Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
05-17-89 Agenda and Packet
AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, MAY 17, 1989, 7 : 30 P.M. CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE CALL TO ORDER OLD BUSINESS 1. Oak View Heights, Property zoned R-12 and located between Kerber and Powers Boulevard, approximately # mile north of West 78th Street, Cenvesco: a. Planned Unit Development Concept and Development Plan for 140 individually owned townhome units on 19 acres of property b. Wetland Alteration Permit for development within 200 feet of a wetland and storm water discharge into a wetland. c. Site Plan Review for 140 individually owned townhome units. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Conditional Use Permit for the location of a temporary office, shop and yard for Edgework Builders, on property _ zoned IOP, Industrial Office Park and located at 8301 Audubon Road, Dave Stockdale. 3 . Preliminary Plat request to subdivide approximately 5 . 5 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. NEW BUSINESS 5. Site Plan Review 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. 6 . Modification of Development District No. 2 and Tax Increment District No. 2-1, consistent with the plans for development of the City of Chanhassen. APPROVAL OF MINUTES CITY COUNCIL UPDATE OPEN DISCUSSION ADJOURNMENT CITY OF CHANHASSEN1 `\ _ „ • 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 • (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Assistant City Planner DATE: May 17, 1989 SUBJ: Oakview Heights Townhomes The Planning Commission reviewed the PUD proposal for Oakview Heights Townhomes on April 19, 1989. The Planning Commission recommended tabling action on the item until the applicant could further work with staff to provide a PUD concept more acceptable to the Planning Commission. Sone of the Planning Commission ' s concerns about the proposed PUD were as follows : 1 . Too high of density; 2 . Too many units clustered in a small area; 3 . Too high of percentage of impervious surface; 4. Not enough usable open space and visitors parking spaces . The original plan contained 140 individually owned townhome units located in 12 blocks ranging from 10 - 16 townhome lots per block. The original proposal also contained two outlots providing open area around the townhome lots and two lots for future develop- ment. Lot 1, Block 13, was proposed for a future apartment building containing approximately 80 units. The denisty of the original proposal was 12.8 and 13 units per acre for the townho- mes. The impervious surface for the townhome areas was 50 per- cent lot coverage, which exceeded the permitted 35 percent. NEW PROPOSAL The applicant has submitted a new PUD proposal which has taken into consideration some of the comments made by the Planning Commission. The applicant has reduced the number of proposed townhomes from 140 to 132. The number of blocks of townhomes have been reduced from 12 to 11. One block of townhomes has been Planning Commission — May 17 , 1989 Page 2 removed from the north side Jenny Lane approximately where a large number of the mature trees are located. The applicant is proposing to remove the block of townhomes to preserve an area of open space in which to locate a tot lot. The total number of townhomes have been reduced by 8 with 4 townhomes relocated within other blocks of townhomes. The applicant has also com- bined Lot 1, Block 14 into the open area surrounding the townhome lots south of Jenny Lane (Outlot B) and has provided the drainage and conservation easement over the 980 contour as recommended by staff on Lot 1 , Block 12. — The following is a comparison between the original PUD and the current proposal : Original PUD Current PUD Total Total — 140 Townhome Units 132 Townhome Units 80 Apartment Units 220 70 Apartment Units 202 12 Blocks of Townhomes 11 Blocks of Townhomes _ Lot Sizes Outlot A 3 . 2 Outlot A 3 . 4 Blocks 7-12 2 . 4 Blocks 7-11 2 . 1 Outlot B 2 . 9 Outlot B 3 . 9 Blocks 1-6 . 2 . 3 Blocks 1-6 2 . 4 Block 12 (Apt) 5 . 8 Block 12 (Apt) 5 . 8 Total Right of Total Right of Way 1 . 3 Way 1. 3 Density 12. 8 Units/Acre (Outlot A) 11. 2 Units/Acre (Outlot A) 13 Units/Acre (Outlot B) 11.1 Units/Acre (Outlot B) 13 . 8 Units/Acre (Apt Bldg) 12 . 1 Units/Acre (Apt Bldg) — Impervious Surface Outlot A & B 50% Outlot A 48% Outlot B 38. 3% Outlot A & B 43% Whole Site 31. 5% Whole Site ( incl. apartment lot) 32. 5% Parking Spaces Parking 376 Parking 352 Visitor 14 Visitor 40 — 390 392 Planning Commission May 17 , 1989 Page 3 ANALYSIS The applicant is pursuing a PUD designation to allow the smaller lot sizes and to allow the whole site to be considered as one piece ( impervious surface and density calculated over whole site) . If the PUD is not approved, the applicant will pursue the develop- ment under the existing R-12 designation. A concept plan of what the site would be proposed as under R-12 has been submitted by the applicant (Attachment #2) . The benefit of a PUD to the City is that it will receive additional amenities, i .e. open space, parks , trails, creative use of the site. The benefit of a PUD to the applicant is the ability to cluster units, work around unique features, have a higher density, etc. The main issue is whether the City is benefitting enough to per- mit the increase in impervious surface and smaller lot sizes. Since the original proposal, the applicant has provided some usable open space with vegetation within the townhome develop- ment. The trees that are located within the open area will most likely not survive the proposed grading unless certain pre- cautions are taken. The totlot has been relocated to the open area which is preferred by staff. The applicant is also pro- viding a conservation easement on the 980 ft. contour as requested by staff. The conservation easement should also con- - the vegetative area (Attachment #3 ) . Additional visitor parking has been provided. Staff is recommending that the visi- tor parking be distributed to each complex. Additional visitor parking would still be preferred, but this would increase the amount of impervious surface. This could be a trade-off of the PUD designation. The total number of units has been reduced by 18 ( 8 townhomes and 10 apartments ) . The impervious surface has been reduced. Over the whole site the impervious surface is below the maximum allowed, but still exceeds the 35% on the individual townhome areas. The density meets the requirements of 12/acre for the townhome sites ( the apartment site is . 1% above) . The Planning Commission must determine if the proposal is acceptable as a PUD. The proposal meets most of the R-12 requirements except for impervious surface and has approximately 2 less units than the PUD proposal. The current proposal is an improvement over the initial PUD proposal, but it is questionable if the new plan meets the Planning Commission' s concerns . Staff recommends that the Planning Planning Commission — May 17 , 1989 Page 4 Commission either recommend approval of the PUD with conditions that would satisfy the Planning Commission or recommend denial of the PUD and pass it on to the City Council. Should the Planning Commission recommend approval of the PUD, staff recommends the following conditions : — 1. The applicant shall provide deed restrictions against Lot 1, Block 12 to maintain lot coverage of 35% or below and density of — 12 units/acre ( for the entire 17. 8 acre site) . 2 . A drainage and conservation easement shall be provided over the 980 ft. contour and vegetative area on Lot 1, Block 12. — No alteration below the 980 ft. contour and vegetative area ( for construction of apartment building will be permitted. 3. The developer shall be required to install playground equip- ment similar to that attached as part of the Park and Recreation memo dated April 13 , 1989 and the tot lot be — located in an area a safe distance from vehicular traffic. 4. The 20 ft. wide easement be dedicated along Powers Blvd. and an 8 ft. wide bituminous trail be constructed within that — easement. 5 . The applicant shall be required to pay 100% of the park dedi- _ cation fee and shall be given 100% credit on the trail dedi- cation fee. 6 . The applicant shall work with staff and DNR to provide addi- tional landscaping to replace the trees being removed. The trees on the open area between Blocks 7 and 8 shall be pro- tected from grading of the site. The applicant shall submit — plans for protection of the trees which shall be reviewed and approved by the DNR Forester. 7. Approval of the Wetland Alteration Permit #88-14 and approval of Site Plan Review #88-15. 8. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with — the City and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper installation of these public improvements. — 9. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit. — 10. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Access Watermain Crossing Permits issued by the office of the Carver County Engineer. — Planning Commission May 8, 1989 Page 4 8 . The City Council should authorize a feasibility study to be done to facilitate the extension of Jenny Lane to Kerber Boulevard. 9 . The parking needs and peak demands site shall be reviewed and supplemental parking area(s) provided. 10 . Additional spot elevation and necessary contours shall be provided for proper surface drainage around proposed buildings south of Jenny Lane . 11 . The 24 foot private roadway through the north portion of the site shall be designated as a fire lane and post for No Parking accordingly. ATTACHMENTS 1 . Typical building detail 2 . Typical parking detail TYPICAL BUILDING DETAIL i a e - CRUSHED ROCK BASE \ BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT _ 1I15 MIN. IL ��J FAQ P' 20-a g• I [111-11, j _ tsJ W I SA' Q # 20• beim. ; "' / a � { o : 1 'RAO ,--1 E __. 4. FIR[ LA17( f - I6' i . ..._ I `e '- 24' (tintUw[ SEWERrel___ IJOJANCUT VISITOR 26'rift. CCL PAR PUNK I t........"'"..4.4'...".....:"........C.............1 — I 1:) .1•4.1.41.— .... _ _ _ —_____ 1 z c Q ' 43> W� W 0 I I 11 9p I ( L C 1 acs =»: [N jZ0s+1 •g131;' -1LL wo1JZ z1,o - `kr fO l l l l I = Icl ▪=saQ om - : _ V �, `ate e o n �▪�� Q zW �e� = G1I� C�� Z =ii"iakC J t>. 11 : j :_O ¢ J� 74;.:.; - 4 1'I,= U J vT iat- .�. iW L'5 lia fI ( 11 w U ? Luz A++a -li I'7: '''•-•, 1 / --- :-_ \ •/O r \ I / I l 1 `/ ^�\ \�`\%q�,y�- ....000 \ %1 / 1 / I ! ,- -��\• \\�`• 1 'w�• 11'..'• '•• ,---. ` (\ / / / 1 \ 111 ``••44, \� _ '•1"1 \ --•\ `-- ' \`� \ \ / 1 l/ / / l 1 1 t ♦ ` ) -=st �. - (;) \ I I i I 1 11 1 I ` \ \%` �\ ` 11 I I «> _ \ ` -'\ \ ```- \ / 1 1 I 1 � 1 1 \ I t 1 I I 11 I 1n ea I VI t I `V,�10 / 1 1 1 r, 1 i• / / ., V 1 is / ' /ii' �C0�� / ' 1 I / ! • f — 1 / - - - i : j 1 1 \ I ' % / il' ' l W 1 / 1 .' . / 1 1� 1 I // 1 1 ,1 ?- \ ' I ,// ' %111 I 1. I , I l/ -I 1 i 1L ' / , • � � i / ,/' '" \ 1 111 _� — \ / , I / r , 1 / =ii X1,1 a_- • --- _ /jty 1111 11 1 `I 1-._-------1---,-'\t•` ``\\\\ \ \ \\\11 I 1 1 \ `� ' / //tIIIII IIiilllll1'I 1% — \\ \\ 1 I 1 / r i 1. ' / 1 v1114::$1:11114111 111 ::$ 1111 11 1 — - \\ 1 I /1 rL 1 .: /1X11 I'1;'111�'I ' I 1 Y Y __- ` \ 1�`1; \; 1� I ,; ;f f u / "-•-11�1�11 1111 I�yr Q -• —_ - _\ 1 1Q.)/ ! I / / I / O 1 ea / + VI1li Ipl 1 I 1 'Q - -\\\ \�� �,I�/ 1 1 1 1 mo v II111 1 11/ Ws \ (i' / , , 'S1(1::',111111:1 I1111:1:1111,11,111,1 11:'11111 1— li 1 / / I � X1111 1 / I -I I till// /// / / /1,2' I a - >'t I ( 1 / ,' 111 11111 I I ,, ___;;;_\ 1 1 1J!ik\(s(( 1 14i 1(�i1\\\11 ` 1\� �� / j I 1 1 ��qJi; i! ,1I •'\ 1 j ,` 11 \1 \ 0. / J' 1111 11 1' 11 • •• \ \ � ...... _ _-- / -, , 1 111 '� .\\\ \\\\\\\\\" ,s.\111 ;, \\` ` ` ___i 1'' • // J :1011:: 01I:: 111 _. \ \\ \� `...I.:. � �_ 111'1 1 111 li il II I -_. \\ ttl•, \ \ \\`�\= ` ` , / ''„'`,..% , 1 111111 'I'll \ ‘N,\111 \‘‘ ‘ \ y` \\ `�� ��'1 / , / Ih1111 1111 I ''''- \ ` ,\1`1\\ \\\\ _ =� r - J;. ,' I -' ,V l;'1 i 1 1111 1\ \\\\\\\\�\� _ -_ ����-:::::z........----' ,/' .'ti$ fir`Hill.•II111 \ \ \\ \\\,‘ ._, \ `�:� ,{ / �,./_ .11 Ib 1111 I z • \\ \\\\\.\ -=_----1...:,:-..� ` ��:\ -' f ;' ,::' 1,;II 1111 1 Q \\\\ \\\ �` -`.� /'. ( �/ 1''u 11111 a o \�\\\\� s�..\� �-- �\`:``�` q`��`1 ' ,-,...t',----s, i1 SII 1111) ;i 3 \ \ \\\`�� `,�\�` \\ •1\ V'`' /1 ;' 11111111111 O \ \ \ \ — �\ `O�`•`\ •t !' --z 1 ;1111 ii 11 II - \ \\ �__—_r�_'� \�` ..a........:„.....```\1,\ // • „ 1 IIII' 1111 D • ., c- • \\ ` \\\\f • 1111 ' / . ;111,111 1 i \� \ \Z _ =��=\ 9 �\•\� 'i1 •l.1,./ - '/ •/ :::•Iri� 11'11 `o V 1 !' - �\ \\1\1\I\'i1'' / - '; Illi,` t a \`] `� .%''. .•..::,.::::�•s \♦ ,\ \\•1 1 /"-'j"------1 ,., 1 Ill _1 \\`L -.��\ •\ �::•••.• ,‘,.%\�\ `�11•-�.�% - - 111 _ -� • 1 , 11 - 2----1 0A19 SH3MOd) 's LI •0N 'AMH Olv HYIS AINf10J w u • I .I.: Z O tio I.- t - - ›- .ct !3 I r 3 II c.7> W 4. si -- z - ` r �� - z z gin.* a i • dl Wa Jz z=p _ 1I• �2 — 1. 'i .. U az- a OWZ mo- - (-Ili 1ccZ d Po 7 o W WiZd ozV.Ycc > .. _ 2;1 s.,:x7 y z , O C7 V..21 LW O. ' —___......a2zk__- - PCS093.CS62.0011 r i •a Q 4. `° Aa i %'1' rw I*$i \ `ti• l LL m Ca of • N R • .i #24% : •ww .r CO 1 z¢azA• i. . -r ®0I J - 50.,4111;,A;A:,,, ,......„,.. ,„.... i: ... 11114., c :::**10111W . . i sc.„.,,,as• 41110'2. ‘,. • * lz. '' .'.1 T" -----,...;;;P ." 1 . I 1 4.0. .„ it i ` . i- 0114111.�� , Y 71. •1 1 ton x S. ,® • to w;m.+r y}a ..O r- w viiiAN _I : _ •V wr _ — 6**ilillik.1*la, .1111111113111...21111• . . 1 r Ta� �4 r a. a a , rr - 00 . �� z anitmrm. y - = j1'. C wn1m O a ,I rW tpy VS, /, 'SWIM r Yrw, an Mw • w W 1�1YY- 1X , \ i • = IOW ,_ \ \ ws \• \ 2J,y \\\ ', �%• rnlfemm. w y ,. • \\r6v5. \ �+�L E Ez -- ..3/4 A A \ \` - Z. i it . ��6 • -4t0-ii I 1 11• 11 :��- a:". 9 Y` 4;�a p P _ '- 1 lN2 r h3[�l 1t 11 — +y13,, o„,,, , -.: 1 — 1 3 4,CL 3.LI.(i.;..M w Al % S .0.11k4 t33.MUd) ------Lt ON AMM UIV 31V15 AINIlUJ - ..0 Planning Commission May 17, 1989 Page 5 11. The developer shall dedicate the utilities within Jenny Lane right-of-way and fire lane easement areas to the City for permenant ownership. The remaining building utilities will be privately owned and maintained. 12. Detailed construction plans and specifications including calculations for sizing for the roadway and utility improve- - ments shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer. As-built mylar plans will also be required upon completion of the construction. 13. Appropriate utility easements shall be provided over all public facilities. 14. A wet tap connection will be required to the 12" watermain under County Road 17. 15. The City Council should authorize a feasibility study to be done to facilitate the extension of Jenny Lane to Kerber Boulevard. 16. The parking needs and peak demands site shall be reviewed and supplemental parking area( s) provided. 17 . Additional spot elevation and necessary contours shall be provided for proper surface drainage around proposed buildings south of Jenny Lane. 18. The 24 foot private roadway through the north portion of the site shall be designated as a fire lane and post for No Parking accordingly. ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission minutes dated April 19, 1989. 2. R -12 Concept Plan. 3 . Conservation Easement. 4 . Reduced Copies of PUD Proposal . 5 . Planning Report. 6 . Plans dated May 8 , 1989. CITY OF - CEANBASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 — (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM — TO: Planning Commission 1, Fr� 1 Y FROM: Gary Warren, City EngineerC(,J DATE: May 8 , 1989 SUBJ: Preliminary Plat and Site Plan Review for Oak View Heights File No. 89-1 Land Use Review The site is located on the west side of County Road 17 approximately one-half mile north of Trunk Highway 5. This 18 . 9 — acre site is comprised of a rolling topography with mature vegetation scattered throughout the site. This parcel was platted as part of the West Village Heights plat — which was approved by the City Council on April 20 , 1988. Sanitary Sewer. — Municipal sanitary sewer service is available to the site on the east and west. These existing sewer mains were sized and installed to service the anticipated development for the subject — parcel . Appropriate utility easements shall be provided on the plat over all public utilities. A common sewer and water utility corridor is proposed for each building complex. — Watermain The plans propose a looped watermain system to be constructed from the existing 12-inch main along County Road 17 to the existing 8-inch watermain that has been provided at the easterly property line by the West Village Heights Townhomes development. — The watermain will need to be jacked under County Road 17 and a wet tap connection made to the City ' s 12" main. A county permit will need to be obtained by the applicant. — The City shall provide public service for sanitary sewer and watermain within the right-of-way of Jenny Lane and the fire lane easement respectively. The sanitary sewer and water service to — the buildings are in a common utility corridor ( see typical building detail ) which will be maintained privately by the developer. The applicant will need to verify and document sizing for the watermain with submittal of the plan and specification. Planning Commission May 8, 1989 Page 2 Public Street The applicant has provided a 50-foot right-of-way for Jenny Lane. This right-of-way extends from County Road 17 to the easterly portion of the plat. The access onto County Road 17 will require an access permit from Carver County. Jenny Lane shall be built and dedicated as a City street. The street section will be constructed through the public platted right-of-way with a 36-foot width to meet the anticipated demand for this type of development. Private Street The plan calls for a 24 foot wide private roadway looped through the north portion of the site. This would be dedicated as a fire lane and posted for "no parking" . In addition, internal access to the individual plexes is proposed via a 18-20 foot private drive with parking proposed for individual units with 2 to 4 parking spaces available per unit depending on the unit ' s loca- - tion (see typical parking detail) . It is inevitable that special functions such as parties , etc. , will present parking conflicts with other units in the area and overflow will no doubt result in parking on Jenny Lane. In this regard it would appear that the 18-20 foot private drive width is inadequate unless supplemental parking facilities are provided on both the north and south sides of the site . With this new concept the Developer has provided 26 additional parking stalls for a total of 40 scattered throughout the site. It would be more beneficial to have 4 to 5 additional stalls at each building complex rather than scattered throughout the site as shown on sheet 6 of the plan set. The 24-foot service roadway north of Jenny Lane shall be main- tained as a private roadway but considered as a fire lane and no parking restrictions posted accordingly. It was the understanding of the City Council that when the future alignment of Jenny Lane was established that the West Village Townhouse segment of this road would be brought up to full city standards . As such , city staff will be recommending that a _ feasibility study be initiated to extend Jenny Lane from Oak View Heights through the West Village Heights townhouses site to Kerber Boulevard. The anticipated demand by construction of Jenny Lane necessitates that this roadway be extended to Kerber — Boulevard. Grading and Drainage It appears that a majority of the site will experience shaping and/or grading to create the building pads . It should be noted that additional spot elevations and contours will be needed to correct surface drainage around the proposed buildings south of Jenny Lane. Planning Commission May 8, 1989 Page 3 Although the new concept plan has shown the removal of one building to protect a grove of oak trees and create a totlot, this area still shows proposed grading and shaping. No grading should be done in this area in order to preserve these trees. The applicant is providing a sediment ponding site to be constructed on the northwest corner of the parcel just off Jenny Lane to maintain the predeveloped runoff rate and provide adequate storage for a 100-year storm event. A storm sewer net- work is proposed to drain the site runoff to the storage pond area. Details will be required with plan and specification sub- mittal . ub- mittal . — Erosion Control The plans show the entire site wrapped with erosion control fencing in accordance with the city' s Type III standard ( see detail) . All side slopes greater than 3:1 shall be stabilized using erosion control blankets. Vegetative cover shall be — established in accordance with the conditions of the Watershed District permit. Recommended Conditions 1 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial — sureties to guarantee the proper installation of these public improvements . 2. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit. 3 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Access Watermain Crossing Permits issued by the office of the Carver County Engineer . 4 . The developer shall dedicate the utilities within Jenny Lane right-of-way and fire lane easement areas to the City for permenant ownership. The remaining building utilities will — be privately owned and maintained. 5 . Detailed construction plans and specifications incluaing calculations for sizing for the roadway and utility improve- ments shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer . As-built mylar plans will also be required upon completion of the construction . 6 . Appropriate utility easements shall be provided over all public facilities . — 7 . A wet tap connection will be required to the 12" watermain under County Road 17 . PARKING PRCVIDED( For 132 Townhouse Units Enclosed -176 Overflow = 176 Visitor -40 Future -31 Total Parking Spaces =423 NITCI --=� INCaLE 0100. %aAF.ACIS UNIT- CID D =7)(-71',10 5PAL. PER UNIT ONE 15 +C.LL`SCJ MINIMUM) �`- CENTER UNIT 51N(- -E CAF- UNIT- C731 NiTC731 Fry) END UNIT UN 1 T ( 5f:)11—Et, -�-� D UNIT) TYPICAL PARKING DETAIL arming Commission Meeting pril 19 , 1989 - Page 8 5. Proposed street names shall be submitted to the Department of Public Safety for approval . — 6. Revised plans that address the conditions and discussion contained in the City Engineer ' s report shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval . 7. Since the watermain is not looped , proper sizing of the watermain will be required for fire and health reasons. — 8. A typical section of roadway is to be shown on the plans for approval with concrete curb and gutter throughout the site. — 9. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper installation of these public improvements . 10. There should be a secondary access going off of the cul-de-sac out to County Road 17. If approval can not be obtained from the County, then the Public Safety Director and the City Engineer ought to get together and decide what can be done , if something needs to be done, to provide a secondary access . 'ti 11. If West Lake Drive is not looped but comes to an end as it ' s shown on the preliminary plat, then there will be a temporary cul-de-sac at the end of that. All voted in favor except David Headla who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Headla : I certainly agree with the applicant ' s desire . I believe Tim' s recommendation . . . — PUBLIC HEARING: OAK VIEW HEIGHTS , PROPERTY ZONED R-12 AND LOCATED BETWEEN KERBER AND POWERS BOULEVARD, APPROXIMATELY 1;2 MILE NORTH OF WEST 78TH STREET, �\ CENVESCO: _ _. _ A. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 140 INDIVIDUALLY OWNED TOWNHOME UNITS ON 19 ACRES OF PROPERTY. B. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN 200 FEET OF A WETLAND AND STORM :NATER DISCHARGE INTO A WETLAND. C. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR 140 INDIVIDUALLY OWNED TOWNHOME UNITS . Jo Ann Olsen presented the Staff Report . /1-. 1 Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . . r. C ti Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1989 - Page 9 — Conrad : Just a question . If they meet what your recommendations are, do they still get PUD status? Olsen: . . .because the lots are smaller . . . Conrad: So they' re forced to a PUD status not because they' re meeting what we look for in a PUD. It is a mechanical reason that simply they have to have the PUD status to do what they want to do. Not that they' re — meeting our PUD ordinance which says we' re looking for these things. . .to grant a PUD you should be looking for these characteristics that add value to this whole project. Whether it be a park. Whether it be certain improvements. Public improvements. Whether it be open space. They have not done that or you have not, have they done in your mind those things? I think that ' s what ' s not in the staff report right now and I 'm sure they want to talk to us about that but it' s kind of, it' s one of those things that I 'd like to see before hand where staff or the applicant says we want PUD status because we are going to of-fer these benefits and therefore I can grant them the additional units . Let them go over the impervious — surface ratio. I guess now is a chance for you to give us your viewpoint. Olsen : I tried to point out what theyivin were g g. . .and the first thing would be that totlot. This area is not park deficient and they are giving that. They are providing additional landscaping . 11/4- Conrad: They are? Olsen : They are giving more than what would be typically required . Conrad: How much more? Olsen : When you start getting into the replacement . Conrad: . So it ' s not a requirement. Normally we require 1 tree per lot on a subdivision right? Do we have 1 tree per lot here? And their landscape plan would improve the site? Olsen : They' ve got a lot of trees . Conrad: What else Jo Ann. Be persuasive. Olsen : The PUD site . . . — Conrad: We' re pretty tough on PUD' s . Olsen : They know that . I explained that to them. The thing is , the — reason that it' s going with the POD is because of individually owned units and the thing that ' s really hard is that when they actually. . . The way our ordinance is written, this would actually he more. . .comes to individually owned units . . . The way our ordinance is written . . . Conrad : Your other point is that individually owned units would be better than rental units? We' ll open it up for public hearing and I ' m ure — that the applicant will have a chance to talk to us. You ' ve heard my nning Commission Meeting ri.l 19 , 1989 - Page 10 comments as I ' ve directed them to the staff and really we have, I don' t want to get into a whole lot of detail on some of this stuff if the Planning Commission doesn' t really like what they see. We' ve got a _ concept and then we get into the development plan but if we don' t like what we see in terms of the concept , I think I don ' t want to get into details. Yet on the other hand, if everybody things that the concept ' s _ alright , we can do that too . But basically. . . is way, way different from what we' ve ever granted in the City to my knowledge and the number of units is over what this supposedly could have based on the number in the ordinance so I guess I ' ll open it up for public hearing. I 'd like the — applicant to tell us why they think this should be granted as a PUD. Gary Purser : My name is Gary Purser. We originally submitted a plan to the city and it was Steve that indicated that because of the fact that we were going to go with individually owned houses . So in other words, we ended up with a zero lot line. We ' re selling fee simple title to people to own the land underneath them indicating that we would have to go on a — PUD. That would be one way we would have to submit because of the 3 , 600 square feet minimum. We feel that what' s required under the PUD, as far as offering additional amenities to the project , we feel that we' ve met that in preserving the wetlands. The City had asked us to provide a totlot and to their specifications . It came in , actually the one that we submitted , they' ve altered and the cost of this totlot is around , our cost _ ' i.s around $30, 000. 00 to provide it. Also , providing the additional ' sidewalks and the landscaping, we feel that under the PUD concept, that it ' s a give and take situation and we' ll providing the additional items to be approved by a PUD concept. In addition, I 'd like to just make a — comment as far as the idea behind the zero lot line and a condominium concept. If we were not to do this on individually owned lots, we' d simply do it under a condominium concept . By doing it under a condominium — concept, the owners or the people who are going to be purchasing the property of course would not have fee simple title and it ' s basically more expensive for them to purchase it because there' s considerably more cost i.n doing it . It seems like it' s almost a glitch in the zoning ordinance •••16 because it does not, because your ordinance differentiates between common ownership and fee simple. Do you have any questions I can answer? Conrad: Anything you want to react to i.n terms of the staff report? Gary Purser : Well I guess with regard to the engineering . . . , Randy. _ Randy Hedlund: My name is Randy Hedlund. I 'm the engineering for Dean Johnson, the developer and one other item I want to point out . As far as the give and take on the PUD, from the very start we have been extremely concerned with this area here. Jo Ann pointed out , there were 11 large oak trees up on the upland part of the site that really can not be saved but down i.n this wooded slope area , which I 'm sure most of you are _ familiar with the site , coming up from the wetland there ' s a considerable amount of oak trees and I didn ' t get an actual count on them but I might _ guess maybe 50 to 100 large mature oak trees . Now what the developer can do is come i.n with this proposal to just meet the city' s requirements as — Ear as impervious and density with the City, because these future parcels , Outlot A and B are not developed at this time. Somebody else can ��� Planning Commission Meeting April 19 , 1989 - Page 11 come in and do a lot of damage to that slope with the oak trees on there and there wouldn ' t be anything to prevent them from doing that. The only thing that ' s really required is the 75 foot setback from the wetland that' s down at the 940 contour. One thing that the City is asking for is that we provide a conservation easement all the way up to the 980 contour which is 40 feet above that wetland. That will basically insure that all these oak trees down on the slope are preserved . As far as the grading, like for this future apartment that would have the driveway entrance down here and it would be all underground parking . The building could be designed where this grade along here would be about at garage floor. Up here would be about even with the first floor of the apartments so from this end of the apartments, patio and decks, you can walk right out onto — open grade. It ' s still some distance from the tree line. Down here there'd be decks out over the .garage level of the apartment. It fit the site very nicely. Is there any other questions concerning that? That was something that we' ve always done quite heavily was the preservation of this large wooded area , the wetland and the slopes in that area and that ' s another, I think that' s a valid point to bring up in order . . . — Conrad : Are reviewing that tonight? That ' s not part of the PUD is it? That 's not what we ' re. . . Olsen : That ' s part of the concept . Randy Hedlund : We showed this , the developer does not have architectural plans for the apartment at this time so it ' s almost like this is a first phase and that would be coming later . This is what he ' s intending to do with it. That it would be covered with restrictions that limits him to do this . The developer is also willing to give Lot 14 into Outlot B as the — City had requested . That lowers the density of this portion of the site to about 11 units per acre and I not exactly sure how it affects the impervious . If we look at the density over the whole site , the impervious over the whole site, we' re at about 12 units per acre for density assuming each. . .building 8 units and we ' re at, I believe 33 . 3% impervious on the overall site and that ' s what we were planning toward . . . He doesn ' t really have architectural plans for this so. . .site plan for the apartment at this time. Dean Johnson : My name is Dean Johnson . I 'm one of the co-developers . — One thing I wanted to . . .validity. We looked at this site. . . We don ' t really look at it as say the numbers . We look at it as outlot . . .so we worked our site plan . . .and we did save these groves of trees . . . As Gary pointed out , there ' s some trees on the ordinance having to do with townhomes that are independently owned with a zero lot line. Whereas if they were condos . . .di.scussi.ng this issue. . .amenities that are going to go to the homeowners. We do have plans here that . . . We have done another '- townhome project . You always learn by doing . This one will have a sprinkler system. This one will have . . .mai.ntenance free type of a siding . That always seem to be the thing that plagued the association once the building was up was the maintenance. Totlot was something that as much .3s Todd recommended we do and something we had in the plans already because we expect these things to be sold to 1 lot of starter families . . , too have learned that sprinkler systems . . . so the piece of property i,s also ,,,ping Commission Meeting. ril 19 , 1989 - Page 12 going to be irrigated . One of the issues that came up here has to do with Lot 14 and Lot 13. Lot 14 seems to be an open piece of ground. Lot 13 is the one with the apartment building . Something that ' s been brought up is the fact that we could sell it do something else. . . The reason we split half of it was because we did not feel it was a fair burden to the townhomes to have that piece of ground next to a . . . that the residents and quantity of residents that came into the apartment building should share in some of the costs of maintaining this property per density. . .are worked so that . . . That is the reason why. . . We have seen those types of _ problems. Did do a townhome project in Plymouth. At the time cedar siding . We all all weather this and that . . .and the painting bill and their watering are their two largest expenses that they have. . . Any questions? Mavis Sculley: Mavis Sculley and I live at 787 . . . Drive which I believe is right across the highway from this development and I guess I haven' t quite understand the map. How does this connect up with Kerber? I can see the line there but where does i.t actually come out on this side? So this does not extend all the way over to Kerber? Does it begin at Powers then? _ Olsen: Right. And then where those other townhomes are, that ' s where it will connect . Mavis Sculley: That ' s what concerns me. That was one the things that was concerning me. Considering the density there already and with apartments or townhomes or whatever so I 'm concerned that if this ran into that , that it would make literally just a wall of townhomes and multiple unit dwellings . The second thing that concerns me was that hillside . We have to have an easement. We know we bought ours so we could maintain the sanctity so to speak of the valley and we were just under the impression that was also going to be maintained on the opposite side of the highway and when you look in the direction of the valley across the way, you would also see trees and greenery and things other than man made landscaping . That was . . . but that will be maintained? Okay, thank you . Emmings moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in _ favor except Wildermuth who abstained and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed. (Tim Erhart ' s discussion with Jo Ann Olsen and the developers was not audible on the tape. ) Emmi.ngs : I 'm opposed to i. t the way i. t ' s. . .but it ' s almost okay. I take it that this- i.s a good location to have some high density development. I like the_ zero. -lot line business of locating . . . I think again we need to offer a divexsity of housing in our city that we don ' t have now. . .and this almost does .af._ I like the way they look. I think a reasonable amount of thought has-lgone' into the plan. My objections are these. I could almost live with the Lot 14 and sliding everything over and open a space up a Little bit and making more density on the south side that way. Then I can ' t live with . . . My objections are these. thpa is woefully inadequate. I think that the setbacks from thenk propertyrli.ne ' are totally inadequate and I think that the setbacks from the road ii,tselfs Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1989 - Page 13 are inadequate . The density is too high. The impervious surface is too high and I see that the potential for that apartment building coming in , that just adds. . . That being said , on top of everything else, you talk about a glitch in our ordinance but we' ve still got ,an ordinance to apply. When we put together this PUD ordinance , the essence of it was that the City should get something. That a PUD should not be granted unless the City gets something that. . . So far nothing that I ' ve heard offered , the preservation of wetlands which is required under our ordinance. . . And a totlot which it seems to me for the amount of development that ' s going in, in itself would decide. . . The totlot again is something that would be used as an amenity to sale of the units. Anybody who would look at them is going to say do you have a place for my kids to play but I don' t think the City is getting anything at all . And for all those reasons, I 'm opposed to it. I said a lot of negative things . Now let ' s go back to the _ positive things. I like this type of development. I like it where you ' ve got it. I 'd just like to see it done a little differently. The applicant ' s architect made a statement from the audience. Emmings: When it becomes a PUD it' s not R-12. And it' s not R-12 anymore, then I get to say the setbacks are. . . 14 extra spaces for visitors is . . . — We could argue all night long but I 'm getting my comments. You ' ve had your chance and not it ' s my chance. It ' s inadequate and it' s inadequate because every, I think it' s inadequate because you have a single car - garage for those units . You' re talking about young families though. That' s what you said the market is. Most of those young families are going to have two cars . That puts 1 in the garage and 1 outside and 1 as a visitor car. Where do the people with the single car garage . . . When — they have Thanksgiving at their house, where do they park? It ' s inadequate. Elison : Jo Ann , when you were giving your report you said that the oak trees were being designated . . . Olsen: Alan Olsen , when he came out and he is doing all of that and that was one of the sites that was . . . Elison : The 11 as well as the hill? Olsen: The hill is definitely. . . Elison: My biggest concern was those oak trees . They' re about 100 years old and I 'm not going to be around by the time we replace them and . . . I think the City has already made , indicated that if we really wanted to say respect the trees that are out there, it ' s almost impossible to do — something to protect them and maybe it ' s just bad timing . Who knows . In a month they might have been a protected woods . . . Batzli : Would this require a zoning amendment? Olsen: A rezoning is part of the PUD. Batzii. : So the people to the north were notified that this was . . . ? Planning Commission Meeting April 19 , 1989 - Page 14 T Jo Ann Olsen ' s answer wasn ' t audible on the tape. Batzli : Do you plan on putting deed restrictions on Lot 13 or is this actually a registered deed? Is that what we did on the other lot where they clearcut the trees? Olsen : Which lot? Triple Crown? Batzli : Yes . — Olsen : That was just , there wasn ' t anything in the plan. Batzli : Was that just in their covenants? I guess I had a couple questions . One thing that I 'd really like to see is that we' re not. . . If we' re not building the apartment building right now, I have a question why it' s even in there. . . if that ' s what they' re going to have. If this is being separated , I don' t want to give approval to it now. I 'd rather see it all open and have them spread everything out a little bit here rather than cram it together and then decide that they have to go with a PUD. So I agree it should probably be higher density development but I think there' s room in the lot to do something like that without doing what they' re requesting tonight . I 'd prefer to see more given to the city % although. . . Wildermuth : I don ' t think we' re at the PUD point . . . I 'd like to see the _ applicant improve the building . . . The parking adequate addressed. Unless the applicant can convince me otherwise , I think there should be a provision. . . to change to double garages for each unit. In looking at the plan. . . What is the construction. . . -. Applicant ' s answer from the audience wasn ' t audible on the tape. Wildermuth : What is the difference in cost , construction cost for putting that in brick? The applicant ' s answer from the audience wasn ' t audible on the tape . Dean Johnson: I 'd like to point out that . . . The small units will require an annual income to qualify of $30,057 . 00 per year to qualify for those — units. It' s going to be our goal to try to keep the price low so they' re more affordable units . . . Headla : . . . totlot near the parking . Who pays for the playground equipment? Dean Johnson : The homeowners association . We as developers pay for the — equipment . . . ieadla : And then the City maintains it? Dean Johnson: No . . . C.2.1 c \':,�c Planning Commission Meeting ,4 j April 19, 1989 - Page 15 Q 15.6 Headla : . . . I looked at that and it ' s a 50 foot drop. I thought that ' s terrible. I think the Park and Recreation Committee would take that tremendous asset . All the people. . .just think what they could do for sliding in the wintertime. They could be out there 8 hours a day and I think the City could really capitalize on that . I just think that ' s a tremendous asset that we overlook and we ought to try to capture it. . . . it' s a safe place for them to be. I like the plantings. I like all the deciduous. I 'm not that concerned about the oak trees. I think they' re past their ultimate climax . If we put anything in there . . . is going to kill them. Not today or tomorrow but 3-4 years when we kill them, then the City doesn ' t get anything out of it . But if they come in and. . . I think if we can get that trade, I think that' s reasonable. • Gary Purser : . . . the zero lot line . Conrad: The zero lot line is a little bit different issue than the ordinance says in the PUD what we' re trying to accomplish . The accomplishment is we relax standards and hopefully we get something in return. That ' s pure and simple what a PUD is . Maybe this concept which you' ve got, obviously there ' s some glitches but there' s some glitches in what you' ve got planned , you obviously knew it didn ' t meet our ordinance . — You put more density on, you put more impervious surface on. The way I have to read it, it ' s our norm. . .so if there was a plan that kind of meets r our ordinance and meets the intent of the ordinance, and I think most of ' the people here said they don' t mind the townhouses and I like the townhouse idea . I think we all envisioned apartments going in here and that' s why we have an R-l2 designation and you ' re trying to do something a little bit different . Maybe it doesn ' t quite work as easily but I don ' t mind the townhouse. The zero lot line is fine and maybe there' s some problems in our ordinance to try to accommodate that that you can resolve in the future but I think the from the pure and simple standpoint, I don' t believe you ' ve tried to meet the intent of the ordinance and that ' s why I prefaced our whole discussion saying , if you want, you' re here under a technicality basically. You ' re applying for the PUD because of a technicality. Not because you have some interesting features and property that you want to alter . Not because you want to embellish something and give the City something. I didn' t see many cases other than the landscaping . That ' s alright . I didn ' t see anything where we would feel , — the Planning Commission comfortable with this. On the other hand , I think we see a lot of things that are positive that unfortunately, my preference is that you try to meet the ordinance as it stands and we would work with you to try to help you to do that but my preference right now, unless you can go out and show us how you ' re embellishing this into a PUD. . . On the other hand , I ' ll remind you that we ' re pretty strict on PUD' s and City Council sometimes has differed. They take other views besides ours when they review them as a concept for a PUD. . . I think you ' re missing the intent of our ordinance basically and you came in not trying to not meet them and our intent in Chanhassen is greenery and open spaces and the _, preservation of some of the wetlands and I think you ' re missing the mark . Ae obviously want high density here. That ' s why we zoned it R-12 but if you want to increase the density over what we originally intended, and I think when you do that we become a little more critical . I think the parking appears to be a problem to me like it has been with some other. ening Commission Meeting _ ril 19, 1989 - Page 16 people. In other residential subdivisions , when a house goes in and they bring in a single family unit and there' s one garage and no place for storage and what have you, we' ve been very critical of those designs . So — I want, now that you ' re really giving home ownership here, I think we' ve become kind of critical of what this neighborhood i.s going to look like in 10 years. The parking appears to be a problem to me. I know you 've got — more parking than individual units and I , like other members , are concerned with visitors and 14 units. I 've visited developments like this and parking becomes a problem and I think the city will end up with the _ problem as people end up parking on the main road. So from that standpoint I 'm concerned and I 'm a little bit concerned and my direction is for you to somehow meet the impervious surface. . .but I think we have to meet that because that has some meaning in what we' re trying to develop in — Chanhassen. That means green spaces and a little bit of openness and places for people to go. Based on the land , and again I don ' t care how you do it. If you bundle more property in here or not, I think you have — to meet the density standards that we-set but I think I 'd go along with the other small lots that you recommend and I can go along setting the lot lines so if that means you have to take out one whole unit or you have to — bundle in additional property, that ' s what you do. I guess I can give you my direction but I think. . .and I think the staff has given us some other alternatives of bundling in some land where the apartments are but that chunk sort of bothers me too . I guess I could prefer to look at the units — T here as being as what we' re looking at and hopefully that will mee tthe zoning ordiance , or the ordinances as they stand . Unless you start developing some . . . Here are some reasons for granting a PUD which then — you could possibly say, yes that is PUD. The last thing I ' ll say is we try to, one thing sets precedent and . . .we ' re always concerned if we set precedent on the Planning Commission and I think our minds tall us that other things that have come in the past that have looked like this . . . PUD status . So those are my comments . My preference tonight and I guess I ' ll ask the applicants what they'd like to do on this one. My preference tonight would be to table it or turn it down. Tabling it to see if staff and the applicant can work together to see if could come in with something that staff believes is good . Whether it be a PUD and bringing something or whether it ' s something different on meeting the certain zoning — requirements. Or we could vote on it tonight and lend it along so you could get reaction from the City Council which many times i.s different than ours. Gary Purser : . . .We in our :hinds have met that . Now as I see it then , what you ' re deciding on tonight, we can go back and . . . To do that, we can have an architect draw up some prelims on the OuilJing . Say this is the _ building. We can bring it back in . . . What you ' re deciding tonight , just so you know. . . 3 , 600 square foot an the lot and that ' s somethi.ng . . . zero lot line i.s foe simple ownership. We looked it the lot line . . . something that should be , as much as it ' s a progressive idea , should be considered as — something that we are giving to the city. They arc getti.ng . . .and that is something . . . - Conrad : ;lilt you can ' t . . . thi.s parcel to meet the impervious surface ratio . Without the condo , you can ' t structure that whole parcel , the overall parcel within the apartment and Lots 13 and 14 is ;-3 . 3;, . c Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1989 - Page 17 A Gary Purser : Granted we don ' t have the building design but we' re saying we' re going to live within that lot. . . We are already within your building service so that really isn' t the issue. Jo Ann Olsen discussed the impervious surface ratio. Gary Purser : What we' re saying , is that really that much of a consideration? . . .That' s why we get back to this zero lot line. That ' s why I 'm saying . . . I guess what we ' re trying to do is get it less of a cost. Something that is an advantage to the City as well. That ' s what we — really want to do. Conrad : Any other comments? What do you want to do with this one? Erhart: . . .as part of your PUD. . .maybe you meet the coverage, you meet the density. The one thing you don ' t--meet is the philosophy. I think what we' re saying is, as a PUD we can negotiate that lot size. We don' t — have to require that you have 3,600 square feet . I think as a rule. . .and I would suggest maybe you take another . . .setback from the through street . I think that ' s what we' re looking at and then we ' ll talk about impervious — surface. . . r 'ar_y Purser : Hopefully that can happen. It ' s hard to get direction - when. . . I guess we met with staff 3 times and . . .are those the types of thi.ngs. . .as much as I 'm sure you guys want to work with us . . .give and take. If we have to cut the density in half, obviously there' s no way. . . We' d just as soon not do that . . . We could change the density around to — where it is . . . but it' s hard for us to know. Obviously we ' re meeting the design. We' ve got the design. . .but we have to have a general direction which way to go. As much as we' ve already. . .we' re asking you. Dean Johnson : This is the sixth concept that we' ve done. Gary Purser : We' ve met with staff 3 times to try to get this. This is something that your staff worked with us . Conrad: I guess the real question is if they came back . . .would it still — meet what we would consider a PUD? Swings : But they can ' t come to us and ask us that question . They can ' t ask us until there' s a specific plan in front of us whether it' s something that we' ll approve or not because we don ' t know what it looks like and we don ' t know if it meets our , we can ' t answer that question. The things that they' re proposing to me, it sounds like they' re headed a long way in — the right direction. I like the general idea . I like what they' re doing here. I think they' re doing too much of it . Now you ' re talking about taking some of it away, and I 'm real interested. To me and my objections , it would be coming a long way. Whether you come far enough so I say yes , chat' s good , I don ' t know until I see it . Gary Purser : I guess that ' s what I meant . . . - rill"..."-- — Commission Meeting — , 1989 - Page 18 Johnson : The other thing too is the parking . You need to . . .deed '�fj0 rictions , . . . • 9 — ry Purser : Going back again on the deed restrictions . . . ,onrad : . . .Commission is kind of wasting our time and Steve, as you said, — de won' t know until we see something . Yet on the other hand , what the offer is . . .what we would get out of a PUD is we allowed a smaller lot , we would get individual ownership of the property. That ' s the trade off . We — would grant PUD status on property that we thought was going to be apartment buildings anyway so we kind of zoned it thinking we were going to get apartment buildings which it' s not putting the townhouse down. I like that and I like the individual owners but it kind of goes back to a — philosophy, are we getting anything in return? They certainly can hear that . If we' re going to say, well still you' re just not a PUD. Yes , they' ve taken care of impervious and taken care of density and we' ve got a — totlot that ' s here and there ' s 10 more parking spaces . Do we have something that we would say, that ' s a PUD and we got a good trade? We just bought for Chanhassen individual ownership versus one owner . Wildermuth: That' s something but I think the PUD is something you' ve done uniquely with landscaping . Something done uniquely during construction and frankly I haven' t seen that here. — ! - Emmings : I wonder if they should be asking us or if we should be looking at some zoning ordinance amendments along with this . I didn ' t think of — this business of getting individual ownership as an amenity but I get a certain feel to that . . . and when you look at what it says in the PUD, it says . . .encourages creative site planning and subdivisions of high quality. For Chanhassen, this is kind of unique quality. It does have a certain — amount of creati.vity. . . individual ownership . Maybe we should be looking at something to work. . . — Conrad : In the oast City Council ' s had a difference of opinion on what constitutes a PUD. Emmings : The old Council . — Conrad : Is there any valid , and it ' :3 still our choice here but is there a way to get Council feedback other than a aye or nay at this point in — time? I guess the aye and the nay _1 its it off tne table but a tabling doesn' t. Any insights on this , tev; > — Hanson : I thi l .2in . _ .: IV:3 . :;1tai '74 .:o and tnen Dass it with direction . I ::.. .; _ i .:-nror-z .11•: - ' _ . . 3 l =y what I hear you talking about tonight is t:1 .arlc..Dt :;';an :a :' Poa_'.1 to Ch= Preliminary. They' ve asked you to c.onsid, .:o :.1 AnA ::a_ n ••:`:1 .,r_ Irt`d the di scussion . . .concept plan so ... you cau_J -::ss i :..n.• ?pt . _:•1 ..:r'..•.rri i f you wanted to . If you do that, you _ ) AD i ::r t:1 :s :lura As direction as you can and I think ` :he best ..• lv that r : 1 t:1,0r .J1 t1 :1Onro 'aL or denial with specific reasons t- it -ae .._,ni it is with the conditions for approval . . . 111111111 Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1989 - Page 19 Conrad : Is there any way of getting around granting a PUD status unless - we change the zoning ordinance in the R-12 district? Maybe I ' ll say it clearer because I didn' t understand what I just said . I see the PUD as something really kind of special and unique and creative and contrary to — Steve, I don ' t think this is unique and creative. They' re doing something that place can use. It says we want high density there. I would like you to encourage them to come in and taking a few of our comments and changing that. Are we locked out of any other alternatives right now? Meaning are we forced to be granting that PUD based on what we' re seeing tonight? Hanson: I don' t think you can grant smaller lot sizes without it and — that ' s the direction hopefully. . . In order to accomplish the single ownership through the property, owner . The only way I saw that they could do that was through the PUD process . Conrad: Because a zoning ordinance would take too long or why? Hanson : It ' s the only way we have the possibility to reduce that lot Size. Conrad : Unless we change the zoning ordinance right? Hanson: Yes . ' Conrad : Which would take what? Hanson : I would venture to say 3 or 4 months . That ' s going to open up a whole different group of . . . Conrad : Just out of cur_ iousi ty, would you like this to go up to City Council for their input or would you like to take it up there with our concurrence? There ' s a couple strategies . . . .City Council goes along a bunch of what we say. They pay a whole lot of attention to us . They disagree in many cases . They have disagreed in what constitutes a PUD. . .let you know that. Do you have a feeling in terms of what you 'd — like to do? Gary Purser : . . .We obviously would like to . . . By tae time we petition — the City to do the work . . . so if something could be arranged that way. We ourselves think we' ll do whatever it takes in whatever time we have to do. . . Conrad : Do you see us granting this A3 a Pfau status? Headla: No I don ' t . Conrad : Jim, do you see a way to persuade you that this would be a PUD? Wildermuth: Lower density. . . Conrad : Lower density would mean . . . So you ' re not looking for half? They' re not going to take it down to half but you ' re looking for a few less? Brian? Anything that they could do or would you consider nning aCommission Meeting _ pril 19, 1989 - Page 20 something like this as a possible PUD? Anything that would make you think that yes, that' s a PUD? Batzli : I think if they were to . . . Lot 14 and get some more open area that way and decrease the density a little. . . I think parking ' s a problem. I like that they are actually saving all the trees even though it ' s on a — slope. . . Ellson : I can picture it . . . Conrad : Steve, can you get into a situation where you would pass this? Emmings : Yes . — Conrad : And those are . . .what you discussed? Emmings: Yes they are. - — Conrad : . . .you don ' t think the developer could never achieve? Emmings: I would like to see them move this project . . . If Lot 14 doesn ' t have any development . If we lower some density. I don ' t know what can be r moved . . . The only thing that still sticks a little bit with me is the — 3ize of the apartment building . I 'm not sure you can put that big of an apartment building on there and still satisfy the. . . I think I could be convinced . Conrad : I guess you ' ve reard that we haven ' t ruled the PUD out . There are some amenities to the property that I think you could persuade me on. The numbers in certain cases look really great to me. I could go with a PUD. Therefore, I guess what we ' re saying , the consensus would be, other than Dave. Headla : I 'd like to see the portion . . . Conrad: I think that means we should table it and see if city staff can _ muddle through some of the comments that we made. Work with you and see if you can come back with us with a revised site plan. Another concept plan that might encourage us . Batzli moved , Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission table action on PUD #89-1 Concept and Development Plan for Oak View Heights so they can work with city staff . All voted in favor and the motion carried . PUBLIC HEARING: NORTH SIDE PARKING LOT ON PROPERTY ZONED CBD AND LOCATED JUST EAST OF 480 — WEST 78TH STREET, CITY OF CHANHASSEN: _ .j. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL. _ B. SITE PLAN REVIEW. Steve Hanson presented the staff report on this item. 8 n♦♦— Z ^, .i• l- v ops • � a n"I,u` ,- Q I jj II �X A g j-1' W '— a.omi 9 »ie S' ,. I C jr. tom? ': f W ,, Vi f 1 ;ii : z ... Z „m Cl. 3 :S� �;. 1. � C,i a c� i 1 Q l HI.: r I i i -.n� JZ_ �i� +,ia' •S: i O W En a . W Z Z .- m 'sii?": \ 1C } W W `z iia .: z • e. r - =w rss --:ass;.. �`1 i 61. b f v � 1 t v` t • ' M • y �: ,_ �^\ 4 �� '4 '1 W m mm F _ lit .1. . . . . z ! i u.o a ",.._ - ,,,% - _ is _ il - jii , i,„,exN t 11 k s!•I P.ti' ri Ll. \ z L.,_. a 0 io. 1114.mrma -4, i. . q .._; iS ' — "! LIP). 111.14r.40.-'-`‘ fati t.::W ! Ail VO 11-S - . '7 --- la 2 Z .ii 231 Li i LP ni �,` i i 1 Ili �� - r. i+�1 . , ` l r . OP 3.--- a te_ .\ .d -_ r ^'.' lI i C.... ..' ::. ....IJYYY . J..YV UJ r \\ t'''. \ \ '4 4 rem-S _ 46,,104 + 1 - �! �d�rJ �� !..§: �-. S rsa i . 1 ' fi 46: g �er� int i it 1 mea! ] 'eK c a s e1 a 3 , _ - 3 \ , ,, , ,, ., „ 1 leV "I te • 10 1 C - I--- a ` $9 F 4i E, !_! .°_...43 12,4E Sd f.b. �: 1 i \ - ° I , !MO Mi keg U33 ;:224 Y€ li 8 s �i g �} C t ante sd3Mo�t — ------ s ae - -A - i5 a Ll ON •AMH OIV 31VLS ALNI107 - .. mm ..,...".• . - --/ i (z a .1 _ c.r) ii I — LL1 •z' -t - llifOr I t i ..- CD> ... .1-. : ; IF:: •7...2 it: re) cl li 6 np.i E Z F.;,..,a ill :i !,., .1; iltri:31. .... i' 1 ' - 11:-.7:. .... - beg - li I ...„z Ez. _5_55 ..‘„. k,5 D me-i , 1 . z ini. : A :i• . 1 ,.r., ci ,f2--!-;....17.,,: cc g'. -,f.:i (3: C-1.i: 4. 0 LiJ ii 2.-- ,..- (...,, . 0 LI i in P IIII '4 1 -, '' 1" S l'zi L 2 z '..7.itz --.:. a r,3. '71 > .'17C.-. r• -61,-, =.7, :ti: -. r. 1.! - el 6.`ti 5ii: ;'; t-'1:. .•,. 1 1 — 1.4.61.ao. .n r. I -1 A .it wilialhrlairr-\\ .,,,.. .- ..., ,...en a in i 1 \ ''''' '''gi 3,'2°,. - I 4000- k -' . 111111101k111111.111-- .,, • •Ii, • -$. . \. -... . . ;„,t.... \s„ N diamilidlia- t-,'s 8'er-' \\\ 00100 _____----- _ - s • --"---114, ___- \\,? t., ‘,\,;\ - to 40 ,- • il \\,,,• 0\, ...- 0 -- " .. , .. .4 - . 0\161 \ II te \ 1 11611110111111111 - 40.• . v., o..;,,• _ . , 1.- _ i.i.I 23/ I 1 i I -,\ 0 ' •I 4: i . _ 41 .:,..... 1 1 I I' I 1111111+1114. L.L.i . 11 If AO I i - i • > . , ... . . - , i - ..... \ • \5 It: — MI—MISIS I \ 1 1 . E. :.- , . If 1 \ ....),;„, „., t , ‘ ' .. bi..4-?„ . , _ u z \ 0.,.. \ 1,,,,,,,,,, ( i, . IIOIIIII \ \.,,----.„.1.,,,,,:,j -31 \ . •V1 v. 1 I .. arI \ ... '‘ 1. 1 I I ‘.. ) SIN 4111 , I - 1 ....... ,,..,, .....„. t . . 1 ' 1 \ 1_0„... 1 • i — 1 I \r., t, \ i I 1 Pt; \ % 1 I ;IF 1 I 1 1 ,\\\ \, I _ \ i 1 i \ i 1 1 0' _,. I i 1 ;1 I I I I _,., 1 01 1 I t.: ---+ —-,JO I- !i- 1 I -. 1 — --.11:-.4--.11-fr.i7::.:T: --;''"--_____r,____:\...c. ,14._ . I 2 7...............,.)4 i f'l 66 al.1.43.t1goi I 9 _ 3 I CIA18 Sti3mOd 1 LION 'AMH Olvi Avis AiNnoo 2 ”--- ii .••• mom i1i • PE 50E 3.ES.6Z.001 ., .,.4, th _ _. . 6 ..... I. , ,, (..) Z al >u w 4,\ J) o al&L e h1 ? \\%<\ Wei- _ . 1 _ I, - 0 :, 7-_, - 0 6 _ () 6.1 6- ''- i '' 4° - c->'.‘ \ 5 6 6 4 la 77.. . (it. Irdatli Ili (11 , ti 0 1 INIIP4IFT 0 r- - tnEn e AL ' r .9, .. n dt. ..: w k; . 17:- �j .� \\ 1 fJ s \ 1 � \ ray A r: IPA ve — W 4L n \ o , , ` 1 v Z — 4 I d ' 1 \Ili11 n 4 .,4 `1--' ,,,c° li sci I i _ , - d) liJ LL. `9 5Jo r.Qt — i - 1 - '�ITAT't Ogles 8_` C / 7 ~ c,,.y�19.f1i�1 owl)q !! EB LEL 3dE,LE.0O1 ( '0A18 SH3MOd) Li 'ON 'AMH 01V 31YIS A1Nf103 I — — 1. . "(II., C I TY O F P.C. DATE: April 19 , 1989 �r`'Gs n© C.C. DATE: May 8 , 1989 . — E oL1 CIu n 00 I �` CASE NO: 89-1 PUD 88-15 Site Plan — Prepared by: Olsen/v STAFF REPORT - PROPOSAL: A. Planned Unit Development Concept and Development Plan L for 140 Individually Owned Townhome Units B. Wetland Alteration Permit for Construction of a L 1.1 Holding Pond and Stormwater Discharge into a Class B Wetland • C. Site Plan Review for 140 Individually Owned Townhome Units n LOCATION: Between Kerber and Powers Boulevard, Approximately LnZ Mile North of west 78th Street — APPLICANT: Cenvesco Hedlund Engineering 3650 Annapolis Lane 9201 E. Bloomington Frwy. — Plymouth, MN 55441 Bloomington, MN 55420 PRESENT ZONING: R-12, High Density Residential ACREAGE: 18. 9 acres (gross) 17. 6 acres (net) DENSITY: 7. 7 units/acre (net) — ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- RSF; Saddlebrook S- BG; vacant — E- R-12; townhomes Q W- R-12; vacant W WATER AND SEWER: Water and sewer is available to site. PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site has steep slopes on the north and (n west side of the property. It contains a — Class B Wetland and has heavily vegetated areas. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: High Density i • v-ti_ '+ 1 �\ rV /!0.!i-�`I� •, • . \'.) 1 ; .! jCi..• LIE Tir7fe;.41 -.-'h,t I. • P1,..xas . 4.1 , r. ,,cD :c\ 47'71 " I C/ I A � �',I/. - , 1 1 gs• ‘ i-.1V4_-:‘,,t= fe • . 1 .. \ \..7s-• _ _ D �; ri —��� � uta 1 _ c. A • ►'"' ;:4 le r_, - . c..._)-i_y, fir if Ar,i a.e3 ...... c . • ...... a : .01 lug sm.--w;.,anr"---,..4."471gz.r.' -F17-A, ,t. t'ip\UD--R ..: -__. , ,ITic....%, .„4.! , V - - - \ IF 1 I1 —► ,ti ,--_-_,\ ._.• - \\„ek.‘41k.72,..__ , , A x i , ,,, ('-': 7-7 A / I I , -_ _______• :_., , i , .__., ,,„.. _ . r . ,_._.. , li .. . - - 41 i• . ''' 4 —11,...,....a.mm....e. . , ir;...,..%...._,...,7—..,11,16641,r,-..—_,\. .77,-, ca21322151=111111617.11......117 i ! • N. y - i . . .7-*:•,_...., -"`""f -.1.1 f•• E..1._„....00"....kr ! ..i.,,,IL___. y)// 1 `r 11LL._ , •�`� • mime 06.4,-NI Ei,Jj..t �_i ' 1 C Li- l= • `T� HP.Oil- 74 '--..nLI - •1! n': •'74 RD I LT F. 1 . / i "TT 'YFIg� T1ItM ST,'-"T PARK _ r1 I (/---4 !i.p. C ZT t j 4114 ()WYE ,O L.� 1 ti ' ' I ; ' I --•- std rJ 1 z. .i i i :T - 5 - -•mac �/, , GW �, i)•• I 2 g \ \ rE IGNW Al 1/04 -die 7:1017.7. 1...._ met-) Q:I CD � --- ..,,,:-.57,, -- \s t —7/ V- f: c,t, • 1,v4•6--•-�— IF. IL ' Oak View Heights — April 19 , 1989 Page 2 • APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Section 20-504 ( c) PUD - for uses other than single family — detached structures , conditioned upon the following features being provided: 1. Preservation of natural site features , wetlands , lowlands, wooded areas , etc. not protected by the State Department of Natural Resources or city ordinances. _ 2 . Creation of Public areas for active park use or other public purposes such as schools, park buildings, etc. , which meet the intent of the Park and Recreation Chapter of the — Comprehensive Plan. 3 . Installation of public improvements designed to serve areas — beyond the project boundary. 4 . Installation of off street pedestrian ways . 5 . Structure design conducive to solar energy features. 6 . Landscaping plan showing additional boulevard trees , rear yard treatments , buffers from existing develooments, etc. beyond the required standards. Section 20-513- allows the aopiicant to apply for the concent stage and the development stage of the PUD process simultaneously. Article XV, R-12 Districts requires a townhouse unit to have a — minimum of 3 ,600 square fees ?er unit and a minimum street fron- tage of 150 feet per lot (Attachment #1) . REFERRAL AGENCIES City Engineer Attachment 42 — Public Safety Attachment 43 Park and Recreation Attachment 44 Watershed District Attachment 45 — Carver County Attachment #6 Building Department Attachment #7 Oak View Heights April 13, 1939 Page 3 CONCEPT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SITE PLAN The applicant is proposing to construct 140 individually owned townhome units . The proposed site contains 18 . 93 acres and is currently zoned R-12. Since the townhomes will be individually owned, each unit will have to have its own lot. Therefore, the applicant is proposing to subdivide the 18 . 