i 11 I � : .. .. 11111 1 -- 1 1 H `i0111111m 'I M iI 1Illilll, m i ilk H�' r �I''1... , • ,I � it l ��IIII li• a I / 1' 1 I III' My1 D � , �I �I ;I I.430 0 _ ;;�I£illlll� 1 I iii Il�llll � a 1 1 Ir- I ,1 J1LJti SII :! flit \ I � 1 z it ,E 1 �, I i € .� 1 I' t III ,. 6 S• •? ill 'ii • (Ltip.: Arg 3:2a O 7t ,I _ a, _ if Si 1F ,Mr rT llppY y 6i:i Z i • I P. r - g;it q in 2, IS i jC ' lt o 1 t , \ • h III 1 AN 411. rii1I4 ii ifiii, . ,, .".....„ h:I, • 1 „oii .-j.' I1. • I e_li10. lit r Ii I'I I ° ll 11R li:11 C �.-y- 1111,�' > iiN�IIi o .i1 1111 ::,. ,. ,y , r ;1 I .:. r li ,� , r , 4r lu••i,!141111111 1�a 0 I ~ i 1� ` F • 1 .• ',Ions , z i ION I II1111j111 fi Il ■Ili A4 11 . ,0 I' iv! ►III Lll1i Iu1 M'I 1 - v 1 !1!t1 j JJ �NEW�© tp consln,ctlon.lnc HORIZON cti;wc... 1 {1111 v rnl� r„wwcowtino.,■ rill iP11�N N....+r,,N66„a e,40,32s.� U-IAN•,ASSE P.1. M1yNE A .41 • • 1 i 1\. 11M1111111111.111111 ,j2x(0-TREATEC STUD WALL F- ID W/ 6" -‘" Tic CONCRETE .9.1 CED(�R SID►NG, UNEC - '0 5L A6 1 W/ 1/Z" EXTERIOR 0, i cAR ADE PLY Woon lg C APP E_D w/COLOR ICI-44 Q CAP - I . eiNgitiNiiiiiii - CORrICR P7S7S SET SET Po ST FLUSH w/ SIDING I — PLAN VIEW I — vote i. I :44+❖. . ❖. — S•. •••••••••• CZHLv. WIRE C4 . ES •••••••••••:+4% :4_ I • ' W/ SLAZS. p-7. iAE •••i❖.•••ii I LATCH 4 DROo DoLT5 •! INTRODUCTION New Horizon Enterprises has been in the Daycare business since 1971 . New Horizon is now interested in establishing a national for profit daycare chain . This will be accomplished by either developing new centers or purchasing existing chains in new markets across the United States . The philosophy and operations of New Horizon daycare centers in new markets will mirror those of existing New Horizon facilities and will make use of the seventeen years experience and success that New Horizon ' s management brings . The Company has targeted upscale daycare as its primary market . This consists of two major segments . The "near home" client of free standing specially designed centers and the "at work" client in leased space of upscale office developments as well as corporate, medical or educational campuses . While these segments are considered targets , Management will explore all available options in determining the most efficient way to penetrate a given market . New Horizon, listed as the 10th largest for-profit child care organization in the country in the January, 1988 , issue of the Child Care Information Exchange , is well positioned with the infusion of additional capital to become a national daycare provider and go public . BACKGROUND INFORMATION In 1971 New Horizon opened it ' s first nursery school in Brooklyn • Center at the Lutheran Church of the Master and continues to serve over 100 children at that location each school year. — In the early years, our centers were located within churches and we still have centers in this category. However, we have also expanded — into commercial space, ie: Homart Corporation and our Eden Prairie Shopping Center location; Rauenhorst Corporation and our center in Opus II Complex; Garron Corporation and our center in Skline Square Office Park in Burnsville; Trammell Crow Corporation and our location at the exclusive office complex located on Hwy. 100 494 ; and others. We own and occupy a building in Plymouth that is also a full child care facility. Our latest addition is a beautiful — center located in a free standing building on Minnetonka Blvd. & 494 , next to the Marsh. In July of 1982 the management group from New Horizon agreed to manage Building Block as a separate 501 C3 organization. In November 1985 New Horizon purchased Kinderhaus Child Care Centers . This acquisition consisted of two free standing buildings licensed for 160 children each, one located in East St. Paul and the other in Maplewood. — New Horizon in conjunction with Abbott Northwestern Hospital and Minneapolis Childrens Hospital opened a full child care center at 2733 Park Avenue in Minneapolis to fulfill the .needs of both hospital — employees and provide the type of quality care to be associated with their respective names . This association has proven to be of great value to all and is a continuing one. — New Horizon is participating in a pilot program along with Normandale Community College. Normandale Community College is subsidizing child care while parents are completing their education. Our years of experience in child care have made us aware of the fact that our business requires constant attention and quality control is an important facet of the business . We have a director in every center, and each director has a degree in early childhood development . The director' s job is to oversee the daily operation of the child — care center— She is responsible to a senior director and/or an area director who vie+.-s each center two or three times weekly. The area director seeks solutions, resolves problems and consults regularly with the Board . We feel it is extremely important for us to keep in touch with our centers through senior and area directors. • It is important to us at New Horizon that each child entrusted to our care feels good about who they are. Self-esteem is number one ! Our certified teachers , assistants and aides are all required as - part of their continuing employment to attend New Horizon Self-Esteem Workshops . Each staff person must have 40 hours yearly in-service training in the field of child care. New Horizon is one of the few companies that will help pay for additional schooling. A first aid course is also a requirement of all staff . Dedication is a necessity to provide quality care along with a genuine love of children . We try to make every parent feel comfortable and confident their children are receiving the best care available. Quality care is an important consideration in this day and age when many new mothers must return to work outside the home. Our centers provide a warm and healthy atmosphere that promotes growth for both parent and child alike. New Horizon Child Care has been serving the Twin Cities metropolitan