93 acres into 140 lots with the remaining site being proposed as Outlot A and B, Lot 1, — Block 13, Lot 1 , Block 14 and public right-of-way. The indivi- dual townhome lots range in size from 1 , 200 square feet to 2 ,000 square feet. Since the proposed lot areas are smaller than the required 3 , 600 square feet per townhouse unit, the applicant must receive PUD designation to allow the smaller lot areas . The applicant is requesting PUD concept and development plan approval simultaneously as permitted in the ordinance. Site Characteristics The site currently contains mature vegetation on the easterly, northerly and northwesterly edge of the property. Also in those areas are steep slopes exceeding 15% and a Class B wetland located in the northwest portion of the site. Pr000sed Development The applicant is proposing the individual townhome lots to be located in 12 blocks that range from 10 to 16 lots . Six of the blocks will be located north of Jenny Lane and six blocks will oe located south of Jenny Lane. Seventy-two of the townhomes will be located north of Jenny Lane and the remaining 68 units will oe located south of Jenny Lane. Outlot A will contain the common open space around the townhome parcels north of Jenny Lane and Outlot B will contain the common open space around the townhomes south of Jenny Lane. Lot 1 , Block 13 is provided for a future apartment building and Lot 1 , Block 14 is also provided for future development. Density The total acreage for the site including right-of-way is 13. 9 acres . The net density removing the right-of-way of Jenny Lane is 17. 6 acres. The net density of the parcel using 17. 6 acres is 7 . 7 units per acre. Seventy-two of the townhome lots are located within Outlot A. The total acreage of the 72 lots and Outlot A equals 5 . 6 acres. The net density of the 72 units north of Jenny Lane, just using Outlot A as the boundary would be 12. 8 units per acre. The remaining 68 townhome lots which are located south of Jenny Lane and within Outlot B have a total acreage of 5 . 2 with a net density of 13 units per acre. Since Lot 1 , Block 13 and Lot 1 , Block 14 are separate parcels which can be developed in the future, the number that actually reflects the density of the Pro- posed townhomes is the 12. 8 and 13 units per acre. Oak View Heights April 19 , 1989 Page 4 As the site is currently zoned ( R-12) , the density would not be — able to exceed 12 units per acre. Since the applicant is pursuing a planned unit development, the city may permit an increase in density in exchange for the applicant exceeding the — minimum requirements of the ordinance. Impervious Surface As with the density calculations, staff calculated the impervious surface by taking the total acreage of the two outlots and the total of the townhome area divided by the total area of the — impervious surface within those areas . The total acreage including the outlots and townhome parcels equals 10. 77 acres. The total acreage of the . impervious surface equals 5 . 32 acres for a total of 50% of impervious surface. The R-12 district permits a maximum impervious surface of 35%. In calculating the lot coverage, staff did not include Lot 1 , , Block 13 and Lot 1, Block 14 , since they will be separate oarcels with the potential to be developed in the future. Again , since the applicant is pursuing a planned unit development — designation, the amount of lot coverage could be negotiated between the applicant and the city. Setbacks The PUD ordinance does not specify setbacks for either single family or multiple family developments . On sheet 5 of the plans the applicant has shown the typical setbacks of the R-12 District which is 25 foot front and rear setback and 10 foot side yard setback. All of the proposed buildings are within the — required setback. There is one area where the driveway and parking areas are within the 25 ' setback ( northeast corner - Sheet #5 ) . As part of the PUD approval, the Planning Commission and City Council , can determine whether or not the setbacks being — provided by the applicant are adequate. The City has been con- sistent in requiring the typical setbacks to be maintained. Streets , Utilities , Etc . The townhome parcels will be serviced by a 50 foot public street _ right-of-way (Jenny Lane) . Jenny Lane will connect the site with Powers Boulevard ( CR 17 ) and Kerber Boulevard. Individual clocks and units will then be serviced by private drives from Jenny Lane. The 24 foot private drive servicing the 72 units north of — Jenny Lane will also act as a fire lane. The Fire Inspector has reviewed the proposed private drives and has confirmed that they will provide adequate access for fire and emergency situations — ( Attachment # 3 ) . The applicant will provide a homeowners assoca- tion document which will provide ingress and egress across the association common area. Oak View Heights April 19 , 1989 Page 3 The City Engineer will further address streets, utilities , grading and drainage in his memo ( Attachment #2) . Landscaping Sheet #2 of the plans show the existing conditions and provide the location of the existing trees with the caliper size of each tree. As can be seen, there are several existing mature oak trees . The oak trees are located such that they are right in the middle of the proposed improvements and the applicant was only able to save two of the oak trees ( see Sheet #6 ) . Sheet #6 of the plans shows the landscaping of the site. The applicant is providing extensive landscaping along Jenny Lane and around the proposed townhomes. The applicant is providing several Red Oak and Maple to replace some of the trees that are being removed as part of the development. Although the proposed landscaping is extensive, staff is recom- mending that additional landscaping be provided to further replace the trees that are being removed and to provide landscaping over and above what would typically be required. Staff is recommending that the applicant work with the DNR Forester and staff to determine what additional landscaping should be provided and where they should be provided. The applicant has provided a drainage easement around the •.wetland which includes a 75 foot setback from the edge of the wetland ( see Sheet #3 ) . . Staff usually picks a contour to follow so it is easier to locate the boundary. The 75 foot setback is approxima- - tely where the 960 foot contour is ( see Sheet 44 ) . As can be seen on Sheet #4 the 960 foot contour would not include a majority of the vegetation which should also be preserved. Therefore, staff is recommending that the 980 foot contour reflect the conservation easement and that it be further con- ditioned that the complete stand of trees be protected. It — should be noted that proposed grading will impact the northeast corner of the vegetated area and that the conservation easement of 980 feet should reflect the finished grade. — Parking The applicant is providing two parking spaces per unit. The interior townhome units will provide a single car garage with one parking space outside and the end units will provide a double car garage with two parking spaces outside of the garage ( see Sheet #6 ) for detail) . The applicant is providing a total of 188 enclosed, 188 overflow ( outside garage) and 14 visitor spaces. (The total number of spaces shown on the plans include future parking. ) The 376 townhome parking soaces exceeds required parking but staff feels 14 visitor parking spaces may not be enough. One option would be to provide some of the future parking at this time. Oak View Heights — April 19 , 1989 Page 6 Park and Recreation The applicant is providing a tot lot with park Play equipment ( see Sheet #4 ) . The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the plan and recommended the following: 1 . The developer shall be required to install playground equip- ment similar to that attached as part of the Park and Recreation Memo dated April 13, 1989 and the tot lot be — located in an area a safe distance from vehicular traffic. 2. The 20 foot wide easement be dedicated along Powers Boulevard _ and an d foot wide bituminous trail be constructed within that easement. 3 . An additional 10 feet of right-of-:way be dedicated along Jenny Lane and a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk be constructed within such. 4 . The applicant shall be required to pay 100% of the park dedi- cation fee and shall be given 100% credit on the trail dedi- cation fee. PUD SUMMARY In order for the applicant to receive the PUD designation, they — ;aust meet the criteria as stated under Applicable Regulations. The additional amenities required for a PUD can be provided in the form of trails , park facilities , additional landscaping, pre- servation of unique features and open space. As the preliminary plat is proposed, the two large lots , Loc 1 , Block 13 and Lot 1 , Block 14 will be separate parcels which could be sold and developed individually iz the future. Since the lots could be developed in the future, staff is not including that acreage into the total lot coverage and density for the proposed townhome units. As a result of this , the density is over the normally permitted 12 units per acre and the impervious surface is above the permitted 35% lot coverage. To compare what would have been permitted under the ordinance with what is being pro- posed, staff took the total amount of acreage of the outlots and townhome lots , which is 10 . 77 acres, and divided that by 3 , 600 feet, which is what is required by the ordinance for each — cownhome unit. The result is that 130 units •would be permitted on the 10 . 77 acres. The applicant is proposing 140 units which results in an increase in impervious surface and density. — The PUD process allows the applicant to negotiate with the city to receive over and above what is normally permitted in return for additional amenities to the site. As has been seen with past — PUD ' s proposed in the city, it is sometimes difficult for the Oak View Heights April 19, 1989 Page 7 applicant to Provide additional amenities over what is required by the ordinance. Any wetlands that are on the site are already protected by the city, the ordinance already requires the protec- tion of vegetation and if any is removed they must be replaced as part of the landscaping plan. The Park and Recreation Commission requires any trails and park areas that they feel are necessary. The applicant is proposing to develop a tot lot with playground equipment proposed by the Park and Rec Commission. The offering to provide the tot lot equipment could be considered an amenity over and above what would have typically been re nce the area is not determined to be park deficient. One uofethelreasons for a PUD is to preserve unique features of the site. The site of the townhomes in Block 8 and 9 contain very large mature oak trees . When staff visited the site with the DNR Forester, it was felt that there would be no way for these trees to be preserved since they were in the middle of the prime buildable area of the site. As can be seen by the site plan, only two of the eleven mature trees can be preserved. Even though the applicant is providing soma additional amenities , staff Eeels that lot coverage must still be maintained. One of the options that the aoplicant has to reduce the high density and impervious surface would be to remove one of the blocks of townhomes , preferrably in the location of where the oak trees are located, and preserve that area as open space. This would result in the reduction of the number units and lot coverage, provide additional open space while preserving unique features of :he site. Another option would be for the applicant to shift the lot lines and increase the area of Outlots A and B to reduce the amount of — lot coverage and density. This could be done in the form of adjusting the lot lines for Lot 1, Blocks 13 and 14 or to remove Lot 1 , Block 14 completely. If Lot 1 , Block 14 was combined with Outlot B, the density of this area would be reduced to 11. 9 .,:nits per acre, but the impervious surface would still be 45% . A third option would be to combine Lot 1 , Block 14 with Outlot B and to provide deed restrictions against Lot 1, Block 13 which would limit the amount of units and lot coverage that would be permitted on Lot 1 , Block 13 . If the total net acreage of the site is used ( 17. 6 acres ) , and the total units proposed are used ( 220 [ 140 townhomes plus 80 apartment units] ) the net density would still oe 12. 5 units Per acre. Taking the net acreage of the whole site and including the future 80 unit aoartment building, the total lot coverage would be 33%. For the site to maintain the maximum of 35% lot coverage, the remaining area ( including Lot 1 , Block 14 ) would only be permitted to increase the lot coverage by 2%. As a result, less than 16 , 000 of addi- tional land could be developed which reinforces the benefit of combining Lot L, Block 14 with Outlot B. Oak View Heights — April 19 , 1989 Page 8 RECOMMENDATION PUD Concept and Development Plan Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: — "The Planning Commission recommends approval of PUD #89-1 Concept and Development Plan for Oak View Heights as shown on the plan — stamped "Received March 30, 1989" with the following conditions : 1 .a.The number of townhome lots be reduced within Outlot A and/or _ B to reduce the percentage of lot coverage and that the reduction in townhome parcels be located so as to preserve the mature trees located in and around Blocks 8 and 9 ; and/or 1 .b. The applicant shall adjust the lot lines for Lot 1 , Block 13 and/or Lot 1, Block 14 to provide the townhome units including Outlots A and B with a maximum impervious surface _ of 35% ; and/or 1.c The applicant shall provide deed restrictions against Lot 1 , Block 13 , Lot 1 , Block 14 to maintain an overall lot coverage -" of 35% and a density to be determined by the city. 2 . A drainage and conservation easement shall be provided over the 980 foot contour on Lot 1, Block 13. 3 . The developer shall be required to install playground equip- ment similar to that attached as part of the Park and Recreation Memo dated April 13 , 1989 and the tot lot be located in an area a safe distance from vehicular traffic. 4 . The 20 foot wide easement be dedicated along Powers Boulevard and an 3 foot wide bituminous trail be constructed within that easement. 5. An additional LO feet of right-of-way be dedicated along Jenny Lane and a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk be constructed within such. — 6 . The applicant shall be required to pay 100% of the park dedi- cation fee and shall be given 100% credit on the trail dedi- — cation fee. 7 . The applicant shall work with staff and DNR to provide addi- _ tional landscaping to replace the trees being removed. 8 . Approval of the Wetland Alteration Permit #88-14 and approval of Site Plan Review #88-15. — Oalc Viaw Heights April 19, 1989 Page 9 9 . The .applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper installation of these public improvements. 10. The developer shall dedicate the utilities within Jenny Lane right-of-way and fire lane easement areas to the City for permenant ownershio. The remaining building utilities will be privately owned and maintained. 11. Appropriate utility easements shall be provided over all public facilities . 12. The City Council should authorize a feasibility study to be done to facilitate the extension of Jenny Lane to Kerber Boulevard. 13 . All buildings, parking and driveway areas shall meet the R-12 setbacks . 14 . All conditions of site plan approval . t12. RECOMIMENDATION Site Plan Review "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review #15 as shown on the plan stamped "Received March 30 , 1989" and subject to the following conditions : 1 . The applicant must receive a :watershed District permit and a permit shall be required from Carver County for access onto County Road 17. 2 . The apartment building proposal shall require a separate site plan approval. 3. Detailed construction plans and specifications including cicuiations for sizing for the roadway and utility improve- - ments shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer. As-built mylar plans will also be required upon coroletion of the construction. 4 . A wet tap connection will be required to the 12" watertlain under County Road 17. 3. The parking needs and peak demands site shall be reviewed and supplemental parking area( s ) provided. 6 . The 24 foot private roadway through the north portion of the site shall be designated as .a fire lane and post for No Parting accordingly. Oak View Heights April 19 , 1989 — Page 13 7 . Type III erosion control shall be wrapped and maintained — around the entire site. Erosion control blankets shall be utilized on all disturbed slopes of 3 : 1 or greater. 8 . All conditions of preliminary plat approval . WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT As part of the site plan review and the development of the site, the applicant must provide for the stormwater runoff from the site. Initially, it was proposed to have the stormwater directed — through a disapation chamber and then into the Class B wetland in the northwest section of the property. Staff preferred to have a ponding area provided to allow for the sedimentation of the _ stormwater prior to it entering the Class B wetland. This option was preferred over the chamber in that it would better Preserve the quality of the wetland. Therefore, the applicant must receive a wetland alteration permit to provide for the holding pond at the southerly edge of the Class B wetland. Staff has visited the site twice with the Fish and Wildlife — Service and it has been determined that the Class B wetland would not be detrimentally impacted by the holding pond and by directing the stormwater into the Class B wetland. The proposed holding pond would prevent erosion of the wetland and would allow — the sediment of silt, etc. prior to it entering the wetland. The Engineering Department and the Watershed District has confirmed that the size of the holding pond is adequate to contain all of the runoff prior to it entering the wetland. The proposed holding pond will be altering the most southerly tip _ of the Class B wetland and the remaining portion of the wetland will remain in its natural state. Since the holding pond is not totally within the Class B wetland and needs to be designed to a certain contour to enable it to contain the stormwater prior to - it entering the wetland, staff is not recommending that the holding pond be designed to the six Fish and Wildlife recommen- dations . Staff is recommending that the vegetation around the holding pond be returned to its natural state and not be sod or seeded with grass. RECOMMENDATION — Staff is recommending approval of the Wetland Alteration Permit #88-15 as shown Sheet 4 of the Planning Packet dated "March 30 , — 1989" with the following conditions : 1. Vegetation around ponding site and disturbed areas be returned to its natural state. 2 . The wetland area beyond the proposed pond shall be protected by Type III erosion control . — Oak View Heights April 19, 1989 Page 11 3 . Approval of PUD concept and development plan #89-1 . 4 . Approval of Site Plan #88-14 . ATTACHMENTS 1 . Zoning Requirements . 2 . Memo from City Engineer dated April 12 , 1989. 3 . Memo from Fire Inspector dated April 13 , 1989. 4 . Memo from Park and Recreation Coordinator dated April 13 , 1989 . 5 . Letter from Watershed District dated April 12, 1989. 6 . Letter from Carver County dated March 20, 1989. 7 . Memo from Building Department dated April 13 , 1989 . 8 . Letter from DNR dated March 28, 1989. _ 9 . Letter from Hedlund Engineering dated March 28 , 1989. 10. Letter to Hedlund Engineering dated March 20, 1989. 11. Plan Reductions. CHYOF 17J t k uszx Lid 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Gary Warren, City Engineer _ DATE: April 12, 1989 SUBJ: Preliminary Plat and Site Plan Review for Oak View Heights File No. 39-1 Land Use Review The site is located on the west side of County Road 17 approximately one-half mile north of Trunk Highway 5. This 18. 9 acre site is comprised of a rolling topography with mature _ vegetation scattered throughout the site. This parcel was platted as part of the West Village Heights plat which was approved by the City Council on April 20 , 198d . Sanitary Sewer Municipal sanitary sewer service is a ..ailaol` to the site on the east and :west. These existing sewer .rains ware sized and installed to service the anticipated development Zor 'Lhe suoject parcel . Appropriate utility easements shall be provided on the plat over all public utilities . A common sewer and water '�:ility corridor is proposed for each building Alex. Watermain The plans propose a looped watermain system to be constructed from the existing 12-inch main along County Road 17 to the existing 8-inch watermain that has been provided at the easterly property line by the West Village Heights Townho:les development. The watermain will need to be jacked under County Road 17 and a wet tap connection made to the City' s 12" main. A county permit will need to be obtained by the applicant. The City shall provide public service for sanitary sewer and watermain within the right-of-way of Jenny Lane and the fire lane easement respectively. The sanitary sewer and water service to _ the buildings are in a common utility corridor ( see typical building detail) which will be maintained privately by the developer. The applicant will need to verify and document sizing for the watermain with submittal of the plan and specification. e r •• Z 7 I z C — > j '^ — F- y - � 7 �� WI•_• I 2 z¢ WN t_ r It : " -D LLYI 1 I . ce JLI til z cn =go. !Lori 3 Qe ., •9: U, 0 ��� act Wry / •r 1.1 _ I I Iylf �Oh" Z I �4 _IMI Wm a? ='m/ r !'i - t I I Il i I W 7 ,�f /4 -- : I O din ¢ o=m € 531 , Zil k U ?, V I U Jorti m OW i'mZ_ .><= 4; 1 3zx ^ to q ZW( °� Z.'4." ri1� • A3 1� '• r l 1 Q oW 4 OU' WZW ••-. W t Lis 3i• 0� N 9 i� W1"�' ¢ w � _ a Wz .0. iii.r � i tp L .... ^�ed — , O r I 6 U AEI 4 =W P�'n \_r:i: S `t C' _ \ 11111 _ `_\ LI1 S. AO . : LC Ti ` 1 1 1 Z \ lri y/ 1 1 �% O L - I--46 /� \ 1 � , Qom/ 1 I -t N 6 61 1 / F" (L, I z u 1 1 , I ; p 1, i t \I z +'�' " 44 C I.., . . \if._ 0 • I; 1 - 1. 1 1 1I 1 p. 1 ( I i ) 1 W \ r i 1' r') •• :Noa ---' \Ii\ '"' j,."":3,..:-\ ("t)'---0-- o ', , , ' 1 '- LI W )6 r v`�� �IP°,,11_ atl. ' ! • • 1 j / j • I..,_ Pr ( 1 (. 2 t• '1 2-71_; �•VJJ ._r---r\ \` '`\\ I % . 3 /T i fn ll l I N \ ,1 \ I ) 1..ct,, t ' _ F / - 0 \ Od '-0,'1 `��if,// i -1++jNN --t,lnnliPNlw,SGI -,0 1 / /T7 oN I r C. l 1 1 Q•m- + I lM �� ti::. , 1111 WI 0 a \ IH_ \ 11 • V \ 1. , ( ...J 1 • 1\1 � � v • 'I• _-•- Z 1 - I , \,, ,„ ,k.„:).,...,... — nl. z i I \ � `• 1111__ , \ / IS/1N in.'s, — s \ 1 "� �J Q 8 �l o - _t9:::::".-7.---.._-( 1. .,:-:,......). ' ; ,.' - 0 / . ,,,p ' Lie P 6. 6. � � \. ail( , ul \ \ `N 11 i / I .1 1t 71i i '"'‘-=>--"6rION:\•:\4,‘ ---- z [1-L - "�_ - __ .` .':_:�. 1\ \ \\. _ _ . f. . _ _ 0 _ - `__ .. ' � r` ..� 4'14-1c) _--N. •� == _- .-_.-Y_ '��.. -111161 -- T• • _ -.7 ' 4 `a-------- • ( "CIA 1O SIJ3MOd) LI 'ON 'AMH 01 V 31VIS AINIIOJ g • z c — h• Z w > I- O CD> W= ! — Z Q r a F` LU Z III . �t I . z ��m t t)3 _ ! a O z., a- a:'m • err. 11::j 0 U i 1 0 g:_ m ow Ui C In zw �+ c �` a" W w =� w nz C =yz = it > il▪ -21 \I ; W wZ ocr r�J a3 .w� • I Lri I ; /a 01 01 01 \ \1 ' 1 .. . _ , / 11 \ • , I I I I / r / J \ ♦ 1 \ `\��� - \• I 1 1 1 i I / / 1 `, ' `• \. 1 I 1 ' �.i _ — �' N t `` l>> 1 II Ii1' I 1 I l ♦ \'` \ I I I I > 1 / / ' ' ' _ 1 1 I I ' t / I I ' / V1 µ I � -'74 i - 1• i it f 1 1 — / a r r J , / l II �YI't1 1 / / / �... 1 r I i / 'l l ; I .5- 1 i / / 1 I 1 1 / l I 4 1 I 3 / //' -' ,;''' ... ,-(.4/ /' 1 'I 1 \ t/ ,' / t / :II ` ' 3t /',• / / r ! �'' / i ( '� 111 I/..-" __ ji, = •.d▪ 14 ' ,'v-( l ' I �. 1. ; '` ' L tI , i / �II III '"�;II'I�I! ' -_---- .SWI -I ,-------,... ..\\\\\\\\\�\ 1 I 1 \rr'= " -1/ / /i l ill ll'!I Ili:lll 1,- — • • 1 1 V-' villa1 111 1 , �' \ \ \1 1 1 r r 01 / I _8111' 1,11 II ; Yi ft....� 1 "� 1P`\, `j 1 1 ) ,',/ �r ( I N `'-' /r // /-\i i1 Ij1Ip IIf11 I I 1 / i111' 1111 I I I`yr -- '.\ ' I `I / 1 , / ! O I"`' „-- 1/ // I �\ �1 �,1,I1j1' �1 1 . 1 l O Arl* - '--� ` '�J •i)moi/ ! ! i I ao 11 ' l :: �!!!J/ 1I' 11111 1, 1 I1I• • ( "'2; 11 1 1 - 1, !/ / / , �' a .i\ I '101'11111i" I l 11 1 1111 11 ,.7 ' . -4 - _--'►`\`I,,'• 1 �' I; 1 , , I %\I 1 I I ` 1iil ljlllll; '/,,,1. _%z\1 11 \`\ ' 1 ......,'-/.1IJ11111111 11 I•__. - -P�.' _;\1L.e \ \ \ , I Q----0 \\ C - 1 / /A 11i1 111., II, t�•rY \ I \t‘... 1 \,..:•\‘‘ \ \\' 1 \ \_ ) / i ! l i l i Ills I , `...• •- .\. - .tom / / . , 111 11 IIII - # -14\ U \\\� `p••^ �I\\ `�I, 1\ ` ___-'1'/ I ' II'PI 11i11 Ill --' �\ '. '\ \ \ / _-1i , /I , IIII 1 Ili .1 _:_ I \ \.� \\ r I\ \1/4,:::::::::,......_7.1.......---- / ' / , 1 111111 I II \�....„....:\,-..., \\\`\\\�\a1 I'. \. I \ � 1 / 1 1:11,1,11:1:11.::11: 1 11 I 1 - — '✓ \ ��\ \\\\\ \\ 1„ \. ♦`\ - / // �/ - 11!1111'11 1:1111.111,1 II .-- _, 1,.... \..\`\\'\1111 \,. E \\`� _ r :......:...:11,/,1 / . • 'v I �IIII11111111 .ti • . \ \\ \ \ \ I\\-, ;. -,.....:-.1:-.2.1-..,-----.....„0,--:::::-__-_*:::-- 1` �' '' 11111111 IIII \ \ \\ ` - - - - --I I' i I 11;111 111, \A -- \ \\111 i\\S\\'\\ •\\` �� :`_� i '/�/ i ;�11I'1'1 I'I I q `A•\ ‘‘‘‘I`\ \1\\\\\♦ • _.�- \ J /r 1111 11' ii11I \ ,`\\\ '\\,,,v,\\.'a`• `=�1 .z` _▪_„:_z____,..._,____,'��', '.,'��,,,,,�I�(IIII -'IiF 1\\\\\\\\\\ �� `_ - �`` ``.; / ''l1�/./ 2.'ti tl1 1111 I , o ` \ \\\\\\„\\ \�1` ,.- _\-_�`. `, /� /' i -• X11111 IIII I \\ \\‘ ',,.\‘‘`:•1= ------ \ \\ �_ _ - ','�/\ 1.:111,',', ill III I II =a �\ \\\\\.moi - �\ ;\� _`� ,/ / Yii'� ; 11111; 11�I o f — • \ \•\.. - ----- ▪�•�s.`' ` . . ! ; 1it'll •• C\ \ \` -��' �`:: ”. \... ♦�..i 4-• // :.(11.11 III 11 .`� n \ \ \ ci\♦ ♦ ,\ , r r I it I 111 I i \\�\ ▪ ��^��� �\��\�\\ � !, lli r�-'�u' II'� og �_ \ �_ \4'.,\ \I' %''-.1:1.;:::::::...<:::::--------- • 1 x,11 _ _ `-'_ .t---=.7'.- .-.7=--......---'7-- _ �_-V-. to \` ----_ - I I 1 _ -� �� _ ...._---_-_:- =-.z.-_-.-.14-te =� '\c _- - ------_•T=- I _..., --- �( nnl9 Stl3HOd] � ,__ten r, = L1 ON AMH al 31V1S ALNfIQ� • 1. 4 - I — — II 1\ -,J/111( . __.3 L ' iL- Ali / . , ---,--„, .. r. li ,--, 1-7- ,Cii i-� it is , 3 \ o I I/ j —{^'! s 1 �� n . � ':// 1• .1 ll a /�- `ti\ �� t 0o iv I - 1 T` , r It" ����c �_. r 1 t1 i -nzz-, 1 ‘Pp' f. lii.: ' _- - 11 tO — .,7.-,,' (..........:::‘, 'li ill 11 IjBJpr l T ji 14A,e, t \ = • _ i __Na....__ _ mil i p = s z o Z0 Occ<J1 - 5.0 [r O .C.;oN _N T. R OnS„x r t_ -•x�°�°z s o°-n 'o' `°ten co a" _ 33 :- sp � < v _ 61 L-. -:° o Na. >< rN •c crt."E."!-C " ev ). _ O •• .. N P^>� -oma _ '''':ng wM.Zrw� 0� w0;o�P N a W n n OOO9p>i NCQ ;It' > rnpm tel '^ r 3,4 >s a . ± z iooii ni 0Poo r en .1. i o 00 o s. — CI x C 22, _ j S N . . • O w `e Ci p —1 1. sr " ir.. 2 - Z o m ...a. lb Mil F. ma o x o ''''i!,. . z E. D .CO IID 9 N __ . PN NIi�p.O. WN •- _ °SVD MDPT N N. .WW000 +ON �.WN �101i Z N w -0� .. ..N... m Nm. NYiv WP .SF i:' .O p°O� N = P. .00-ON C "W ON .O NNNN 000 00 000000 > ��� •NNN NN 23 Z ` n •••,1_ wT wwwwww l env rNNWNW zNON bw WAi.Wv00 •.IOP PN " p - AAA Y> PIA 111 n n I>•l>in - • C+ s-7 aoc Zn c_',i.n • m E i itt 1=f G.)p v Na mo m =xa o •illNio Z r WAG rrJ - Pm aZ N n m -c z G7 fl• ' .• -- tet I • e _ COUNTY_STAlE AID HWY. NO. 17 I•: _ _ _ • (POWERS BLY�f • ` 11j 1 r;c-_- f•-- es • ,V, ',Qt1 i'I - , .•,La...n.I7t1 7t..---:.---..-:-:-=-14--•1 mac_ • \ I : 1, :. . 4 \ --� — , 1 .41 '‘.\\OsA.-5-1 :''- . s.. -----, • 11111 Ir� '. ••, \t�::\� _= ,;,IIIII:i 1111• 1 , • ` . , =� -_ �;\ \\ — 11111 111;( ..',1,! \ ' ~\``� `��- _ `•\\\\\ \ Ijiff 'I, .r r ` ' �,� ,___``. \�\ \\ 1 z, i _ • 1111 ,.. r . , \t • �� `` ♦\♦♦\\ .\\\ \\\`\\ l 111 ,:,..1 J \r' In • i 1::;----`\�-`_ _` -----'-',:. \0\I\\`\\l\ \ T_1,-., � 1 w 11 Ali •L. -_Z```\ . `\, ,\\ .`\1\ \\\ \ `_ e lip yi0 ; 'w ro`,,=:;\�. `\ •11`‘\ I,\\ \\\ t I 1 11111 1,, b,,'Alt --- c 1. �``4C: \\�‘ \\1� 1\\\�\`. . 411 a1 A� ............• -\ : .,\\;,\`I�\ \♦\ \ 1111 1n. : � � `..--.-Z1:5.,‘ �`� \\1 \\\ \ \ 4t 111, ;:;:;4:1 �� •k�J����� \�� 'h•\ \�\`\ \ I�\�\ ♦ \\\\\`� t II' 1 771 ---elk I , .0.: , \ , s ,. `,\ ‘‘.`,‘•‘‘ ,Z... \ \ ` Z 111'iv 11ti t`.�` // `'� N\�•\\I \1 •t\ •\` ``\\\ \\ JI.P1;11 :. ..00111114a01114 s1 ,,,,.....\\:, ,,,,;.,,,,,,' ' x\'__ ._-_-7-.--,14y 'lit lit'?'' I. .�► \ �` ' \ . \ I,`•\••1Il 1l:lle �i Q .- ,r111",,:: 1 �1 '` J ♦r , O 1 . '1 !1 1111 l �i I I. r\/ 1 v: I f , I . *. :so% �1''•.\r �1 ,�1 ' r ;b A • ly1 .1 \ I �,v f �'�'I f i1 I1; rd' � „ L" r - I r 1 1 jI I1111t4 ; , !!'I Q f,i 11 'leg111I' it e , '' � 0Will � Nt..Th o I „J..r K, •1 1111 / g,.../,. \ I• s • -IØc"1 i R1 • ii;062,91, 4 s. -t.„Aida", :•:. ; n T• r• 1i 11 11 . I j 1 I. I . a i t \ \'# if '�• 1 I I ' _ !I� I I 1e' 1 �1,� c..",-�'� 1!, .���` o • `` / C .1 f e• / r r , r t • r i ri ,di . i `,1,;; ),11,111101 . 10 .r. / T 1 ; . ..d. 7; a.•. I it \ ♦ r r r , Wit ••• A I lOr ::'i I. .-..-..- 7 r bb b 1 .mom.¢oT 'sr „6 %V\ .'..2_-_-....1221' e+ ��' / ��I z /rpllrAi i ) 4.01, 1411 F -__\-- • - - : _ i • (►..1 ... zm o<u F. m " L1 \� I Win: 00 a C.... G : I = Q Q a_f z C c a�: m e Jtij N.-7 Irmo m w n__�_ n r=.'" o g—C . z r i if -f "'z � pi C)z= •_ N En Z E7 0 1 1 PA •..I ., 7� 33z p j ccs 'C Q -4 - j a - z z n- . — . --- . Planning Commission April 12, 1989 Page 2 Public Street The applicant has provided a 50-foot right-of-way for Jenny Lane. This right-of-way extends from County Road 17 to the easterly portion of the plat. The access onto County Road 17 will require an access permit from Carver County. Jenny Lane shall oe built and dedicated as a City street. The street section will be constructed through the public platted right-of-way with a 36-foot width to meet the anticipated demand for this type of development. Private Street The plan calls for a 24 foot wide private roadway looped through the north portion of the site. This would be dedicated as a fire lane and posted for "no parking" . In addition, internal access to the individual plexes is proposed via a 18-20 foot private drive with parking proposed for individual units with 2 to 4 parking spaces available per unit depending on the unit' s loca- tion ( see typical parking detail) . It is inevitable that special functions such as parties, etc. , will present parking conflicts with other units in the area and overflow will no doubt result in narking on Jenny Lane . In this regard it would appear that the 18-20 foot private drive width is inadequate unless supplemental parking facilities are provided on both north and south sides of the site. The 24-foot service roadway north of Jenny Lane shall be main- tained as a private roadway but considered as a fire lane and no parking restrictions posted accordingly. It was the understanding of the City Council that when the future alignment of Jenny Lane was established that the West Village Townhouse segment of this road would be brought up to full city standards. As such, city staff will be recommending that a feasibility study be initiated to extend Jenny Lane from Oak View Heights through the West Village Heights townhouses site to Kerber Boulevard. The anticipated demand by construction of Jenny Lane necessitates that this roadway be extended to Kerber Boulevard. Grading and Drainage It appears that a majority of the site will experience shaping and/or grading to create the building pads . It should be noted that a majority of the oaks ( 18" to 36" ) will be removed by the site development. These are shown on Sheet 4 of the plans with an "x" for removal . The ,applicant is providing a sediment ponding site to be constructed on the northwest corner of the parcel just off Jenny Planning Commission — April 12, 1989 Page 3 Lane to maintain the predevelooed runoff rate and provide — adequate storage for a 100-year storm event. A storm sewer net- work is proposed to drain the site runoff to the storage pond area. Details will be required with plan and specification sub- mittal. Erosion Control The plans show gaps in the erosion control network. The entire site shall be wrapped with erosion control fencing in accordance _ with the city' s Type III standard ( see detail) . All side slopes greater than 3 :1 shall be stabilized using erosion control blankets. Vegetative cover shall be established in accordance with the conditions of the Watershed District permit. — Recommended Conditions 1 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper installation of these public improvements. — 2 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit. — 3 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Access Wacermain Crossing Permits issued by the office of the Carver .County Engineer . 4 . The developer shall dedicate the utilities within Jenny Lane right-of-way and fire lane easement areas to the City for — permenant ownership. The remaining building utilities will be privately owned and maintained. 5 . Detailed construction plans and specifications including ciculations for sizing for the roadway and utility improve- ments shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer. As-built mylar plans will also be required upon completion of the construction. 6 . Appropriate utility easements shall be provided over all — public facilities. 7. A wet tap connection will be required to the 12" watercnain under County Road 17. d . The City Council should authorize a feasibility study to be done to facilitate the extension of Jenny Lane to Kerber — Boulevard. 9 . The parking needs and peak demands site shall be reviewed and — supplemental parking area( s) provided. Planning Commission April 19, 1989 Page 4 10. The 24 foot private roadway through the north portion of the site shall be designated as a fire lane and post for No Parking accordingly. 11. Type III erosion control shall be wrapped and maintained around the entire site. Erosion control blankets shall be utilized on all disturbed slopes of 3 : 1 or greater. ATTACHMENTS 1. Typical building detail 2. Typical parking detail 3 . Type III erosion control detail. .. _. PCSP . SJ UTUT2E5 I TYPICAL BUILDING DETAIL - 6. gb d . .. CRUSHED ROCK BASE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT Ii5'AnN. ,�f !9' 1+-20 .� ,=' 1 2•'`.... — I r6' C! IC •p• I lw 4, VIM. ;11E4 20' C LL J • I ,„ i CIIIa jr' .R — W a 6 4' 20' Fr RE LANE I I IG' ll IB — 24• ,RIREIANE. �y SEWER C — 25'PAIN. CLEANOUT VISIiOR TYPICAL PARKING 1 wow. : : 7' P ! CAL PARK3NG DETAIL minI( �. 1� "y✓ _�2G � a Sf�.� �_C Vii`. WNW PARKING PROVIDED( For 140 iownnouSe Units ) 1 ® Enclosed - 188 SUBOverflow 188 17-7) 17-7) Visitor TOTAL PARKING SPACES = 14 I - - 115 POSE AEJ rows FJGMI. EI o r-osrS"'MALL BE OAK 7R STEEL) +FCC•:r,:FaOFp ^ roc-IY ...trmoo AW f :URAFI IfOX.Fds(EN rt/NOG RIH:GS, �� /MAILS ON STAPH:. ��� ,�� _ • . / Vis` 47.//./. _ j %i �.0.//;;/ .i/,%//2.::;;:'///:::/C1.;i t_l..L.rN DEPTH 41 A.D:G TRENCHB.LAY IN FA8RIC 6 BACKFIII. Q CC EROSION CONTROLla t FENCE-TYPE I i•a I • , Is-(C- EEvrf POSTS w — Gvaro TF NOR, TO s„+rogr snow acrd a Cr I Z i . . ..411441101601O Z .ar nq t—cam Q T.0 PE-SAPS OR:vt..rHSOi ..EAC. BALE :/ 2'4,0' 0 G90090 3Lt] *O 9f R EESSEO o- ...f — -BELOW GRACE •.0 s.:gEO r0 Sop,"E(rG( " Er- EOS!ON C'ONTpO a — • J _FENCE-TYPE 9 F w CO � SEM EENT! POSTS 0 ; SL _ ALL A, ]t•RPpgiSV0w FENCE i. 7 W nr7n1nn,gnrtq^^nnnr i 41 W I Q t W !+ SILT FENCE _ t � r, m c } nq t-T,.,, "_Si 0 Q , I z � i',J RE.1,ro OK:vf.TPALA-,.CAC,* ASCE ,A 2-••i. o Gg0uv0 RaltS t0 9E REE(tt(0 G.BELOr GRAOE •n0 w:q(0 r0 SNOW EE.EE I EROSION CONTPO .FENCE-TYPE 3 N11 ii .t ,?,,g6 r CITY OF I? ,I 6r iT . 55 i'l SILT FENCEil.l1.— SCALE 1'- DATE I PLATE NO. 5212 ly A \ • tLAZS : 17• Ac',p7 y „," 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 13 , 1989 S'JBJ: Case #88-24 SUB, #83-15 Site Plan, #88-14 WAP, Oakview Comments and recommendations regarding Oak Park Heights : 1 . Fire hydrant spacing was reviewed and is acceotable. 2 . Road width as shown on site olan is acceotaole. 3 . "No Parking Fire Lane" signs .vi11 ne installed by developer on the north access road ."J_ er Fire Ch13f recommendation. 4 . additional information and input will ne needed for a building numbering system, and a private drive name for the north service road. CITY OF _ rg A 111 * 211113EaCSQX 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner FROM: Gori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinate DATE: April 13 , 1989 SUBJ: Oak View Heights Townhoines The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the site plan for Oak View Heights at their last meeting. This site is not a park defi- cient area, however, due to the high intensity, the Commission _ felt that playground equipment should be required ( please see attached) . The Comprehensive Trail Plan calls for an off-street trail along Powers boulevard and a sidewalk along Jenny Lane. The Park and Recreation Commission unanimously recommended that the developer be required to install playground equipment similar to the attached in an area a safe distance from vehicular traffic. _ It is also recommended that a 23 foot wide easement be dedicated along Powers Boulevard and an 8 foot wide bituminous trail oe constructed within chat easement and; an additional 13 feet of right-of-way be granted along Jenny Lane and a 5 foot Nide concrete sidewalk be constructer within such. The Commission has recommended that the developer be required to pay 100% of the park dedication fee and be given 100% credit on the trail dedication fee. •- • .. , . . • . . - -• • • . •' . - .•.• . • • . . . .. - . . .... ... •-• . • 1 - • • . • -. - - . • • • • • .•• • -.• . . • - . • i. . . - • .. -. _ . • • . . . - • i ....... f • • . .,_ . •••- - ••• " - • -.;.:. • .14 Z. -. 1 l • . -- . - • : • . - • r . r • . . -A •%.,_4. . , . • - . . • -.X.t. ."A. . • • . • • _... ..,.,___ - \-- t.*&- .•• L...., .-- - - - . ,.., . .6.; • • ' . • • ' . • -• b...T.: . , . . . - • , Atm -- ...... 114 .5. `107:*.:":.-----.-:-;•.r- '. '; -.,, si ' . -•.7..... - . '.• . .*-1:4ti"- '''?it:I-II?. •:.-4/45-- ti;,6 lite;V:1 ... - • - _ . . ' Iv I ..4:a.. .... -4.-..,:-.,73.- ..... -•\ •-•‘-* li.._ ....',Z'k„'..:71. .: •• c. L -- • - • - __•-: ,aio_, iir - r --.'".Nek:C.'00 ,,•- -:.,.....:- "'• - p. ••••-:- --.•..., ...• 4 1. . ..- _... , "4-`6, ri- - - . itc -ii •gier""5 1.,.;:::56,:. 1, ,____-':---.1_:Z6 . :40‘114.:VAC..np.',12,'.4.Z..-"Tif-`, ... • - . . ' .., , • --.>:-,-.,,...-..,,-, A_-.14 % '7. .-..;.s.-,11- • •- 1 1.). . i.'NI. -. ••‘.,' " *"..--t. ‘, • ...-6 .Iftr:ii . 1 .- t'-'w.- ',• -n• ..' 4, ..,.. Wgrie r.-,,, .1.. 1111111e•g••••••....4.... -',......,.....kni..4 4X-5.r.inn,•114:ic 4...7,- '..4..•,4,11.,.....$1i -‘,",r2,....q.;...... . ...... "".."‘'........7.4"..411,1" ..1164Z--7.--t... ‘s ....... _,..• I ..6• '....t.•*.... t -. • ...,._,p.1 /0"..4t7 1....' . . . ..... F. -:. .•...... •• '...,.......,.....•.. ,....r.. ., %M.*, -•• t Litli..11_....... ' .--`,.= -t ./' \‹.-.." ...s.....(f-11"-1.-...:72'nL '.1"- ti ; ./.,_ . !;-•;.-,.;.. s.,. , I .? ...u... -at .. ,,• :.-. .-.----,--- - • ,..- - -.... - •ssf ,....--1.••:-.••• -11>_.%.1.44„6,,\s.... ..•:;`,:-.7. Mt . .,......i. _:*:........._...v..),_104:3 • . . „..........,,...„ . .. . t- i. •• ....:i Zfl.....—..implio.'s1111.- • •.- _ ..„.. •.•r4,,,,. . • tk‘ _ . • --...... •,....,.....s 91-1,7t wiliaall"" ' - .. -:. - - •1,-l'e ...,,,, , • oc........4 .... '1 -- 'teg1t ..p...-,...-.4 . _ . . ..„.... _ . P....*:- 1,-- . ---,Li..?.,i.--7.,%,,,-• ' 4.4, : .. • k•-tA • p.. ca, __- • ;.17,;:, ....A.ip larragg*•'-'-'4- .7z1 r.„,,,., „.,.., . . .....„ ._ . ........... „,_„...... ._.„.„_,........„,., .., .... ,. ..........,„„,„ . . ... 'o-,rori- .:11- ••=1.--2.St-P- ..a...•.: 74.'..4451:-•gst'.a... ' , ... ..i.• ..,-:-T.. - - •-" ',.rr-..--J ---- -. ..- -.1---.. .-1-,•,...,...--.!„---- ---"-- - - - ",....--- --4-.....-:-., „, .......-- - -•••,•,-- ,•--4- ........ -S.- ._ ..,.... i.., - .:,,,". ..41.,..,2 ___,„ ..a .'et ----. .- • - - : • s - -I• --- -; . -1......--..7 ... ....,:-.- ,••••. — r....--e--.. •• • `-'541:/ ....7.... ....-=--, ,•••-.. _-. -2.4....XI. .d•IP,• -•,P1.•- .4.-...-..',. ..':'-',...-...,....-""77.:Xkit-•:-A. . ... .....V*••,_.. t. .. -. '2%.:Or• --*--..,,W.-- 7. ... ...S.W.'.'-'.r....•V.;._ • . Z k.... ,...,_, ,1 ...._---. • ' - '. ' -11;9'...-‘-:-. tlii..k.:" tcl.. "----... -c- ''':1"---.. - ', "'. --'4-./". - .- g lie2°- N •••••• 14-x---40_1...-_,„- ••-•-='-:-. -. 44.f.b..- ..A.--"t--"0:41:::4•.,,,m-,- ‘•-.;,.- ---(r-r.r."!4:, • --..,--." -t'l •ir, 46......- .0...,vs. \ \ '‘ iiita...41:4k . ....+0- .... ...'''' ' - - -..:,.....'z' 1.: :',4 -5-y.z, s..7.--;:,1:7' '.--t---: *---f.2.:.'14-54%-. .7)/e"-. • - 10,01".. ...„.„,..„____...ici'•t ...I., r1-1 • . , -.T.; ,,o;rz .!....,iiii,"• .—'''. .--ii..7,.•-...,...,... ..r.„...;--,. -- - _.--..i,,,r. -.---- ,r I, '- ,_ \ i-_--.,:t-_ -,,..":..s. t ° i . , • _ ..---t461 _ • :,..,..----' . ,. _,.., ...:, ... ..._,..,,_ .... ,-, .v.„......:.,....„.._„.„,„........., . . -......- _. .. ...., • - ...,- "- • - . - ,C. • _,... .• -..t.: . - '4,''' _jr,„ ' ,*-v...izThc" •- -,-4-1 ,-.:-:•._- ---t---- -t.-21.,,,;i: <;z_ , ..,.i.rr ••• 12.Zi,g... -41.:: " - -•- --'- . - - -:..._.,,,-.4-.^-• - --.. ....-f‘tt - i T-1:-.*.,„,- --s,”4 -•- '.c,i4e--•-4........ii.,... --:.. .'$-Ii4f4,, ,•-•• — --C.-1-W^tea.•*&- - - . /k•Ei..• •"..i.0,-,4-----wo ..••:-, ..-1,,....' • .. 'it. -,•,:,.,•mwt..m.w.,...--,f..•. ..-:-.-1--::--;4-,....._.._.-.1ifIX,Km-•-...1•10.t.4-4.."4, _..r.. -."..,.. ..v.,,,‘,.L,.......::-*-.. ,,...„1.;,.' .3. 7:,*-77....rzlet. '•ar.....s. ..T........ .....ii.i.e.4....,•••-.,,,,... ..-,...;,_... 7f..1.,....m_.„....,:.7.:-4.11.,..ier.);••;34..--:"..;-•"%t• 2;f:71 ,4::-..-:.,?4•€.--j''-..ria-•••-k.--.40 --, •- ' .---f...:-,t, -,..c.--4‘. •-.-.s..1-.-..4,..:;,.1 ..'"..v-4,'-,- -.:•,,v-7-......,;•.:, 7%. •m --4.1.4:org:.. •-:' .....j.?::1;''';.-4. 41ii,* .--r• -eici-*5"5:^p.i.--..- -*''r''''''•;•L--',..,..2*--t-:',----a;. •-:,.. N4 Eu..-:3---4,...--, -,,,1,4.7.4.„... • ,tr„,...4121e.W...:: '' ?.?.... . .:."-:-.--its--7-. . ..„._, - - -4'.k .---"N..-,...:1-..1,042,.-.$ - -.. "As .--t• • - • E:....I'l -.1.,,,,.... ....1-,-- --,. Jg....1...,-.--s• • ,......,,,e• ., ..-.TA-,.,.. -...-2,;_twr,. ..... ..., .w.„.....p.•-anr.4tuc..-.. .._ - -wAreht...r.,:._ - -,.. . :-.---c•tvatg. • •. . .. tiT•Al'fi-,'-'---q.-4r.:1,v•_10^:•,•••••-eawl-v- :T. e 4 P••,---,4 :e5,.•.;c:.3'..-.=d- V. ' L4.15 •v.--...a. _,,•-,.,r_ _. . •$' • --;_ .:--'',_ '', 4..r.__•. ......4, , • . ...tr".v... .12,-?-...c. Tr.------&.1--,..:-. tf,V"-C1.-*-Pf-fiN-F.*:•• •"'".".;-,•'.-'x ‘..1-,...:1 ......- -.1.4 4.21,,otr;....-...,4f.,...1„,•:-.0,1;;„• .......:„...„,• ;.......al .,..,..,..,,, ....„..._r...4.,•":,. ...2L•ic_.-%,,,,,,.:,- ix-.1-kily*al„,..X.,,, --...."••••-• ,..7.44:7..-I.C.e.w.:-14,...,..1. P.:..!..4;........,b___,•-,f4.14,7,-,...;.‘;•-8. ..i.... • in,...4,%i..tVA-!....t.i7.;.. 7r.Z7•••tS.;;,, W.7__1,......-3.1-...., •'.--- .7'....','i,1.•. „.-1.P;',"?.. , V:..c.....4'.•:;Z:e.•;.4.:;.r4tr.2:::::',....-4-v..44:•,.._.--,•?..4...,....a.4.,-;. ....fas.... 14,..;._.....:.,`--__,'..•,-. - 44. „le:::.....„. ••••:-.,• ",„....7.44.1r .p. r .4...;,•-•et:-...7;.-_,,X, -..,.....7alagik•44-1<j.. .-",4-4.:10,-.V... ..,t......1,-..1.. .,• ,- .....4,..•44.4.I.,,,Rt.W,;.1‘;...€•......"7.-,..;.4,t.r.z... • • - • 4'....,'. •,-5':- . ---..`A...-- ' 4 -^"..---• ....-t • -- --.. _ 7,... . . . t.--..z.7s..,........„,:k.c.„.....;,ti.,..... ,,,..,„.......;....v.,............„ __.. \N., :,:.,...:„:_.,...?..„..i.s.• .... I 7.7,• •'*1:.,45...4?'-'7,2._7•''';'714*. t.% .• I, **4 73- ,.....ole•ok; '-'•,.--l• . 4-,. - • • . • :. . i I • 6,;•,•..P-::Vi..;;;_•-rat.:4..;‘,.';;=,--z'4`4 •4i...;1.,;',* • P.--r...te,AT-Al.:4. •;Nr,"414,200Pn.-•.•.."' "‘s " •:* - r•- t.--......',;*-Qt...;...er 1...;',,,k- F • • ....-s --------k•..,_; ---..t.:.....ir,.-,,7,......:;,— .0... r.,00der"- -----•--...::. ,i,r,, ' 4....,.- ''''..s....... , • • a- I .,-,. _ e Nt ..,.._•.!..;...•-.....ceg.--._. ; , .,, - ) . •-1.4...... - A......4.-7111-45;1:1??..N.K.. — :- ‘. ...t.,:•r•.:"...73.,..ear"- ". 7 a •. .- . Lt.7.1.14,......!„,...,...r.tor . r. ,..- ll-- -: ' dilli 7"lit . •-;'6. •7...4....C.',..Ai',...- ..,-, ; : *1 xi!Aiello iv -• - ".. .............. --:-..-•:::,, ...k .....A:.L41,,,.,-. .... ; •...- 4..- 7.,•,, .. 17i .A..'Z''''771.•'1.1.1t..741:14. 11;4:CWW;H:'**2"..4":7416-41'4.' II "„.„.-f--41..- ao- -0- . fige # AL'. • fr- III.......:1:, 7, I.,- --"--- ,..... j.""c:Ncip.,......---,..„ :v P. ...•-•_ .., . -1 Att-t / •i *r. glo•-)<- • -la:-- -.0.4. IC.1 - - .2 ••• ...1410.-" . , ....- '-••.-• ... - -.1.....--..--. i '7 4 .. }4W.b -.-i.., . . ___ _ 174-4 -0' - .Ir VPIleue ika•-•.. 7•400.:•"' .• - -A4-Y. .......nr.# .dor."i"„...Tr:, • .,..: 1...s,'. .... . ...... • :.... . ... dr/1H. .AV...., „f." . -..?:- '-..- ,., od.P.' s• i Il--a ..,.. 11410°‘ ............ ..... •42';:"... PC' 4,,,,, .- 4. r - . . or.: I, . -• VP- ".;-t-f'_.","-% .---I"...i..." _. ...-, '-'1q>,. '. u OM .... ••••• all ..e. t , ...AL -AG --,-,..6- -_ . 7,43,=-7--...„,--*.orix•-,---.4.t.w.i. - .- •.- .4, • ; , ... •••.1.'f.,--.; -'_z. -'- ...41.-iiifr.,,, -*- ...,-11. v.....t....,......... gyro ma. 411 • . •.... y... N. , Itra Um...• •. , t 41(01PO:t ' .' . / ,. ....: .„. i .C.- _ IF . . - , ,•mr•rm. O....fr.., ... -_ . . -..': 4; \r ., - ..,.,‘0 -.• -•••' .."Ais.,,jose-.wilt. 0.- -.-""' 1".:rerillals:t;1, , _,. ,--s Z..!.1.1, '..-- 4.-07 .........).b. ,..0-, ;Atetr...--W,.4%. • -- • • _ Si---......_.....••• S.,, * - . .":•-;Ate''.- . 0, . . : ; ,,„„r,... . _ .. • -, ... .. . ._ - ob 7,, .,.. .X.,. ..., ...1-•• .411.' •••••••%am* .. n' -..'',t.•;W . r ,x,....„,...,..A.:0- ..;..:.:,:.:.,..r.c. ,. ......47 . iiii3•Ael-rn .14.414.4 . - - 4- . -,- . 4 44. ......-- sr:K..e i e...A 1.!..• 7...44e.,•_-.4.... ._••• "1," • . . . ....... 4.. „1., ..-4,-......q. . .. „ ., :IN., -11-0.•.11.., 1.-,.. ,,,le Ur.dor Phase I ___.--- ...-.. -- 11“-.- ' - ' . /" ''- ' "' A.: 4. .... _AT.'5;••.." . ... - - "4. -. -%••• ••'- - r t g 4 '4,i..*-1.%-••••-.%-f•____-_,....- 4...,.... - •••••!•-•-•• . arz,,;.......---. .' . 4, A •,--. te. .- •- •-- iie•-• ••• . vf. 'h.: • ,... -It. -... • it"..i. .„,,,% ....a,..0..... .....„,. . . • .- - ,,._-....-_-.1,-..-?:-.. •- .. _ 20- .- `...-,-1,.:••z:. - •7•v.:.•. .' '-�-''moi.:- _.••_-;w <:--- • ---_ .',.'-li... .. . • . ;:. Y: . ; L°`i" 7.--1,--r..."'.1_ a ter-t -"';r� tzit'X' ii,.f;'$"Tk•+�77 t,3��•.f.:, :i 1. '- .`� t+:t--- _- _ -•.,-+st-• ' `lr:•ii- f=w`�• .: - - =:r-'w: #k)• 7 • yam,- - ..7--• -i wr- -::i...1,.:.:;.1,•'.-.Z•rat 7 -�-~r'- :''.:. �-- -� . - :;,=fir„> ? The four mamstructures,. i�- '• aures create hubs of activity and are con- s L” _ .. � ;�. :'= nected to provide a challenging circulation pattern.This large �. structure can be �:: - J_: easily Phased in phases as shown. When r� '`� complete,it includes almost all play events.TuffTurf resilient ~� '� �ra surfs g not :. x: cin included. ` "'"' Actual size:42'x .) - - --i {-- -� • --./-e..1---;4•w 46 01280 cm. x 1402 CII1 " t'.Q; :. '- *r Minimum area required:52'x 56'(1585 cm.x 1707 cm.) Ii ........4..4. -. F Ott Play events:24 e ,r .c y ; .y. Decks: 17/Highest at 70"(178 cm.) -_ - t t :^. 4 Number of kids:50-60 - aY ti �` Plan ' a -, also available in Playbooster and Redwood. tea= — t ..� L.- ..� '-: Phase II Phase I _a<, \` cs6' l • *•,- .---AQ ' ..- \ • `�a...'tea: _�_�,-•--5�` SiTa 1•001•1•001•• awlr •••p �s+M s.a•• • VL • � ,_:,;_->,-.4.–...7.C.--":2,-____.„.- [c �"t �n.i".L��- -• ` t1..••••••• ' •.A ala f r r•• a �K•••. • 1 ‘aZ'-, 'L A" tel- '-4 4�'. ""-...L.'-..... ".,4.`. .-w. M a.1q i� 4•5. \� - /_•. '"�- • • `, ..`,-. +�"• �:`.6� 4a L v� 4atk1 • .3•tT / lr w••lawn V ->f•wn•r..wr I e•.< �IC� �•44.... ..,__:• ..,, "---0,-44.. N, °" t -'f> ?tea.;' wwN..��•�..a 1..'.`\ ', `� Cal waw w • * 4.-.-.-..7..-.._ _ '`c- ''. 1'.-tn+.c.�• M'`� .-` i w l..w O. Chats wr ���;• M — _I terry: yr y _ . ,.r. ' G ` �. .. _ �� •S�y .,.rJZ YV. y`a-..\ •T.`:•. DWW wh IIIN/ t� ••WM•Nam . i / - %ON alio AN, Lh l ialyi Z �.�:.`•�.s,moi•'. .. �2. `a�� 3.: �' Cf�4"a,�•`-tom C•.•; Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District Encincering Advisor: Barr Engineering Co. 7803 Glenroy Road Minneapolis. MN 55435 • �-^'� AL830-0555 I 71 Legal Advisor: Popham. Haile. Schnobrich& Kaufman 3300 Piper Jaffrey Tower Minneapolis. MN 55402 333-4800 April 12, 1989 Mrs. Joanne Olson City Planner City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Dear Mrs. Olson: The engineering advisors to the Board of Managers of the Riley - Purgatory - Bluff Creek Watershed District has reviewed the preliminary information as .submitted to the District for the Oak View Heights development in Chanhassen. The following policies and criteria of the District are applicable for this project: 1. In accordance with Section E (2) of the District's revised Rules and Regulations, a grading and land alteration permit will be required from the District for this project. Accompanying the permit application, a grading plan showing both existing and proposed contours must be submitted to the District for review. 2. A detailed erosion control plan must be submitted to the District for review and approval. 3. A storm water management plan must be submitted co the District for review and approval.The management plan must be in accordance with the criteria set forth in the Stormwater Management Plan for the City of Chinhassen. Sufficient pipe and overland flow capacity must be provided enabling storm water runoff from the site to reach and discharge into the proposed permanent detention basin located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Powers Boulevard and West 78th Street. fPPHH I 1989 ;i a. l;nrUsit+n5Jr1y Mrs. Joanne Olsen April 12, 1989 2 Thank - you for the opportunity of reviewing this project at an early date. If you have any questions regarding the District's comments , please call us at 830 - 0555. Sincerely 107:).Par) Ro.erciC. Obermeyer Barr Engineering Compa y — ngineer's for the District c: Mr. Ray Haik — Mr. Fritz Rahr f�(fU r v i�• CARVERR COUNTY COURTHOUSE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1' 600 EAST 4TH STREET CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318 (612, 4:8.3435 COUNTY OF CAQVEQ !arch 20 , 1989 Ms. JoAnn Olsen Assistant City Planner City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Planning Case 88-24 SUB Oakview Dear Ms . Olsen: We have reviewed the above mentioned site plan and submit the fol- lowing comments : permit will be required from the Carver County Engineer' s Office for the construction of the proposed Jenny Lane onto County State .Aid Highway No. 17 ( Powers Blvd. ) . At that time we will need to see the construction plans showing the grades and cross sections of the proposed entrance. From the information submitted it is difficult to tell how this roadway will tie into the graueline on the proposed reconstructed CSAH 17 . This will need to be clarified before issuing the permit. Thank you for the opportunity to :submit our comments. If you have any questions concerning these comments, Contaet me at your con- venience . Sincerely, William J . Weckman, P.E. Assist .n:. County Engineer elm WJW/cjr /��` y� L OF CHANHASSk1� Affirmative Actlon,Equal Opportunity Employer OMIIIIII .11.1•11M .., 1,,Clii. • IA [1 .. (.,ii ,- 7! :,J di iitANEA .-::f iiiZ _ . .„ 11 :;,, _,. , ._,.„!„? 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 ,L,2_,„ ` (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: JoAnn Olsen, Assistant City Planner FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Inspector — DATE: April 13 , 1989 SJBJ : Oakview Heights After discussing the or000sed foundation design with the contrac- tor, the Inspections Department has re-evaluated its position. The contractor stated the engineered design of the building will — include a Pair of interior footings spaced 4d" apart. Building utilities will run between these footings and hili ties should rest on undisturbed or approved soils . Utilities should oe at - least the thickness of the :.00tings above the footing. The contractor further stated the design calls for exposed soil bet- ween the foundation walls of the pair of parallel footings. Assuming the submitted design includes the details stated Ov the contractor, the Inspections Department will classify each townhouse as an R-3 occupancy. As such, sorinklering will not be required. All -provisions of the UBC regarding construction on property lines are applicable. a ARM a.. STATE OF HMEZOUZ , Cadtaft---4 1 � �iINNESC)'Tq DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 1990 METRO REGION DIVISIC:ti OF WATERS PHONE NO. 296-7523 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, .'!N 55106 FILE NO. March 28, 1989 Ms. JoAnn Olson, Assistant City Planner City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: PLANNING CASE 89-2 (COUNTRY SUITES) , AND SS-24 SUB (OAKVIEW) Dear Ms. Olson: I've reviewed the subject materials for development proposals in the City of Chanhassen. Neither project site includes any state-protected waters. Furthermore, there do not appear to be any floodplain or shorelanci issues to be addressed. `:o permit approval from the Jivi:;ion of Waters is required for these projects. Thank You for tEe cppor:u:t_ty to rev e:; i nd comment. If you have any Questions, please contact :'e Sincerely, Patrick Lynch Hydrologist PL284:kap MAR 2 9 1989 CITY OF CHANHA5'acN AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER LEMZAID ?i'annina Engineering Surveying March 28 , 1989 JoAnn Olsen 690 Coulter Dr. P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN. 55317 — Re: Oak View Heights - P.U.D. Concept and Preliminary Plat — Submittal. Dear Ms. Olsen , — This letter is to address the staff comments listed in your letter dated March 20 , 1989 . Each item was reviewed and our responses are — outlined as follows: Items 1-4 , 6 & 14 : Easement Issues — The utility and drainage easements have been adjusted on the preliminary plat as was recommended. — Ingress and egress shall be provided across the Association Common Area and is described in the townhouse Homeowner's Association Documentation. Items 5, 13 & 15 : Storm Sewer Issues The stormwater detention basin, structures and calculations have been formally addressed in an attachment to this letter. _ The storm sewers will be designed to a 10 year storm. The details of the storm sewer and sizing will be provided with the final construction plans . — The preliminary top and invert elevations as well as sizes are shown on the grading and drainage plan. — Items 7 & 8 : Fire Access Issues The site data and typical roadway detail provide 20' wide private drives to better accommodate fire fighting equipment. A 24 ' fire lane is proposed to provide looped access to the — northern portion of the site. This dimension was discussed with the City Fire Marshall in a telephone conversation. M G R 2 a 1989 J, East ?.00m noton Freeway. C•onmmMinnesota�;on, �nnesora 55420. T3lepnone (611) 888.0411 HHS: An additional hydrant was added to the plans. The minimum distance between hydrants remains at 300 lineal feet, as discussed in earlier meetings with City staff. Item 9: Vegetation Issues Tree locations and sizes have been verified and shown on the Existing Conditions Map (Sht. 2) . Trees to be removed are labeled on the Grading Plan (Sht. 4) . Tree replacement is shown on the enclosed Landscape Plan (Sht.6) . Items 10 : Parking Spaces The designated parking spaces layout for residents and visitors are delineated in detail on the Landscape Plan (Sht. 6) and also tabulated on the Cover Sheet (Sht. l) . Item 11 : Signage Presently, the builder does not plan to install identification signage on the site. The Homeowner's Association may want to install signs in the future. Fire lane signage requirements were also discussed with the Fire Marshall . A final plan shall be established after the scheduled meeting with staff . Item 12: Trash Disposal There will not be a centralized area designated for trash disposal . Each unit will contain trash containers similar to single family developments. Trash pick-up requirements for hauling trash to the curb is outlined in the Homeowner's Association Documents. — Items 16 & 18 : Drainaae The drainage directions and spot elevations are highlighted on the proposed Grading, Erosion Control and Drainage Plan (Sht. 4 ) . The drainage area delineation is shown on the enclosed map submitted with the hydrologic analysis. MEM Item 17: Street Grades The street grade has been revised to meet the 7% requirement. In providing this 7% grade, a severe cut will be required, as _ shown on the grading plan. It is our preference to maintain the originally proposed 8% grade to lessen the impact on the existing topography. Your timely responses to our inquiries is appreciated. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact our _ office. Sincerer Mary/J. MdCaWley, Planner Hedlund--Planning Engineering- Surveying _ cc. Dean Johnson, Cenvesco — MJM/kas chy F ..• SZEA1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 March 20, 1989 Ms. Mary McCawley s Hedlund Engineering 9201 East Bloomington Freeway Bloomington , MN 55420 Re : Oakview Heights Dear Mary: Staff has preliminary reviewed the submittal for Oakview Heights and has found that the following items need to be provided Prior to the application proceeding to the Planning Commission. 1 . Access easements to the townhomes must be provided on the plat. 2 . Outlots A, B and C have to be changed to Lots 1 , 2 and 3 . Our ordinance does not allow development of outlots . 3 . All easements :;gust be shown on the plat. 4 . A drainage and conservation easement must be shown around the wetland area. The conservation easement is typically 73 feet from the edge of the wetland or drainage easement. 5 . Staff had originally recommended that a retention basin be provided to hold the storm water prior to it entering into the wetland rather than just the sedimentation chamber. Why .gas this not pursued? 6 . Easements from the center of the buildings must be provided out to the utilities in the street. 7 . Staff feels that the buildings are located too close together and that the 13 foot width for the driveway is not adequate ::or fire and safety reasons. We are recommending that a dedicated Lire lane be considered to satisfy this concern since other alternatives would necessitate extensive no parking restrictions .end/or wider driveways. 8 . Additional hydrants will most likely be required by the Firs in.soector (annroxi.nat2ly every 200 If-,et). a 1 t•..2.;:•..:1: ...) .•:,• !..fil;.:11.-• -- -.. ••• ...- < .- .7 i •-• :1-- - ...I '' 333=313 ='T .i'4.-..• !..., ,-T: ,1 - F.'itrilii i C 1 --2 =VI ... ' _ .,....; :: ..:2 •-•••• . 1 :::',74 •.:c c.9 , • z -z•-.': _ V . I• 1r .4 ..2 -----I - ., cs •.,:.;;I: ... a.- .1031 IT. I./ "Ni:t ..m. Z .:11 .;•73 t.. .7 ::7;:::i 0 U. (...) ;i.. OP OW .Iz- c i ,b41 ..* 22-.. 47.47431i .._.4-., -. --•--.1.- ---'t2i•• o c>n -Z.. ^• oz c• __-_• • J ! i ;- ,r _.- : - Cli i 4. Li -„...i. a' OLD A•3 c-r. ,_11.314 1 7.--- ...'.1...4?..:1 •••• el .:.::: `ci, c..) 4,11 -• C. =La, ,;.:.4 _. C.. ::: • C..; - ••!-- --: i I : --: -----"'"IMIII;IL-c-.. g US ItS 41.004 • : - --..... e • ,, .....- ' lz t: 1 - . .,..lia.... . i• ' .., ; •••• 31, vik ..... *. , ..5,. . ,...7. .0 • ...„ 2_ . iii: . ...i.: ., • .. „ . .,,, . •.,..:. , . _. ... •....,..,......\\ \__ t aiktil 0.0 • ,&Alltil:1.i •• V 5: ', •4 $15 1 ":lb!!!. mi. ,* a3 -.. .1 1 lip' bW-*•*, .\.1-,,4.‘ '•-•.. , ,.,0-_,i ii it*"1 k. 1!: ... I .,.,0 - ' 4., • - , db. . dm. ..• 00 114 .• (- d *is\ • ... fs . • VI 0 W 1 • t,es .,:•• * lit• t . ,.. si. ...• ...... % '1•• \ S• 1. * , .0•- 7• 4• • ‘.. • %ISA O.' . 4 ,• M. I I I •••• %•‘, \ 1 .,* , - 1 LA •4 . . It'', 0. ..* . • „ „1, . ......,„.. : . ,... , t , . . a...- .... : 1 .. . . ... „. __ .,.;._ i ..... ... ......\- . ....„ .... . ,.. ...,..t .. • I u . ..,... ... .•:., ., N".,s"0e.., .. * .,•,: 2-_-4. ...,, . _s - 1.• : • - : "•• 2 • • • .....4., , 1....1 , •••• .. s : • .... , 3. : . . . . $..1.......°..i........ Zi ..1.• .:i " * •• b • a .1. s * 1. s s''----1 • % a : j.... , -....... ....,•,. !! • ..a.s a s • . .. , • s,,.• 1 i i .„,‘ •1,... ... ; al • , s• s\ L•OL, • • : ..s* i ...4 , , .... . , ' .••...M. 1 4 It..\ .0/ Io .,„ .•40 , LW : 4 -4..efifil . _ ... ...,. .M,I.”.74/1,14 .. ...II .M• > . 1 0 i c..,.-N '.1 l. ;. t• •• '''\. /\-.-. •. .,.‘ ' .., .--'4!,""7.7.*.\S... '''' ' ;.: ' 00 • *d I 2;2 ! 1.1LIII,.4f. 2. # ..\ . , .... ..;• •-• 1 .• .... -:, , SC .::. ...,,,,,,-N t\\....‹...,„ ..„,.,.....i . •• -. . L. .._ _..__... . s-r < ?': ' --.- , ..,,„. - -• . L I.•042. ... MO d . It- t • eel. 0 1. ',............/..1 : 1 . 2 _ d . . _•___ _ _1. 0 • dm• „., ••• ,,-‘,,, 7%\..\,.1 2 • )-\ . . : & . I IS. . '' . ! , ••• 2 , '\........":" .;* .6 ...7 .....' '.. '...\ i:::,....:<:............N . •.s • ‘ ..--• 2. g . :1' "--:.. .... • te_iii<0• , i , d46.1141.1212 .... \ ...„ • & II •••• -.- •••- i •• ‘, '•.4 \• • - .2.: ..,s s ' •s'sa s• .-ri.•;•., 4 \ ..4( U.. I 2& e•IX 1:: ••.....s ' •••• ' '40!-.. ...04'...' 2 1 . I 7. •• * 7.;:..7. :i &Ky. •,, 4 • •.,. . .‘ . • \ • rg.^:: .:- -.:14 % .., \ .i. -, . :3- i : :: z i . . ,..{. .?.. t .-,. r -.• .. '...I . i V. i ••• ....... .1 , • , • ' ' 1 .., 7.A .. - , 0 I. , ;'!.Zil/ 111 -7.-,... -... • ... ..-0 ' ;.,S , .:•• 1 2I 1.7. -. -'-.• r'' - 1‘.;* ‘"" .. -to ,-i;I'!" :ti igii - ; •-. : ' 1 .1 04 Jai P.Cle .... . , .. . , ,_----- , . • .... • \ • . . ..... • ..". T.7 \ • ..., .. ,.....:•,•1 : . •,.• -.•• •.: •••,:.•'' I ..m. 120.,, .. :: 1- ;.--..:..t...i7r:-.9 ..-.... _ t anle ••,:33H0o I LI .)J ArtH WV livil. a 0.411L)., . . . _.. Jr: ba .t • .1. n W Z iin Cr?' ; R U :1;c:.:- c 2 W Pm's .... ,; .. jP -.or,.. n a • h0 HON nn.rvn,n-.. i 01 0 ',is NN N 222222.?, N a c00 � .,n . .SI .v• u O __ o G P P as •.• •• • P co 43 ..•• ry__ X - u s v, i n p W ii x xu p i o- .A,. S. r. of _ _ ••• a `. a i L7 r COOmi w _ , — i o0 O S i I '� .yJ _ Sn C . N J >3 • •� - C N Y W J i r .. W , sa ao _ .««<ii. 4 _ : a :onnon SS o i _ n n _ N .i a s Na -N a - j•� O .o. i '2 :77M Q R--n :LI • Z � - oioo¢ :' S p _ n r•..G •''i-'�0 „Zaaaa a. _OJ N J pSOmPO� - - ,rJ -' •J _ 3 ^ u a o W CC I' \ Cei.0:(•#:::...6)....._....5\ , \1�v , \\\ _ !III ''I_1\\\ ✓ J i!L 1� \ Q,\,,,, ,,A .1 ._, :, 'HI l= ' • \-•,\-.)C IH © , . . • .4';` ` t,. \ I, -i -� `_ _� �� ! gra ;\ i cel, iaz Ii ;17 ‘.‘s I --I � ; ?! 'J ;I i� _�.a�— ;;, !r� !( .1 •--011•000 MIN: ilk �� ,�;'1 • (7 Z Z r:rl,, \ I _ o Z 1i:ir: l?1; r - \ O .NQ W W l :a:i� • cl > el - !. - Q V >J . ; iv a 71, _ ,,: ,Z O a [A 2'. o W _ • d„ ©S Z iii 1 \ , _ Nom. 6 a oc.0 ...',i t C,r / u i CM O1 li \' _ o- CC 1 •...... -_- '`�_ W ... ..-....- rr S. 115.t titiw,•.• ::.ti•:: _` —�- _\ ‘ _---‘ I lig-- —zz% s.„,stii. .... 7-.e '�q . .t '' i��' •411 _IVO \-_: _ z- „ - -, . ‘`„:i 4sAge 4 :°•'Nov, i ,„,,. c °' t 1 \ \ 1 l 1 , m o A ttlirligdoi 11l`. I \ I 1 1 1 ' I i �� -1: e l,. ria 1 i 21.4-- • t III / V1 } . ,SUFI ,� ( 1 !< • F- - \ :) / J 1 ) u' -i Y! .. = _ •h 404 _ moi' -..t. 'v s' 1 t�g�' i(1 , tS/ /I Itr6 ; ' I iii.c / 1V -r f 1C / _ / L1.1 > f,F;: --'s ``t `` `.1' , l! lift B R� I •IIIX t�i��'1 r•-----_:,- > . 'p'• `, '1 ' 't L ; • ,� z' f' lilt.;:III I:,li 1 , • X - •eta _ r, • •. , ; l ' i �' �� r.t•r�� - I� Ills : 1 : i i Q 3r .` c` „�' 1 uV\islI 1•; ; % '.� w'��4��1Itlll 1 i . — h�� v�/�i�. 2 I1.1' f I III ' / �'` : \ \� k 1‘it �-<:/// r J''-'•� � � 1 u*Ill,ltl, '_ \ \l\``♦:;;\`, . ♦�\ t\\' 1 ••'•.v 1 Ll-r '111 1 ♦ ♦♦ \ Spa. \ II p7j \ .\,`\� ♦'.. `\ �\ ‘1111 -,-,,.."- •' / / I t • '1: Illi 1,Itll \ \ • .‘,,‘,,"\,,,, \ . \. • ' / I :41 11' 1111 s s' ,...\\\`\\` \\\\\♦\\`l \ `\`` v'smoi . - �Z• �•/ ' + Ml 1'1jI :••••‘,:-."„:::‘‘ � l\ \ -\ \\\\ klk\ =\\; �:•-• `-`-��- i V ' ( '" I. 1 1111 1 'I — \::::\:::::::‘, \\\ \\\\ `�. \ z:�, -- `.....::...:,::: ;.:4„1. ��' ::: .. ,":1, Ir7il — 1 \,\‘‘,:,, \\\\` ``� �� '....\........:::. `\\••::,....Z......,‘„ \' No, I•• 1;1;16I11=:I 1 ` •v\ s------- �� r' 1l • , u 160.+1 \\ -_ -_ `:='A EKi1 \ ..j.''Ills' - ,•‘\"-........„: ‘\• .,•, t. i'''.:••:•.."-`•••,....—- `-__ --._ it.i \�`i.•1 ,'/.'\ vj -t. • -p'1• -�` ' ` _ a>'_-- _ =�}I7-0- --E.--- -C' 4:�-_ \\\ I'_41 "-- \ ':1 �C'- � ` - - =__==l'\ j' i•''•• wi......."`''...••••••;• --- 1 1 � t . .. �:njMUa 1 -- - 7 -I . -t \NII WV IlvtS A INIIUJ II • a •T .—, I . • i . W ZQ - w Ft ill CI i j ` a-z� m DW ;if �C t Q • zl :'1 :i . 1, I W :i- Q% J� :i+ S.• 'O1 3 .ip F I n t. I. ,.� I 3 Z 0 . i oC.2 -'y Vi. G. a ��rr�'' a 4 W - i Q W2 ood 3 .;,,;___ _ O i • , 4 U naa 4 ZW amG u- i{ `- _.‘ ( t ; . r---- 7- 1 �-\ -,...„ _ .., JY. 10A \. N o ç ? i! - .,4_.., Z 1 =yY t . ....,./- 1.2% MI \.cNii.i ...010 0 . 1\ , I idi A - - 1 *`" ii% ••.\ `Ilit -__ ----- . i c 1,,- Ito'C6 1/ i., ) ..'idol.. '‘A - --- 4.0 - -• . fA la tiousollealklal i 3 VI r I LLI .... I s\f•C, \,/,;-N/1' , . . 11 WI '--. ij: ..shi 0.1„ , „ .. . _ .. . , , -1-_-__\_ _ . ,:\ , . ..--- . •1 v.' , . iik • ...":1,::: ..• ,, ._. _:--..,--7,.--_ -._..--7-:_l ,, ‘. . , r\ , -vire 1 _ . iii. ... , • •. ,•, . • , , ...... .4 , , ,:,,- •• 1 , , _ -[,.. --_,-.-..... - _, > \ ,-.\•. ._..._ ..- . , .. , n ___ , :,• ..I'„ .., 7 , , , 1 ..,,A..- ,-- • .-.2 ‘ < . . , u ..?..111..y.6123,Lfd. . i:0' :', : : ' - , i'1Ij ` 7_ T /.111.1.1 . , z J • ,,.1 I es:I,'.;61./,el, . ._.,;7. ___ L. • • \\;"!�,'�. 1 �\ �3' ` •--%. �`��. =..J .tea , lir y it '� I _i Z' ir, t `I. .: ! 'r1 `� - , -. ,�!j a ..1 `` \ \ -__I j�1 `+ ca-_-� J, _ I,di .1 ,� 1 - :•r „ �� � _Ili a. — ' �� -7- ` \ `, (!• •",- -\�•• \\_l ',.. . - 17.a i ' _ _ ----- --)11 3_ 'I - - — -. =f �= � I — 1 S 1 = .r_ - L _ _ W(1.,1.tl.t.:.. • ' = I OA la Sti3/40cs) L{ ON AMM 111 V ?Apl$ AlNll()3 Y -� {1 li • O `r llvl 7 - A ' 1 C III! I ! :: � .i . __�4. �i Z i0�' `1 � 0 'rr -- '.�� h = C II 11 `. - y i V ;.,1^ - '1 In 5_- a �J '_n CI,• _ Z .J o`iili6.+. � '.J II / 1 U noa SW uiZ ::..71 It `[ mil ioo... .--........._ ' '` - • \` .1s 1 I/rel /1 /,'�����` ````,.'� .1', r`4 as I 1............. ``� _ N i r 1; / / J i 1\ ` .` \ -=a` I , / / / 1\ . . I I 1 i iLs.. !`\ `� \ / / 1 1 1 1 \ \ I 1 1 I I I Hoa - It / , 1 1 i , 11 ; ! / I 1• I 1 I I I ! ( ,�.- 1: -- •�_ -+•+� , f Iii r I , 1 r'.- (./) " I- I , `\, s e /re; ' +/ I I I i �' ‘+ / , 1 '1.l i i / • ,' I - r // / 1 I i ! / v 111,11,1::47,;;; F.1=_:_:-_:- . W --- ``� I\\ I 1\. , "I, `moi- l� j / I7,(II':1111, .-� ��` _ s'\` \ ` ` \ `' ! !•. J/ ! I 1111 11,1 I��I i, ___-_ - + - � ``1``1`I / ' ,+ \\���'-- ,Ir11 //''y l'I�f;,i I1111:t !I ` IC zr i ± ; '1/ ��J; , / Il ,r, ;Il ' :J ^' ; .. :1 ._:1+111.`--i •i._ a / / „1:,:. 1,111'1 1 1 1i/ //r/r.,/.r rr1/✓ - •I i 1 ' 1 ,1,I I�q11.. A I • I �JIUII• �1'• �{��/ �\111,,lo \."\ 1' `1` \\1111 cc0 I,`; `- -- 1 I• r + /I'1 i,.;i;il fl, .4.r,=.7...-...7._-... \I 11'` ...�: 1 11 i is ! I \.1 i'11 11,, _ 11 I\\"�::\C1� `"`\\I 1 1 - /•-• -- .; / ! �1I,171 U:llll •. • \`�\�\\`` \T1. '1111 `\11\\ `` '/ ^_-1./ / , /! '•',,,, '1,,111,:1lilt '� . \\\ '`..,.•....;".;,'",‘,:3',:,:\‘‘..i1.‘,.\\ 1\\ 1 1 1 1 \ 1 1` \ l ....--r .r , i IV, 1 i.•I 1.11 `.. ‘7•1.,.,, \`1 ,\\\ \ \ a�—t , . 1 , j 111 1111+11'I I I C > �y,q\f \ :.:I�\\,tl c� 11` \\.`\\���-�-\� I ,' -"'�1 �i I.% �II!i i I�11 __. ; `,° ,\\�1 \\\\�\t1Ii. \ 1\•\'''..:'.,.."--1------...--... \\ ,\'� -� - 1 -; / / I IL 1. 