area since 1971 . It was founded by local residents William and Susan — Dunkley. New Horizon provides a full spectrum of child care programs from the 6 week old infant through the school age child. Our licensed facilities offer a special curriculum for each age group. Our curriculum provides both intellectual and emotional challenges — presented in a manner that is fun for the child. A child is left with a feeling of pride in his or her accomplishments, which results in a joyous learning experience for the child. — Our centers are open from 6 : 30 A.M. to 6 : 00 P.M. Monday through Friday. We are closed the six legal holidays. Children can enroll _ in 1 to 5 day weekly programs, or by the hour if preferred. Our tuition is paid weekly in advance before the week of service. Weekly tuition includes hot nutritious meals (breakfast and lunch) — and snacks prepared on site. Children are broken into their age groups in separate areas of the — building in caregiver to child ratios of: 1 : 4 Infants 1: 7 Toddlers — 1: 10 Preschoolers 1 : 15 Latchkey A director of each center functions much as a Principal of a small elementary school . All of our centers except New Hope and St . Louis Park. offer infant care (6 weeks to 16 months) . We have a very special infant program where not only the physical needs of the infants are taken care of but we spend hours holding, rocking and nurturing each infant in our care. we have a special curriculum designed just for babies pub- lished by Johnson & Johnson. This curriculum is full of activities that help a baby develop hand-eye coordination and small muscle — coordination. Each day the activity card for the child is posted where the parent can check to see what activity their child is working on and at what level their child is performing at. We try _ to maintain open lines of communication between our infant room staff and our parents through our Infant Daily History forms . These forms give both caregiver and parent valuable information daily regarding the health and well being of the infant. — • Our Toddler program enrolls children 16 months to 31 months of age. We have a specially designed curriculum specifically for toddlers. For example, since a toddler' s attention span is so short , all the songs, stories and finger plays all coordinate around a central theme for the day. This keeps the children from feeling lost and frustrated because they don' t know what is going on. The children are quick to contribute and truly enjoy learning. Our preschool group is for ages 31 months to school age. Not only do we have a stimulating curriculum for this group, but New Horizon offers numerous educational field trips throughout the year that complement the curriculum. We offer a wide variety of enrichment programs as well, such as Music, Dance, Karate, Piano, Computer and Foreign Languages. Our specially trained staff observe each child in our care to determine at which curriculum level the child will feel comfortable yet challenged. The curriculum is designed to increase school readiness and develop acceptable socialization skills. All of our centers offer a Latchkey program for school age children 6 years to 12 years old. We offer before and after school care and in addition, our facilities offer full day care for holidays and summer vacation. Because our Latchkey children are already involved in an educational program in their primary school, our Latchkey curriculum is geared to offer a wide variety of arts and crafts projects. The Latchkey children are also able to participate in a number of field trips on school release days and a wide variety of enrichment programs offered weekly in our centers. As in our Infant program, communication between parents and caregivers is very important to us. We have a daily report for parents of children in each age group, i.e. : Infants--Infant Daily History, Toddlers--Toddler Talk, Preschoolers t Latchkey--Preschool Press. These reports give parents a brief description of the daily activities each child participated in as well as any other pertinent information. March 29 , 1989 Mr. Patrick B. Hallisey Blue Circle Investment 6125 Blue Circle Drive Minnetonka, MN 55343 Re : Case #89-2 Variance for Lot 1, Block 1, Hidden Valley Dear Mr. Hallisey: The City Council at the March 27 , 1989, meeting overturned the decision of the Board of Adjustments on the above referenced case. The City Council decision approved the request variance — subject to the following conditions : 1 . Parking can be reduced to 16 spaces. • 2 . The rear setback for the parking could be reduced to 5 feet. 3 . All parking spaces, the direct access to the spaces and — sidewalks are to be a minimum of 25 feet from the front property line and 5 feet from the rear property line. This does not include the access way from the street to the parking area. 4 . There is to be a 5 foot side setback on the west side of the property. — 5 . The site plan needs to comply with these standards with no other variances. — Your next step is to proceed with stie plan review. You should set up a meeting with Jo Ann Olsen to go over the site plan — requirements and schedule. If you have any questions regarding the approval of the variance, let me know. — Sincerely, Stephen Hanson Planning Director — CIT'VOF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 ✓ �� __ MEMORANDUM b(A)4- TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Stephen Hanson, Planning Director -t70 • DATE: March 21, 1989 -ti y SUBJ: Appeal BOA Decision on Case 89-2 Variance New Horizon Day Care Proposal Requests for Front, Side and Rear Yard Variances for Lot 1, Block 1 , Hidden Valley 2nd Addition were denied unanimously by the Board of Adjustments based on the following findings: 1 . The present setback requirements severely limit the develop_ - - ment of this parcel, however, variances to allow uses exceeding what was anticipated on the approved site plan are inappropriate. 2 . The variances are not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. 