1,111 _ y o -- 1 _ \\ `\\l1•`V11\\I\\�� \ .�� �� l il'lii�'i III I : I ^♦ 1`f\\1111 .,,,,,,„\,`\I `�`+=�_ \```-' �`• /' /✓ .',�i�l�:l'll ,Ilii 0 i `�\ \\\ \\\ \` `� \. �1 �/ .. 11111','11,!,1 V,``1 \�. ....\�'`` 1iII . `_ , I Ii, 11 f 1 J z\\_ I,IIII 1111 ., O` • ''I„111 I F <1. `\ \ ai.i�`-� \`,-.•:;:...,\`I I:1—!--1 (1 /}/ .11•/, 1'lil 1i it O — \ l„..4-....k....___---... '�'i �� —�` \\\`}8\., l,,l tt� II.SII 111 r\1,- \—''..:1.4;'\ "27--”,7----- ;---'--•-• :7"-- ` ` \; . ._ t I .• - • Z - •i. '1• 1 '1. '1 I- ...;'. .. • d • •;... r... . .4 - .. . . ...,.. . , • ..: i•-• I.; ; 6 . .• • z .._ 1 ••• i..: . ., • - .:. - . -1 1- • -.- *V- • : .. ....;•:‘, ..- :.-t . ., • zJ ; i'i. :•.,,, f. 1:t A 1! ,,; ' :-.--: :•7 rn • .° ,::1 . .'cl . .... r....1,. 7, _. -, ..< • t• •• .7:: ,:i71 -,' 4, z ...,..,,,, ... . ... ..... ..- • a.- .- , ::-- , .. .-. ... ,... (-) :.0-, •3- • ...--. - - •-.i 's ,t. :._ c. -.-. ---4 ; ,P .. • , - ,-; •-• :. cLi L. ;;.- ,--n; cs\U (A .. . , ‘..-"•' , <_.. : : z..., .... _-..... ...f " "-., .. Z ' ) _ ---•" ...1 : ;::. .: • • 0..,, ...:: ..-.• ,....,..., ...-... ; •• • ...., _ --. • .2 14-i VZ . -.2 :;: I kill i et 1 . , . . 1 i - fit . 4!A-I 'I -..1 1 • , - ,i... I I .. . •/ I 1 : 1 ii I ; i --- "'"."111111c-. -- -'"- ... ..- ; , g i . . fr: z tr., i• 1 i .... I , •C I) ,;!e., 'A C, I 1... \ .-T: - . I • ........... i -1 i'''-'4"*71".4-41- 2-; ••....4) -. ( ...,(A.,... \ 4..•,. "1" --16-k_----"" \ .• -- - .7.x a .f.U. .i. • ••.• 0 ) ir- \ ...... _ 4, s .....„...„. 6 -\•.. \\ --, . • • • .. .21 1 , ,„.. ,a a •- ---.7-, ..,., 0-• \t-,' jc.....D.,"..... ....\ '.:::• , z: we . \ .(\ ' • .....) ; • - \a, ‘,..%i' \ ....,......._..,, i t -.. 'Ala_.i. - .- -, I/ .... )'•• /c...., 1 C) \ 4 • 1 crti.‘, \ C--"In-4 "\-", (4- ',.'1 E •E ,....-.... ..e. \ ' -if • ,%';-,---L-•:(11i• t=I i:;j1---"-\ -• .t (::: •1--I • •Zr:C..„........../•-•*.r.'' \ , (.....-‘4:i , ,:f. ..,,:t.„.47.71,>..:0--.. . .▪ ....... r . --. -...:....,_\ .1, “3 \.-^-• 4".. • i2,-..L. ., ......- = ••,z- ..--N - $ -• ,. . .• ., ! .;.7..... i- _ .3. rc ., -... . 3 L. ,.,.._,(..,. ..--- , • 1r i .., a 3. .. \` •7'•-% - A \ .." ( G ;_,) ! -. ' ;‘, ...: • . •Is t, 4 i • , .7c1 .ra .1 \ ' . -' _i ••- . i'A ; .. .41 _."-j :if"..) . 1 5 •• - A Lia Li T.:3g, *S-4▪1 I ;..r N.r 1-,--I'''...--.._rrt.L.. •:;•1 1 .1". I ll ",,...:1"! .::v1;j1.11:75.1...... *. , \ rri I-tf- fa ....- I _,31, ‘-- .' "*"."(i,_...,...%.,,VNCO I '''' :, - :, ---a ;' Z \-,------sT.:4•-•-'. "‘ • ----- :g - I S ‘....,...e6 - ,‘....4, \<.-fe -, -1-4-. ,'',..). --,,•_.-t-m____.-'11 • (II i 7.'..--J-_,"7" . . .--Li--- Z •er —I— I •-'• , •.--... C I'. •-•.....A.::). •_. I , -.- - - - - • • '7%:.;.---- rz i 1▪ -11 • r — --..a"--t. — i I • - '.- •-- • '1\ Q.,/ c.>• :i''' t , `;'''' i • .'.-'4:\ c i .. . :•rt• ; . i .1 I f • ;"• `..•V.‘ I, ...,, , ..,.\ .,‘,. .,,,, .;-7 itT.i.rn tf:L., 1.41,,z,"•)__...wi ammo - t,\ . I Li!. • c-_,.l ..csr-e7C--. k •-... --, •: • 'a .c."'t I f• . . , 7.7-----------1 ;:i..".::::::::::::::::::1:::::::! -‘11 ...___. . . .. .. , ...1..:.:2!.!?..etftstelAusississAAIA.41 — 2 ::' ' s‘ ---.,.....:.;;;_zs,..1......LA.•7--------1-.1' 9.,; tA I i \‘‘ <.:•, \ ' --.'',' r 1 _ A.) , ___•______., ,1 sssss 1 e eyi17,---i—-•.--I.;•• — —\ . , \ \N.. i: ..........,_?yylvtreitt glt611 ' I ‘ F iTt!i!ii! ;iIiIII:II; !ill .... ( : i --, •„.., - .1.•il , .....A..2...I.L..... 4.4 g4 :' \ ‘,.'A 4 1 ;3 3-•I a\ : -,, . g 1 ..... ( • ^ •s•,' a. • \ • j i....____ ,,.i I - Si, l' I 3's . .4-v----- II ; i 1 -X( ' -x•- ) \ \ ,,, .12.? c7)\ \ 1., ... , . , • I 2 :1 ••.'• :.',..15 ! ' i' -• ; ? • -'•-• / YI,:is c I . '14:0 4,j. Aft 2i 1 i-z 7, • 1 I :.I i . .• • • . S t 1-•,--111 1."' • /.e. ' — . 7--4.:11 I • -' 0.1,4 ' .% I 11'. . ' . il '; I .,.,),1 1 , .,..... ,.:. . •:i.., . , .,.. t;.•1•4 i.•a d.3.•111.,i•z.. . 1 .4 --._......._... • 811 ; ; kiltsgepeyi larE11:3.41.eltittr.1 1 'Itio —..:..:::t •:=V•71 . 1 7nil !..:1 t .! 4 i• 14..14 t. 1 ,•,4 14 IgN ii ! ii ei tk kg I.: __ .tilkk ii S ... , L OA NI .S. 3m0.i I (1 LN AMII OIV iiVi•_. AINIR.0 --- --- '' It! 196? 1c4---'; LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION CITY OF CUANUASSEN 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 — (612) 937-1900 APPLICANT: _Cense co __ OWNER: Ccnvesco ADDRESS �hS(1 �nnanolis cane ADDRESS 3650 Annapolis Lane _L'1vmouth �1\r 5 t11 Plymouth , SIN. 55441 - TELEPHONE (Daytime ) Zia Code 559- 6430 TELEPHONE 559-6430 Zia Com : REQUEST: Zoning District Change Planned Unit Development - Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan Zoning Variance Preliminary Plan Final Plan Zoning Text Amendment Subdivision =,� Land Use Plan Amendment Platting N:(1 Conditional Use Permit Metes and - ^u.71 s Si�� Plan Review _ Street/Easement Vacation - y Wetlands Permit PROJECT NAME Oak View Heights PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION R- 12 REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION R- 12 PRESENT ZONING R- 12 REQUESTED ZONING R- 1 ' USES PROPOSED lti- Fami lv SIZE OF PROPERTY 18 . 925 Acres LOCATION Fast of Hwy. 17 Powers Blvd. ) and north of 'Sth Street West REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST ticvelo ) Townhouse Unit ',. S. _ . P, • LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary ) Out lot "3" - vest Village Heights , according to the recorded plat tiiercot, Carver County, Minnesota. P.C. DATE: May 17, 1989 C 1 TY O ! ' :: :: CUP892 UAHA Prepared by: Olsen:k STAFF REPORT 4 PROPOSAL: Conditional Use Permit for a Contractors Yard and Screened Outdoor Storage on Property Zoned IOP Z LOCATION: 8301 Audubon Road APPLICANT: Dave Stockdale 7210 Galpin Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: IOP, Industrial Office Park ACREAGE: 7 . 47 Acres DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- IOP, Public Works Building S- IOP, Vacant E- IOP, Vacant W- IOP, Audubon Development Sites, Inc. W WATER AND SEWER: The site is within the MUSA Line. PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site is currently used as a single family residence and a horse barn. The majority of the site is pasture. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Industrial Stockdale Conditional Use Permit May 17 , 1989 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Section 20-1191 requires a 10 foot strip of land between abutting right-of-way and vehicular use areas including one tree per 40 feet and a hedge wall or berm of at least 2 feet. Section 20-1192 requires interior property lines to be landscaped with one tree per 40 feet. Section 20-1211 requires interior landscaping for vehicular use areas . Section 20-1178 requires that all trash disposal units be completely screened on all sides. Section 20-1125 requires one parking space for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area up to 10,000 and one additional space for each additional 2, 000 square feet, plus one space for each company vehicle. For office buildings , 3 parking spaces for each 1 , 000 square feet of floor area is required. Section 20-1123 requires industrial district parking areas and access drives shall be paved with a dust free all-weather surface with property surface drainage and concrete curb. Section 20-812 allows office and warehouse uses as a permitted use in the IOP District. Section 20-814 allows contractor ' s yards as a conditional use in the IOP District. The definition of a contractor ' s yard is "any _ area of use of land or vehicles, equipment and/or construction materials and supplies commonly used by building excavation, roadway construction, landscaping and similar contractor' s are stored or serviced. A contractor' s yard includes both areas of outdoor storage and the areas confined within a completely enclosed building used in conjunction with a contractor' s yard. " REFERRAL AGENCIES City Engineer See Attachment #1 Fire Inspector See Attachment #2 BACKGROUND On July 25, 1988 the City Council approved the site plan for an office/warehouse facility for Merit Heating and Cooling. The site plan was approved with the following conditions : 1 . A time schedule on improvements to the site be provided for staff and City Council review. Stockdale Conditional Use Permit — May 17 , 1989 Page 3 2. All driveways, loading docks, and area under the dumpster be paved with asphalt and provided with asphalt curbing. — 3 . Provide required landscaping requirements and proper screening of the trash enclosure and proposed dock area. 4 . There shall be no outside storage permitted. 5 . The applicant shall submit a preliminary plat application — within one year (July, 1989) . 6 . Comply with conditions of Building and Fire Inspector. — 7 . The applicant shall submit for approval by the City Engineer a grading, drainage and erosion control plan prepared by a registered engineer prior to final approval. — 8 . The apolicant must connect to sewer and water once it becomes available to the site. — 9. The applicant must receive any necessary variances to the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant withdrew the proposal prior to any alterations to the site and has since relocated to the Chanhassen Lakes Business Park. — ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for a contractor ' s yard and screened outdoor storage located on 7 . 5 acres of property zoned IOP. The applicant currently has a con- ditional use permit to locate his business on Galpin Blvd. As with the past proposal on the subject property, the applicant will be using the current buildings and existing features of the site until the property is developed into industrial sites in the — future. The existing farm house, barn, garage, tack barn and chicken coops will be used for office, cold storage and garages. The occupants of the site will be five office staff and a field crew of between 12 and 15 persons. Of the 12 to 15 crew members , — only 4 to 5 will be reporting to the site each day. The applicant will be using the existing septic system to provide — services to the office and staff . A letter has been submitted stating the septic system is in good working condition. The applicant is proposing to blacktop the existing gravel vehicular area and is not proposing any curbing at this time. The appli- cant is proposing to install a six foot high wood privacy fence and a retaining wall around the narking area behind the barn/cold storage area and in front of the driveway servicing the cold — storage area for screening from surrounding properties . The Stockdale Conditional Use Permit _ May 17 , 1989 Page 4 applicant is also proposing an outside storage area located east of the existing residence/office. The outside storage area will be gravel and will be surrounded by a 6 ft. high wood privacy fence. As with the original proposal for Merit Heating and Cooling, staff reviewed the proposed site improvements in relation to the required improvements for the IOP District. The applicant is providing pavement for the vehicular areas which is in confor- mance with the ordinance. They have not shown curbing which is required as part of the ordinance. The applicant is providing screening of the vehicular areas by using existing vegetation and new retaining walls. The dumpster is also being adequately screened by a retaining wall and the outside storage being screened by a 6 ft. high fence. Since sewer and water is not available to the site as of this date, staff is not requiring them to hook up or provide the ser- vice to the site. The existing drainfield has been reviewed in the past by the City' s consultants and has been determined to be acceptable for the use that is being proposed. Staff is recom- mending that a second drain field site be located and approved prior to final approval of the site. Once sewer and water is available to the site, the applicant will be required to connect to the municipal system. The applicant is providing additional lighting for the site in conformance with the requirements of the ordinance. The driveway servicing the site from Audubon Road is being improved to 16 feet wide as was a condition for approval for the original site plan. RECOMMENDATION The proposed site plan is meeting the requirements of the Ordinance, except for the requirement of curb and gutter. Curb and gutter helps direct drainage and provides stability to the vehicular access. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit #89-2 as shown on plans dated April 28 , 1989 with the following conditions: 1. All outside storage shall be stored totally screened within the outside storage area. 2. The driveway shall be constructed a minimum of 16 feet in width and shall be paved. Stockdale Conditional Use Permit May 17 , 1989 Page 5 3 . All parking areas shall be paved and surrounded by concrete curb and gutter in accordance with Section 20-1123 of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance. 4 . The applicant shall submit for approval by the City Engineer a drainage and erosion control plan prior to — final approval. 5. At such time as public sewer and/or water is available — to the site, connection to the municipal system will be required and appropriate fees and assessments paid. " ATTACHMENTS 1 . Memo from City Engineer dated May 9 , 1989. 2 . Memo from Fire Inspector dated April 26 , 1989. — 3 . City Council Minutes dated July 25 , 1988. 4 . Letter from Patrick Sullivan dated June 23, 1988. 5 . Letter from applicant dated April 9 , 1989. — 6 . Application. CITYOF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission ,�,`1V w1'W' FROM: Gary Warren, City Engineer'' DATE: May 9, 1989 SUBJ: Conditional Use Permit for Temporary Office, Shop and Yard Edgework Builders , Inc. File No. 89-9 Land Use Review This site is located on the east side of Audubon Road and just south of the Soo Line Railroad. This 7 . 0 acre site has been used as a hobby farm by James and Roseanne McHanon. Sanitary Sewer/Watermain At the present time City utilities are not within close proximity of the site; however, the upgrading of Audubon Road from Trunk Highway 5 to the railroad line this year will provide water to the northerly portion of this property. Sanitary sewer and watermain services have also been proposed to be extended to Audubon Road via the Lake Susan Hills 3rd Addition. Since this development and platting process has not been completed, it is expected that utilities will not be available until some time in 1990 . For the present, the applicant will be required to prove that the existing septic system will handle all project demands. In addi- - tion, this site should be treated as a rural site and a second septic tank site should be located in case of failure to the existing system. If the septic system is permitted, the applicant shall agree to connect up to sanitary sewer and water services as soon as they are available to the site . Access The existing residence is serviced by a gravel driveway which is approximately 12 feet in width. Based on the proposed use, truck traffic can be anticipated. Section 20-1123 of the City ' s Zoning Ordinance states that all parking areas and access roads be paved with an all-weather surface with concrete curb and gutter. �TTA CAMI NT / Planning Commission May 9, 1989 Page 2 In addition, the driveway access should be a minimum of 16 feet in width. This would be the absolute minimum driveway width that — would support two-way traffic. Grading and Drainage _ The proposed plan indicates a minimal amount of grading to construct the parking lot and/or driveway surface. The plan does not address any form of retention such that the predeveloped runoff rate is maintained. A revised plan which addresses this issue should be submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to final approval . -. Erosion Control Similarly, the plan does not address erosion control . A drainage and erosion control plan should be submittea prior to final approval . Recommended Conditions 1 . The driveway shall be constructed a minimum of 16 feet in — width and shall be paved . 2 . All parking areas shall be paved and surrounded by concrete curb and gutter in accordance with Section 20-1123 of the — Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance. 3 . The applicant shall submit for approval by the City Engineer — a drainage and erosion control plan prior to final approval . 4 . At such time as public sewer and/or water is available to — the site, connection to the municipal system will be required and appropriate fees and assessments paid. Attachments 1 . Letter from Sullivan Services , Inc. dated June 23, 1988. — 2 . Location map. CITY OF CHANHASSENi 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: #89-2 Comments and recommendations : 1. Dumpster shall not be placed within 5 feet of combustible wells, openings or combustible roof eave lines . ATTACH/titnfT 13 Ai a_ City Council Meeting - Jul2 25, 1988 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR RELOCATION OF OFFICE WAREHOUSE AND IF CONTRACTOR'S YARD ACTIVITIES TO PROPERTY AT 8301 AUDUBON ROAD, MERIT HEATING AND COOLING, INC. Jo Ann Olsen: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to relocate _ their business from the Industrial Office Park to a site just off of Audubon Road south of the railroad tracks. The current locations is a horse farm. The site is in the IOP district and also within the urban service area. It does not have sewer and water service available yet to the site. It would have to be extended. The applicant is proposing to use the existing buildings on the site. The barn and the tack...it is called for their business and use the existing house as the office. They are proposing to expand and possible subdivide the property in the future and they do not want to make improvements to the site that are typically required as far as site plan approval for an industrial use at this time. Staff recommended that they provide us more detailed information _ on the future proposal and we did receive this plan from the applicant. This is the location of Audubon Road showing that actually the site would be totally changed and doing any improvements to it now would be a waste of money. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the conditional use permit. They felt that the Site Plan does not meet the conditions of the ordinance. They felt uncomfortable with approving a temporary use of the existing site. Mayor Hamilton: Steve, did you have anything you wanted to add to the staff report? Steve Berquist: I'm Steve Berquist, one of the owners of Merit. Since the Planning Commission meeting, I think it was a day previous to the Planning Commission meeting we also submitted a tentative plat and a lot layout of the subdivision property. Was that included in the packet? — Jo Ann Olsen: No. I never received a copy. The only copy I saw was the one Bob brought to the Planning Commission. Steve Berquist: According to that thing, I look at that thing on the overhead and I drew that thing over a weekend after Jo Ann had called and said well you better have some kind of plan for future development or, to paraphrase, you don't stand a chance. So I look at that thing on the overhead and it's a pretty rough plan. What we had done in the meantime and what we did prior to the Planning Commission meeting was we worked on some tentative subdivision ideas with the intent being to try and provide some minimum commercial spaces for sale within the industrial park. Meaning a 1 acre lot ordinance and in essence providing land available for businesses such as ourselves that weren't really _ eager to become landlords but we wanted to get into our own space. We didn't want to be tenants any longer. So we worked on that and we came up with this and I thought that Jo Ann had a copy of it and I was hoping that it might have been distributed. It certainly can be at some point in time. This layout meets all the criteria that the City of Chanhassen wants for a lot size minimum, frontage setback and so on and so forth. This would be our tentative plan at this point. Originally the outline that I tried to follow when I put my application together asked me for what our plan was over a time table and in that I eluded to 1991 not really knowing whether or not 1991 was going to be too far down the road, too soon down the road or right on the money. As I said at [71 the Planning Commission meeting, I can not tell you what is going to happen economically to Chanhassen. I can't tell you what's going to happen 40 ATT ,,I ,J7 X ?) !� L� City Council Meeting - y 25, 1988 economically when the new administration comes in and saying yes, we're going to bring in sewer and water in 1991 through the. .. property and develop it, if 1 that's what you want to hear, I have a real problem with saying things that I know are not necessarily going to be the truth. I use 1991 as a rather arbitrary date with the intent being to do it sooner. As I told the Planning Commission, putting our company into the existing facility is like putting a size 12 foot in a size 9 shoe. It won't work for long. I'm really a little bit worried about it working for much more than a year so depending upon what happens today, we fully intend to renovate the house, put our office in it. Do a minimum amount of work to the barn. Put our warehouse in it and then proceed along the line outlined by the Planning Staff and see just how feasible bringing sewer and water is in this particular project. There are some things that have taken place and there are some things that are about to take place from a planning standpoint which will dictate whether or not we are going to be able to bring sewer and water in at any time in the foreseeable future. The foreseeable future being about 1 year. If that is the case, then we fully intend to develop land within that year and what I would like to do is get the thing developed, split up and build outselves our building and be occupying it by January of 1990 with lot sales could carry... Mayor Hamilton: Steve, I'd like to ask you to, maybe you could give us the plat so we could take copies of it. I'd just like to have the Council look at it so they have some idea what you're eluding to. See what he's done is divided the 7. whatever acres into 6 lots which are all an acre or better. Steve Berquist: Here's the railroad right here. Here's all the road. Here's ! the existing farmhouse approximately right here. The existing barn would fall upon this lot line. This is Opus. This is land owned by Opus. This is land owned by Opus. You can see that we put a road through here with the possibility of carrying it through the rest of the IOP area. If you look at the square footages of the lot, they are right at slightly more than an acre so they — provide good space for small businesses to buy land and put a building up. I think it's a good idea the more I look at it. Mayor Hamilton: It's a nice plan. If you could leave that with Barb so they could copy it. Steve Berquist: So anyway, that's where we're coming from. We wanted to get in for a, get in and occupy for a minimum amount of dollars we're spending considering the fact that whatever money we spend now is going to be, when we demolish this, is going to be wasted. Our intent was to go in and bring the - house up to code as far as commercial buildings code. Bring the barn up to whatever code the City wanted it to meet and work. Councilman Boyt: I think this is a good example of somebody trying to make something work and it reminds me of the Merle Volk property down south of us. This is a challenge in that you're the kind of business that I think the City would probably like to nurture along and you're in a location in which the HRA really can't reach you to nurture you. It would seem to me that although it doesn't help the current property owner, you might want to be talking to the HRA about how they could help you locate in the business park. What kind of special assessment reduction agreements they might be willing to agree to and this kind of thing. To the particular issue at hand, I'm interest to see how this works out tonight. I think that putting a sewer in might run about $50,000.00 is the 41 Gd _ City Council Meeting - Jul(' 25, 1988 estimate that I got. It seems that the Planning Commission was awfully clear in saying that this set a very difficult precedent for development in this kind of I area for the future. I think that's what made them relunctant to do it and it makes me somewhat relunctant to say on the one hand to someone who would develop in our business park or other developers in this area that we hope cone in, no you have to asphalt things and curb them and sewer them and on and on. I will admit to being in a quandry. We do need to have a place in town that can nurture businesses. The HRA may be able to do that. I'm not sure that this is the place to be the first one in which we do nurture a business. I'm looking for some guideance and insight from some of the others. Councilman Horn: My interpretation of why we created the contractor's yard I think is slightly different than I heard here tonight. The reasoning that I recall we put it in for was for small businesses that needed a lot of space and space in the industrial park was much too much at a premium for than to economically stay in business. It wasn't, as I understood it, a means to allow somebody the chance to move out of the industrial park into another area that might be the next tier of the industrial ring. That's what zoning is all about in my mind so I'm having trouble unless I'm missing something in this report, finding out the justification for this of why it makes sense from a planning aspect to move an existing business out of the park and put them into an area where it really doesn't fit without special permits. Conditional use permits and things so it seems to me that this wasn't the original intent of a contractor's yard unless my memory of that is wrong. That's all the comments I have. Councilman Geving: I could certainly see why you'd want to not be a tenant any longer and move into something of your own that you could build upon and develop. I'm sure that this City Council could put all kinds of obstacles in _ front of you to prevent you from developing this in terms of ordinances, hook-up to city sewer and water, forcing you to put in concrete curbs and gutter and pave the area and I'm not so sure that's really necessary. I think there is a need for a small business like yours in the community that wants to make a transition into an area that's now used as a horse farm and a single family residence. I think that will get developed eventually and maybe you'll be the people that will do that. I see nothing really wrong with your proposal. My problem is how much are we willing to give in terms of not making the hurdles for you like the paving issue, the curb and gutter, the hook-ups for the sewer and water. I think that will be very, very expensive and probably prohibit you in fact from developing these properties if those were some of the conditions that we placed on approval for this tonight. I see this particular piece of land in a transition stage. It's going to get developed. Whether you do it or someone else down the road. It's the next tier as far as I'm concerned to add to our industrial park. It's a nice piece of property. It is accessible to sewer and water. It's within our MUSA line and I don't see this really very much different than what we did with Charlie Kerber's old house on TH 5. There _ was an existing barn there. There was an old farmhome and we decided that it was good, on a temporary basis, to move a small office type operation in there. I think they have maybe 12 employees total and they're utilizing that very nicely. There's no big concern of the City. It's a very small business and I would say that I'm in favor of this project. I'm in favor to the point where if we could work out some of the details that I mentioned and not have Steve going through all the hoops but that we do have a plan from you Steve, a time table [7= and a plan like we saw you give to Barbara here, maybe you do have a time table 42 . • City Council Meeting - 3 1 25, 1988 until 1990 or 1991 in what you would like to do. Obviously you're showing us a I-- plan tonight that's different than the plan that the Planning Commission saw and it would be only fair for them to see your plan again if you do in fact have a new idea. I think what they're looking for, what we're all looking for is a time table, in writing, a time table that shows what you'd like to do as you progress now in the next couple of years. I'm in favor of this proposal but it needs to be refined and it needs to be honed to the point where I'm satisfied that the sewer and water and all those issues are pretty well spelled out. I like what I see and I think that there is a need for keeping Merit Heating and anybody else in the community and if we need to do something to help him along to make that happen, I'm in favor of it. Councilman Johnson: I think it's interesting you bring up Kerber's out there, the little place because there's a contractor's yard being operated out of there without a permit called Admiral Waste. They're now headquartered in there. They got permission to build someplace else, I don't know what's happening. I think they're happy where they are now on TH 5. I don't know what's going on there. I do not think a conditional use permit is required. I think this is not a contractor's yard. This is a trade shop. I tried to find the definition of a trade shop. It's not in our rules. It's not anywhere. The closest thing I could find was a trade school. A trade school is where his employees go to learn how to do what they do so I define a heating contractor, an electrical contractor, the skilled trades as we call it. In the industry if you talked about a trade person, that's your electrical, your millwrite, your sheet metal, all these type people. They are a trade shop and this is a permitted use within the IOP so I don't think we even need a conditional use permit. That we're doing just a site plan review here. I would like to see a time schedule on — this. I don't think the sewer and water issues are just totally blown out of proportion here in that we have 18 employees of which most of them aren't on site most the time -who are drinking coffee. The use of the sanitary sewer system, the septic system is going to be considerably reduced over the teenagers and Jim McMahon's, the rest of his kids and his wife and his 30 or 40 horses that he waters out there. I think eliminating 30 to 40 horses off that site - will help Lake Susan and the other lakes that are tributary to Jim's property. I see some good reasons for eliminating the horse farm in this area. If we had a choice of what we wanted to have in our industrial park, a horse farm or a heating ventilating contractor, somehow you peel the heating ventilating - contractor is more logical in the industrial park. I believe there is going to = be one thing that's going to be increased and that's traffic. Traffic is going to be considerably increased. You've got 18 people coming in in the morning, -pick up the trucks, leaving. !m'e're going to have a lot of trips per day going in and out and I don't think that small rock driveway is appropriate for that so in this case on complying with asphalting of the driveway and the parking areas, I believe that is a necessary requirement. I don't want the driveway to get so wide that it affects and possibly kills the line of trees on both sides of that driveway. To put in an asphalt driveway 16 foot wide and end up killing 30 tall pine trees would be ludicrous and we need to make sure our forester reviews this site also as to what width of driveway we can put through there but I don't believe 12 foot is appropriate for the traffic going in here. If 16 foot, which is 2 foot added to either side, I don't think that's, probably 16 foot would fit. As far as curbs, I would like to see this done either without curbs or with asphalt curbs because I believe the access to Powers Blvd. is temporary. That future access will be off of an internal road coming out of Opus so we're going to force him to take that access off of Powers Blvd. because this is only 43 264 - - City Council Meeting - July.5, 1988 until the future Lake Drive East? West, will cane through. I would like to see a preliminary plat filed within one year and final plat. I think this is our time constraint. I think in order to approve this, we're actually approving several variances and the variances on the curbing would be the one. I'd like to see that one of the conditions is that we give him a time schedule to have a plat in here. Not a sketch or a drawing or something in the future but we want, if the plat isn't in here by the end of the time schedule, they're looking for a new place to go then. Whether that's a year or a year and a half or two years for preliminary plat is debateable. I think a heating ventilation contractor is a necessary person in the City of Chanhassen just like any other service to our citizens and we definitely don't want to force these folks out of our town. They live here, they work here, let's keep than here. Another condition I would throw on here is no outside storage of parts equipment other than service vehicles would be permitted. We're not permitting any outside storage for this other than the dumpster that's going to have to be enclosed anyway. I'm glad to see that they're talking about getting a lugger to haul away their stuff instead of sitting out back like it currently is. I know I've harrassed staff a few times on the old furnances and stuff. Steve Berquist: We've had a roll-off for a few months and it works real well. Councilman Johnson: Those are my comments. I'm in favor of something inbetwcen _ what they want and what staff wants. I'd like to hear whether I'm right or wrong on this being a permitted use. I think it will probably end up over in Roger's court eventually. Mayor Hamilton: I don't see this as a temporary use as was mentioned in the report. It's a permanent business. They've been in business in this community for a period of time already. They're buying a piece of property to move their business onto and in doing so they want to then finish platting the property as a function on that property and then continue to operate on there. I also don't see it as a contractor's yard. I think Jay had a very good point. This fellow is not a contractor's yard. Councilman Johnson: It's a trade shop. Mayor Hamilton: It's a trade shop. It's not a contractor's yard at all. It's a part of rhe industrial park and it's appropriate that we get the residential - portion of the industrial park finally gone and out of the industrial park and _ have industrial uses in there. The applicant has said he's willing to plat the property, which he already has shown us a plat which unfortunately we didn't get in the packet but he has put some thought to it. He has platted it. It's what he perceives is going to happen with the property but again you never know what's going to happen to anything. Somebody may come in and offer to buy four of his six lots and change the use of it but we do have a plat and it gives us some idea of the direction he's trying to go. The sewer and water uses need to be looked at to find out when, and I don't think Steve knows and I don't think staff knows, when the sewer and water might be available to that property. I don't think it's fair, at this time, to tell Steve and his company that you have to run sewer and water to your property at an exorbinate expense when not too far down the road, perhaps in a year as McGlynn and the other people develop across the street from this property, as more development comes in from the [7: east, sewer and water is going to be available and then they can hook into it and continue to develop the property. I see it as a great opportunity for that 44 r rdl . City Council Meeting - my 25, 1988 `l piece of the industrial park to continue to develop on a continuing basis. No longer do we have a horse farm there and I think if they do a little bit of screening and sprucing up of the place which Steve has said he'll do. He'll paint the house and the barn and paint things up a bit, it's going to be a better looking part of the industrial park. I agree with Jay on several items. I think we need a time table. We need a plat. If we say within a year or two years or whatever is a reasonable length of time although you already have the plat so that can be submitted as we already have it. You can do sane screening on the property of the dumpster and whatever else is required. I don't see any reason why he needs to pave his road at this time. If he puts Class V down, widens the road a bit and makes a Class V parking area, that should be adequate for right now until he continues to develop the property. I think it's a good use of the property. I'm glad to see someone interested in coming i.n and working with the property and as they're on there, we don't have to worry about vandalism or just knocking things over. I think it's a good use and I'm all in favor of it 100%. Councilman Geving: Tom, can I ask you two questions? How do you feel about this going back to the Planning Commission for them to look at the new plan? The one that they haven't seen yet. Plan B. Mayor Hamilton: I would like to approve this with conditions and then pass it back to the Planning Commission for their comments and perhaps any additional conditions they may want to put on but I think we need to get a clear indication to the property owner and to the applicant as to whether or not they can move ahead with this project. I know Steve is under a time constraint to get out of the building he's i.n and that's a real concern. Councilman Geving: I think the question I ask is an important one from a planning standpoint. They have a responsibility and I think that they have a right to see this plan but I agree also with you that we should give Steve an indication tonight that this is either a no go, a go, a maybe so he can start planning and the person he's negotiating with this property for so they know what could happen. How do you also feel about this item on the feasibility to be conducted to determine the best way to get sewer and water to this property? Is that premature? I would say that's premature until we settle how we're going to handle the total property itself and that can come later. Do you agree with that? Mayor Hamilton: I think it's premature too and I think the staff needs to look at what's happening with the McGlynn property and I'm not familiar with all the sewer and water runs and where it's at down there but I think we need to have that information given to us as to where everything is. I'm not even sure that Steve knows how he could access sewer and water and what the costs might be so I think we need to have more information about it. Gary Warren: The purpose of the feasibility, you just described what a feasibility study does. I think as a minimum, that there should be some conditions that if, whatever combination of reasons that the sanitary sewer and water does become available, that this property be required to hook into it. Mayor Hamilton: Oh yes. 45 ZOO - City Council Meeting - July S, 1988 Councilman Geving: And then the other question I have, and I guess that would be of Barb, if the Planning Commission had viewed this as several councilmembers did tonight, that this activity is a trade shop and not a contractor's yard, would that have made any difference to the Planning Commission? Barbara Dacy: No. If it's a permitted or a conditional use, you're still dealing with the same standards. Councilman Geving: And they were still looking for a plan? They were looking — for a time table. Jo Ann Olsen: They saw the preliminary plat. They brought it and showed us a copy. Councilman Geving: But apparently it was not an official part of the packet. Jo Ann Olsen: They did not feel that was adequate. Mayor Hamilton: It's an architect's drawing. I don't know how more official you can get than that. Barbara Dacy: The issue still is, whether or not the Council wants to approve _ it as proposed or if you do want to establish a time line on the proposal as is. Whether they submit a plat drawing is not germane right now...able to expand. Mayor Hamilton: I'm going to move approval of the, I guess it's a request for a — conditional use and I guess you and I agree that it's not a conditional use. Councilman Johnson: Their actual request said Site Plan Review and it got changed to Conditional Use Permit by staff's insistance I believe. Mayor Hamilton: I still don't see it as a conditional use either because it's a use in the industrial park. — Barbara Dacy: Fine. That's fine. Then your motion should say, as a permitted use. — Councilman Johnson: We're doing a Site Plan Review then? Barbara Dacy: Right. — Mayor Hamilton: Okay, I'm going to move for approval of the Site Plan Review for relocation of an office/warehouse to the property located at 8301 Audubon — Road, Merit Heating and Cooling, Inc. with the conditions that a time table be established as to how they propose the property to be developed and how you see your facilities changing. To improve the driveway to widened it to probably a — minimum of 12 feet using Class V for the road and the parking area. To screen the dumpster area and to do any other screening that staff may feel is necessary to improve the site. To submit a plat within one year of how the property is going to be developed from this point. That there be no outside storage. Councilman Geving: How about (c) here Tom? [7: 46 City Council Meeting �'.y 25, 1988 7 i - Mayor Hamilton: Yes, comply with the conditions of the Building and Fire Inspector. Councilman Johnson: The feasibility study? Councilman Geving: I think the feasibility study will come later. Mayor Hamilton: Yes, I think that could almost be generated by the staff. I guess I'm really wrestling with how, I know that sewer and water. Well, I guess Gary's idea was when sewer and water becomes available that the property be required to hook up to it. Councilman Geving: Let's make that a condition. Gary Warren: One correlary I guess that we would have here, at least in my experience, with the Burdick property and the James property where we did not have sanitary sewer pumps at that time to service that property, we added a condition on that developer that he not develop until the City had proceeded with evaluating and had satisfied how we were going to get trunk sanitary sewer to that property which generated a public improvement project which of course.. .feasibility study. That certainly is an option here at this time similar to what we've done with Lake Drive East and others is that Council authorized a feasibility study to look at trunk sanitary sewer service for this site. Mayor Hamilton: I guess I see that as a little different property. You're talking about property on the main street of the City that you know is going to develop sooner. We felt it was going to be developing rather quickly. More -" .. visible and you know there was going to be more activity there where this is a new part of the industrial park, as I see it, and perhaps is going to be a year or two. We already know that up front prior to, although we might be surprised and Steve might be surprised. I told him, you get this platted and you're going to probably find a lot of people interested in it so if that happens, I think that's going to generate the feasibility study because he's going to have to get sewer and water. Councilman Johnson: In order for him to plat, he's going to have to do a feasibility study to figure out how he's going to get sewer and water in there. I would think that would be a condition of the platting was for us to do the feasibility study. Gary Warren: I believe it would be up, again to the Council, if you wanted to make that a condition or not. You could put approve the plat without having sewer and water service there. Mayor Hamilton: That's a good point Jay. I think we should follow that. Gary Warren: As long as there's some condition that the developer understands that he would have to connect when we do come through. You've got Lake Susan Hills West. Phasing of that could change overnight here along with what we do with Lake Drive East so. .. Mayor Hamilton: That's right and I think Steve's aware of that. There's s a lot of things changing out there and he's going to have to keep on top of how things 47 268. /- City Council Meeting - July -5, 1988 are fluctuating and how it's going to affect his property. Jr Councilman Johnson: So 7 would be hook up to sanitary sewer and water service when available? Mayor Hamilton: Right. That's my motion. Councilman Geving: I'll second it. Councilman Boyt: I have some discussion. As I said, I was listening, trying to listen carefully. I think any decision should stand the test of some logic so I've got a couple questions. First question I have is how many variances are we — granting here? Jo Ann Olsen: The paving...the screening and landscaping requirements, I don't know. .. Councilman Boyt: So there's paving, sewer, the driveway, landscaping potentially. Councilman Horn: Erosion control? Jo Ann Olsen: Erosion control, drainage. Councilman Boyt: Erosion control. Drainage. Okay, so that without Planning Commission review I think I counted 7 variances that you're proposing that we — grant. So that was one question I had. The other question is, just so that I'm clear, I'd like to hear how this is different than a developer who happens to have the money to do the things we're requiring because one of the questions in our variance i.s that there's something about this situation that demands variances other than economic so I'd like to hear a bit about that. Mayor Hamilton: Those are your questions? Councilman Boyt: Okay. I think that's two of them and if we could resolve those, I guess I question, everybody can enter this with good intent, what's the guarantee? In what way is the City in a secure position here? What are we doing to avoid ourselves from creating an industrial use that really isn't under our control? That Steve, in spite of all good intentions, decides that this isn't working. He leaves the property and now we've got something that has been zoned and approved for operation and i.s available to other conceivable so what kind of guarantee do we have that in fact it will be developed along the lines _ that intent says would like to be. So those are my three areas of questions. Mayor Hamilton: Let me try to answer some of them. Starting at the last one, I don't think we ever get any guarantees from anybody that's going into business in this town that they're not going to walk away from any project. Councilman Boyt: We sure do. Mayor Hamilton: No we don't. You get your 11Jo but that doesn't guarantee you that the project's going to be completed. Councilman Boyt: It guarantees you get the money to complete it. 48 City Council Meeting - J.n .' 7 25, 1988 r Lo Mayor Hamilton: I don't see that the City has any risk here since the applicant 11- wants to use the property in it's current state and temporary while he's developing the property and using it for his business. I don't see that that puts the City at any risk at all. If it doesn't work for him and he says the heck with it, I'm going to South Dakota, the property is stilled IOP, which it is today. We haven't changed that at all. Somebody else can still go in there and pick up and develop it any way they want. He hasn't effectively right now, let's assume he stays there for 9 months and things go to heck so he leaves town, so what's changed? Nothing. The property is still for sale and somebody else can come along and buy it and develop it or attempt to make use of it as he has. So I don't see that the City is at any risk. I feel that this is a rather unique situation and I guess I really do feel that we need to look at each, and I try to always do this, look at each application on it's own merit. I don't think I've ever looked or we've ever looked at anything quite like this. It seems to me to be a good opportunity to keep a businessman in town and allow him the opportunity to develop a piece of industrial property. The property's been for sale for about 5 years. He's the only person to come along to say that he would like to buy it and to develop it. I think that's what is different about it. No else has come forward to attempt to do that. As far as the variances, perhaps we do have to have some variances but again, I think it's a unique situation and I don't see that granting variances on this particular property is going to cause any hardship to the City or set any precedent. I think it's a very unique piece of property. I've never seen anything like it or an application like this on any similiar type property. I think it's a great opportunity for the City. — Councilman Boyt: Let's go back to the Volk property. We couldn'tet there but we were talking about light industrial uses. That got turned down.y We're losing the piece of property. It got turned down. Now we're going to turn around within a year and say here's a place that could get sewer but we're not going to require sewer so a similar business can start up. Mayor Hamilton: They're totally different pieces of property. The Volk property probably isn't going to have sewer to it from Chanhassen for the next 30 to 40 years. Somewhere in there. Sewer is going to be available to this. It's already in the industrial park. It's within the MUSA line. It's going to have sewer in the short term. There is a major difference. The Volk property isn't going to have it. Councilman Boyt: They are similar. Mayor Hamilton: I don't think so. The Volk property was looking more really at contractor's yard type uses. A paving company or well drilling or that type of thing who wants to function in an area for a period of time until the city grows and then they keep moving out. The same as Merle's contracting yard. As the city grows and the growth keeps moving out, it's finally going to push him out and push others like him out to go out further west where they can get their property and buy their 100 acres and spread out and have all their equipment sitting out and as the growth keeps going, they just keep moving. This is a permanent use. He's going to be on this property hopefully until he dies, and -L until his kids run the business. I don't see this as the same type of use at all. It's permanent. I don't see the temporary use. It's a permanent use of that property. 49 2 7 0 -- City Council Meeting - JulYi 3, 1988 Councilman Johnson: Temporary use of the buildings. Steve Berquist: If that was the case, there's no way we'd be paying $7.50 a square foot for office and $3.50 a square foot for warehouse where we're at now. If we could work out of a contractor's yard like yolk does, there's no reason — for us to be where we are now. We never would have done it. Councilman Boyt: If we're trying to fill up a business park that we have now — and we make it as easy as possible to leave that park, are we helping the City in the long run? Mayor Hamilton: I don't understand your question. — Councilman Boyt: Well, we're taking a tenant frau the office park and we're saying let's see if we can remove the barriers to leaving that office park and go into this IOP. That's basically what we've done and I guess the question I ask is one of impact. Not just on this piece of property but on the business park that loses this type of tenant. — Mayor Hamilton: I see a tenant in the business park saying I want to make a long term investment in the city of Chanhassen. I want to buy a piece of property. Put my business there. Own my property and my building. There's already, as Steve has told me, the landlord already has a person ready to rent the space as soon as he's out of there. I would hope that as Steve develops his property, the tenant that goes into there is going to come over to Steve and say I want to buy one of your 1 acre lots to put my business on there permanently and own my land. Somebody else will come in there and it's just a continual, your a tenant, your business grows and you want to get into your own property. I don't think it has an impact. I think it's a positive impact on the commercial property. Councilman Geving: In fact, I don't think it's really going to hurt our — industrial park any at all. We're actually running out of industrial park space right now. We don't have that many lots left down there. If we could extend the industrial park area that we've been advocating for some time to the west and to the south, I think it's to our benefit to do it. This is the direction we've been wanting to move for a long time. We don't have that many spaces. Maybe Barb or somebody could fill us in. Steve Berquist: There are 7 spaces left in the Opus Park none of which will support a building of anything less than 15,000 square feet without subdividing the property. — Councilman Geving: I was going to say less than 10 because when we started the industrial park, we have about 35 spaces in there and if we're down to 7, I think we've done a tremendous job. There's going to be more applications caning in. We're going to fill that thing up before you know it. Mayor Hamilton: I think that shows you this isn't going to... Councilman Geving: It's a need. There's a need. [71 50 City Council Meeting - , "'y 25, 1988 071 Councilman Horn: I've seen a rental sign for the last six months on a building that we can't rent out and their rates are no higher than this. I think that's exactly why we have zoning for our industrial parks. If we feel our industrial park is running out, then it's incumbent on us to create more areas that are zoned where we don't need variances to build. I don't think this is the right way to go about doing this. I'd like to have our Attorney speak to us about any type of precedent we might be setting in this area and maybe a little review on how we can allow this type of growth and expansion to take place frau a zoning aspect. Roger Knutson: Your ordinance has a procedure for issuing variances that you have all gone through lots and lots of times. Councilman Geving: I think it's an unfair question to ask of Roger because we're the City Council and we can make that decision. Councilman Horn: I'm asking him to interpret the ordinance. Councilman Geving: He just did. I think he just did. Councilman Horn: I'd like to hear the rest of his comments if I could. Roger Knutson: I was going to say, Dale's on the Board of Adjustments and Appeals and he knows more than any of us here probably how variances are processed. As far as the precedential effect of anything, that depends. It's always a judgment call. It's dependent upon how similar or dissimilar they are to that case in point. The more similar they are, the more precedential value — they have. A precedent, in many respects, means treating people fairly. Treating people similarly treated, similarly situated similar. Councilman Boyt: But you can't use economic hardship. Roger Knutson: As a basis for a variance, no. Economic hardship is not a basis for a variance. Councilman Horn: I haven't heard economic hardship is a point in this case. In fact I haven't really heard why the move has to take place. There's nothing in here that indicates that. It's only a desire to move. Mayor Hamilton: That's right. What's wrong with that? Councilman Horn: Nothing. I'm just saying, why do we have rules, I can understand bending rules if there's some hardship to keep a business here. I haven't heard anything that says we're going to lose the business if they don't do this. That's the whole intent that we've had with this contractor's yard or whatever you want to call those things. Steve Berquist: Is that what we have to get to? I have to say we're going to pick up and leave if we don't. .. — Councilman Horn: If we could finish our discussion, I'm saying that I haven't heard that that is even applicable in this case. There scams to be a lot of question as to just what this issue is. Is it a contractor's yard or what should it be called? Why are there so many fuzzy issues? It should be fairly 51 272 - - .City Council Meeting - July 5, 1988 113 clear cut I would think. Why is our...staff that do our planning and organizing for us and set up zoning, totally against this application? Do we have input that they don't have? I would like to have heard someone from the Planning Commission as to why. I read the Minutes but it wasn't terribly clear to me why they objected to this. That's the group that really sets up our planning — standards. Just something doesn't seen very clear cut on this and I have the same problem Bill does. Mayor Hamilton: Well, we've got a motion on the floor and I have some conditions and I'd like to add 3(g) from the staff's conditions. Jay, do you have a brief final comment before we vote on this? Councilman Johnson: Yes. I haven't commented on the motion yet. Item 2 of your motion is improve driveway and parking to Class V. As Class V, that's gravel correct? Mayor Hamilton: Right. Councilman Johnson: I'm not in favor of that. I still think we need asphalt there because of the large increase, especially the loading areas also, just as I said with the last applicant, Lyman Lumber. Their loading dock area needs to be asphalt. I don't see a larger reason why we should give than a rough driveway. As far as being equal, equal treatment. As I go through the variance and what clobbers us on the variance side of it is that special conditions or circumstances are not a consequence of self created hardship. I have some problems of really defining exactly what the hardship is. I see the improvement to the City of eliminating the horse stables. I see that as something we'd like to do. I see that this is an opportunity to remove something from the IOP district that is a non-conforming use but I'd like to eliminate some of our variances. The ones I'd like to eliminate mostly, I think by doing (g) , you eliminated a couple there and I think asphalt will eliminate a few. We've got almost none then. He's agreed to do the screening and landscaping that's _ required. Mayor Hamilton: Can I just ask a question then Jay. Since we know that he's _ going to be changing the configuration of where he's going to be at as he plats it and moves into a more permanent structure, I think he's only concerned about doing asphalt driveway and parking was he's going to have to tear it out again as he moves into a new building. Would it be fair to make the condition that, I don't know to quite phrase this, that he's going to have to pave it within a year if something. If he can't show us how he's going to move or how the property is going to be configured or if he doesn't have his plans in place. I guess I'm just trying to save the guy a buck. I see no reason why we make a guy spend money that we don't have to. I don't see that putting asphalt in there is really a tremendous improvement to the property that absolutely has to be done. As long as you put a good rock base but if there's a condition that says you've got to do it within a period of time as he plats and develops the property. Councilman Johnson: The way I see it, I don't see this in reference to Merle Volk because I think it's a different issue there. I see it more like a John Pryzmus. In that, if you can't afford to do it, he shouldn't be trying to do it. Mayor Hamilton: I don't think that's the point. 52 City Council Meeting - 1" 1, 25, 19882721 ir- Councilman Johnson: I think it is on the asphalt. I'm willing to cut the curb and gutter because we have no storm sewer to direct the water from the curb and gutter into. Curb and gutter directs water into a storm sewer and takes it off and away. An asphalt curb will do it. In this particular case I see there's justification for an asphalt curb and asphalt driveway. I don't see concrete curb because I don't see it as being permanent. We're definitely not going to have this thing connected to the highway for full time but the increase in truck traffic justifies the asphalt. If their erosion control and ponding all requires the curbing, then I think asphalt curbing would be appropriate versus concrete in this situation. There's something unique about this situation that says asphalt. This is a unique piece of property. It's the only existing farmstead within our IOP. We have one other that's already been converted to an industrial use. There is no other. We're not setting a precedent for the next guy because there is no next guy. I don't want to set a precedence of gravel. I'm against the gravel in the IOP. Mayor Hamilton: The other one doesn't have blacktop. Councilman Johnson: There's no blacktop on the other one and that's wrong too. I'm still trying to figure out why there's garbage trucks back there but that's a different issue. Steve Berquist: First of all I want to say that I take exception to the comparison and that... Councilman Johnson: Just on the money side of it. You're saying you can't — afford to do it. Maybe you shouldn't. Steve Berquist: I don't have a problem with paving the driveway. I don't have a problem with paving the loading dock. I question concerning paving the entire parking area. I'm convinced that paving of the driveway and the loading dock is the way to go if for no other reason than to help present a professional image when our light amount of walk-in traffic does walk in but as far as paving the entire area that we intend to park our vehicles on and put our dumpster, I take exception to that in that I don't believe that is necessary. That's just a little overkill. Councilman Johnson: For your dumpster, asphalt underneath it. Impervious surface underneath your dumpster. Steve Berquist: Impervious surface underneath the dumpster...we have a tentative grading plan there before you in the packet of information. What is your feelings on paving of the entire surface area? Councilman Johnson: I think I'd like to see, there's a lot of fuzzy issues here. I'd like to see a proposal of exactly what you think you can pave and what you would like to not pave. More detail. We're kind of missing the detail. Mayor Hamilton: I think he just said the driveway and the dock area and not the parking area. Councilman Johnson: I'd like to see it in writing but anyhow... 53 City Council Meeting - Julie 5, 1988 Mayor Hamilton: We can make it a condition. I'll change my condition number 2 to blacktop the drive and the dock area and under the dumpster. Councilman Geving: Can we go through these again? I think it's important. We're getting fuzzy. _ Mayor Hamilton: Blacktop and curb the driveway and the dock area and underneath the dumpster. Councilman Geving: That's condition number? Mayor Hamilton: 2. Condition 1 is a time table for development. 3 is to screen the dumpster the same as 3(b) . Condition 4 was to have a plat within a year. Condition 5 was no outside storage. Condition 6 was to connect to sewer and water when available. Then we had item (g) which will be condition 7 for the erosion control. Councilman Geving: We had also Building and Fire Inspector. _ Gary Warren: Rural requirements for any property which is going to be on a septic system, we always provide for an alternate site. That might be something _ to consider here. The same reason that if the site fails, we have a back-up. Councilman Johnson: Maybe if the site fails, then they're required to hook up to sewer and water rather than an atlernate site. If we've got a site failing in there. Gary Warren: It should stand the test of any other septic site that we approve for a subdivision request that they have... Mayor Hamilton: I suspect the applicant wouldn't have any problem locating another site should his current system fail since the system is in good working order. I don't suspect that that's going to be a problem since there will be less use now than there will be with residential. Councilman Johnson: But you talked about doing the borings and getting the site approved right now. Mayor Hamilton: Do you have a problem with that Steve? Councilman Geving: What's the cost on that? Barbara Dacy: I really think that maybe we should maybe place as a condition for staff to review this. Being located within the urban service area, we should really review in detail how the connection to sewer and water ties in. _ Mayor Hamilton: Make that a part of that whole thing. Councilman Geving: Usually an urban requirement isn't it? Councilman Johnson: Rural. But this is an urban area. 61 Councilman Geving: But it's a rural requirement. 54 City Council Meeting - ( _y 25, 1988 -. z J Gary Warren: ...making an exception here to have them out of sewer and water... Mayor Hamilton: I think Barb's suggestion is good in that we're going to look at the whole sewer and water issue and staff should review if an additional septic site is necessary or not. That can come back as a consent item. Councilman Boyt: Several times early this evening I heard about the need for public input. When we grant variances, we have public hearings. We haven't notified anybody so you can't consider this a public hearing. Councilman Johnson: Granting a variance doesn't require a public hearing. Roger Knutson: Take a look at Section 20-29. Barbara Dacy: I think what we need to define here is, the motion for approval is for blacktopping a significant portion of the area. I know you've made a motion for approval, maybe we just should sit down with the applicant and give staff time to determine what is a variance and what isn't. If one is necessary, then we'll have to go ahead...and go from there. It was advertised as a conditional use and there was a public hearing on... Councilman Horn: I think that's a good recommendation. That if it requires a variance, then a public hearing.. . 7 Roger Knutson: Or the Board of Adjustments. — I Barbara Dacy: If you wanted to do that as condition 10. Mayor Hamilton: I think that would be number 9 condition that should it be approved, that the variances would be reviewed by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals and advertised as such. Councilman Boyt: That basically takes the whole issue and postpones it until they make a decision and if they make a decision, they basically, we can give them the conditions you've outlined... Mayor Hamilton: It gives them a leg to stand on. At least they know we're willing to, assumed that it's approved, we're willing to approve it with review of the variances by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Barbara Dacy: They won't be able to proceed until there's a findings by the Council that no other hearings are needed... Councilman Boyt: So if we approve it tonight and the Board of Adjustments and Appeals approves it, then it's a done deal? Barbara Dacy: Right. Intermediary to that we'll bring the item back on the August 8th agenda pending approval of this motion and discussion with the applicant. Councilman Boyt: I don't think it would delay anything to put it back in front of the Planning Commission. 55 .. .. -.