3 . The circumstances are a self-imposed hardship due to the size of the building being proposed for the site. Since that time, the applicant has submitted a revised plan and a letter further describing their position. The revised plans have eliminated three parking spaces and reduced the size of one to a compact car space to move the parking spaces outside the 23 foot front yard setback which previously existed. In reviewing the parking, the requirements for daycare are not specifically mentioned as far as specific number of spaces required. Staff had felt 21 as previously shown was adequate. In reviewing the code Section 20-1118 states for uses not speci- - fically mentioned in the code, the BOA should determine what is appropriate. In other day care facilities staff has required one stall per six children plus one per employee. A brochure presented by the applicant at the BOA meeting states their building is designed to accommodate approximately 100 children and 20 staff members . Based on this occupancy, the required parking would be 37 spaces, compared to the 18 spaces shown on the plans. The revised plan has eliminated any parking space from encroaching into the previous 25 foot setback, however, the Mr . Don Ashworth March 21, 1989 Page 2 access aisle to four ( 4 ) of the spaces is within the 25 foot set- back. Section 20-1119, Yards, requires "parking facilities" to not be located in required front yards. Staff would interpret that to include the aisle to access parking spaces but not to include the driveway access from a street to the parking lot. — It should be noted staff could support a variance to the present setback requirements of 35 foot front, 15 foot side, and 30 foot rear to allow setbacks of 25 foot front, 5 foot side and 10 foot rear consistent with the zoning in effect at the time this area was platted and granted site plan approval . Staff does not feel the applicant has shown this is possible. It is staff' s opinion the applicants are trying to place too large a facility on too small of a parcel and the hardship is self-imposed. Enclosed in your packet is a letter from engineering regarding the property. In the letter they noted a line of sight problem due to the existing landscape berm which they felt could be eli- minated by modifying the existing berm. Further impeding the — sight line will be the fence along the front property line. Although it is proposed that this will be a chain link fence, the angle will limit sight visibility. This is not necessarily due — to the variance but will be a concern at the time of site plan review. Other referrals are also attached. RECOMMENDATION - Staff recommends the City Council confirm the Board of Adjustments and Appeal ' s decision to deny the variances for Case — No. 89-2 Variance for Lot 1 , Block 1, Hidden Valley 2nd Addition, G. P. BAJR, Inc. based on the following findings: 1 . That the granting of a variance is not necessary for the pre- servation and enjoyment of substantial property rights . 2 . The circumstances are a self-imposed hardship due to the size of the building being proposed. 3 . While the zoning requirements have changed, the proposal does — not comply with the previous zoning requirements. 4 . The present setbacks limit the development of this parcel, however, the proposed variances to allow usage exceeding what — was anticipated on the approved site plan are inappropriate. ATTACHMENTS — 1 . Memo from Building Inspector dated February 15 and 16 , 1989. 2 . Letter from William R. Engelhardt Associates dated February — 22, 1989. 3 . Letter from Blue Circle Investment Comoany dated March 15 , 1989. 4 . Petition from neighbors supporting proposal. 5 . Staff report dated February 27, 1989. 6 . Plan dated March 21, 1989. CITY OF ClIANHASSEN \, 1/4 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Steve Hanson, City Planner FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Inspector DATE: February 16 , 1989 SUBJ: New Horizon Daycare The following is a list of requirements for the proposed Daycare Center: 1 . Building to be fully sprinklered; 2 . Fire alarm system to to installed per NFPA requirements; 3 . Lock box shall be installed at building ' s main entrance; 4 . Parking lot lanes Shall have a minimum of 25 feet clear width between rows of parked vehicles for vehicular access and movement. :.., CiTY OF ..*. , ;', /...- CHANHASSEN \ , , , , ,...„,,,.. . ,, ¢`•• 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 �' (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM — TO: Steve Hanson, City Planner FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Inspector 4- _ & DATE: February 15, 1989 SUBJ: G.P. Bajr, Inc. Variance Application West wall must be of 1 hour fire resistive construction with — oarapets. All openings in west .fall must have a 3/4 hoar fire protection rating. WILLIAM R. ENGELHARDT ASSOCIATES, INC. `onsteR t, (fl ineeto 1107 HAZELTINE BOULEVARD CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318 (612) 448-8838 cf- February 22 , 1989 (1 74-0/(7C- IQ City of Chanhassen c/o Mr . Gary Warren /P,}1y'� 'JA' 690 Coulter Drive � w Chanhassen , MN. 55317 �`'1 �`�'S � Li-k) 70 ,RE: Site Plan For Proposed Day Care G. P. BAJR, Inc. Dear M r . Warren : �l•`• c-1 Zc We have reviewed the site plan for the above named project . We offer the following comments : The proposed driveway is shown as a 24-foot opening . We recommend a width of 30 feet to allow for better turning movements on and off of Lake Drive East . The driveway is located approximately 316 feet east of the existing driveway into the retail center west of the property . This should be a sufficient separation for the driveways to function properly. One slight problem I did notice when reviewing this plan in the field is the line of sight of Lake Drive East as you look west from the new driveway location . There is a slight curve in the road where your line of sight is somewhat obstructed by the existing landscape berm of the retail center . This probably will not be a problem when the exact location _ of the new driveway is determined . This problem may be easily corrected by a modification to the existing berm area to improve the line of sight from the new driveway . If you have additional questions or additional information is required , please advise . Very truly yours , WILLIAM R. ENGELHARDT ASSOCIATES, INC. I. CITY OF CHANHASSEN MEM William R. Engelhardt - FEB ti3 189 WRE/ las encl . ( 1 ) ENGINEERING DEPT. Blue Circle Investment Company 6125 Blue Circle Drive, Minnetonka, Minnesota 55343 612/933-0409 March 15, 1989 Mr. Steve Hanson Planning Director City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mr. Hanson: Enclosed please find the letter to the City Council regarding our variance request. — The final draft contains a closing paragraph which the draft you reviewed on March 14th did not have. Thank you for the patience you have exhibited in dealing with this matter. Sincer y, Patrick B. Hallisey Partner PBH/dm m/8 Encl. MAR 16 1989 l:i I Y OF CHANHASSE(N — c Blue Circle Investment Company 6125 Blue Circle Drive, Minnetonka, Minnesota 55343 612/933-0409 March 15, 1989 City Council City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Variance Request Lot 1, Block 1, Hidden Valley 2nd Addition Dear Council Members: The purpose of this letter is to request the granting of the variances required in order to build a New Horizons Day Care Center on the above captioned property. The Staff Report done in preparation for the Board of Adjustments contained two passages, "Had the zoning not changed, the applicant could have built a structure of 4,000 square feet without variances pursuant to the approved site plan" and "The granting of the requested variance would allow a structure 44% larger than was anticipated when the site plan was approved" which could very understandably lead one to the conclusion we feel the Board of Adjustments reached. Without seeming to speak for the Board of Adjustments we feel that they, after reading the Staff Report, reached the conclusion that we were attempting to put more building on the property than we would have been allowed to under the zoning ordinances which were in effect at the time we acquired and platted the property. We find no fault with the City Planner for having written those passages as he was not present at the time we platted the property and the only drawing he had ever seen with respect to the subject property was a plan that showed a 4,000 square foot building. We feel that it is imperative that you completely understand the reason for the creation of the plan your Planner was viewing at the time he wrote those passages, as well as the circumstances surrounding its creation, and the purpose that plan was intended to serve. First, that plan was never intended to he and is not an "approved site plan". It cannot be as we never submitted the supporting drawings; i.e. drainage, utilities, land- - scaping, etc. required for site plan approval. What that plan is, in reality, is a hastily prepared conceptual drawing done in response to a last minute request by the then present City staff to show that the property would be usable after the platting request was granted. C C City Council City of Chanhassen March 15, 1989 — Page 2 After studying the strange configuration of the building shown on that plan, I'm sure you will realize that we never intended to actually construct that building. The fact is that had New Horizons wanted to build on the property at the time we platted, we could have submitted the plan you are considering at this time and received approval as this plan meets, to the best of our knowledge, all zoning requirements that were in effect prior to the City changing the zoning ordinance. — The City ordinances outline five conditions that must be met for the granting of a variance. The following represents our views on those conditions. (1) "That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship and practical difficulty." Response: We feel that the literal enforcement of the present zoning requirements would not only cause an undue hardship it would render the property unbuildable. (2) "That the hardship is caused by special conditions and circumstances which are peculiar to the land and structure involved and which are not characteristic of or applicable to other lands of structures in the same district." Response: The hardship is a result of changes to the zoning codes which have a unique effect on this property due to the irregular shape of the property. (3) "That the granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights." Response: Our response to Condition 1 states that strict adherence to the present zoning codes would render the property unbuildable. Therefore, it follows that the granting of the variance is necessary for not just the preservation of substantial property rights, but for the preservation of any property rights. — (4) "That the special conditions and circumstances are not a consequence of a self-created hardship." — Response: The special conditions are a direct result of the City changing the zoning codes as the plan we are submitting meets all the prior zoning requirements. Therefore, the hardship is not self-imposed. — (5) "That the variance will not be injurious to or adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the City or the neighborhood wherein the property is situated and will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter." Response: The answer to this condition is, we feel, very subjective. Our feeling — is that rather than having an adverse affect the proposed facility will have a very positive affect for both the City as a whole and the neighborhood immediately surrounding the property. We feel that the attached petition from the property owners in the adjacent neighborhood which supports the granting of the variances gives credibility to our feelings. — City Council City of Chanhassen March 15, 1989 Page 3 We have previously stated that strict adherence to present zoning regulations would render our land