•=...a.... aMMIkGi ty 'COunci l Meeting - Jul .5, 1988 Barbara Dacy: The Planning Commission made a very strong statement about their dissatisfaction with the plan. I don't know if they would change that as proposed. Councilman Boyt: One never knows. They've got all sorts of Minutes that they _ can read that will give them insight into this situation. I'd like to see it go back in front of them. Councilman Horn: So would I. Councilman Johnson: This is really a tough one because I really like to enforce our ordinances but since this is going to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals _ for all the variance conditions on it, we're only voting on the site plan review at this point, I'll go yea. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve Site Plan Review for relocation of an office/warehouse to the property located at 8301 Audubon Road, Merit Heating and Cooling, Inc. with the following conditions: 1. A time table be established as to how the applicant proposes the property to be developed and how they see their facilities changing. _ 2. To improve the driveway to widened it to probably a minimum of 12 feet using asphalt for the driveway, loading dock area and underneath the dumpster. 3. Provide any additional landscaping requirements and proper screening of the trash enclosure and proposed dock area. 4. Submit a plat within one year of how the property is going to be developed from this point. 5. There will be no outside storage. — 6. The applicant will hook up to city sewer and water when it becomes available. _ 7. Comply with the conditions of the Building and Fire Inspector. 8. The applicant shall submit for approval by the City Engineer a grading, drainage and erosion control plan prepared by a registered engineer prior to final approval. 9. After review by the City Staff, any variances required will be reviewed by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals and advertised as such. Mayor Hamilton, Councilman Geving and Councilman Johnson voted in favor of the motion. Councilman Horn and Councilman Boyt voted in opposition to the motion. The motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. 56 r ULLIVAN'S ERVICES, INC. 3660 HWY. 101 SOUTH WAYZATA. MN 55391 473-4300 June 23, 1988 City of Chanhassen Planning Department Attention : Jo Ann Olson 690 Coulter Street Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RE : Jim McMahon 8301 Audobon Chanhassen, Minnesota To Whom It May Concern : On June 22, 1988 we cleanea and checked the septic system at the above mentioned address and found that it is in good working condition co che best of our knowledge. \ Q Patrick S. Sullivan President 1988 EDGEWORK BUILDERS, INC. 201 W. 591 Street - - Minneapolis, MN 55419 ® (612) 861-1266 MASTERS OF QUALITY CONSTRUCTION April 9. 1989 Mr. Steve Hansen City Planner City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive — Chanhassen. Mn. 55317 Dear Mr. Hansen. Enclosed is a packet of information required by the city for an application for a conditional use permit for a Contractor's Yard for the property located at 8301 Audubon Road. In addition. I would like to provide some further background of my situation, and projections for the future. If approved, my intention would be to relocate my business, Edgework Builders, Inc.(EBI) to this property. AS you are aware, I currently have a conditional use permit to construct a Contractor's Yard on some land zoned Rural Residential on Galpin Blvd. Although I am confident that my Galpin Blvd. site would be maintained to the highest standards, I would prefer to locate EBI in an area that is zoned appropriately for our neeas. Certain conditions were required of EBI on Galpin Blvd. Those included hard surfacing of the main traffic areas. screening outside storage areas. and complying with local and state building codes. It would be my intention to maintain these same standards on the Audubon Road site. It would be my intention to use the current buildings and their supporting systems in some modified fashion until such time as I could develop the property into industrial sites similar in nature to the industrial park to the North and East. Variables such as sewer and water availability, market demands, and development of adjoining property all affect the practicality of site development. but I would hope to have the land developed to its fullest potential within 5 years. I now wish to identify the nature and intensity of EBI as it regards the current building and site plan. Building Proposed use Square Footage Occupancy — Farm house Office 1580 SF 5 Barn, upper Cold storage 2275 SF - Barn, lower Vacant 2275 SF Garage Garage 600 SF 1 Tack Barn Tool storage 1040 SF - — Chicken coops Cold storage 1200 SF - 4 rr/} NM o N r We currently have 5 office staff: Receptionist/bookkeeper, Estimator, Salesperson, Draftsperson. and Field Supervisor. Only the Receptionist and Draftsperson are expected to reside in the office full time. The other 3 staffmembers spend approximately 25% of their time in the office. We employ between 12 and 15 installers in the field. In the past, all parties used report directly to our yard. but that has been changed. We have reorganized our crews. and now only the foremen report to the yard. These 4-5 people report to the yard, load their trucks for the day, and are subsequently gone until their return at the end of the day. In talking to septic system contractors, they would equate this use scenario to a family of four. The current owner is a family of 6. He also boards approximately 25 horses. I am certain that the current septic and water use is more intense than what I am proposing. I therefore feel that the current system would function adequately until such time that city sewer and water couid be made available at a reasonable cost. In closing, I would like to re-itterate my desire to redirect my current CUP to property that is more appropriately zoned. I can assure you that I will maintain the highest standards of property maintenance with the current site plan. Attachments Application Site plan Tabulations of physical conditions Location map Letter from Sullivans Services re septic system Sincerely. David A. Stockdale President Edgework Builders. Inc. _ J LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION _ CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 APPLICANT: David A . Stockdale OWNER: James & Roseanne McMahon ADDRESS 7210 Galpin Blvd . ADDRESS 8301 Audubon Road - Chanhassen . MN 55331 Chanhassen , MN 55317 _ Zip Code Zip Code TELEPHONE (Daytime ) 861-1266 TELEPHONE 448-3701 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 x Conditional Use Permit Street/Easement Vacation Site Plan Review Wetlands Permit PROJECT NAME Temporary office, shop and yard for Edgework Builders , Inc . PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION Commercial/Industrial REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION Same PRESENT ZONING Commercial/Industrial REQUESTED ZONING Same USES PROPOSED Office , shop & yard for contracting business — SIZE OF PROPERTY 7 . 47 acres LOCATION 1/4 mile south of Highway 5 on Audubon Road REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST To gain permission from city administration to permit operation of a construction — business on the existing premises until such time as subdivision becomes possible . LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary ) see attached f rriic/IM6-Air # - . C ,TY O F P.C. DATE: May 17 , 1989 \\ � , 'V CIIIINEASSEN C.C. ::E: 88: S1 ne 12 1989 ' ' CASE UB Prepared by: Olsen/ktm STAFF REPORT 4 PROPOSAL: Preliminary plat request to subdivide approximately 7 . 3 acres into 9 single family lots and two outlots on property zoned RSF LOCATION: Directly south of West 64th Street and west of Highway 41 V APPLICANT: Gary Reed — 2461 West 64th Street Excelsior, MN 55331 - a PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Single Family Residential ACREAGE: 7 . 3 acres (net) 4. 6 acres (not includinc Outlots A and B) DENSITY: 1. 2 units/acre net density 2 units/acre (not including Outlots A and B) ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- RSF & BN; single family & vacant commercia_ 3- RSF; single family Q E- RSF; single family ALU W- RSF; single family — !^� WATER AND SEWER: Municipal services are available. v PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The property contains existing residences and raises in grade from west to east. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential I -,.. '. . i 3 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 ..0 ) 0 0 0 0 0 8 — 0 v ,n _ 0 CD N"" C.I cn 8 r_ •c„,,,--- cu N N ?di N CC) N MANOR RC 1 i 1 I , .. -"%............. A • • . figahr KDE r .446Clii;7;1--41 AsE\ / , 1111[11[:7F rig 10400, 0 c n ....._---- R701-1_11 i 01174 .. • i _......„Th i _:.41.\N. - 1 t a= .isswir 1 E .m.. . _-__,_..._.......... ... , __ p 4014 (5".t.- ipethimp .. . =:6-jr7 RINGN V & illi .. al 44p 6). ° , ilpiz3111A GROW in* % - s ",11111ILDILL ISP114 # 42. 11.- - \ 40 ,t-A3vAzitch agiiir 14/1.1 it II* 1 N, ai tilloo . " • • l) mg ltir - I '- 11 MI .- I. r. =! PLiit ... 7 _ 1 al 1/./ 1 1 - 01 firal' i i i. 'Reza g . CREr V lEiltWri. - ‘11,0413- t.A X — _ - et/1 / i Q 1 C.)i‘...01 _ - , •Z'' , _ xs 1 ! / , _ -------' I I . 1 I W. 67 TH SIRE!.T, 1 7 tr /... i , , , , „ . f ,... ".. _.1 RR 1 , L AiKE re _ M HARR/SO4' :21111 i ... i PUD-- AbillatZ.Pi" " L _ .„,. . . ... . ._.„-..-- / I • ( I ..,.. ,_ . co . ,.., •, "• .,• : A . I zi • ca: Reed' s Orchard Ridge May 17 , 1989 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS The RSF district permits a minimum lot area of 15 ,000 square feet with 90 feet of public street frontage and 125-foot lot depth. The land use designation permits up to 3. 4 dwelling units per acre. REFERRAL AGENCIES City Engineer Attachment #1 Building Department No comments BACKGROUND On October 6 , 1986 , the City Council approved a metes and bounds lot split request to divide the westerly 1 . 71 acres of the sub- - ject property into two single family lots. The Council ' s action was contingent upon platting the two lots when the remainder of the Reed property is developed and platted. On April 25 , 1988 , the City Council approved the rezoning request of the southwest corner of Hwy. 7 and Hwy . 41 from OI, Office Institutional to BN, Neighborhood Business for the first reading and also approved the subdivision and site plan request subject to several conditions ( see attached minutes) . On £4ay 31 , 1988 , the Council approved the partial vacation of W. 64th Street subject to the creation of a cul-de-sac into the Reed property, provision of a left turn lane for westbound TH 7 for the turn movement into Oriole Avenue, construction of an 8 foot bituminous trail in the vacated right-of-way and finally, that the developer assume all expenses regarding reconstruction of the street, relocation of driveways and submitting the necessary '- financial sureties as part of the development contract. The City Council discussed at length the necessity of whether or not West 64th Street needed to be reconnected to TH 41 . The Council reviewed three options: 1) reconnection of West 64th Street to TH 41 along the Gowen/Reed property lines; 2 ) cul-de-sac West 64th Street at the immediate southwest corner of the commercial site; and 3) cul-de-sac into the Reed property. The Council chose the third option creating the cul-de-sac into the Reed property (see attached minutes ) . Reed' s Orchard Ridge — May 17 , 1989 Page 3 PRELIMINARY PLAT The applicant is proposing to subdivide 7. 3 acres into 9 single — family lots and 2 outlots. Lots 1 and 2 are located at the southeast corner of Oriole Avenue and 64th Street and are existing lots of record containing two single family residences. — The applicant is including these lots in the preliminary plat as per City Council recommendation and in order to adjust the existing lot lines. The remaining 7 lots are located along a cul-de-sac off of 64th Street. Lots 1 and 2 will continue to be serviced by the private driveway from 64th Street. Lots 3 through 9 will be serviced by the cul- de-sac from 64th Street. All of the lots meet the minimum requirements required in the RSF district. Outlot A is being provided to contain the drainage pond constructed for runoff from the HSZ site located to the north. Outlot B is being separated for future development. Any development of Outlot B will require a replat and access permit from MnDOT (Highway 41) . GRADING, DRAINAGE, UTILITIES See City Engineer memo Attachment # 1 — RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopts the — following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of preliminary plat — #88-17 as shown on the plat dated May 8, 1989 with the following conditions : 1. Outlot B cannot be developed until it receives preliminary and final plat approval ; any site plan approvals if necessary and receive an access permit from MnDOT for access from Highway 41. — 2. The developer shall dedicate the utilities within the West 64th Street right-of-way to the City for permanent ownership. — 3 . Detailed construction plans and specifications, including calculations for sizing the roadway and utility improvements, shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer. As- built mylar plans will also be required upon completion of the construcction. 4. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of the Watershed District for reshaping of the pond. Reed' s Orchard Ridge May 17, 1989 Page 3 5. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper installation of these public improvements. ATTACHMENTS 1. City Engineer ' s memo dated May 10 , 1989 . CITYOF — CHANHASSEN 0 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 — (612) 937-1900 — MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Gary Warren, City Engineer C AW\ -' .1‘1 ' DATE: May 10 , 1989 — SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Review for Reed' s Orchard Ridge File No. 89-10 Land Use Review — This site is located on the east side of Oriole Avenue and south of West 64th Street. The site is legally described as Lot G, — Bardwell Acres . SANITARY SEWER AND WATERMAIN — Municipal sewer and water is available to the site from West 64th Street. These existing services were stubbed to this development — in 1988 under the Seven Forty-One Crossing project for the anti- cipated development of this site. The City shall provide public service for sanitary sewer and — watermain within the proposed right-of-,lay of West 64th Street extended. The applicant will need to verify and document sizing for the watermain and sanitary sewer with submittal of the plans and specifications . PUBLIC STREET The applicant has provided a 50-foot right-of-way for West 64th — Street extended. This roadway shall be built and dedicated as a City street. The street section will be constructed thorught the public platted right-of-way with a 28-foot width urban section to — meet the anticipated demand for this type of development. No grade is shown for street construction; therefore, the minimum grade would be 0 . 50% or no greater than 7 . 0%. — Planning Commission May 10 , 1989 Page 2 GRADING AND DRAINAGE It appears that a portion of the site will experience shaping and/or grading but the majority of the building pad grading is to be done by the owner (s) of the lots. It should be noted that the pond constructed in Outlot A needs to be reshaped to allow for a buffer required by the City between the proposed roadway and the pond. A storm sewer network will be needed to maintain the predeveloped runoff rate to the storage pond area. Details will be required with plans and specifications . EROSION CONTROL This site will require erosion control in accordance with the City' s Type III standards . All side slopes greater than 3:1 shall be stabilized using erosion control blankets. Vegetative cover shall be established in accordance with the conditions of the City ' s standard specifications. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS 1 . The developer shall dedicate the utilities within the West 64th Street right-of-way to the City for permanent ownership. 2 . Detailed construction plans and specifications, including calculations for sizing the roadway and utility improvements, shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer. As- - built mylar plans will also be required upon completion of the construcction. 3 . The applicant shall comply with all conditions of the Watershed District for reshaping of the pond. 4 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper installation of these public improvements. City Council Mooting august 8, 1988 411 Resolution #88-80: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve Improvement Project File #86-13 Assessment Roll for trunk sanitary sewer for CR 16 and CR 17. All voted in favor and the motion carried. AWARD OF BIDS: 1988 STREET SEALCOATING PROJECT. Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to award the contract for the 1988 Street Sealcoating project to Allied Blacktop Company of Maple Grove, Minnesota in the amount of $50,096.00. All voted in favor and the motion carried. FRONT AND SIDE YARD VARIANCE REQUESTS, 7725 FRONTIER TRAIL, STEVE NELSON. _ Councilman Geving: Steve Nelson is a new property owner over on Frontier Trail and this was approved by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals for a 3 foot variance to the 10 foot sideyard setback and no variance to the required 30 foot frontyard setback. Also, we waived the application fee of $75.00 because this was previously approved in 1985 and it's just a reapplication. LOT AREA VARIANCE REQUEST, CORNER OF LONE EAGLE DRIVE AND NEZ PERCE, LOTUS REALTY. Mayor Hamilton: This wasn't one that you had on your Board of _ Adjustments. Councilman Geving: We did address this. We voted for denial based upon all the situations. That was a illegal lot split and that it was a self-created hardship and that the City is not approving the creation of a non-confomring lot so those were the reasons. Mayor Hamilton: So you denied it? Councilman Geving: So we denied 10. Mayor Hamilton: It didn't indicate that it was going to be there. I just had a question. Would having a home on that particular lot improve the neighobrhood? Councilman Geving: That's a tough issue. There's almost 10,000 square feet there. I don't know what else will happen on that lot but the fact that they _ illegally created it created the problem. I guess I'd have to say yes Tom to your question. Mayor Hamilton: I would think so too. REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 7 ACRES INTO 2 LOTS AND 1 OUTLOT AND TO CREATE A NEW WEST 1-64TH STREET CUL-DE-SAC, SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WEST 64TH STREET AND HIGHWAY 41, GARY REED AND HSZ DEVELOPMENT. Councilman Boyt: I guess my concern is that the cul-de-sac's layout hinges upon future development, doesn't it Gary? Where you want that cul- de-sac depends on 35 cil Meeting - AG3t 8, 1988 3 t happens to the rest of the property. Gary Reed: ...placing that cul-de-sac, you get additional use of that lot and whatever is left over will be developed hopefully in a commercial situation. Councilman Boyt: What I'm concerned about and I don't know if it's appropriate for it to be the City's concern or not. I'm concerned that the way the cul-de- - sac is laid out, it .creates a piece of property that is not going to be accessed by the cul-de-sac. So we either are saying that somehow we're miraclously going to come up with another entrance off of TH 41. Gary Reed: We have it. Councilman Boyt: So you have access to that. You don't have to develop at all in this cul-de-sac, is that what you're telling me? That even if the frontage isn't granted commercial, which would be rezoning. If it's not rezoned commercial, you can still develop? Gary Reed: We have an entrance onto TH 41 where the old drive-in was. Councilman Boyt: That was my only concern. I didn't want to see us create a future problem. Gary Reed: We've checked now with MnDot and make sure that we'd be able to use — that access onto TH 41. Before we did that we checked with MnDot. They haven't given it to me in writing. Barbara Dacy: The access that you're referring to is approximately in this i__ location where the existing entrance to the old drive-in is but because 64th Street is being vacated and because a full intersection is here, MnDot indicated that this separation would be acceptable. Councilman Boyt: But Mr. Gowen down there is not rushing to develop. — Barbara Dacy: That's correct. Councilman Boyt: And is this access onto TH 41 going to impact him? — Barbara Dacy: MnDot indicated that Mr. Gowen can continue to use his existing driveway. Councilman Johnson: Does the, I guess it would be the west side of the cul-de- sac, you say the first part you're looking to put commercial in. On TH 41 and then you're looking for residential around this cul- de-sac? Gary Reed: That's correct. — Councilman Johnson: Is there enough room between your existing, those two lots you're putting in there, the proposed house and the house, and the cul-de-sac? Gary Reed: We have a preliminary plat with 7 lots...which all are... k: Councilman Johnson: Will they all meet the 30 foot setbacks? I don't know if you were here earlier for our discussion on setbacks. 36 /Council Meeting -gust 8, 1988 411 Gary Reed: I, in fact staked out some of the lots and. .. Barbara Dacy: The point you're making though is valid. I think that before final plat, I know the Reed's have done a lot of sketch drawings and what we to meet with them to make sure that they have the appropriate lot width and need lot depth and so on. Councilman Johnson: Prior to final plat? So that would be recommendation 10. I'm not exactly sure how to state that. Prior to final plat that a sketch plan — showing adequate building setbacks, etc. is reviewed by staff. Councilman Geving: The only concern I have is on the, I guess page 5, having to do with the drainage into our Herman Field area down the proposed pipe. I'm really curious about how much drainage that's going to be and what's going to happen once it gets to the turn in the pipe, where does it go? Does it sop up into the ground by Herman Field? Are you going to create another pond or what's — happening? Larry, can you explain it to me? Larry Brown: Yes, in dealing with the Watershed District, the Watershed — District felt that it was best to keep-the pipe as far back from the lake as possible. Eventually the ultimate point of this is to reach Lake Minnewashta flowing through the grasslands and through the park area. This pipe, we tried — to coordinate it with the proposed drainageway that was proposed to Herman Field and the parkland. It's been suggested to let Mark Koegler, the planner who originated the Herman Field plan, to draft up his comments as well. 1. Councilman Geving: My concern is that we're not creating another problem by pulling the water off of this cul-de-sac and dumping it onto this low area and then channeling it down to the, they're still a long ways from the lake. That's — a long ways from the lake and I'm concerned that you might be creating an area that eventually will turn into a small cattail marsh if there's a lot of this run-off. — Gary Recd: There is one down there now. Councilman Geving: So there is something there existing now? We're not — creating it? Okay. You know it better than anybody Gary. Gary Reed: The cul-de-sac, hopefully we're going to get. .. I have one concern that...grade on the...it would be coming out of the ground right at the distance ...and creating a dam in effect to that swale. Councilman Geving: Where your existing home is you mean? — Gary Reed: Yes. On the west line of that property, towards West 64th Street where there's a swale area...and then follow the swale all the way into the — marsh. Councilman Geving: Will that pipe be above the ground there? The one that's shown there? That will be underground? Gary Warren: Correct. 37 uci.l Meeting - Aug. t 8, 1988 (10 • uncilman Geving: Okay, I have no other questions. Councilman Horn: I only have one comment. Hopefully in the future when a majority of that develops, we'll be able to minimize the entrances onto TH 41. I realize that with individual owners it's hard to get the development all coordinated at once but I hope we can minimize that as much as we could so we don't do what Eden Prairie did with TH 101. Mayor Hamilton: Hopefully the Reeds are satisfied with the way this is coming out. You're pleased that development is going to take place and that you're going to be able to develop your property the way you want to. That was my only concern. I know it may have pushed you into a little sooner than you wanted to but. I would move approval of case number 88-17, the preliminary plat request to create one outlot and two single family lots. Councilman Horn: Second. Councilman Johnson: With the 9 conditions and the 10th? Mayor Hamilton: Yes. With the conditions, 1 through 9 and 10. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve Subdivision #88-17 to create one outlot and two single family lots in the West 64th Street cul-de-sac as presented on the plat stamped "Received July 13, 1988" and subject to the following conditions: 1. Reservation of a 25 foot trail easement over the proposed 8 foot bituminous trail in the vacated 64th Street right-of-way. 2. The appliant shalom enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper installation of this improvement. 3. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit. 4. Utility easements located over the proposed sanitary sewer and watermain between the existing West 64th Street right-of-way and the proposed cul-de-sac right-of-way shall be shown on the final plat. These easements shall be 20 feet in width minimum. 5. The applicant shall provide the City with a temporary easement agreement which will allow entry onto the Reed property for construction of the cul-de-sac and ponding site. 6. The proposed ponding site located at the southeast quadrant of the proposed intersection of West 64th Street and the proposed cul-de-sac shall be located such that a 5 foot buffer exists between the existing utilities in West 64th Street and the 100 year high water elevation for the ponding site. 7. A temporary construction easement will be required from the Minnesota Department of Trasnportati.on such that grading may take place within the right-of-way owned by the Minnesota Department of Transportation located adjacent to the northeast corner of the parcel. 38 Council Meeting august 8, 1988 s re./ 8. All erosion controls shall be in place prior of the commencement of any construction, and shall remain in place throughout the duration of construction. The developer shall periodically inspect the erosion control and make any necessary repairs promptly. 9. The plat shall maintain the 64th Street street name. 10. Prior to final plat a plan showing adequate building setbacks is reviewed by City Staff. All voted in favor and the motion carried. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Councilman Geving: What I really want to talk about is, from a professional standpoint and how I think we as a Council are the leaders in the community and we direct our staff and we direct the various commissions and cammitees who work for the commissions. It bothers me a lot when I see letters that are written directly to Councilmen as a result of our decisions. You've got to understand that not all committee recommendations, not all commission recommendations are ever fully understood and bought 100% by the Council. There are always going to - be recommendations from commissions that are going to be considered. We're going to buy them sometimes. Sometimes we're going to thank them for the recommendations and make another move. What I'm bringing to the table tonight is a couple of letters that appeared in my in box from Park and Recreation Commission. I think that they were totally out of line and that any commission is out of line in responding to decisions that are made by the Council. They have to always remember that they are a recommending body and their — recommendations are not always bought off by the Council. We take it as just additional input and so it bothers me a lot when I see people not working as a team and not being unified as a team. We have to work together in order for the common good of the community. I won't say any more than that except that i.t does bother me when I see commission members writing officially to councilmen who are trying to do their very best job in the best interest of the community and be criticized for it. That's all I have to say. Mayor Hamilton: I would certianly concur with what you have to say only I'd put it even more strongly than that. I was very miffed by the letter, one of the two letters that went out referring to, it wasn't even clear who it came from and I'm a little surprised that our staff would even type such a letter and send it out when there was obviously no one signing it. No one saying that they were the ones writing it. They're doing exactly, it was obviously from the Park and Rec Commission, somebody on that commission who thinks they're in a power play I guess. It's one of the questions I've always asked when people volunteer to be _ on various commissions is would i.t bother them if the Council did not, in some cases, accept their recommendations? I think in all the cases that I can remember, everybody has said oh no. That's fine. We understand the relationship. That we're a recommending body and the Council makes the decision. Well, there are sane people who don't seem to be able to take that and if that's the problem, they ought to get off the Commission, and I mean that. If they can't follow the rules, if they can't play the game the way it's supposed to be played, then they ought to go do something else. Their little 39 — • • Ci.ty Counci.1 Meeting ' 4pri 1 25, 1988 — placed in another holding pattern while lasttime and another wondering they basically photocopy what they why the City was unwilling to take the Attorney'sid recommendation from last time and act on that to get this thing resolved so can get our dock? We feel we have... we Mayor Hamilton: I think this is standard _ Knutson was here. This time Mr. Procedure for us. Last time Roger and he will come up with the Findings of Fact andre and he's heardogeand I'm testimonyure he'll have it back to us in very talk to Roger and here in a weeks time or soone . short order. I suspectI m sure we'll have it back Pat Farrell: Next meeting. Mayor Hamilton: Next meeting we'll have it. re not trying to dela all. We'll get it just as ea Y you at quickly as w� can. LOT AREA VARIANCE TO PERMIT A HOME SQUARE FOOT LOT LOCATED ON WOODHILLROAD,BE CLOTSR2 63-2766,, CARVER AN BEACH, R LAND VENTURES. AND R Mayor Hamilton: This item was before the Board of Adjustments and Appeals so Willard, can you inform the Council what the disposition was. -- P Willard Johnson: We discussed it. It's a lot of record and we granted the variance being it's a lot of record, unanimously. SEVER PETERSON, PRELIMINARY PLAT EXTENSION. ' f Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve extension until January 1, 1989 because of the propsv edpreliminary plat H 212 corridor. Without the corridor having been approved and Peterson doesn't know how it's going to affect fhis lized at this nt, knows — how it's going to affect his property, he can't go through property. Untilai he roces All voted in favor and motion carried, platting process. -HSZ DEVELOPMENT, SOUTHWEST CORNER OF TH 7 AND TH 41: A. REZONING FROM OI, OFFICE INSTITUTIONAL B. PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST TO BN, NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS. Q TO CREATE 3 COMMERCIAL LOTS. C. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 25,920 SQUARE FEET RETAIL CENTER. D. PUBLIC HEARING FOR PARTIAL VACATION OF WEST 64TH STREET. Mayor Hamilton: This is an item that's been before us many times also. We have new developers of this property who have presented a plat to us. Barbara Dacy: At the Planning Commission meeting Planning Commission covered a number of issues and March 16, 1988, the Chairman is here tonight, or at least I thought the Planning Criss s s were discussed at the Planning Commission meeting dealt wwas. ith e theorezoning thatL7-7_ issue, the traffic and the transportation alignments and various items on the 24 `� G`� City Council Meeting April 25, 1988 1 site plan. I'd just briefly like to review those and point out some additional information that has been made available. As far as the rezoning action is concerned from the office institutional to the neighborhood business district, the Planning Commission felt more comfortable with this proposal because of the creation of the BN district in the new Zoning Ordinance. Now the neighborhood zoning district specifically controls height to one story for the types of uses that are proposed. It also establishes a 50 foot building and parking setback . from adjacent homes and requires a strict amount of screening to be constructed - . between residential and commercial properties. EUrther, it provides for a specific list of neighborhood oriented uses. Another item of this proposal that seems to gain more acceptance than previous proposals was the traffic separation from the commercial development to the adjacent neighborhood. - Basically what that entailed, at the Planning Commission was a discussion of .two options. Option 1 being vacation of existing 64th Street and realignment of 64th Street further to the south of TH 41 so that a full intersection could - be created into the development on TH 41 according to MnDot standards, approximately 600 feet south of TH 7. This option proposed an extension of Oriole Lane down to it's existing terminous and then east adjacent to the Gowen and the Reed property. Another optiop that was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting, as labeled on your plans as Option 2 or staff has kind of called it the Z option, would crisscross through the Reed property. Again, - .=allowing for the full intersection farther to the north. I think it's fair to - say that the Planning Commission felt that a reconnection to TH 41 for 64th Street was important. They also agreed with the neighborhood comments that there should not be assessments created out of this road construction project and the cost, if one of these options or another option to connect it to TH 41 should be born by the developer. The Council does have that option to require that. Since the Planning Commission meeting there have been two additional alternatives suggested by the developer. What we're calling as Option 3 is the - construction of a cul-de-sac at the southwest corner of the commercial site on 64th Street. This option would not make a connection back to TH 41. Option 4 is the same principle however it goes farther into the Reed property and would provide for future resubdivision of the Rood property. We know this i.s a change from the Planning Commission. However, it is staff's recommendation that a reconnection of 64th Street is very, very important to the neighborhood _ in this area. As you can tell by this overhead, this is TH 7 on the north, TH 41 over here, that this Washta Bay Road/Orchard Lane neighborhood has no access into and out of the area other than 64th Street and TH 7. There is no - ability to cross or connect to Dartmouth Drive to the west because of the - wetland area. Closing off 64th Street would force all of the residential trips onto TH 7. TH 7 i.s a minor arterial and serves a different purpose. It's purpose is to move traffic between two points at a fairly rapid speed and - without a lot of interruption. Retaining the connection of 64th Street would allow traffic coming out of this neighborhood to go south on TH 41 and provides a second means of ingress and egress. Therefore, what staff is recommending Council to take direction on is whether or not 64th Street should be reconnected to TH 41. It's our recommendation that it should be. That either Option 1, 2 or some other option can be evaluated in more detail when the Reed property would come in for platting. Condition of approval that was recommended by the Planning Commission was that that plat for the Reed property would be approved by the Council before construction could occur on the commercial property. As to the site plan issues, three items that we'd like to follow up on. One, there was concern about landscaping along the western border of the site. That the landscaping would extend to the TH 7 property 25 c--' • City Council Meeting - AA L 25, 1988 line. The applicant has amended his plans to add ten 6 foot evergreen trees to extend the landscaping along the Ziegler property line and all the way up to TH 7. Another concern was the concern from the Watershed District about water quality on Lake Minnewashta. The applicant has revised it's plan to provide for an on-site storm water retention. The applicant has also revised the lighting plan to take better advantage of pole standards and so on and to create lighting structures that are constructed in such a manner to protect -- glare from going onto adjacent properties. The Planning Commission and staff recommendation remains the same from the March 16th meeting. However, we would recommend that you would adopt the revised plans. If you'd like, Larry Brown can address the on-site retention issue and the lighting plan issue, if you want to go into further detail on it. Larry Brown: As stated in the report, kind of at the 12th hour, concerns came up regarding the water quality as this proposed storm sewer pipe would discharge into the Herman Field Park. Not the park itself but the wetlands down by Herman Field Park. In going back to the Watershed District with these concerns, they revised their initial recommendation and stated that they wanted additional on-site ponding. The plan that you see before you tonight addresses those concerns by constructing two ponds: One up here in the northeast corner and the one you don't see, because this is the old transparency, is the one that on your plan shown in the southeast corner. These ponds do provide adequate sedimentation and the Watershed District has given their verbal approval on these. As you know, they will not give their formal approval until the Council acts on these. The other issue was the lighting concept plan. Since the neighborhood had brought up such a great concern about the glare, they designed out or speced out special lighting fixtures similar to the ones that you see i.n the City Hall lots and kept the full heights at 20 feet such that the glare would not be affecting any other adjacent lot owners. They have gone as far as taking this to a lighting consultant and had this plan analyzed to make sure that the glare would not be affecting the adjacent property owners. With that I'll leave it open to Council questions. Mayor Hamilton: What I'd like to do is have the developer, do you have a presentation you'd like to make? Roger Zahn: My name is Roger Zahn. I'm president of HSZ Development. I'd just like to give a little bit of background on our approach to a number of the issues that we saw with respect to this property as we studied it and looked into whether or not we should go forward with this development. Having read the Minutes of the past Council and Planning Commission meetings and tried to take into account the concerns raised there, many of them legitimate and trying to solve those problems. In our approach to the development, we have tried to a great extent to listen to the neighbors and if they had a preferred approach that we might take, we tried to take that and work with them. That has caused us to kind of change directions a little bit more often I think than staff would like us to do and perhaps we've caused a few concerns on their part by -- doing that but we have done it i.n an effort to cooperate with the neighbors. The cul-de-sac ideas that have been discussed and that have been brought to you since the Planning Commission meeting were basically the neighbors preference. The Reeds and the Gowens, in our discussion with then initially they saw a little bit more of the idea of moving a road all the way through onto TH 41 a little bit more favorably and I think in analyzing their own situations, they [E: would prefer to do it this way and that's fine with us. So we drew up some 26 City Council Meeting ,_,pri 1 25, 1988 71 r- concept plans showing that and it's also fine with us to put the road through. _ If we had a preference we would agree with the Reeds and Gowens and the other neighbors that thing that way, that the cul-de-sac approach would probably be the best and it is our preferred approach at this time. At this point I think I'll turn, so you can see, we've got some presentation boards and we've got — John Uban from Dahlgren, Shardlow & Uban here to discuss the planning issues that he has worked on and we've got J.D. MacRae from Heise, Ryan, MacRae and Associates to discuss the architectural concerns and also Brian Larson from _ Barrientos and Associates to answer questions that you may have regarding any engineering. Craig Johnson also from that firm regarding landscaping. I think I'll turn it over to John at this point. John Uban: You're all very familiar with this. I will briefly show this to you. To give you an idea of some of the things that we looked and had to deal with as we were trying to develop a good development scenario for this parcel. "-This is a 200 scale aerial photograph. The subject property is right at the intersection of TH 7 and TH 41. This piece is isolated in a sense from the neighborhood in that it really doesn't share access into the neighborhood itself and really is incumbered by the extreme exposure to the highway system which actually makes it a good site for doing something like neighborhood commercial. That's the attack we took and yet at the same time, all the residents in the pattern of development that has happened in the past, really — spoke to try to separate the traffic systems from these two uses. So we looked at a method of doing that. We worked with the neighbors to really come out with the best plan. Also to the south is a major Hennepin County park and open _ space system. The actual property is divided up into many single family plots onto the west and we have on Oriole Drive the connection of 64th over to TH 41 the way it exists today. That connects to TH 7 and loops back across into the neighborhood and to the west. So we looked at the land to the south owned by two individuals to see what kind of options we had. We also looked at the area .circulation and did studies and we looked at the basic water drainage system. Here we found that there were some ponds put in place by the Highway Department that were draining the norther portions of the site but primarily most of it — came through a very informal fashion and found their way into a marshland just before it entered the lake which is a good natural system to take care of the water. So now we've only tried to augment that to meet the criteria of the — _ Watershed District and the City so this water is now handled the best way _ possible. We've studied this and solved some problems. There's water that :comes across the road. We've looked at all of those developments. In our — discussions, staff has already reviewed the options that we've looked at but we did several things. We met with MnDot. We tried to work out problems that they had. Proposing to add a lane, a by-pass lane and then a deaccerleration and acceleration lane for the entrances. What we've developed then is a piece of land with it's own full access which separates it completely from the neighborhood and this went a long way to really get the use integrated with much better architecture, lower buildings, good landscaping, good setbacks, low — glare lighting, all these features to really make it work. We also worked with MnDot to try and develop a solution to a very dangerous situation. It is very difficult for westbound traffic to make a left turn onto Oriole Lane so we worked with them and they will now, this summer, be restriping that section of the road for a dedicated left turn lane because in the past people have been sitting in there, high speed traffic coming up behind them and they're sitting ��— there waiting to make this seemingly innocuous left turn and it's very — dangerous. People have almost gotten hurt so we've worked to try and solve 27 72 • City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988 that problem and we thing we have worked that out now with MnDot. This development looked at different ways of putting access into the land to the south to give them future development potential. Really what we've done is opened up the realm of possibilities and what could happen, there are several different solutions. This one looped through and followed the existing right-of-way here but some of the neighbors didn't want this road. Didn't want to finish out some of the platted roads that were in the area. So we looked at another system in which 64th was kept in place that then hopped down to the Reed property, followed the property line out then to TH 41. This worked except maybe the timing isn't quite right for both parties at the same time and then we would not extend Forest Avenue either. The neighborhood did not want that to happen. So that's what led us to the final solution. That's maybe not the best name for it but hopefully it's one that will work very well. The cul-de-sac idea really is only the first phase of the previous kinds of solutions that we looked at. One in which Mr. Reed can develop a few lots, culminate 64th Street into a safe cul-de-sac and then it offers the platting and the continuation of the street that could open up the rest of the land in Mr. Gowen and Mr. Reed on out to TH 41 so it does resolve that deadend issue in that it can be completed. It does not use other existing right-of-way. It doesn't have to although the City certainly has the choice of completing the road system that exists and eliminating the other cul-de-sac. This also has the potential, and is requested by the City for safety purposes as an interim solution to this cul-de-sac is to provide emergency access right up into the site itself which we can do if it's really required so all of this is really designed as a first step. These two landowners are not developers really. They're people who own the land, have owned i.t for a long time and are not necessarily in a good position today to really jump in and take on all the responsi.biliti.es of development but this is a solution that they can live with and it gets them into working with their land on a slower pace. We think this works very well and will solve all the problems with circulation for the site itself. It works with the standards of MnDot. It helps revive a solution that should have been looked at a long time ago with the left turn lane into Oriole and i.t really starts the development pattern i think working out very successfully. We've worked hard. We've met with everyone and we think we have before you tonight the best solution we can produce and I think you'll see, when you see the product, the site design, that it really is going to be a very good development for you. I'll turn it over now to J.D. to go through that development unless you have any questions of me. Councilman Boyt: How long is your cul-de-sac? John Uban: This small one, I'll measure it exactly. A little over 500 feet. Councilman Johnson: All the way. Councilman Boyt: There's a second entrance there Jay on the bottom. John Uban: I'm measuring from this to this. Councilman Johnson: All the way up. That's your one and only entrance. Councilman Boyt: No. It comes out another part of TU 7. 28 • -7 City Council Meeting April 25, 1988cfcl John Uban: There are different ways of looking at it. If you want to measure it from TH 7, obviously we have several hundred more feet there but there's a 1 platted road through here that forms a'road. Physically it is not in place but it's platted right-of-way. Councilman Boyt: That other one is another 600 or 700 feet up to TH 7? That extension? ' Councilman Johnson: Where Orchard intersects.. . Councilman Boyt: I think I've got the idea. • John Uban: If you're measuring from TH 7, this is over 500 feet. Councilman Boyt: Like about 1,000. - John Uban: That's why we're providing the option of doing this. The landowner then can pursue the dedication through easements and dedication right-of-way for the completion of the roadway. J.D. MacRae: My name is J.D. MacRae. I'm with Heise, Ryan, MacRae and _ Associates. We're the architects on the project. To go quickly through the site issues first of all. Again, reorientating, TH 7, TH 41, full access onto TH 41 and a right turn lane only off of TH 7. We chose to build up on TH 7 two outlots that would be sold off for commercial uses. Then pulled our site back away from TH 7 feeling that the highest visibility i.s TH 7. The best useage for those lots then, for that intense type use on that outlot would be up on TH 7. ;•7e then orientated the building along the south property line. 'Following the property line. We orientated it that way for two reasons. One, the intersection with the stop light. , Full visibility of the most sighted for the retailers. Secondly, trying to reduce then mpet. The of building on the neighborhood to the west which was of great concernn..ctThe our impact to the south obviously, we have a lot of building along there but due to the height difference between this piece of property and the property to the south, they're really looking up through a berm and seeing very little of the - ' building from this height. We then have an accessory building which is on the west side. Again, trying to minimize the amount of building there with a maximum amount of square footage that you can put on this site. We then have the parking out in front with some drive-up parking meets all the requirements of the Cirking' setbalong the center. The to the pavinare actually about 59 feet I believe we have here yrather thanacks the 50 foot setbag Most of that i.s due to the grade difference from about this point to this point and the needing for the slope and the berm up on top to the landscaping which .we'll get to in a moment. Well, we can get to it right now. We have a landscape plan here which has been amended, is not amended on here, continuing landscaping up to TH 7 as Barb had discussed. ro We have fir trees all along the perimeter of the property intermixing other types of vegetation and bringing in Scotch Pine. Then down below it we have sumac. Craig Johnson: We have deciduous shrubs. t J.D. MacRae: Along this portion of the berm. We then have deciduous trees out in front that are thin, light trees so again the visibility is easy to see through. to have an arcade of trees on each side of the entrance making 29 74 - City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988 • • somewhat of a parkway entrance off of TH 7.- Then landscaping out i.n. here. With that landscaping, this all meets down here. The landscaping along the perimeter, we've also incorporated berming along the top of. this hillside here to help screen the residential. We have sight section A, B, C and D which are reflected here showing a typical two story house and it's proper the relationship of distance and height to our project. Through thisation accessory .-. .. , — building we would actually berm up onto the back of the building and carry the berm up somewhat higher and then scotch pines and the deciduous trees... The _ sight line actually from eye level on the second' level cutting across, I believe we see about a foot of the accessory building. You_get into the mat side of the retail center itself, again here cuttingh throe , y uh same amount of building. Not taking into consideration thatweohave about the — landscaping on top of that that is there year round. On the back side, Section C and D, we're just showing there is obviously no development down there. These are the existing contours coming up the hill and again showing the minimal amount of the building with the berm itself and then the landscaping up _ on top of the berm. The biggest concern we have with the berming was to hide the cars and hide the parking lot so we're not looking at a parking lot. Looking at a minimal amount of building.--Making the smallest amount of impact. Getting to the actual building itself, along the front side, the street side, we have windows, full height from the sidewalk 9 feet high. We have a canopy that carries across the faceof the building that sticks over the sidewalk so you can walk underneath the canopy. Then we anchor at each end of the — building, this is sort of a shorten elevation, this is the actual elevation to make sense of how long it really is. We have anchored each side of the building with an architectural element that sticks up above the top of- the building and using brick and rock face concrete block, we tried. to make a real pretty elevation here and' here. Again, with. the glass and concrete, coltwnns going across here, the signage will be incorporated into the canopy. We then — wrap around the corner here carrying the brick back to about a two-thirds point and then it's a rock faced- block mask that sticks 2'8" here and then wraps around the back side of the building. We've clad the roof of the canopy and the roof of these two elements in a red standing seam roofing.. This black mass you see back behind is another metal roofing that is being used as a screening element for the rooftop units. It runs the continuous length of. the building. Again, it has the two-thirds point back, wrapping around this concrete mass and then coming around the back of the building a short distance_ and terminating. We chose to do that for two reasons. One, the intersection of TH 7 and TH 41 is slightly higher than the floor height here which means somebody sitting in their car would have the opportunity to look up onto the roof and see not the -- roof but would see the rooftop units. We think that's very distracting and not good looking. Two, as we drive along this side on TH 41, TH 41 is as high as our building is and you actually have the opportunity to look down upon the building. Again, trying to lessen the impact of the rooftop unit. I' ll leave you with, and we have a rendering to give you sort of an image idea of what kind of a center we're talking about. A very high quality, nice materials. — Again, the sign band up in the canopy. The canopy going back. Many people walking along the sidewalk. Only two cars, I don't know how they -got there. Then our tall element up here. Again, the tall decidious trees out in the parking lot for minimum impact. Mayor Hamilton: Anybody from the neighborhood like to make comments? . If you'd6 like to, now is your chance. Preferably if there is somebody representing the whole group I'd appreciate hearing from them rather than each individual. 30 City Council Meeting - April 25, 1983 Gene Conner: I'm the next door neighbor to Bob Wagner on Orchard Lane. Bob — poked me and said okay, it's your turn. I feel like I've kind of been subjected over the years to the Chinese water torture with this project. I must admist that I do have to congratulate the developers for finally coming up with something that at least seems like a reasonably intelligent approach to the project. I really can't say that for previous approaches. I still have reservations. It's been said over and over and over again that that area is _ not suitable for residential. I really don't believe it. Since that's been said so many times it's almost become a thing with me. I drive around and I look at residential development areas that are close to highways much busier, much bigger than that one and see really nice places being built close to intersections. That property also has enough contour in it so that residences could have been built in off 64th Street with, I think .the highways would not have bothered than at all. I built facing TH 7 and I don't have a problem _ with TH 7 and I think there is some property in there, most of the property in there could have been utilized with more screening toward the highway than I had. But the Council in all their wisdom has decided that that's not going to be residential. I still think it's suitable for the OI that it's presently designated. I guess I'm not sold onTh commercial type development in there yet although this is far better than what we've had in the past. I do have two - areas of concern with this however and that is the two pieces of undeveloped property in front of it. I mean as sure as God made little green apples, the next approach is going to be for a full blown commercial on those lots because they're facing right out on the highway. It's creeoi ng commercialism. I just know in my own heart that if this goes in, that is going to go full blown commercial out there. Maybe not with this Council. It's easy for this Council to say it won't happen but down the road you people won't always be here. Again, my congratulations however to the developers, a very fine presentation. Ben Gowen: I'm the adjacent property to the south of Reeds. Under the latest • proposal of the cul-de-sac, I see where I'm not involved one iota now or in the _ future. If I've got that wrong, please correct me. Another thing, it was mentioned by Barb earlier that during the Planning meeting it was stated by her • that Reed's plotting was a part of the discussion. I don't think that was a fact in the Planning meeting. Otherwise, I'm for the cemnrecial corner. I — think there's only one way to do it and that's commercial. Bob Wagner, 2511 Orchard Lane: Of course I couldn't pass up the opportunity to come up here and talk to you guys again. I'd like to take you back to your -August 3rd Commission meeting in which you met without the luxury of us, the homeowners, and Mayor Hamilton talked to Councilman Johnson and he said if the ingress and egress on that property could be resolved to Councilman Johnson's satisfaction, would he be in favor of commercial and he said yes. I think - that's still a major issue from what I've heard tonight. I'm not sure I've heard the proper solution. We've talked about two options, two of which were discussed at the Planning Commission meeting. Two of which were discussed for the first time tonight, at least amongst us homeowners that are here. One of those I have heard is very disturbing to me and that's where We talk about an emergency route, if you will, back up into the shopping center which to me means we're distroying the privacy, we're tearing down berming, we're not } protecting the residential any longer. Of course I understand where that's coming from. We have 1,000 foot or longer cul-de-sac which is against the Code I believe. I'm more opposed to the entrance back into the shopping center than anything and I think that deserves a lot of discussion. I think it destroys 31 • • City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988 the concept that we were trying to sell in the beginning which is keep it separate. Councilman Boyt made a statement on August 3rd, he said to vote on that we've got to be able to show that there's a significant portion of the neighborhood that supports it. I've heard Ben get up and say he supports it. I have yet to hear anybody else in the neighborhood get up and say they support it. I don't know what you consider significant but I don't consider one or two neighbors significant. I think I've heard a lot more neighbors opposed that for. Councilman Geving said something a little bit better quality, bring that back or something that could sell the quality angle. Keeping it separate from the homeowners. Low density. Bring us back something that's good quality, low density, good separation from existing homes. I think the one point in that that should be discussed is intensity. I think if you look at the records and if you look at previous proposals, this may be less intense by 1,000 square feet but you're not considering the other property up front yet to be developed and I would challenge that to the question of intensity. Mayor Hamilton made a comment in that meeting about, I'll quote, I can't for the life of me figure out how they can complain about noise, talking about the neighbors, or whatever it was they were complaining about that far away from the road. I think they're complaining about something that isn't a problem and I think I'm being realistic and they're not. I think if that's true Mr. Mayor, then residential would fit there. If noise isn't an issue. Going back to the Planning Commission meeting, the last meeting we attended, it was stated by Barb Dacy that as to this application, what we're saying is they can't start building here until the City has resolution on the street connection issue. From the staff standpoint, that's the major issue and that is to get the traffic connection back to TH 41. That's on page 15, about the third paragraph. I still think that's the issue tonight. I hear a sense in change in direction. I guess I'm just concerned that it's adequately discussed. There is a presentation on this board that shows two buildings. One is the 26,0043 square foot building but there's another building placed off to the side in the presentation that is not part of what they're planning on developing. That particular building sits right behind Ziegler's home and that would in fact create a privacy issue with them in that it would protect them from the shopping center. I just want to point out to you that's really not in this phase of development unless they could find a builder but I think the way they're presenting it, it's not in there although it's in the picture. The statement was made about the berm and the statement was made that it's somewhat higher than the parking lot. Having lived through this in front of my house with what was the Baltic property, somewhat highwer is a very disturbing term to me. I'm still looking for the landscaping and the evergreen trees that was reserved with a letter of credit at that time. It's still not there today. That's back in 1979 so I think somewhat higher is a rather elusive term and I think you need to do a better job of finalizing what that is. We talked about the view from TH 41 as we listened to this and the fact that somebody could sit in their car and possibly look down, at least slightly on the units on the top of this building, I'd like to point out to the Council that I live on the hill higher than TH 41 and I'm going to have the opportunity to look down across the whole roof, not just part of it. I think that's an issue. A community issue. Maybe very much a personal one but with good reason. I've been here before and I would like to see something directed in that area. We talked about the pleasing look. I call it the Canterbury stables look with the two cones on top of the roof. I would ask you to verify that that's within the height limit of the Building Code for 13N. I think it might be out of that area that's approved. I think that's the major issues. 32 777 City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988 Gary Reed: My brother and I own the property that's adjacent to the shopping i center on the south. As far as the shopping center going in, it just depends on what Mr. Zahn is going to do for us. If we vacate the street, we have approximately five sewer and water system that we're not currently paying for along the street so that is the reason for the extension of the cul-de-sac into the property. We felt that that would be a good compromise to vacate the street. That we would then be able to develop around the cul-de-sac area which - would give us a little more depth into the property. Then the drainage situation that is currently there, where it cuts through the property, would have to be dealt with if this concept were to be accepted. We have a lot of drainage that comes off of the West Jr. High or whatever it is now, the Middle . School, that canes off of their parking lot and cuts through our property and 'it can be a torrent at times so I think we're looking for the developer to look _ at that situation too because it would certainly be a part of his drainage problem and we all met at one spot there. We would hope to also be applying for a BN type zoning on probably the front 3 1/2 acres and residential then around the cul-de-sac area. We feel that being back up to the shopping center, Ben Gowen has conditional use running' on the other side of us and then to the south is the park and school and so on, that we would also apply in the future for a BN for the frontage along the highway. We asked Roger for a permanent easement into his parking lot so that we would then have two exits. One on TH 41 and then into his parking lot for that frontage. Then develop the back lots as residential at some future plat that you would have that comes before you. These are just some of my thoughts on it. We would be in favor of the cul-de- sac idea that's being proposed as we could work it out with Roger. Councilman Geving: Are you i.n favor then of that second access into the shopping center from your property to the north? You're the one that worked out and negotiated with the developer? Gary Reed: In the front part of his parking lot we would ask for an easement over his parking lot so that if we did develop it, we could then be part of his entrance and exit. We could exit out ours and then we would have no impact on the neighborhood as far as traffic flow is concerned. Now if you're talking about the emergency access to the back. Councilman Geving: That's what I'm really talking about. Gary Reed: I think if that's handled properly, there shouldn't be any traffic back through. My wife and I were concerned about the people that walk up to the school, we suggested to Roger and he agreed that putting a bike path up through and along the shopping center and then that would double as the • emergency entrance into the cul-de-sac area if an -emergency vehicle needed to go in there. Possibly leave a notch in the berming. At that point, I don't think it would bother anybody. I guess I hoped a little bit about protecting the rooftop units on the front of the building but I would certainly like to see them protected on the back side too. I wouldn't like to look at-them. ` Councilman Geving: So you're i.n favor of the project as it's being proposed tonight? Gary Reed: Well, as the amendments go on, as long as we work things out. 33 4 � City Council Meeting - app_ _ 25, 1938 Larry Brown: Point of clarification. I think Barb had put up on the overhead there, and correct me if I'm wrong Mr. Reed but I believe that was the entrance that you were in favor of. The one showing on the right hand side. Not confused with the one that the applicant had shown. Gary Reed: That was the easement I had discussed with Roger and this concept, this isn't exactly laid out the way it would be probably. The concept is the same but I would prefer it being forward here so, this isn't really to scale. I have 155* feet in here. My house and my sons house would be built on that and then I would like another 100 feet or 150 feet in the lots here and another 100 here... Councilman Boyt: How many acres do you have? Gary Reed: There's approximately from, I'm severing this off so the rest would be probably 7-7 1/2 acres or so. Councilman Boyt: So you're looking at about half of that BN? Gary Reed: Yes, just enough to put one business on the property. We've had the drive-in up there for years you know and I've been talking to some people that would reconstruct that idea and make a restaurant. Put an extension on the Reed's Drive-in theme. Operated for years and it was an asset to the community. Paul Kerner, 6351 Minnewashta Woods Drive: I'm just here on behalf, we want to see some commercial development at that location. I just wanted to show my support. Mayor Hamilton: We should take them one at a time and look at the rezoning from OI to BN first of all. After that we'll look at the preliminary plat and see if we can't hammer out something that's workable there. Jay, do you want to start? Do you have any comments on the rezoning issue? Councilman Johnson: Since this is the first reading of rezoning and the change to our ordinance on the cause for rezoning, and we're putting conditions in the plat and site plan review and stuff, we prevent a second reading until we've satisfied the other conditions, I don't have a lot of problem right now with the rezoning because it's not a total rezoning at this time. I believe that BN is better than oI for the neighbors in that the OI is three story buildings maximum at this time and possibly in the future will even be taller buildings in the future so theoretically four years down the road, we could see a six story office building in this area if one of the premise that we have, the three story restriction on is because, one of the reasons is because the fire trucks can't fight a fire at this time. The new platform truck we'll have a couple years from now, we may be changing that ordinance. It'site possible that OI in this area, we could have a fairly extensive, several hundred square foot office building placed in this area that could cause even worse problems than the BN. Even currently you could put three stories worth of office buildings in here which could be a considerable amount of square footage of area. A lot of employees. A lot of traffic. A lot of potential problems. Site wise, a three story building is a heck of a lot harder to berm away then a one story building. Given this is the first reading and it's not final until 34 • City Council Meeting = April 25, 1983 r the second reading, we're not actually rezoning it tonight, until we ge single issue here is access and I'm going get the — to talk more about access and I think 4 everybody else is going to talk more about access on the next phases of this but to me, this section should either be residential or business neighborhood. Right now we don't have anything before us saying go residential. Business neighborhood to me would be better than OI for the residents in the neighborhood. Councilman Horn: I'll just repeat what Jay said. I think the BN makes sense. I think the BN makes a good transition for this area. Councilman Geving: Bill, do you have any comments on just the first issue please. The rezoning issue. Just limit it to that at this time. Councilman Boyt: I have a hard time separate this out into four issues. I'll make an attempt. I think that the strongest tool that we have here is the request for rezoning and that takes a four-fifths vote. I was happy to be reminded of what I had said earlier by Mr. Wagner. It's always nice to be haunted by one's quotes Mr. Wagner. ''I would suggest that it's somewhat difficult for me to know, I know this issue is probably beaten down a lot of the neighbors and it must be hard to get up and rally the troops one more time. I have heard that there is some sense that this is better. Whether it's good enough or not I think is something we have to hammer out between now and when it's finally improved. My guess would be that this developer is determined to meet all reasonable interests of the neighborhood and I would anticipate eventual approvement. You show me that a significant part of the neighborhood is in fact opposed and I'll vote against it. By significant I mean you show me that, for my vote, that somewhere in the neighborhood of 60% to 70% of the neighborhood is opposed to this kind of development. I'd vote against it. I think it's incumbent upon the developer to meet the concerns of the . neighborhood, I think the neighborhood has said that yes, the developer is moving in that direction. We have this zoned, it's kind of an unfortunate zoning. I think Jay has mentioned one reason it's unfortunate. I think another one is, it's taking a valuable piece of property out of circulation in the community. I think the thing that will keep this piece of property from developing residential is it's commercial value. Eventually someone, they can't afford to put a house there because the land is potentially worth that much. I think you've seen that over the years. You've seen it with four different attempts to develop it commercially. As far as the preliminary _reading, I think that it's very important for the developer to show a significant support of the neighborhood. I don't see a significant part of the _ neighborhood saying that they oppose it so I think it's incumbent upon the neighborhood to do that. This is pouring gasoline on the fire but I happen to agree with you that since a conditional use for a 'BN is a convenience store with gas pumps or an automotive service station, I would be inclined to think that what we're really looking at here is a very good screening system. I think it's a fairly good screening from that but I would anticipate that the use right off of TH 7 would be more intense than the shopping center: It's all projections so how do I know? Put simply, I like what I see. I think that there has been a good bit of adjustment to the concerns of the neighborhood. I don't see a significant portion of the neighborhood I want you to know that I will stand by my earlier quote. against it and yet CounciLman Geving: I think that we have come a long way in this d`velepnent 35 City Council Meeting - ApL i 25, 1988 from where it was just several years ago. I think that the developers have gone back to the homeowners and made a really significant attempt to work with the homeowners. I got this impression and that was the marching order that we gave to the developers. To meet with the homeowners. Work out the problems. Try to keep the separation as was mentioned earlier from the homeowners and don't impact them in terms of assesments. This is your project and it's very important that it remain your project. If there are improvements to be made in your area, they should not impact upon the homeowners in terms of assessments for roads and whatever is going to be constructed here. I think we've come a long ways in terms of trying to look at that corner. Now two years ago, we made an attempt to look at this as an office institutional area. We thought offices might be the way to go. It just didn't happen and I guess the market research and the studies will indicate that there just isn't a demand, a great demand for office at this time. Certainly not at that location. I think it's time to develop this property. I think it's time to develop that corner. In time it will get developed. Whether it's now or at some future time. The concern that I have is that we continue to look at the separation of the development from the homeowners both on the west and to the south and I'm very much concerned about the drainage issue.._ There's going to be a lot of water coming south and to the southwest. It's happening now in fact and we're going to intensify that with any kind of construction. The big concern of course is the highway issue. I know we're on the rezoning issue but it all has to do with rezoning. I'm for rezoning personally because I think until we resolve that we can't go onto the other issues on the preliminary plat and look at where we're going. For the record, I'll be for rezoning this from 0I to BN. Mayor Hamilton: It's certainly been a difficult piece of land to work with over the years and I like the plan I see. I know that office industrial space on the strip for instance, has between 17% and 25% vacancy rates. It's understandable that somebody wouldn' t want to come in here and put in any office/industrial. It's just not in demand for it right now so I'm very much in favor of rezoning this to BN. I think it's a good use for the corner. I also feel that to reply to Mr. Connor's comment, I think if there had been somebody who wanted to do, felt it was a good residential corner, it's been available for so long that someone would have been here requesting to do that. It appears that this is the use that the people with the money who want to invest it to do something, this is the use they want to use it for and I think it's a good use for that corner. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Rezoning Request #85-2 to rezone 7.63 acres from OI, Office Insti.tuti.onal to BN, Business Neighborhood, First Reading as legally described in the proposed plat application. All voted in favor except Councilman Boyt who opposed and motion carried. PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST TO CREATE THREE COMMERCIAL LOTS. _ Mayor Hamilton: We have Outlot ,A and B which will be developed at a future time and the Lot C which has the retail strip center on it which we have before us. 36 • ' City Council Meeting -- :,pril 25, 1933 Councilman Johnson: My main comment on this one is rewording of condition 1 1 . which currently reads, approval of the preliminary plat and site plan shall be contingent upon the vacation of 64th Street right-of-way, approval of final j plat of the Reed property. I think we've got a real problem with Options 3 and/or 4 because I see this as an extreme, extreme might too far, I see this as a public safety issue and a public convenience issue. When we cul-de-sac that property, that forces these homeowners living on Oriole and that area, they have to exit onto TH 7. I hate exiting onto TH 7 up there. I drive up there every once in a while and I purposely go down Oriole and around on 64th Street so I can get onto TH 41 where it's much safer to drive. Somebody in a Trans Am might have a better chance than me in my Horizon. I appreciate the developers pointing out to MnDot that you can make that left turn lane in there and hopefully that will work. That's one place where I saw death coming in my rear view mirror one day. What I'd like to do is redo this number 1 to make it a little more restrictive. Say, approval of the second reading of the zoning _ ordinance change, preliminary plat and site plan should be contingent... Mayor Hamilton: What page are you on? Councilman Johnson: Page 11. Under City Council recommendation. First item. Say approval of the second reading of the zoning ordinance change, preliminary plat and site plan shall be contingent upon the vacation of 64th Street right- of-way, approval of a final plat for the Reed property with no commercial, i.e. retail, business neighborhood, etc., access to the relocated 64th Street. Then continue on the way it is. In other words, the purpose for moving 64th Street in the first place is to prevent commercial traffic from being on 64th Street. That's one of the things the neighborhoods have complained about over the years is that traffic. That was the neighborhood concern that I'm addressing here. The movement of 64th Street to the south side of the Reed property and then rezoning the Recd property BN and allowing an access from this BN onto the commercial property has done absolutely nothing. All we did was separate. If the Reed property can be serviced from the existing entrance on the proposed shopping area without having to have their own access to TH 41, which MnDot won't allow them to have anyway, without having access to 64th Street, then it could work. But at no time will I vote for any plan that closes 64th Street's access to the TH 41 for any significant period of time. It can be closed during construction. Mayor Hamilton: We're still on (b) . Councilman Johnson: That is (b) . - Mayor Hamilton: You're talking about (d) now. You're on 64th Street. • Councilman Johnson: That's right. Condition 1 talks about 64th Street. If we don't approve this then (d) is just out the window anyway. `hat's the length of my real comment on this. I do want to compliment the developers here because they have gone a quantum leap I think from the last development I saw when I was here as a citizen, the citizens frau this area were also here protesting Copperwood Developments or whatever it was back then and we have made sane improvements here. I think there's roan to work and we might actually get this accomplished. OMNI 37 Q‘,7 . City Council Meeting - „__i l 25, 1983 Councilman Geving: I just want to go back to the Watershed retention of the stormwater to assure ourselves that that's going to be retained on-site and the staff update is correct as far as the record is concerned there in that the indication was that it's going to be retained in two places. Is that correct? Larry Brown: That's correct. On the southeast and northeast corner. Councilman Geving: You've calculated this out and this will work? Larry Brown: I have checked the applicant's calculations and they are true to form. Councilman Geving: I still believe that we've got to get 64th Street out to TH 41. I just feel that somehow or another that's got to happen. I will continue to work in that regard. I have no other continents about the platting. I think we're in good shape here and I'll go along with that. Councilman Horn: My biggest concerns are the transportation. At one point we thought we found a way to eliminate the4eft turn on TH 7 which seemed to me like a good way to go. The problem I'm really having with this whole thing is when I put together a whole transportation thing in a vaccum it makes a lot of - sense to go one way but when I hear what all the neighborhood concerns are and the developer concerns and the people who have property and they want to develop in that area, this scenario isn't quite simple. I guess we have an ultimate access to Herman Field now but my first impression on this is that I would somehow develop another access to Herman Field and I'd get an alternate out to TH 41 and I'd take as many accesses off of TH 7 as I could. But understanding the realities of what we're living with, I would support the last recommendation which i.s to put a cul-de-sac in. I think that's the best compromise with all the bodies and the all the people who are concerned about this because it is going to impact the neighborhood. There's no question about that. I think we've got to be sensitive to minimize it. I'm also concerned about this emergency access from the parking lot. I'm not so sure how we're going to handle that and I want to make sure that we don't misuse that and have bicycles and trail bikes and everything else going back into the neighborhood through that area. I want to make sure we handle that. Just to summarize, I think what we have here is the best compromise. Certainly it wouldn't be the plan that I would have come up with the first time I looked at this without hearing all the input but I think it's workable. Councilman Boyt: No comments. Mayor Hamilton: I have no problem planning and creating three commercial lots on this particular Piece of property. I have a little problem with the first condition that says that approval of this is contingent upon approval of a final plat for the Reed property. I'm not sure we can do that, number one. Mr. Reed could just, if he wanted to, drag his feet and change his mind and do everything he can think for the next 20 years and never reach an agreement so I'd like to ask Pat, that doesn't seem to me to be a reasonable thing to put in a condition. Pat Farrell: About half an hour ago I starred that particular point with a question mark. I'm not so sure that that is an appropriate condition. As I understand it, there i.s not a preliminary plat or any sketch plan or anything 38 . City Council Meeting +pril 25, 1988 by Mr. Reed at this point. I understand where you're trying to get to. I think it's appropriate for the Council to apply pressure, if that's the right — schoice of words, upon the developer to acquire this right-of-way and the layout of the Reed property and that it all be considered but that's not the way to do it. Mayor Hamilton: I would prefer to see us put conditions in that the develop continue to work with the Reeds as far as developing their property and getting access to it. We could actually leave 64th Street as it is for this parcel to develop as long as the developers need to work with the Reeds to continue to . come up with the proper layout for their property. Pat Farrell: One of the things, as I understand this layout, you may have to go to the Reed property to accomplish the connection of the street. One of the things that you could put in there that in the event that access is not _ obtained through the Reed property and the City has to come in with it, the developer pay for it. That might be a little bit tough but it's the only thing that I can think of at this point. You're going to need that and it's going to cost money unless he plats. If he chooses not to plat, you have a problem that requires a solution that requires money. Barbara Dacy: Two points of clarification. The property couldn't go ahead and _ build with the full access onto TH 41 and with 64th Street there. MnDot has said, if they want a full access, 64th Street entrance has to go. Mayor Hamilton: They said that specifically? Barbara Dacy: Right. In their letter that's attached to the report. If I can, maybe the Attorney can help me out, if the words in the condition are not — phrased the right way, maybe we can work together to reword that so that it is appropriate but the point being is that the intent i.s that the City wants to insure that the realigned 64th Street is connected to TH 41 and we want that surety prior to then building on this lot. The intent being is that the only way we would get to thi.s point would be to have an assurance that the development contracts there which is usually as a result of a plat application. However, if you're saying that a plat i.s not necessary but some other type of — assurance, staff's objective in any case was to make sure that 64th Street would be reconnected. Mayor Hamilton: I understand that and I think that's a good idea. However, to tie it to another person's platting of their land i.s unreasonable I think to the developer in this case. Pat Farrell: Illegal too. Mayor Hamilton: Okay, illegal. Let's come right out and say it. As a — condition of the development contract I think it could be put in there that the developer needs to continue working with the Reeds. What I was trying to say . i.s that we'll attempt to work with the Reeds and with the developers to _ accomplish this so that it's fair with everybody but allowing the developers to continue with their project so thi.s thing doesn't sit here for another couple of years. 39 L.. • ity Council Meeting - _ it 25, 1988 .- Gary Warren: I think, and we're trying to stay on each item here but as I prepared by staff memo for the vacation issue, it goes over and over here how can you spec even in a development contract performance for HSZ of an item that 1 at this point is almost out of his control. That being the Reed property. I'd i be uncomfortable a little bit I guess even trying to write a condition that says you have to provide a connection of West 64th Street to the Reed property or words to that effect in that it would be pretty difficult to really enforce. — Even with a letter of credit or anything like that. That's why I approached it saying the call would have to be made is can we, with a cul-de-sac and a reverse scenario with a lot of our subdivisions that we end up dealing with, where we try to preserve right-of-way for the future. Here you've got one and you're being asked to vacate it. The question is can you live with a cul-de- sac with full intent that when Reed or Gowen or both come in that we would push through at some time in the future. Otherwise it gets pretty unmangeable from my perspective. Mayor Hamilton: It's kind of whatever works. Whatever is going to work is — what ought to be done. If cul-de-sacing 64th Street and closing it on TH 41 is what has to be done so it can move forward then I think that should be done so this project can move ahead and then you can still continue to work with the Gowens and the Reeds to accomplish whatever is going to happen there and the developer will be involved in that. Gary Warren: If someone wondered the assessments that are presently against — the Reed property are a legitimate issue that needs to be dealt with here if we would vacate a portion of West 64th Street because there is access and there are assessments that need to be paid and that could be a job of HSZ if the Council would choose to go with this cul-de-sac. Pat Farrell: I don't see that that requirement is so ownerous. I think we're all making too much of it. I think the requirement that there be a connection to the other road is a legitimate requirement of plat approval under Minnesota Statute and even the cost of that road could be appropriately charged against the developer. That's not to say that the Reed's ought to have a free ride. There ought to be some discussion back and forth of that but I think this Council could legitimately require that as a condition of plat approval. Ben Gowen: I'm just confused here. You're talking about a cul-de-sac terminating in the middle of the Reed's property and yet you're talking about connecting to TH 41. Now if you connect to TH 41, I'm back in the picture very definitely. But if you cul-de-sac in Reed's property, I'm out of the picture. — In any case, I'm for the development. Mayor Hamilton: What we're saying is that we want to connect to TH 41 at some time. When that happens is not clear at this time. Staff is saving ,e want that and the Council is saying we want that connection to be made someday. If it has to be a temporary cul-de-sac now for a period of time until the Reed's decide how they want to develop their property, that's a possibility but we don't want to condition everything on the HSZ's development by what the Reed's are going to do. — Ben Gowen: You bettor continue then, Reed has to plot his land so that it can be continued. 40 City Council Meeting . April 25, 1988 Mayor Hamilton: That's correct. That's what we're trying to get done. Ben Gowen: It's not fair to him. Mayor Hamilton: We're trying to be fair to everybody. We're trying to make — sure that everybody's needs are taken care of and we can move ahead here. I guess I wish we had this worked out ahead of time with the legal counsel. We could figure out some way to handle this item. Councilman Boyt: Can we strike "approval of" in what's in parenthesis there and then accept what's left? _ .Councilman Geving: I think we should. Barbara Dacy: I'm sorry, what are you referring to in parenthesis? _ ,Councilman Boyt: Approval of final plat for the Rood property, just strike that phrase. Mayor Hamilton: Good idea. • Councilman Horn: I think the TH 41 issue is something we have to deal with — later. I don't think we can tie it to this. Councilman Geving: When we see Reed's plat. • * A motion was made at this point with the following discussion. Councilman Johnson: The rest of this thing talks about the execution of a — development contract with the City of Chanhassen. I believe staff was looking at a development contract for developing 64th Street to TH 41. A letter of credit, etc. the rest of that is in reference to the realignment of 64th Street to TH 41. Mayor Hamilton: I think that's exactly what we're saying is going to have to happen. — Councilman Johnson: You can't execute a development contract until you have . approval of final plat. I don't what we just gained by getting rid of that. — Mayor Hamilton: You're not tying it up with the Reed property. The thing can move ahead. Councilman Johnson: We're going to have to get a development contract from somebody to develop. As I read this. .. Mayor Hamilton: We're talking about HSZ's property. Not the Reed property. This does not pertain to the Reed property. Councilman Johnson: It used to be until we removed that one. The development contract. . . Mayor Hamilton: No. All it said about the Reed property was approval of the final plat for the Reed property. It didn't say we were having a development 41 City Council Meeting - Apri.l 25, 1988 contract with the Reed property or anybody else. All this pertains to the HSZ property. Councilman Johnson: Okay, then is. So they have to have 64th Street completely realignedwtohTHh41e rprior est ftohthe approval of the preliminary plat and site plan? Mayor Hamilton: That's what it says here. As far as I'm concerned, you could have a temporary cul-de-sac until such time as the Reeds want to develop. _ There's all kinds of way you can solve that problem. Councilman Johnson: That's what we have to do here. Your motion didn't talk about the temporary cul-de-sac. Mayor Hamilton: That's why we have discussion. Councilman Johnson: I'm against the temporary cul-de-sac if you're going to discuss temporary cul-de-sacs. Councilman Boyt: My problem is that we're talking about 64th Street. Can't we just vote on these things one thing at a time and take the issue and if we've got an issue with 64th, do it then. Mayor Hamilton: They're intertwined. You're talking about one issue. We're talking about one item on the approval process of the preliminary plat. This is one of the conditions and in one of the conditions it talks about 64th Street to TH 41. You can't eliminate that. We're going to get back to it and talk about it some more in a few minutes. Councilman Boyt: Do we have a motion on the table? Mayor Hamilton: Yes we do have a motion on the floor. Councilman Boyt: I call a question. Mayor Hamilton: There is still discussion. Jay was talking about it. Did you have additional questions? Councilman Johnson: As I understand your motion then we get exactly what I want with the exception of I would like to see something in condition one that restricts commercial access to 64th Street. One of the original complaints of the neighbors is that it would increase the traffic up Oriole and through their subdivision if commercial had direct access to 64th Street which is what the previous plans had. Councilman Horn: This doesn' t have that. Councilman Johnson: Me Reed had stated that he wants to nut comnercial on the front 3 acres of that which will then have access to 64th Street. Mayor Hamilton: That's not a part of this. Councilman Horn: Not necessarily. 42 City Council Meeting April 25, 1988 )-- Councilman Johnson: It could. Mayor Hamilton: That'd be a whole other issue. Councilman Horn: That's the whole point. We can't put a restriction on what the Reed property is in respect to this property. That will take a whole other plat when that canes in and then we'll see. .. Councilman Johnson: We could at least talk that our intent is not to put commercial traffic on 64th Street so that when the Reeds, a future council can look at our minutes and when the Reeds come in here and say okay, the whole — 64th Street was realigned to avoid commercial, one of the purposes was to avoid commercial traffic on Oriole Lane. Mayor Hamilton: Well, you said it. Future Council is not bound by anything we do so it doesn't really matter if we say it or not. Councilman Johnson: It matters if we say it because it might help sway the future council one way or the other as to what we are thinking at the time. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve Subdivision Request #85-7 subject to the plat stamped "Received March 7, 1988", the grading and drainage plan stamped "Received April 6, 1988", the utility plan stamped "Received April 6, 1988" and subject to the following conditions: ;_ 1. Approval of the preliminary plat and site plan shall be contingent upon vacation of 64th Street right-of-way, execution of a develoament contract — with the City of Chanhassen, filing of a letter of credit with the City of Chanhassen from a recognized financial institution authorized to do business in the State of Minnesota and a form subject to the City of Chanhassen's reasonable approval, and realignment of 64th Street to TH 41. 2. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper — installation of the public improvements. 3. The developer shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit. 4. Hay bales shall be placed and staked around all storm sewer inlets. _ 5. Wood fiber blanket or equivalent shall be used to stabilize all disturbed slopes greater than 3:1. 6. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the permits from the Minnesota Department of Transportation. 7. Calculations verifying adequate pressure conditions for the sprinkler system of the proposed retail building should be submitted for approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit. 8. The proposed sanitary sewer and watermain systems internal to the site will be constructed and maintained as private utilities. The City of Chanhassen 43 CA.) City Council Meeting - 25, 1988 will not be responsible for any maintenance of the utilities (with the exception of public storm sewer drainage facilities) internal to the site. 9. An acceptable traffic sign and 9 pavement marking plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit. 10. Specific plans and specifications which address the specific alignment, installation and erosion control for the proposed storm sewer system must be submitted and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit. 11. The applicant shall submit a revised erosion control plan subject to the approval of the City ENgineer prior to the issuance of a building permit. All voted in favor and motion carried. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 25,920 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL CENTER. Councilman Boyt: I'd like to start by saying to the neighbors who are here, I — think you have a good point in which to use leverage and that's in how this site is developed. I think you're going to have to show some inequities in how it's developed to sway somebody else on the Council if you want to defeat the zoning change. On how it's developed, the Planning Commission made comment about Scotch Pines. I wasn't aware of this but one of the Planning Commission members said that they occasionally brown off. Is that right? Does anyone know? You're using a lot of scotch pines. Craig Johnson: They actually turn purple. That's the fall color. They do get dark purple. Councilman Boyt: They don't defoliate? Craig Johnson: :,ell, all pines do. They go in cycles of 3 years perhaps. It depends on the species but all pines drop their needles in cycles of 3 to 5 years but then each year they grow them again. That's the way the pines work. Councilman Boyt: What I'd like to see here is, I think what you're after and what I'm after is a visual screen that fortunately would get higher every year and I would like to see some sort of blend so we don't have all of one kind of tree. If for some reason they get struck by a disease, we're out of a visual barrier. So maybe you can blend in some other appropriate types of pines that are dense. I have a question about grading. Is there extensive grading going on on this property? It looks to me like there is extensive grading. What's the depth of the cut? Larry Brown: The depth of the cut would be fairly minimal. It's going to be the fill amounts along the southwest corner, the grading along the southwest corner that's going to be.. . — Councilman Boyt: So we're talking about how much fill? How many feet? Give me a sense of what we're talking. 20? Alright. I would like to see that as you develop this concept, I think that some sort of maybe a two tiered pine — arrangement so that it's not just single trees in sort of a row even though 44 City Council Meeting ' April 25, 1988 your row appears to be somewhat staggered, that we really make that very dense. I would like to see, I appreciate the gentleman's comment about more total roof screening. It sounds like you've done a good job from the highway and from a good bit of the housing in looking at your perspective. I really think that the view of the roof, as you agree, is very important and we should make every effort to make it a pleasant view for those who are going to have to look at it so if we can screen off any kind of structures up there. That's all I've got. _ I'm sure interested in other comments from the Council. I think that this, to me the acceptance of this in the neighborhood is going to depend a great deal on what it looks like. It appears like it looks pretty nice from the highway. What's it look like from the neighborhood? _ Councilman Horn: Did we ever get an answer to the question about the height of the building being appropriate? Barbara Dacy: Yes. Mr. Wagner raised that issue also. The Zoning Ordinance states that the maximum height is one story and his question was whether or not that met the Building Code. Although I'm not exactly familiar with the contents of the Building Code, they will have to meet that. There are portions . of the elevation that do extend above 20 feet and that's the Canterbury approach. The height of the occupied area will be I think approximately 17 feet in height and it is our interpretation that that met the one story requirement. Whatever the Building Code says, we have to do anyway. So if it has to be reduced, it has to be reduced. Councilman Horn: I guess my only concern is I'm not a real fan of the vinyl clad vinyl. Obviously if somebody wants the green stuff, well, now we've got red and black stuff but that seems to be what everybody is building with these days. Currently I don't believe our ordinance is quite clear on that issue. I know we had a tough time defining what's an acceptable metal and what isn't. It seems like that corregated clad metal is fine but if you've just got corregated metal, that wouldn't be fine. My particular preference is not for that kind of appearance. Councilman Giving: I think it would be appropriate again for J.D. to come back up here and persent that landscaping and berming plan one more time and give us an idea on your board here. I want to know whether or not we're looking at it from the west or we're looking at it from the south. Tell us again what kind _ of berming you're planning on the west side which faces the residential area and potentially to the south where there could be some residential properties looking to this site and also the extent and type of greenery that you'll have. The types of trees. How tall they will be and so forth. — . Craig Johnson: First of all, let me introduce myself. I'm Craig Johnson from Barrientos and Associates. We are landscape architects and engineers. Initially we went through the process of the Planning Commission approval, developing and screening, etc. the issues. On the west side, we also have extended the scotch pines. There is potential for a berm to run from the right-of-way line to approximately this point here. That berming then would be accented by conifers. Those conifers, we selected the scotch pine because of their rapid growth first of all and their ability to withstand drought and the soil conditions that are on the site. We could intermix, I don't see any problem with intermixing species. Particularly if something becomes very linear and the contrast would be very nice. We also introduced deciduous 45 La City Council Meeting - April 25, 1983 trees. The Norway pine to break that to deciduous and conifer trees. They're usedll limitedly onso in viewfthetewesttand tsouth the because they do not provide winter screening. We've maximized the south and the west with evergreens. Be it Austrian Pine and Scotch Pine and we've broken that up with deciduous trees and Norway Maple. Then we go to the setback screening in this general area. We exceeded the Planning Commission's requirements in regards to overhead canopy or tree and an additional screening. Plant material would be planted at grade to provide, I believe it was 80% opaque in the winter screen. Internally we've used a lighter Honey Locust, the Sunburst Honey Locust which would allow for light shade and some view into the retail center which is very critical to the developer but also adds some shade for vehicular and users. For the entrance we decided to create, increase the impact of the sense of arrival by developing a canopy all the way up and then orientating that to the center of the project site. This canopyouwould be made by the Little Leaf Linden. It has a very nice spring bloom and I think that is just another accent to the sense of arrival. The flowers are also very fragrant so the drive in will be visually and... Councilman Geving: On day one when you'bpen the center and the landscaping is in, how tall will those trees be on the west side of that development? Craig Johnson: We're proposing to use 6 foot trees at time of installation and also a 12 foot. We place the 12 foot in the most strategic location adjacent to the building and we've also introduced I believe some 12 foot at this point also. The back side would mainly be 6 foot and then this first stretch would be a 6 foot tree. Councilman Geving: How high is that berm on the west side? Tell us what the view is from Section A? Are we looking from the west to the east? J.D. MacRae: This is the south face and this is the section. This would be on the west. Councilman Geving: Ziegler's home for example. J.D. MacRae: Right. Looking up through what we call the auxiliary building. You have heard that building won't be built right away so it would be bermad up and dropped back down to a flat building surface. This section is just further south of this one. This one actually cuts into the middle of the center. We're showing at this point we've got about a 4 foot high berm here. This point we're also 4 feet high. As we get along the back side, due to the incline, we're showing a 2 foot berm on the back side. Now again, as was brought up, at this point we're 13-20 feet high. The thought was that being that the property continued to fall off or stay at the same level. When you get down here, you're looking up into the building through the berm. You've got Section A that went through the auxiliary building. Section B that went along a portion of the building. Section C i.s cutting through the building on the west end. Section D i.s cutting through it on the east end. Section E the grade starts coming up as 64th comes up and meets TH 41. The grade difference is very minimal. Here we've got a 3 foot high berm. Councilman Geving: I'm satisfied with that. I just want to advise you though that this is the thing that Mr. Connors and Mr. Wagner were referring to. It always seems like the developer shows these kinds of schematics to us. They 46 City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988 Jr- look really good. We approve the project and the landscaping is the last thing to go in and they generally skip so I assure you that we'll be watching for that kind of thing not happen on this project. Councilman Johnson: Do we have any financial assurance that if landscaping doesn't go in, that we have any way of putting it in? Gary Warren: We'll have a letter of credit. — Councilman Johnson: The letter of credit will cover landscaping? Gary Warren: It will cover everything. Councilman Johnson: I don't have a lot of problems with this. Mayor Hamilton: I don't either. I think it's a nice plan. I'd just like to see the same type of materials used on this building as is being used downtown. I like that retail west or whatever it's called. I don't know if it's the same thing or not but if we can do something similar to that it would look nice. Barbara Dacy: The only thing that's metal is on the roofing. The remainder is concrete and rock faced block. Councilman Johnson: I will have to revert back. I did mean to mention that there's one thing that we've doing with residential areas on trees where — somebody, there's one down here where they put in Marshall Seedless Ash to every front yard, straight in a line. If a disease comes through like the Dutch Elm or whatever that affects Marshall Seedless Ash, it wipes them all out. That's why I think I'd like to see a mixture of your evergreens along the back to where if something is going to come in that's going to wipe out scotch pines, that we don't lose all the trees across the back. If we have a mixture _ of Scotch or Marshall or whatever. Something that would be slightly different. Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve Site Plan Request — #86-2 for the construction of a 25,920 square foot retail center based on the site plan stamped "Received March 7, 1988" and the lighting, landscaping, utilities and grading plans stamped "Received April 6, 1988" subject to the following conditions: 1. All bituminous areas shall be lined with concrete curb. 2. The building permit for the retail center will not issued until the City has approved the vacation of 64th Street including submission of financial sureties and execution of the development contract to insure that 64th Street will be realigned to intersect Til 41 in another location. 3. Compliance with all conditions of the Subdivision Request #85 All voted in favor and motion carried. 1 47 — • City Council Meeting - Al*_il 25, 1988 PUBLIC HEARING FOR PARTIAL VACATION OF WEST 64TH STREET. Mayor Hamilton called the public hearing to order. Gary Reed: I guess I'm a little confused on what you've struck from the Planning Commission. It seems like I've lost a little bit of bargaining power. — I guess if you don't approve, and I guess I understand that you approve the concept of the cul-de-sac without extension of that to TH 41, is that correct? Mayor Hamilton: Right. Gary Reed: Then if it is extended, then I would not be able to get a BN type of zoning on my frontage there. Is that correct? Mayor Hamilton: No, I don't know where you came up with that. — Councilman Johnson: I tried for that and it didn't get put in the motion. Gary Reed: I'm just trying to sort this thing out. Mayor Hamilton: We can't deal with something that's not before us is the whole thing. You say you want some BN... Gary Reed: I'm just trying to get a feel for where I'm at with the frontage. Mayor Hamilton: What I'd like you to do is make comment on the road. The partial vacation of west 64th Street. Gary Reed: I can't .really make a comment on it if I don't know what it's going to do. At this point I'm for that concept. Not extending West 64th Street and — cul-de-sacing it. I guess you guys heard that there was some future plan for reconnecting it. Well, I have no future plan for that. The only future plan I would have would be maybe utilizing a lot on the south side if there was some — way to get into Ben's property if that would work out. But according to your cul-de-sac plans, I guess that wouldn't be a viable.. . I think another cement would be that it seems to me they want the road realigned with the school exit. Is that correct? Mayor Hamilton: There's been some discussion of that but I don't think that's real critical. Gary Reed: If they did then we would be dealing with Ben so it's not all on my shoulders. Ben Gowen: I think it's pretty important to figure out what your plan is for connecting. If you connect it, it makes a lot of difference where and how you're going to do it. Can you give us any clue what you plan on for the — future connection? Mayor Hamilton: That's something that's going to have to be worked out with the — property owners. It's pretty hard for us to say. Ben Gowen: When? 48 • City Council Meeting > April 25, 1988 Mayor Hamilton: As soon as possible. Ben Gowen: Before they start building or what? • Mayor Hamilton: That's right. _ Ben Gowen: Then you're requiring them to connect to TH 41? Mayor Hamilton: That's right. Ben Gowen: Do you have that perogati.ve to requi.re that? Mayor Hamilton: Sure. Ben Gowen: I doubt that. Mayor Hamilton: That's up to you. You can talk to your attorney I guess. Ours tells us we have every right to do that so that's what we've done. Ben Gowen: Then if you're going to connect, how are you going to connect? The drawings you're showing here don't show it on my property except for the very last 20-30 feet. These are sketches I realize but if it's a sketch, let's talk about what the reality is. Mayor Hamilton: We're talking about partial vacation of existing West 64th Street and how 64th Street gets reconnected to TH 41 is something we just, that's something that the developers are going to have to work out with yourself and with the Reeds and see where it comes out. If they can't reach an agreement, then the City is going to have to go through a condemnation process to accomplish it. We can't sit here tonight and say we know it's going to connect up here, here or here because we haven't any idea. It's going to connect up with TH 41 someplace. Ben Gowen: That wasn't my understanding coming i.n here tonight. You ouys are really going to connect it up regardless. Mayor Hamilton: That's what the motion that was passed, that's what it contains. - Ben Gowen: It doesn't seem very fair. Mayor Hamilton: I thought you were i.n favor of it just a minute ago. Ben Gowen: I'm in favor of the project,j yes but not in being told what is going to happen to my road. I'd like to have a say so. Mayor Hamilton: You' ll have a say. I'm just telling you right now that we don't know where 64th Street is going to connect back with TH 41. We don't know that yet. It's going to connect up with it someplace. That's going to have to be worked out with you, with the Reeds and with the developers. Roger Zahn: I may have waited too long to make this comment. I was - address your concern about waitinguntil we trying e _ have worked extensively with the Reeds and with r. (G to andtnik about 64th.no Gowen we have no 49 • • City Council Meeting - 25, 1988 • objection personally as far as being the developers to connecting up to TH 41. This proposal came as a result of our listening to them and proposing it the way they wanted to have it done and that's the way we would like to see it also. Am I to understand that you have already voted. Mayor Hamilton: I guess I don't know how else to say it so that you understand it. If I could draw a picture or something, I guess I'd do that but. .. Roger Zahn: So you are going to condemn 64th if we can't work something out? Mayor Hamilton: Yes, that would be our only choice at this point. Roger Zahn: Could we come back and ask you to cul-de-sac it at a future point in time? We have worked hard with those people and that's clearly what they want on their property. It isn't really that we want to do any one of these things in particular except we want to work with the people in the neighborhood and that's what we've tried to do and we've talked extensively and that's really what they want. It seems like somehow this deliberation got taken out of their hands and it certainly wasn't our intent. We'll cooperate with whatever you folks what us to do but we do want to support them. That wasn't — our intention to get this thing set up that way, not at all. Councilman Horn: It was my intent that what we were proposing was what you recommended with the cul-de-sac. That was my intention and I thought that was how we changed the wording. That's my impression of what we want it to be. Councilman Johnson: I very clearly stated and restated that that's not what we're voting for. Councilman Boyt: I'd like to take a shot at this if I might. I think all we did was say we took off a constraint on you that said that Mr. Reed's final plat had to be approved before you could do anything. Then I think we had said all along, the Planning Commission had said that we think that it makes sense to eventually have this hooked up to TH 41. I don't see that we've changed anything except we said to you, your project does not have to wait until his project is approved. Mayor Hamilton: Item 1 of the Planning Commission's approval did not change other than to take out the Reed's necessity to have their plat approved. Nothing changed other than that. Councilman Horn: It doesn't work. Councilman Geving: I have to reiterate. My intention and my thoughts when we approved this was that we were only striking a few words which left out the Reeds from their approval of their plat. Also there's a bottom line, there's a very last line of that particular condition 1. It talks about 64th Street and that should be struck as well. The very last 6 or 7 words of that condition 1 should also be struck because it refers to the realignment of 64th Street. It's my understanding that what we voted upon was an intent at some future time to realign 64th Street to TH 41. Just an intent. At sometime as Mr. Reed comes in with his plat, that would be worked out. What we voted upon was the cul-de-sac that was shown to us on the plan. That's the way I read it. 50 City Council Meeting 'll April 25, 1988 fl Mayor Hamilton: That's because that's what I had said that if you want to cul-de-sac it temporarily until at sanepoint it then fine. gets to TH 41, th_ that's Councilman Johnson: That's why I pointed out that this last sentence was there and that we were saying that they couldn't cul-de-sac it. I thought I said it quite clearly. Mayor Hamilton: Did you want to leave in, and alignment of 64th Street? Councilman Johnson: Yes, and I pointed that out and you didn't leave it in your motion. - Mayor Hamilton: Both Clark and I had struck the last, where it says "and _ realignment of 64th Street to TH 41." Both Clark and I had struck that from condition 1 as well as, approve of a final plat for the Reed property. Those were the two items that we struck frau condition 1. Gary Warren: The motion didn't strike the last phrase of it. At least the way I copied it down because I still had the question in my mind. Mayor Hamilton: My motion was it only struck the part dealing with the Reed property. It did not strike out the realignment. Councilman Gevi.ng: But Tom it can't work unless you do strike the last part. - S Mayor Hamilton: That's fine with me. . o:A d just as soon cul-de-sac it. Temporary or whatever. I guess what I was saying all along was do whatever it takes to make the whole thing work and it ties back to TH 41 at some future date than that's what ought to be done. Councilman Caving: But that's the future and we can't.. . '- Barbara Dacy: Maybe the City Attorney should advise as to how the Council can clarify the intent and/or the wording on condition 1 on the preliminary plat for the record. Pat Farrell: You could have a motion to reconsider. You could go back to resolution whatever it is or motion whatever it is and make a motion to reconsider that to clarify the intent of the Council. Restate it deleting the last, whatever those words ending at approval and deleting approval of the final plat of the Reed property if that's really what your intention is. Councilman Horn: Right, and I made the second and I fully intended that that was not part of the motion. Mayor Hamilton: I think we need to finish the one that we're on. Seeing how we have a public hearing open and then we can go back. Is there anybody else from the public who has a comment about the vacation of West 64th Street? Any additional information? Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Coving seconded to close theub hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. n lac The closed. Public hearing was 51 City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988 Councilman Johnson: I think it's premature until we find out how 64th Street is going to be connected up. We can't close the people's lifeline to TH 41, or your driveway. How can we vacate something until we know how we're going to replace it? Until the 64th Street issue is resolved, this should be tabled. This is a premature application for vacation. Pat Farrell: One thing that you could do is, you closed your public hearing. You could move to table that matter until a later time. Councilman Boyt: Before we consider the move to table, I think that the issue for me is, our intent on what we're going to do with the connection to TH 41. To move to vacate is to take an existing entrance and exit out of that picture. So the question to me is, are we taking that out permanently or are we taking it out until such time as there is an opportunity to put it back in? I like the idea of tying that particular question down sometime soon. If it seers appropriate to table it, I won't vote against that. It just seems to me at some point pretty quick here we have to decide what kind of connection do we want and that's going to impact on this gentleman's ability to develop that corner. Mayor Hamilton: I see no reason why the development can't move ahead prior to doing any vacation of 64th or coming up with the realignment. It doesn't have any affect on what's happening on the property to the north, just so long as it gets done and I agree with you. Councilman Boyt: I would argue Tom that this is a critical issue to the rest of the development. I don't think we have to vacate it until somewhere down the road but I sure think we have to tell them what our intentions are. Mayor Hamilton: Sure. That's exactly what I'm saying. Councilman Boyt: How can we do that if we table it? Mayor Hamilton: We'll table it until as soon as we can get it back on the agenda and work with it more clearly. Somehow it's got to be worked out and I don't think we're going to solve anything here tonight. I would rather table it so staff can work with the Gowen's and the Rood's and the developer to come up with something that's going to work. All I'm saving is I think that can be going on while the development is going to proceed or whatever else they need to do to continue on with their development. It doesn't stop that. Councilman Boyt: I see two of the neighbors saying, at least two of the neighbors we want a cul-de-sac. Councilman Johnson: The two property owners. Councilman Boyt: What I'm very interested in is what do the people say who might be using 64th as a current entrance/exit off of TH 41? That's another affected group and I think we need to hear from them. For that reason along we might want to hold this up. Councilman Horn: The vacation of West 64th is a clear indication that the intent of the overall plan was to create a cul-de-sac and this portion would be vacated. I think the request to require that 64th go out to TH 41 is a total 52 • City Council Meeting•.. April 25, 1988 change in direction from what was being proposed and what these four conditions _ we were asked to vote on tonight represented. To me we clear this thing up by accepting the cul-de-sac as it is, it's a permanent plat and later when the Reed's develop and the Gowen's develop and they decide that they want to have a proposal come in where it makes sense to run that through, we should deal with — it at that point but at this point the request is to have a cul-de-sac at that point and we don't need 64th Street anymore and that's why we have the request to vacate it. I believe, as I said before, that's the best compromise for this development at this point, and we should go ahead and proceed that way. As a matter of fact, I thought that was the way we had decided to proceed initially. We would deal with the issue of 64th when further development took place. Therefore, I go along with the partial vacation. I think what that's telling us is that in no plan is there any attempt to leave 64th the way it is today. I don't see that in any of the plans that there is an attempt to leave it the way it is today so I think it's appropriate to vacate it and I don't think it's necessary for than to have it to proceed with the project. Councilman Geving: I think it's premature at this time to consider the _ vacation of 64th Street and I'll tell, you why. It's a very legal matter. You vacate a street and you've just given it back to the property owners. We're not prepared to do that tonight. We don't know what we're going to do once we have made that decision. The property owners have it as of the moment that we — vote on it and I think the Council would agree with me on that. It's a very legal situation so we're premature on this. I think we need to buy some time until we work out exactly what we're going to do with 64th Street as far as vacating it. In fact, the preliminary plat and the site plan is contingent upon the vacation of this street. That is again going back to the number 1 issue that we're going to bring back after this is over so I think tonight we need to table this matter and bring it back with some good intelligence of what — we're going to do with the vacation. We can not vacate it. I'll tell you, we can not do it tonight. That's how I feel about it. We should table this matter for further consideration. Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to table the request for _ partial vacation of West 64th Street for further consideration. All voted in favor and motion carried. Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to reconsider item 8(b) , the preliminary plat request to create 3 commercial lots. All voted in favor and motion carried. • Councilman Gevi.n g: qty feeling is we should drop the last wordage of condition 1. Put a period after "reasonable approval" and strike "and realignment of 64th Street to TH 41" and strike the words "approval of a final plat for the Reed property". Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn secondcd to amend condition 1 of the Subdivision Request #85-7 to read as follows: 1 �— 1. Approval of the preliminary plat and site plan shall be contingent upon vacation of 64th Street right-of-way, execution of a development contract 53 City Counci.l Meeting - hA_�.1 25, 1988 with the City of Chanhassen, filing a letter of credit with the City of Chanhassen from a recognized financial institution authorized to do business in the State of Minnesota and a form subject to the City of Chanhassen's reasonable approval. All voted in favor except Councilman Johnson who opposed and motion carried. Councilman Johnson: I think what you just did, I hope you attend the funerals of the people that get killed on TH 7 because now they're taveling TH 7 more often. This exit to TH 41 is a crucial exit to those people living on that street and you just closed it. Councilman Geving: We understand that. Mayor Hamilton: Closed what? Councilman Johnson: You just closed 64th Street. They no longer have access to TH 41. You say sometime in the future. Frontier Lane was sometime in the future, it was many, many, many years i.n. the future. These people are going to have to contend with TH 7 who now drive TH 41 because we're closing their only access and I don't think that for this commercial develo[xnent that we should put our citizens in a safety predicament making them drive a much more intense, making the primary and the single exit out of this residential development to State Highway 7 is ridiculous. They should have an exit to a less intense highway, a less used highway other than TH 41. A safer route to get out onto the highway. Then they can go back up to the lights and have a red light protecting them from those oncoming eastbound cars as they try to get on if they're trying to go westbound. Have you ever gone up into Oriole Lane and tried to go westbound on Tri 7? Mayor Hamilton: Yes. You can do it. Councilman Johnson: I'm going to totally vote against it. It's a prime public safety issue. Councilman Horn: I'd like to ask how this precludes another exit? All we're doing here is just... Councilman Johnson: You just gave them a cul-de-sac. Councilman Horn: All we gave than here was the fact that we didn't tie this redevelopment to another development on somebody elses property. We have not vacated existing 64th Street. All we're taking it out of here is saying that that is not a condition to approve this development. Councilman Boyt: I think Clark in the second line there where it says contingent upon vacation of 64th Street right-of-way so we are saying contingent upon the vacation of 64th which does mean closing it off. This is what we're going to do. Mayor Hamilton: Contingent upon though. It hasn' t been done. Councilman Boyt: That's right. It hasn't been done so the vote as to what happens as far as the exit will turn upon our tabled matter. What I understand 54 ' City Council Meeting``- April 25, 1983 you're doing with what you currently struck is you're simply taking out the reference. You're not eliminating the ability. Barbara Dacy: Despite the option, connect or reconnect, you're going to have to vacate a part of 64th Street in order for the developer to get full access — onto TH 41 so the intent of your condition is you're not making a specific statement at this time as to whether or not it should be reconnected. You're stating that you're reserving your option when the Reed comes back in for a potential plat. Is that correct? Mayor Hamilton: I think that's pretty accurate. Barbara Dacy: The intent of the staff report was, again, that will come back in a fairly similar manner. The recommendation being that the City would not file the resolution to vacate the street until something is resolved. Either — connect or reconnection so it's the cat catching it's own tail or the dog or somebody in Canterbury Downs. In any case, you're going to seeing the issue in very similar format with the same type of options. Gary Warren: Which means MnDot will not issue an access permit for the development and their new driveway access on TH 41 until the City vacates our connection so we're still tied in there. Mayor Hamilton: We've got to have more information on this and clarify some of this stuff that filtered out. Pat Farrell: Is the preliminary they're approving is the cul-de-sac on the Reed property? Gary Warren: The one I had on the screen, the last one, is my interpretation of what you're approving. Pat Farrell: Which one? Gary Warren: The short cul-de-sac not on the Reed property. — Barbara Dacy: That's the one that's not on the Reed property. Gary Warren: Otherwise if this is the version, than you're tied in with the — platting... Pat Farrell: Just to clarify, my only point is you ought to nail down which one you're talking about because you've seen two of them. Mayor Hamilton: It has to be the first one because we're not tying this to the Reed property. We've already eliminated that. Barbara Dacy: So the Council is saying this one? Councilman Geving: Can we call it Exhibit A or something. Barbara Dacy: Option 3. 55 CS-ey Council Meeting - ` 1 25, 1988 _ .- Councilman Johnson: That cul-de-sac happens to be on somebody elses property, not HSZ's property either. That's on Schmitz' property and Reed property. Mayor Hamilton: Put a T on there on the HSZ property. There are a lot of alternatives I think that we haven't even looked at. Councilman Boyt: What do we gain when we pass this? I will admit to being a bit lost. It seems to me as though what the developer is trying to do is make some progress knowing what should be the next step the developer is taking and MnDot is saying if you guys don't vacate 64th Street, the guy can't have a major entrance and exit to his operation. We've tabled that issue. Now we're coming back and we're sanitizing number 1. What I read, number 1 now says that the gentleman is eventually going to need to post a letter of credit for his development and that's about all. Mayor Hamilton: That's normal. Councilman Boyt: Yes, but I'm saying that doesn't say.. . Councilman Johnson: We haven't solved anything here tonight unless we solve whether or not the realigned 64th Street is going to reconnect to TH 41 and at what time period does that happen? Without that we've wasted a lot of time tonight. We can't just cul-de-sac it like this. We can but I'm not going to. I'm saying that prior to vacation of 64th Street, those people need an exit to TH 41 and they need a road connecting all the way from TH 41 to where the old 64th Street used to be and that's the position I'm taking on this prior to any vacation of the other one. We can approve a preliminary plat but the preliminary plat doesn't have that cul-de-sac on it. The preliminary plat shows a vacated street but then a condition of approval of the preliminary plat is that we vacate the street and then we go to the next argument. We haven' t solved anything yet. Mayor Hamilton: If that's the case, and if that's what you really believe, then what the City has to do and we should do immediately is start condemnation process and just select a place where the road is going to go. Based on what the developer is saying, they've worked with the neighborhood and they have not made progress and so rather than tying this to the Recd property, the City will have to go through a condemnation of property and force the road through. That's an option we have to take a look at also and I think those are the options we don' t have laid out for us tonight and that's what we need to look at. And I don't agree that we haven't accomplished anything. ,`e've come a long ways. Maybe there's been a lot of gum beating but this is not an easy issue to deal with. Councilman Johnson: Could I ask staff a question? Mayor Hamilton: Is it something new that we haven't dealt with before? Councilman Johnson: It's something you brought up. Can the City condemn somebody's property to put a new street in for the purpose of allowing a commercial development to develop in this area? Pat Farrell: Yes. 56 i� 9 City Council Meeting" April 25, 1988 " Mayor Hamilton: So now we have before us, we voted to reconsider item 1. • We're on 8(b) but item 1 of the conditions. We have striken approval of the final plat of the Reed property and at the last line, and alignment of 64th Street to TH 41. Councilman Horn: Unless I misunderstand something, our choices are we can have 64th go through or we can have the main entrance to this development. Barbara Dacy: 64th realigned. Gary Warren: One or the other. Councilman Horn: Realigned to go through or? Gary Warren: 64th 1,100 feet south. Councilman Horn: 1,100 feet south of the Reed property or farther south? Gary Warren: 1,100 feet south of the center line of TH 7 which puts you into the Reed property. Councilman Horn: So if people really want that to go through to TH 41, then they don't want to approve this cul-de-sac? Barbara Dacy: Right. That's the issue. Either the cul-de-sac or you reconnect to TH 41. t- Mayor Hamilton: And that's why I'm saying their option is we should start condemnation process if those are our choices. Councilman Boyt: And that's why wa tabled that is because we don't know so let's vote on this. Councilman Geving: I think we're still alright with condition 1. Councilman Boyt: All condition 1 says is the whole thing falls apart if we don't vacate 64th Street. Does anybody have trouble living with that? Councilman Geving: No, because it's going to happen. '— Councilman Johnson: Because we're really not saying how they going to cul-de-sac. . . TRAPPERS PASS ADDITION, LOCATED ON THE NORTH AND WEST SIDES OF PLEASANT VIEW ROAD APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE WEST OF HWY 101, LUNDGREN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION: A. SUBDIVISION OF 32.5 ACRES INTO 34 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. B. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A POND WITHIN A CLASS B WETLAND AND DEVELOP WITHIN 200 FEET. Barbara Dacy: Briefly, I know the applicant has submitted a letter to each of the Councilmembers objecting to three conditions on the plat. One of them being the tree removal plan. Secondly, in regards to the Park and Recreation 57 City Council Meeting i .,ay 31, 1988 Mayor Hamilton: We could have it on our consent. F 'I -7 Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to direct the City Attorney to draft a resolution declaring the the Old Assumption Seminary as a public health hazard and a public safety hazard to be available for the next City Council meeting. In the meantime, directing staff to move ahead to proceed to do whatever they can to close it down. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PARTIAL VACATION OF WEST 64TH STREET. Mayor Hamilton: We've gone over this a number of time. I guess Barb, has anything changed since last week that you want to bring to our attention? Barbara Dacy: It's my understanding from the Reed's that Roger Reed has signed a petition agreeing to the vacation. Councilman Johnson: So now we're at a three-fifth's vote. Roger Knutson: Last time there was a concern that two people owned the property. Have they both signed? Mayor Hamilton: Gary, your brother is owner with you, is that correct? Roger Knutson: Now you both signed the petition? Mayor Hamilton: Including your wife so there's three of you. Jan Reed: We haven't actually signed it. Roger Knutson: If they sign it and if they own a majority of the land abutting the road to be vacated, then it is. .. Mayor Hamilton: Maybe you could examine the document and tell us what needs to be done. Roger Knutson: I guess know someone needs to sign it. Barbara Dacy: They are signing our standard application. You should probably write on there we're going to vacate 64th Street. Roger Knutson: From point to point. Councilman Boyt: It's a little sketchy isn' t it? Roger Knutson: Yes. Why don't I draw something up right here. Councilman Johnson: Of course his brother's not here. Mayor Hamilton: Barbara, could you review what the current plan is at this point in time? Barbara Dacy: The Council at last Monday's meeting was talking about one of the 223 2 - r • City Council Meeting - Mai 31, 1938 • cul-de- sac options and what would have to happen is 64th Street would be vacated from the southwest corner of the HSZ site to TH 41. So this area would be vacated. Then either cul-de-sacs here or into the Reedro pertyAt the last meeting the Reed's and HSZ appeared to have agreement to build•a cul-de-sac into their property. Is that correct? _ Mayor Hamilton: Do you agree with that Gary? Gary Reed: Yes. They've given us a written agreement that is putting the cul-de-sac into our property, that compensate... He would like some area for ponding on our property. Barb, that hasn't been approved? Barbara Dacy: The planning issue is really not part of the Council's review tonight. The main issue is whether or not 64th Street should be vacated or what alignment it is. Other related ponding issues or drainage issues have to be addressed at another time. Gary Reed: If you'd like to see, I drew up an option of coming in off of TH 41 and some of the reasons why it doesn't seam to be working out. Bill was concerned that we looked that over as an option.. . Councilman Boyt: I'd like one, thank you. _ Gary Reed: This would be caning in off of TH 41 coming down to here... Without Ben Gowen's cooperation for the. ..i.t comes real close to the house right here.. .so that's one of the reasons. Councilman Caving: How many units are there? ft Gary Reed: As far as lots go. With the West 64th Street cul-de-sac I get one L• more lot plus I don't use all this land on the road here. So this is not quite as efficient as what I consider the land use to be. So that's another reason that it doesn't really work out for me. The other reason is HSZ won't put in the other cul-de-sac. On this plan. .. Then we would probably have to stub the sewer in across the easement from West 64th Street. Sewer and water is not _ available up here by the highway and that would be another additional cost. To get the sewer from West 64th Street to seven lots, in this area here... I guess my conclusion was that this option worked for me. A little better land use. I come up with approximately a 260 foot from West 64th Street to the end of the — cul-de-sac here. Anything you wanted to ask? Councilman Boyt: What's the length of the whole cul-de-sac? Councilman Johnson: From Orchard. Gary Reed: I suspect it would be close to 1,000 feet. — Councilman Johnson: Where are you with the drainage issue? Gary Reed: We're trying to nail that down. We have put in the holding pond for their property and the main drainage coming off of TH 41 from the school is channeled through our property. It's been a problem with us and it would go !Il into the holding pond and is this correct now, the runoff is going to go underground to the park? 4 . City Council Meeting lay 31, 1988 • Councilman Johnson: How does it affect the 8 lots you're proposing? Gary Reed: I haven't nailed down the ponding site with them. Possibly put it up in this area here with this sharp angle...the drainage comes into my property now. At that point now there's a natural...and from there goes underground. There's another possibilty but I'm not sure. .. Councilman Johnson: So you're not fighting the ponding at this point? Gary Reed: No. Councilman Johnson: You're just trying, you agreed in principle to allow them to pond on your property for their area and it looks like... Gary Reed: I agreed to a pond of not more than 10,000 square feet. Somewhat smaller than a minimum sized lot should be sufficient I imagine. Larry Brown: Just a point of clarification, if West 64th Street is vacated and Mr. Reed comes in for a plat, he will'be responsible as well for on site ponding to maintain a predevelooment runoff rate. Therefore there will be a pond somewhere on his property. Gary Reed: Just for the blacktopping? The water running off the blacktop? Larry Brown: And the houses that potentially would be there. Councilman Johnson: His pond could be the same pond? Larry Brown: Correct. If it were sized appropriately, yes. Gary Reed: Like I say, the major drainage comes off the school parking lot and they have no on site ponding at all. I feel that they should be responsible for their blacktop and should provide on site ponding for their runoff because it comes down really fast through there. They've got a spot next to the highway there. They've got plenty of land. They're going to channel their runoff into... Mayor Hamilton: Doesn't any of that go to the park? Gary Reed: Some of it does go into that pond to the north... Mayor Hamilton: Underneath that driveway? _ Gary Reed: Where that pond is now. ..if that culvert ever opened up, you would have a problem there with our lake. Mayor Hamilton: Anything else Gary? Is that it? Bill, do you have any additional questions? - Councilman Boyt: I appreciate the answers I got. Barbara, I had a question for you. The current limit on cul-de-sacs and how that affects this? Barbara Dacy: There's is no specific limit identified in the subdivision 5 20L/ r� City Council Meeting - May 31, 1988 ordinance other than length that's appropriate for the development and intensity -4 which the cul-de-sac serves. The cul-de-sac that goes into the Reed property is approximately 900 feet from Orchard Lane. Typically staff has used a 1,000 foot rule of thumb in the urban area. There are different issues that we look at. [ Gary Reed: The density is not too great on that cul-de-sac. The lots there are over 60 feet. • Councilman Boyt: You've agreed to maintain the walkway from the end of 64th Street out to TH 41? Gary Reed: I have agreed to make a walkway through my property. Councilman Boyt: There's a road through there right now and I thought one of the considerations was that you were going to allow a path width to remain. Gary Reed: A road easement you mean? Barbara Dacy: As a condition of the vacation, if the Council wishes to reserve a trail easement in that vacated area, they have the power to do that. Councilman Boyt: In talking to the neighbors that day, it was my understanding that there was concern that there be some way for the kids to continue to cross that property to the school so I think we should maintain a trail easement on 64th. My concern with this is, as I have expressed I think right along, is I don't know how to deal with long cul-de-sacs. I would like to see the City Council wrestle with this issue in the future. I think that we need to work at LI it with the Public Safety people and come up with what are we going to do with long cul-de-sacs. This is a pressure all the time it seems to allow them yet I think we all know that they test the limits of our ability to provide public safety protection for the people in the community. I don't know that now is the time to fight that issue. I think the developer and the Reeds have worked at this for quite a while and if the neighbors don't substantially object to this plan, I gather that they don't from the conversation that I had with them, I c : su_.--a..t it. Councilman Gvi ng: I like to !mow r= if narrowed the potential cul-de-sacs to the three � on �~�� we can rule out 2 for sure. certainlyTat's1th�notetonbehat e provided.lNow my view and apparently considered. At least in PP y you have now ruled out number 1, is that correct? I guess I'm most concerned about the comments from citizens who are now using 64th everyday to get to work from TH 41. Do we have any live petitions? Do we have any recent comments that have come in in terms of memorandums? Letters from people? Barbara Dacy: I have not received any at my office. I know some people are here. Councilman Geving: Again, like I said, my major concern was those people who do live to the west who are now traveling east to get to TH 41. Their comments regarding our action tonight and what their alternative will be if we do vacate 64th. Whether this is a substantial number of people who would object to that or whether there's a substantial number of people now will accept this cul-de-sac arrangement and if they want to use TH 41 they' ll have to go out onto 6 City Council Meeting Aay 31, 1988 TH 7 to get to TH 41. I'd like to hear from those. Mayor Hamilton: I'll get to you in just a minute. Cakincilman Geving: I'd like to hear that in our discussion before we vote. Whbther or not there are people representing the area to the west or anybody • that lives on Oriole Lane that would want to speak to this issue. I guess my only feelings is if there is substantial agreement among those people that this would not be an undue hardship, they could live with this, I would vote accordingly to vacate the property. I think what I saw tonight in Mr. Reed's alternatives and what he's going to do with his property, you're going to develop there obviously and we have to move ahead with the HSZ development and I don't want to hold it up any longer. I'm pleased we're at this point. Councilman Johnson: I met with the citizens too. I still have, even though I had a meeting with the neighborhood, the only one part I have problem with even though I'm in general favor of it, is emergency access and our fire trucks are going to have to use TH 7. Fortunately our prime responder is going to be coming from Minnewashta so it's going to be coming down TH 7 anyway but you're secondary response would be coming ffcn the main station or again, the call for extra help from Shorewood and Excelsior, etc. would be coming down TH 7. Seeing the primary use may be actually TH 7 now anyway and conditioned upon the fact that the deceleration lane to go into the HSZ property is going to extend all the way back to Orchard Lane to act as an acceleration lane and be a much safer entrance onto TH 7 than they presently have onto TH 7. I'm not sure whether that lane's going to extend all the way to TH 41 or not. I don't think it will. It would be nice if it went all the way to TH 41 and then you wouldn't have to get on TH 7 at all. Generally I would like to see it connected through...there because of the commercial going on, it's going to be residential traffic. If it went all the way through we could again be looking at the front part of this property being built commercial and when we would have commercial on this residential street again. I don't particularly want to see that happen so weighing everything I'm leaning towards this option and they want to sit in there and fight it out and negotiate for this easement. I agree with Dale, I'd like to hear from citizens that are here tonight. Whether they agree with my analysis or not. Mayor Hamilton: I have just a couple of comments. I too have been concerned about the residents to the west. However, the previous developers of this area had always tied the shopping center in with the traffic going to the west to get into the center, as I recall, from Oriole. Now we've eliminated that. I guess that's what the residents wanted and now I'd be surprised if we heard then say they didn't want that. I think I'm concerned that they're satisfied with their access. Entrance and egress onto 'TH 7 is going to be adequate for them and I'm pleased that the Reed's have reached agreement with the developer that's going to satisfy their needs and accomplish what they want to do. Perhaps sooner than they want to do it but nevertheless get it done when they want to do something. Seeing how that's the case I'm all in favor of this. Gene Conner, 2521 Orchard Lane: I would like to restate, just to make sure that it doesn't drop through the cracks because sometimes things seem to do that, that any vacation of 64th Street be absolutely tied to a left turn lane being completed before vacation on TH 7. 7 L City Council Meeting - May 31, 1988 Bob Wagner, 2511 Orchard Lane: I too go TH 41, turn south and go to the great city of Chaska to work every morning and on behalf of the neighbors and having sat through a lot of meetings, I really feel this is probably the optimum soLion. From the standpoint of talking about the longer cul-de-sac andfi emergency exit, one of the alternatives that had been discussed was an exit back up into the shopping center. Well, when you really get down to reality with that, that would be in the southwest corner where you've got a 20 foot berm, privacy overrides this in my opinion. An emergency exit...but I really believe this is probably the best solution for the neighborhood in spite of sane minor consequences if I have to go up to TH 7, which is two blocks out of my way. Resident: I live to the west on Minnewashta and I guess I'm a little surprised, I hadn't heard about this prior to about two weeks ago. I guess there was sane discussion to the east of us but in our area it wasn't discussed until one of the neighbors stopped over and told me about it. But I come over here to work — everyday in Chan in my office and two things I'm wondering about. One is the entrance onto TH 7 certain hours of the day is very difficult to get on. The second thing, if that park is developed behind us, is that traffic going to be _ forced onto TH 7 without relief or not? -Is that a consideration? Mayor Hamilton: From Herman Field? Resident: Yes. Mayor Hamilton: Yes. They would use TH 7 also. We don't anticipate heavy useage of the park though. It's more of a passive use than it is an active use. Resident: Is there any type of an entrance lane? I heard discussion about deceleration and entrance into the Minnewashta area off of TH 7 but what about from Minnewashta onto TH 7 during rush hour traffic? Mayor Hamilton: There's a right turn lane out. Resident: There will be? Mayor Hamilton: Right. Councilman Geving: To follow up on Jay's comment, in terms of the construction on TH 7, does anybody have any knowledge when that will take place? Building a left turn lane? Barbara Dacy: That's post year 2000. Councilman Geving: Post year 2000? Barbara Dacy: The center lane that was identified in the TH 7 study report... John Uban: The highway department has already gone out and measured. There's enough room to stripe a left turn lane in there today so it's a matter of getting it on their schedule for striping. Barbara Dacy: I though you were talking about the center left turn lane all the way down TH 7. 8 City Council feting -- .ay 31, 1988 Councilman Geving: No, just on Orchard. John Uban: And that is, I guess as soon as it's approved and we go ahead with this, we just contact MnDot and say go ahead with that and whatever their schedule is. Councilman Geving: What is your comment relating to what Mr. Conner's proposed her)in terms of timing? John Uban: That would be fine. In fact we would go out and paint it ourselves if we were given permission to do so. Mayor Hamilton: I thought that's what you had said previously. Councilman Johnson: I don't think MnDot has to wait for us to approve this. MnDot can go out there and put that lane in there today because it's needed today. Gene Conner: With no little irritation I'd like to ask, if it's not yours, it's the highway department, if there's roan there now why the hell didn't they do it a long time ago? There's been a lot of bitching about that. Mayor Hamilton: I think you should know we've worked with MnDot over the years in attempting to improve TH 7. They don't seem to inclined to work with us. We have had many requests and studies and they know the traffic is bad and they won't do anything to help us improve the situation. Mayor Hamilton: I'm going to move partial vacation of 64th Street using Option #3 into the Reed property with conditions as outlined by the staff with the fourth condition that the left turn lane be put on TH 7 prior to doing this if it can possibly be accomplished. Remain under construction. Whether it's through your company's efforts or MnDot's. Also, that we reserve a trail easement on the vacated 64th Street so there can be some access for kids to get to the school. Barbara Dacy: On the motion, if you're going to cul-de-sac it then conditions 1 and 2 of the staff report will not apply but condition 3 would. Mayor Hamilton: Okay, so we have 1, 2 and 3. Councilman Geving: I'll second the motion. Roger Knutson: One question. It's going to cost money to cul-de-sac it. Mayor Hamilton: The developer has agreed with the Reeds to accomplish that. A written agreement. Roger Knutson: That should be reflected in the development contract to make sure. .. 111 Mayor Hamilton: As the City develops the development contract that should be a part of that. Just so the Reeds are aware of it and you guys are aware of it, that the agreement needs to be signed by both parties and included. 9 L7 9321- City 3:1City Council Meeting - May- 31, 1988 Councilman Ceving: It doesn't have anything to do with the vacation. It's a separate issue. 1 f Councilman Johnson: You've got to cul-de-sac the end of the street. — I Roger Knutson: The fact that you're vacating it is causing an expense to incur. Now's the best time to make sure everyone knows who's paying for it. — Mayor Hamilton: That's what Mr. Reed had said. That they have agreed to that in writing. Roger Knutson: The vacation is contingent upon them signing a development contract with us. • Mayor Hamilton: That would be a fourth condition. Councilman Boyt: I would like to ask that we modify the trail easement. I _ think it should be more than an easement., There's a roadway there now. I think the trail should be there and done. It's a very minor cost to pave that trail. There are going to be people, children who are going to want to use that. Gene Conner: A lot of them ride bikes. Mayor Hamilton: Do you see any problem with that? Okay. We're modifying the third which was that there be a trail easement. Not just a trail easement but that a trail be constructed from the portion of West 64th that's being vacated to TH 41. Roger Knutson: At who's expense? Mayor Hamilton: The developer's. Councilman Johnson: Who maintains it? Mayor Hamilton: The City. Councilman Johnson: I need a review of exactly what we're voting on. 1 and 2 are out? Mayor Hamilton: Right. Approval of the vacation of 64th Street with the recommendations are, number 3 becomes 1. 2 is that the left turn lane off of TH 7 be completed as quickly as possible as soon as the construction starts. Whether it's by the developer or by MnDot. Councilman Johnson: Prior to vacation. Mayor Hamilton: 3 is that the trail be constructed through the property. And 4 was as Roger had stated. Roger Knutson: The condition be put in the development and that the development contract be executed before vacation actually takes place. 10 . City Council Meeting -_ 3y 31, 1988 Mayor Hamilton: That a signed agreement between the Reeds and the developer be signed so everybody knows who's paying it. Councilman Johnson: The trail being built? Mayor Hamilton: Right. Roger Knutson: The development contract requires someone to do something. We also require an escrow or letter of credit to make sure it gets accomplished. Councilman Boyt: Now we need to understand what we're getting. We are talking about a city trail. Right? It's 8 feet wide. That's our standard. Just so there's no confusion. That's our typical trail. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the partial vacation of West 64th Street conditioned upon the following: 1. The City Attorney's Office shall prepare an analysis of all steps to be accomplished prior to filing the Vacation resolution including driveway relocation expenses, reconstruction and relocation plans, filing of appropriate letters of credit or escrow amounts, and retaining necessary drainage arra utility easements and any other items deemed necessary by the City Attorney's Office. This will be brought back for Council approval. 2. A left turn lane off of TH 7 be completed prior to the vacation of 64th Street. Completed either by MnDot or the developer. 3. An 8 foot trail be constructed by the developer from the vacated portion of 64th Street to TH 41. 4. Vacation of 64th Street is contingent upon a development contract being signed and that the development contract spells out that the developer is responsible for the expense of constructing the cul-de-sac and construction of the trail. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Resolution 88-48 ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-263 (6 & 7) OF THE CITY CODE TO AMEND THE LAT DEPTH REQUIREMENT FOR INSTALLATION OF A DOCK AND ONE CANOE RANK/ DOCK REQUIREMENT. Barbara Dacy: Two issues, one issue is the lot depth requirement for a beachlot in order to have a dock. The second issue is the canoe rack issue. Currently as written you have to have a dock in order to have a canoe rack. So the Planning Commission acted to recommend that the Council amend the ordinance to keep the 100 foot lot depth requirement for a dock but added a phrase that said, inclusive of street right-of-ways. And as to the canoe rack issue, they made the language on page 7 in the staff report, recommending that there be no — more than 7 racks per beachlot. Those are the two issues. Councilman Johnson: Did they come up with the number 7? 11 1 City Council Meeting - October 6, 1986 Councilwoman Swenson: Would this come under further subdivision then? Are we talking about further then? Further back? I agree. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded that the City allow the developer, the Mjolnes', to develop the subdivision without the need of paving Sunset Trail, putting in an improved road with a hard gravel surface. All voted in favor and motion carried. LOT SPLIT REQUEST TO DIVIDE 1.71 ACRES INTO TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, 2461 WEST 64TH STREET, GARY REED. Mayor Hamilton: This again is an item that we saw previously and there was some misunderstanding when Mr. Reed was here, as to exactly what his request was and what we, I think probably were approving. The recommendations made by Staff that didn't really go too well with the property. Gary Reed: The last time I was in was on September 22nd and we requested a simple lot split and the City Council granted that but the Staff recommended the contingencies that we didn't cont'ider to be in line with what we wanted to do and that would effect some of the other neighbors too. The contingencies were that we realign the driveway for the existing house which I think was dropped from the Staff's report on this meeting which went through a real thicket of trees and would damage the aesthetic beauty of the property and the useability of the driveway. The second contingency was that we petition to put a road in on the west line of the division into the park. Now, we're not in favor of having the road go into thepark at that '" point. We think it is not the right location. It would be a detriment to ourrortIf it to pay for roads, we would like to put them into the remaining partof theant property that we plan on platting in the future. This would also affect the Ziegler's who own the lots adjacent to the proposed street that they would like to have into the park and the Ziegler's are here tonight and they are not _ in favor of sharing the cost of putting the street in either so I guess our petitioning to put the street in would obligate us for paying for the street and we don't wish to do that. All we want to do is just utilize some of our buildable property that we have at this point. We also own the property to the east of this lot which is approximately probably 6 acres and we are currently charged for five sewer stubs on that property which are unbuildable at this point until major drainage work is done. The water comes from basically West Jr. High School and it is in a culvert and dumped into our property at what would be the southeast corner of our property that comes through a creek and then it kind of meanders over the fields and down onto _ West 64th Street where it kind of makes it way across the north corner of the proposed lot split and then it meanders back on it's way to Little Minnewashta through the proposed park area and so on. At this point, we can not utilize those five sewer stubs in that particular part of the property because of the drainage. In the future I guess we would like to put in a short road or cul- de-sac depending on the going property and what happens with that also. We would have to work with total property to be developed at that time and work the plat out but at that time then both of our houses would face a cul- de-sac or a street and I think my wife wrote quite a lengthy letter and she listed all the points and sent one to all the people here so you should be familiar with our plight here. 28 10-15*167-A46 - City Council Meeting - October 6, 1986 T Mayor Hamilton: I don't know if the Council members have any questions. I guess I would just comment that I guess I misunderstood what you requested last time certainly and I thought I was going out to the properties to make a decision on it but after going out and looking at it again with Gary and Jan and we walked around the property, I understand more clearly the type of development or division that you are trying to put in there. I think your request is very simple and straight forward. You want to divide your lot, use the current driveway, not drive through to cut down all the trees to the west of your lot and I certainly disagree with the recommendation that Oriole be put through as the road to the park. I think we are a long ways from deciding where that road is going to go and I see no reason for the Reeds or the Zieglers to pay for a road going through. I think we need to as a City and as a Council to sit down and look at that and start looking at the other properties in that area that are going to be developed over the next several years. I'm not sure what the alignment of the road is going to be to get into Herman Field. I don't think I have seen the right alternative yet from anything I have seen up to this point but to extend Oriole, I think would just „'' be foolish. t . N.� Councilwoman Swenson: I concur. Councilwoman Watson: I think the Reeds have a very good point in that the traffic for that park is not going to come from their immediate area but from west of here and whether those people would come all the way down to Oriole or 7 if there is a better access to this some other place rather than here and _ there is no way that they need Oriole paved to subdivide their lot or the L Zieglers paved so I think for a simple lot split they should just be allowed to split the lot and use the present driveway. Councilman Geving: I don't understand Mr. Mayor how this got messed up. The Council met, they discussed this. I'm reading very clearly that it was approved by the Council and then along comes a condition or two. Who put those conditions on there? Don Ashworth: It was put on in the Staff Report. When you reviewed this on September 22nd, that was part of the recommendation. Councilman Geving: But is wasn't part of the motion? Is that correct? Don Ashworth: You approved the item as submitted, yes. Mayor Hamilton: You see at that time the Reeds were here and they explained what they are attempting to do and then the conditions to them that evening weren't clear because they had just gotten them and did not make comment on them because maybe they thought they weren't suppose to so we thought we were doing what they wanted to do with the misunderstanding. We always felt we were passing exactly what they wanted us to do. Councilman Geving: I can understand that. I can see where that is confusing. _ We thought we were doing you a favor. I'm sorry I wasn't here that night. I agree that it should be undone and not improve Oriole. 29 1 Th, i City Council Meeting - October 6, 1986 Councilwoman Watson: What is the procedure for undoing it? ti Don Ashworth: I think in this case it is simply a clarification of the previous motion. If you took the position that this was a reconsideration, _ then you could not act on it tonight. You would have to wait for two weeks and I don't think that is the intent of the Council. If you want to simply call it clarification. Councilwoman Watson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to clarify the motion made on September 22, 1986 to read to approve the lot split request to create a 38,750 square foot lot and 35,650 square foot lot using the metes and bounds — description for Parcel A: the north 250 feet of the west 155 feet of Lot G, Bardwell Acres; and Parcel B: that part of the west 155 feet of Lot G, Bardwell Acres which lies south of the north 250 feet of said Lot G, with the following condition: 1. When the rest of the adjacent property belonging to Mr. Reed is developed and platted, that these two lots be platted along with the rest of the property. - — /,a :/ �. All voted in favor of the motion and motion carried. _ Councilman Horn: I would also like to comment that if this question comes up again, I would like to see some type of an access study done for the park. Not just carried on as part of the subdivision. �i Councilman Geving: We're still playing around with that. We don't know whether to come in from the west or north. Gary Reed: Can I make a comment. The bulk of the people that are going to use it are in the Minnewashta Manor area and it seems to me that some quick _ access into the park would probably be a better place then on Oriole. I think at the present time the park is being used. The kids go in there and play all the time. It is kind of wilderness area and I think that is what our kids need. Sometimes we don't need a groomed, mowed lawn to play on. They can wrestle around back there in the woods is probably better for them then hanging some ropes. Mayor Hamilton: One thing we have discussed briefly Gary is the possibilty of the Gowen property developing and coming into the MUSA district if that develops and having a road off of that somehow is a real possibility also. There are a lot of alternatives. • Gary Reed: But I think the park is being utilized even though. We use it for cross country skiing in the winter. _ Councilwoman Watson: A park is not necessarily a ball field and tennis court. The way our city is developing I think more and more of our parks should be _ just like open land because we are going to forget what it looks like. 30 LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 APPLICANT:( c()04-- f OWNER: ((It (/) 09-01) (eo lQ ADDRESS _2"_i6 ! VV G I 1--v\ ADDRESS Ati • Code Zip Code TELEPHONE (Daytime)41_( -6.2% ?_--TELEPHONE 1//7/-4Q6 ? C� 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 ermit / ) PROJECT NAME C0rS 0741a,--7/7/ /�(�'1/ Al2 "" /' / PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION 6' (Ica L i/7 /Ct l REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION CL' C. PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONINGJ USES PROPOSED 6 c , „Pc""; — SIZE OF PROPERTY LOCATION 7tr '4) I 6• rtt i ^ REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST ,� \j C� J r r L7 v\- — LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary ) /-0/ i:/;('_ _ ti �^ a r 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 By R/t„4 (2—C- 7/ 7 Date hpp, scant The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has been authorized to make this application for the property herein described . Signed By "!"`" Date Fee Owner Date Application Received 3 f-�- Application Fee Paid t City Receipt No. ,-?6,7 9% * This Application will be considered by the Planning Commission/ Board of Adjustments and Appeals at their meeting. C I TY O F t P.C. DATE: 5-17-89 +� 7 4� C.C. :: ::1:::: CASE 89-3 Prepared by: Olsen:k STAFF REPORT 4 PROPOSAL: Site Plan Review for a 2 , 920 sq. ft. Garage/ Warehouse Facility F- !Q y LOCATION: Lots 1 and 2 , Park One -nn tl APPLICANT: Daryl Fortier Fortier Associates 408 Turnpike Road Golden Valley, MN 55416 PRESENT ZONING: IOP, Industrial Office Park ACREAGE: 2 . 15 acres DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- IOP, WayTech S- IOP, The Press E- IOP, Versatil W- IOP, Lyman Lumber W WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site contains vegetation along the north and west side of the property. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Industrial .1("..... .....:....j ,,Ir . „.....___Nvii----...,ic c_________ _ _._____ , ..)0 - i 7200 ` , i\ L A A•E \ y t at 1 MtT1�:I \` 730C gym► �;.% ;� i 2 S•�t1_ \ 7400 \-101 ite,-we V ' 0 • == i L....„....--: 7500 nneallriiin ITIm -it / 01 mow O „� •I - � � 0-1 – w4 \ • /' 2. 7600 - _ -•/ ., .., ic, . • . .., - - > aM. ern : ;000 1:Li zu pa Am -lib-------' c G. , --: - .. 2 ^ 7700-- -,*--7. 111 .. ' 'y 71TH ST 3 =- — b ' 7800 - • 5 _.. _4,. - 'KE rRII` �. C 1 NO' - } �0 • I ,� i� 7900 • r '' aFE — NIP 30 , . -1-- ' = ►� to i d' Nr —800 – 11; � ` 'c r _ f : ' ? ��1�/ �.� C!-- — 9200 ` 1 (� - - L2�► F R v r �./ GAKO AP. r \-5gr I LE, _ —8300 — / N---'.- -/ ' R/C E ,AF-RSH L AXE <1' ri• `O J ...‹.)). i -- s -, 4 — N600. _H______ , , Site Plan 89-3 , Fortier May 17 , 1989 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Warehousing is a permitted use in the IOP District. One parking space is required for each 1 ,000 square feet of gross floor area. The landscaping ordinance requires a strip of land at least ten feet in depth located between the abutting right-of-way and the vehicular use area which shall be landscaped to include an average of one tree for each 40 feet. In addition, a hedge, wall berm or other opaque durable landscape of at least two feet in height shall be placed along the entire length of the vehicular use area. One tree per 40 feet is required along interior prop- erty lines (Attachment #1) . REFERRAL AGENCIES City Engineer (Attachment #2 ) Fire Inspector: No comments at this time. Building Inspector: No comments at this time. BACKGROUND The City Council approved a site plan for an auto garage on the subject site on December 16, 1985 with the following conditions : 1. A detailed location and acceptable percolation test for the septic system must be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2 . Details of the gas storage must be approved by the Fire Marshal. 3 . No outdoor storage is allowed. 4. All drains from the site be connected to an approved septic system or the municipal sanitary sewer system with an in-line oil separator and flammable waste trap. Additionally, the owner provide for a waste storage system for disposing of oils and other automotive fluids. 5 . Final site plan for the building permit denote the septic system location or sewer hook-up, water service location and driveway layout along with septic system design details. 6 . Hook into sewer within one year. The existing garage is used for storage, maintenance and repair of automobiles. The site has conformed to the required con- ditions of site plan approval except that trailers are being stored outside. Site Plan 89-3, Fortier — May 17, 1989 Page 3 ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing to construct a second garage/warehouse on the site located just north of the existing garage. The garage is proposed at 2, 920 square feet and will be used solely for storage of automobiles . There will be no maintenance or — repair of automobiles in the proposed garage. The applicant is aligning the front of the new garage with the existing garage and is maintaining adequate setback from the westerly lot line. The — applicant is providing additional bituminous paving in the front of the garage which will connect with existing bituminous paving. The proposed garage will be serviced from the existing driveway — from Quattro Drive. The construction materials proposed for the new garage are consistent with the existing garage. There are existing trees along the westerly lot line of the prop- erty. The garage will remove some of the vegetatian. The appli- cant is proposing additional landscaping along the southerly and easterly lot line adjacent to West 77th Street and Quattro Drive. — There are also existing mature trees on the northerly lot line which will be removed as part of the storm sewer project ( Attachment #3) . In his letter, the applicant has stated that the trees that will be removed as part of the storm sewer project — are being replaced with the proposed landscaping. The landscaping that is being proposed meets requirements of the existing ordinance. Additional landscaping will be required to — act as replacements to the trees that will be removed as part of the storm sewer project and garage construction. The applicant is providing adequate parking for the site and is proposing to store a transport flat bed trailer between the two garages . The trailer will be screened from the north and south by the garages and will be screened by the vegetation and slope — from the westerly lot line. The landscaping along Quattro Drive will partially screen view of the trailer from the east. Any other outside storage should not be permitted unless the appli- cant receives a conditional use permit for screened outside storage. Since the proposed garage is located on Lots 1 and 2 of Park One Addition, the applicant must receive a replat of the site to com- bine the two lots into one. It is necessary to remove the interior lot line and the need to maintain setbacks from the — interior lot line. The applicant has made application for the preliminary plat and will be pursuing the preliminary plat in the near future. — RECOMMENDATION Planning staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the — following motion: Site plan 89-3 , Fortier May 17, 1989 Page 4 "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan No. 89-3 for the construction of a 2, 920 sq. ft. garage facility as shown on Site Plan dated April 13, 1989 with the following conditions : 1. The garage will only be used for storage and there shall not be any maintenance or repair of automobiles within the new facility. 2. Additional landscaping shall be provided on a caliper per caliper basis to replace the trees that will be removed as part of the garage and storm sewer construction. 3 . The applicant shall receive a replat of the site to com- bine Lots 1 and 2 , Park One. 4 . There shall be no outside storage other than the transport flat bed which shall be stored between the two garages. 5 All parking and driveway areas shall be paved and surrounded by concrete curb and gutter in accordance with Section 20-1123 of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance. 6 . The applicant shall submit for approval by the City Engineer a drainage and erosion control plan prior to final approval. ATTACHMENTS 1. Excerpt from Zoning Ordinance. 2 . City Engineer ' s memo dated May 10, 1989 . 3 . Storm Sewer Grading Plan. ZONING § 20-814 ARTICLE XXII. "IOP" INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK DISTRICT Sec. 20-811. Intent. The intent of the "IOP" District is to provide an area identified for large scale light industrial and commercial planned development. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 16(5-16-1), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-812. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in an "IOP" District: (1) Offices. (2) Warehouses. (3) Light manufacturing. (4) Trade shops. (5) Health services. (6) Printers. (7) Indoor health and recreation clubs. (8) Body shops. (9) Utility services. _ (10) Recording studios. (11) Off-premises parking lots. _ (12) Conferenceiconvention centers. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 16(5-16-2), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-813. Permitted accessory uses. The following are permitted accessory uses in an "IOP" District: _ (1) Parking lots and ramps. (2) Signs. (3) Retail sales of products stored or manufactured on the site provided no more than twenty(20) percent of the floor space is used for retail sales. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 16(5-16-3), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-814. Conditional uses. The following are conditional uses in an "IOP" District: (1) Concrete mixing plants. (2) Communication transmission towers. 1227 § 20-793 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE (2) Signs. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 15(5-15-3), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-794. Conditional uses. The following are conditional uses in the "OI" District: (1) Adaptive reuse of vacant public or private school buildings for private business uses. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 15(5-15-4), 12-15-86) State law reference—Conditional uses, M.S. § 462.3595. Sec. 20-795. Lot requirements and setbacks. • The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "OI" District subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter: (1) The minimum lot area is fifteen thousand(15,000)square feet. (2) The minimum lot frontage is seventy-five (75) feet, except that lots fronting on a cul-de-sac shall have a minimum lot frontage of sixty(60)feet. (3) The minimum lot depth is one hundred fifty (150)feet. (4) The maximum lot coverage is sixty-five(65) percent. (5) Off-street parking areas shall comply with all yard requirements of this section, except that no rear yard parking setback shall be required for lots directly abutting railroad trackage; and, no side yard shall be required when adjoining commercial uses establish joint off-street parking facilities,as provided in section 20-1122, except that no parking areas shall be permitted in any required side street side yard. The minimum rear yard shall be fifty (50) feet for lots directly abutting any residential district. Side street side yards shall be a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet. Other setbacks are as follows: a. For front yards, thirty-five(35) feet. b. For rear yards, thirty(30) feet. c. For side yards, fifteen(15) feet. (6) The maximum height is as follows: a. For the principal structure, two(2)stories. b. For accessory structures, one (1)story. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 15(5.15-5), 12-15-86) Secs. 20-796-20-810. Reserved. 1226 ZONING § 20-1179 Sec. 20-1178. Landscaping for service structure. (a) Any service structure shall be screened whenever located in any residential, commer- cial or industrial zone (except RR and RSF zones). Structures may be grouped together; however, screening height requirements will be based upon the tallest of the structures. (b) A continuous planting, hedge, fence, wall or earth mound shall enclose any service structure on all sides unless such structure must be frequently moved, in which case screen- ing on all but one (1) side is required. The average height of the screening material shall be _ one(1)foot more than the height of the enclosed structure,but shall not be required to exceed eight (8) feet in height. Whenever a service structure is located next to a building wall, perimeter landscaping material, or vehicular use area landscaping material, such walls or _ screening material may fulfill the screening requirement for that side of the service structure if that wall or screening material is of an average height sufficient to meet the height requirement set out in this section. Whenever service structures are screened by plant _ material, such material may count towards the fulfillment of required interior or perimeter landscaping. No interior landscaping shall be required within an area screened for service structures. (c) Whenever screening material is placed around any trash disposal unit or waste collection unit which is emptied or removed mechanically on a regularly occuring basis, a curb to contain the placement of the container shall be provided within the screening material on those sides where there is such material. The curbing shall be at least one(1)foot from the material and shall be designed to prevent possible damage to the screening when the con- tainer is moved or emptied. — (Ord. No. 80, Art. VIII, § 4, 12-15-86) Sec. 20-1179. Tree removal regulations. (a) It is the policy of the city to preserve natural woodland areas throughout the city and with respect to specific site development to retain as far as practical, substantial tree stands which can be incorporated into the overall landscape plan. (b) No clearcutting of woodland areas shall be permitted except as approved in a subdivi- sion,planned unit development or site plan application. (c) The following standards shall be used in evaluating subdivisions and site plans: (1) To the extent practical, site design shall preserve significant woodland areas. (2) Shade trees of six (6) inches or more caliper shall be saved unless it can be demon- strated that there is no other feasible way to develop the site. (3) The city may require the replacement of removed trees on a caliper inch per caliper inch basis. At minimum. however, replacement trees shall conform to the planting _ requirements identified in division 4 of this article. (4) During the tree removal process, trees shall be removed so as to prevent blocking of public rights-of-way or interfering with overhead utility lines. 1253 § 20-1179 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE (5) The removal of diseased and damaged trees is permissible. (d) Tree removal not permitted under subdivision, planned unit development or site plan review shall not be allowed without the approval of a tree removal plan by the city council. Tree removal plans shall include the content requirements as dictated in section 20-1177 and identify reasons for tree removal. The plan shall be submitted three (3) weeks in advance of the city council at which it is to be considered. (e) This section does not apply to single-family and two-family lots of record. (Ord. No. 80,Art. VIII, § 7, 12-15-86) Secs. 20-1180-20-1190. Reserved. DIVISION 2. PERIMETER LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS Sec. 20-1191. Generally. (a) Where parking areas are not entirely screened visually by an intervening building or structure from any abutting right-of-way, there shall be provided landscaping between such area and such right-of-way as follows: (1) A strip of land at least ten (10) feet in depth located between the abutting right-of- way and the vehicular use area which shall be landscaped to include an average of one (1) tree for each forty (40) linear feet or fraction thereof. Such trees shall be located between the abutting right-of-way and the vehicular use area. (2) In addition,a hedge, wall,berm,or other opaque durable landscape barrier of at least two(2)feet in height shall be placed along the entire length of the vehicular use area. If such opaque durable barrier is of nonliving material, a shrub or vine shall be planted along the street side of said barrier and be planted in such a manner to break up the expanse of the wall. A two-foot berm may be used; however, additional landscaping at least one (1) foot in height at time of planting shall be installed. The remainder of the required landscape areas shall be landscaped with grass, ground cover, or other landscape treatment. (b) This division applies to perimeter landscaping. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VIII, § 2(8-2-1), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-1192. Required landscaping adjacent to interior property lines. (a) Where parking areas abut property zoned or, in fact, used primarily for residential or ,institutional purposes, that portion of such area not entirely screened visually by an interven- ing structure or existing conforming buffer from an abutting property, there shall be provided a landscaped buffer which should be maintained and replaced as needed. Such landscaped buffer shall consist of plant material, wall, or other durable barrier at least six (6) feet in height measured from the median elevation of the parking area closest to the common lot line. and be located between the common lot line and the off-street parking areas or other vehicular use area exposed to the abutting property. Fences shall be constructed according to the standards in section 20-1018. 1254 ZONING § 20-1212 (b) In addition,an average of one(1)tree shall be provided for each forty(40)linear feet of such parking area or fractional part thereof. Such trees shall be located between the common lot line and the off-street parking area or other vehicular use area. (c) Where such area abuts property zoned and, in fact, used for office, commercial, or industrial purposes, that portion of area not entirely screened visually by an intervening structure or existing conforming buffer, shall comply with the tree provisions only as pre- scribed in this section. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VIII, § 2(8-2-2), 12-15-86) _ Sec. 20-1193. Combining with easements. The required landscape bufferyard may be combined with a utility or other easement as long as all of the landscape requirements can be fully met, otherwise, the landscape bufferyard shall be provided in addition to, and separate from, any other easement. Cars or other objects shall not overhang or otherwise intrude'upon the required landscape bufferyard more than two and one-half(21/2)feet and curbs will be required. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VIII, § 2(8-2-3), 12-15-86) _ Sec. 20-1194. Existing landscape material. Existing landscape material shall be shown on the required plan and any material in satisfactory condition may be used to satisfy these requirements in whole or in part. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VIII, § 2(8-2-4), 12-15-86) Secs. 20-1195-20-1210. Reserved. DIVISION 3. INTERIOR LANDSCAPING FOR VEHICULAR USE AREAS Sec. 20-1211. Generally. _ (a) Any open vehicular use area (excluding loading, unloading, and storage areas in the IOP and BG districts)containing more than six thousand(6,000)square feet of area,or twenty (20) or more vehicular parking spaces, shall provide interior landscaping in accordance with this division in addition to "perimeter" landscaping. Interior landscaping may be peninsular or island types. (b) This division applies to interior landscaping of such areas. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VIII, § 3, 12-15-86) Sec. 20-1212. Landscape area. (a) For each one hundred(100)square feet, or fraction thereof, of vehicular use area, live (5)square feet of landscaped area shall be provided. (b) The minimum landscape area permitted shall be sixty-four (64) square feet, with a _ four-foot minimum dimension to all trees from edge of pavement where vehicles overhang. 1255 ZONING § 20-1231 b. Deciduous trees. Shall be species having an average mature crown spread of greater than fifteen(15) feet and having trunk(s) which can be maintained with over five(5)feet of clear wood in areas which have visibility requirements,except at vehicular use area intersections where an eight (8) foot clear wood require- ment will control. Trees having an average mature spread of crown less than • fifteen (15) feet may be substituted by grouping of the same so as to create the equivalent of a fifteen (15) crown spread. A minimum of ten (10) feet overall height or a minimum caliper (trunk diameter, measured six (6) inches above ground for trees up to four (4) inches caliper) of at least two and one half(21/2) inches immediately after planting shall be required. Trees of species whose roots are known to cause damage to public roadways or other public works shall not be placed closer than fifteen (15) feet to such public works, unless the tree root system is completely contained within a barrier for which the minimum interior containing dimensions shall be five (5)feet square and five(5)feet deep and for which the construction requirements shall be four (4) inches thick, reinforced concrete. c. Evergreen trees. Evergreen trees shall be a minimum of six (6) feet high with a minimum caliper of one and one-half(11/2)inches when planted. d. Shrubs and hedges. Deciduous shrubs shall be at least two (2) feet in average height when planted, and shall conform to the opacity and other requirements within four (4) years after planting. Evergreen shrubs shall be at least two (2) feet in average height and two(2)feet in diameter. e. Vines. Vines shall be at least twelve (12) inches high at planting, and are generally used in conjunction with walls or fences. f. Grass or ground cover. Grass shall be planted in species normally grown as permanent lawns, and may be sodded, plugged, sprigged, or seeded: except in swales or other areas subject to erosion, where solid sod, erosion reducing net, or suitable mulch shall be used, nurse-grass seed shall be sown for immediate protection until complete coverage otherwise is achieved. Grass sod shall be- clean and free of weeds and noxious pests or diseases. Ground cover such as organic material shall be planted in such a manner as to present a finished appearance and seventy-five (75) percent of complete coverage after two (2) complete growing seasons, with a maximum of fifteen U5) inches on center. In certain cases, round cover also may consist of rocks, pebbles, sand and similar approved materials. (b) The following trees may he used to meet planting requirements: Specific Name Common Name _ SHADE TREES Acer platanoides "Emerald Queen" Maple, emerald queen Norway Acer platanoides "Crimson King" — Acer platanoides"Columnar" Maple, crimson king Maple, columnar Acer platanoides "Jade Glen" Acer platanoides "Royal Red" Maple,jade green Norway Maple, royal red Norway 1257 CITY OF'CHANHASSEN 4•M, - 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 — �`'' (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission l,..)\ \‘(- --d , \1� �� _ FROM: Gary Warren, City Engineertd DATE: May 10 , 1989 — SUBJ: Beddor Garage Addition File No. 89-11 Lana Use Review _ LOCATION The site is located on Lots 1 and 2 , Block 1 , Park One 3rd Addition. ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing a 2, 920 square foot building for the warehousing of. the property owner ' s cars . The structure will be located just north of the existing garage on this site. There will be no outside storage of cars and the remainder of the — site will remain in its natural state. The structure is set back 60 feet from the north lot line and 47 feet from the west lot line. These setbacks are adequate and would allow for the pre- _ servation of most of the existing trees to the west and north of the site ( attachment #1 ) . UTILITIES Sanitary sewer and watermain are not an issue under this expan- sion. This structure is to be a warehouse/cold storage only and — no work bays, wash bays or bathroom facilities are proposed. Therefore, staff is not recommending that detailed plans showing the exact location and acceptable percolation tests for septic systems be submitted prior to approval of the building permit. ACCESS The existing site is serviced by a bituminous driveway approxima- tely 24 feet wide. Based on the proposea use, Section 20-1123 of the City' s Zoning Ordinance would apply (attachment #2 ) which _ states that all parking areas and access roads be paved with an all-weather surface with concrete curb ana gutter. Planning Commission May 10 , 1989 Page 2 The present width of the driveway access is adequate to support two-way traffic. GRADING AND DRAINAGE The proposed plan does not indicate the amount and/or limits of grading necessary to construct the proposed building and parking lot. The plan does not address any form of retention if necessary such that the predeveloped runoff rate is maintained. A revised plan which addresses this issue should be submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to final approval . EROSION CONTROL Similarly, the plan does not address erosion control . A drainage and erosion control plan should be submitted prior to final approval . RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS 1 . Preservation of the hardwood trees along the west and north lot lines . 2. All parking and driveway areas shall be paved and surrounded by concrete curb and gutter in accordance with Section 20-1123 of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance. 3 . The applicant shall submit for approval by the City Engineer a drainage and erosion control plan prior to final approval . ATTACHMENTS 1 . Location map. 2 . Zoning Ordinance No. 20-1123 . • `�_ _' s`ms \� '4t1,;` a. I / 1` n I I' \ 1/ `r 't EAST"--, 310.46 •-•,<:----:."- I -•/��\ .......\=,L.....-//_ �\\ _\� R _ 11 ,` 1•x:-40..` io ze'a....a.a e \ \ '%�= ZONING § 20-1123 { Sec. 20-1118. Computing requirements. — = In computing the number of parking spaces required, the following shall govern: = __ (1) "Floor space" means the gross floor area of the specific use as defined in Article II. = (2) Where fractional spaces result, the parking spaces required shall be construed to be the next largest whole number. (3) Uses not specifically mentioned in this division shall be determined by the board of adjustments and appeals. The factors to be considered in such determination shall - include size of building, type of use, number of employees, expected volume and • turnover of customer traffic and expected frequency and number of delivery or service vehicles. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VII, § 1(7-1-3), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-1119. Yards. • On-site parking and loading facilities shall not be permitted in the required front yard, — side yard or rear yard, except as provided otherwise in this chapter. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VII, § 1(7-1-4), 12-15-86) • Sec. 20-1120. Buffer fences and planting screens. • On-site parking and loading areas near or abutting residential districts shall be screened in conformance with the provisions of article XXV. — (Ord. No. 80, Art. VII, § 1(7-1-5), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-1121. Access. Parking and loading space shall have proper access from a public right-of-way. The number of width of access drives shall be located to minimize traffic congestion and abnormal — " traffic hazard. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VII, § 1(7-1-6), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-1122. Location of parking facilities and combined facilities. Required on-site parking space shall be provided on the same lot as the principal building or use, except that combined or joint parking facilities may be provided for one (1) or more buildings or uses in business districts and in industrial districts, provided that the total number of spaces shall equal the sum of the requirements for each building or use. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VII, § 1(7-1-8), 12-15-86) • Sec. 20-1123. Construction and maintenance. In multiple-family, business, office and industrial districts, parking areas and access drives shall be paved with a dust-free, all-weather surface with proper surface drainage, and concrete curb. The operator of the p principal building or use shall maintain parking and loading areas, access drives and yard areas in a neat and serviceable condition. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VII, § 1(7-1-8), 12-15-86) 1247 ATTACHMENT 2 • INDIO • \ -, 'c.,... 4... • 11� �� ('^_�.. EAS7�. 310 46 •'../ / \ 4n\ `\ I I 1 1 1 1 ‘`'".^�. o zo 4.....M• o ` t x'a% •M• : t _....,..1...2_ • � // \I �\.:y_1, } '� -- -.......j .......: 7......,.._ 9 �\ _ ,' \ .� ' 1 I 1 t' 1 E.S. \ 7:Cr�c� \ /;` `�� .gilt J-� ID 7/' 1 k\\\ 1 11 '11 47•o° • 4 = L o-�'-. .�_ J L_�_c-r-c-�d3 sr+..r :r '''.1. 10 I I I I I il: o I'1 / ,� 71.Z 1 It 1 1 1 •. , ....i_eillel • •II \1 :! ..+-•./N 1- ` 1 :,. .. f.••s.. 1,• YRO!7,�D .+b.µs....- ........... ------ ••••-7.-------___ nI' T I \ �' .� 1 1 I i 1 .` I1 ..:} :- A�•c 91:owm, _ 11 —` \+rte w: ii. 1 I o \1 I. . fir: -a .__ �\ \ I I•�.r w�. �.-.' \ \\ I ll.i 1 1 1 1 I .R `t_ `- fit{fig. _ _ \ — 1 1 — e.c c•LEM. 927.671 �.• -r-rr 1 I 1`3 t -- I --a-'-••f-=Xtf xnE:v \ I I 10 .\� 1 � —_,�,�, \I 3a. I 831 D f1 \\; ` \ 1 t I-STORY a 1, ._ . O 1 1 V / \ �, q.o I\ f\ \ .\ I _ 1 1' .\ 1 1 � . I \\\ i C1 1\ I 1 Z. • I .,4.aj .t.� N\ ••"• I I i� 1=I } \ I 1-STORY _ I \ I O ii 114 111 , I i \ 1 1 d TEIRICK . . \\ I R z. 7. i I t \ JI 1 , 1 ' \ mss... ........—A_____-_,...- I k !I; 1 ' 1 v \ � 1 11 �4' i PI 1 \ O.a�n..wws ares "q.\N I e I.L. I \ 1 I 7r nRr• h •e.w.l \ -,� \ I�• — •za.+a • !...2 II ,i w .:., • I % \. ( i 2.4.=11..... ......*'....;.!Da• .I •\\ I \ i ---------q"b The•1..4,, a 0...n.3. • \ • It...? (---":"..,21--.1.—L.—'' ,,.s •or, , f AI / ��./••'.• ..: 9..53 r� _ tieESr 19/6a /I ` ;id ,' '_•aw 4w. c.e -- - .•Las •. •-.•4.r •'•./ / J / % OO �, / '/ '`0�'. WEST 77TH STREET ATTACHMENT )#, 3 — CITY OF 1:44 cBANHAssEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.Q. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 `�. t612 937-1900 ) MEMORANDUM TO: JoAnn Olsen, Assistant City Planner FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Inspector DATE: April 26 , 1989 SUBJ: #89-3 Comments and/or recommendations: No comments at this time. V wO rt I- N � b a (D rt . rt W rr ^ 7) 1, 1989 iridilinrgrall.i.1.1111..wmwis.ORTIER &ASSOCIATES, INC. nQHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIOR DESIGN " rD O O• The Honorable Mayor City Council Planning Commission and Staff City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 _ Re: THE GARAGE ADDITION PARK ONE Comm: 88-06 Ladies & Gentlemen: At the request of Mr. Frank Beddor, 'Jr. , we are herein submitting our request for a grading permit to install a storm sewer and also a site plan review for a new private garage. Please accept this letter as a _ suppliment to the Drawings in describing the proposed improvements. GENERAL Owner: Mr. Frank Beddor, Jr . 910 Pleasant View Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 474-6010 (H) ; or 474-0231 (W) Applicant: Mr. Daryl P. Fortier Fortier & Associates, Inc. 408 Turnpike Road Minneapolis, MN 55416 593-1255 Engineer: Ulteig Engineers Inc. 5201 East River Road Minneapolis, MN 571-2500 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Park One Third Addition. — STORM SEWER; Park One ' s natural topography includes a swale or drainageway through the center of the northerly 20-acre section. In working with City Staff to design public improvements, it has been envisioned that a storm sewer would route the water from the Lyman Lumber overflow discharge to the east side of Quattro Drive. Construction has been designed to facilitate such a storm sewer as part of the system. Our request is to now install the storm sewer. _ 408 Turnpike Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55416 (612) 593-1255 City Council, • L r _, ning Commission & Staff !'Pjc" i t 11, 1989 omm: 88-06 The route chosen is within the building setback and side yard of Lot 2. This will ensure that future buildings will not encroach on the storm line. We have kept the line as far south as feasible and yet allow future buildings. There will be unavoidable loss of mature trees (see survey) . To mitigate their loss, considerable landscaping is proposed, planting two trees for each one lost. GARAGE Currently, Frank Beddor, Jr. owns a garage on Lot 1 that houses his personal automobiles and storage needs. It is a private facility and not open to the public. The new garage will provide more storage space with similar, private use. Construction shall match existing with a white and red face brick facade and painted white masonry side and rear walls. (Side and rear walls are not visible from the street. ) There will be no roof top equipment. A transport flat bed trailer will be stored outside between the two buildings. All zoning ordinance requirements appear to be fully met and no variances are being sought. Previous work has accomplished the necessary grading work. Excavation is therefore limited to footings. The building area is currently a gravel parking lot. The center portion of the site shall be kept open as it serves as a concours site and helicopter landing pad (no trees or curbing allowed due to function of space) . We believe that this facility is well located and will be a welcome neighbor in this industrial park. Should there be any questions or need of additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us. We appreciate your consideration of our request. — You ul 14111 - 2 maw ( a . z Daryl P. Fortier DPF/sf encl: Application and Plans Council Meeting , December 16 , 1985 -7- Mr . Roman: We certainly would consider it , but I am sure we are not going to be able to sell this property at that price. Sooner or later it will sell , but by then this lady will absolutely not be able to pay her bills at the nursing home. Councilman Geving moved to deny the waiver of platting request -at Red Cedar Point Road, Delores and Peter Roman. Motion was seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following -- voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton , Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. Councilwoman Swenson opposed. Motion carried. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 2,527 SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSE BUILDING, OUTLOT 8 PARK ONE, FORTIER AND ASSOCIATES: Barb Dacy: The parcel is located behind The Press , north of Highway 5 . It is zoned P-4, industrial. The Press is located just north of West 78th Street and Highway 5 and south of West 77th Street. The proposed structure is on Outlot A, which is to be intended for future industrial development. The applicant is proposing a warehouse for the primary purpose of storing cars. There will be accessories of gas storage of race test fuel , as well as wash bay facilities. The location of the proposed ware- house on your site plan meets setback requirements and should be adequately screened by the existing vegetation. The applicant intended to put the sanitary facilities to _ a septic tank and has submitted a perc test. However , the perc test results are rather high and in some cases , did fail . Since the Planning Commission review there maybe an opportunity to hook into the existing sewer line. We are now researching that possibility . When taken to the Planning Commission originally , they tabled the -- request request so that more information could be determined about the requirements for sep- tic tanks and waste of oils , etc . draining into the septic system. Staff came back with our research on December 11 , and met condition #4 (All drains from the site be connected to an approved septic system with an in-line oil separator and flammable waste trap . Additionally , the owner provide for a waste storage system for disposing of oils and other automotive fluids. ) The Commission accepted this amendment and also passed staff.' s recommended conditions . It is also my understanding that the applicant has amended the size of the fuel storage down from a 5 ,000 gallon tank to 3 ,000. He is also proposing to locate the storage tank further north , away from the proposed building. The applicant is here to answer any of your questions. The Planning Commission did recommend approval subject to conditions 1 , 2 , 3 and 5 and our amended condition #4. Bill Monk: The Planning Commission did add a phrase that did not get in the report in condition #4. It should read as follows: A11 drains from the site be connected to an approved septic system or municipal sanitary sewer system with an in-line oil separator and flammable waste trap . As Barbara said, we are still reviewing the possibility of connecting to the sanitary sewer. Councilwoman Watson: With #4 I would be far more concerned about their oil traps , _ etc. if they connect up with our sanitary sewer system , because floor drains and areas such as this and dumping all that oil and junk , I don ' t see that as a terrific idea. Bill Monk: They would still be required to provide for a waste storage system for disposing of oils and other automotive fluids. Basically , it will be handled as any commercial service station. Mayor Hamilton : This says it is a warehouse. Barb Dacv: The primary use of the warehouse is for storing the cars . It is true that they will have fuel storage there as an accessory to get at the primary use. (11 G Council Meeting , December 16 , 1985 _8- J Lo Councilwoman Watson: Why do they need so much fuel storage and why is there concerns a o G about drains and oil , etc . What is going to occur here that creates all of this concern? Barb Dacy: It was a concern at the Commission level because the cars will be washed on site , oil changes , etc . If you change your oil at home , the oil drains out onto the driveway and runs out into the street , likewise , there may be some oil spillage , etc . getting into the septic system . Darryl Fortier : These cars are primarily for the Beddor family . They are the same cars that you see on the street every day. This original request was to put a four- car garage up on Christmas Acres as a residential garage and not have a house attached to it . Since Mr. Beddor owns the Press and if we were to make it into a warehouse, Mr. Beddor could store the cars there . He will be doing routine main- tenance on them, therefore we decided to put in a flammable waste trap and put in a floor drain. He also increased it into a six-car garage . It has always been viewed as just generally warehousing over the winter and occasional use in the summer. It is not a commercial venture. It is strictly private , but if neccesary , the Press can have ownership of it . The use of the fuel tank is mostly , I think , for convenience for Mr. Beddor . These cars are fairly high in performance . He does use a higher test fuel. I don ' t think this is a commercial venture in any way , but we are cer- - tainly willing to live up to the requirements of a warehouse . Therefore , when we started looking at changing oils , etc . we were concerned about the environment and we do want to connect to the sanitary sewer as soon as possible . For that reason , we had to look at what this is closest to. This is not intended to serve the public in any way . Mayor Hamilton : The thing that kind of throws a person , you say that the retaining tank will be for "race test fuel . " Does he burn race test fuel in his street car? Darryl Fortier: Race test fuel is a way of saying high octane . Councilwoman Watson : Being somewhat familiar with that sort of thing , some of these fuels used are much more flammable than your stanaard gasoline products and probably would be more of a hazzard of just the storage of high test unleaded gasoline . Councilman Horn : Do you think they are talking about alcohol fuel? Councilwoman Watson : I don ' t know. I think that is what we almost have to know what he means by that because some of these things would be extremely flammable . Darryl Fortier: I am the one that brought up the words "race test fuel . " I guess Mr. Beddor has never been asked by what he means by "race test fuel . " All of his cars can burn the very same fuel that you go down to the service station and load up with fuel for. He drives everyone of them on the street . The only reason I refer to "race test fuel " is because if and when Mr. Beddor may want to run his cars privately somewhere a little above the speed limit , on closed tracks , etc . , then he might go for the highest octane fuel that he can find. Councilwomnn Watson: But then he would probably be going for something that he wouldn ' t bother to store . Darryl Fortier: The other problem is that if you burn any of these fuels that are mixed with extremely flammable materialsg your engine has to be modified to burn them. You literally can ' t burn them in a street car if you are thinking that explo- - sive of a fuel . Council Meeting , December 16 , 1985 -8- Councilwoman Watson _ Why do they need so much fuel storage and why is there concerns about drains and oil , etc . What is going to occur here that creates all of this concern? Barb Dacv: It was a concern at the Commission level because the cars will be washed on site, oil changes , etc . If you change your oil at home, the oil drains out onto the driveway and runs out into the street , likewise , there may be some oil spillage , etc. getting into the septic system . Darryl Fortier: These cars are primarily for the Beddor family . They are the same cars that you see on the street every day. This original request was to put a four- car garage up on Christmas Acres as a residential garage and not have a house attached to it. Since Mr. Beddor owns the Press and if we were to make it into a — warehouse, Mr. Beddor could store the cars there. He will be doing routine main- tenance on them, therefore we decided to put in a flammable waste trap and put in a floor drain. He also increased it into a six-car garage . It has always been viewed _ as just generally warehousing over the winter and occasional use in the summer. It is not a commercial venture. It is strictly private , but if neccesary , the Press can have ownership of it. The use of the fuel tank is mostly , I think , for convenience for Mr. Beddor. These cars are fairly high in performance . He does use a higher — test fuel. I don ' t think this is a commercial venture in any way , but we are cer- tainly willing to live up to the requirements of a warehouse. Therefore , when we started looking at changing oils , etc. we were concerned about the environment and we do want to connect to the sanitary sewer as soon as possible. For that reason , we had to look at what this is closest to. This is not intended to serve the public in any way . J — Mayor Hamilton: The thing that kind of throws a person , you say that the retaining tank will be for "race test fuel . " Does he burn race test fuel in his street car? m. Darryl Fortier: Race test fuel is a way of saying high octane . Councilwoman Watson: Being somewhat familiar with that sort of thing , some of these fuels used are much more flammable than your standard gasoline products and probably would be more of a hazzard of just the storage of high test unleaded gasoline. Councilman Horn : Do you think they are talking about alcohol fuel? — Councilwoman Watson: I don ' t know. I think that is what we almost have to know what he means by that because some of these things would be extremely flammable. — Darryl Fortier: I am the one that brought up the words "race test fuel . " I guess Mr. Beddor has never been asked by what he means by "race test fuel . " All of his cars can burn the very same fuel that you go down to the service station and load up with fuel for. He drives everyone of them on the street . The only reason I refer to "race test fuel" is because if and when Mr. Beddor may want to run his cars privately somewhere a little above the speed limit , on closed tracks , etc . , then he might go — for the highest octane fuel that he can find. Councilwoman Watson: But then he would probably be going for something that he wouldn ' t bother to store . Darryl Fortier: The other problem is that if you burn any of these fuels that are mixed with extremely flammable materials , your engine has to be modified to burn them . You literally can ' t burn them in a street car if you are thinking that explo- sive of a fuel . `Council Meeting , December 16 , 1985 -9- Councilman Horn: I see this just like the City garage . It is the same type of thing. Councilwoman Watson: I think he should be limited to a simple high test version of unleaded gasoline on this property. I think if he wants to race his car , I think he can get that fuel separately. I don ' t think he needs to store that kind of fuel on site. Councilman Horn : I think as long as we specify that it 's not the high flammability , high performance racing fuel it's all right . Councilman Gevinq: I get the impression that this is going to be a wood frame warehouse facility. Is that a true statement? If that is true, I would view this as a temporary nature used for only a short period of time until sometime in the future it be replaced. Is that correct? Darryl Fortier: We originally asked for this facility to be constructed of a wood frame for just that reason. We did view it as a temporary facility and we antici- pated that it would be removed within about two or three years. Since that time , the Planning Commission responded that they would like to see a permanent structure constructed of mansonry. We, therefore, issued the documents to allow for masonry construction. If the cost is not prohibitive, Mr. Beddor will build out of masonry. Councilman Geving: I guess that is the point that I am getting at. I , too , would like to see a more permanent structure; one that would be made of masonry products and that would contain a water system such as we have here for fire suppression. I would have to assume that this is a part of our building codes on all warehouse faci- lities and you would have to adhere to that. Is that your intention? Darryl Fortier: We will comply to every single building code that will be brought to our attention. Councilman Geving: The other thing that has been brought up several times on the storage of that tank , will this be an outside , above ground tank? Darryl Fortier: This will be a below grade tank. Mayor Hamilton: Presumably , that tank will have to meet whatever requirements there are for underground tanks. • Barb Dacv: Also , condition 83 states no outdoor storage is allowed. Councilman Geving: One other point that I would like to make and that is the hook up to our sanitary sewer system. Sewer is not available to this site at this time. I would like to make a condition as a part of this approval that within one year that the sewer is available to the property that this site must be hooked up. I would like to have that considered because I think that would tend to make this a more per- manent structure. [ Councilwoman Swenson moved to approve site plan i#85-10 stamped "Received November 13 , 1985" for a 2 ,527 square foot warehouse building on Outlot A, Park One , Fortier and Associates with the following conditions: 1 . A detailed location and acceptable percolation test for the septic system must be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit . 410,;ouncil Meeting , December 16 , 1985 -10- _ 2. Details of the gas storage must be approved by the Fire Marshal. 3. No outdoor storage is allowed. 4. All drains from the site be connected to an approved septic. system or sanitary sewer system with an in-line oil separator and flammable waste trap . Additionally , the owner provide for a waste storage system for disposing of oils and other automotive fluids. 5 .' Final site plan for the building permit denote the septic system location, water service location and driveway layout along with septic system design details. 6. When sewer is available, the applicant has one year to connect to the sewer system. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Watson. • Councilwoman Swenson: I noticed there was a question s at the Planning Commission. There was some comment that the cars twould lbe washed ng the relsewhere. Darryl Fortier: There is an allowance for a car wash. A person can drive inside one of the stalls and wash his car inside the building. There was a comment at the Planning Commission that they were concerned about the quality of water that would dissipate from a car wash and how much there would be . I think Bill Monk explored some of this through the DNR. Councilwoman Swenson: As long as there is no hazardous waste , you figure that will take care of it , is that correct? Bill Monk: Yes . The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson , Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. APPROVE AGREEMENT WITH METROPOLITAN COUNCIL FOR LAKE ANN INTERCEPTOR: Bill Monk: Don , Barbara and myself did go over the report . We did have some major points that we wanted to cover and we convinced ourselves that they wouldn ' t make changes that we were going to recommend to the Council that they approved the version in front of them. They were somewhat accommodating on almost all of the changes are now in the final draft of the agreement , which they want to take to their systems committee January 6, 1986. The changes from the agreement that you have got in your packet are relatively minor . I think that we have basically come back around on _ almost all of the points. There was a lot of give and take on both sides. Council members having read the agreement in the With the ask youts the overall or about specific sections and we wouldworkonwtheudsectionsr ssopossib of before the final draft is there. Staff's position is still that we are so close having an interceptor that the agreement still represents something that we can live with. With that , I would ask the Council for any comments on the agreement. t2221 Hamilton: I guess I was confused about this when we looked at this the last time. I think we talked about making some chan es time and we were told what we say is what we g ' additions or deletions at that one . I am sure I was told , that ' s tough , got . I had all kinds of comments on that [E7— back renegotiating, g + you just don ' t get a chance and now we are CITYOF _i\ CHANHASSEN `\ - "•` 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Todd Gerhardt, Assistant City Manager DATE: May 11, 1989 SUBJ: Modification to Development District No. 2 and Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-1 Plan. Attached is a resolution finding the modification of Development District No. 2 and Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-1 is consistent with the plan for development of the City of Chanhassen as a whole. The plan is being amended to be included in the Development District approximately 20 acres called "Development Sites Subdivision. " The Planning Commission at their May 18, 1988 meeting approved this subdivision and rezoning from A-2, Agricultural Estate to IOP, Industrial Office Park (attachment #2) . State law requires that the Planning Commission find that the modification proposed is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and zoning regulations for the proposed area. Because the pro- posed modification is including land designated as industrial on the City' s land use plan and zoned IOP, Industrial Office Park, the modification proposed is consistant with the City' s land use policies for the subject area ( attachment #3) . RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends th Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission adopts Resolution No. 89-1 finding Modified Development District No. 2 and Tax Increment District No. 2-1 consistent with the plans for development of the City of Chanhassen. " ATTACHMENTS 1 . Proposed Resolution _ 2 . Planning Report dated May 18, 1989 3 . Development district maps CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA _ RESOLUTION Date Resolution No. Motion By - Seconded By —_ — — RESOLUTION FINDING THE MODIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 2 AND MODIFIED TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 2-i CONSISTENT WITH THE PLANS FOR — DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN WHEREAS, the Chanhassen City Council has authorized preparation of a modified Development Program (Program) for Development District No. 2 and a _ modified Tax Increment Financing Plan (Plan) for Tax Increment Financing District No.2-1 and the Program and Plan have been submitted to the Planning Commission — for comment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has made a thorough review of the Program and Plan and has compared them with the plans for development of the City as a whole. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED By the Planning Commission of the — City of Chanhassen, Minnesota as follows: 1. The Modified Program for Development District No. 2 and the modified Plan for TIF District No. 2-1 are found to be consistent with the plans for development of the City of Chanhassen as a whole. 2. It is recommended that the City Council of the City of Chanhassen hold the public hearing required by law and adopt the modified Program and Plan. Passed this _ day of --T, 1989, by the Planning Commission of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota. Chairperson ATTEST: — 4MIC/1/1164 --- T- Secretary CH130-11 Aliu I --j�-Y O c ).C. DATE: May 18 , 1988 — �� I r_ Q r �' C.C. DATE: June 13 , 1988 CliANHAO :ZN -(, Y CASE NO: 88-2 LUP, . 88-2 Rezone and 88-9 SUB Prepared by: Dacy/v-- STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: 1 . Land Use Plan Amendment to Add 12 . 2 Acres to the Metropolitan Urban Service Area and to Change the Land Use Designation from Agricultural to Industrial F2 . Rezoning From A-2, Agricultural Estate to IOP, Z Industrial Office Park 3 . Preliminary Plat Approval to Create 5 Industrial VLots and Two Outlots LOCATION: West of and adjacent to Audubon Road, immediately Q" north of the Chicago Milwaukee Railroad Tracks CI APPLICANT: Development Sites Limited 15311 Knob Hill Curve Minnetonka, MN 55345 PRESENT ZONING: IOP and A-2 ACREAGE: 62 .86 acres DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- IOP & A-2; future McGlynn site and agriculture S- A-2; agriculture QE- IOP; industrial QW- A-2; Timberwood Estates W WATER AND SEWER: Municipal services are available to a H portion of the site. PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site slopes to the west and contains a portion of the Bluff Creek Floodplain. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Agricultural .1- -.y J - O d. m 2.5_{,_ I J RS - LAKE ANN RD _- a - - --- "- — R4 RR . • it --\______ kir 1 R 12 (� N `' A : . - I ' 6Ihrihr,LEVA '' RD Pe►IzK _ .. ._W .( IT / c.,:, —I *I! 0 -- -P A2 I. • r / p it DA / %Q ?�i. Wit---t — e (-7 S r) Li" r r; •-. 4err,‘ D ,...., : tp a --1 0 CO 7 ( i / o�,GP� 70 gal �N IU) PUG• — — >/ ✓pia � iiI.I _ - 10IN Development Sites Limited May 18, 1988 Page 2 REFERRAL AGENCIES City Engineer Attachment #1 DNR Attachment #2 Fire Inspector Attachment #3 Building Department No adverse comments . BACKGROUND In 1982, the City' s Comprehensive Land Use Plan identified only the northerly 40 acres of the McGlynn site as being within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area boundary. In 1984, the City "swapped" out of the MUSA area a 29 acre rural subdivision (Hillside Oaks located at the intersection of Powers Boulevard and Lyman Boulevard) in order to include an additional 22 acres of the McGlynn site and a small subdivision ( Piper Ridge) near Lake Minnewashta into the urban service area. The City' s action was based on the application of Electro Craft, a manufacturing firm which intended to develop the site at that time. As now drawn, the MUSA line bisects a portion of the Development Sites Limited property. LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT Analysis Given the location of the existing MUSA line, the request is to expand the MUSA line to encompasss approximately 12 .2 acres and to redesignate the land use designation from agricultural to industrial. The 12.2 acres can be served by gravity flow sewer service. Because of the minor acreage involved and because the 12 .2 acres can be serviced by the existing sewer mains located at the intersection of Park Road and Audubon Road, the addition to the MUSA will not have a significant impact on sewer capacity. The applicant has estimated that approximately 24,400 gallons per day would be generated. The Engineering Office has also verified that the additional industrial development can be accommodated into the existing system. Adjacent parcels to the north and east are industrially designated on the land use pina and zoned IOP. The railroad tracks along the southern boundary of the parcel serves as a barrier to the A-2, Agricultural zoning and land use to the south. Part of the parcel will remain in two outlots. Outlot A is outside of the MUSA area and is zoned A-2 . The applicant has indicated that this parcel would potentially be used for single family development sites . Outlot B is directly adjacent to the proposed industrial subdivision. This site would not be able to be served by sewer and water until after the Year 2000 when the city is authorized to expand its urban service area. Development Sites Limited May 18 , 1988 Page 3 In summary, the proposed land use for the 12 . 2 acre area is appropriate given its location adjacent to existing industrial parcels. Further, the site is buffered from agricultural uses by the railroad tracks and is well served by Audubon Road which will be improved to an urban section. RECOMMENDATION Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Land Use Plan Amendment Request #88-2 to amend the Year 2000 MUSA line to — include 12 . 2 acres and to redesignate this acreage from agri- cultural to industrial subject to the approval of the Metropolitan Council. " REZONING Analysis — The current Zoning Map zones the northeasterly portion of the subject property as IOP. The request is to rezone the 5 .6 acres — immediately south of the 7 acre piece to IOP (this includes a portion of Lot 1, Lot 2 and Lot 3 , Block 2 and a portion of Lot 2 , Block 1) . If the land use plan amendment is approved, it is — recommended that the Planning Commission rezone this area to IOP. The second and final reading of the ordinance amending the map to redesignate this area as ICP will not be adopted until the land use plan amendment has been approved by the Metropolitan Council and the development contract and letter of credit submitted for the proposed subdivision. RECOMMENDATION Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Rezoning Request 88-2 to rezone 5 . 6 acres of property from A-2 , Agricultural — Estates to IOP, Industrial Office Park, as shown and as described in the preliminary plat dated April 26, 1988 . " PRELIMINARY PLAT Analysis The preliminary plat is proposing to create 5 industrial lots and two outlots to be served by the construction of Audubon Court from Audubon Road. The proposed lots meet the lot size and fron- tage requirements stipulated in the IOP District. Development Sites Limited May 18, 1988 Page 4 Approval of the preliminary plat would only be for Blocks 1 and 2 and does not include the lot pattern proposed on Outlot B. This is merely shown as a potential extension of the subdivision when sewer and water service is authorized to be extended into a expanded MUSA area. The applicant has submitted an interim plan for the cul-de-sac on Audubon Court to terminate at the lot line between Lot 2 and Lot 3 of Block 2 . The applicant will also be required to install a stormwater retention pond. The applicant' s utility plan indicates fire hydrants in compliance with the recommendations of the Fire Department. It should be noted that the Bluff Creek floodplain exists through the western portion of this property. If Outlot B is developed, the applicant will need to provide appropriate elevations for building pads and provide for adequate protection from the edge of the floodplain ( 900 foot contour) . RECOMMENDATION Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Subdivision Request 88-9 to create 5 industrial lots and 2 outlots as shown on the plat stamped "Received April 26 , 1988" , and subject to the following conditions: 1 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper installation of these public improvements . 2 . The applicant shall provide sufficient utility easements to facilitate the connection and future repair of utilities along the west side of Audubon Road. 3 . The applicant shall revise the grading plan to show the _ construction of a ponding site which maintains the pre- developed runoff rate and provides adequate storage for a 100-year frequency storm event. 4 . The applicant shall provide storm sewer calculations which verify the preservation of the pre-developed runoff rate and all storm sewer system capacities as part of the plans and specifications review process. 5 . The road profile shall be revised to show a landing zone which meets the Minnesota Department of Transportation ' s guidelines and shall oe submitted for approval by the City Engineer as part or the plans and specifications review process . • Development Sites Limited May 18, 1988 Page 5 6 . The proposed right-of-way shall be revised to a 60-foot right-of-way width, and shall maintain a 60-foot radius at the end of the cul-de-sac as per Article 3 , Section 18-57(b) — of the Chanhassen Subdivision Ordinance. 7 . All utilities shall be jacked underneath Audubon Road. ATTACHMENTS 1 . Memo from Asst. City Engineer dated May 12 , 1988. 2 . Comments from Minnesota DNR. 3 . Memo from Fire Inspector dated May 5 , 1988. 4 . Letter from Rock Sathre dated April 25 , 1988 . 5 . Letter from Rick Sathre dated April 25 , 1988 . 6 . Application. 7 . Land use map. 8 . Letter from Esther Chase dated May 7 , 1988 . 9 . Planning Commission minutes dated September 12 , 1984. 10 . City Council minutes dated October 1 , 1984 . 11 . Flood Plain map. 12. Plat stamped "Received April 26 , 1988" . ( I / J (..p rE � . 1 peo:h( 1 L__, _ . ._ c. .� — r:cr `` I z / t f ,� '' A\caoa) 1 1 a. 10061\16.4440.ill" / f �� .... " rl. ,j.7Y:.‘ 1 I Alk*°611%8• _ - i ! -- \; --......e> i 7 ___. i . `� I' / 1 A` ..,,,,‘. "Iii,.t) eL . 1 ��� `moi/ - OM \ TLIIN ���r p f Lam.1 O . u�a 4 0,...- 4411 -// qt .,-,..-_i a ,--s.. . . 11 ; I .. . #.0.„,-0 1 0 ,__c _ ..., 'f.ky2t ca WI 1 r a-I i d L____ r" , r , ��1 .r`T,1,1 A. . .,,,. b is4-ri .m......t_p_u---4-....1:cir t .,t-----7--„p... gi----H ... „--4- , It zi : ' ...."....2; \.. c) ....._ i 41111 W 1-7 . , i i 11 i LY M MI c• 114)- r::- , c.) ii>4r> ' k I NCQ6'i" &vr srtc iso a' /47411-4 c A men#lir;3 I 1 1`I ..... li,.. ir::q • r , >ft CINC:r111\ p„,,,,s, p.tcGlynn covelooment „lot, C;11 Elk ak /11/ 11„ ri4 .... : alli44 ..•.316.\,"; . . - - for Lor 1 MO - • 11:1 , . \ . :.,3 50u SF iLt iiiK) .... . BLOCK 1 2.31 sues SF / / 14 111 152.500 w) , 3 53 acres 0144' I . , • ":„1;0 I,..."•",05.,..-—..,..4 to,.;05............4 0)..tr........ ifr...........c. 7/y//: iii LOT 2 ...C....CI i 1.- 2- ;- • - _.'4 97.li;.17'4 17fil 1,..4:1 0'2 r.0 4 a ; II / . .......:. (4 OUTLOT El r , Ina 0:: Leo r t "--,,,,1„.... .---- LOT 2 ,,....s F• - i BLOCK .. .. 3 ..,' • \,, .ir...3• 1 I 3 t. .....' .10 .....,.., 1 • I I / , -- 1 --"\ ------- ,---, .... , I j - •3 , - i ____ — — - -- -1 . 1.41 ..---- •'2 5Cii SF .4 -,—: (3) , r- ;1 ----.. .:.15•cres ,- 0 \ 9'...",_7....--•5s - • 315 , f I '533 0 \ FUTURE ALOCk 1 0 I IP LOT 3 "(0u2 I , .,3321 , •t.G1.11 CP 0 , o. i 2...:1.....es AK se. "....,•..,c \ I 91...," \ 1 -- 0 I \i• \C' - . 0 ' e be' Ex isli E I I 2.3 Ca)AO rf‘;‘ bag.0;s+rvizi 0. --'% LX 1 s-1. .1-wA incremest\- Di.Ar;c: loo.Pcopotta New"1-0.1, "intletAtft;-_. dm a _ N Er_e_e,60,04... z)e„. cavitti,r_-‘ J tel CZ3 ARBOR O' BOULEVARD• • • • • • • k NWN. Vcillirpell C:::: k .:. . . ejtaiskR1-: .10 ir- ! 0.sill I _ il : : : : •• • •t• s........•..... migletsiNti, tooe 9,5,cif,, • • • • • • k ...X....X.: % 11111 is, a. 1 . _ . . • • • . . . • • • • • • • ki, • ► „/, MI .• • ■ ■ v.‘) 111111111 Lill 1.0 I\ if of ■ .•••• • ___.----- 1....,..... y , . 11... ...:.. 7,,,,, ti, .... Allit511I- 411044p 1 /!12/' I air OHO w'60111 •VirA0' m .� ,c, Arili eopr u) C ` TO crw 3 f a n ,, • „. 4 . 1 1 '► ,,,,,•)) I J11,4,,l L � MINIMPROPOSED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT N. ''): ' 1 � •� PROPOSED TAX 1/4 \.\•'. INCREMENT DISTRICT CITY OF t('Ik_ C Ilan A::MI il . 1 DATEIl CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 3, 1989 - Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7 : 30 p.m. . MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings , Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad and David Headla MEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Batzli. and Jim Wildermuth STAFF PRESENT: Steve Hanson, Planning Director and Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner PUBLIC HEARING: WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN 200 FEET OF A CLASS B WETLAND ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED AT 800 WOODHILL ROAD, JERRY PETERSON. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report . Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . - Brian Kihle: Thanks Jo Ann for that. My name is Brian Ki.hle at 234 Penninsula Road in Medicine Lake. I just wanted to say that I 'm not going to be changing the flow of the water or anything . I just want to backfill up to the house to get the water to drain away from the house and that ' s basically why I want to grade into that area. • Emmings moved, Headla seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in - favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Emmings: It seems very straight forward to me and I certainly will vote - to approve it. Ellson : I agree. I don' t see any problems. Headla: How do we define natural state? I look at that and I circled it. I think it' s a good word but then I think, do we, the way we interpret it now and in a little bit, is natural state always going to be interpretted - the same? Is that the best definition we can give? Olsen: The better way to do it would be to have specific vegetation. To specify exactly what we want . Ellson: Aren' t you basically saying not altering it? Olsen : Right . We just don ' t want the lawns. Ellson: If nature lets it get dry, it has to be we let it get dry but if - you mentioned a certain type of plant , that might be as natural 5 years from now. Olsen : The natural vegetation does come back if it ' s left . CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 3, 1989 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7: 30 p.m. . MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings, Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad and David Headla MEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Batzli and Jim Wildermuth STAFF PRESENT: Steve Hanson, Planning Director and Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner — PUBLIC HEARING: _ WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN 200 FEET OF A CLASS B WETLAND ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED AT 800 WOODHILL ROAD, JERRY PETERSON. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report . Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . — Brian Ki.hle : Thanks Jo Ann for that . My name is Brian Kihle at 234 Penninsula Road in Medicine Lake. I just wanted to say that I 'm not going _ to be changing the flow of the water or anything . I just want to backfill up to the house to get the water to drain away from the house and that ' s basically why I want to grade into that area . Emmings moved, Headla seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Emmings: It seems very straight forward to me and I certainly will vote to approve i.t. Ellson : I agree. I don ' t see any problems . — Headla: How do we define natural state? I look at that and I circled it. I think it' s a good word but then I think, do we , the way we interpret it now and in a little bit , is natural state always going to be interpretted the same? Is that the best definition we can give? Olsen: The better way to do it would be to have specific vegetation. To specify exactly what we want . Ellson: Aren ' t you basically saying not altering it? — Olsen : Right. We just don ' t want the lawns . Ellson: If nature lets it get dry, it has to be we let it get dry but if you mentioned a certain type of plant , that might be as natural 5 years from now. Olsen : The natural vegetation does come back if it ' s left . CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 3, 1989 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7 : 30 p.m. . MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings, Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad - and David Headla MEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Batzli and Jim Wildermuth STAFF PRESENT: Steve Hanson, Planning Director and Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner PUBLIC HEARING: WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN 200 FEET OF A CLASS B WETLAND ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED AT 800 WOODHILL ROAD, JERRY PETERSON. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report . Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . - Brian Ki.hle: Thanks Jo Ann for that. My name is Brian Kihle at 234 Penninsula Road in Medicine Lake. I just wanted to say that I 'm not going to be changing the flow of the water or anything . I just want to backfill up to the house to get the water to drain away from the house and that ' s basically why I want to grade into that area. Emmings moved, Headla seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Emmings: It seems very straight forward to me and I certainly will vote - to approve i.t . Ellson : I agree. I don ' t see any problems. Headla: How do we define natural state? I look at that and I circled it. I think it' s a good word but then I think, do we, the way we interpret it now and in a little bit, is natural state always going to be interpretted the same? Is that the best definition we can give? Olsen: The better way to do it would be to have specific vegetation. To specify exactly what we want. Ellson: Aren' t you basically saying not altering it? - Olsen : Right. We just don' t want the lawns. Ellson: If nature lets it get dry, it has to be we let it get dry but if - you mentioned a certain type of plant , that might be as natural S years from now. Olsen : The natural vegetation does come back if it ' s left . CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 3, 1989 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7 : 30 p.m. . MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings , Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad and David Headla MEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Batzli. and Jim Wildermuth — STAFF PRESENT: Steve Hanson, Planning Director and Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner — PUBLIC HEARING: WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN 200 FEET OF A CLASS B WETLAND ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED AT 800 WOODHILL ROAD, JERRY PETERSON. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report . Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . — Brian Ki.hle: Thanks Jo Ann for that . My name is Brian Ki.hle at 234 Penninsula Road in Medicine Lake. I just wanted to say that I 'm not going _ to be changing the flow of the water or anything . I just want to backfill up to the house to get the water to drain away from the house and that ' s basically why I want to grade into that area . Emmi.ngs moved, Headla seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Emmi_ngs: It seems very straight forward to me and I certainly will vote to approve it . Ellson : I agree. I don ' t see any problems . — Headla: How do we define natural state? I look at that and I circled it. I think it ' s a good word but then I think , do we , the way we interpret it now and in a little bit , is natural state always going to be interpretted the same? Is that the best definition we can give? Olsen: The better way to do it would be to have specific vegetation. To specify exactly what we want . Ellson: Aren ' t you basically saying not altering it? — Olsen : Right . We just don ' t want the lawns . Ellson: If nature lets it get dry, it has to be we let it get dry but if you mentioned a certain type of plant , that might be as natural 5 years from now. Olsen : The natural vegetation does come back if it ' s left . CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 3, 1989 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7: 30 p.m. . MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings , Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad and David Headla MEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Batzli and Jim Wildermuth STAFF PRESENT: Steve Hanson, Planning Director and Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner PUBLIC HEARING: WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN 200 FEET OF A CLASS B WETLAND ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED AT 800 WOODHILL ROAD, JERRY PETERSON. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report . Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order. - Brian Kihle: Thanks Jo Ann for that . My name is Brian Kihle at 234 Penninsula Road in Medicine Lake. I just wanted to say that I 'm not going to be changing the flow of the water or anything . I just want to backfill up to the house to get the water to drain away from the house and that' s basically why I want to grade into that area. Emmings moved, Headla seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in - favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Emmings: It seems very straight forward to me and I certainly will vote to approve it. Ellson : I agree. I don' t see any problems. Headla: How do we define natural state? I look at that and I circled it. I think it' s a good word but then I think, do we , the way we interpret it now and in a little bit, is natural state always going to be interpretted - the same? Is that the best definition we can give? Olsen: The better way to do it would be to have specific vegetation. To specify exactly what we want . Ellson: Aren' t you basically saying not altering it? - Olsen : Right . We just don ' t want the lawns . Ellson: If nature lets it get dry, it has to be we let it get dry but if — you mentioned a certain type of plant , that might be as natural 5 years from now. Olsen : The natural vegetation does come back if it ' s left . CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 3, 1989 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7 : 30 p.m. . MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings , Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad and David Headla MEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Batzli and Jim Wildermuth — STAFF PRESENT: Steve Hanson, Planning Director and Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner — PUBLIC HEARING: _ WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN 200 FEET OF A CLASS B WETLAND ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED AT 800 WOODHILL ROAD, JERRY PETERSON. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report . Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . — Brian Kihle : Thanks Jo Ann for that. My name is Brian Kihle at 234 Penninsula Road in Medicine Lake. I just wanted to say that I 'm not going _ to be changing the flow of the water or anything . I just want to backfill up to the house to get the water to drain away from the house and that' s basically why I want to grade into that area. Emmings moved, Headla seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed . Emmings: It seems very straight forward to me and I certainly will vote to approve it . Ellson : I agree. I don ' t see any problems. — Headla: How do we define natural state? I look at that and I circled it. I think it ' s a good word but then I think, do we, the way we interpret it now and in a little bit, is natural state always going to be interpretted the same? Is that the best definition we can give? Olsen: The better way to do it would be to have specific vegetation. To specify exactly what we want . Ellson: Aren ' t you basically saying not altering it? — Olsen : Right . We just don ' t want the lawns . Ellson: If nature lets it get dry, it has to be we let it get dry but if you mentioned a certain type of plant , that might be as natural 5 years from now. Olsen : The natural vegetation does come back if it ' s left . CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 3, 1989 - Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order. at 7 : 30 p.m. . MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings, Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad and David Headla MEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Batzli. and Jim Wildermuth STAFF PRESENT: Steve Hanson, Planning Director and Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner PUBLIC HEARING: WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN 200 FEET OF A CLASS B WETLAND ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED AT 800 WOODHILL ROAD, JERRY PETERSON. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report . Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . - Brian Ki.hle: Thanks Jo Ann for that . My name is Brian Kihle at 234 Penni.nsula Road in Medicine Lake. I just wanted to say that I 'm not going to be changing the flow of the water or anything . I just want to backfill up to the house to get the water to drain away from the house and that' s basically why I want to grade into that area. Emmings moved, Headla seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in - favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Emmings: It seems very straight forward to me and I certainly will vote to approve it. Ellson : I agree . I don' t see any problems . - Headla: How do we define natural state? I look at that and I circled it. I think it ' s a good word but then I think, do we, the way we interpret it now and in a little bit , is natural state always going to be interpretted the same? Is that the best definition we can give? Olsen: The better way to do it would be to have specific vegetation. To specify exactly what we want . Ellson: Aren' t you basically saying not altering it? - Olsen : Right . We just don ' t want the lawns. Ellson: If nature lets it get dry, it has to be we let it get dry but if - you mentioned a certain type of plant, that might be as natural 5 years from now. Olsen : The natural vegetation does come back if it ' s left . CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 3, 1989 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7: 30 p.m. . MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings, Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad and David Headla MEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Batzli and Jim Wildermuth — STAFF PRESENT: Steve Hanson, Planning Director and Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner _ PUBLIC HEARING: _ WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN 200 FEET OF A CLASS B WETLAND ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED AT 800 WOODHILL ROAD, JERRY PETERSON. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report . Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . — Brian Kihle: Thanks Jo Ann for that. My name is Brian Kihle at 234 Penni.nsula Road in Medicine Lake. I just wanted to say that I 'm not going _ to be changing the flow of the water or anything . I just want to backfill up to the house to get the water to drain away from the house and that' s basically why I want to grade into that area . Emmings moved, Headla seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Emmings : It seems very straight forward to me and I certainly will vote to approve i.t. Ellson : I agree. I don ' t see any problems. — Headla: How do we define natural state? I look at that and I circled it. I think it ' s a good word but then I think, do we , the way we interpret it now and in a little bit , is natural state always going to be interpretted the same? Is that the best definition we can give? Olsen: The better way to do it would be to have specific vegetation. To specify exactly what we want . Ellson: Aren ' t you basically saying not altering it? — Olsen : Right . We just don ' t want the lawns . Ellson: If nature lets it get dry, it has to be we let it get dry but if you mentioned a certain type of plant, that might be as natural 5 years from now. Olsen : The natural vegetation does come back if it ' s left . CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 3, 1989 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7: 30 p.m. . MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings , Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad - and David Headla MEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Batzli. and Jim Wildermuth STAFF PRESENT: Steve Hanson, Planning Director and Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner PUBLIC HEARING: WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN 200 FEET OF A CLASS B - WETLAND ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED AT 800 WOODHILL ROAD, JERRY PETERSON. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report . Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . - Brian Ki.hle: Thanks Jo Ann for that . My name is Brian Kihle at 234 Penninsula Road in Medicine Lake. I just wanted to say that I 'm not going to be changing the flow of the water or anything . I just want to backfill up to the house to get the water to drain away from the house and that' s basically why I want to grade into that area . Emmings moved, Headla seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Emmings: It seems very straight forward to me and I certainly will vote .— to approve i.t. Ellson : I agree. I don' t see any problems. Headla: How do we define natural state? I look at that and I circled it. I think it ' s a good word but then I think, do we, the way we interpret it now and in a little bit, is natural state always going to be interpretted the same? Is that the best definition we can give? Olsen: The better way to do it would be to have specific vegetation. To - specify exactly what we want . Ellson: Aren't you basically saying not altering it? Olsen : Right. We just don' t want the lawns . Ellson: If nature lets it get dry, it has to be we let it get dry but if - you mentioned a certain type of plant, that might be as natural 5 years from now. Olsen: The natural vegetation does come back if it ' s left . Planning Commission Meeting _ May 3 , 1989 - Page 2 Headla : And then they can ' t mow it or anything like that? Okay, so that transfers from owner to owner of the future? Conrad : Which is a good question and it was my only question. How does that. . . Olsen : It ' s recorded . Conrad : On the plat? Olsen : The permit is recorded with the lot at the County so anyone who purchases a lot in the future hopefully will research the title. Headla : What ' s the mechansim? How do we know like it ' s , it seems if you have an owner and you have a requirement, how does that get into that deed? Olsen : It ' s recorded against the lot . Headla : What the Village records against that? Oh, that' s how they do .... it. Conrad : I have nothing else. Is there a motion? Ellson moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland. Alteration Permit #89-2 as shown on the Site Plan dated "April 25, 1989" with the following conditions: 1. Type III erosion control shall be installed between the proposed _ 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 maintained in it ' s natural state. 3. The area between the driveway and the Class B wetland shall be maintained in it' s natural state and not be seeded up to the edge of the wetland. All voted in favor and the motion carried . PUBLIC HEARING: 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 TOWNHOME UNITS AND ONE OUTLOT. — B. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 6 AND 8 UNIT TOWNHOME BUILDING. Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 1989 - Page 3 Public Present: Name Address Paul Struthers, Architect Clutz, O'Brien, Struther Jannette Lapin 140 South Shore Court Mike Carmody Applicant Bobbie Kussard 7604 South Shore Drive Curt Robinson 202 West 77th Street Dean Potables 200 South Shore Court Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Conrad : Jo Ann to just discuss , the ordinance requires 28 spaces and they' re providing 63 with 7 visitors. Quite a difference between this one and 2 weeks ago. Now I 'm really confused. 63 parking spaces versus the required 28. Maybe the applicant will have more comments . Olsen: Again, they' re counting internal parking . Outside. Same thing. It ' s including the garage parking and parking outside for the cars. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . Paul Struther : I 'm Paul Struther with the architectural firm of Cluts , O' Brien, Struther . We did the design drawings for the project. I have some boards here . This is TH 101, South Shore Drive. The project is entered off of South Shore Drive in the corner. A private drive along the north corridor with several drives to the buildings. The project consists of two buildings. One 6 units. One 8 units. We' re developing the project and some site elements such that we can interface the multi -family with the adjacent single family residential . Maintaining the existing berm. Planting heavy of plantings of Douglas Fir . Plantings along TH 101 and South Shore Drive. We would like to leave the view to the park open. Staff has recommended some additional plantings and we ' ll certainly accommodate that. The parking that you described , visitor parking . There' s 2 here, 3 here and 2 here. The rest of the parking that we showed in the count is on the 2 car garage aprons as well as storage within the garage. We' ve included 2 car garages to minimize the amount of cars stored outside the garage. Most families have 2 cars so at times they' ll be contained within the buildings and not be visible to the neighbors . This board represents a view of the building to develop these as manor homes rather than row houses to again provide some interface between the multi -family use and the adjacent single family use. Building materials are brick and redwood siding with asphalt shingles . There were a couple of times that I 'd like to clarify with staff based on the recommendations they gave us today. I haven' t had a chance to talk to the City Engineer . — They all really refer to or relate to site utilities. They've asked us to upsize the sanitary sewer and the water service and I believe that with some discussion with them, they may be anticipating some things that aren ' t happening here. For example, I think they may be contemplating all of the sanitary sewer coming from a single unit as opposed to a variety of Planning Commission Meeting _ May 3, 1989 - Page 4 stubs. In addition to that , the building inspector had mentioned a need for fire sprinkling of this building which i.s not required given this use and that may have some impact upon the City Engineer ' s waterline. One — other item I 'd like to clarify was the extent of the curb that' s required for the project . The statement in the staff recommendations indicated B612 curb throughout and it 's our understanding in earlier conversations with the City Engineer that that' s required on the primary service drive and not on all of the edges of the bituminous. It' s uncommon for instance to have B612 on a garage approach. I think with those exceptions , we' re willing to accept the staff recommendations but we just want to be sure we — clearly understand them. Jannette Lapin : Hi . I 'm Jannette Lapin . I live at 140 South Shore — Court. I 'm one of the single family dwellings in the area. I guess we just had some concerns . The developers were kind enough to send us the Covenants and thank you. The Covenants had some compliance things that mentioned the landscaping and no sheds, the maintenance of the exterior , etc. , etc. I guess we were a little unclear whether , i.s a convenant something that can always be enforced or i.s it something that if these , is it 14? These 14 people can get together and say, oh we want to change our — covenants now. Now we want to put sheds up and now we don' t want to maintain the yards anymore. And now we want to park boats on the side of the lawns or whatever or is it something that can be enforced for the life _ of the townhome? Conrad : Good question. My understanding is the covenants can be changed if they get agreement and I 'm not sure what kind of agreement they have to have. If it ' s 100% or a majority or whatever . Jannette Lapin: I guess that alarms some of us who have lived and been — around inexpensive townhomes like these in the past . That it starts out with good intentions but as the life of the townhome gets longer , you get more and more rental properties and the exterior and everything can go downhill . Is there anyway, there' s no way you can enforce something like — that for the life? Conrad: Steve, anything? — Hanson: I don ' t know of anyway. The covenants are among themselves . Olsen: We do have regulations over storage sheds and as far as parking boats and things like that. The City itself has regulations controlling that. We can not enforce covenants. They will be inidividually owned townhomes. — Jannette Lapin : That was my other question. Is that something that can be changed too? I read all this in the convenants and it sounded just — wonderful but if 14 people can just get together and change that , I mean , and that ' s what can happen. Olsen : They would still have to apply the same controls that we apply to your house as far as storage sheds and boat storage. Planning Commission Meeting May 3 , 1989 - Page 5 Jannette Lapin : Yes, we had to meet a lot of very strict covenants in terms of our siding and our roof and the square footage on our house and things like that but us as homeowners , we have a lot more invested than the townhome people will have. I guess that' s why we were a little - alarmed because there is a really dramatic difference between the price of these townhomes and the price of our homes . We have a lot more at stake if they let the townhomes deteriorate. Conrad: Good comments. Any comments on what she had to say? Mike Carmody: Yes, I 'm Mike Carmody. If you check Article 8 , Section 3 - it gives the remedy in that article. It gives the Association the right to give an owner who does not comply with the covenants and the rules of the association 10 days notice. Then it also gives the Association the power to go in and do necessary repairs and file a lien against the property. Also, as far as the covenants, the covenants run for 30 years and then they' re automatically renewal for 10 year increments after that so they can not be changed, I believe after that 30 years it ' s 90% have to agree. Conrad : So they are fixed for 30 years? Mike Carmody: Yes, the covenants. They run with the land. In other words , through the heirs and . . . Jannette Lapin : How are they enforced? Just basically neighbor to neighbor? Mike Carmody: It ' s enforced through the Association ' s right to lien the property and foreclose a lien. I 've done several associations and this is by far the most stringent covenant and restrictions that I ' ve ever done — because we had a concern for property values in the area . We actually had a neighborhood meeting with the owners of the property so we could go over all this to find out what their concerns were. We tried to address all of those concerns . Conrad : So in your mind or based on the covenants , they can' t be changed for 30 years and then only with a 90% agreement? Mike Carmody: I 'm trying to figure out where it was . When you read it quite carefully, it does say that. Jannette Lapin : Well , 30 years seems pretty good . I didn' t see that when I read the covenants. Elison : Maybe it should be spelled out so you are comfortable with it. If they can just add it to that point to make it really clear to someone moving in. Mike Carmody: At this point this is just a rough draft of what we' re proposing. After they read through the whole thing, if anyone has any questions regarding those documents , we' re open to talking to them about it . Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 1989 - Page 6 Conrad : Did you get a copy of the covenants? Jannette Lapin: Yes I did . Conrad : They seem, based on what I 'm hearing , it seems pretty strict and I think basically I don' t think we' re going to get people who want to -` change things in there. I don' t think that but then again it can happen and it ' s probably to your benefit to read through the covenants again to see if they are stated that 30 years it won' t change. I think that ' s — pretty strict. It sounds pretty much in your benefit. Ellson : I have a question of Mike I guess it was . The association , does — i.t have to be just the people that own the townhomes? Couldn' t it be some neighbors that are across the street too? In other words, they'd be part of this voting since it would somewhat affect them as well . Mike Carmody: The Covenants that are recorded along with the deed apply to all 14 units. The association does have the right to annex another or deannex with another association. That ' s pretty typical of an — association. However, there isn' t anything in the immediate area that would probably be affected by that. Conrad : I don' t know that you could give away, the association is for the property owners in that block so to give somebody outside any voting share, I 'm not sure. Jannette Lapin : I used to live in a condo and I think that would pretty much be outrageous . We' d vote for them to do a lot of expensive changes . I just wanted to clarify if this landscaping was really going to go in or - i.f they were like imaginary bushes or something . Conrad: They have to. They submit a landscape plan and we enforce that. Jannette Lapin : Well , thank you very much . Bobbie Kussard: My name is Bobbie Kussard. I live at 7604 South Shore — Drive. I 'm a new resident to the neighborhood . I recently lived in the Chaparal twinhome development. I lived there for approximately 8 1/2 years . When we first moved in we were the first home on Chaparal Lane . It was beautiful . It was wonderful . Everybody worked together . It was a great association . I was involved . We got out because it went to hell , pardon my french. People didn' t care anymore. We couldn' t enforce anything and it' s getting worse and worse . I intend on staying i.n my new — home for quite some time. I 'm sure their development will look beautiful as ours did when it first went in . I can ' t imagine that they will have enough money i.n their association to do the exterior maintenance. The — insurance for an association , I was on that with ours . It' s tremendously expensive because you have to have the common grounds insured. I just can ' t see this place, they' re selling the units for $75, 000. 00. Most of us , our homes are $160, 000.00 to $300, 000. 00. I 'm concerned about the value of my home. When I want to sell , perhaps when I retire and those things are going to be ramshackles so that ' s a big concern of mine. I Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 1989 - Page 7 can' t see how 14 units can get enough money in an association . We had to repaint every 2 to 3 years and it was very costly. I admit we had some 200 units . They' re only talking, we had a lot of money coming in as well . They' re not going to have much money coming in. I 'd like to see expensive multi -unit houses . I know that those lots can ' t take anything else but some sort of multi-unit but I think $75,000.00 an apartment is outrageously low for what we' ve put into our homes . That' s it. Conrad: Thanks for your comments. It's an interesting question . To make sure that this type of development and the association does have enough money through their association to maintain the maintenance. Now �- it' s to their , typically it' s their benefit to have that much money in there because again, their units , they have to buy and sell their units so I think the 13 others are going to, I think there' s internal pressure on each other to maintain a budget that ' s going to take care of the maintenance. That's my experience talking to other people who live in developments like this . It does become a problem and I don' t think I want to, the associations and , it is an area that can create some controversy. - Do we staffwise , does the City get involved in making sure that the associations dues are enough for the ongoing maintenance? That' s really not our role is i.t? I 'm sort of answering the question. Ellson: Do we have any say in what their exterior is or anything either? We can ' t say we recommend aluminum siding or make it a condition? Olsen: That' s been done before. Emmings : In this case the question maybe is a little different than in - some other ones because this thing is part of a larger PUD and should the people that got the PUD and got to build the single family, can they break this off and leave it just with it' s own association or should they somehow have to account to everybody who' s within the PUD? Jannette Lapin: In one sense I think the City Council . . .would have to police it but in the other sense I feel like you' re the one that decided on the land. Zoned the land the way you did and we pay a lot of taxes and we' re just really concerned about the property values and our resale values. In that sense we feel like the land was zoned kind of strangely. - Maybe that' s something we should have been more aware of when we bought the houses. Conrad : When i.t came in, we said he knew exactly what was going to be built there. This is not a surprise to staff or us. It may be a surprise to you but . Michael , tell us a little bit about association dues and how it relieves some anxiety maybe from the neighbors if you can on - maintenance issues . Mike Carmody: We' re applying for FHA financing and they have to approve — all of our association documents . . .so we are putting together a proposed budget for everything that relates to insurance of the building . Maintaining of the grounds. Maintaining the exterior of the building. The maintaining of our roofs . The composition of the driveways . It ' s in our proposed budget based on for example a 5 year painting cycle, every 5 Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 1989 - Page 8 — years. . . 30 years on the driveways plus we allow for maintenance for sealcoating . Insurance, we know exactly what all of these costs are going to be. — Conrad : What do you think the monthly maintenance? Mike Carmody: It' s going to be $55. 