unbuildable. In support of that statement we have attached a plan showing the maximum building allowable under your present codes. This plan has two characteristics which render it unworkable; (1) It would be rejected in the marketplace as unusable for any of the 14 permitted uses allowed under the present zoning ordinance. (2) The generally accepted rule of thumb in land development is that once you surpass 4 square feet of land for each 1 square foot of building you stretch _ the economic viability of a development. This plan, if one could find a user for it in the marketplace, would require 7.16 square feet of land for each square foot of building. This represents 79% more land than the generally accepted economic guidelines. At the time the City of Chanhassen decided to realign TH 101 we voiced strong opposition due to the negative impact that realignment would have on the value of our property. Despite the City's decision to go ahead with the realignment over our objections we pledged to work with the City in an effort to do all within our power to minimize the negative affects of that realighment. This request is in keeping with that pledge as, in our minds, the construction of a day care center would have a more positive affect on our adjacent shopping center than the construction of any of the other uses permitted under your new zoning ordinance. _ We have tried to illustrate that no matter how the property is developed, if it is ever to be developed, it will require the granting of variances. In recognition of that need we respectfully ask that you grant the variance that we are requesting at this time. The granting of the presently requested variances would fulfill several positive and legitimate objectives without having an adverse affect upon the health, safety, or welfare of the City's residents. Some of those positive objectives are; (1) Allowing the property to be developed immediately, thereby maximizing the economic benefits to all concerned. This includes those bodies receiving property taxes within a community that has a very high rate of taxation. (2) Fulfilling a need that presently exists within the community. (3) Being responsive to the desires of the residents that have expressed strong support for the granting of the variances. (4) An expression of the City's desire to work with us in an attempt to maintain the highest level of property value possible in the face of changing circumstances. City Council City of Chanhassen March 15, 1989 Page 4 The decision you reach on March 27th regarding this request will have great impact — upon our property rights and value. We thank you in advance for your thoughtful consideration of our request. We hope that we have the opportunity to fully respond to any and all questions you may have prior to your formulating a final decision. — Sinc rely, Patrick B. Hallisey Partner — PBH/dmm/7 — -2 '3gA7.:0 V 9 -ig' 3�i1\7/Q 371,9.'1 / 10I ..!...,---....t4 6,1 _-fr 91.tyEa 1-.7r.,/cJ10 '3A1716., �I • /y b �� ' /- j • �\ • r-- o ;a N Qdi . l .&11i? .c_>S 7‘0, ‘2.; GI , 1 it .6_47f,--A, --I ...{ 4 kg- ,-, , , 1 O r \ c;' 1 1P I; 11 p ( c 4 O : ia <1"- \ \\i \\ _ _fI 3 — y 3.EL 1 a / ' 1 : \t s4• 1i ' ...-a<a 1 .-- -`4,,,,,,\ • ..1 ). , I o • N' \ ag emu u .1 ,--- m .tJ b . • Q ' \ V' < \ a6 2 " _ , 1—a . �- o ^ M N ) \ \ ba t s, z w \ S 1 V Id m N i._....27__.1 ,tet `r `J a I t i I� h ` i i 1 d n „l . , .. _ J 1 i p).p Li .1.= "t1 t el r er t t. 'El 1 ' d$ i� Z t kp ! - N 1 -'X0 I L?3 I — ( ti -- as �p \?-71k ' %1J:‘IG ~ I 0 .c5 Ft -tiL-)-1-t 3 i — y -- (� all Ir a .,., . ,� [..\,.., ->,. • 1 •,. • , ,_, i.. , : 4, p , • ._ s a _ 1 .....,----- __ , • , , ....,. ,-- -,... _. . 2 - ° h 1 / I N.11,31) -1/77 il+ 1 1 .1.% : 1 EN I •-• C.-Pit' . E ti y r ' z1 � �'S �j4 . 1 „,,..„. , 1 li �x a Q — �/ NN N 1\- 4 v Zit/��a^ 4 —1 Aelir, Zroyaii)cl.. 1- ) . t 1 _ �J-zt 4 n n o - Jr-r Ja1Tis79 A-.,1., "q ? 21"8 - ID/ e-�ti t-t 11-4 g d As a resident of Chanhassen most directly affected by the proposal to _ build a New Horizons day care center adjacent to the Total Mart shopping center, I wish to express my support of that proposal. Having reviewed the proposed plan, I like to urge the City, for the benefit of the City of Chanhassen in general and our young family neighborhood in particular, to grant the requested variances that appear to have no adverse effects and would allow for the construction of that day care center. Signature Address Date — . - tri:4,-S-woi,flu2471-<-did Fl tt 6 gold".1 0_;1 (2 / 11 /v. _ \ , it afar. 1.,( c-c( goo kick- G— aliq el 1/4 519 ) 7 bV E) c-i, 2-1)5. P7 _ .111 j_e:cfrL.d,a1,e, k /./..p,,-,-, pt / -z-//y. - g/y/ 4,-,U, ci- Al I ct M . . fi Siy( HHidie„ G( . 2-7/9 . 809 r #24, iccl , -/9-89 .- ,e - -►I. Soca 1 i-I i t t' N C T. z-19 - a - 4-4 . ., ./-4. •. rfe /Z4/ -.1� - 1/(- f — / . 0,(J <-//t/ --'. ' V/ / At y , , 4:2-A0 ,, _ . . of . . . i, 4, - g) 3 jnçn Li/ 7 .,:::\__ Po ► 4 S 5 AA A- 5 N 2- 2 2-5((” - 13 A,,,f_a_Q__ i n - y r ^ — C C As a resident of Chanhassen most directly affected by the proposal to build a New Horizons day care center adjacent to the Total Mart shopping center, I wish to express my support of that proposal. Having reviewed the proposed plan, I like to urge the City, for the benefit of the City of Chanhassen in general and our young family neighborhood in particular, to grant the requested variances that appear to have no adverse effects and would allow for the construction of that day care center. Si. Address Date Aibr ../. t q67--( Crc4 "2. • /a • g, . . 4 . X6.61. , ems - goU 1--( S-r7 tit-PA-((\0..rwain-- tgWo (9-- 1 &"—r -)Pt.119j. ' 9±-2D 144 -C(1-21) e-6 olt 2/31 S { J-0-20 ifG d G s>✓ S_ LI v 14 cciclezJt Ilk >" FT-Fir-k ; - //4Lt) -/1- Y7 • rir 3 9 0 tbccden Loa-(-.1/ atm to/ (c4c)7- /Y- CT 2f7/7th camo) H, JJef.c Z- / 7 -g? gkuv 2,//vg, "/ 4 /0___4 26 ( ►ill A77 t/`✓ 1.7171 V 7- 21/.}14, (?P. .Crk-1 !=-0. . Vic. 7.7t. . c�'�Ci!. . . . 6).7. \.2 I TY O F A DATE: Feb. 27, 1989 cuAuA: :: C.C. :: 892 • CASE Variance Prepared by: Hanson/v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Variances to Front Setback, Rear Setback, and Side Setback z Q O LOCATION: Lot 2, Block 1 , Hidden Valley 2nd Addition � CL. L.L APPLICANT: G. P. BAJR, Inc. 1100 International Center 900 Second Avenue So. Minneapolis , MN 33402 PRESENT ZONING: BN, Neighborhood Business District _ ACREAGE: . 5833 acres DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- BN; vacant �M 1 S- PUD-R; single family I7 E- PUD-R; single family W- BN; commercial W WATER AND SEWER: Municipal services are available PHYSICAL CHARAC. : Generally a level site 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial BAJR, Inc. February 27 , 1989 Page 2 SUMMARY OF REQUESTED VARIANCES C-2 BN Description District Site Plan District Proposed Front Setback 25 ' 25 ' 35 ' 10 ' parking 35 ' building Rear Setback 10 ' 30 ' 10 ' Side Setback 5 ' 15 ' 5 ' Maximum Lot 25% 17% N/A 25. 03% Coverage • BACKGROUND This property received site Plan approval on June 2 , 1986, from City Council. At that time the property was subdivided into two lots . The zoning at the time was C-2. The standards for that district are noted above. The zoning code was amended on December 15, 1986 by City Council. That amendment changed the C-2 District to BN with the standards noted above. The amendment of the zoning code was the result of approximately three years of study and public hearings. With the change to the zoning code, the applicants are subject to the existing regulations. The site plan does not supercede the present zoning as the applicants have not constructed improve- ^ ments on Lot 2 pursuant to the site prior to the zoning change. The changes to this district are significant relative to the required setbacks. The front setback was increased by 10 feet, the rear by 30 feet and the side by 15 feet. Applying these set- backs to the property results in a buildable area of approxi- mately 8, 100 square feet. The code allows for parking to be located in side yard setbacks so if this is added the buildable area increases to 9 ,600 square feet. Based on the ratio of parking area to building area of the proposed daycare center this would allow a building of 4 , 000 square feet. However, due to the triangular shape of the parcel not all of the buildable area is usable. This ratio is figured on the proposed 5,760 square foot daycare plus 8 , 000 square feet of parking which results in 13 ,760 square feet of total impervious cover. This total figure divided by the daycare equals a ratio of 2. 4 square feet of impervious cover per square foot of building. The approved site plan called for a single access to serve both lots. The applicants have a plan using this concept, however, the building is then pushed into the front setback so that only a 10 BAJR, Inc . _ February 27, 1989 Page 3 foot setback is left. From a traffic standpoint, a single access would be preferrable. To the east end of the subject parcel a future access is planned to serve the property north of the sub- ject parcel. This future access is 120 feet east of the access drive proposed to serve the daycare center. If the proposed plan is found acceptable, the ideal access would be to share the — future access to the east and eliminate the direct access to Lake Drive East from the daycare site. The proposerd plan calls for the majority of the front yard to be fenced for the daycare playground. The fence is to be located just inside the property line. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the Council shall not grant, a variance unless they find the following facts : A. That the literal enforcement of the Ordinance would cause undue hardship and practical difficulty. * The enforcement of the present setback requirements would significantly limit buildable area. Strict adherence to the requirements would not be in keeping with the developed _ portion of Lot 1 to the west. B. That the hardship is caused by special conditions and cir- cumstances which are peculiar to the land and structure involved and which are not characteristic of or applicable to other lands of structures in the same district. The hardship is the result of the shape of the parcel and the changes to the zoning code. Had the zoning not changed, the applicant could have built a structure of 4, 000 square feet without variances pursuant to the aoproved site plan. C. That the granting of the variance is necessary for the preser- vation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. * The granting of the requested variance would allow a struc- ture 44% larger than was anticipated when the site plan was approved. Granting of variances to allow setbacks con- sistent with the approved site plan would permit preser- vation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. D. That the special conditions and circumstances are not a con- sequence of a self-created hardship. — * The changes to the zoning code would require variances to construct what was approved on the site plan, however, if the zoning code had not been amended, the proposed plan BAJR, Inc, February 27 , 1989 Page 4 would still require variances to the front yard setback for the parking. The need for this variance is due to the increased size of the proposed structure from 4 , 000 square feet on the approved site plan to the Proposed 5 , 760 square foot daycare structure. This increased square footage is a self-imposed hardship. E. That the variance will not be injurious to or adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the City of the neighborhood wherein the property is situated and will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance. * The variance should not be injurious or adversely affect the neighborhood. However, the fencing of the front yard does not seem to be in keeping with the area and reduces the visibility at the access drives. The applicants have provided additional landscaping then the code requires . The landscape does eliminate two parking spaces shown on the site plan. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Board adopt the following motion: "The Board of Adjustments and Appeals has reviewed the proposed variance for Variance Request #89-2 and denies the requested variances to the side, front and rear setbacks of the City Code Based on the following findings : 1 . The present setback requirements severely li•nit the develop- merit of this parcel, however, variances to allow uses exceeding what was anticipated on the approved site plan are inappropriate. 2 . The variances are not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial orooerty rights . 3 . The circumstances are a self-imposed hardship due to the size of the building being proposed for the site. " ATTACHMENTS 1 . Copy of application. 2 . Copy of plat. 3 . Copy of approved site plan. 4 . Cony of General conditions for granting a variance. 5 . Copy of letter from Patrick Hallisey dated February 16 , 1989 . . Copy of proposed site plan. 7 . Copy of proposed landscaping. 8 . Copy of C-' zoning. 9 . Copy of BN zoning. ' r r I / C LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION — CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 — APPLICANT: G. P. BAJR INC. OWNER: G. P. BAJR INC. ADDRESS 1100 International Center ADDRESS 1100 International Center 900 Second Avenue South 900 Second Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 — Zip Code Zip Code TELEPHONE (Daytime ) 720-6723 TELEPHONE 432-9631 REQUEST: — Zoning District Change Planned Unit Development Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan Preliminary Plan X Zoning Variance (set back variance) Final Plan Zoning Text Amendment Subdivision Land Use Plan Amendment Platting — Metes and Bounds Conditional Use Permit Street/Easement Vacation Site Plan Review Wetlands Permit PROJECT NAME New Horizon Daycare PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION Commercial REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION No Change PRESENT ZONING B-N REQUESTED ZONING B-N USES PROPOSED Daycare Facility — SIZE OF PROPERTY .5833 acres (25,408 square feet) LOCATION Lake Drive East - East of Hwy. #101 REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST The moving of Hwy 101 has adversely affected the — nature and value of the property 'plus the City changed the zoning and set backs since the property was platted. The new set backs render the prope_:ty un-buildable. LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary ) Lot 2, Block 1 - Hidden Valley 2nd Addition — _ (7 City of Chanhassen Land Development Application Page 2 FILING INSTRUCTIONS : 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 City Planner to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application . FILING CERTIFICATION: MEW The undersigned representative of the applicant hereby certifies that he is familiar with the procedural requirements of all applicable City Ordinances . Signed By f 1 Date .-// � 1, Applicant _ v� The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has been authorized to make this application for the property herein described. Signed By �1�� i% 7-- `" - � / f G`�� �-� Date 4 Fee Owner / • Date Application Received Application Fee Paid City Receipt No. * This Application will be considered by the Planning Commission/ Board of Adjustments and Appeals at their February 27, 1989 meeting. HI� STATEN�'I�.^,'f 7Ir', tn. r ' .s. s. 1 I 1 •. • F ar s I :L.+ o 1 � ° Y • i? I i C: m.4. ... c I . tJ CIl I , C- A r v l0 3E •) ^iz. d - • �' I —•11 • wO ice^- • I 1 • rr : le ;II g.!•••- 41, i "I— % —i • :c : t1 ." i +1 t: E 1, 1G .`• ,c �▪G 0R� o ..7 r it . I l'‘ U \ "A t Ai -1 7 I\ ..ro•nlY N I— i__ _ _ a..,\ . I • 0 • = 0 0 L Ur :A _ t, ran rn 7�0......:.,k . • \ \ , N W . . . .. . \ (n , r > Z 1... • . \-< • —'L , �" ., c, 1. Q A \ =•- C) < L . ' i • • \ • .4 :. z ..rnL L. Or " : A• • • • • • • • • : ( H !�D[) N • { � VA L 1 • 1. . . t:: . : 1 . , .. .i I 1".t . • .i . \;. ;i.r L • 1. . r • : 0 T1 I ! . `� Z z l I ii ( ; ' i. i 1 1, r i ( �) • 0 :1 5� B •11..—..c. - i5. 6/ - �` -� � �, _ - 2 o1.48 __ \\ , • ___,... 1 _7-4.00c?-4:F. - p' 14 4. 1 --r•vTvae.__ s 2.CO o ---Sot.,�4_— �. , i &- t , ti / y 9DC�IST . ,Eli ..... - , .... . - oc- . --.,i , 1 f3 „...„...„... - "" ---- .. _„ / 10 .. .04‘- ,':,„„.„ ..._ ' ,ZTrt>b / -;.„, 441411 ...---- . v ;)_)--' ,-------Z, , 4 17 CITY OF CHANHASSEN / RECEIVED i� / _ . '- i APR 2 =+85 • r • "�_________------ CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT. r • - '''...<"°.'- '01 fEE _III ..-r4.crerr _ _4 49-, _____ _ .... —. .. .- r-Orz.-- --Griz.ATvN . -. -vT L -.�..." ,}. w' F-1 p-o¢ 'F` I N c..i4 d— I hereby certify that this plan, specification, of report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered — Architect under the ••. of the State of Min. nesot Si.- --- �i .1 �L., ... .� .. . : e_. — Date (� / 161 6 -Reg. No_ < 6‘Q I . ZONING § 20-58 chapter, including the zoning map to the council. If no report of recommendation is transmit- ted by the planning commission within sixty(60)days following referral of the amendment to the commission, the council may take action on the amendment without awaiting such — recommendation. (Ord. No. 80, Art. III, § 3(3-3-4), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-45. Council action. Following planning commission consideration of an amendment to this chapter including — the zoning map, or upon the expiration of its review period, the council may adopt the amendment or any part thereof in such form as it deems advisable, reject the amendment, or refer it to the planning commission for further consideration. (Ord. No. 80, Art. III, § 3(3-5-5), 12-15-86) Secs. 20-46-20-55. Reserved. .... DIVISION 3. VARIANCES Sec. 20-56. Generally. A variance from this chapter may be requested only by the owner (or his approved — representative)of the property representative to which the variance would apply. A variance may not be granted which would allow the use of property in a manner not permitted within the applicable zoning district.A variance may,however,be granted for the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. In granting any variance, the board of adjust- ments and appeals may prescribe conditions, to ensure substantial compliance with this chapter and to protect adjacent property. — (Ord. No. 80, Art. III, § 1(3-1-3(1)), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-57. Violations of conditions imposed upon variance;termination for nonuse. — The violation of any written condition shall constitute a violation of this chapter. A variance shall become void within one (1) year following issuance unless substantial action — has been taken by the petitioner in reliance thereon. (Ord. No. 80, Art. III, § 1(3-1-3(1)), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-58. General conditions for granting. A variance may be granted by the board of adjustments and appeals only if it finds all the following: (1) That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship and practi- cal difficulty. (2) That the hardship is caused by special conditions and circumstances which are (11.— peculiar to the land and structure involved and which are not characteristic of or applicable to other lands or structures in the same district. 1161 ( C § 20-58 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE (3) That the granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. (4) That the special conditions and circumstances are not a consequence of a self-created hardship. (5) That the variance will not be injurious to or adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the city or the neighborhood wherein the property is situated and will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter. (Ord. No. 80, Art. III, § 1(3-1-3(2)), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-59. Conditions for use of single-family dwelling as two-family dwelling. A variance for the temporary use of a single-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling may only be allowed under the following circumstances: (1) There is a demonstrated need based upon disability, age or financial hardship. (2) The dwelling has the exterior appearance of a single-family dwelling, including the —" maintenance of one(1)driveway and one(1)main entry. (3) Separate utility services are not established(e.g. gas, water, sewer, etc.). (4) The variance will not be injurious to or adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the city or the neighborhood where the property is situated and will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter. (Ord. No. 80, Art. III, § 1(3-1-3(2)), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-60. Denial. Variances may be deemed by the board of adjustments and appeals and the council, and such denial shall constitute a finding and determination that the conditions required for approval do not exist. (Ord. No. 80,Art. III, § 1(3-1-4(6)), 12-15-86) Secs. 20-61-20-70. Reserved. DIVISION 4. NONCONFORMING USES Sec. 20-71. Nonconforming buildings and uses. The lawful use of a building or land existing on February 19, 1987 may be continued, although such use does not conform with the provisions of this chapter. Except as otherwise provided, nonconforming uses shall not be extended or enlarged. (Ord. No. 80, Art. III, § 5(3-5-1), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-72. Nonconforming lots of record. Single-family lots in the A-2 and RR Districts established prior to February 19, 1987 shall �. be deemed as buildable lots. In the RSF and R-4 districts, notwithstanding limitations im- 1162 Blue Circle Investment Company 6125 Blue Circle Drive, Minnetonka, Minnesota 55343 612/933-0409 February 16, 1989 Board of Adjustments/City Council City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Variance Request Lot 2, Block 1, Hidden Valley 2nd Addition TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: As the fee owner of the above captioned property we are requesting building and parking set back variances in order to facilitate the construction of a day care center. The following represents our feelings regarding the five general conditions for granting a variance in accordance with your Zoning Ordinance Division 3, Section 20-58. — 1. The literal enforcement of the current set back requirements would render the property un-buildable. — 2. This hardship is due to the size and irregular shape of this particular piece of property and therefore does not apply to other parcels. 3. Without the granting of the requested variance we would have no property rights as the land would be un-buildable, therefore, it would have no value. 4. This special condition is not self created. It was created by a change in the property's zoning and set backs by the City of Chanhassen. This change occurred subsequent to the time we platted the property. 5. Rather than creating a hazard, the granting of the variance will allow the property to be safely used for a permitted use which will be of substantial benefit to the adjacent neighborhood as well as residents of the entire City. — I plan to attend your meeting on February 27, 1989 so that I may answer any questions you may have regarding our request. Sincerely, .t 'z- -e,Z7,/0//4" Patrick B. Hallisey Partner PBH/dmm/43 FEB 16 1989 CITY DE CHANHASSEN • ' �' -. . - ',,= .' .. AAA/ \ I! ...' if• _ - +-ti I �\ `•s F \ s,, -N .. ._ r \ Q \ \V \ ‘k I ‘ ‘4 .\ \ ---\ \ . 1 ,1 , \ IN _ \ ti�# , 1 1 _ `ma —4 v 4 1so N • --- —�— t (::1?: Zvi t1j 4, L 1 c.. ._ \ ‘ \ tl— —__)- t.. 11 1 \:.3. ____\ \ i I - L \ I- 1 \ \ \, - Z I \ Zu ft , 04 C* i's -r X! \.- • '4i4 `s \ I 1 / ( ‘. I \ \ \ e 1 0 .—rs, I lig . I _�, 4'I ZNvt , 1- . .. -.) Y i i I %" - • N _---c ♦. \ \ r; m y f- 1 I •1 _ I . ...._• \ \\\) _ XCi.:-* I • $'''' ii ai„ \ /— �- u j \ 0 P: .c, \ t. • I ./1::,.4.-)\I \ z – _ - \.1i t •:i.; ! ( .l.'..,• '4-1.....2,..,-_, . 1 _-....4 • .... . -- - -.-._.- . _.; • I ‘'''1134'''4 ' - \ _1 Is' li- . . : . 4 ri ________ ...„ \ „... ..s, ,- • ( . .,(., 1_. . . 1 -: -14 \ • \ \ -'t- _ ...•Irv, . . \ -..\\ .c - -- \ 4 - ' �/ \` =Q itt SIC \ _ - - : 1 \ — (ti \ ' f �, k.1 m R . . 1 (, .....:\ ':_ 1•?• 111 ', r ,.