00 initially plus the association in any one year can raise that by 5% plus they have the , they can levy a special assessment to do improvements if necessary. That special assessment will be by two-thirds of the votes of the association . Also — someone was wondering about how long these covenants ran. It' s Article 9, Section 6. It states in there that these covenants and restrictions run a period of 30 years from the date of recording them. . . _ Bobbie Kussard : But a two-thirds vote can also change that. One small item in there that they want to change, they can change it with a two-thirds vote . The 30 years , believe me you guys . It' s all typed up in — paper and stuff but once those people own the houses and they' re the bosses , they can do what they want . They can rewrite that anyway they want. I 've been there. I ' ve seen it happen. — Mike Carmody: I don' t think anyone can see what will happen 10-15 years down the road but because of the location, we feel that the property values in the area are going to increase with the park which will eventually be built there. The lake access. There' s going to be an incentive for the property owner , the people who own those units , to keep them up because they' re going to increase in value and they' re going to be a desireable unit . Also , I ' ve done a number of associ.ations and I ' ve found that the problems that they have out in Chaparal are related to a couple of things. One, they' re a 4-plex . In other words, an over building of 4-plexes during that time plus the size of the association. A large association. Smaller associations , I ' ve done a 32 one out in Eden Prairie and that' s going on 6 years now and that' s beautifully maintained so there ' s a lot of pride in ownership. It' s next to a park and - residential area. It has a lot of similarities to this site. This is even more desireable than that location. It ' s a factor of a lot of things but I think the prime thing is that people perceive that they' ve got — something that ' s unique and in a good location and they' re going to take care of it. If there are what , 500 or 600 other units in one associations , there ' s going to be a big turnover . There' s going to be _ less incentive because of the resale for people to take care of them. There are condominiums associations that are disasters and the problem there is the condominium market i.s so flooded with resales , it ' s overbuilt. It ' s something that ' s unique . It ' s built of quality and good architecture and a good location. You can see examples of it all over town that are generally well maintained . Conrad: Thanks. Other comments . Curt Robinson : My name i.s Curt Robinson . I live at 202 West 77th Street. I ' ve lived there about 16-17 years so I ' ve seen the property since it was a cornfield . I was wondering if there was any consideration given to opening up West 77th Street into South Shore. Right now it comes to a Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 1989 - Page 9 dead-end . There' s approximately 20 feet from where West 77th Street ends and South Shore connects there. Olsen : That was discussed during the PUD approval and it was decided not to open that street. It will still remain closed even with this development . Curt Robinson: Okay. Can you tell me, and this is kind of unrelated but when there will be shurbery and a berm put in there? People are driving over the grass constantly now. - Olsen : I would contact the engineering department and Jerry Schlenk. You could let them know that or I can give them that message. Curt Robinson: Would you please. Ellson : It ' s not planned to have bermi.ng or shurbery right now is it? - Olsen: No but they did have a barricade didn' t they? Curt Robinson: No . They' ve never had anything . We put a couple fence - posts up with an old rag and a rope hanging on it. Olsen : I ' ll have them look into that. Curt Robinson: Thank you. Bobbie Kussard : Do you object to the children taking their bikes over that? I have two children that are bike age and I don ' t want them going out on TH 101. Curt Robinson: No , I sure don' t because mine do it too . Jannette Lapin : I have another question. Will that ever come up again? That street , will that issue ever come up to open the street again? Conrad: Only if somebody brings it up. I think when the PUD, there were so much neighborhood concern that when the PUD was approved , that street — was closed but anything can change anytime. On an annual basis somebody can bring up, even more often than that can bring up requests so nothing is forever but at this point in time, that street is the way it is unless somebody applies to change it . Dean Potables : My name is Dean Potables . I live at 200 South Shore Court and I 'd like to discuss that further . I have another subject besides but at our meeting last week it was discussed that that was part of the plan that that street would be opened in order to alleviate some of the traffic going out onto TH 101 . When you have 14 units there, you are going to — have a lot of increased traffic in and out and having the access from South Shore Drive directly onto 77th is going to give everyone a more direct route to downtown. When they redo TH 101, I think it' s going to become important that that street be another area traffic flow and not to stay blocked off. And we discussed that in our meeting, town meeting last Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 1989 - Page 10 week. Now I believe that was one of the things that was mentioned that was in the plans to be opened up. So I guess some clarification on that would be beneficial . — Olsen : I can look into that . That ' s news to me. With TH 101 that might have been suggested. Dean Potables : Okay. The other subject that I wanted to address , and this i.s a little bit again for the developers, there' s some wording in here about additions to the existing property in the covenants . I 'm — unclear as to what it is and I guess I 'm just bringing it up for further clarification . What is the intent of that , it says Article 2, Section 2 where they can add to the existing property if they get two-thirds vote - and a merger with an association I understand but what is the other intent of that? Are there plans one, to either rezone some of the single family into multiple family units such as the ones adjacent to the unit now? Is it planned that it could expand? Is that what this is giving them the — ability to do or is it intended to , if there were another association among us homeowners for example, that we could possibly combine that? I guess what I 'm looking at is , is the 14 unit the limit or can they with — something like this rezone more and continue building more townhomes . Conrad : I think that just gives them the ability to do that . It doesn ' t preclude it. Whether they have that in design or not. Again, a lot of your agreements try to give you as much flexibility as possible to do something . Dean Potables : Do you interpret it to say that it does give them the ability? Conrad : It does . More than likely, based on the surroundings , I 'm not sure but again. . . Olsen : It wouldn' t be able to. — Conrad: I really don ' t know. Michael any comments on that? Mike Camrody: There isn' t any other land that would be available right in the area here. This is the only piece of land that we own. A lot of this is standard format for an association from an attorney' s draft . That' s all I can tell you. I suppose there i.s a potential to merge with another association . That ' s not planned or any other land . We can ' t annex land that we know. Conrad : Even if they wanted to, I think it would be pretty unlikely. Let' s say there was a residential house across the way that they wanted to turn into a 4-plex or 8-plex . Unless there was total community support , — the City wouldn' t go along with that. Dean Potables : What if it' s currently just a lot that ' s for sale and zoned residential? Planning Commission Meeting May 3 , 1989 - Page 11 Conrad : If it ' s zoned residential , again what we try to do is cluster , from a planning standpoint, we try to cluster things and if you start sneaking in multi -units into a residential single family area , that doesn' t make sense and we don' t go along with that. I don ' t see anything - from our standpoint that we could agree to . I don ' t think anything makes sense for them to change the configuration here and add. This is a clustered group and I don' t know how they'd expand . Other comments? Headla moved, Erhart seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Erhart: Explain to me, on your first paragraph on your report here. On the initial PUD that was approved for 23 single family homes , 28 townhomes - and 6 twin homes. Then you go on to say now we' re looking at 14 townhomes . Then you go on to say the applicant states that the overall number of units originally approved would not change. I 'm missing a little history here. Olsen : I don' t have the plan before this one but it included additional higher density and mostly duplexes in this area. Then they amended this - plan and it ' s all single family instead of the duplexes . Erhart: So what happened is the 28 townhomes were not built? Olsen : No . But the overall number is still , what would have been committed as an outlot is what they' re proposing. - Erhart : The original townhomes , that initial proposal , was it based on individuals owning things like this? - Olsen : It wasn ' t . It was just a concept plan just showing townhomes. It wasn ' t discussed whether or not they'd be individually owned . Erhart : You mean the property? Olsen : Right . It was just showed that it was proposed as townhomes . No details as to what. Erhart: Essentially this got zoned RSF at the time and they came in with this PUD in order to get the townhomes in. High density in there. Olsen : Right but one of the reasons they also did the PUD was to get the parkland in there. They were doing the transfer , the swap with the city. - Erhart : Okay because that wasn ' t required . Okay, now I recall this one. The parkland wasn' t required at the time and that was a part of the negotiation . Olsen : It was all a part . Erhart : Because it ' s a PUD, are we required to change the land use plan? Planning Commission Meeting — May 3 , 1989 - Page 12 Olsen: It should still be. Erhart : High density? Olsen: Yes . Erhart : So anytime we have a PUD and there' s townhomes then we have to go back and revise this? Olsen : We should do , like for the Lake Susan Hills, we did that. We went back and amended the land use to correspond to the high density, medium density. — Erhart : Other than the contract, there' s not a whole lot to this . I think considering this and the one we saw last time, I think one of the notes I had last time was whether we ought to consider , the City wants to -- require double car garages on all these kinds of things . I think that' s one of the real nice things about these units compared to what we saw last time. Going back to this issue of how do you retain attitudes and values — i.n townhomes and condominiums? There seems to be a fine line there involving number of units . Involving quality of their initial construction. Part of that might be single garage versus double garage. Floor area . Parking space. Lots of things because there' s no question that in today' s market a lot of these shared ownership things , some of them have devalued tremendously in value . It poses a real problem to both people who bought and lost money on it as well as the City in trying to — maintain the quality of the structures we have in the area. Obviously we' re not experts in trying to define that line but I think it probably would help us if we better understand it . My concern in what we saw 2 weeks ago, they were below that line . I guess they start out at such a low value . Yes , I think they could go lower . I think I 'm a little more impressed with this one but it' s a concern. I really don' t have any other specific questions on this particular one . Considering the history of — this PUD, it fits. Emmings : I was just , and this may be more just idle curiousity than — anything else, do you remember when we looked at this one 2 weeks ago , what the square footage was as compared to this? Olsen: I ' ve got the plan here. I don' t know if it' s in here though. Emmings : Does anybody remember those numbers? Conrad: They were around 1, 200 I thought . Olsen : I think they were comparable. — Emmings: So square footage wise, as far as the lots are concerned, they' re about the same. Then as far as the , I remember we were concerned about the impervious surface and here we' re up to 54 and what were we talking about on that other one? Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 1989 - Page 13 Olsen: 50. Emmings : We were looking for something quite a bit lower weren' t we? - Erhart: What was the density, if you were taking the density I think that would be different . Olsen: The density got up to 14. Emmings : Yes, this is definitely lower . The numbers aren ' t too different but I guess one significant difference between the one last meeting and this one is this is contemplated as part of the overall PUD. I don' t think we've got the same leverage here. I didn' t hear any response to his questions about the curb. Olsen : Okay, I can look into that. I can' t answer whether or not he 'd have to require that. I do remember meeting with them initially and it was discussed just the main road so I can confirm that with the engineering department. They would have to specify what they mean. Emmings: I do agree with Tim' s comment in general that maybe, again thi.s - may be another one of those things on our wish list . The things we wish we had time to do but , involving some standards for townhomes is probably a real good thing to do. Something that should be done . Things like parking and things like the double car garage. Here we' re saying there' s 63 spaces but really all they' re really saying is there are 4 spaces per unit. 2 in the garage and 2 right outside and the neighbors aren' t going to be using each others so really the parking is not that great here. - We' re still going to have the problem if many people would show up to visit at a time, the parking would be exhausted very quickly and then I 'm afraid would result in parking along that main entrance road which I - didn' t see any comments in the community safety comments from the fire inspector or anybody else that they'd be concerned about cars parking along that road but that could be a real eye sore for the neighbors who back up there too. I know there' s going to be a lot of landscaping in there but still you can see there could wind up being a lot of parking . Basically I think the plan i.s not a bad one. It points up our need to look at standards for townhome developments sometime in the future more - than anything else. Ellson : I think everyone who talked today, maybe with the exception of Curt, I guess he' s been there quite a while, probably moved into their house when thi.s was zoned that way. In other words , whether you knew it or you had a chance to find out about it at the time which the same thing happened to me in my neighborhood . I didn' t realize something was — happening right behind me until I moved into it so it ' s easier said than done. I 'm the first to say that but I think that the smaller number of units in a neighborhood with higher valued homes will tend to keep that — area up. I agree with Mike in the fact that when you get to these huge developments with practically names just to get between one house of 12 to the next i.s when you can run into a lot more problems. I think people will move in here because it's more like a residential area. I picture the ideal couple that doesn' t want to fix up their home anymore and just Planning Commission Meeting _ May 3, 1989 - Page 14 wants to be in a nice little residential area without the maintenance and maybe they fly away every winter or something . But I don' t think it necessarily means that these are going to turn into atypical . We might be — jumping the gun and making big assumptions with an experience that maybe Bobbie had with something with 200 units or what have you. I think the bottom line is we really can' t tell people to please keep up your home _ because you' re my neighbor . Whether they' re a single family home next to you or whether they' re somebody across the street in 14 homes. We try to do i.t all over the place but you might have a boat out and they wouldn ' t like it or you might paint your house pink and they wouldn' t like it and the fact that people are owning their own homes gives them those kinds of rights. I probably wouldn' t like this so much if it hadn' t been for the last one we saw which was just so chintzy. It had a single garage and it — had no places for parking and it had squished areas. All these buildings were so close that there was nothing but tar everywhere and these people were coming forward all proud of this plan and then I see this one. I think it really had some forethought going through it . I like the size, rim that it' s only 14. The other one was 50 or so. Oh , 100 total units , that ' s right. So I think their plan , especially compared to what the possibilities are is a little bit better . I made the point to staff and — I 'm still wondering , the people who came forth before us said they purposedly went to a maintenance free exterior and they made the comment because , in our experience in building these things, the maintenance is a — real pain on the associations and they were going to brick the whole way or aluminum siding or something like that which number one can look very nice and number two, if it ' s definitely going to keep up it ' s look for 30 years , I can see putting something like that in like a townhome — requirement or possibly because this is tied in with our PUD, we could ask them to make the exterior something that ' s maintenance free. I know that the redwood siding is gorgeous but I also know that stuff needs staining a — lot and looks horrible when it' s not stained. If it starts fading so I could see possibly doing something like that and I appreciate your comments. The other guys what you think about that but in general I like _ it. I see Steve' s point about the parking but I don' t see i.t as much of a problem as maybe he does. I think maybe I ' d ask my neighbor if I could be in their driveway or park two-thirds the way down their driveway. The other place didn' t even have enough driveway space to try to do something — like so those are my comments . Headla : Where do they pick up the garbage? Drive right in on the roads? Mike Camrody: Yes. Right into the private drives. Up to the driveways . Headla : Okay, people bring their garbage cans out to the end of their — driveway? Well you' re going to have a strong base under the blacktop? Mike Camrody: Yes . That ' s one of the things we wanted to discuss with the engineers . They' re asking us to upgrade the base of the road to an 8 inch limestone . We' re proposing a 6 inch limestone with a 3 inch. . . Headla: The reason I 'm asking that is, if there is a fire in there and you have 3 heavy fire trucks , particularly in the spring of the year , if you don' t have that heavy base it may be more of a disaster than just the Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 1989 - Page 15 fire itself. I hope the engineers insist on an adequate base to handle the garbage trucks or the heavy fire trucks. I see they wanted a 20 foot width road . The reason for that was? Olsen : The fire trucks and just in case somebody does park on one of the sides there. Outside of the driveway area . Headla : Does that allow for parking along the side? Olsen: It gives them, if that does happen, they still can get through. We still would prefer not to have the parking along the side there but - they could get through. Whereas the one on 16 feet, they would not be able to . Headla : Okay, and you ' re making the assumption that there' s no snow on the sides and that people park way off as far as possible. Olsen : 20 feet is the typical width that they' ve been requiring . Headla : I get back to my favorite page. I want to see a checklist from the fire department on what in the world they' re looking for . I don ' t understand why, if it' s this serious that they' re insisting the contractor go to that expense , why aren ' t we putting no parking signs along there? We do that for businesses. We don' t allow that. Now we don' t even talk about it in this . I think that ' s totally inadequate fire department report. I think they should get that shaped up on how they report. Do we need any extra fire. fighting equipment? - Olsen: Got that new truck. That should take care of even Rosemount . Headla : Our taxes our paying for it . We screwed up before. We should have addressed that at the time. Not after the requirement came that we had to have that . We should have addressed that before that became a requirement. There' s a reason we needed that fire truck. We let buildings come in here that required it . Those buildings require that type of equipment, they should pay for it. Not the general taxpayers of Chanhassen . I got hung up on the roads. I spent too much time thinking about that and wondering what is a good thing. The rest of it, I think - it' s fine. That parking just drives me up a tree . I see these places and I can just see New Year ' s Eve. A lot of people come in. A lot of cars , and rightly so . Then if we have a fire, where does the fire department - go? Conrad : Thanks Dave. My thoughts kind of reflect what I ' ve heard . I 'm still at a loss for visitor parking and we' ve seen an extreme 2 weeks ago and now we ' re seeing something else and I really don ' t have a feel for it . Steve out in Colorado, did you deal with units like this? Townhomes and how you handle parking because it can be a problem. Are you comfortable? Have you dealt with it? Hanson : It can be a problem. Some areas will require specific guest parking areas. I think a lot of communities have tried to deal with the worse case situation if you will . The New Year ' s Eve party or Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 1989 - Page 16 Thanksgiving when you have a lot of people over . . . .provide parking for that situation. Then you probably ought to look at changing your coverage requirements so you would allow them to pave a whole lot of property to — accomplish that. There are a lot of trade-offs . I don' t think there' s a simple answer because you can run into the same problem with single family. Typically I think in a multi-family area like this, you have the _ opportunity to work with the neighbors . I think some of the fears are people are going to have a party all the same night which obviously then you would have a problem. I think a lot of the times that generally isn' t the case that it works through that way because these people tend to have — to work closer with the neighbors than a single family. I think as a result of that a lot of times they will share each other ' s parking spaces . Conrad : Building standards for units like this . Do we have an opportunity to look at building standards that might be different? We have building codes which are basically set at State level . Hanson: Are you talking about exterior materials? Conrad : Well pretty much. Yes , that ' s what I 'm thinking . — Hanson: I think you do in this case in that it' s under a PUD which gives you more flexibility than you would under normal site planning process . _ But it' s not like you have a standard that you ' re dealing with. Conrad : I think that whole area is intriguing especially as you get into storage requirements. This looks as if, as everybody else has said , this — looks far better than what we saw 2 weeks ago. Yet on the other hand , I think situations talking about, do they have basements and their storage area there and I think we have to , maybe we' re looking at the only two — zero lot line or whatever that ' s going to come before us. On the other hand , I think it' s probably wise Jo Ann , because you ' re going to be left after Steve leaves us, I think we should take a good look at that. We probably have the right , because this is a PUD, to request some exterior maintenance free siding on these units. I don ' t know. I tend to want to stay out of that business and yet I think we probably do have that perogative here because it is, this whole area is a PUD. Based on what — I 'm hearing for the maintenance , and again this is apparently not anything we can deal with, association rules and regulations, but the $55. 00 a month maintenance is probably reasonable from what I ' ve seen other _ comparable developments having. It seems like it would set up a pretty good kitty for maintenance . Just responding to some of the neighborhood comments, we sure hear what you' re saying and it appears to me that the mechanics are there for this to do a good job in maintaining the property — value versus diminishing it. At least that ' s my personal opinion. I don ' t live across the street or in the neighborhood but it looks like the mechanics are there to appreciate versus depreciate and a couple reasons I — think is simply because there are only 14 units or whatever . I think they've done a few things that look like they' re a nice way to design townhouses like this . I 'm fairly comfortable with that but I guess my _ directive to the staff would be for us to start looking at some of the standards . Whether they be building standards or whatever and then just to report back to us on our role with association. Do we have any role in Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 1989 - Page 17 that and I guess you' ve told me no but I 'd just like you to double check - and make sure that we don' t. Those are my comments. Anything else? Is there a motion? Emmings: I ' ll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Preliminary Plat #89-6 and Site Plan #89-4 as shown on the plans dated April 10, 1989 with the 10 conditions as set forth in the staff report but as to number 7 and 8, that those items be worked out between the staff and the developer prior to the City Council meeting so that the City Council can get an updated status on those. - Erhart : I ' ll second it. Headla : Let me ask a question that slipped my mind before. The first - gentleman that spoke, you mentioned that somebody wanted the building sprinklered? Paul Struthers : Yes , it was mentioned by the zoning official that the - buildings were required to be sprinkled but that represented a misunderstanding on his part because of the occupancy. He was looking at it as an apartment or condominium project which requires sprinkling. For - individually owned with zero lot lines , that' s not the requirement. Headla: You' re in agreement on that now? Paul Struthers : The building official is in agreement with me that it' s not required. Ellson : You guys are in for putting maintenance free or that doesn ' t bother you? I 'm sure the siding that they have is probably more expensive than this kind here. Emmings : I think we' ve got to have standards. Maybe we don' t because it' s a PUD but I think we ought to develop some standards. There' s nothing wrong with the materials they' re using . There' s nothing wrong with brick. There' s nothing wrong with redwood. That' s not a cheap way to build . There are cheaper ways to build . - Ellson: Oh no. But the brick is obviously free. Emmings : No it' s not. Everything , there' s no such thing as maintenance free so I 'm not for doing that until we have some standards to it. Emmings moved , Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Preliminary Plat #89-6 and Site Plan #89-4 as shown on the plans dated April 10, 1989 with the following conditions and that conditions 7 and 8 be worked out between staff and the developer prior to - the City Council meeting so that the City Council can get an updated status on those. 1. The three internal drives shall be at least 20 feet in width. Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 1989 - Page 18 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 of the driveway. 4. The land use will be amended to residential high density. 5. All side slopes greater than 3 : 1 will need erosion protection. — 6. Watermain looping and hydrant locations shall be included in the submittals , including valves . 7. The sanitary sewer 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. 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. All voted in favor and the motion carried . SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR DAYCARE CENTER ON PROPERTY ZONED BN, BUSINESS NEIGHBORHOOD AND LOCATED ON LAKE DRIVE 1/4 MILE EAST OF HIGHWAY 101, G.P. — BAJR, INC. Steve Hanson presented the staff report . Conrad : For our clarification on what we are to do tonight , the variances have been granted? Hanson: That' s correct . Conrad : So it is not our role to critique , even though we will , the _ variances. They are granted. So as we review this tonight, I believe our role is to assume that those variances are already, the applicant has received those and now we' re looking at how this site plan conforms to our rules but also including the variances that have been granted . If that ' s — not confusing but I think it' s important that we understand that that' s how we have to review this . I think we should turn it over and have some comments from the applicant just to react to staff report and maybe talk — about some of the questions that you know we ' re going to ask you and maybe anticipate those and help us understand what you ' re doing a little bit more . Randy Peterson : Okay. I 'm Randy Peterson . I 'm the representative for the developer that' s doing the New Horizon Daycare Center over there . Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 1989 - Page 19 Staff di.d an excellent job explaining through it . Basically we have no problem with the two conditions that they have. The reason we di.d not address it on that site plan was to find out if, and I guess staff has no problem this, that we place them in front of the fence in the play area . - It' s rather difficult to put them in there with the children in there. As far as the parking situation, we have adequate parking. I have representatives from New Horizon here. I have a contractor here. I have the land owner. Property owners from around the area if you have any of those questions . Basically I guess a couple of you are probably aware of or a few of you are aware that with 16 parking stalls using 8 staff people at any given time , that allows us 8 stalls for the drop off and pick up of children. Using this with a very conservative factor of turning them over every 15 minutes , which would be each stall would rotate then 4 times in an hour , you would have 32 parking stalls for the use of the people coming in there and we have approximately 20 to 25 drop offs per hour at the peak hours which are 2 hours in the morning and 2 hours i.n the afternoon. I ' ll let kind of stay right there and if you have any further questions you can definitely ask of any one of us. I think pretty much that is everything I would like to say at this point and kind of open it up for questions . Pat Hallisey: I don' t want to get i.n the way of questioning. My name is - Pat Hallisey. I am the property owner . I represent Blue Circle Investment Company. We' re the people who own the shopping center next door and this property selling it to Mr . Peterson' s partnership for the New Horizon ' s Daycare Center . I guess the thing I want to impress upon you folks is that we have made a fairly major investment in your community and have been here for about 2 years now and we are concerned . We' ve heard a lot of expression about concern of value and what goes on in the community. We plan to stay here as a property owner for many, many years . That was our intention when we built our project to begin with . There have been things that have happened on that corner that have changed the circumstances surrounding the land and it' s use . Changing the zoning . Changing of future road patterns and whatever. One of the things that we' re attempting to do is maximize the value of our property. We feel very, very fortunate. Approximately a year and a half ago we were approached by a different daycare operation and as we are concerned with the value of our property, we spent some time investigating that daycare operation and we found that it didn' t really have a very good reputation. — We refused to sell them the piece of property. We feel , as their neighbor and a major property owner in the community, we feel very, very fortunate to have the opportunity to have an operation the quality of New Horizons as a neighbor . We just wanted to let you know that and if there' s anything else about the property or any questions, I ' ll be happy to answer them. Sue Dunkley: Hi. . I 'm Sue Dunkley, president of New Horizon Childcare Centers and I just wanted to address the one issue that I think I heard about maybe the playground of the pearock. We were fortunate enough to — have been on Michael Breen' s program on Channel 5 news and quoted as being one of the more expensive per square foot childcare centers with a lot of safety cautions i.n mind in the building. They particularly noted the wall carpet on our walls for children that are this high walk into walls and those kinds of things and one of the things they did was a study on our Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 1989 - Page 20 playground . Our playground has proven to be one of the very safest ground covers so I was hoping when you were looking at that kind of thing , the pearock was allowed to stay in our playground . We' ve been in business for — 18 years and have 27 locations and we've tried sod which looks beautiful for about 3 weeks but with little feet trampling it, it never stays . You can' t seed it because they' re out there and it becomes dirt and it becomes mud and although you love to see the green grass inside the playground , we — want as little green grass inside as we can and green grass the whole outside of the playground for them to look at while it ' s sprinklered and has underground sprinklers. But the pearock is great because it stays — soft even in the middle of our hard winters so if a child does fall , the pearock cushions them and there has been so few accidents on the playgrounds that put the money into pearock which is a lot more expensive — than grass but we feel very strongly under our pieces of playground equipment that we' d like to keep the pearock and it is a nice look. So we' re hoping that that doesn' t change in your discussions any and I 'm here for any other questions you might have. We' ve also been trying to be in — Chanhassen for 2 years. I know Brian (speaking to Ladd) you were here I think 2 years ago when we tried the bond issue property behind the gas station and didn' t get that one for soil condition reasons and then you were kind enough to approve a center for us in the industrial park. We were all ready to go on it and our landlord backed out on that one even though you were all 100% for us and we have about 45 families that call me once a week asking when our center will be open in Chanhassen so we sure '— hope it gets open pretty quickly. Thank you. Uli Sacchet : My name is Uli Sacchet. I live at 8071 Hidden Circle. — Ladies and gentlemen from the Planning Commission . I just want to make sure that you' re aware that the neighborhood of Hidden Valley was very excited of the prospect of having a daycare center this close and I would — hope that the little petition that we put together just to show some of our support might have come to your attention too . It was unanimous support. I went around and talked to some of the people and everybody was excited . Everybody thought it was great to have a daycare center that — close. Now I 'm not an expert of what the technicalities are with variances and safety procedures and so forth. I guess ideally we would want to have a daycare center somewhere in the woods where no cars drive by but I just wanted to make sure you undestand that the neighborhood is in very strong support of that project and we would recommend that this is allowed to happen . Thank you. Erhart : That ' s true that the New Horizons site in the industrial park is not, that' s not in the plans anymore. Sue Dunkley: Gone . He doesn ' t want to do it . We do. Erhart: Yes, who was the landlord again? — Sue Dunkley: Hyttien . We went through all the procedures and were ready to go and they turned it down at the last minute . Erhart : Yes , that is unfortunate . I wasn ' t trying to get into these variances , I was just trying to understand . Explain to me again on the Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 1989 - Page 21 spaces again . You feel the 16 is adequate yet you have 25 changes in a 2 - hour period so that requires how many stalls? Sue Dunkley: Okay. In the centers we have now, and they' re all licensed - for about this many, around 100 children, we've done studies to show that we have about 8 staff cars parked at any one time. Some do drive with others. Some have their husbands drop them off. Whatever reasoning. We have 8 staff cars maximum in our largest center parked at any one time and that still allows us 8 parking places for parents and we have sufficed . For instance, we' re in the Trammel Crow building in Normandale in Bloomington with just 4 parking stalls for parents. Parents who trusts - us , a parent who drops off for the very first time will stay 15 minutes . Rarely do these parents, are fortunate enough to have 15 minutes in the morning when they've gotten 2 children up and ready and dressed . They - usually run in pretty fast and out pretty fast. They have the children by their hand . We require them to sign them in in a sign in place in the front of the building and then deposit the child in the classroom to the teacher for they have that ability but you'd be surprised how fast they can do that. Get through there and get back out to work so we feel we have more than adequate parking with 8 stalls and our parents come between 6: 00 and we have so many professional parents that come even late. It - used to be 6 : 00 to 9: 00. We have parents that drop off as late as 10: 00 in the morning now. Erhart : 100 children , on the average what every parent has what 2? Sue Dunkley: Almost 30% of our families have 2 children so you' re looking at about probably 70 cars , not 100 cars . We have one family with 4 children and that gets quite expensive but on the average, 30% have more than one child so you' re looking at 70 cars coming in and out of 8 spaces in about a 3 hour stretch in the morning and about a 3 hour stretch in the - afternoon. In that time range and at that time, the nice thing about that, at that time our staff is also leaving. They' re coming and leaving so it also opens some staff parking also. We' ve never had a problem yet with parking . The only time New Horizon has ever had to make arrangements for parking is when we have the parent programs in the evening and the open house and we are sure our good neighbor will allow us to do that twice a year and make arrangements for the parents to do that . Come and - see their children perform but we haven' t had a problem at this point. Erhart : Thanks . The HVAC was then moved in front of the building? Randy Peterson: Yes. Erhart : And then that ' s going to be surrounded with some kind of an opaque fence or what? What' s that on the plan? Randy Peterson : That will have a fence around the HVAC. Erhart: What was going to be in front of the building before? Just windows? Is there windows on that side of the building? Randy Peterson: Yes . Planning Commission Meeting — May 3 , 1989 - Page 22 Sue Dunkley: I have a picture if you'd like to see it . Erhart: Is the HVAC going to cover up a window now? Randy Peterson : No, it will be below. Erhart: What I 'm getting at here is what' s this thing going to look like from the street? Normally if you have a brick building with windows it fits in. Now you put HVAC equipment on the outside, I just want to make — sure that it' s not. . . Contractor : It looks like basically a condenser unit on a residential — house. That' s basically what it' s going to look like. Erhart : I know what it' s doing but we don' t allow HVAC equipment in people' s front lawns either . — Contractor : What will eventually be the front of the building is more like the side. The front faces Lake Drive. — Randy Peterson : The front faces east . This would be all landscaped . Basically what it would look like is some type of a planter type set-up. — Erhart: Anyway, you've taken into consideration. Steve, are you satisfied that that thing is going to be aesthetically acceptable in front of that? I consider that the front of the building . — Hanson : I would too . Erhart : Anyway, that' s just a point that I 'd ask you to moni.ter that . Again, you have the same situation with the trash. I 'm trying to accommodate this building here. We' re putting some things in the front that normally you find in the rear and I just want to make sure that these — things are adequately covered up. Not to adversely affect the value of your neighbor or the value to the neighborhood. What kind of fence is around the play area? Is that a Cyclone chainlink fence? — Randy Peterson: Yes . Erhart : How high? Randy Peterson: About 4 . Sue Dunkley: Our kids are only 2 feet so 4 feet is good . Erhart: Is there going to be any kind of landscaping in front of that — fence between the sidewalk and the fence or does the fence go right up to the sidewalk? Hanson : It goes up to the property line. Erhart: Oh there is no sidewalk on this is there? Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 1989 - Page 23 Hanson : No . Erhart : Currently is there a trail or a sidewalk going along Lake Drive East now? Pat Hallisey: No there' s not . There' s nothing in front of our property. Erhart: And not on the other side either? Uli Sacchet : To my recollection , there is a sidewalk on the side. . . Erhart: On the south side. Uli Sacchet : It' s 3 feet wide. . . Erhart: Yes, that' s on the south side of Lake Drive. Uli Sacchet : North side. Erhart : Then that would go right through this property then wouldn' t it? Olsen: It' s in the right-of-way. Randy Peterson : There' s no sidewalk on our property. Conrad: It says existing walk on the plan. - Erhart : So does the fence go up to the existing walk? Hanson: Yes . Conrad : Is there a walk or not a walk? Erhart: Yes, for your information there' s a walk. So the fence goes up to directly adjacent to the walk? Olsen: The property line, yes. Hanson: There is probably about a 6 inch. The sidewalk is going to be off 6 inches from the property line. Erhart : Is that of any concern? I guess my preference and I think I realize the constraint that you have with space here. I don' t have experience with daycares or probably will have within the next year so I 'm - just trying to conceptualize if that would be difficult. You guys probably have experience but I just point out that the fence goes to the sidewalk and maybe you can see if there' s any potential problem with that . - The northeast side of that is essentially all woods in there or all landscaped at this point. One of the things I guess regarding evergreens in a narrow section like that , I think putting deciduous trees in there is fine. One thing you can do with evergreens if you' re concerned about running into the street , it' s something we' re going to have to do in Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 1989 - Page 24 downtown here as these evergreens get bigger on the south side, is you can trim them up. They don' t look quite a nice but it does solve the problem. The one last thing I had was , one of the ori.ginal requirements you had to — add parking spots to parking spaces and then it goes on they have to have curbs. I don ' t understand that . Item 5 , you have add parking . Ellson: Stops . Erhart : Then item 8 you' re required curbs . Hanson: The parking stops are, I 'm asking for those to be added so you can ' t drive all the way up to the curb. If you drive all the way up to the curb, you' re going to hit the trees with that. Emmings : Where there' s a tree would they have to have a stop? Hanson : Well I suggested that they do it on all of them. — Erhart : Why don ' t they just make the parking spot a foot shorter then? Essentially that' s what you ' re doing by doing that . In your — recommendation you didn' t include that item 5 so are you leaving that out? Hanson: They' ve added that. They' ve shown that . Erhart : Oh they have. Would we get the same effect just by shortening the parking stalls 12 inches or what am I missing? Pat Hallisey: Excuse me. There' s a difference between shortening the parking stall and putting the stop in. You can leave a stall , I believe it ' s 18 feet is your city code for the length of the car . You can put the _ stop in like 2 feet behind the front of the stall so when a person pulls up they hit the stop. You still have the overhang in the front of the car past that that is within the parking stall . If you try to shorten the parking stall up, that doesn ' t occur . They can still drive right up to — the curb. Erhart : How are you planning on anchoring these things? — Randy Peterson: They don' t really get anchored. They sit there. Erhart : What I visualize when you use those things, somebody hits it too hard and then it gets cockeyed and then they all sit cockeyed and they all endup. . . Hanson : You can tie them down with rebar . A lot of times they' ll drive that down through . Randy Peterson : We can do that . We' ll do either or . We ' ll remove them. We' ll leave them in. We' ll anchor them. I don' t have a problem with it . It creates a little problem in the winter plowing but that ' s the real hard part. They get chipped up. They get hit trying to keep everything clean — and you end up with snow building up inbetween those and the sidewalk. Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 1989 - Page 25 Erhart : If the landscaping is so close to the front of the parking lot - that that cars are going to damage it, it will happen so I guess I 'd like to see us take Steve' s recommendation but include that they be anchored so they don' t move around. I think that's a real eyesore and problem when they do that . That ' s everything I had . Emmings: I really don' t have anything different. I think that the tremendous number of variances they' ve been given and we' re not supposed to go into that now and try and figure out what happened there but I think the parking will be adequate and my experience with using daycare, I think that the place, at least one of the places that we used there were only - about 4 places with about the same number of kids and they turn over real fast. 15 minutes is much longer than it will take for people to drop off their kids so I think it will wind up being adequate. I 'm not sure that - I 'd agree with the staff on increasing the landscaping along that one portion of the yard there where the pea gravel is because that may be the only sunny spot that the kids will have to go to because the rest of it looks like it' s either unavailable for play or else it' s already shaded by large trees so I think it might be nice to leave that a sunny spot so I would not impose that. I 'd let them decide what they' re going to do . Ellson : I have a question. I guess Sue could probably answer it. Is New Horizon is it set up like a franchise? Is it self-supporting, each individual unit? In other words, the tuition is what pays for everything or you' re funded by a major big New Horizon also? Sue Dunkley: No, the tuition pays for it . Ellson: And what happens when one isn' t successful? What happens to a daycare as it falls apart? Sue Dunkley: Our company carries each one. The hope is that they will have enough children that the tuition will do it. New Horizon is a corporation and has been for 18 years . There are periods i.n the history where one center for whatever reason will be lower in enrollment for a period of time and at that point obviously our company carries those centers from some of the other centers who are doing well so we are financially very secure. We do keep the buildings up beautifully and we - do put underground sprinkling i.n so the grass is always mowed and looks nice. Our CEO would have a fit if one of our names was off 2 inches he' s gotten so meticulous so I guarantee we will keep the building looking very attractive. Ellson : I wanted to be on the record that I 'm certainly for a daycare in Chanhassen. I don' t like this site for it though to be perfectly honest . - I wanted to ask staff if they knew where the local bus stop was to this area? Hanson : It' s by the Legion. Olsen : That will be moved but right now it is by the Legion. Ellson: And it' s going to be moved like do you know where? Planning Commission Meeting _ May 3, 1989 - Page 26 Olsen : The new shelter is up across from Filly' s. I don ' t know if you' ve noticed that but once the West 79th Street is opened up, the bus will come — through there and that will be the park and ride. Ellson: Okay, because I ' ve seen people use a daycare location to park _ their cars . A great spot to pick up the bus and then leave it and then I 'd be really concerned about these parking spaces which I already am. I take my toddler to a daycare that has less than 100, probably about 65 kids with 10 spaces that the staff is not even allowed to park in and it ' s — always the biggest complaint of every parent is the parking and that ' s got 10 spaces with 65 kids. This is 8 spaces with 100 kids. I know that it' s a huge problem where we are and I think that 8 spots is grossly _ inadequate. Once i.t' s in there, it' s like impossible to change and we have yet to have an accident at our daycare but you' re just hoping and praying that it will never happen. Some little thing is running between cars and cannot be seen and people are driving and parking behind other — people and double parking and i.t' s just scarey. I 'd hate to see me allow something like that to go in without my two cents worth anyway of saying I don' t like the number of parking places. I really want daycare. I just — don ' t think this is the site . I think it' s squished in there. I think it looks poor with the whole grouping. I don' t like the idea that they did everything right up to the edges . I think the hidden court, or whatever that group of townhomeowners back there is signing, I certainly agree with them that we 'd like daycare here . I think they would just as easily be served with another daycare in a better location. I 'm also questioning all the variances . I get really nervous about variances because of the — precedence it sets for other people and I would like it maybe to be looked over again or something maybe when they get a chance to look at it again but. Yes , I want daycare in Chanhassen but I 'd like it someplace else and — I don' t like it on this site . Headla : I 'm concerned about the way we do things. What' s the deal now? We have these 11 conditions. The fire department recommended the entire building be adquately sprinklered but it isn ' t in the recommendations. Is what the fire department, is that automatically filled in or not? Hanson : Their recommendations are included when they come in with a building permit. Headla : Then we don ' t even need to talk about them in a planning commission meeting? Hanson : Well when it' s a building code requirement , they have to meet — that requirement at the time they get a building permit. Headla : I don ' t think we' re consistent. To me if they see fit to put it in the planning commission notes and we agree with it, it ought to be included in the recommendation. Hanson: We can do that . — Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 1989 - Page 27 Headla : I guess I 'd like to see both them entered into the recommendations . Conrad : Dave, just for my clarification. If it' s part of the building code requiring sprinkling, basically the fire inspector said you've got to have it and they have to have it . It ' s part of the code. Headla: How many times do we add, be redundant on different things just to make sure it gets done? I see that done time and time again. If we' re not going to do it, let' s be consistent and not do it. If we want to do it, then let' s do it all the time and let' s say something about it. Conrad: Basically what Steve and Jo Ann do is they take all this different input and they determine from the different folks who are making recommendations and they determine what needs to be in the final staff report . What you' re saying is if the fire inspector said it , they should duplicate it in the staff report. Headla : If we agree is what I said . Conrad : But their perspective on this item would be yes, he said it but - it' s required by code anyway so we don' t need to make it a special item and tell the developer they have to do it because they have to do it. Headla: My point is, we' ve actually put it in many recommendations previously but it' s been part of the code but we want to highlight it. Now we either do it or we don' t do it but let' s be consistent. That' s all I ask. I don' t know where we sit right now. I don' t know if it should be - in there or shouldn' t be in there but I want some consistency in the way we do it. - Randy Peterson : We have no problem with that . . . Headla: No, that' s an internal thing that I get confused on which way we should . I like the daycare center there. I drop my grandson off at a center on TH 7. They don' t have fences. A lot of traffic out front. The kids get a lot of tender loving care. I think they' re well cared for . It doesn' t have near the amenities that this has. I like it. And as far as — the heat ventilating and air conditioning thing , what are you going to put in there that isn' t going to be some objection? It isn' t all black and white. You' re going to have to concede certain items. I think this is an appropriate location. It serves an area. That' s all . Conrad : When we grant variances Steve or Jo Ann , does the Attorney document why? Do we have to do that? Do we go through a statement of - rationale? Hanson : There ' s not a formal , if you will , formal filing . Olsen: Sometimes they have though. Sometimes counci.lmembers have required that the Attorney list why and it' s usually Findings of Facts for denial though. Planning Commission Meeting _ May 3, 1989 - Page 28 Conrad : Therefore a variance doesn' t set a precedent? You literally can grant a variance but is it precedence setting? Hanson : Like I said , it ' s kind of debateable. I think it' s precedence setting in the sense of how staff would advise someone that came in subsequent to certain variances being granted because typically when someone comes in, the question they first have is, how does a city respond to variances . Do they like them or don ' t they? Do they grant them or don' t they? What kind have they granted? I think an applicant in their best interest , if they know what variances have been granted , you would — take those ones that are similar to your case and use those, at least as a justification to what you want to do. Conrad: Do we allow parking on Lake Drive East? Hanson : No we do not . It ' s signed no parking . Conrad: In terms of the parking lot , there are about 3 or 4 stalls to the right in the parking lot that basically they have to back up. They have to back up a whole long way don' t they? Hanson : Yes, it' s not the best . Previously there were 2 others over there too. Conrad : Got rid of those 2? Hanson: Yes . _ Conrad : We' re hearing from the applicants that there' s enough stalls and maybe we've got split opinions here that hearsay from the Planning _ Commission whether there are or are not . My question would be then , if there are not enough stalls and they' re licensed for 100 children and we create a parking problem, if, then what happens? Hanson: We live with it . Conrad : So there' s recourse to restrict the number of children that — they' re licensed for? Hanson : Not the way that the 16 was arrived at . In other words, it' s _ essentially an appeal of what the staff would have recommended because the staff would have made a determination of how many parking spaces . The Board of Adjustment had looked at it and at the time when it was at the Board of Adjustment , the applicants had submitted a brochure describing — the size of the actual facility because what we were looking at that time initially was just a setback variances . So when i.t went before Council , that's when at that point in time we were aware it was 100 people and so — many staff employee people so we looked at what we ' ve used in reviewing other similiar facilities. The one in the idustrial park and that' s essentially where we came up with the number of 37. When i.t was before _ the Board of Adjustment, they had shown 18 spaces . Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 1989 - Page 29 Conrad : What ' s the worse if they can' t really accommodate enough cars there? They' ll probably be motivated to solve the problem themselves . Randy Peterson : You' re absolutely right . The development group that I 'm with has developed a very large percentage of the daycares here. New Horizon owns 27 and we have not had a parking problem due to insufficient amount of spaces . Conrad : And I ' ve heard you say that and I trust what you' re telling me. The only thing I 'm saying is, I don't want the City to solve a problem later on. That ' s my only point. It should be a safe access and it' s your , - I think you' re motivated to take care of the problems but I literally don' t think, because we are forcing something over sized on a smaller lot and I think in this particular case, I just don' t ever want to see the - city having to bail out because we allowed this to happen . I think the applicant should know that they got the variances obviously and that the City is not going to come back and solve a problem downstream. I think the applicant is motivated to solve a problem yet on the other hand , I — don ' t know what we do and maybe there' s not anything legal we can do but I just don' t know that we certainly have solutions to cut into more of the green space and make more parking but I guess I really don' t think the - City should contemplate ever doing that. Anyway, I think parking is my only problem on this particular issue and more than likely it' s not going to be a problem but I 've got too many conflicting pieces of information . I just don' t want the City to have this in 5 years or whatever . That ' s probably not even a concern. We' re fairly consistent, in terms of setbacks Steve or Jo Ann, we' re kind of consistent with the building to the west. We' re kind of in sync. This building. Not totally out. The - only other thing that the fire inspector didn' t comment on is the narrow space between the two buildings for fire but I guess they know what they' re doing and I guess maybe that' s not a significant issue . Those are my only comments and I ' ll vote for this given the fact that the variances have been granted previously. I would certainly accept a motion. Erhart: I ' ll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan #89-5 dated , what date are we looking at? Hanson: Today, May 3rd. That' s the revised plan . Erhart : Dated May 3rd with the 5 conditions correct? - Hanson: No, two . Erhart : Your second condition is that they use the conditions what , 8, 9, 10 and 11? Hanson: 7 through 11. - Erhart : Okay, the first condition you were proposing was additional landscaping along the fence? Hanson: Yes. Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 1989 - Page 30 Erhart : Which is the area in front . I tend to agree with Steve on that one. I 'm going to leave that one off. That' s the one you were debating right? — Emmings : Yes . Erhart : So my motion then will only include the one item which refers to — your conditions 7 , 8 , 9, 10 and 11. Conrad : What are you saying about them? You' re keeping those? — Erhart: Those I 'm keeping. What I 'm deleting is the one referring to additional landscaping . Conrad: Is there a second? Emmings : I ' ll second it. — Headla : There ' s some discussion going on on what you' re deleting . I don' t understand . — Erhart : When we talked about a motion earlier , that staff was recommending additional landscaping along the front fence. As much as I 'm _ mostly in favor of a lot of landscaping , I think there are some places for sunny areas as well . I guess it was my opinion that it would probably, the area they have open now could be left open just as well as it could be landscaped so I left that one off . So my motion does not require that — they provide additional landscaping along the front fence. Headla: You want it every 40 feet average? — Hanson: They have that on the average. What I had suggested that there be some added in that area that' s just along the fenced area which essentially would be along the hard surface and the pea gravel area . Erhart moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend — approval of Site Plan #89-5 as shown on the Revised site plan stamped "May 3, 1989" with the following condition: 1. Final verification of the following conditions by the City Engineer prior to City Council review. 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. 9. A construction/permanent easement by Total Mart will be required _ since the proposed utility is crossing private property. Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 1989 - Page 31 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. All voted in favor except Annette Ellson who voted in opposition and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Ellson : I think it' s too big a piece of development on too small of land - and I don ' t agree with the parking sites . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Emmings moved , Erhart seconded to note the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated April 19, 1989 with the addition of a disclaimer stating the sound equipment malfunctioned and this is a very incomplete set of Minutes. All voted in favor and the motion carried. OLD BUSINESS. Erhart : When is contractor ' s yards going to the Council? Hanson: Monday. Emmings : My thing on old business is, this is sort of like when we try to get staff to tell us what City Council had done with items that we had made recommendations on and they never did and they won' t yet and we ask - them everytime and they just don' t. It' s sort of like, there' s a story by Melville called Bartle B where this guy' s works at this place and the guy fires him but he lives there and he doesn ' t leave when he' s fired . Everytime the guy says I fired you . . . Finally the guy has to move his business to get away from him. But anyway, another item that ' s a lot like that is under old business we ask that they list, that the staff list discussion items that we were carrying on from meeting to meeting so we didn't forget about them from our list. Ellson : Well you' ve got your folders too . Emmings: I 'd still like to see what' s on there and now we should add another one on there and that is standards for. townhomes . - Conrad: Jo Ann because obviously Steve' s leaving, both of Steve' s comments are real valid and they' re real important to us . We really do need that feedback from City Council . If we have to reduce the caseload , - the number of cases or whatever that you have to bring up to us by one every 2 weeks, I think just to free up. I ' ve got to believe it ' s an hour to 2 of your time to condense what the City Council said . We really do need that feedback. Planning Commission Meeting _ May 3, 1989 - Page 32 Erhart : Ladd , I think one of the problems that we have is this is a very official agenda . Some of these things are not on the agenda and won' t be discussed that time . I think it might be easier to get this thing — actually implemented and working if you'd create a second form that comes with the packet. Olsen : We had a list going . I remember getting that list before I left. Erhart: What you need to do though is to get into the habit of having this form, all the items that we' re currently working on listed on that — and then you have last action and required action. You' re not going to change everything on every meeting . What you do is you just get in the habit. Make a form up and it always comes out with this. Each time we — can review what the issues are. The old business we' re working on. It says on there hey, this is the actions because we don ' t know. Everybody' s got full time jobs including you guys , it doesn ' t relate necessarily to all these things all the time. What it does is it keeps you focused on — those things so you don' t lose them. When we actually address one of those things, then you just change a little notation in there that the next action of the next item or something . — Conrad : You were going to compueterize that weren ' t you Steve? Ellson : If nothing else , that matrix was like the greatest thing I ever saw in my life. I love it. Erhart : That kind of thing . — Olsen : We won' t go into details. We compiled that list for you to keep and then we would be adding any new ones on there. — Emmings : It only has to be a list . We may or may not have them. It ' s hard to keep track of pieces of paper but we should have it in front of us everytime. Erhart : Everytime these get mailed out , that list should be updated . If nothing else, at least the list be updated . — Hanson: The special projects or the developments? Emmings: All of the things that we' ve said. . . Hanson : But you' re not talking about the developments? Erhart: No, no. These are the zoning issues. The one we want to add tonight I think we have to very seriously have to look at this townhouse standard thing. I 'm real concerned about townhouses with one car garages . — Ellson : I 'm concerned that we ' re going to wait and not act on it today but wait until we get a thing and then we've got this 140 one and we won' t — have anything enacted by then so can ' t we at least send some signals of what we' re planning to have it be? What always happens is that yes, we think this is a problem but we won' t apply it to that one yet because Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 1989 - Page 33 there' s not a standard and by then we' ve got 4 or 5 that aren' t what we'd like. Erhart : Jo Ann, in the previous zoning ordinance we had , what was the Nom highest density we had in that ordinance? Do you remember? Wasn' t it 8? Olsen : Or 10. Erhart : 12 was new because I remember when we went through this ordinance change, we had a lot of heated discussion about whether 12 was really something that the City wants and boy looking at that proposal in here last time, the real gut hit is it' s simply too much. Maybe an apartment. Steve and I were looking at the ordinance and maybe what we ought to think about is looking at R-12 and saying that ' s apartments. Not townhomes . Emmings : No ones ever going to be able to come in and say we' re entitled to R-12 zoning for townhomes here because they' re always going to need zero lot lines and we' re always going to have to make it a PUD aren' t we? Right now we don' t have any zero lot line provisions. They can' t come in and say here' s our townhome plan and we' ve scaled it to R-12 . They can' t do it. They could do it but . . . Erhart : In our standards just say that townhouse density the maximum is 8 or 9 or something but 12, I just don' t think makes it. Olsen : They could still choose to go with the PUD though. Erhart: Yes, but we could still limit it. Emmings: But we don' t have to approve a PUD. Erhart: We don' t have to approve it and particular if we have standards on density. Conrad : There' s nothing wrong with 12 or 15. I could have gone, increased the density to 20 as long as, I 'm not too concerned about how people are stacked together if they want to live stacked together . I 'm more concerned with how that fits in the neighborhood and also the green space around it. You can still keep open space but I don' t think what we saw last week was any example. It really takes an intent to allow some lower income housing and multiples in and all of a sudden we are kind of , - we' re going away from some very philosophic directions that the City has and it' s a problem. - Emmings moved , Ellson seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10: 00 p.m. . Submitted by Steve Hanson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim