The URL can be used to link to this page

03-6-96 Agenda and Packet FILE AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, MARCH 6, 1996, 7:30 P.M. CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE 6:30 P.M.- WORK SESSION-INTERVIEW FOR VACANCIES CALL TO ORDER OLD BUSINESS 1. Preliminary plat approval to subdivide 1.22 acres into 2 single family lots and a variance to allow a 10' private drive located on property zoned RSF, Residential Single Family and located at 8508 Great Plains Blvd., Ted Slather, Slather Addition. 2. Consider site plan review approval of a retail building of 8,321 sq. ft. and a parking lot setback variance on property zoned PUD, and located on Lots 2 and 3,Block 1, Market Square,Market Square 3 Partners, Inc.,Amcon Corporation. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Preliminary plat approval to subdivide 11.8 acres into 23 single family lots located on property zoned RSF, Residential Single Family and located west of Stratford Ridge and north of the Oaks of Minnewashta, Oak Ridge of Minnewashta, Greg Hahn. 4. Comprehensive Plan Use Amendment from Office/Industrial to Residential High Density. The applicant is also requesting Conceptual Planned Unit Development approval for a mixed medium density residential and commercial project on property located north of Lyman Boulevard and south of the Twin Cities and Western Railroad tracks, the Village at Bluff Creek,D. R. Horton, Inc. 5. Amendment to Section 20-482 of the City Code regarding removal or alteration of vegetation in the Shoreland District. 6. Amendment to Section 20-1255 (9) temporary development signs; Section 20-1301(2) area identification signs; and Section 20-1 Definitions. NEW BUSINESS APPROVAL OF MINUTES CITY COUNCIL UPDATE ONGOING ITEMS OPEN DISCUSSION ADJOURNMENT NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 10:30 p.m.as outlined in official by-laws. We will make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda. If,however,this does not appear to be possible,the Chair person will notify those present and offer rescheduling options. Items thus pulled from consideration will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting. 1. C I TY 0 F PC DATE: 2/21/96 �- CHANHASS ` • E N CC DATE: 3/25/96 \�1 r CASE#: 93-3 SUB By: Rask:v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Preliminary plat approval to subdivide 1.22 into three (3)two (2) single family lots, Slather Addition I— LOCATION: 8508 Great Plains Blvd. Thepropertyis located on the west side of Great Plains Q Blvd. APPLICANT: Ted Slather Owner: Don Slather a_ 4425 Chatsworth 8508 Great Plains Blvd. Shoreview,MN 55126 Chanhassen,MN 55317 486-7015 492-3239 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Single Family Residential ACREAGE: 1.22 acres DENSITY: 246 1.64 units per acre ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- Lake Susan,RD-Recreational Development S- RSF,Residential Single Family,Future Highway 212 E - PUD, Planned Unit Development, Mission Hills W-RSF, Residential Single Family n WATER AND SEWER: Available to thero p perty. Jj PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The lot has approximately 70 feet of lake frontage. A number of pine trees are located on the eastern end of the lot with a variety of trees along the bluff. A single family home is currently located near the center of the lot. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential-Low Density Itiee t �v I �� 1 GH41111rdiatiA,'..4A'ilii* II. eit 011 hitta ram PIA la vow A lipP ••• IL! 4nilimillift tn � O usArfitio it-44„„,,vkla,ri ,„„. 1. ... • re rsPr , -A 4 ,-41-, IN th ktrat 4 1 e g Ott I li 1111 NICHOLAS,1 I %%%%%% s, K. it rl::?) illo T.,„, .,,,„,,„, .,,....., .4.,,, ,,,,,„:. ...n. ._LT,ffififfl;n1 , .)11).(i 4'(`,-; - ski..r3 ir IN rillrlij rig4/21V 410 MI IC ii1 ��1 �� i0:V �� 111111111111111111 � aNiii Hum ,- .-„of,oth.. 27"/l 111 ..- :. RO•D - DRIVE Jlir 113. i eljart' i MP HIGFIWAY J !�` :: :,rr::. A 1 IL r.:=1-1. Sac• - . / 1 ::::11.:4411:11:11:71:14:W*P \40411 PARA' F : i'" tV'S‘ ie t1:: MI ;AV :.7in -AM t 2 vii ei 1. , ,,, \\i,,g, il :.1•••:- a. .0;AI& EBBE •- (n -:111SSS( ' �"111,� \`;� '-.s.--a r=- 101044,,��.��MA E SVT) • �� RS SUFFUL . r ©a _ _ _ L A �� v :��; —— SINNEN KE lgo ! IftIt ': 1, wPARK LAKE SUSAN 1'Y i, > �as . ow /1 / I-MISSION HI �.� �./ /, /�_ � .. ._ . DRIVE RIC Iq 111 / . 2 PRISCO - OUR i,. . Sqn etilk WIPP MIA --- --- 0 .1)2,, ili .t ' Eir 17A40111M1610." ,.___,_ ,, RiV ‘v./ , acti? 1311 _.:______ "WIMP�V If t; ti V ‹).4? K di- milk �;.i,it � �++� FM l al I ill it are* 5.0‘ IA* 411111M /MISSION ,(7./.1.1. not& RSHLATR N s:r:� `_ MI'''''''''' 'O, h 1--- HILLS ',, TR4l ix WAY ,: •\«�44 •� HILLS • '1, dit. „ 11'�� •,_- WEST ,6 � � !AS -' 1►�!• --------- I'C.”. ' go P` �� Vt, me ___)// ' CUR pG „POSE r gerdARV Valk ( 4 PIS Odft_at 17 - \---- i air4 "``�0C,`, `s . j .' ()POND LYMAN �� LoMAN ., 44► �, 2`, �" ; 1---- - e QOULE\AP° iti Esl, . _ �,.,�� 1100-...*(4. _ . E VA R - 4---J (c•!-T----1.8J._ �i Slather Addition February 21, 1996 Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE The applicant submitted revised plans showing two lots. Both lots meet the minimum width, depth, area, and impervious surface requirements of the zoning and subdivision regulations. Lots 1 and 2 are 33,272 and 20,003 square feet, respectively. At the direction of the Planning Commission, the applicant was to examine the possibility of reducing the driveway width to preserve the row of pines at the southeast corner of the property. The applicant is proposing a ten (10) foot wide driveway located along the easterly property line. A thirty (30) foot driveway easement is being proposed. Discussion has occurred between the applicant,Mr. Gilman,and staff concerning the use of a shared private driveway to serve the Slather property and the future subdivision of the Gilman property. At this time, it does not appear that an agreement can be reached concerning a shared driveway. However, Mr. Slather and Mr. Gilman have agreed to use a ten foot wide drive at this time, and if, or when, Mr. Gilman subdivides his lot, a common driveway could be expanded to twenty (20) feet to serve both properties. If this is the desired course of action among the neighbors,the necessary easements should be recorded along with the plat. Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat for two lots and a variance to permit a ten (10) foot wide driveway, provided that no more than two homes are served by the driveway. The Fire Marshal reviewed the revised plan and found them to be in compliance with applicable fire code. Given the relatively close proximity to Trunk Highway 101 and the driveway serving only two homes, the City's Fire Marshal is comfortable with deviating from the private driveway requirement of a 20-foot wide driveway. A ten foot wide driveway would allow for the preservation of the pine trees and other trees located along the existing driveway. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval to subdivide an existing 1.22 acre parcel into three two lots. All4hree The two lots meet the minimum width, depth, and area requirement of the zoning ordinance. Lot 3 2 is a riparian lot and is 20,003 square feet. nota-option. Slather Addition February 21, 1996 Page 3 Staff recommends that the applicant revise the plat to reduce the number of lots from three to two. It appears that one lot could be created to the north of the existing home along the lakeshore, with the second lot incorporating the existing home and road frontage. Eliminating a lot would also decrease the impacts to tree loss and reduce the amount of impervious surface and grading. Staff would recommend against a variance to exceed the maximum hard surface coverage. Maintaining a lower amount of impervious surface is especially critical along lakeshore property. Decreasing the amount of natural vegetation increases the amount of untreated stormwater entering the lake. Maintaining the natural vegetation helps to treat and remove pollutants and sediments from stormwater. The properties located on both sides of the Slather parcel have subdivision potential. The applicant may wish to consider combining his parcel with the neighboring property to the east, or make use of a shared private street that would be located partly on the Slather property and partly on the neighboring property. Currently, the Slather and Gilman properties have private driveways which run along a common lot line. Running a private street over the two driveways would reduced the impervious surface on both lots, and may provide further subdivision potential for both properties. Without sharing a private street, both lots would need to make use of separate private streets to further subdivide. This holds true for a majority of the properties located between Lake Susan and Great Plains Blvd. Staff examined the feasibility of locating a public street on these parcels. Due to the shallow lot depths, narrow parcels, location of the lake, and the future status of Great Plains Blvd. as a frontage road, a public street is not feasible. A looped street is not workable and individual cul-de-sacs are not feasible as they would eliminate the subdivision of various parcels. Further, a public street would provide little benefit because only a limited number of homes could be served by these cul- de-sacs. Therefore, private streets appear to be the most feasible alternative in providing for future access and subdivision of these lots. Staff recommends that the preliminary plat be approved for two lots subject to the conditions provided in the staff report. The common section of the private street would need to meet the private street standards,with the exception of the driveway width. BACKGROUND The 1.22 acre lot is an unplatted parcel of land located along Lake Susan. The majority of parcels along this section of the lakeshore are unplatted and have subdivision potential. In 1992, a lot split occurred on a parcel to the north. A 1.5 acre parcel owned by Eugene Klein was subdivided into two lots. Both lots were riparian lots which had adequate street frontage. The lot depth did not allow for further subdivision beyond the two lots. Slather Addition February 21, 1996 Page 4 STREETS/ACCESS The revised plans propose on utilizing the existing 10-foot wide driveway. Given the relatively close proximity to Trunk Highway 101 and the driveway serving only two homes,the City's Fire Marshal is comfortable with deviating from the private driveway requirement of a 20-foot wide driveway. Staff still recommends that the driveway be paved. A cross access easement will be necessary for ingress and egress to Lot 2. The revised plans have relocated the driveway for Lot 2 away from the existing home to the east (Gilman). A driveway easement will be required over the northerly 20 feet of Lot 1 to maintain access. The plans propose on dedicating the southerly 31+ feet of the parcel for street right-of-way (Great Plains Boulevard/Trunk Highway 101). No additional right-of-way is required. When Trunk Highway 101 is upgraded the existing Trunk Highway 101 will be used as a frontage road to service the site. Traffic concerns at that time will diminish somewhat. LANDSCAPING/TREE PRESERVATION Based on information provided by the applicant, existing canopy coverage is 27,234 square feet, or 51 percent coverage of the site. Remaining coverage after development will be 24,113 square feet, or 45 percent coverage. The required canopy coverage for a low density development is 35 percent. The significant trees on Lot 3 2 appear to be outside of the construction limits. However, a proposed sanitary sewer service will dissect the rear yard and sever the roots of several trees. The applicant must submit a tree removal plan showing proposed tree protection fencing. GRADING With the elimination of one lot even less grading is needed to prepare the site for development. Slather Addition February 21, 1996 Page 5 The existing gravel driveway is proposed to be ten feet wide to avoid impacting the existing pine trees. No grading plan has been submitted. Staff is assuming the proposed dwelling will be rambler and/or rambler/lookout style home. Individual grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plans will be required by the City with the building permit application for Lot 2. The applicant shall prepare a development plan prior to final plat consideration for staff to review and approve. The development plan shall indicate the building type suited for the lot along with the proposed lowest floor, top of block and garage floor elevations. DRAINAGE The site basically sheet drains in each direction. Only a minimal increase in runoff is anticipated with the additional impervious surface from rooftops and driveways. Due to the small size of the development, no storm drainage improvements are recommended except for drainage swales around the home on Lot 2 to direct runoff from the driveway. The existing neighborhood drainage pattern will be maintained as it exists today. The City's Surface Water Management Plan(SWMP) does not propose any storm drainage improvements on the site. Therefore, the applicant shall be responsible for the applicable storm water quality and quantity connection fees. Based on single-family development,the water quality connection fee is $800 per acre and $1,980 per acre for water quantity. The SWMP does exclude existing homes or developments from these fees. Therefore, Lot 1 is exempt from the Surface Water Management fees. Applying the single-family development rate to the remaining 0.46 acres (Lot 2) equates to $368 for the water quality connection charge and$911 for the water quantity connection charge. These fees are payable to the City prior to recording of the final plat. UTILITIES Municipal utility service is available to the site. A 12-inch water line exists along the east side of Great Plains Boulevard(Trunk Highway 101). One water service has already been extended across Great Plains Boulevard to the property line for the existing house. One additional water line will need to be extended to service Lot 2. Due to the great distance between Lot 2 and the existing watermain, a 11/4-inch or 1 Y2-inch diameter water line will be necessary. Extension of the water service will require a permit from MnDOT for work within the Trunk Highway 101 right-of-way. The existing residence is connected to sanitary sewer but not City water. The home still utilizes a well system. This well may be continued to be used until the well fails,then the well must be abandoned in accordance with City and State Health Department codes and the existing home connected to City water. Slather Addition February 21, 1996 Page 6 A 12-inch sanitary sewer trunk line runs along the west lot line of Lot 2. The plans propose on extending two sewer services from the existing trunk line to service Lots 1 and 2. The new lot (2)will be subject to hook-up and connection charges for connecting to the City's sewer system. These fees are paid at time of building permit issuance. Currently, connection charges are $3,500 per unit and hook-up charges are $1,050 per unit. The plans propose on extending a new sewer line along the north property line for the existing home. Staff recommends that the exact alignment be determined in the field to minimize tree loss. The appropriate private utility easement should then be prepared based on the new alignment. Special construction techniques may need to be employed to minimize the potential of foundation damage to the Gilman residence given the location of existing house. COMPLIANCE TABLE BLOCK LOT AREA (SQ. FT.) FRONTAGE DEPTH 1 1 33,272 153 308 1 4 2 20,003 103 240 FINDINGS 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential Single Family District. 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable plans. 3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions specified in this report. Further, reducing the impervious surface will improve the quantity and quality of storm water drainage. Slather Addition February 21, 1996 Page 7 4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure and the necessary conditions added to ensure compliance with applicable requirements. 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage subject to conditions if approved. The site contains a wooded bluff along the shoreline. Minimum setback from the bluff shall be maintained. Vegetation removal shall be prohibited in this area. 6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record. Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements. 7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. b. Lack of adequate roads. c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. Finding: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban infrastructure. A private drive will provide access to the interior lot. The subdivision meets the necessary conditions for the use of a private street. Section 18-57(o) states that private streets may serve up to four (4) lots in the RSF district if the city finds the following conditions to exist: 1. The prevailing development pattern makes in unfeasible or inappropriate to construct a public street. In making this determination, the city may consider the location of existing property lines and homes, local or geographic conditions and the existence of wetlands. 2. After reviewing the surrounding area, it is concluded that an extension of the public street system is not required to serve other parcels in the area, Slather Addition February 21, 1996 Page 8 improve access,or to provide a street system consistent with the comprehensive plan. 3. The use of a private street will permit enhanced protection of the city's natural resources including wetlands and forested areas. Finding: Staff finds that the prevailing development pattern and the size of the lots makes it inappropriate to construct a public street. A public street system is not required to serve other parcels in the area or improve access. In addition, the use of a private street will permit enhanced protection of the city's natural resources. Staff recommends approval of a driveway variance to permit a ten(10) foot driveway to further allow for the protection of trees. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for two lots (Sub#96-3), Slather Addition, and a variance from Section 18-57 (o) Private Street Standards subject to the plans dated February 28, 1996 and the following conditions: 1. Individual grading, drainage,tree removal and erosion control plans will be required by the City with building permit application for Lot 2. 2. No more than two (2) homes shall be served by the ten (10) foot wide private street. The driveway may be expanded to twenty feet in the future to provide access to other parcels subject to city ordinances and approval. 3. The applicant shall prepare a development plan prior to final plat consideration. The development plan shall indicate the building type, and lowest floor,top of block and garage floor elevations for each lot. 4. The exact alignment of the sanitary sewer service for Lot 1 (existing home) shall be determined in the field. The applicant shall then prepare a private easement agreement for the sanitary sewer and water lines which encroach each lot. 5. The applicant shall provide a private driveway easement over the northerly 20 feet of Lot 1 for access to Lot 2. Slather Addition February 21, 1996 Page 9 6. The existing dwelling on Lot 1 may continue to use the well until the well system fails. At that time the well must be properly abandoned in accordance with City and State Health Department codes and the existing home then connected to city water. 7. The existing pines along Trunk Highway 101 shall be trimmed back to improve sight lines. The existing driveway shall be paved. Cross-access and maintenance agreements will need to be prepared and recorded against the lots. 8. Full park and trail fees shall be paid at the time of building permit approval in the amount in force at the time of building permit application. 9. The applicant shall comply with the conditions recommended by the DNR as stated in the letter from Joe Richter dated February 7, 1996. 10. The applicant shall be responsible for SWMP water quality and water quantity connection charges in the amount of$368 and $911, respectively. These fees are payable to the City prior to recording the final plat. 11. Lot 2 will be subject to a sanitary sewer hook-up and connection charge and water connection and hook-up charges in accordance with current city ordinance at time of building permit issuance." ATTACHMENTS: 1. Memo from Dave Hempel,Assistant City Engineer dated February 28, 1996 2. Memo from Dave Hempel,Assistant City Engineer dated February 13, 1996 3. Memo from Steve Kirchman, Building Official dated February 8, 1996 4. Memo from Mark Littfm, Fire Marshal dated January 26, 1996 5. Memo from Joe Richter,DNR Hydrologist dated February 7, 1996 6. Application from Ted Slather dated January 18, 1996 7. Letter from George Gilman dated February 13, 1996 8. Letter from Brad and Carol Wilimsen dated February 19, 1996 7. Preliminary plat. CITY of s. i e CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 L (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: John Rask,Planner I • FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer—D1 Y DATE: February 28, 1996 SUBJ: Review of Revised Preliminary Plat for Slather Addition Land Use Review File No. 96-5 Upon review of the revised preliminary plat prepared by Advance Surveying and Engineering, I offer the following comments and recommendations: GRADING With the elimination of one lot even less grading is needed to prepare the site for development. The existing gravel driveway is proposed to be ten feet wide to avoid impacting the existing pine trees. No grading plan has been submitted. Staff is assuming the proposed dwellings will be rambler and/or rambler/lookout style homes. Individual grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plans will be required by the City with the building permit application for Lots 1 and 2. The applicant shall prepare a development plan prior to final plat consideration for staff to review and approve. The development plan shall indicate the building type suited for the lot along with the proposed lowest floor, top of block and garage floor elevations. DRAINAGE The site basically sheet drains in each direction. Only a minimal increase in runoff is anticipated with the additional impervious surface from rooftops and driveways. Due to the small size of the development, no storm drainage improvements are recommended except for drainage swales around the home on Lot 2 to direct runoff from the driveway. The existing neighborhood drainage pattern will be maintained as it exists today. The City's Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) does not propose any storm drainage improvements on the site. Therefore,the applicant shall be responsible for the applicable storm water quality and quantity connection fees. Based on single-family development, the water quality connection fee is$800 per acre and $1,980 per acre for water quantity. The SWMP does exclude existing homes or developments from these fees. Therefore, Lot 1 is exempt from the Surface Water Management fees. Applying the single-family development rate to the remaining John Rask Revised Slather Addition PPR February 28, 1996 Page 2 0.46 acres (Lot 2) equates to $368 for the water quality connection charge and $911 for the water quantity connection charge. These fees are payable to the City prior to recording of the final plat. UTILITIES Municipal utility service is available to the site. A 12-inch water line exists along the east side of Great Plains Boulevard (Trunk Highway 101). One water service has already been extended across Great Plains Boulevard to the property line for the existing house. One additional water line will need to be extended to service Lot 2. Due to the great distance between Lot 2 and the existing watermain, a 11/4-inch or 11/2-inch diameter water line will be necessary. Extension of the water service will require a permit from MnDOT for work within the Trunk Highway 101 right- of-way. The existing residence is connected to sanitary sewer but not City water. The home still utilizes a well system. This well may be continued to be used until the well fails,then the well must be abandoned in accordance with City and State Health Department codes and the existing home connected to City water. A 12-inch sanitary sewer trunk line runs along the west lot line of Lot 2. The plans propose on extending two sewer services from the existing trunk line to service Lots 1 and 2. The new lot(2) will be subject to hook-up and connection charges for connecting to the City's sewer system. These fees are paid at time of building permit issuance. Currently, connection charges are $3,500 per unit and hook-up charges are$1,050 per unit. The plans propose on extending a new sewer line along the north property line for the existing home. Staff recommends that the exact alignment be determined in the field to minimize tree loss. The appropriate private utility easement should then be prepared based on the new alignment. Special construction techniques may need to be employed to minimize the potential of foundation damage to the Gillman residence given the location of existing house. STREETS The revised plans propose on utilitizing the existing 10-foot wide driveway. Given the relatively close proximity to Trunk Highway 101 and the driveway serving only two homes, the City's fire marshal is comfortable with deviating from the private driveway requirement of a 20-foot wide driveway. Staff still recommends that the driveway be paved. A cross access easement will be necessary for ingress and egress to Lot 2. The revised plans have relocated the driveway for Lot 2 away from the existing home to the east (Gillman). A driveway easement will be required over the northerly 20 feet of Lot 1 to maintain access. John Rask Revised Slather Addition PPR February 28, 1996 Page 3 The plans propose on dedicating the southerly 31±feet of the parcel for street right-of-way (Great Plains Boulevard/Trunk Highway 101). No additional right-of-way is required. When Trunk Highway 101 is upgraded the existing Trunk Highway 101 will be used a frontage road to service the site. Traffic concerns at that time will diminish somewhat. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Individual grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plans will be required by the City with building permit application for Lot 2. 2. The applicant shall prepare a development plan prior to final plat consideration. The development plan shall indicate the building type, and lowest floor, top of block and garage floor elevations for each lot. 3. The exact alignment of the sanitary sewer service for Lot 1 (existing home) shall be determined in the field. The applicant shall then prepare a private easement agreement for the sanitary sewer and water lines which encroach each lot. • 4. The applicant shall provide a private driveway easement over the northerly 20 feet of Lot 1 for access to Lot 2. 5. The existing dwelling on Lot 1 may continue to use the well until the well system fails. At that time the well must be properly abandoned in accordance with City and State Health Department codes and the existing home then connected to City water. 6. The applicant shall be responsible for SWMP water quality and water quantity connection charges in the amount of$368 and$911,respectively. These fees are payable to the City prior to recording the final plat. 7. The existing pines along Trunk Highway 101 shall be trimmed back to improve sight lines. The existing gravel driveway shall be paved. Cross-access and maintenance agreements will need to be prepared and recorded against the lots. 8. Lot 2 will be subject to a sanitary sewer hook-up and connection charge and water connection and hook-up charges in accordance with current city ordinance at time of building permit issuance. ktm/jms c: Charles Folch, Director of Public Works g:'.cng\dave'c\sl ather.rev _. CITY OF i __ ,., ,. ., 0 CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: John Rask,Planner I FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer t DATE: February 13, 1996 SUBJ: Review of Preliminary Plat for Slather Addition-Land Use Review File No. 96-5 Upon review of the preliminary plat prepared by Advance Surveying and Engineering dated January 19, 1996, I offer the following comments and recommendations: GRADING Due to the size of this parcel very little site grading is anticipated to prepare the site for development. The existing gravel driveway will need to be expanded to 20 feet wide,thus resulting in the loss of many of the pine trees along the south side of the driveway. Since no grading plan has been submitted, staff is assuming the proposed dwellings on Lots 1 and 3 will be rambler and/or rambler/lookout style homes. Individual grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plans will be required by the City with the building permit application for Lots 1 and 3. The applicant shall prepare a development plan prior to final plat consideration for staff to review and approve. The development plan shall indicate the building type suited for the lot along with the proposed lowest floor, top of block and garage floor elevations. DRAINAGE The site basically sheet drains in each direction. Only a minimal increase in runoff is anticipated with the additional impervious surface from rooftops and driveways. Due to the small size of the development,no storm drainage improvements are recommended except for drainage swales around the homes on Lots 1 and 3 to direct runoff from the driveway. The existing neighborhood drainage pattern will be maintained as it exists today. The City's Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) does not propose any storm drainage improvements on the site. Therefore, the applicant shall be responsible for the applicable storm John Rask Slather Addition PPR February 13, 1996 Page 2 water quality and quantity connection fees. Based on single-family development,the water quality connection fee is $800 per acre and$1,980 per acre for water quantity. The SWMP does exclude existing homes or developments. Therefore,Lot 2 is exempt from the Surface Water Management fees. Applying the single-family development rate to the remaining 0.84 acres (Lots 1 and 3) equates to$672 for the water quality connection charge and$1,663 for the water quantity connection charge. These fees are payable to the City prior to recording of the final plat. UTILITIES Municipal utility service is available to the site. A 12-inch water line exists along the east side of Great Plains Boulevard (Trunk Highway 101). One water service has already been extended across Great Plains Boulevard to the property line for the existing house. Two additional water lines will also need to be extended to service the two newly created lots. Due to the great distance between Lot 3 and the existing watermain, a 11/4-inch or 11/2-inch diameter water line will be necessary. Extension of the water service will require a permit from MnDOT for work within the Trunk Highway 101 right-of-way. The existing residence is connected to sanitary sewer but not City water. The home still utilizes a well system. This well may be continued to be used until the well fails,then the well must be abandoned in accordance with City and State Health Department codes and the existing home connected to City water. An 12-inch sanitary sewer trunk line runs along the west lot line of Lot 3. The plans propose on extending two sewer services from the existing trunk line to service Lots 1 and 3. Given the likelihood that the parcel to the north (Gillman) also has a potential of subdividing in the future, it would be prudent to extend an 8-inch sanitary lateral line from the trunk main along the northerly lot line of Lot 3 to service this development and the Gillman parcel in the future. This would eliminate three additional cut-ins to the City's trunk sanitary sewer line. It is also advantageous from a maintenance standpoint. The 8-inch lateral sewer line will become owned and maintained by the City versus the property owners. The applicant would be entitled to recover a portion of the costs of this 8-inch lateral line when the Gillman parcel subdivides and connects to the system. The City will collect a connection charge from those parcels which connect to the system and then refund a portion of this connection charge back to the developer. Currently, connection charges are$3,500 per unit for sanitary sewer. Each new lot(Lots 1 and 3) will also be subject to a hook- up charge for the sanitary sewer line (1,050/unit). Detailed construction plans of the sanitary and water systems will be required in conjunction with final plat approval. The construction plans and specifications shall be prepared in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide a financial security to guarantee the installation of the public John Rask Slather Addition PPR February 13, 1996 Page 3 improvements and conditions of approval. A drainage and utility easement will also be required on the final plat over these utility lines. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. STREETS A gravel driveway accesses the site via Great Plains Boulevard (Trunk Highway 101). The driveway is also immediately adjacent to the Gillman's driveway. The driveway accesses onto Trunk Highway 101 at a location which has some sight line difficulties. Existing pine trees south of the driveway along Trunk Highway 101 should be trimmed back to improve sight lines to the south. As a result of this development the existing driveway will have to be expanded and paved to meet the City's private street ordinance. This will result in the loss of several of the pine trees on the south side of the driveway. In accordance with the City's Fire Marshal,a turnaround may also be required on Lots 2 and 3. A cross-access and maintenance agreement will need to be prepared and recorded for access to the lots. The plans propose on dedicating the easterly 30 feet of the parcel for street right-of-way(Great Plains Boulevard/Trunk Highway 101). No additional right-of-way is required. When Trunk Highway 101 is upgraded the existing Trunk Highway 101 will be used a frontage road to service the site. Traffic concerns at that time will diminish somewhat. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Individual grading,drainage,tree removal and erosion control plans will be required by the City with building permit application. 2. The applicant shall prepare a development plan prior to final plat consideration. The development plan shall indicate the building type, and lowest floor, top of block and garage floor elevations for each lot. 3. The applicant shall be responsible for extending sewer and water service to the parcel. The applicant may be entitle to be refunded a portion of the cost of the 8-inch lateral sewer line when the property to the north (Gillman) subdivides and connects to this system. The applicant's refund will be a portion of the cost for extending a sanitary sewer lateral line to the development divided the number of lots benefiting from the parcel. The applicant shall also prepare detailed construction plans in accordance to the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Final construction plans and specifications shall be formally approved by the City Council in conjunction with final plat approval. John Rask Slather Addition PPR February 13, 1996 Page 4 4. A drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated on the final plat over the utility lines. The easement shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. 5. The existing dwelling on Lot 2 may continue to use the well until the well system fails. At that time the well must be properly abandoned in accordance with City and State Health Department codes and the existing home then connected to City water. 6. The applicant shall be responsible for SWMP water quality and water quantity connection charges in the amount of$672 and$1,663, respectively. These fees are payable to the City prior to recording the final plat. 7. The existing pines along Trunk Highway 101 shall be trimmed back to improve sight lines. The existing gravel driveway will have to be expanded and paved to meet the City's private street ordinance. Cross-access and maintenance agreements will need to be prepared and recorded against the lots. 8. Lots 1 and 3 will be subject to sanitary sewer hook-up charges and water connection and hook-up charges at time of building permit application. ktm c: Charles Folch,Director of Public Works g:'eng'dave'Qc\siather.doc CITY QF CHANHASSEN \ - 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: John Rask,Planner I FROM: Steve A.Kirchman,Building Official DATE: February 8, 1996 SUBJECT: 96-3 SUB(Slather Addition,Ted Slather) I was asked to review the site plan proposal stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN, RECEIVED, JAN 19 1996, CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT. " for the above referenced project. I have no comments or recommendations concerning this application at this time. Osafetykak1/2memos\planWather.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN \ - 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: John Rask,Planner I FROM: Mark Littfin,Fire Marshal DATE: January 26, 1996 SUBJ: Plat approval for subdivision-Slather Addition Ted Slather, 8508 Great Plains Boulevard Planning Case: 96-3 SUB. I have reviewed the site plan for the above project. In order to comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division,I have the following fire code or city ordinance/policy requirements. The site plan review is based on the available information submitted at this time. As additional plans or changes are submitted,the appropriate code or policy items will be addressed. 1. The proposed 20 foot wide paved driveway must be given a street name. Submit street name to the Fire Marshal for approval. ML.:eb g:/safery/ml/pIan96.3 �nn��STATEnnOF l UPJ LIV r ©'ErZz\ DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES METRO WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106 PHONE NO. 772-7910 FILE NO. February 7, 1996 Mr. John Rask, Planner I City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Slather Addition, Lake Susan (10-13P), City of Chanhassen, Carver County (City #96-3 SUB) Dear Mr. Rask: We have reviewed the site plans(received January 26, 1996)for the Slather Addition(SW 1/4 SW 1/4 Section 13, T 116N, R23 W) at 8508 Great Plains Boulevard and have the following comments to offer: 1. Lake Susan, a Public Water(10-13P), is on the proposed site. The applicant should be aware that activity below the ordinary high water(OHW) elevation of 881.8' (NGVD, 1929) for Lake Susan, that alters the bed of the lake, is under the jurisdiction of the DNR and may require a DNR permit. 2. The OHW of 881.8' (NGVD, 1929) for Lake Susan (10-13P) should be noted on the plat. Since Section 20-47-9(c)(4)of the Chanhassen Shoreland Ordinance requires that only land above the OHW shall be used to meet the lot area standards, and lot width standards must be met at the OHW and the building line, the location of the OHW should be shown on plats. Although it is the top of bluff setback that is most restrictive in this case, the OHW location is also needed to verify structure setbacks are met. 3. The proposed plan does not indicate how the stormwater will be managed. If a stormsewer is proposed for the subdivision,then the water should be treated before it is released to Lake Susan. If the stormwater will flow overland to Lake Susan, then the vegetation within the shore impact zone should be left natural and unmowed. The unmowed vegetation will act as a filter that will remove most of the pollutants from the stormwater. 4. A FEMA designated floodplain exists for Lake Susan. While it appears that the structures will not be within the 100-year floodplain of Lake Susan, the City should be sure that the applicant is aware of the applicable floodplain regulations of both the City and t c c Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District. FEB 0 8 1996 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER CITY OF CHANHASSEN Mr. John Rask February 7, 1996 Page 2 5. Lake Susan has a shoreland classification of Recreational Development. The shoreland district extends 1000 feet from the OHW. The development must be consistent with City shoreland management regulations. In particular: a. A bluff occurs close to Lake Susan. The homeowner should be informed that Section 20-482 of the Chanhassen Shoreland Ordinance requires bluffs to be undisturbed and structures to be placed at least 30' from the top of the bluff b. Section 20-482, subdivision b2 of the Chanhassen Shoreland Ordinance requires the retention of vegetation and topography in a natural state in the bluff impact zone. The bluff impact zone is an area within 20' of the top of the bluff c. Section 20-485A of the Chanhassen Shoreland Ordinance requires impervious surface to cover less than 25% of the area of each lot. Although we did not use a planimeter, it appears that the impervious surfaces on each of the lots may cover more than 25% of the lot surface. We recommend that impervious surfaces be minimized to avoid increasing negative impacts that the development may have on Lake Susan. d. The structures in the development should be screened from view from Lake Susan using topography, existing vegetation, color, landscaping and other means approved by the city. e. It appears that the riparian lot includes land that is below the OHW of Lake Susan. In general, we are against platting of land below the OHW of Public Waters due to the land's unsuitability for residential use. We recommend that the lot lines be adjusted to allow all of the lots to meet the size requirements without platting land that is below the OHW of Lake Susan. 6. The following comments are general and apply to all proposed developments: a. Appropriate erosion control measures should be taken during the construction period. The guidelines within"Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas - Best Management Practices for Minnesota" or their equivalent should be used. b. If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10,000 gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year, the contractor will need to obtain a DNR appropriations permit. It typically takes approximately 60 days to process the permit application. c. If construction activities disturb more than five acres of land, the contractor must apply for a stormwater permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Dan Sullivan @ 296-7203). Mr. John Rask February 7, 1996 Page 2 d. The comments in this letter address DNR-Division of Waters jurisdictional matters and concerns. These comments should not be construed as DNR support or lack thereof for a particular project. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me at 772-7910 should you have any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, Joe Richter Hydrologist JR/cds c: Robert Obermeyer, Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District Gary Elftmann, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers City of Chanhassen Shoreland File CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: j ?alt/?r OWNER: D '/1 5l6tfii.q.t/` ADDRESS: .14) Cr i GTS ADDRESS: 'b.-0g ecct 06(11,n-c. g1tce, mit2 7--4-72z TELEPHONE (Day time) 4,167 - 70/5- TELEPHONE: /'7 -323'7 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements Interim Use Permit Variance Non-conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development* Zoning Appeal Rezoning _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Notification Sign Site Plan Review* X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost* ($50 CUP/SPRNACNARNVAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) • Subdivision* TOTAL FEE$ 7/-z r? A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application. "Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. *Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2" X 11" reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. ** Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract NOTE-When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME ICZ1-1,cxt^' -r,, LOCATION K.-2 4 -,2 /...,1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION TOTAL ACREAGE /1 3 WETLANDS PRESENT YES X NO PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THIS REQUEST This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review extensions are approved by the applicant. • Signer-of Applicagt Date / Signature of Fee Owner Date eV Application Received on — I U -7(Fee Paid (7�)(i, Receipt No.5.F-,-7(7 The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. ^'"•"'`„`�` l l; . 5 0G, ,e/t I3 G , YID , S53 /7 D.h4-.•.Q__ C �• ss 3 /7 4•-vrt �,i,,t.vZ�L o 2t z i�.•� ..,� -y,�, 1t.� -r�-c.�tiJ /"4111. 1/1 -a - r �t-t� . c /2.,‘-‘732,X7 V , v71,7 !9,3 / 4./ � �'u•-w .4 ez.z . -rte .Q,Z LeX Lt I ice-. e 2 /..< ri c-,.may. -1CfJ &-L L (2) .? 771 y J-&,4 = --ri-.-�k- 0+ 1,4• 1 `.J �' - -x,10�� LArs-c,4-4y ' ktk.t.AH 64.E/ty eek :WU - ,LJ2Q `6 uAriO ' � . -gyp ��.� -L.,t- 4 , ,1r-�D / /Al 4_44 . c. +✓ / ,C C'v.:i Z�u' c%4 7/ __ _ - .-�-1' .1-�t A-k - ..,-•.�... 3 %lL�.� « �. �.� -J' e6 • G--✓t �-.�q 12 t�� ✓e/_,e,e t /L 71=47. JGt y he T=2is-Yc�P /L. CLI7t -777 j14% -e g c>el ' uJ. —�ft2�c� lfJ Gi-r►'LT �'�"� cam- . L � S-, 6/46x-,--;-f •l.i /�-cl/ ✓ C� �iK-�2 / �„�L -� J c-.. i—� Biu- ��13�` ' � ✓e� , , E,( 11;. • '-7,' k f-' --�7ci 4,0 -r-z>0 , . � ee* 4o is' t,v-eA- 4 . .fie , � - _ . eLP . g, � - , y c,cc.v-ru-e0 2 M-0 - - uo � - f k4 , AQ 4t t -e 2 .� \ AJt2 r 7 mit . cow— , Fq a2if c-y,--ey , February 19, 1996 City of Chanhassen PI anning Commission 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Ted Slather Development As a concerned property owner living next to the above named proposed development, I would like to submit a couple of concerns and comments. 1 . Trying to put three lots on that piece of property seems like it would be over-crowded and would definitely take away from the beauty and value of the properties around it. Most of us are living there because of the beauty of nature and the seclusion that the big beautiful lots provide for the neighborhood. We would like to see the neighborhood stay as it is. If this proposed development does pass approval then we would like to make sure the following things as considered. 1 . All property line disputes be settled now, with the developer supplying a new (current) survey. 2. City should verify plan - that all dimensions are correct, all codes and regulations that apply are met. As adjacent property owners, we do not want disputes to come up with new purchasers as lots are sold. Brad and Carol Willmsen 8510 Great Plains Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE 1.22 ACRES INTO 3 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 8508 GREAT PLAINS BLVD, TED SLATHAR, SLATHAR ADDITION. Public Present: Name Address Pam B. 8508 Great Plains Blvd. Don Slathar 8508 Great Plains Blvd. Brad Willmsen 8510 Great Plains Blvd. George Gilman 8506 Great Plains Blvd. Ted & Tris Slathar 4425 Chatsworth, Shoreview Wayne Hultman 8524 Great Plains Blvd. Al Klingelhutz 8600 Great Plains Blvd. Norm Grant 9021 Lake Riley Blvd. John Rask presented the staff iepoit on this item. Mancino: This sounds as if there's three lots right now, that if it goes, if the applicant is not going with two lots, that we may want to see that back and how the lots are split up and what can be done with the private road at that time. Is the applicant here? Do you wish to, thank you. Ted Slathar: My name is Ted Slathar and we're willing to comply with staffs recommendations. We'd like to, our main concern is to save as many trees and I think everybody's concern is that, to save as many trees as we can so we'd like to divide it to where the lot closest to the lakeshore and the parcel and lot... So we'd go with staffs recommendation on... Mancino: On what? Ted Slathar: On this. Mancino: On that specific division, okay. Any other comments on the staff report? Ted Slathar: No. I think that John did a lot better job of presenting this than I could. He handled everything, covered everything and we're willing to comply with everything... 13 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 Mancino: And I take it the property has been in your family for some time. Ted Slathar: Yes, for over 30 years. Mancino: Thank you. Any commissioners have any questions for the applicant at this time? Thank you very much. May I have a motion to open this, and a second, for a public hearing please. Fannakes moved, Meyer seconded to open the public healing. The public healing was opened. Mancino: Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission at this time, please do. Please state your name and address. George Gilman: I'm George Gilman, 8506 Great Plains Blvd. Right next to the Slathar development, or proposed development. My main concern is, if this driveway is put in 20 feet wide starting down...is about 5-6 mature pine trees. They're 30-40 feet high. If the Slathar's agree to go back to 2 lots, which I think they're giving up a lot. Personally I hate seeing anything develop but I didn't make the laws and I got to go along with it. I would suggest that the driveway be left alone, the way it is right now... I measured it out last night. There's 25 feet from my property coming over to the center of the trunk of the trees. The trees could be trimmed up a little bit. The branches and leave the driveway the way it is... blacktop it. Raised it on my side that would keep the water on their side and drain it out towards TH 101. What also could be looked at, if I were to develop in the future, which I don't have any plans for it right now but if development proceeds, sooner or later I'm going to be forced to do it or sell it to somebody that's going to do it. My land, or the new driveway for my development could be pushed against that driveway and if more houses were built in there, I mean there'd be a wider driveway. I know there's concerns for fire trucks getting in there. If somebody had to get in, if they had a fire truck, knock down my fence if they have to. That really doesn't stop a fire truck from getting where they are. It's hard to get up and talk on this because I'm not developing right now and if I were doing a development I'd want three lots on there. The lot on the lake is worth the money. The way I look at development costs, you throw away one lot to pay for what the city wants in there. I like to be fair to my neighbors also and state that here. I could be standing here 3 years from now begging for three lots and I don't like...but it's going to happen. And I didn't buy with that intention. But I would suggest not cutting those trees. I won't object to the driveway coming up against my driveway. It's that way right now and one more house in there, it's not going to bother me. I don't want to see more trees come out of there than what have to. That's about it. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 Mancino: Okay. Thank you for your comments and your letter also. Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission? Brad Willmsen: My name is Brad Willmsen. I live at 8510 Great Plains Boulevard, adjacent to the proposed development. I'd just like to ask if the survey that was used for this development is recent or current. I understand there's some disagreements as to where the property lines, where they are along the lake and...how current that survey is. Mancino: Bob, what does the city, John. Thank you. I mean how do we know that it's a legitimate survey? Rask: Well in this case, we were aware that there has been some disputes. I don't know if there is on this particular lot or not. The survey was prepared by a registered surveyor in the State. What happens is it becomes more of a civil matter between the two. The city's in no position to settle a dispute amongst property owners in this situation. If it doesn't line up, they may have problems recording the plat in each case. If it changes significantly, it could have to come back through. Mancino: Then it comes back and goes through. Rask: If it's a few inches here or there, I don't think we'd have to go through the preliminary plat. Maybe just do an administrative subdivision to settle it so it is something though that the property owners would have to work out amongst themselves. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Anyone else? Seeing none, may I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing please. Meyer moved, Farmakes seconded to close the public hearing. The public hewing was closed. Mancino: Before we start with commissioners, well I'll wait. Don. Mehl: I support the two lot concept. The one that was just shown up there on the overhead. It just looks like it's balanced better. And I support whichever one will result in the fewest trees being removed. I understand that that is the one that will take the fewest trees or am I wrong? Mancino: Will that take less trees? It certainly won't on the way coming into the driveway. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 Rask: Yeah, you'll lose some more from the driveway. It's kind of hard to tell at this point. You would lose a lot of the, if it's a 20 foot driveway, you would lose all of these pines pretty much. You're going to lose a few for the placement of the house pad and the grading of the house pad. If you move the property line back to here to try to put a house in here, you're going to lose almost all the pines and I believe there are some oaks there so it's hard to say. You're going to lose them either way. It's just which trees have to go. This one you do preserve that buffer along TH 101, which is kind of a nice amenity right now. With this one, because of the bluff, the setback requirement from the top of the bluff, in our current ordinances they would not be allowed to remove vegetation in that area so those trees would be preserved along the shoreline there. So it's hard to say which one's worst but they both have pros and cons. Mancino: And we can certainly off the suggestion of a variance for the driveway being 20 feet also. I mean there are different options, and just have two houses. Mehl: Yeah, I would support that concept. I like the buffer of TH 101 being maintained if we can. Mancino: Jeff. Farmakes: No further comments. I'm for the staff's recommendation. Mancino: Bob. Skubic: I have a question of John. If we approve the two lot plat here, would the applicant still be able to divide the, further subdivide in the future? Rask: Yeah. They would still be over on that impervious surface requirement so, I wouldn't say no. If they went in a combined development with one of the adjoining neighbors where they shared access or something, it could be possible that in the future they would get one more lot. But at this time, no. They would not be able to further subdivide. Skubic: Unless they got a variance. Aanenson: Unless they got some relief from the ordinance, correct. Skubic: Thank you. I have nothing further to add. Mancino: Mike. Craig. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 Peterson: John, if you could put up the slide again. I guess I'm a little confused as to where the, if we do two lots, where the pads... Rask: Yeah. On this one the house pad would remain as shown on the lake lot. On the riparian lot there and then this is the existing home so the home, these two lots would be combined so the home would sit on this larger lot here. The other option here, again these are all, we're trying to preserve the existing home. This would be a lot. You could possibly shift this house pad further to the north to make it fit in there better but we're still pretty limited because of the setback, as far as where they could go and then the existing house would sit on Lot 2 here which would be all of this so there would be nothing additional between the house and the lake. So you just move this one up slightly. Peterson: Are you recommending the first or are you recommending the change? Rask: I guess staff really didn't have a preference. They both meet ordinance requirements. I think the applicant has indicated his preference would be the additional lake lot. As far as we're concerned, they both meet ordinance requirements. The impact as far as tree removal are similar. Peterson: I guess if I had to approve one or the other, I guess I would have a tendency to approve the first one that the rest of the commissioners spoke of so no further questions. Mancino: Okay. I'd actually like to see this come back. I'd like to see it come back with some of the details worked out and that would be the two lots and I also concur with the applicant, with the Lots 1 and 2. With the front lot, the first lot be the one that has the existing building and the existing home and the second one be the one on the lakeshore. I'd like to see something worked out so we can save the trees. Not only on TH 101 but on the driveway because there's about 120 feet of mature coniferous trees there that add greatly to that lot and I'd like to see some way that we could keep the driveway existing and not make it wider. And if we do, I don't know what the width of the driveway is. I think it's approximately 10 feet and go 10 or 12 feet but we have given other variances to existing driveways in areas like this and there's only two homes off of it so I'd like to see staff work with the applicant and with Public Safety so we can work something out. And whether that even has to work with the property owner on the east, Mr. Gilman so that if there is an emergency, that something can be worked out to go over that private driveway too. So I'd like to see that come back. I'd also like to know where, if we have the two lots, where the driveway for that second lot will go. Whether it will go next to Gilman's. Whether it will cut and go a little west and enter that second lot. I'd like to see it pulled away from the Gilman property if possible and save those trees there. I have a question that Mr. Gilman wrote in his letter to us and one of it was having to do with the sewer line that's coming up 17 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 from Lot 2 that will come up. And he had a question about when you go to dig the sewer line, the compaction of the soils, will that be next to his property line because his home is 18 inches on the east side of the property line. Will there be any repercussions from that? From you know, to his foundation of his home, etc. Hempel: That's a good question. The sewer line would go along the north property line, probably 8 to 10 feet off the north property line. Mancino: To the east or the west? Hempel: Well I would prefer to the east I guess. George Gilman: How deep? Hempel: Well it probably would be in the range of 8 to 10 feet deep at that point. There's construction techniques such as a box to use to try and shorten or keep the width of that trench as narrow as possible, could be one technique. Compaction though would be, usually they use a mechanical vibrating hamper through there that will send some foundations through a foundation and so forth of adjacent structures so. Mancino: So what precautions does the city normally use? Hempel: Well, I don't know if the city uses any in this instance here but the contractor doing the particular work should be aware of the situation. I guess I would advise the homeowner adjacent to the property to document the foundation condition of their home with pictures or videotape to show that there has been damage caused if. Mancino: And at that time, can't the city kind of facilitate a meeting between the, whoever's putting the sewer in and the homeowner on the east. Hempel: Sure we could explain. Mancino: To make sure they know what's going on and when it's going to happen and how it's going to be. I think that'd be a good idea. Anyway, those are my comments. I'd kind of like to see it come back and see what's really going to happen there once the two lots are created and where the driveway is and what trees will be saved and if we can make sure that the driveway is paved for the length that it needs to be but it stays the same width. The existing width that it is now. May I have a motion? 18 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 Meyer: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends tabling the preliminary plat for Subdivision #96-3, Slathar Addition. Mancino: And do we need to state or articulate any reasons for the tabling? Rask: No. I think it's pretty clear. Mancino: Is there a second to the motion? Skubic: Second. Mancino: Any discussion of the motion? Meyer moved, Skubic seconded that the Planning Commission table the preliminary plat for Subdivision #96-3, Slathar Addition for further review. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: SIGN VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SECOND WALL MOUNTED SIGN LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED BH, HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED NORTH OF HWY 5, EAST OF MARKET BLVD ON WEST 79TH STREET, TIRES PLUS GROUPE, INC. Public Present: Name Address Jim Dimond 8609 Lyndale Avenue So., Bloomington Ron Fiscus Yaggy, Colby Associates, Rochester, MN John Rask presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Thank you John. Is the applicant here? Ron Fiscus: It's been a while. A bit of history on this. Originally Tires Plus had an option on the parcel of property across...recommended Tires Plus. Tires Plus originally...piece of property across West 79th Street from this site where we're currently going and elected to move to another site on the encouragement of the city administrative staff. A couple of reasons for that. One was that they, the site that the HRA owned in this location had a portion of wetlands on it. The site that Tires Plus had optioned had wetlands on it but had 19 C I TY 0 F P.C. DATE: 2-21-96 & 3/6/96 C.C. DATE: 3-11-96 \� l it CASE: 95-22 Site Plan Q Y , BY: Al-Jaff:v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Site Plan Review for an 8,321 Square Foot Retail Building LOCATION: Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Market Square. North of Subway, west of Market Square II Z (Edina Realty Building), and south of West 78th Street APPLICANT: Lotus Realty Services, Inc. P. O. Box 235 Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: PUD, Planned Unit Development ACREAGE: 41,490.49 s.f. 0.95 acres DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - OI, and West 78th Street S - PUD, Market Square E -PUD, , Market Square II QW- PUD, Market Square Q ' WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. w PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: A level parcel. F- 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial / ,5' i i) 1 ,, .. vel exvilb. ono .,.. ("gai.g.;„,, IF �� -►* , rte•. lain H■�.� -_ o■ Aide * Air■-0 MVO Ula l ' C�g3 on ..,,,i. A ;4° a Eio wigs ampdoor.•,-# to!;; : s-:•\\ MO,� � OlatatitiO'�moi.%�� 1 �'�� '\iir a P (PVT) ,;t� �diligri�\ il . FirliTtill141417.111010 11 Ar N�CHOL45 w4r �I.� �OjJ .tQ q g1I ! kIi um VVI 2' -) n.r/'_ , ,� L r. oil lair Jai ,,� 611O111HO r rniff ipliwiimp R0. "valemill asliMi R R- ' ' 4.7m .. fiPP. .„,...._......0 S• i'''. DRIVE AlftingIGIAWA HY mil a Rai o le JIIIIIR 0111‘ C an ale C r 0•0 gym sr ,., ( .r.i. .40:\•4104kr.... /r Li Y / 1,3 . I t--li .E ©■a A a SU,�`. r� rzQ: ... ti 811,p4* j PARK N �- 04 I _ 0,144eilt* . (PVTI /% 11•41 rani* • fti ! 1 \` Z w.- 1-1 - I- W./96 .40 4'. 4. 'i' �',•# i� a �, \� ti I SINNEN V��1 �j ` .�I i 11 1 • CIRCLE f A � � �; LAKE SUSAN I �, ).1 Ea mon miff ; V�5 R�RI �Ta .� NI I;4 I MISS of N HIL I. 1-_= DRIVE lip PSN 1� OP __ i �. 2-FR P 41 p 1 W PRI,,1111/ 10 .f------ ---- --------- '/ \��/� J 0 ,. . COURT _ \‘‘!T C Eirta 2 it omil , jv it-z_______ ' 4,4:„:› , gra ,,e7& 40,1( inik .11 .'II v 41111111 �� -- ~� -�-�=' _� . � ' 4- �MIHLLSim ARSHLA •. MI� �,i. , 5 gm i WAY TRAM N •� '',• lir . ,+ vim, ■ %.%__ WEST WAYS ��.� , � 1�•44'42 .74,771gr FAST _r- 1� P� 40,• r � �, 1 _ Q � �I,,,©� 0 I.LOt� _ , si CouRr oG FoppSE' ..f • Nail "MIL Mill ( V.PV474 #40 01‘•*** at t=1 it o•ffres 7 LYMAN , `�� \Z -- POND COURT •. . f-, 1► Z 1 i 2. ;-1 1 lit _ K. - C r--- - CO - Market Square III February 21, 1996 Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE On February 21, 1996, the Planning Commission reviewed an application for a site plan review for an 8,321 square foot retail building to be located on Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Market Square, located north of Subway, west of Market Square II (Edina Realty Building), and south of West 78th Street. The Planning Commission was pleased with the architectural design of the building,however, the materials used on the building and the retaining wall were of concern. It was recommended the applicant investigate materials in more detail. The applicant has not presented any new materials to staff. Therefore, staff is not able to comment on this issue. Attached is a letter from Vernelle Clayton stating that a complete presentation of materials for both the retaining walls and building will be presented at the Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission will have to decide if the presented materials address your concerns. Staff did suggest presenting different material alternatives to the Planning Commission. Again, staff to this point has been unable to comment on the materials. The second issue which the Planning Commission directed staff to investigate dealt with signs. Wall mounted signs are shown on all four elevations of the building. Staff recommended that signage be located on a maximum of two elevations of the building to be constructed. This criteria has been applied to all free standing buildings within Market Square (Edina Realty and Wendy's). We do not believe an exception should be made in this case. There does not seem to be a hardship that would warrant a variance. The applicant stated that they wanted signage along the north elevation, facing West 78th Street and along the south elevation, facing Market Square. What they perceive as a problem is the fact that the entrance into the hair salon is located to the west and they wish to identify the entrance with a wall mounted sign. The applicant could utilize a window sign to achieve their objective. Staff is recommending wall mounted signs be limited to two elevations. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY On October 8, 1990, the City Council approved the final PUD plan for the Market Square Shopping Center subject to conditions. The site included 4 lots and one outlot. Market Square Shopping Center occupies Lot 1. Lots 2, 3 are vacant. Edina Realty is located on Lot 4 and a restaurant building (Wendy's) is on Outlot A. The current request is for the construction of an 8,321 square foot retail building to be located on Lots 2 and 3. The site plan is well developed, however, in some respects it does not meet all current standards. The PUD it is regulated by is almost 7 years old and while it was considered progressive at that time, newer standards have since been put into place. This request is subject to regulations under the existing PUD plan. The architecture of the retail building attempts to reflect the existing use of Market Square III February 21, 1996 Page 3 light gray rock face block foundation, burgundy sconce lighting with tile medallions,green metal to cap the roof line, stucco facade, and burgundy canvas awnings to match the shopping. This type of architecture and materials used is similar in quality to the rest of the shopping center and is consistent with downtown. A parapet wall screens all the roof top equipment as well as adds an attractive architectural element. Site access is provided via existing shopping center curb cuts on Kerber Boulevard and West 78th Street. Since Market Square has been completed, traffic circulation throughout the center has had its problems. One such area is turning into the shopping center from Kerber Boulevard. The lane is narrow and the turning radius is tight. Staff believes by increasing the drive aisle width to 26 feet it would improve turning movements into the site. This matter is discussed in detail under Access/Grading further in the report. The site landscaping is generally of high quality due to the attention that was paid to this issue by staff and the applicant. There are some trees located within the public right-of-way. Plans for protecting these trees must be submitted and approved by staff. The building and parking lot is proposed to be constructed on two lots. Consolidating those two lots will take place administratively and will be a condition of the site plan approval. Based upon the foregoing, staff is recommending approval of the site plan request for this proposal with appropriate conditions. SITE PLAN REVIEW General Site Plan/Architecture The applicant is proposing an 8,321 square foot retail building to be located on Lots 2 and situated south of West 78th Street and north of Subway. Access is gained off of a curb cut on Kerber Boulevard, and via West 78th Street. Parking is located to the west and south of the proposed building. The architecture of the retail building attempts to reflect the existing use of light gray rock face block foundation , burgundy sconce lighting with tile medallions, green metal to cap the roof line, stucco façade, and burgundy canvas awnings to match the shopping. This type of architecture and materials used is similar in quality to the rest of the shopping center and is consistent with downtown. A parapet wall screens all the roof top equipment as well as adds an attractive architectural element. One interesting feature is the use of curved walls on all four elevations. The design gives the building its own unique identity, yet allows it to blend in with surrounding buildings through materials and colors. The applicant is showing the trash enclosure screened by masonry walls using the same materials as the buildings. Staff believes that this is not the most convenient location. We believe that it could Market Square III February 21, 1996 Page 4 be moved to the northeast corner of the parking lot and replace the parking space designated for handicap. The handicapped space would be shifted to the south, facing the entrance into the building. The trash enclosure area would be redesigned by moving curb lines and making up the lost parking space. There are electric boxes (transformers) operated and maintained by NSP, as well as a traffic controller unit, located at the northwest corner of the site. The applicant is proposing to move these units, however,the plans do not show the new location of these units. The applicant should provide staff with this information. A 10 foot clearing must be maintained around the units for maintenance purposes. The applicant may relocate the units at their own expense after approval has been given by NSP. The plans also reflect a city traffic controller to be relocated. The location was chosen because it provides perfect sight lines of the signals while working on the signals. Also, moving this unit will require major expense due to all the electric circuits that converge at that traffic controller. Based upon the foregoing. the applicant may not be able to move this unit. Staff is generally satisfied with the architecture of the building and note that the applicant has worked extensively to prepare the design. The site on which the building is situated is a highly visible one. Staff appreciates the fact that the building is situated to maintain the West 78th streetscape by its close proximity and orientation. There is no parking between the street and the building, only landscaping. Setting an architectural standard for this building is consistent with the PUD approval which requires architectural consistency with the main shopping center building. Parking/Interior Circulation The city's parking ordinance requires 4.5 parking space per 1000 square feet of gross floor area for retail buildings. The building is proposed to contain 8,321 square feet. The number of parking spaces required is 38. The applicant is providing 39 parking spaces. Landscaping The applicant has submitted a landscaping plan for proposed Market Square 3. Parking lot landscape area requirements is 8% of the total parking area. The applicant's parking lot is approximately 10,035 sq. ft.; required landscape area is 803 sq. ft. and 3 trees. The applicant has provided nine trees and the required landscape area. There are eight trees existing on site. Of the eight existing trees, it appears that six of them will be impacted by site grading prior to construction. Three oaks along the 78th Street sidewalk are shown to be within grading limits. The applicant has not detailed a plan for the survival of those trees. All existing trees along W. 78th Street must be preserved by the applicant. Staff can work with the applicant to devise a preservation plan. Three existing spruce in the southwestern corner of the development will also Market Square III February 21, 1996 Page 5 be impacted by grading. Since they appear on the landscaping plan, it is assumed that the applicant plans to preserve these trees however no plans for their preservation have been specified. The applicant will be responsible for all trees shown on the landscaping plan and will guarantee their survival. On the southwest corner of the proposed building, a landscaped area of Stella de Oro lilies and two skyline locusts are planned. Staff requests that the applicant provides a paved area in the landscape area to extend the building's sidewalk across to the mall sidewalk. In effect, it would create a crosswalk from Market Square 3 to the mall area. The loss of landscape area will not affect applicant's ability to meet landscaping requirements. The applicant's choice of landscaping materials are acceptable and will work well for the site. An interesting and unique choice is the use of feather reed grass as an accent, although the applicant needs to verify the number of plants used; 31 are shown on landscaping plans, but only 26 are counted in the plant schedule. Lighting Lighting locations have been shown on the plans. Only shielded fixtures are allowed and the applicant shall demonstrate that there is no more than .5' candles of light at the property line. Plans should be provided to staff for approval. Fixtures should match those being used elsewhere in the shopping center. Signage The existing Market Square sign plan permits one monument sign only for the retail building site with the following conditions: a. The height of the monument sign shall not exceed 12'10" (the height of the existing Market Square sign). b. The sign shall contain no more than 41 square feet of sign area per face. c. The sign shall be constructed to reflect the architectural style of the Market Square shopping center. Staff recommends the sign design be identical to the existing Market Square monument signs. d. The owner of each monument sign shall be responsible for its construction, repair, maintenance and/or replacement. There is an existing sign at the northeast corner of the site. As mentioned earlier, this is an existing sign and it does not meet the required setback. Market Square III February 21, 1996 Page 6 Wall mounted signs are shown on all four elevations of the building. Wall mounted signs must meet the following criteria as identified in the sign covenant for Market Square: a. The letters and logos shall be restricted to 30 inches in height and must be lighted. b All individual letters and logos comprising each sign shall have a minimum depth of five inches and shall be constructed with a translucent facing over neon tube illumination. c The signage shall be located on a maximum of two elevations of the building to be constructed. Access/Grading The Market Square Shopping Center parking and drive aisles in itself are somewhat congested. This parcel is the last lot left to be developed. The site will be accessed from interior driveways. The parcel is bordered by Kerber Boulevard on the west, West 78th Street on the north and an interior drive aisle on the east. The site will be accessed from the existing drive aisle directly north of Subway. There are modifications proposed to the north curb line of the existing drive aisle as a result of this development. Staff has reviewed the drive aisle width and finds that the existing drive aisle adjacent to Subway is 24 feet wide face-to-face and then narrows to 22 feet wide to the west of Subway before exiting onto Kerber Boulevard. The City has an opportunity with this site plan proposal to improve a poor traffic situation. Staff has reviewed the site improvements and determined that the existing drive aisle could be widened since the curb along the north side of the drive aisle is going to be removed and replaced with the development anyway. It is desirable to maintain at least a 24-foot wide, preferably a 26-foot wide, drive aisle north and west of Subway out to Kerber Boulevard. This will add a degree of safety and comfort when making the very sharp curve behind Subway out to Kerber Boulevard. Staff has also explored the option to try and reduce the curvilinear drive aisle out to Kerber Boulevard; however, due to grade differences along with the need to provide stacking distance at the stop lights on Kerber Boulevard and West 78th Street, it was not feasible. It is very important to maintain adequate stacking distance on Kerber Boulevard to maintain vehicles turning into the site from Kerber Boulevard. Staff believes, given the situation, by increasing the existing drive aisle from 24 feet wide to 26 feet wide along and behind Subway will greatly improve traffic flow in this area. Therefore, staff is recommending that the existing drive aisle be widened to a uniform width of 26 feet face-to-face. The proposed curb cuts into the site were shown at 24 feet wide yet the drive aisles in the interior parking lot is shown at 26 feet wide. Staff believes there should be a uniform width of 26 feet and it appears there is sufficient room to accommodate this recommendation without loss of parking stalls. Staff has also reviewed the grade difference on this site. There is approximately a 9-foot drop from the northwest corner of the site down to the existing drive aisle behind Subway. The plans propose a fairly steep drive aisle/parking lot slope in this area approximately 5%. When an individual opens their car door on this steep of a side slope, it may be difficult for the Market Square III February 21, 1996 Page 7 car door to remain open without slamming back into the individual. Staff recommends that the parking lot grade be revised to a maximum of 3.5%cross slope. This will result in extending and increasing the height of the retaining wall along West 78th Street(along the north edge of the parking lot). Grading for the parking lot will also impact the existing utility and traffic control box located in the northwest corner of the site. The plans indicate that these will be relocated; however, do not indicate to where and by whom. It should also be noted that the traffic control box has very limited abilities to be relocated. It is necessary to monitor the semaphores at the intersection while working on this traffic control box. Therefore, staff will have to work with the applicant in arriving at an acceptable location. It may be possible by extending the retaining wall to minimize or not even affect the traffic control box. The applicant should explore this possibility. The site grading will also impact the existing oak trees planted along West 78th Street. It is assumed that these oak trees may be temporarily transplanted and then planted back just south of the sidewalk along West 78th Street. The plans also propose a stairway from the southwest corner of the building out into about the middle of the Subway building. Staff believes that this is an inappropriate location for the steps to access and should be relocated to the east approximately 30 feet to be more conducive to pedestrian traffic. In the south parking lot area. the very westerly stall is only 12 feet long. This will create a situation where a vehicle will actually extend out into the drive aisle by three to four feet. A way to resolve this would be to extend the parking lot stall which results in a reduction of the sidewalk width in front of the building which is currently approximately 9 feet wide. Another problem exists in this area with the grade difference between the westerly parking stalls and proposed sidewalk. The proposed sidewalk elevation is at 968. The proposed parking lot elevation is at 966. This results into a two-foot deviation. It is unclear whether a retaining wall is anticipated and, if so, whether there is any fencing or a rail in this area. In addition,the parking lot grade on westerly end of the south parking area is very steep, approximately 6%. A way to resolve this would be to lower the parking lot grade at the north end parking stalls to achieve a maximum of 3.5%. This would only increase the retaining wall height adjacent to the sidewalk area. A handicapped stall should also be added on the very easterly end of the southerly parking area. At this point the grades are very flat and conducive to a handicap access point. The plans propose a trash enclosure on the very southwest corner of the westerly parking lot. This trash enclosure location is situated on top of the City's drainage and utility easement. The City has a 10-inch water line running directly underneath the proposed trash enclosure. The applicant will be required to enter into an encroachment agreement for the trash enclosure and landscaping materials within the City's utility easement. The trash enclosure can be relocated to the northeast corner of the parking lot. During construction it is often the case that the contractors drive from every street access point into the site. Given the high volumes of traffic and the sidewalk and landscaping improvements Market Square III February 21, 1996 Page 8 along West 78th Street and Kerber Boulevard, staff recommends that construction access be limited to the interior drive aisles and not from Kerber Boulevard or West 78th Street. Erosion Control The plans propose erosion control fence in areas along the south side of the development. Staff believes that once the parking lot improvements have been done,there is still a need to encompass the east, south and west side of the development with erosion control fence to prevent erosion and also deter contractors from driving where they are not supposed to. The plans should be revised to show the City's standard detail for erosion control measures (Type I). The plans do propose rock construction entrances at the proposed driveway entrances in accordance with City standards. According to the plans, Kerber Boulevard actually extends a couple of feet into the property at the northwest corner of the site. Staff recommends that a street and utility easement be conveyed to the City over the west five feet of the northerly 60 feet of the parcel. Utilities In conjunction with Market Square 1st and 2nd Additions, sanitary sewer and water service has been stubbed to the property. Utility permits will be required from the City's Building Department in conjunction with extending utilities to the building. A comprehensive storm drainage management plan has been prepared with the initial Market Square submittal. Storm drainage from the site will be accommodated by existing storm sewer facilities on site. The storm water will be conveyed to the downtown storm water pond for treatment. This development is not subject to any SWMP fees. Miscellaneous The landscape plan should be revised to show the sidewalk along the south side of the building out to the main drive aisle along the east side of the building and also show the steps and stairs location and relocate landscape plants accordingly. Park and Trail Dedication Full park and trail dedication fees shall be paid as part of this development at the rate in force at the time of building permit application. COMPLIANCE TABLE WITH PUD ORDINANCE Market Square III February 21, 1996 Page 9 As a PUD,most of the usual ordinance provisions pertaining to dimensional criteria are waived. Required Proposed Original Plan Building Setback 25' 25' Parking Setback N-10', S-0 N-10', S-0 E-10', W-10 E-0', W-10 Hard Surface Coverage N/A NA Parking Stalls 38 39 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: Site Plan Review "The City Council approves the Site Plan for Market Square III (#95-22 SPR) as shown on the site plan dated February 7, 1996, with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the city and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval. 2. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site. There is one existing monument sign on the site. The sign meets the following criteria: a. The height of the monument sign shall not exceed 12'10" (the height of the existing Market Square sign). b. The sign shall contain no more than 41 square feet of sign area per face. c. The sign shall be constructed to reflect the architectural style of the Market Square shopping center. d. The owner of each monument sign shall be responsible for its construction, repair, maintenance and/or replacement. The applicant is showing wall mounted signs on four elevations. The plans must be amended to meet the following criteria: Market Square III February 21, 1996 Page 10 a. The letters and logos shall be restricted to 30 inches in height and must be lighted. b. All individual letters and logos comprising each sign shall have a minimum depth of five inches and shall be constructed with a translucent facing over neon tube illumination. c. The signage shall be located on a maximum of two elevations of the buildings to be constructed. 3. Approval of the site plan is contingent upon the consolidation of Lots 2 and 3 into one lot. 4. Fire Marshal conditions: a. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. City Ordinance 9-1. (Relocate the Skyline Locust a minimum of ten feet away from the fire hydrant.) Cross reference page SD-5 and SD-3. b. Comply with the following policies: 04-1991 -Copy enclosed 34-1993 -copy enclosed 07-1991 - Copy enclosed 35-1994-copy enclosed 29-1992-Copy enclosed 36-1994-copy enclosed c. "No Parking Fire Lane" signs along with yellow painted curbing shall be provided on the entrance road east of the proposed building. Sign spacing must comply with Policy#06-1991. Copy enclosed. 5. Park and trail dedication fees shall be paid to the city pursuant to the city ordinances and City Council resolutions at the rate then in force upon building permit application. 6. The applicant must provide staff with preservation plans for the eight(8)existing trees. The applicant may not leave existing oaks and spruce in place during grading if grading is to come within ten feet of the tree. All existing and new trees will be guaranteed for two years. 7. The applicant shall provide access on the southwest corner of the building to Market Square mall sidewalk. 8. The applicant shall verify that 31 feather reed grass plants will be used for landscaping. 9. The width of the existing drive aisle along the south side of the development shall be increased to a minimum of 26 feet wide face-to-face. All driveway curb cut openings shall be a minimum of 26 feet wide face-to-face as well. Market Square III February 21, 1996 Page 11 10. The applicant shall work with City staff in relocating the existing utility and traffic control boxes and the existing oak trees along West 78th Street. The plans shall be revised accordingly. The applicant shall dedicate to the City a utility easement for the traffic control box if it is located outside of the City's right-of-way or utility and drainage easements. 11. The steps along the southwest corner of the building shall be relocated approximately 30 feet to the east. 13. On the south parking lot, the westerly stall shall be eliminated or the length of the parking stalls lengthened by four feet. The applicant shall add a retaining wall or equivalent concrete wall between the southerly sidewalk and the southerly parking lot where the deviation is greater than one foot in height. 14. The applicant shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the City for the trash enclosure and landscaping materials located within the City's drainage and utility easement. The trash enclosure may be relocated to the northeasterly corner of the parking lot. 15. The erosion control plan shall be revised to extend erosion control Type I fence along the south side of the construction limits. The plans shall incorporate the City's erosion control detail plate for Type I erosion control fence. 16. Construction access shall be limited to the interior driveways and not from West 78th Street or Kerber Boulevard. 17. The landscape plan shall be revised to show the proposed sidewalks and steps on the south side of the building and relocate plant materials accordingly. 18. The applicant shall dedicate to the City a street and utility easement over the west five feet of the northerly 60 feet of the lot. 19. The applicant shall apply for and obtain the necessary utility permits for extension of utilities to the building from the City's Building Department. 20. All roof top equipment shall be screened." Market Square III February 21, 1996 Page 12 ATTACHMENTS 1. Report by Dave Hempel,Assistant City Engineer,dated February 15, 1996. 2. Memo from Mark Littfm,Fire Marshal,dated November 29, 1995. 3. Project Narrative. 4. Planning Commission minutes dated February 21, 1996. 5. Letter from Lotus Realty dated February 23, 1996. 6. Plans dated revised February 7, 1996. CITY OF CHANHASSEN ,, . 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer DATE: February 15, 1996 SUBJ: Review of Site Plan for Market Square 3rd Addition Land Use Review File No. 96-7 Upon review of the site plan prepared by Amcon dated February 6, 1996, I offer the following comments and recommendations: ACCESS As you are aware, the Market Square Shopping Center parking and drive aisles in itself are somewhat congested. This parcel is the last lot left to be developed. The site will be accessed from interior driveways. The parcel is bordered by Kerber Boulevard on the west, West 78th Street on the north and an interior drive aisle on the east. The site will be accessed from the existing drive aisle directly north of Subway. There are modifications proposed to the north curb line of the existing drive aisle as a result of this development. Staff has reviewed the drive aisle width and finds that the existing drive aisle adjacent to Subway is 24 feet wide face-to-face and then narrows to 22 feet wide to the west of Subway before exiting onto Kerber Boulevard. The City has an opportunity with this site plan proposal to improve a poor traffic situation. Staff has reviewed the site improvements and determined that the existing drive aisle could be widened since the curb along the north side of the drive aisle is going to be removed and replaced with the development anyway. It is desirable to maintain at least a 24-foot wide, preferably a 26-foot wide, drive aisle north and west of Subway out to Kerber Boulevard. This will add a degree of safety and comfort when making the very sharp curve behind Subway out to Kerber Boulevard. Staff has also explored the option to try and reduce the curvilinear drive aisle out to Kerber Boulevard; however, due to grade differences along with the need to provide stacking distance at the stop lights on Kerber Boulevard and West 78th Street, it was not feasible. It is very important to maintain adequate stacking distance on Kerber Boulevard to maintain vehicles turning into the site from Kerber Boulevard. Staff believes, given the situation,by increasing the Sharmin Al-Jaff Market Square 3rd Addition SPR February 15, 1996 Page 2 existing drive aisle from 24 feet wide to 26 feet wide along and behind Subway will greatly improve traffic flow in this area. Therefore, staff is recommending that the existing drive aisle be widened to a uniform width of 26 feet face-to-face. The proposed curb cuts into the site were shown at 24 feet wide yet the drive aisles in the interior parking lot is shown at 26 feet wide. Staff believes there should be a uniform width of 26 feet and it appears there is sufficient room to accommodate this recommendation without loss of parking stalls. Staff has also reviewed the grade difference on this site. There is approximately a 9-foot drop from the northwest corner of the site down to the existing drive aisle behind Subway. The plans propose a fairly steep drive aisle/parking lot slope in this area approximately 5%. When an individual opens their car door on this steep of a side slope, it may be difficult for the car door to remain open without slamming back into the individual. Staff recommends that the parking lot grade be revised to a maximum of 3.5%cross slope. This will result in extending and increasing the height of the retaining wall along West 78th Street(along the north edge of the parking lot). Grading for the parking lot will also impact the existing utility and traffic control box located in the northwest corner of the site. The plans indicate that these will be relocated; however, do not indicate to where and by whom. It should also be noted that the traffic control box has very limited abilities to be relocated. It is necessary to monitor the semaphores at the intersection while working on this traffic control box. Therefore, staff will have to work with the applicant in arriving at an acceptable location. It may be possible by extending the retaining wall to minimize or not even affect the traffic control box. The applicant should explore this possibility. The site grading will also impact the existing oak trees planted along West 78th Street. It is assumed that these oak trees may be temporarily transplanted and then planted back just south of the sidewalk along West 78th Street. The plans also propose a stairway from the southwest corner of the building out into about the middle of the Subway building. Staff believes that this is an inappropriate location for the steps to access and should be relocated to the east approximately 30 feet to be more conducive to pedestrian traffic. In the south parking lot area the very westerly stall is only 12 feet long. This will create a situation with a vehicle will actually extend out into the drive aisle by three to four feet. A way to resolve this would be to extend the parking lot stall which results in a reduction of the sidewalk width in front of the building which is currently approximately 9 feet wide. Another problem exists in this area with the grade difference between the westerly parking stalls and proposed sidewalk. The proposed sidewalk elevation is at 968. The proposed parking lot elevation is at 966. This results into a two-foot deviation. It is unclear whether a retaining wall is anticipated and, if so, whether there is any fencing or a rail in this area. In addition, the parking lot grade on westerly end of the south parking area is very steep, approximately 6%. A way to resolve this would be to lower the parking lot grade at the north end parking stalls to achieve a maximum of 3.5%. This would only increase the retaining wall height adjacent to the Sharmin Al-Jaff Market Square 3rd Addition SPR February 15, 1996 Page 3 sidewalk area. A handicapped stall should also be added on the very easterly end of the southerly parking area. At this point the grades are very flat and conducive to a handicap access point. The plans propose a trash enclosure on the very southwest corner of the westerly parking lot. This trash enclosure location is situated on top of the City's drainage and utility easement. The City has a 10-inch water line running directly underneath the proposed trash enclosure. The applicant will be required to enter into an encroachment agreement for the trash enclosure and landscaping materials within the City's utility easement. During construction it is often the case that the contractors drive from every street access point into the site. Given the high volumes of traffic and the sidewalk and landscaping improvements along West 78th Street and Kerber Boulevard, staff recommends that construction access be limited to the interior drive aisles and not from Kerber Boulevard or West 78th Street. EROSION CONTROL The plans propose erosion control fence in areas along the south side of the development. Staff believes that once the parking lot improvements have been done there is still a need to encompass the east, south and west side of the development with erosion control fence to prevent erosion and also deter contractors from driving where they are not supposed to. The plans should be revised to show the City's standard detail for erosion control measures (Type I). The plans do propose rock construction entrances at the proposed driveway entrances in accordance with City standards. According to the plans, Kerber Boulevard actually extends a couple of feet into the property at the northwest corner of the site. Staff recommends that a street and utility easement be conveyed to the City over the west five feet of the northerly 60 feet of the parcel. UTILITIES In conjunction with Market Square 1st and 2nd Additions, sanitary sewer and water service has been stubbed to the property. Utility permits will be required from the City's Building Department in conjunction with extending utilities to the building. A comprehensive storm drainage management plan has been prepared with the initial Market Square submittal. Storm drainage from the site will be accommodated by existing storm sewer facilities on site. The storm water will be conveyed to the downtown storm water pond for treatment. This development is not subject to any SWMP fees. Sharmin Al-Jaff Market Square 3rd Addition SPR February 15, 1996 Page 4 MISCELLANEOUS The landscape plan should be revised to show the sidewalk along the south side of the building out to the main drive aisle along the east side of the building and also show the steps and stairs location and relocate landscape plants accordingly. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The width of the existing drive aisle along the south side of the development shall be increased to a minimum of 26 feet wide face-to-face. All driveway curb cut openings shall be a minimum of 26 feet wide face-to-face as well. 2. The applicant shall work with City staff in relocating the existing utility and traffic control boxes and the existing oak trees along West 78th Street. The plans shall be revised accordingly. The applicant shall dedicate to the City a utility easement for the traffic control box if it is located outside of the City's right-of-way or utility and drainage easements. 3. The steps along the southwest corner of the building shall be relocated approximately 30 feet to the east. 4. The applicant shall lower the parking lot grade to a maximum of 3.5%cross slope on both the westerly and southerly parking lots. 5. On the south parking lot,the westerly stall shall be eliminated or the length of the parking stalls lengthened by four feet. The applicant shall add a retaining wall between the southerly sidewalk and the southerly parking lot where the deviation is greater than one foot in height. 6. The applicant shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the City for the trash enclosure and landscaping materials located within the City's drainage and utility easement. 7. The erosion control plan shall be revised to extend erosion control Type I fence along the south side of the construction limits. The plans shall incorporate the City's erosion control detail plate for Type I erosion control fence. Sharmin Al-Jaff Market Square 3rd Addition SPR February 15, 1996 Page 5 8. Construction access shall be limited to the interior driveways and not from West 78th Street or Kerber Boulevard. 9. The landscape plan shall be revised to show the proposed sidewalks and steps on the south side of the building and relocate plant materials accordingly. 10. The applicant shall dedicate to the City a street and utility easement over the west five feet of the northerly 60 feet of the lot. 11. The applicant shall apply for and obtain the necessary utility permits for extension of utilities to the building from the City's Building Department. ktm c: Charles Folch, Director of Public Works g:\eng\dave\pc\market3.spr • CITY OF CIIANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff,Planner II FROM: Mark Littfin,Fire Marshal DATE: November 29, 1995 SUBJ: Market Square- Amcon Planning Case#95-22 Site Plan Review I have reviewed the site plan for the above project. In order to comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division,I have the following fire code or city ordinance/policy requirements. The site plan review is based on the available information submitted at this time. As additional plans or changes are submitted,the appropriate code or policy items will be addressed. 1. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. City Ordinance 9-1. (Relocate the Skyline Locust a minimum of ten feet away from the fire hydrant.) Cross reference page SD-5 and SD-3. 2. Comply with the following policies: 04-1991 -copy enclosed 34-1993-copy enclosed 07-1991 -copy enclosed 35-1994-copy enclosed 29-1992-copy enclosed 36-1994-copy enclosed 3. "No Parking Fire Lane"signs along with yellow painted curbing shall be provided on the entrance road east of the proposed building. Sign spacing must comply with Policy#06- 1991. Copy enclosed ML:cd CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: Lotus Realty Services, Inc. OWNER: Market Square Associates Limited Partnership ADDRESS: P . 0. Box 235 ADDRESS: Same Chanhassen, MN 55317 TELEPHONE (Day time) 934-4538 TELEPHONE: 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW/Easements 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance 3. Interim Use Permit 13. Wetland Alteration Permit 4. Non-conforming Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal 5. Planned Unit Development 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. Rezoning 7. Sign Permits 8. x Sign Plan Review 6150 Notification Signs 9. x Site Plan Review 330 X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** $100 CUP/SPRNACNARJWAP $400 Minor SUB/Metes & Bounds 10. x Subdivision - Administrative /cc TOTAL FEE $ 430. 00 Consolidation A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must Included with the application. Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted. 8W' X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. • NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract J ' NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME Market Square I I I LOCATION SE Quadrant - W. 78th St . & Mandan Drive LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots 2 and 3 , Market Square, Chanhassen, MN PRESENT ZONING PUD REQUESTED ZONING N/A PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION Commercial/Retail REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION N/A REASON FOR THIS REQUEST This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible forcomplying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded against the title to the property for which the approval/permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's Office and the original document returned to Q,ity Hall Records. -C1J t � yZ .14 P 4.,1/4.,..,f4(7.7. ,.5 Signature of Applicant ,,,29 / . Date Signature of Fee Owner Date cc Application Received on / 5- `J(- Fee Paid 'P -5O cG Receipt No.575 7 ' The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meetina. If not contacted. a cony of the renort will be mailed to the annlicant's address. B.C. Burdick Dan and Steve Dahlin 426 Lake Street. 296 N. Pascal Excelsior, MN 55331 St. Paul, MN 55075 Chanhassen HRA C.H. Suites of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive, Box 147 c/o National Lodging Companies, Inc. Chanhassen, MN 55317 9855 W. 78th Street Eden Prairie,MN 55344 City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Dr., PO. 147 T. F. James Company Chanhassen, MN 55317 6440 Shady Oak Road, Ste. 500 Eden Prairie,MN 55344 Market Square Associates II, LLC 470 West 78th Street Paul D. Steiner Chanhassen, MN 55317 Steiner& Koppelman, Inc. 360 S. Highway 101 Mithun Enterprises, Inc. Deephaven, MN 55391 900 Wayzata Blvd. E. Wayzata, MN 55391 Douglas M. Hansen Excelsior, MN 55331 17001 Stodola Road Minnetonka, MN 55345 State Bank of Chanhassen 680 W. 78th Street Richfield Bank& Trust Co. Chanhassen, MN 55317 6625 Lyndale Ave. S. Richfield, MN Richard W. Steiner, Jr. P.O. Box 1717 Target Stores Whitefish, MT 59937 33 South 6th Street Minneapolis, MN Twin Cities Western Railroad 2995 12th Street East Glencoe,MN 55336 Wendy's International, Inc. 40 Shuman Blvd., Suite 130 Naperville, IL 60563 e OR- I ` iitis 1 i s• o e A.� ' �� n� �t� �••��N��I ek ■� Epp C -iA Md %WM% 404 X 41,1►/ 1114,1 ail° 191*` wry a/ hoO^ Iar. NOTICE OF PUBLICprralivT, m" " `Int' 04te •pp NE j� II ' yam' HEARING 3 GNA %► �� R�'� rracr:►.. ■.J.3 '76 PLANNING COMMISSION 0 N,�a;s , x., _. N© WAY „* �`�� v2 G �[.) MEETING ��. . mem: VVI Wy �N MIL �N Wednesday, JANUARY 17, 1996 ®®®®®� 111141 at 7:00 p.m. 111111111111 � I HAN ��f ■u��l City Hall Council Chambers a 690 Coulter Drive in..• •.0 .0. Project: Retail Shops W Market Square 3 Partners s ` ert Developer: Amcon Corporation STAT fsraHIGHWAY • Location: Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, DRIVE Market Square rm—mi Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicant is requesting site plan approval of a retail building of 8,321 sq. ft. and a parking lot setback variance on property zoned PUD, and located on Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Market Square, Market Square 3 Partners, Inc./Amcon Corporation. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting,the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmin at 937-1900, ext. 120. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on January 11, 1996. • A I lq'14° CUA MITHUN ENTERPRISES Market Square Assoc. II, LLC Wendy's International, Inc. 900 E WAYZATA BLVD 470 West 78th Street 40 Shuman Blvd., Suite 130 WAYZATA MN 55391 Chanhassen,MN 55317 Naperville,IL 60563 B C BURDICK CHANHASSEN BANK DAN AND STEVE DAHLIN 684 EXCELSIOR BLVD. 680 W 78TH STREET 296 N. Pascal EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 St. Paul, MN 55075 DOUGLAS M HANSEN Richfield Bank& Trust Co. Target Stores 11969 NO. SHORE DRIVE 6625 Lyndale Ave. S. 33 South 6th Street SPICER,MN 56288 Richfield,MN 55423 Minneapolis,MN 55402 C.H. Suites of Chanhassen Richard Steiner,Jr. Paul D. Steiner c/o National Lodging Companies P. O. Box 1717 Steiner& Koppelmann,Inc. 9855 W. 78th Street Whitefish,MT 59937 360 S. Hwy. 101 Eden Prairie,MN 55344 Deephaven, MN 55391 CLEMENT SPRINGER PRES T.F. JAMES COMPANY Twin Cities Western Railroad WEISS ASSEST MANAGEMENT 6640 Shady Oak Road, Suite 500 2995 12th Street East #350, 1550 EAST 79TH STREET Eden Prairie,MN 55344 Glencoe,MN 55336 BLOOMINGTON, MN 55317 MR FAN FAGERSTROM MR RICH LARSON SUBWAY MGM 7093 BOYD AVE 7856 MARKET BLVD EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MR JIM HOLM MR KENT LUDFORD MR BOB KING CENTER DRUG MERLINS HARDWARE FESTIVAL FOODS 913 HOPKINS CTR 551 WEST 78TH ST 7900 MARKET BLVD HOPKINS MN 55343 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MS SHIRLEY OLSON Guy Peterson Frank Stocco SOMEONES HOUSE do Guy's Grill Frank's Pizza 7882 MARKET BLVD 7874 Market Boulevard 7850 Market Boulevard CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 CITY OF ' 141 t , CHANHASSEN r 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT NOTES TO BE INCLUDED ON ALL SITE PLANS 1. Fire Marshal must witness the flushing of underground sprinkler service line, per NFPA 13-8-2.1. 2. A final inspection by the Fire Marshal before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. 3. Fire Department access roads shall be provided on site during all phases of construction. The construction of these temporary roads will conform with the Chanhassen Fire Department requirements for temporary access roads at construction sites. Details are available. 4. Onsite fire hydrants shall be provided and in operating condition during all phases of construction. 5. The use of liquefied petroleum g shall be in conformance with NFPA Standard 58 and the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code. A list of these requirements is available. (See policy #33-1993) 6. All fire detection and fire suppression systems shall be monitored by an approved UL central station with a UL 71 Certificate issued on these systems before final occupancy is issued. 7. An 11" x 14" As Built shall be provided to the Fire Department. The As Built shall be reproducible and acceptable to the Fire Marshal. (See policy #07-1991). 8. An approved lock box shall be provided on the building for fire department use. The lock box should be located by the Fire Department connection or as located by the Fire Marshal. Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #04-1991 Date: 11/22/91 Revised: 12/23/94 Page 1 of 2 9. High-piled combustible storage shall comply with the requirements of Article#81 of the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code. High-piled combustible storage is combustible materials on closely packed piles more than 15' in height or combustible materials on pallets or in racks more than 12' in height. For certain special-hazard commodities such as rubber tires,plastics, some flammable liquids, idle pallets, etc. the critical pile height may be as low as 6 feet. 10. Fire lane signage shall be provided as required by the Fire Marshal. (See policy #06-1991). 11. Smoke detectors installed in lieu of 1 hour rated corridors under UBC section 3305G,Exception#5 shall comply with Chanhassen Fire Department requirements for installation and system type. (See policy #05-1991). 12. Maximum allowed size of domestic water service on a combination domestic/fire sprinkler supply line policy must be followed. (See policy #36-1994). Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #04-1991 Ca./ Date: 11/22/91 Revised: 12/23/94 Approved - Public Safety Director Page 2 of 2 ., 0 ,„..,__„ CITY of .4 )or CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY REQUIREMENTS FOR FIRE LANE SIGNAGE -- 1 . Signs to be a minimum of 12" x 18" . NO 2 . Red on white is preferred. PARKING FIRE 3 . 3M or equal engineer ' s grade LANE reflective sheeting on aluminum is preferred. " 4 . Wording shall be: NO PARKING FIRE LANE 5. Signs shall be posted at each end of the fire lane and at least at 7 ' 0" 75 foot intervals along the fire lane. 6. All signs shall be double sided facing the direction of travel. 7 . Post shall be set back a minimum of 12" but not more than 36" from the curb. - - 8 . A fire lane shall be required in (NOT TO GRADE front of fire dept. connections SCALE) extending 5 feet on each side and along all areas designated by the Fire Chief. ANY DEVIATION FROM THE ABOVE PROCEDURES SHALL BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING, WITH A SITE PLAN, FOR APPROVAL BY THE FIRE CHIEF. IT IS THE INTENTION OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO ENSURE CONTINUITY THROUGHOUT THE CITY BY PROVIDING THESE PROCEDURES FOR MARKING OF FIRE LANES. Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #06-1991 - Date: 1/15/91 ' Revised: Approved - Public Safety Director Page 1 of 1 IV t•Or PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY OF C HAN' HASSEN J;(ft 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY REGARDING PRE-PLAN Prior to issuing the C.O. , a pre-plan, site plan shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval . The following items shall be shown on the plan. 1) Size 11" x 17 " (maximum) 2) Building footprint and building dimensions 3 ) Fire lanes and width of fire lanes 4) Water mains and their sizes, indicate looped or dead end 5) Fire hydrant locations 6) P. I .V. - Fire Department connection 7) Gas meter (shut-off) , NSP (shut off) 8) Lock box location 9) Fire walls, if applicable 10) Roof vents, if applicable 11) Interior walls 12) Exterior doors 13 ) Location of fire alarm panel 14) Sprinkler riser location 15) Exterior L. P. storage, if applicable 16) Haz . Mat . storage, if applicable 17) Underground storage tanks locations, if applicable 18) Type of construction walls/roof 19) Standpipes PLEASE NOTE: Plans with topographical information, contour lines, easement lines, property lines, setbacks, right-of-way lines, headings, and other related lines or markings, are not acceptable, and will be rejected. Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #07-1991 r1 Date : 01/16/91 Lr",- �r� Revised: 02/18/94 Approved - Pu.Dlic Safety Director Page 1 of 1 R; CITY OF . , ,ii sdi :ry, _.,,,,:;:.„,..,,,,)k. .. . 7 , ." rkpll CIIANEA. SSEN ,e„ , ::: „._ A A, - . ,;,.., . ...,,,,,, v/ yi�"r.. 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 "r (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY PREMISES IDENTIFICATION General Numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Said numbers shall contrast with their background. Size and location of numbers shall be approved by one of the following - Public Safety Director, Building Official, Building Inspector, Fire Marshal. Requirements are for new construction and existing buildings where no address numbers are posted. Otter Requirements-General 1. Numbers shall be a contrasting color from the background. 2. Numbers shall not be In script 3. If a structure Is not visible from the street,additional numbers are required at the driveway entrance. Size and location must be approved. 4. Numbers on mall box at driveway entrance may be a minimum of 4". However,requirement *3 must still be met 5. Administrative authority may require additional numbers If deemed necessary. Residential Requirements(2 or less dwelling unit) 1. Minimum height shall be 5 1/4". 2. Building permits will not be flnaled unless numbers are posted and approved by the Building Department Commercial Requirements 1. Minimum height shall be 12". 2. Strip Malls a. Multi tenant building will have minimum height requirements of 6". b. Address numbers shall be on the main entrance and on all back doors. 3. If address numbers are located on a directory entry sign,sl n, additional numbers will be required on the buildings main entrance. Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #29-1992 Ai. - -- Date: 06/15/92 Revised: Approved - Public Safty Director Page 1 of 1 t0 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY 4 F CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 . CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 ' FAX (612) 937-5739 WATER SERVICE INSTALLATION POLICY FOR COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 1) The Inspections Division shall be responsible for issuance of permits. No permit shall be issued until approval of plans have been obtained from the following: a) Engineering Department b) Fire Marshal c) Minnesota Department of Health d) Plumbing Inspector 2) Plumbing inspectors will do all installation inspections and witness the hydrostatic and conductivity tests. Inspection and Test Requirements a) All pipe shall be inspected before being covered. Phone 937-1900, ext. 3, to schedule inspections. A 24 hour notice required. b) Conductivity test is required. The pipe shall be subjected to a minimum 350 amp test for a period of not less than 5 minutes. c) Hydrostatic test required. All pipe shall be subjected to a hydrostatic pressure of 150 psi for 2 hours. Allowable pressure drop shall not exceed 1 PSI. 3) Upon approval of the hydro test, the plumbing inspector shall submit a copy of the inspection report to the utility superintendent. The inspection report shall note whether the system is ready for main flush and drawing of water sample for the bug test. Inspections Division Water Service Installation Policy #34-1993 Date: 04/15/93 Revised: Page 1 of 2 �s tali PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER toil CITY OF CHANHASSEN T. 04 ..... 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY COOKING EQUIPMENT EXHAUST HOOD REQUIREMENTS 1. FIRE PROTECTION A. Where Required: 1) On commercial cooking equipment, when grease-laden vapors are produced. 2) If any cooking device under an exhaust hood produces grease-laden vapors, then the entire hood must be protected. B. Type of Protection: 1) When building is fully sprinklered, the hood system must be a sprinldered system. 2) In non-sprinklered buildings, any U.L. listed system is acceptable. C. When extinguishing agent is released, hood exhaust must: 1) be shut down; gas to cooking equipment must be shut down; and electricity to grease producing heating appliances must be shut down. 2) Gas and electricity must be manually reset after automatic shutdown. Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #35-1994 'Ic..-7 G� Date: 06/07/94 '�'°�'""'"" Revised: Approved - Public Safety Director Page 1 of 1 i CITY OF ely i r CHANHASSEN 4 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY MAXIMUM ALLOWED SIZE OF DOMESTIC WATER SERVICE ON A COMBINATION DOMESTIC/FIRE SPRINKLER SUPPLY LINE 1. Domestic water line shall not be greater than 1/4 pipe size of the combination service water supply line. 2. 1 1/2"domestic off 6"line. 3. 2"domestic off 8"line. 4. 2 1/2 domestic off 10"line. Option 1: Domestic sizes may be increased if it can be calculated hydraulically that the demand by all domestic fixtures will not drop the fire sprinkler water below its minimum gallonage required. Option 2: Combination domestic and five line service shall have an electric solenoid valve installed on the domestic side of the service. This valve shall be normally powered open and close on loss of electric power or signal from the system water flow indicator. Must be approved by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal and Chanhassen Mechanical Inspector. Chanhassen Fire Department Water Line Sizing Policy#36-1994 cceli), 7f ...______ Date: 06/10/94 Revised: Approved - Public Safety Director Page 1 of 1 MARKET SQUARE III Market Square III is the last part of the Market Square complex. The site is located just north of the Subway, in the Southeast quadrant of West 78th Street and Kerber Boulevard. The site consists of two platted lots described as Lots 2 and 3, Market Square. The project will be located on both and it is therefore proposed that these lots be replatted as one consolidated lot. The improvements will consist of an 8321 retail building, parking lot and landscaping. The property will be owned by Market Square Associates Limited Partnership, the same partnership which owns Market Square I (the Festival anchored center), the applicant/developer is Lotus Realty and the General Contractor is Amcon Corporation. Over two-thirds of the building has been leased to Stylists Choice, Inc., a Redmond Products company, who will operate a prototype upscale hair salon and hair products business under a name to be selected. The building has been designed to give the appearance of one continuous shopping center from Festival to West 78th Street, which is important for the shopping center. The streetscape along West 78th street will also benefit from this design. There are two distinctive buildings on either side of the proposed building, Market Square II and the Richfield Bank, and while this will be a freestanding building, designing it almost as a part of Market Square I avoids the choppiness often created along streets with several small buildings each with a unique design. While the design of the building is similar to Market Square and will use the same materials, colors and awnings, it has been updated through the use of curved midsections and a more articulated window design. The parapets have been altered accordingly. These parapets have also been designed to hide the rooftop HVAC equipment from every viewpoint Windows have been provided at all four elevations and public access has been provided at both the west and southern elevations. An emergency exit has been provided at the north elevation and to accommodate that exit a sunken walkway has been provided. Because of the grade at that elevation, a retaining wall has also been incorporated along the north elevation. There are 39 parking stalls located entirely on the site, 2 additional stalls located almost entierely on the site and parts of 5 stalls located partly on this site and partly on the adjacent Market Square I site. If 4 of these are attributed to this site, the total number of stalls on the subject site is 43. The standard established when the shopping center PUD was approved was 4.5 stalls per 1,000 square feet. To meet this requirement, 38 stalls are required. If the standard code requirement were used, 42 stalls would be required. There are existing sign covenants of record for this site. These covenants provide for signage on two elevations with letters of no more than 30 inches in height. In order to provide better proportion with the mass of the center walls of the building, the architect recommends an amendment to the covenants to allow a four foot sign band at these higher midsections. Within this band, single letters shall not to exceed 36 inches, or, if a creative logo or stacked letters (such as depicted on the elevation drawings submitted) are used, the total sign height shall not exceed 48 inches. A 30 inch band has been provided at the lower sections to both the left and the right of the midsections. On request of Redmond Products, we are requesting an amendment to allow signage on the north, the west and the south elevations. The north elevation will be important to the other tenant as well. The south elevation is important because it faces the main area of the shopping center and the west elevation is important because the Redmond entrance faces west and their customers will be parking to the west of the building. There is precedence for signs on three sides at Subway. No monument signs are permitted according to the sign covenants and none is requested. The existing Market Square I monument sign located on the site will remain. As stated above,the rooftop HVAC units will be shielded by the parapets and a trash enclosure constructed of identical materials to those already in place at Market Square Ito the south is proposed at the southwest corner of the site. Sidewalk connections have been provided off West 78th Street at the northwest corner of the building, to Market Square I, at the southwest corner of the building and to Market Square II at the southeast corner of the building. In addition wide sidewalks have been provided at both the south and west elevations to allow outdoor seating for sipping refreshments from the juice bar Redmond plans for its customers or for enjoying products which may be sold in the adjacent space. This project will bring new services and retail products to Chanhassen and to Market Square. The building will very attractively complete the commercial infilling of West 78th Street from Great Plains Blvd. to the one remaining parcel along Powers Boulevard. We are planning for spring and early summer construction. SIGN PLAN MARKET SQUARE III Exterior Signage: A. As to the signbands A (See attached elevation.) the letters and logos shall be restricted to 30 inches in height and must be lighted. If stacked words, the sign height shall be no higher than 30 inches. B. As to signbands B (See attached elevation) single letters shall be restricted to 36 inches. If stacked words or logos, the sign height shall be no greater than 48 inches. C. The signage shall be located on a maximum of three elevations of the building, the west front, the south front and the north. D. Tenant signage shall consist of store identification only. Copy is restricted to the Tenant's proper name and major product or service offered. Corporate logos, emblems, shields and similar identifying devices are permitted provided they are confined within the signage band and approved by Landlord. E. All signage must be located within the building designated sign band and must be centered on the horizontal center of the sign band. Tenants may locate their specific area by referring to the Architect's elevation plan. F. All exterior Tenant signs must meet construction specifications supplied by Landlord. G. Tenant shall submit all sign plans and specifications, including auxiliary signage, such as that used for grand openings, to the owner and to the City of Chanhassen for approval. H. Upon removal Tenant shall restore any damaged building face. Temporary Signage: Temporary signage shall be permitted in conformance with the City Code. Landlord and City approval and City permits are required for all temporary signage. Prohibited Signage: There shall be no signs advertising goods, services or businesses which have not contained within the building. Search lights, inflatable sings, banners, pennants and other devices that extend over parking lots or rights of way are prohibited signage. Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 17. The final grading plan shall maintain the existing drainage pattern from Eden Prairie, south of DataServ. 18. If exporting of earthwork materials is necessary, a haul route and traffic control plan shall be submitted to the city for review and approval. 19. Approval of this subdivision is contingent upon the recording of the final plat for Chanhassen East Business Center with Hennepin County prior to final plat approval of Chanhassen Pointe Business Centre. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mancino: May I have a motion on the vacation please. Aanenson: Madam Chair. Only the Council acts on the vacation. We just put that in for your edification but formally you don't make a recommendation on that. Mancino: Okay. Thank you very much. When does this go in front of the City Council? Al-Jaff: March 11th. Mancino: March 11th. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF A RETAIL BUILDING OF 8,321. SQ. FT. AND A PARKING LOT SETBACK VARIANCE ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD, AND LOCATED ON LOTS 2 AND 3, BLOCK 1, MARKET SQUARE, MARKET SQUARE 3 PARTNERS, INC., AMCON CORPORATION. Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Any questions of staff at this point? Would the applicant like to present at this time? Vernelle Clayton: My name's Vernelle Clayton. I live at 422 Santa Fe Circle here in Chanhassen. This project will be developed by the same owners and owned by the same folks that own Market Square I. They're also essentially the same...own Market Square II. These will be the exact same folks and will be re-acquiring the Lots 2 and 3 from the HRA... hopefully as soon as possible... We refer to Lots 2 and 3 and we have assumed for some time 55 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 that these two lots would be combined as one and so there will be one property of one lot and as the staff report indicates, there will be... I will be relatively brief once again in my presentation due to the hour and just tell you that a couple of things. We have designed the building very deliberately to be, not only compatible with Market Square I and the terms of the PUD. The covenants in the PUD state but to be...similar to Market Square I. We missed an opportunity to some extent with Market Square II. We have a nice building on main street. We don't really have something that fits really terribly well with Market Square. We missed an opportunity...but we want the opportunity to bring Market Square I up to West 78th Street...anywhere looking at Market Square, it's going to look like one large building. That will be to the benefit of those folks that work and make their livelihood in both buildings. You have... We also think that it will be the benefit of the...West 78th Street. We already have in that immediate area two quite small, uniquely designed brick buildings. We think by making this...one larger building we will, not only make the streetscape more interesting but it will avoid kind of the business that you get on the building here...appear kind of cluttered architecturally. Therefore we are very pleased with the design of the building we've come up with. At the same time I think he was able to articulate a bit of upscale elements which will be important to our tenants. I think very important to one of the tenant's representatives is here tonight. Dale Almquist sitting in the first row here is with Redmond Products and they are the folks who will be the lead tenant in that building_ They'll be doing a salon of...and they're quick to tell me, well no, not really. Our's is going to be more of... They have bought into the entertainment shopping center experience by way of...coffee bar and even a shampoo bar where they'll mix some of their client's shampoos and so forth on the site. At this point then I guess give the time...and then I'll be back to talk a little bit more. Mancino: Thank you. Bill Brisley: As Vernelle mentioned. Mancino: Would you please state your name and address. Bill Brisley: I'm sorry. My name's Bill Brisley. I'm an architect with Amcon Construction Company and...Market Square Partners. As Vemelle told you, we're upscaling this building a little bit with some curves and some up's and down's along the roof edge but really it is just an extension of... Exact same materials with the same base and the same stucco...exactly what we're going to do...Redmond and some of the others had ideas...turning the canopies downward...above the larger windows. You can see the repeat there. They're about 2 feet by 2 feet. That gives it a little more quality look than what is done at Market Square I, which was just plain... So little things like that I think are what we mean by upscaling it slightly. But the other...very, very similar to the center. The materials themselves, as I said, they are 56 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 the same as the center. The gray rock face block for a base. Would you like me to pass these up there? Mancino: I don't need to. Does anyone want it right here? I think we're fine, thank you. Bill Brisley: Okay. Green metal will match something like this. Kind of a, it's called a, now I've forgotten. Kind of a teal or, it's not even a teal. It's a darker green than that...dark green and we will match these... Canvas burgundy. Burgundy canvas canopy with silvery steel standards to hold them. All the windows are the same steel...clean anodized window material. The majority of the building is stucco. Again we'll match the original building...that does show, as does on Market Square I there are medallions and light fixtures that are on every single pier and they will be identical to what's down there, except for a possible upgrade from a tenant to a more design tile to fit into those medallion areas but that would be from any distance, it would be the same colors... Screening of the mechanical units is like Sharmin told you. It's all handled with the parapets. The minimum point above the roof where the maximum depth of the mechanical piece of equipment would be in this...and then it grows from that and the roof goes down. So like it's goes up almost 8 feet with no screen so the majority of them are in the 5 foot area. So they're, and that's taking it right directly from, looking at straight at the building...so really from the sidewalk it would seem higher than that... The entries are... The main entry would be here. Coming in off of this parking lot for... that's the salon. And really the only two sidewalk areas are, this would be the main one for the largest tenant and they are like...and then we're looking at another coffee shop...that would go here and there is a little space for a small tables on the sidewalk. That also would happen down here. We have a stairway that comes down. This side is very, very steep...I have a stairway here coming down from West 78th and then it's really quite a drop. About 5 feet so in fact where the video is sitting right now, you could see what that retaining wall would be like because the building has to be set down into... Mancino: Bill, what's the material for the retaining wall? Bill Brisley: Concrete. Same as the sidewalk and any of that material... Mancino: Just plain concrete. Bill Brisley: Yeah, that would be my choice...Coming down from 78th, there's a stairway there and that's what's happening right here. It turns in behind...and then along this side is a...this would be the front of the other tenant. Then there's a stairway that, because of staffs comments, can be moved down directly, it's going to come down off this sidewalk and go directly over in front of Subway and then of course we're taking... We started absolutely flat sidewalk here but the time we get down here, it's 2 feet over the drop so it's a very, very 57 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 difficult site... Trash at this point is down here. Right where we're coming around the corner to Kerber. The reason it's at this angle is to get a nice long straight shot. I think we're probably going to be widening that a little bit. Our current trash...suggest we bring it up to the building... Mancino: Any questions at this time? Bill Brisley: I could at this point... Mancino: and where would the signage go? Bill Brisley: Signage is on, basically over the canopies. Wherever there's a canopy, there's a sign... Mancino: And Bill a question about recessing. What's the amount of recess? Bill Brisley: In the wall...?Each one of those center sections. So on either side of the high section... Mancino: Any questions from commissioners? Mehl: Yeah I've got one. How tall is that retaining wall on the north end of the parking lot? Bill Brisley: It's about 5, the parking lot part? Mehl: Well from the parking lot surface up to the top of the retaining wall. Bill Brisley: About 3 1/2 feet. The one behind the building. Mancino: There are two retaining walls. Mehl: Okay. You say there were two retaining walls? Mancino: Yeah, aren't there two different ones? There's one on 78th. Bill Brisley: There's one along the back of the building...and then there's one in the parking lot... Mehl: Right. How tall is that one? 58 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 Bill Brisley: That's the one that's... Mehl: I'm looking at a drawing here, SB-2 and I'm trying to get some elevations comparisons here. Bill Brisley: I'm sorry, it's 5 feet. It's the same as the other one. They're both 5 feet. Mehl: Okay. I was just curious, I look at the drawings and it looks like about 974 1/2 upper elevation and about a 967 1/2 parking lot elevation. That's a difference of 7 feet. Bill Brisley: Well we have a small area of sod there which would kind of slope down and then there's a 6 inch drop of the curb and then the parking lot, as we know is about 5%. So it will be between 3% and 5%. Mehl: Was that elevation at the north end of the parking lot based on the 5% slope in the parking lot? So staff is recommending 3 1/2% which over that distance will add about another foot and a half to the height of that wall. Bill Brisley: Which is one of our objections to that solution. Hempel: Madam Chair, if I could interject at this point. We met, Vernelle and I discussed one condition, item number 12 about the parking lot grades being the 3 1/2%. After looking at it a little bit closer, they're actually probably in the range of 4% and with that, it's similar to Wendy's parking lot grade. Side slopes. It's desirable to have less than 4%, or 3 1/2% from an access. Mancino: So you want to keep 12? Hempel: We could actually delete 12. Mancino: Does that answer your question Don? Mehl: Yeah. It eliminates the difference between the 5 and the 3 1/2. So the height of that wall is what now back there? I came up with a difference of about 7 feet here. Bill Brisley: 974 pretty much at the highest part and then the sod right down to the low end, on the low side is 969. About 5 feet...It's difficult. Mehl: Okay. One other question here. I've got a couple more. I'm looking at drawing SB-2 which is a grading plan drawing that shows the configuration of the parking lot and so on and 59 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 then I look at drawing SB-5 and it looks, they're different. The islands are shown different. The parking lot configuration on the north side is different. You've got some great insets into the...Which one's correct? I know they're dated a day apart. Bill Brisley: This is a landscape plan done by our consultant. He took the background... Mehl: Okay. Mancino: Any other questions at this point of the applicant? Mehl: Can I ask one more? Mancino: Sure. Mehl: On the north side of the building you've got what looks like a, kind of a tunnel like walkway. It looks like it's maybe 5 or 5 1/2 feet wide. Then you've got the building on the one side which of course goes up and then you've got a 5 or 6 foot retaining wall on the other side. And that goes down the north side of the building to an emergency exit door which is on the east end of the walkway. Is there any concern about that tunnel walkway getting filled with snow? What happens when it snows 4 or 5 inches with a good wind? You know is it going to level off. You're going to have to be able to get that door open. What do you do with the snow? You know who's going to throw it up that high? Bill Brisley: It's going to have to be maintained. Mehl: Yeah, it's going to have to be. The door has to be easily opened all the time. Bill Brisley and Vernelle Clayton made comments from the audience which were not picked up by the tape. Mehl: That's the last one. Mancino: Thank you. Is there anyone else presenting Vernelle? Vernelle Clayton continued her presentation, but it was not picked up on the tape. Mancino: I just have a couple suggestions and that would be that in the retaining wall, the 5 foot retaining wall where that kind of tunnel area is, that there be some lights nestled in the retaining wall. 60 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 Bill Brisley: Every corner has two and every recess has one. Those large ones that we have on Market Square I so the building's going to be well lit... Mancino: Within that kind of 5 foot emergency, kind of tunnel area where you have the, there might need to be some lighting. At least that retaining wall down below so when people are walking through, that they have some lighting on that side that kind of tells them where the retaining wall starts. And also, maybe not just concrete retaining wall but something that has an aesthetic texture to it. To add to it. Vernelle Clayton made a comment. Mancino: Some sort of texture of concrete. Vernelle Clayton: I wanted to make a couple more comments... I guess I would like to suggest that we add to that, or as approved by staff's subsequent review of the plan and... At number 9. The width of the existing drive aisle along the south side of the development shall be increased to a minimum of 26 feet wide, fact to face. We talked about that... Mancino: Vernelle tell me again, which number are you on? On 9? Vernelle Clayton: ...we just thought we'd like to clarify that... Bill Brisley: ...very, very flat area at this end and this road naturally right now goes downhill very fast and ends up being... Vernelle Clayton: ...those are the only questions that were...except for item number 2. We have a very unique situation here in that we have covenants of record that state exactly what staff had recommended. We were able to live with them on Market Square II. We have a different situation here in that there are two elements that... One is we have a very...to 36 inches in that area and 30 inches in the other area. The other thing we want...we're asking for is...precedence in Market Square and that there be signs allowed on three sides. We have... signs to the entire building. We really need to be able to put signs on West 78th. The end tenant on the other end, the east end will need a sign on West 78th Street... The problem therefore, we need to have signs, if we're choosing two sides, we need to choose north and south. The problem arises in that Redmond, and I think it's a good idea...but their front door is facing west. And they would...sign above the front door. So that's the dilemma and we don't argue with staff recommending. Their role is to interpret...What we're asking for... Dale Almquist: Good evening. Dale Almquist. I represent Redmond Products, 28930 West 78th Street. We are very excited about this project. It's kind of a new venture for Redmond 61 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 to open a salon and retail outlet. It's not going to have the Redmond name on it. It's going to be independent and the beginning of bigger and better things. It's going to be called Capelli's which is Italian for hair...but after looking around the Twin Cities they decided they really wanted to stay right here in Chanhassen, so the site became very important. And Vernelle stated it very well. The two sided sign ordinance, it leaves one plane exposed and... can't have that. In marketing, you can't get enough... This is a unique building in that it doesn't have a back side. It's completely three or four front sides. Each side faces an important direction but we certainly want a sign facing West 78th Street and a sign facing the parking lot of the Market Square. And also...but this is the entrance to the building and we definitely want a sign...and we are asking for an exception. An exception is always a hard thing to ask for but we think it's well warranted. Vemelle Clayton: ...with Subway, they have signage on all three sides of the building... Mancino: Now Wendy's has signs on two sides and so does the Edina Realty building. Vernelle Clayton: Right. Mancino: Okay. Farmakes: All of these buildings were completed at different times in our ordinance's history. Vernelle Clayton: Right. I don't have anything else but I appreciate your time and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have. Mancino: Vernelle I have a question for you. On condition 14. Where it says the trash enclosure may be relocated to the northeasterly corner of the parking lot. I'm assuming the way that that is worded, you are still working on that with staff or? Vernelle Clayton: I will talk about that...talked about the elevation here and if you walk along the street, whether you walk down the sidewalk... Mancino: You'd see the trash. Vernelle Clayton: ...this is all going to be under the same ownership and we will be, really this... Mancino: I have another question for you. Let me ask Sharmin and Dave, does that work for you two? About keeping the trash enclosure in that or is that something you still want to work out with the applicant? 62 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 Al-Jaff: No, we understand the circumstances so. Mancino: Okay. From the report I read, that there was one extra parking space. Vernelle Clayton: Yes. We should address that. It shows, this is a difficult area right in here...and we really did not want to give up the sidewalk... Mancino: Okay. So we're down to the minimum number. Because I was going to say, if there was another place where I think we could give up the parking space, would be right in front of the entry to the Redmond. I mean you know, when you go to places, it's so nice if you have an area where you are to walk in and nobody can park and you don't have to go between cars. Vernelle Clayton: ...handicapped kind of serves that purpose... Mancino: Any other questions for the applicant at this time? Mehl: What is the physical size of that trash container or area? Vernelle Clayton: This one is probably about...We need to widened it just a little bit. Mehl: What were those numbers? Vernelle Clayton: Probably about 14 by 10. Mehl: 14 by 10. By how high? Vemelle Clayton: 14 wide and...it will be exactly the same as all the others along Market Square. Mehl: Which is what? Vernelle Clayton: ...8. Farmakes: The gray stucco that is currently showing as white on the computer rendering. Is that the same color gray as the building currently...? So that's a darker gray. Vernelle Clayton: Same color as the stucco would be compatible... Mancino: You should have wood. 63 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 Farmakes: Okay. Do you have a sample here of that coloration or the materials that you both held up. I believe it's concrete. You have, the building appears to be in the rendering much lighter than what I would envision Market Square... Bill Brisley: Well one thing, this is video and video has definite color shifts. It's darker. It's lighter than that shadow and lighter than the bright sunlight areas but...what I'm saying is that we will match that exactly with a subcontractor. He'll go out and match that... Farmakes: So this is the texture of the material but not the color? The color is. Bill Brisley: Very, very close. Farmakes: Is a cooler, grayer material. Mancino: And I have one last question Vernelle. You are requesting wall signage on three sides. The west side, the north side and the south side, correct. Okay. And you're all done presenting? Vernelle Clayton: Yes I am....walk away from you. Mancino: Not sure if we should start the public hearing or not. Vernelle Clayton: I'll be happy to answer questions... Mancino: Thank you. May I have a motion and a second to open this for a public hearing. Faimakes moved, Meyer seconded to open the public heating. The public hewing was opened. • Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission. Seeing none, may I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Farmakes moved, Meyer seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: Comments, questions from commissioners. Don. And obviously one of the big questions is signage. Allowing signage on three walls, which was within the PUD covenants in 1989. And then addressing the conditions and just the overall site review. 64 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 Mehl: The little drive there going around the north and west end of Subway. I guess it wasn't clear in my mind and the discussions here as to, understanding it's going to be widened to 26 feet on the north end but for some reason it couldn't be widened out to that going around the west end of Subway. Mancino: Dave, could you address that? Hempel: Kerber Boulevard along the west here. The new curb line that with the staff report is proposing would be the red line here to widened the drive aisle out to 26 foot wide in this area. As a result this is the trash enclosure location just shifts approximately 3 to 4 feet over. It would maintain that 26 foot aisle until you get into this proximity and would match the existing curb alignment that's in place and that I believe is 25.4 feet wide in this location here. Feel it was warranted to remove the whole curb line... Mancino: You're sure it's 25.4? Hempel: That's what I'm being told. Mancino: I'm just kidding. Meyer: Dave can I ask you? Do you think there's a safety issue having, that's a bad corner as it is. Having that garbage location there. Hempel: Typically the garbage pick-ups are off peak hours. They're not during the noon rush hour... Aanenson: I just had a comment on that. Staff looked at that option. Actually that's probably what we spent a lot of time discussing. And all three of us had a different opinion but when it came down to it and looking at, you're impeding other sidewalk movement and what it does to the physical look of the building. As they indicated, putting it next to West 78th. You don't want people looking over the top of it. My preference was to put it on the other side of the building and again, that impedes the sidewalk for people coming down off of West 78th and around. So really it was compromised. It's not the ideal location but really it's probably, well it's the most efficient. Meyer: ...is that a possibility? The entrance to the garage...back in from the parking lot somehow? Aanenson: Oh. Behind one of the islands? 65 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 Meyer: Instead of being on the main drag there. I don't know. Aanenson: There was another dumpster further down on, yeah. Right where approximately Dave's pointing now there's another dumpster located back there. I guess that's kind of what we were looking at. As far as visibility, if you're coming down West 78th, your sight line's blocked by the bank so I guess we were looking at it from that perspective. It kind of, that sight line is not what the building is blocking. It's probably the most screened. But we all concurred, that was our problem with this. Trying to find the best spot for that. Hempel: There's some exposure from Subway. I believe Subway has a window or two back in this area... Mancino: Go ahead Don. Mehl: Well I guess I'm still confused. Can you turn that back on Dave? Did you say that now that we can in fact go to the 26 feet? Hempel: That's what we're recommending, yes. In this area here, rather than need a new curb line proposed. Mehl: Right. Mancino: But once you get past that turn, you're back to 25.4. Mehl: Right. Yeah, I agree that that corner around the end of Subway is a tough one. People come off of Kerber and make a left hand turn and come around there and they're going too fast you know and you wonder if you're going to get nailed. Hempel: We also looked at a thru street. Trying to straighten that out. _ Mehl: Yeah, I understand. Hempel: And the grade difference plus the stacking of vehicles here for the intersection was of great importance. Aanenson: Plus we also felt it might encourage more speed because you have a straight shot. So actually this main, because right now there's no hinderance for you to slow down. So actually, even though it is a little bit wider, you have to slow down for the sight lines because there's other movement there. Right now there's nothing else to really slow you down. You don't have to worry about someone else except for when you get closer to that intersection. 66 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 Mehl: Well is there any way that you could put in a couple of big speed bumps on that? I mean to force people to slow down. Like one right in the entrance as you come off of Kerber. Make them go over a big speed bump right around, just as they enter and then one about midway in the driveway. Mancino: Well if there's anyone else in the driveway, you slow down anyway because you can hardly get two cars passing each other. Hempel: It's very congested the way it is. This should open it up a little bit... Mancino: Is that even workable to think about speed bumps? Hempel: Some shopping lots, or parking lot areas do have speed bumps. I guess I'm not a proponent of them. They probably do more damage to snowplows than anything. Mancino: I'll just talk from, my driveway has them. And I mean, it's a problem. Taking different equipment up and down the driveway. The tractors and plows and everything else. Farmakes: You should slow down. Mancino: Going about 60 mph down that road. Mehl: Yeah, other than that drive around there. Again which I'm uncomfortable with you know the speeds and the close quarters. People making the tight turns. Expanding that out to 26 feet is in effect going to, as you're exiting that drive, your person exiting actually has to make even a tighter turning radius to get out onto Kerber because the whole curb is moved over 4 feet and tightening the whole bend. Mancino: This isn't going to make it great. I mean it's not going to solve everything. It's going to make it better. Mehl: I'm a little uncomfortable with that retaining wall. I don't know how tall it's really going to end up you know. It could be 5-6 feet. I don't know if it's a safety issue. We kind of talked about those here a month ago or so. And again I'm a little concerned with that. That exit door, that emergency door. Ice build-up and so on. It could be a problem but it has to be maintained. As far as the signage goes, I think we have to follow the new sign ordinances. Go with two sides of the building. Whether it be on the, you know maybe it's on the west and the north, you know I don't know. But other than that I think I support staffs recommendation. 67 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 Mancino: Jeff. Farmakes: I'm going to back up a little bit farther back. Sometimes we encounter and talk about these projects that take place over a period of years or bump up against changes in the ordinance and so on. Some things that I like about this and some things that I don't so. The shape of the building and what the architect's trying to do, I think he's tried to implement what the client's asking for but the problem, backing up before that is what the client's asking for. The continuation of Market Square, the large section of Market Square along. Bringing it up into the main street area is sort of counter productive of what we discussed in previous buildings, which is quasi i.e. office retail, which is primarily retail. But it's with the brick building here on the corner and the discussion that we talked about there is bringing higher end materials, higher grade building. It's adjacent to a civic area and so on and what the city plans to do and try to bring up the scale of that property. On one hand we're running into conflict on how they're marketing the larger percentage of square footage involved in the development. Obviously from a marketing standpoint they feel they've made their case as to why they would like to see that direction encountered. The problem with that is that from a civic point of view, you look at it and you look at main street and you see that building and what do you have. You have a gray stucco building that is basically a medium grade retail building. There's nothing special about it. There's nothing extraordinary and it was the same argument that we were making and I did not, I was a dissenter on the other Market II buildings. I didn't think that, the city's losing an opportunity I feel to ask for more. It's always a problem with retail when you ask for more because it's not profitable. It's simply not as profitable and we've had this argument over and over again because as we sit here with our wish list, we would like pie in the sky. We would like to see important architecture done and so on for our community and what we run up against of course is that, well we're not making any money on it so we're not going to do that. Somewhere in the middle maybe lies the difference but in this particular spot, this is an important spot. This isn't just a typical retail spot again. I would like to see something...we relooked at the building as far as the architecture. And it's not looking at this computer drawing. It's looking at, do we buy into the argument that it should be a continuation of what is basically a typical retail type structure. Market I. So I would like to see something more and what bothers me about this is when I look at the materials, I see nicer materials going into a warehouse building that we were presented here than what we're seeing here. And I'd like to see...given to me. It seems to me, based on where it is in our community, that we should be seeing more. Mancino: So you would like to see something different in design and in quality of materials? Farmakes: Well I feel that the design is probably not outside of what we ask for, although a 2 foot...now that's the bare minimum that we're looking at. I don't feel that, you know again there are a lot of possibilities out there but if you're going to define that you want an 68 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 extension. You want an extension of the existing structure. Well you're defining that. You're closing in the architecture. You're telling them that too far away from that is not what you want. So again we're coming back to a marketing idea versus something of civic interest. Again we're talking about gray stucco. You can't get much more neutral or boring than gray stucco and even the retaining walls. Poured concrete so if you have concrete, they're gray concrete and gray stucco and again, I go back to I think we could do more with that or ask for more. In talking about issues of signage, it's a very low impact signage area. There's very little competition for the eye. The car has to drive virtually next to the building. I don't see any case for a 36 inch sign versus 30. There's a stop light close by. Cars are going to be interrupted. You couldn't help but see whatever's on that building. If we make exceptions, I think from any signs, we will be here with every applicant giving that. Already today we've treaded on this issue more than once in asking for exceptions on signage. But again, perhaps there's something that needs to be rethought out, either with the monument sign or however that's traded. To alleviate the problem of how they want to divide up... But I do think that the basic problem that we need to discuss here is, do we buy into that fact. That that should be a continuation of Market Square I because we're defining how that building looks then if that's true and in that case, do we feel it's in the best interest of the city. _ Mancino: And in the last two years, with the addition of the Wendy's and the Edina Realty, it seems as if the city were looking for something not of the same thing. Farmakes: I don't see that as any different. The premise for that and I certainly think that the Wendy's is successful. The other building I think was a compromise of sorts but again, I don't think that the adjacent property would be any more important to the city than where that chunk is adjacent to us. So it's an important part. So I've talked enough. Mancino: Bob. Skubic: Well it seems to be a difficult site because of the grade there and I'm not too crazy about the retaining wall...in front of the building on the north side. I don't know what can be done about that. Perhaps that could be a split entry building. I've driven by that site prior to seeing this and I've often wondered how that site could be utilized and very, not very easily I guess is the answer. But that's all. That's my only comment. Mancino: Any comments on architectural or the main question that Jeff has brought up about extending Market Square. Skubic: Until Jeff brought up that point, it made a lot of sense to me to have those compliment Market Square. I appreciate the different view point on this. I don't know. 69 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 Mancino: Mike. Meyer: That is exactly what I was just thinking too. I hadn't thought of it in that way. That being such a focal point. I had already thought that I didn't like a 5 foot high retaining wall of just concrete. I tend to agree with Jeff on his points as far as maybe going with some higher quality materials for the siding for the structure. I'd also like to see some kind of other solution for having signs on three sides. Maybe they can do something with a monument sign or something of that sort. I don't have the answer but I'd like to see something just with two sides. That's it. Mancino: Craig. Peterson: I was struggling with this one for the last week. My first reaction was as they described the stucco and the gray again and I looked at the sheer amount of retaining wall that was going to augment that building. Augment or detract from the building in my eyes. I starting thinking in the same realm that Jeff was thinking also. Is that I don't feel as though it's, it is somewhat of a step up just because of the architectural lines of the building from Market I but I agree that with the plane, at a minimum I would like to see the retaining wall done something different than straight concrete because I think it does detract from the building. But I concur. I think that we will have a lost opportunity if we don't do something different than the stucco. So I would be in favor of, the building itself doesn't bother me. If we could do something other than stucco, other than the concrete retaining wall to take the harshness and coldness away from that building. I think it would be very advantageous to the city. And the signage, I think we went on record tonight and numerous nights before that there isn't that compelling reason to change from the sign ordinance. I don't think it's been presented here tonight so I couldn't support that either. Mancino: And for commissioners to know it's not so much, I mean we do have the sign ordinance but it is in their PUD contract, correct. That it's the two sides. And yet I understand very much how I would want to have a sign, no question on the north side, the west side and the south side too. I mean you want people who come in on the south side that are, you know when you get into the center, to look around and to see that it's there. And as I'm coming west too. Is there, I mean I would like this worked out with staff and the applicant to see if there's something that could be done to the monument sign or, are there any other alternatives? Al-Jaff: There is an existing sign. Monument sign along the north. Mancino: And doesn't it have, what does it say on that signage? 70 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 Al-Jaff: Right here? Mancino: Yeah. It says Market Square but then doesn't it list everything that's. Al-Jaff: Well, they have the option of advertising. Mancino: So they could put the name of the tenants on this building, on that sign and make it, hold on Vernelle until we're done. Okay, thank you. They could have the option of putting the tenants of this particular building on that sign. And there is also, well just a minute because you can... because there is also another monument sign on the corner. They have two monument signs on 78th. Al-Jaff: The corner of 78th and Market. Mancino: We have two monument signs on 78th. One on the corner of Market and 78th and one on 78th and then we also have another one on Market. So there are three monument signs strategically placed for that square. And I'll wait to hear why we cannot but I would, I understand the need. I would like to see it resolved in a way that we use the monument sign and then two wall signs that stay with the covenants of the PUD. I must admit I was concerned a little, as Jeff was, on the building. I like the architecture, the simplicity and the cleanness of the design of the building. I don't feel that it has the same quality of feel with the other buildings that are on 78th Street now. So I guess that I'm saying, is your question, do we want to see Market Square continued up to 78th. And I guess I'm saying, no. I would like to see something else. Farmakes: My question, to clarify that as Market Square I architecturally. Mancino: Yes, thank you. And I just don't think it meets the city's standards or the city's character right now in that area and what we've seen put in in the last 3 years that I've been on the Planning Commission as far as architecture and a lot of detail and the type of material. So I would like to see this come back in. Any other discussion on this from, would anyone else like to add at this point? Peterson: I agree. Mancino: Vernelle. Vernelle Clayton: Technically the monument signs belong to Market Square I and they're... and it can't be used by Market Square III. 71 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 Mancino: Not at all? Vernelle Clayton: No. Mancino: Okay. Aren't they owned by one and same owner? Vernelle Clayton: They are owned by the same one but the leases the tenants have, we have promised those tenants...and they don't have to be owned by the same owner. They can't really make promises. Just because they're owned...and then tomorrow they sell the property to two different people. Mancino: Do you have different tenants on each monument sign? Vernelle Clayton: No, the same ones are on each one. There are two monument signs for Market Square I and one for Market Square II. The two for Market Square I have the same tenants on it. Mancino: Gotch you. On Market and on 78th? Vernelle Clayton: Right. Mancino: And the one that's on the corner is Market Square II. Vernelle Clayton: Right. Mancino: Well we haven't solved that one yet. Peterson: Well staff, is there room for another monument sign anywhere that you can see? Aanenson: I think at this point, if you're going to table, I think that's something that we would be willing to look at. If that's the direction you're leaning. Mancino: Do I have a motion? Farmakes: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission table the site plan for Market Square III, #95-22 SPR, that's dated February 7, 1996 on the staff report dated February 21, 1996. I'd request that the applicant options be worked out with staff in regards to looking at the structure, the permanent structure as far as materials go. I'm looking for some creativity here. Options. Looking at the issue or looking at alternative issues or working out your signage options with your tenants that fit within the city ordinances. And looking at creative 72 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 ways for architecturally...looking at the retaining wall situation. Structure of the building itself or the shape of the building I don't think is a major issue of contention. The quality of the materials, perhaps the color scheme or dealing with the continuation of Market I architecture. Does that seem to clarify what I'm trying? Mancino: Well yeah. I mean I think this is very compatible with, and I would still like to stay in that compatibility range of Market Square I but add to it as far as architectural details and architectural quality of materials. Anyone else who would like to make it even more clear. Al-Jaffa Do you want the comparison between compatibility with Market Square II versus I? Farmakes: I think that's certainly, that's an option. Again, we got into the same argument. I made a motion so I don't know, maybe we should deal with that before we discuss... Mancino: I just want to make sure the staff has clear enough direction. So we will go ahead with the motion and we will make sure that it is clear. Is there a second to the motion? Mehl: I'll second it. Mancino: Any discussion? During this discussion time, does staff need clear, definite guidance? Aanenson: Can I just respond back to you what I believe the issues are? Mancino: Yes. Aanenson: That you want us to look at the materials. There seems to be some consensus that the design of the building is okay but you want to review the materials so we'll take several approaches to do that. Secondly, you want us to look at the sign options and we've got the direction that you want us to look within the ordinance to see if there's some other alternative there. And finally look at the retaining wall materials. Mancino: Thank you. Fannakes moved, Mehl seconded that the Planning Commission table action on the Site Plan for Market Square III (#95-22 SPR) for further review. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mancino: So we will see this again when it's ready. 73 LOTUS REALTY SERVICES February 23, 1996 TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff FROM: Vernelle Clayton RE: Market Square III With respect to the deadline today for information to be included in the packet for the next Planning Commission meeting, we would like to confirm with you and the Planning Commission members that we will be addressing the three issues discussed at the meeting night before last: 1. Materials to be used on the retaining walls. 2. Materials to be used on the building. 3. Explore further possibilities for signage. As to number 1 and 2, we will be providing a complete presentation of materials for both the retaining walls and the building. We will be presenting samples of actual materials and actual colors, along with a depiction of their use on the proposed improvements. In the couple of days since the meeting we have not had a chance to further pursue the signage issue with the tenant; we will be doing so with the hope of bringing alternative solutions to the Commission for its consideration. We will keep you informed of any new thoughts on this subject. 551 WEST 78TH STREET IN P.O.BOX 235■CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317■(612)934-4538■FAX(612)934-5472 C I TY 0 F C DATE: 3/6/96 \\10 CUAAET s C DATE: 3/25/96 ASE#: SUB 96-2 �-� . By: Generous/Hempel:v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Request for preliminary plat approval to subdivide 11.8 acres into 23 single family lots, Oak Ridge of Minnewashta LOCATION: West of Stratford Ridge and north of the Oaks of Minnewashta APPLICANT: Greg Hahn 1865 West Wayzata Blvd. 1. Long Lake,MN 55356 475-9240 PRESENT ZONING: RSF,Residential Single Family ACREAGE: 11.8 acres DENSITY: Gross: 1.95, Net: 2.37 ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N-RSF, vacant and single family homes in Country Oaks Add. S-RSF,the Oaks at Minnewashta E- RSF, single-family homes(Stratford Ridge) W-Vacant, Hwy. 7, City of Victoria WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. 1.1 .� PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site has a significant border of trees along the northern property line. In addition,a stand of significant trees is located in the northwest corner of the property. Additional trees are scattered around the farmstead. The high point of the site is 1004 feet located where the existing house now stands. The site slopes downwards to the west,north and east from this point. A low point at elevation 970 is located in the northeast corner of the property. CV - 7 0 p co p O C O Q ►') M ►— re) O O O C M re. 6200---- Ti M M ,� i _.........0 IPPI 630 Loval.. % lig iiiir7A i ■, ... o Y/RG/N/Alikt, � ��I��i,�. iv& AS E�w �� c �� 6400-- ,/- al / - •' . 3 • K. • `4 �p Mr to. •E I� o �� a� �!� I� 11 „,u, , ...... /6 ASTER / ;� .• , �,��•, iletkiiii- 'J S00 clRcL I ��A�� 410�� 4.L:: K"Artri telli • II* - .-- G66OO e.:. : re/► tt1tm.it,....... ,r gAllmarar". irit%1 , tilli:1L--',-.) /*/r a• A•4.1.'pi i E-ati LI eh 6700 or ��r frim ,..,, / �, �� .�■ •■. mil ;1 i . CA ELL-JIM WA' //Air/ LAKE 6800 g :s:tisim«al 690 ....... : : o- B�I�� -e)/ 0� aouLE . ,� M / N N E W A S H T A STRATFO-are, / 4:1 =j 700 O KINGS ROAD \/,‘) ^\ 1- 41 \.___, IA o 7100-----413 PR CAKE `:•—z: al ►IIIIII.!., \ 0 1 .-.:../togi,\:.-' • ...... 0 /II , . 5 c� �� - I Ip1141 ` x -11 7200— _ I`/ , : • ��111111 _ ��;; 7300 �,' ' I rii Pt" ' . __ --. , ' ..-J . 10° --- / � III hr`` COURT r— —4., ct X400 I:L1�,,w.,:�� i4,100Q ct 7500 •al es bnifiratr• , (Atiivt � 760 5414 14 \` .? A ‘,\ � o 46�� 'N - 2j 7 700---_ „Avail 780n— it.t kRY ing a 23 lot subdivision on 11.8 acres. Access to the site will be provided of Country Oaks Road which currently terminates at the south and north .ins propose on extending and connecting Country Oaks Drive to the north •omplete the dead-end street in the Country Oaks development to the north. will also provide continuity between neighborhoods and access to gated north of Kings Road and west of Minnewashta Parkway. An existing us trail has been extended along Country Oaks Drive from the north. A 5- Iewalk is proposed along Country Oaks Drive from the south(Oaks of applicant should continue the extension of the 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk )rive and connect it to the existing 8-foot wide bituminous trail at the north ,e proposed subdivision is consistent with a sketch plan that staff reviewed as the Oaks of Minnewashta which was approved immediately to the south of ,2Iopment will construct two storm water ponds for water quality and or to discharging runoff from the site into Country Oaks. Storm sewers will i te's runoff via storm sewer pipes to the ponds for treatment. The outlet I I be revised and relocated outside the tree limits to minimize tree loss. Staff with the applicant's engineer in an effort to reduce site grading and the need by means of adjusting street grades and/or house pads. the existing home and site topography, construction of the streets and in significant earth moving. Staff will be working with the project the amount of grading and retain site characteristics. Staff has already uts 2. 3. 4 and 5, Block 2 (Oak Ridge Court)through the use of a private this will result in reducing the amount of grading by pulling the house pads .eter of the lot lines and allowing for relocation/enlargement of the storm rtheast corner of the site. Staff will be recommending that the applicant plat drawings to incorporate staff's design using the private street scenario T approval of the preliminary plat subject to the conditions contained in the Teves that through the use of a private street and the elimination of one of the the amount of grading will be significantly reduced. Oak Ridge of Minnewashta March 6, 1996 Page 3 BACKGROUND In May 1993, the City approved an administrative subdivision clarifying the eastern property line of this property. An existing house, stable,and barn/shed are located in the western portion of the property. LANDSCAPING/TREE PRESERVATION Existing canopy coverage for the proposed Oak Ridge development is approximately 13 percent, or 64,450 square feet. The applicant is removing approximately 16,600 square feet of canopy for construction and stormwater installation purposes leaving 47,850 square feet. Minimum coverage requirements for a low density residential with existing coverage less than 13 percent is 25 percent. The target canopy coverage for this site equals 128,474 square feet. Since the applicant does not meet minimum requirements, the forestation plantings required for the site total 59 trees. The 16,600 square feet of canopy area being removed is multiplied by 1.2 and is calculated to be 18 trees for replacement. The total forestation and replacement plantings required are 77 trees. The applicant has currently proposed 42 trees for the site. Staff recommends the building pads for lots around the western cul-de-sac be pulled closer to the road in order to pull the houses away from the existing wooded area in the north western corner. By doing so, it would not be necessary to do any tree removal within that area. In addition, the stormwater pipes along the northern property line can be relocated away from the tree line to preserve these trees. Any additional trees preserved on-site will reduce the amount of replacement plantings required on site. Trees that are to be preserved on-site shall be protected with tree protection fencing pursuant to city ordinance. WETLANDS According to City maps it appears there are no wetlands on the site. However,there is a creek/ravine that intersects the west end of the plat through Lots 7 and 8, Block 1. The applicant should retain a qualified wetlands delineator to prepare a report or letter of clarification as to the status of the creek. Surface Water Management Plan The City has prepared and adopted a Surface Water Management Plan(SWMP) to serve as a tool to protect,preserve and enhance water resources. The plan identifies, from a regional perspective, the storm water quantity and quality improvements necessary to allow future development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In general, the water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100-year design storm interval for ponding and a 10- year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan uses Oak Ridge of Minnewashta March 6, 1996 Page 4 William Walker, Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at each drainage area based on the projected future land use, and therefore, different sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies. Storm Water Quality Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for water quality systems. The cash dedication will be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using the market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of$2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond if the applicant constructs the pond or$4.00 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond if the City constructs the pond. Fees are reduced based on the costs of the developers contribution to the SWMP design parameters. The proposed SWMP quality charge has been calculated at $800/acre for single family residential developments. This proposed development of 11.8 acres would then be responsible for a water quality connection charge of$9,440. Since the applicant is proposing to construct water quality basins in accordance with the City's SWMP, these fees will then be waived. Storm Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established an connection charge for different land uses based on an average, city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes all proposed SWMP trunk systems, culverts, and open channels and stormwater ponding areas for temporary runoff storage. The connection charge is based on the type of land use for the area. Fees will be based on the total developable land. Undevelopable area(wetlands),public parks, and existing development is exempt from the fees. The fees are negotiable based on the developers contribution to the SWMP design parameters. Single family residential developments will have a connection charge of$1,980 per developable acre. This proposed single family residential development of 11.8 acres would then be responsible for a water quantity connection charge of $23,364. The City will apply credits to the applicant's surface water quantity fees for construction of improvements in accordance with SWMP which include such items as outlet control devices,trunk storm sewer pipes, pond oversizing, etc. The final connection charges will be determined after review of the final construction plans. DRAINAGE The site is divided into two drainage subdistricts with the westerly one-quarter of the site draining west into a creek/wetland located within the City of Victoria. This creek is a part of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and drains into Lake Virginia from the west. The easterly Oak Ridge of Minnewashta March 6, 1996 Page 5 three-quarters of the site drains northerly towards Country Oaks development. A combination of storm sewers and overland sheet drainage conveys runoff from this site to a stormwater pond created in conjunction with the Country Oaks development. Unfortunately, back in 1989 the City only required on-site project for each individual project as it developed. Therefore,the pond in Country Oaks is not large enough to accommodate direct discharge of the storm water from this site without first ponding on-site to prevent flooding in Country Oaks. As proposed, this development will construct two storm water ponds for water quality and quantity purposes prior to discharging runoff from the site into Country Oaks. Storm sewers will convey most of the site's runoff via storm sewer pipes to the ponds for treatment. The outlet pipe for the pond will be revised and relocated outside the tree limits to minimize tree loss. The minimum easement width for all utilities located outside of the street right-of-way shall be 20 feet. Staff will also be working with the applicant's engineer in an effort to reduce site grading and the need for the westerly pond by means of adjusting street grades and/or house pads. Detailed storm calculations were submitted for the storm sewer system. Staff has found them generally acceptable. However, staff still needs to review the ponding calculations to determine if the ponds are designed to meet Surface Water Management water quality requirements. The ponds are also being designed to maintain the predeveloped runoff rate from the site. The outlet pipe from the easterly pond will require an easement from the church property which is outside the plat. The City has existing drainage and utility easements over the rear yards of those lots in Country Oaks where the storm sewer is proposed to be extended. Staff and the applicant will be working with the neighboring property owners regarding timing of the project and restoration of their properties. In an effort to reduce sump pump discharge into the City's sanitary sewer system, staff will be requiring the applicant to extend drain tile behind the curbs for the homes to discharge into. The City will only require drain tile in those areas where the properties are not adjacent storm ponds, wetlands, or catch basins. GRADING The majority of the site is proposed to be graded for the storm water ponds, streets and house pads. The site slopes from south to north with an elevation change from 1002 to 972. A small row of trees exists along both north and south property lines. Staff and the applicant's engineer will be adjusting site grades slightly to preserve these buffer strips. However, some trees will be lost in the areas where the street, Country Oaks Drive, will be extended as well as the storm sewer to Country Oaks. Given the location of the existing home and site topography, construction of the streets and house pads will result in significant earth moving. Staff will be working with the project engineer to minimize the amount of grading and retain site characteristics. Staff has already Oak Ridge of Minnewashta March 6, 1996 Page 6 looked at servicing Lots 2, 3, 4 and 5, Block 2 (Oak Ridge Court)through the use of a private street. Staff believes this will result in reducing the amount of grading by pulling the house pads away from the perimeter of the lot lines and allowing for relocation/enlargement of the storm water pond in the northeast corner of the site. Staff will be recommending that the applicant revise the preliminary plat drawings to incorporate staffs design using the private street scenario for Oak Ridge Court. UTILITIES Municipal utility service is available to the site from the north and south. Sanitary sewer and water lines have been extended to the site within Country Oaks Drive. The proposed utility plan is fairly straightforward. Fire hydrant locations may be adjusted during the final construction plan review process. The applicant shall be responsible for installing municipal utilities to service this site. The utility system shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Since the utilities and street system, except for Oak Ridge Court, will be owned and maintained by the City upon completion and acceptance, the applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide a financial security in the form of a letter of credit to guarantee installation of the public improvements and conditions of final plat approval. The existing home site on Lot 12, Block 1 is currently on a well and septic system. As a result of this improvement, the house will be required to hook up to sanitary sewer within 30 days of the system becoming operational. The existing septic system shall be abandoned in accordance with City and Health Department codes. The existing home may utilize the well until the well fails, at which time the property owner must connect to City water. As a result of the site grading, the outbuildings on the parcel will be removed. The appropriate demolition permit should be obtained and complied with through the City's Building Department. STREETS The plans propose on extending and connecting Country Oaks Drive to the north and south. This will complete the dead-end street in the Country Oaks development to the north. The street connection will also provide continuity between neighborhoods and access to Minnewashta Park located north of Kings Road and west of Minnewashta Parkway. An existing 8-foot wide bituminous trail has been extended along Country Oaks Drive from the north. A 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk is proposed along Country Oaks Drive from the south(Oaks of Minnewashta). The applicant should continue the extension of the 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk along Country Oaks Drive and connect it to the existing 8-foot wide bituminous trail at the north end of the project. Oak Ridge of Minnewashta March 6, 1996 Page 7 Two cul-de-sac streets are proposed to serve the remaining portion of the site. The applicant will be dedicating the necessary street right-of-way with the final plat. Staff has had concerns regarding the pond locations and size and the amount of grading for Oak Ridge Court. Staff has redesigned this area of the development using a private street to serve up to four lots (Attachment 1). Using the private street reduces construction costs for the applicant, i.e. curb and gutters, reduced street width and site grading. It also gives more flexibility in the pond design/location. Staff is recommending that the applicant redesign Oak Ridge Court using a private street. During construction, access may have to be maintained to the existing residence on Lot 12. The driveway will be relocated as a part of the street construction project. The existing driveway for Lot 12 will be relocated to Oak Ridge Lane. Construction traffic to the site is also a concern. Access to the site is either from Country Oaks Drive to the north or Country Oaks Drive from the south. The southerly portion of Country Oaks Drive is still under construction and subject to damage by construction traffic. Therefore, access to this site should be limited to Country Oaks Drive from the north unless Country Oaks Drive to the south is completed first. The streets are proposed to be constructed in accordance to the City's standards (31 feet wide back-to-back). The streets in the development will be owned and maintained by the City upon completion with the exception of Oak Ridge Court if the private street is implemented. With the private street, a cross-access and maintenance agreement will need to be prepared and recorded. EROSION CONTROL Erosion control fencing is proposed along the downstream perimeter of the site. Rock construction entrances should also be incorporated into the erosion control plans and maintained until the first lift of asphalt has been installed. Erosion control measures shall also be implemented around all catch basins until the site has been fully revegetated and the streets paved. PRIVATE STREET FINDINGS In order to permit private streets,the city must find that the following conditions exist: (1) The prevailing development pattern makes it unfeasible or inappropriate to construct a public street. In making this determination,the city may consider the location of existing property lines and homes, local or geographic conditions and the existence of wetlands. (2) After reviewing the surrounding area, it is concluded that an extension of the public street system is not required to serve other parcels in the area, improve access,or to provide a street system consistent with the comprehensive plan. Oak Ridge of Minnewashta March 6, 1996 Page 8 (3) The use of the private street will permit enhanced protection of the city's natural resources including wetlands and forested areas. Finding: The proposed private street to serve lots at the eastern end of the development is not necessary to provide access to adjacent properties. Were a public street provided to access these lots,additional trees would need to be removed due to staff recommendation that the stormwater ponding in the northeast corner of the site,which is a natural low area, be enlarged to provide ponding for the entire site and eliminate the second pond. PARKS & RECREATION The Parks& Recreation Commission met on February 27, 1996 to review the proposed development. In lieu of land dedication,the Commission recommended the payment of full park and trail fees pursuant to City Ordinance. COMPLIANCE TABLE BLOCK LOT AREA(SQ. FT.) FRONTAGE(FT.) DEPTH(FT.) Code 15,000 90 125 1 1 19,567 105 182 1 2 16,417 90 182 1 3 15,645 92 173 1 4 15,625 124 152 1 5 16,130 111 130 1 6 15,306 98 135 1 7 19,073 77* 186 1 8 24,829 56.92* 189 1 9 26,183 55.66* 159 1 10 17,753 55.62* 160 1 11 18,539 149 200 1 12 20,633 105 218 1 13 16,454 93 183 1 14 15,319 98 162 1 15 15,018 100 151 1 16 16,501 110 150 2 1 20,361 131 181 2 2 16,008 113 161 2 3 24,268 54* 150 2 4 18,908 63 159 2 5 22,651 53* 145 Oak Ridge of Minnewashta March 6, 1996 Page 9 2 6 15,665 115 131 2 7 15,796 105 140 ROW 91,246 (18%of Area) TOTAL 513,895 *Meets standard at the building setback line. Minimum Setbacks: Front- 30 feet, side- 10 feet,rear 30 feet. Maximum building height: 3 story and 40 feet. MISCELLANEOUS Demolition Permits. Existing structures on the property that don't meet code requirements must be demolished and will require demolition permits. Proof of well abandonment, if applicable,must be furnished to the City and a permit for septic system abandonment, if applicable,must be obtained and the septic system abandoned prior to issuance of a demolition permit. The parcel has deferred assessments in the amount of$11,400 plus interest from October, 1993 for street improvements along Minnewashta Parkway. This amount was based on the site developing into 16 residential lots. Since the plat proposes 23 lots,the applicant will be responsible for 7 additional unit assessments. FINDINGS 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF,Residential Single Family District. 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable plans. 3. The physical characteristics of the site,including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding,and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions specified in this report. Oak Ridge of Minnewashta March 6, 1996 Page 10 4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this • chapter; Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure. 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage subject to conditions if approved. 6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record. Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements. 7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. b. Lack of adequate roads. c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. Finding: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban infrastructure. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of subdivision 96-2,the Oak Ridge of Lake Minnewashta,prepared by Loucks&Associates, Inc.,dated January 19, 1996,creating 23 lots and associated right-of-way subject to the following conditions: 1. Forestation and replacement plantings for the development requires 77 trees chosen from the City's Approved Tree List. Conifer trees shall average seven feet in height with a six foot minimum height. The applicant shall submit a revised landscaping plan, incorporating these changes,to the city for review and approval prior to final plat approval. Oak Ridge of Minnewashta March 6, 1996 Page 11 2. The building pads for lots around the western cul-de-sac be located closer to the road in order to pull the houses away from the existing wooded area in the northwestern corner. 3. The stormwater pipes along the northern property line shall be relocated away from the tree line to preserve these trees. Any additional trees preserved on-site will reduce the amount of replacement plantings required on site. 4. Trees that are to be preserved on-site shall be protected with tree protection fencing pursuant to city ordinance. Such fencing shall be installed in conjunction with the installation of the erosion control fences and prior to site grading. 5. Add one fire hydrant at the northeast corner of the intersection at Country Oaks Road and Oak Ridge Court. 6. Relocate the fire hydrant from between Lots 2 and 3 to Lots 3 and 4, Block 1. 7. The proposed street names"Oak Ridge Lane"and "Oak Ridge Court"must be resubmitted. The city already has an Oakwood Ridge" and Country Oaks Road. With 4 roads named Oak, we are trying to minimize confusion in the event of a police, fire, or medical emergency. 8. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. City Ordinance 9-1. 9. In lieu of land dedication,the development shall pay full park and trail fees pursuant to City Ordinance. 10. A demolition permit shall be required prior to the removal of any structures on the parcel. This should be done prior to any grading on the property. 11. The applicant shall be responsible for SWMP water quality and quantity connection charges in the amount of$9,440 and $23,364, respectively. Credits will be applied to the these charges based on the applicant's contribution to SWMP requirements. The credits will be determined upon final review of the construction plans. These fees are payable to the City prior to recording the final plat. 12. The applicant shall retain a qualified wetlands delineator to prepare a report or letter of clarification as to the status of the creek through Lots 7 and 8, Block 1. 13. The applicant's engineer and City staff shall work together to reduce the amount of site grading and the need for the westerly pond by means of adjusting street and house pad grades accordingly. Oak Ridge of Minnewashta March 6, 1996 Page 12 14. The applicant will need to submit ponding calculations to determine if the ponds are meeting SWMP water quality requirements. The ponds shall also be designed to maintain the predeveloped runoff rate from the site. The outlet pipe from the easterly storm pond shall be relocated to minimize or avoid tree removal along the north plat line. The applicant will be responsible for acquiring the necessary drainage and utility easement outside the plat for extension of the storm water pipe through the church property to the north of the site. 15. Staff and the applicant's engineer will be working to adjust site grades to preserve the tree lines along the north and south property lines of the plat. 16. The applicant shall revise the preliminary plat drawings to incorporate a private street versus a public street along Oak Ridge Court. 17. The applicant shall add a 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk along Country Oaks Drive. 18. Erosion control measures shall be implemented on the site to control runoff. All catch basins shall be protected with erosion control fence until the site has been fully revegetated and the streets paved. Rock construction entrances shall be installed and maintained at all construction entrance points until the first lift of asphalt has been installed. 19. The applicant shall be responsible for payment of the deferred assessments for the Minnewashta Parkway improvements including interest to date. In addition,the applicant shall be responsible seven additional lot assessments in the amount of$760 per lot plus interest from October, 1993. 20. Upon completion, the developer shall dedicate to the City the utility and street improvements within the public right-of-way and drainage and utility easements for permanent ownership. 21. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 22. All public utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. Oak Ridge Court shall be constructed in accordance with the City's private street ordinance. 23. The applicant shall provide detailed ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post developed stormwater calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and high water level Oak Ridge of Minnewashta March 6, 1996 Page 13 calculations in existing basins, created basins, and or creeks. Water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. 24. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 25. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department,and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 26. The applicant shall submit to the City soil boring information prior to final plat consideration. 27. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas. 28. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way. 29. The lowest exposed floor or opening elevation of all buildings should be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100-year high water level. 30. The proposed stormwater ponds must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 throughout for safety purposes. 31. Existing wells and/or septic systems will have to be properly abandoned in accordance to City and State Health Department codes. The existing home on Lot 12, Block 1 shall be connected to the sanitary sewer system within 30 days after the system becomes operational. The resident may continue to utilize the well until the well fails at which time the parcel shall be connected to City water service. 32. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall re-locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 33. The applicant shall include a drain tile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump discharge for these lots which are not adjacent to a wetland, storm pond or catch basin." Oak Ridge of Minnewashta March 6, 1996 Page 14 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Development Review Application 2. Preliminary Plat Reduction 3. Memo from Mark Littfin to Robert Generous dated 1/26/96 4. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List 5. Private Street Sketch Plan FROM TY ':F CHANHK_ScN • CITY OF CHANHASSEN 890 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (812)937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT` Gre A. Hahn OWNER: Same ADDRESS: 1865 West Wayzata Blvd. ADDRESS: Tong Lake, MN 55356 TELEPHONE(Day time) 475-9240 TELEPHONE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements Interim Use Permit Variance Non-conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development* Zoning Appeal Rezoning Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits I Sign Plan flevlew --Notification Sign Site Plan Review' Escrow for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost" ($50 CUP/SPRNACJVAPVWAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) TOTAL FEE $ 745.00 A list of all'property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be Included with the application. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. 'Twenty-slx full size tgiglitsi copies of the plane must be submitted, Including an 81"X 11" reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet, "Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract NOTE-When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROM CIT. OF CHAHHASSc`i )1 . 1'. 1'�. _ :1 4 P. PRC'JECTNA: MEe Oak Ri de of Lake Minnewashta LOCATION North of Oaks of Minnewashta and west of Stratford Ridge. LEGAL DESCRIPTION See Attached Sheet TOTAL ACREAGE 11 .8 acres WETLANDS PRESENT YES . y NO PRESENT ZONING RSF lECUESTED ZONING RSF 'RESENTLgND VSE DESIGNATION sidential Low Density 3ECUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION Residential Low Density lEASON FOR THIS REQUEST Subdivision into 23 Single Family lots ----------------- his application mast be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all Information Id plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning apartment to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application, determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written Zoe of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. tis is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with City requirements with regard to this request, This application should be processed in my name and i am the party whom 3 City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. i have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either py of Owners Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or 1 am the authorized person to make s application and the fee owner has also signed this application. Olil keep myself Informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application, I further derstand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any thorization to proceed with the study, The documents and Information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of I knowledge. e city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 50 days due to public hearing iulrements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day enalon for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review ensl. s are approved by the applicant. ////ge, pare •f • ••licant Dat f/y/q6 nater- •f Fe; Owner Date • >lication Received on Fee Paid Receipt No, • applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. got contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. i N —1 in —I > I —r 0 e-r S 3 ? Cu m 1 -4 CD rt = 1 —1 r* 72 CD Tia N rr0. 0. et © - -0 rrt O tD at a-CD CL p .'7. "T -. CD N U CD t0 C Co. = c-► (- n c+ C x n Di R+ CD 3 rn 1 = -- NCD O O t1 0 a o N 1 •— et O CI. n N — Q 4 1 -* n 1 O a C a Cl r•. = --• G7 et O W tG r+ m d ? -S to 0 — 3a v • O rD rt C71 -+1 —•66 CD CD —4 CO a • O cr ' •-. Cr CD N rD t.O r-. fD — N O n m r' - OW et a0 Z n to O 0 S -. C •• 0 rD ..='- -•.1 CO -+1 CD Cu et C . CD • a a a no rD o to, O CD -- o 7 cr rr Cd 06 O a CZ a rt rt -- , CD u1 it= CD a. In -41 a t••. U el. -y1 T --0 rD S n rt O M C rD NCD 'I ..= O -S 0 r•• rt et 0 a -- C --11 d . C to O- 0) r+ ....... C CD rt c•. CD 1 a- a rtn 1 r+ a act CD ca SCD —• O rD n rD - rD cc o1 0 w - -T CD 0 CO rn -S to rD to N -' --+1 rt C 0 n to 0 -7 C rD -01 O C c., 0 0 .O Z O -I or • 3 --C -- r* a. a 001 a DT O — a CD a CD • c-. r. -n O CD a or (.0 S r+ 2 CD to O CD 0 rD to N N -a cG eT a - Cy •. O -t -+1 O Ar ;D .C1 rD O rY Oa. rt rt to C CD -S S -•11 Vf Or el- rt CD N CD e.- r-t- 0 01 -0 - X 2 TC to CD C CD' 0 CD rD CD rt r•r -I Z Z N N Zr CD V !n A c-. N CD O o CO 0 w 1 Or —.n — C N a` 1vs , • CD a O -.. r. et •s to a -1 c = r+ O O CD rD CD O to O CD Or C Z < et -1 O to or CD a c-. 11 ct —I O --s O S O rt -+1 n X -et LA .O CD at CD r0 or C Z N a N to S' CD 0. O et Or C. n a n -1 rr• -6, et Ar n 'a. N CD n o o Z rr C -7 W -t N C . S a O ,--• a 0 ,-•- CD to OCD C S Or ON N • ' r} CD N • .,• SDA a0 rt CD CD to C •I a" el. Or rt N r•. O CD -' , SCn e•ta CD CD e r..4=1 Or CD N CD o C a Da N O c-. n .0m n N a C • CD C CD rt R 111 r. -a ? rt CD -1 CD 0 .O a a rt -g -.1 c t--• to rD D+ .-• CT N r. -1 O c•d -T ON • 6r rD CID c. cn ....... -1 0 '.O C, x o a ---+, r. • -S a a b.. - -+1 "0 . r+ CD Co r. CD O a- et S CD —Cy CD N -41 a . c 7 — 0 CD CD et 0 N c rD O , O a o rT• rT• n a - 0 (CI c a•• rD O .-q1 r+ CD ca O r•t S OR r. to CD C C' a CD to S 0 r. CD CO 01 r. A C N LC cm a e•t W O -- a et•p n rt a O C rD CD = -1 .0 00 Z CD 03 ct C -1 N a a Cr et CD <C rt 40 Z rD N • -- rt r-$• DA O — CD CD -- -+1 a --1 -1 O CD ..- r-. C CD -41 d ,.: g :Ica, i. 4 ,,,,,, 1 < , , 1 Id 1 1 0, !II : 4 1 ill il!!! !,I „ 0 6 g .4,2 Ilk: i I 1.7/1 al 11'1 1. Ce‘'4 1:I' il-: I 1!1 1 i 'l () LAI ma V; Ili. I I Mi. ill ! ii_i! - — .. .... 1 • ...4----• , , s, 4.1-2- --.-. - q ,i Sis:ET. :,..:....zyt;...,s3.,. - - 3 )(11N CP0,111,V1.1,1.',----: A[tee...• •i .i.of • OP 69£4 35S0 .00N ::.”' •; • •• ' . "' . — .. ' A. -- - • • - : EP; ;i 5 7 r-- --7 l A a // .. - : / t A I // f/ ) • \ 1‘ le# rI ..... ;'.' •• t • • \ // ,--, , ) \-.r,..:--4, . - ::.! :J ---•. 0 ti, '2, iii; gli ,,-; .- ''".2 2 i 7.2 et .3 =_i › .._ _J A _ ,• - - _ •' _I,.., \ si------I + -- -- 1 3 ..! : ii -- - •• .: I f .--.. - 1 I -:' 14; il 41. 1 '6/ co I ''' " . \.,E. IV 1 • In :•:=3 1 Kill L iii 2ii - " :=•h_ 7:---': - -- 1....s. 1 . o $1 --- •• LI g :2 ei . 1—• ..." —1 — - '' i j ..1•2 ;. . 172.2z• 2 .f 1 f'' r 1 o f- -1 ....:: : - , t'i ..: .- -:: I W I r., I I ; ': ; ig,, . . ; : .•-t- : -. i ) — Irx P N. 7 . 3 .,, • - - r - A ; 7 • 7 227 I -I I ' -43 - -.T2 L J I Ill E il I — .... C),) .., - $ $ U, Y. k.... .. ,•... VArm C--- —1 S I 0 - t: ibil — I T It r: id - : I • ''') I - • • R -3 " e . -. AL 0.0 J ..• a: g. 3 -c-i -I I- Li •-•-+La _ ;;,.- a .f.1- r. ICO 0.:'---- ...; •• ' OF) ,• I' 11 1 e.' I N: •----,- 0 n '1 - • :3 : 7•g . :it I –a < : .;!'t: l• 6– ( r. ;..-_,. L ...... _..1; I 0 -... -a, k 1— .^. _J LI" F-- d i : z 7.. —t2- 1 ' ...„ .,j E.B. 7. r ,-•),,.! •-- ,-, •111 i II 13 '2 I I: b I d. _ 3.03.-, -,.- ----' t3 L ... _J q I 2 i fl F. F_EF Ft 7 L ..... J „. -1 /6- r 1 0 .1 / 8 -: /4 / a P 4 v.- f. I "”) 4 N.= - 1g iSN5NiququqiSN iuui i .7; L / .% i _ 1 < -1 ;11.......7.1.7!1 ; ' • --- -J . L Arra J .... 3333333333383338 8 8888858 8 -1 - r 1 / ' ,/ I . 0,2 ' i In / , 01 la:s - illegL.... .-..1 I k. . ..... . c.; '•- 4 L J i- -- IAA/444alaiA4414 1 !ZIIILT.. <2 L—...——J , t r FL./ 1 ;J9.39300000335535 00000W0 Es' r—---— II.... ::ttl = ....) ,. I I.' .••• • ''''••".1 '.' . .. .., ,..."4--..., ....-... V 4) h . :... ..... \ ..'";:•1"- I , _.,-•• 1 c-74 I ,...---,- I -_, I ..... - - c w 1.,, 1 0 .. -' - r ;: 1 i-li .,... / .4 ,.;•,_- ......I.,. ?.--" 9/....4.. ,-..-7•Z•:".'/P -. •!-. ..•- -- 1 .1 1 II t_ =="*" 1 rle . . I : ,...• 06"G6£ M„LC,Z£.00S . \ ii.,,,' !.-,,,;;;••42 i---- CITY OF CHANHASSEN{ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Robert Generous,Senior Planner FROM: Mark Littfin,Fire Marshal DATE: January 26, 1966 SUBJ: Plat approval for subdivision for 23 single family lots Oak Ridge of Minnewashta,Greg Hahn Planning Case: 96-2 SUB I have reviewed the site plan for the above project. In order to comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division,I have the following fire code or city ordinance/policy requirements. The site plan review is based on the available information submitted at this time. As additional plans or changes are submitted,the appropriate code or policy items will be addressed. 1. Add 1 fire hydrant at the Northeast corner of the intersection at Country Oaks Road and Oak Ridge Court. 2. Relocate the fire hydrant from between lots 2 and 3 to Lots 3 and 4,Block 1. 3. The proposed street names"Oak Ridge Lane"and"Oak Ridge Court"must be resubmitted. The city already has an Oakwood Ridge"and Country Oaks Road. With 4 roads named Oak,we are trying to minimize confusion in the event of a police,fire,or medical emergency. 4. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. City Ordinance 9-1. ML:eb g:/safety/ml/plan96.2 -- ,,.�� ► STpip.% LAAS . % ■ kill IA Ail 111/r. _ e NOTICE OF PUBLIC Arm cE RA4 // 111,, HEARING �, ••�, a:�`''�: ��'�'� �4 r.•-gat •?-:111 PLANNING COMMISSION °�!! � #4.ai ter. . . MEETING r r1•��r4l,Er��F 3f�■ ■ . Wednesday, MARCH 6, 1996 r ■■a•■�) at 7:30 p.m. •CA ��ui.COWRY CP: Irrir7" LAKE City Hall Council Chambers `• S,� ; ;►.�.•c`5 MINNEWA Si 690 Coulter Drive S7R6T LPNE /, t�11 Project: The Oak Ridge at Minnewashta o KINGS ROAD \z \ > 0 \fnow,' Developer: Greg Hahn o 0- �.• H v 'NW•�,� ,r��111�IIU,111111�V 1 Location: Located west of Stratford Ride and U r. \\�� north of the Oaks of Minnewashta J' .171:�� _ Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicant is proposing a preliminary plat to subdivide 11.8 acres into 23 single family lots located on property zoned RSF, Residential Single Family and located west of Stratford Ridge and north of the Oaks of Minnewashta, Oak Ridge of Minnewashta, Greg Hahn. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions or Comments:If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob at 937-1900, ext. 141. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on February 22, 1996. * The Park and Recreation Commission will review this item at their meeting on Tuesday, February 27, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Keith&Diane Harstad Dean A. Swanson Ricky& Kelly Witthus 2191 Silber Lake Road 3940 Country Oaks Dr. 3950 Country Oaks Drive New Brighton,MN 55112 Excelsior, MN 55331 ',xcelsior, MN 55331 Sampson& Susan Mugrdechian Alan& C.Notermann Lynn&Nancy Simpson 3960 Country Oaks Drive 720 West Village Road 3980 Country Oaks Drive Excelsior, MN 55331 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Excelsior, MN 55331 Loren Beaudoin Kevin & Kristen Marx Robert& Lori Freeman 133 Spring Valley Circle 4000 Country Oaks Drive 4010 Country Oaks Drive Bloomington, MN 55420 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Mark&Julie Grube Craig & Linda Mack Russell & Diana Jones 3931 Country Oaks Drive 3941 Country Oaks Drive 3961 Country Oaks Drive Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Brian& Louann Albright Paul Lidstone&Jill Vreeland-Lidstone Bruce&Jennifer Linn 3981 Country Oaks Drive 3991 Country Oaks Drive 4001 Country Oaks Drive Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior,MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Todd& Francine Boyce Paul Quarberg&Janet Jason Quarberg Ronald & A. Olson 4011 Country Oaks Drive 6781 Country Oaks Drive 6720 Country Oaks Drive Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior,MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Legend Homes, Inc. Robert& Alice Harrison Robert& M. Blue P. O. Box 298 6750 Country Oaks Road 6560 Countryside Drive Rogers, MN 55374 Excelsior, MN 55331 Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Steven& Beatrice Gemlo Gary R. Voigt Richard&Rosalee St. Angelo 6780 Country Oaks Road 4010 Glendale Drive 4000 Glendale Drive Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Steven& Jamie Knigge Nicholas & Rebecca Folwick Tony Torntore 3910 Glendale Drive 3920 Glendale Drive 3930 Glendale Drive -Excelsior,-MN 3S33 i Excelsior; 155331 'Excelsior,-MN-55331 Jerome& Alice Johnson Holy Cross Lutheran Church-Minnewashta Lyle& Johanna Delwiche 3940 Glendale Drive 4151 Hwy.7 4131 Pipewood Curve E Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior,MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 R. Steven& Maura Barnett Steven Nording& S. Anderson Ivan& Susan Streif 8709 Chanhassen Hills Dr. No. 3920 Stratford Ridge 3940 Stratford Ridge Chanhassen, MN 55317 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Jeffrey&Janice Adams William Morrow& Cynthia Houle Barton C. Wells 3960 Stratford Ridge 3980 Stratford Ridge 4000 Stratford Ridge Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior,MN 55331 William Naegele Jr.& Patricia Bruns Terry& Bonnie Labatt Keith& Kathryn Bedford 4001 Stratford Ridge 3981 Stratford Ridge 3961 Stratford Ridge Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 William Munig Charles& Cecelia Cruickshank Kenneth& Diane Lund 6850 Stratford Blvd. 3921 Stratford Ridge 395 Hwy. 7 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Jeffrey Hallgren& Michelle George Jennifer Hallgren Loren Benson& Jerome Bach 355 Hwy. 7 375 Hwy. 7 c/o Norwest Bank, Trustee Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 6th and Marquette Minneapolis, MN 55479-0046 i 's 1 --n 1 1i 11 H I 0 H phic .r.___ I H 'trl 1r 1 _ ....7L.... — r..- j__ -- — — 141 1 O 1—'°F 1 I 3 1 \ I • � I 1 I y 1 T- - --1 -se'vo I 13 1 � I I t I . I t I 4 I IrlIC if H _;3 I , I .0v4 ' S%s 7' 17-7,-14/ V i4/ V 44----- \ irriliF i'✓r�1 I T C I TY O F PC DATE: 3/6/96 11 C U A U A CC DATE: 3/25/96 CASE#: 96-1 PUD By: Generous:v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Request for Comprehensive Plan Land Use Amendment from Office/Industrial to Residential High Density and Commercial:request for Conceptual Planned Unit Development approval for a mixed medium density residential and commercial project,the Village at Bluff Creek LOCATION: North of Lyman Boulevard and south of the Twin Cities and Western Railroad Jtracks J L APPLICANT: D. R. Horton,Inc. L George Seagraves, Vice President 3459 Washington Drive, Suite 204 Eagan, MN 55122 (612)454-4663 ext. 118 PRESENT ZONING: A2, Agricultural Estate District ACREAGE: 92.0: commercial-5.22 acres, flood plain-17.31, open space-17.45, residential-52.02 DENSITY: 5.48 units/acre (gross) 9.69 units/acres (net on 52.02 acres) ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - A2, telephone bldg., railroad tracks, and RSF, Stone Creek Addition S- A2, Chaska electric substation, Lyman Blvd. E - bluff creek, RSF, Bluff Creek Estates Add., and RR, Sun Ridge Add. W- Lyman Blvd., industrial park in Chaska WATER AND SEWER: Available to site. PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The site is currently actively farmed. An extensive flood plain/wetland is located in the eastern portion of the property adjacent to bluff creek. Additional wetlands are located in the north, west and southwest on the parcel. A high point of 974.3 elevation is located in the central portion of the property which slopes away to the north, south, east, and west. An area of bluff, as defined by City Ordinance, is located to the east of the high point of the site with a 60 foot elevation change in 170 feet. 711 S. rt( Cr p .LAMA0100 • #.‘ MCGLYNN?E.:_ AMR cr ikeop ak-ai 0:44wtaill TIM:ER,Y pp �� *ValWI ,,1111111110,4 00 4.111 a;$***1 I 410;411,110,41r, 0 /...::: ! oranyrfa -'. .....:.: ...-: 3 r, 4� •,, fes: - .! p pa mono, r 66.1,ii. . 111-v ---‘, 0 .4 .: k gal" /•� (PVT V ESSE � . .1\ (PVT) iglo Ali III �aI / \•0() 4 �,,,,E'SUFFOLK. -Si" 111 !►�• �►� s: �t VIA* 8 Isla 11 1� �� .; sgpj igid toy App lift, Q 116 � 19m191a sato v0 Patio 1�`, PARK �III�'I *i' ','db I0�4�� w PPRP tip... COvp WO „..,.-:.ir'.,:::1,,,\:';•,.:;,::,:.\,..\\:•4,..c,.:',;.:::::;i1...;:.::::::::.:.:il. VA LURT I m. r - ' J Q P` . ` , ,I SPASM ratviZataml% iee.4 to 4, r . V po,- , . A R � K RV ANE J,� '-•r ' m � alp wlane- • �,,- .. ki y • ■�I Cttim 1 i �WI I i' IIII liipl sow,\c, Aril diim_ 1 \ F L MI N GO DR r� . . _ cc '‘`)-.2y6, . ( aim 'Al i '''''''''''':'::-:'::::::'::: ::•::r:::;i: .17:::: 4:„ IlEj :era, ` _ LYM CO ' ?.,.:w71::::-!-::-:!..t. :,, .i .:.:0:: Aik Kt 111111111t) -- / ---''''''' L • ATION (-:_...•_.. t I , Hl� .--). , i 1 i 01 1 cci \ ----T- t / ,) i Village on the Bluff March 6, 1996 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY It is the intent of the developer to develop a townhome community in three to five phases over a number of years. Conceptually, the site plan calls for a main boulevard extension to a town square and connection to a trail system. Housing types include back-to-back ,row type townhomes in clusters of four to 12 units and a unit row type townhome. The town square feature will include active and passive recreation areas together with a shelter structure and transit opportunities. The commercial component of the development is proposed in the southwest corner and the south of the site on either side of the electric substation. The total site consists of 92 acres. The applicant proposes the following distribution of uses within the project: residential - 52 acres (57 percent), open space - 17.4 acres (19 percent), flood plain- 17.3 acres(17.3 percent), and commercial - 5.5 acres (5 percent). Based on the initial concept, staff believes that the proposal exceeds the carrying capacity of the site. Excessive grading of the site would be required to permit the proposed development. The development does not acknowledge nor plan for the preservation of the bluff area within the project. Wetlands that appear in the city's wetland maps are not shown or preserved. The proposed development would be required to prepare a mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet due to the scope of the project. Staff is concerned that a reduction in the city's industrial land use is not in the best interest of the community in terms of maintaining an appropriate balance of land uses, preserving an appropriate tax base mix, or providing a range of employment opportunities. In addition, the applicant has not proposed a development that would maintain the natural features of the site, and, in staffs opinion, is more environmentally intrusive on the site than a well designed industrial/office park would be. The applicant states that the requested multi-family project might meet some of the affordable housing goals of the city. However, it appears that this project is excessive, concentrating 504 units within the parcel. The applicant is proposing a multi-family subdivision on land designated as office/industrial while large areas of appropriately designated residential lands are vacant. This site was guided for office/industrial in the 1991 Comprehensive Plan partially because it was adjacent to the industrial expansion coming from the south in Chaska. In addition,the site is adjacent to a collector roadway,providing high levels of access. The city's comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance require extensive buffering between industrial uses and single-family residential. An industrial development on this site could be easily buffered from existing residential neighborhoods. Village on the Bluff March 6, 1996 Page 3 Staff is recommending that the requested Land Use Map amendment be denied. We are consequently recommending denial of conceptual PUD and the rezoning of the property from A2 to PUD due to inconsistency with the comprehensive plan. Because of staffs recommendation to deny the land use map amendment and rezoning, staff has not reviewed the site plan except as an overview of some of the basic issues. REZONING/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The applicant is requesting a comprehensive plan amendment for this property from Office/Industrial to Residential - Low Density. This property was one of four areas that was designated for Office/Industrial use as part of the 1991 comprehensive plan update. At that time, there was a remaining supply of 95 acres of vacant industrial land in Chanhassen. For the continued well being of the community and in the interest of promoting a balance of land uses, Chanhassen established a plan that would accommodate a reasonable amount of industrial office development in the future. With that goal in mind, the city assessed where it would be reasonable to allow this development to occur. In undertaking the analysis,the location of existing industrial office development in Chaska was reviewed, existing and proposed roads and highways necessary to provide high levels of access were assessed, and the need to provide the buffering of existing residential neighborhoods were examined in detail. The result of the analysis was to add additional office/industrial land totaling 638 acres for a total industrial land use area of 1,099 acres representing 8.2 percent of the city's total land area of 13,327 acres. The proposed amendment would eliminate 92 acres of office/industrial land from the city. This represents approximately eight percent of the office/industrial land in the city. This area is currently being used for agricultural purposes and is adjacent to the industrial expansion coming from the south in Chaska. Staff believes that a compelling argument would have to be made to demonstrate why the land use designation for this area should be changed. The applicant's arguments for amending the comprehensive plan are: "The Mattson property has been on the market for a long time." "From a land planning perspective, it becomes apparent that the Mattson property is a transitional site. That is to say that a land use between industrial and single family residential should be the most appropriate use for the parcel. Prudent planning principles (practices)would dictate that you do not design office-warehouse-industrial in close proximity to expensive single family developments. Candidates for transitional land use could include commercial, institutional and higher density residential." "With land prices being as high as they are, coupled with limited higher density zoned area for residential development, this proposal presents an opportunity for the City of Chanhassen to Village on the Bluff March 6, 1996 Page 4 provide affordable housing opportunity while improving the viability of the industrial positioned land." "At the current rate of industrial land absorption, the City will have a surplus of industrially zoned land well into the future, vacant industrially zoned land that could be generating tax dollars for the City sits as an untapped resource. High density residential,while not equal to industrial zoned land in its tax generating capacity, produces tax revenue nonetheless. In the case of the Mattson property, if the land,by way of residential development, were to start producing tax revenue in 1997 and continue add-infinitum, the tax base for the City would far outweigh a higher tax rate that cannot be collected in the neat future on industrially zoned property." In 1992,the American Planning Association undertook a study of land use ratios in 66 municipalities. The summary of this survey was published in the American Planning Association, PAS Memo of August 1992. Industrial land use ratios for communities under 100,000 averaged seven percent with a range of 0 to 25 percent. Included in the study was a summary of a land use study by Eisner and Associates of land use ratios compiled between 1939 and 1985. The Eisner study showed a range of industrial land uses between 10 and 11 percent. It is illustrative to look specifically at two communities: Columbia, Maryland, a 1960s planned community, and Oak Creek, Wisconsin, an upper midwest community comparable in population to Chanhassen. Columbia's residential land use components is 43 percent of its land area. Its commercial and industrial land uses represent 20 percent of the land area. It is assumed that the uses are evenly distributed between commercial and industrial. Oak Creek's land uses are distributed as follows: residential - 37 percent, commercial - 8 percent, and industrial - 12 percent. Chanhassen's land use ratios are as follows: residential -42.2 percent, commercial -2.1 percent, and industrial - 8.2 percent. As can be seen, Chanhassen's industrial and commercial components are smaller than either of these communities, while its residential component is proportionate to both of the communities. These ratios will also be considered when we examine future land use of properties currently outside of the Metropolitan Urban Services Area(MUSA). Staff is concerned that a reduction in the city's industrial land use is not in the best interest of the community in terms of maintaining an appropriate balance of land uses,preserving an appropriate tax base mix, or providing a range of employment opportunities. In addition,the applicant has not proposed a development that maintains the natural features of the site, and, in staffs opinion, is more environmentally intrusive on the site than a well designed industrial/office park would be. However,the applicant is, instead,proposing a multi-family subdivision, with some commercial, on land designated as office/industrial while large areas of appropriately designated lands, either in low, medium, or high density, are vacant. Village on the Bluff March 6, 1996 Page 5 This site was designated for office/industrial use partially because it was being used for non- residential and non-agricultural purposes and was adjacent to the industrial expansion coming from the south in Chaska. In addition, the site is adjacent to two collector roadways,providing high levels of access. The city's comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance require extensive buffering between industrial uses and single-family residential. An industrial development on this site could be easily buffered from existing residential neighborhoods. Previously, the Planning Commission has directed staff to address the following issues regarding the removal of office/industrial land uses: Replacement lands in Chanhassen for industrial commercial. Financial impact of taking this property out of industrial/commercial zone. Traffic and noise impacts. Replacement Staff has performed a cursory review of potential industrial replacement lands. Due to existing development patterns,the need for balance in land uses, and severe environmental constraints, additional industrial land uses north of Lyman Boulevard would be impractical. As part of the Highway 5 study, an additional 28 acres of land east of the new elementary school site has been redesignated as office/industrial. Conversely, the Arboretum has purchased 30 acres of land on Highway 41 and 82nd Street that is designated for office/industrial use for expansion of the public/semi-public use of the Arboretum. There is a potential for industrial land uses within the southern 1995 study area. Properties along Audubon Road and south of Lyman Boulevard could be designated for office/industrial uses for the same reasons that this property was guided for office/industrial (access, encroaching industrial development from Chaska, and ability to buffer from residential developments). However, there are limitations in the amount of land that could be developed industrially because of topographic and hydrologic features. In addition, some of these lands are being looked at as part of the city's Park Task Force for acquisition as open space. Financial Impact Staff has performed the tax revenue analysis of a residential and commercial development versus an industrial office development of the site. Since valuation of the property can only be estimated at this time, staff has used the affordable value for the residential component, assumed a floor area ratio (F.A.R.) of 0.2 for commercial, and assumed a F.A.R. of 0.15 for industrial uses. Residential property values in this analysis are estimated at$115,000. Commercial Village on the Bluff March 6, 1996 Page 6 building square footage is estimated at 45,477. Industrial building square footages are estimated at 600,000 square. As a comparison, the estimated F.A.R. for Chanhassen Business Center is 0.149 (13.85 acres of building divided by 93.02 acres of land). Residential Value: $115,000 One Percent of first$72,000 720 Two percent of balance 860 Subtotal $1,580 Tax Capacity 137 percent $2,165 Multiply by 504 units $1,091,160 City's share of taxes 20 percent $218,232 Commercial Building Area: 45,477 sq. ft. Taxes(@$3.50/sq.ft.) $159,168 City's share of taxes 20 percent 31,833 Industrial Building Square Footage 600,000 Valuation: $35 per square foot $21,000,000 Three percent of first$100,000 3,000 4.6 percent of balance 961,400 Subtotal $964,400 Tax Capacity 137 percent $1,321,228 City's share of taxes 20 percent $264,246 City's share of taxes within TIF 50 percent $660,614 Village on the Bluff March 6, 1996 Page 7 (In order to facilitate industrial development, the city may establish a TIF district. That is the reason for including the TIF tax share figure. These figures represent the impact of fiscal disparities on industrial office development because the city currently is a net beneficiary of fiscal disparities. It should also be pointed out that the majority of these tax dollars would be used to retire debt incurred within the district, rather than as an increase to the general fund. However, the use of a TIF district permits the city to perform infrastructure improvements, e.g. purchase of parks and the building of trails, roadways, stormwater facilities, or utility extensions that would normally require the use of other funding sources.) Other potential revenues that are impacted are enterprise funds for water and sewer usage. Industrial developments are large users of these services and pay higher rates than residential developments. Nor does this analysis quantify the spillover benefits from industrial development. Nonresidential development, generally, brings in additional dollars in the community from employees and visitors. All industrial development creates an economic multiplier for the local economy which has the effect of magnifying the fiscal benefits of each dollar of wages that are put into the industry. Without industrial and commercial employment, local residential development would be unable to support the existing level of retail and service industries in the community, not to mention the additional commercial development that is being planned and development. At present, we are unable to determine the expenditure side of the fiscal impact equation. However, we assume that a residential development as opposed to an office/industrial use would require increased spending on education, parks and recreation, and public safety; would be expenditure neutral on administration; and would reduce expenditures for roads and infrastructure. In addition, were the school district to bond for future expansion, residential properties would bear a heavier burden without the additional office/industrial properties. In addition, assuming a ratio of 0.92 children per unit, the proposed development could generate an addition school population of 464, which represents approximately half of a new school assuming a design capacity of 1,000 students. Traffic Industrial development does, generally, create additional traffic demands on public roadways. However, it was anticipated that Galpin Boulevard and Lyman Boulevard, designated collector roadways in the Chanhassen comprehensive plan and minor arterial - class II in the Eastern Carver County Comprehensive Transportation Planning Study(October 1990),would carry large volumes of traffic. A minor arterial roadway is defined as one that provides a trip focus that is intracounty and intercity; has urban speeds of between 35 and 45 miles per hour; has trip lengths of greater than 4 miles; provides access to collector and arterial roads and land access to commercial, industrial, farms, and high density residential; and is spaced every one to two miles. Village on the Bluff March 6, 1996 Page 8 Noise The city's Zoning Ordinance has established requirements regarding noise and other industrial type impacts. Article XXIII General Supplemental Regulations, Division 2 Performance standards addresses noise, smoke and particulate matter, toxic and noxious matter, odors and air pollution, nuisances, radiation and electrical emissions, vibrations, glare and heat, explosives, and surface water management. Additionally, the comprehensive plan requires buffering through the use of berms and landscaping materials as well as additional building setback to reduce potential negative impacts to surrounding properties. Staff is recommending that the requested Land Use Map amendment be denied. We are consequently recommending denial of the conceptual PUD and the rezoning of the property from A2 to PUD due to inconsistency with the comprehensive plan. Staff has not performed the exercise of reviewing the applicant's proposed subdivision for compliance with city ordinance and whether the design is the best use of the land. Justification for Rezoning to PUD The applicant is requesting the rezoning of approximately 92 acres from A2 to PUD, Planned Unit Development. There are two components to the PUD: commercial and multi-family. The following review constitutes our evaluation of the PUD request. The review criteria is taken from the intent section of the PUD Ordinance. Section 20-501. Intent Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a greater variety of uses, internal transfer of density, construction phasing, and a potential for lower development costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the City has the expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the other more standard zoning districts. FINDINGS It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to be realized as evaluated against the following criteria: Village on the Bluff March 6, 1996 Page 9 1. Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and scenic views. Finding. The development, as proposed, would not preserve the site characteristics including the bluff area and wetlands. Staff further believes that the development, as proposed, would significantly impact the bluff creek corridor. In addition, an Environmental Assessment Worksheet(EAW)would be required to fully investigate the project's impact to the site and the surrounding area. 2. More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through mixing of land uses and assembly and development of land in larger parcels. Finding. A mixed use development could be a more efficient and effective use of land. However, as proposed, it appears that the development exceeds the carrying capacity of the site and an EAW would be necessary to evaluate the development's full impacts. An industrial/office park could also efficiently and effectively use the land and through site design protect and enhance the site's natural features. 3. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city will be encouraged. Finding. There are sufficient natural features to separate this site from both the north and east with either the proposed development or as an industrial/office park. In addition, through the location of office areas on the perimeter of the site, adjoining properties would be impacted even less. 4. Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Finding. The proposed development is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan and the applicant has not demonstrated that there is sufficient cause to justify the amendment of the comprehensive plan. The city has not, as of yet, received a development proposal for an industrial park on the site and, therefore, cannot determine that an industrial/office use could not be developed. In addition, the proposed use does not conform with all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. 5. Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may be required by the city. Such park and open space shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Park Plan and overall trail plan. Village on the Bluff March 6, 1996 Page 10 Finding. The bluff creek corridor is within the eastern portion of the parcel. This area represents a significant natural feature that the city desires to preserve and enhance. However, this preservation can be done for a office/industrial use just as easily as for a residential development. 6. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate with the PUD. Finding. The applicant has stated that the development would provide affordable housing, however,the city has not received a written commitment of such. 7. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sightings and the clustering of buildings and land uses. Finding. The proposed development would provide efficiencies as far as the maximization of facilities, but the design would not reduce solar gain, heat island effects, etc., nor does it truly cluster the development, preserving important natural features and reducing site grading. 8. Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for traffic conflicts. Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as appropriate. Finding. Improvements to area roads would need to be provided. A traffic study needs to be prepared which would be required within the EAW. GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE It is the intent of the developer to develop a townhome community in three to five phases over a number of years. Conceptually,the site plan calls for a main boulevard extension to a town square and connection to a trail system. Housing types include back-to-back , row type townhomes in clusters of four to 12 units and a unit row type townhome. The town square feature will include active and passive recreation areas together with a shelter structure and transit opportunities. The commercial component of the development is proposed in the southwest corner of the site. GRADING The site consists of rolling terrain with an elevation difference of 92 feet from the middle of the site easterly to Bluff Creek. Given the grade difference, significant grading is anticipated to develop the site for streets and house pads. This may be true as well for any type of land use applied to this site. There is also an area along the east slope that meets the definition of a bluff Village on the Bluff March 6, 1996 Page 11 in the City's Bluff Protection Ordinance,thus, in this area no grading or development would be permitted. The site could be developed with terraces around the bluff area to preserve them. DRAINAGE The site will be required to develop a storm water management plan in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP). Both regional storm water ponding and trunk storm sewer improvements will be necessary with development of the site. The applicant will also be subject to SWMP connection fees for both water quality and quantity. Currently, the City's Surface Water connection fees for water quality and quantity for high-density residential and industrial have been established at$5,890 per acre and $10,269 per acre,respectively. Credits will be applied to these fees based on the applicant's contribution to the SWMP for oversizing the storm sewer infrastructures and regional on-site ponding. These credits are calculated upon review of final construction plans WETLANDS There are four wetland complexes on the site. The applicant will be required to hire a qualified wetland delineator to perform a field investigation delineating the wetlands and preparing a report to the City. This should be done prior to preliminary plat consideration. UTILITIES Municipal sanitary sewer service is available to the site from along the easterly border. Water service is located in the northeast corner of the site. The applicant will be responsible for extending municipal utility service to this development. The utilities shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Since the utilities will be owned and maintained by the City upon completion and acceptance, the applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide financial security in the form of a letter of credit to guarantee installation of the public improvements and conditions of final plat approval. STREETS The site is proposed to be accessed from Lyman Boulevard (County Road 18) at two locations. Lyman Boulevard is a County road and access locations are subject to approval by the Carver County Highway Department. Lyman Boulevard is functionally classified as a minor arterial (Class II)roadway in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study. The minimum right-of- way needs for this corridor includes a 100-foot width(50 feet from centerline). The corridor as shown would not meet the minimum recommended need for an urban four-lane undivided roadway. Therefore,the applicant will be responsible for dedication of additional right-of-way. Village on the Bluff March 6, 1996 Page 12 The applicant is proposing to build private streets to service the development. Given the number of residents (approximately 1500 to 1800), close proximity of the units and the Bluff Creek Corridor amenity, staff believes that, at a minimum, the main thoroughfare and looped streets shall be public streets. The remaining streets may be private. All private streets will need to be built in accordance to the City's private street ordinance for multi-family/high-density residential developments. Auxiliary turn lanes will most likely be required along Lyman Boulevard. A traffic study should also be prepared to determine if additional traffic control devices, i.e. traffic signals, would be warranted as a result of this development. There is a small parcel of land located just northeast of this site (Dirlam parcel) that requires street access from this site. The applicant should also take this into consideration with development of this site. MISCELLANEOUS The applicant will need to prepare an erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook for submittal with the preliminary plat submittal. LANDSCAPING & TREE PRESERVATION The applicant has submitted a conceptual landscaping plan for a residential site which appears to have the necessary elements of boulevard plantings and perimeter groupings. However,the plan fails to take into consideration the large amount of parking area between units. These areas should also include shade tree plantings to increase shade during the summer months around the homes and reduce heat reflected by the asphalt expanses. Also, since this is a large site, community shelter belts could be incorporated throughout the development to reduce wind. Energy conservation plantings could reduce utility bills up to 12-15%. Residential canopy coverage requirement for the site is 15%or a minimum of 312 trees. Additional buffering would be required along Lyman Boulevard per city ordinance. If the project proceeds, canopy coverage calculations would need to be provided. Staff would also recommend that a forestation plan be incorporated in the site planning, rather than a standard landscaping plan. PARKS AND RECREATION Due to the conceptual nature of the project,the Parks& Recreation Commission has not reviewed the proposed project. However, this property is within the bluff creek corridor and as such trail system, at a minimum, would be required. Village on the Bluff March 6, 1996 Page 13 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that City Council deny Land Use Map Amendment#95-2 and PUD 96-1 based on the following findings: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Agricultural Estate,A2. 2. The legal description of the property is not available: PID 25.0220100 3. The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider six (6) possible adverse affects of the proposed amendment. The six (6) affects and our findings regarding them are: a) The proposal has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be inconsistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. b) The proposed use could be compatible with the present and future land uses of the area. However, the existing land use designation could also be compatible with the surrounding uses, and in the case of office uses, may be more compatible with the surrounding uses. c) The proposed use does not conform with all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance, specifically bluff protection, wetland protection, and excessive site grading. d) The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. e) The proposed use may be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity. The EAW would be required to determine if additional services would be required due to the proposal. Additional school capacity would be required to meet the residential development's demand. Village on the Bluff March 6, 1996 Page 14 1) Traffic generated by the proposed use may require the expansion of capabilities of streets serving the property. An EAW would address the exact requirements for the development. FINDING: The proposed use does not conform with all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be inconsistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. 2000 Land Use Plan The property is guided for office/industrial land use. The proposed development is inconsistent with this designation. Community Development Goal It is the city's overall goal that its amenities and qualities be maximized and preserved while allowing growth to occur in a comprehensively planned and reasonable manner. Land Use Goal Achieve a mixture of development which will assure a high quality of life and a reliable tax base. Land Use Policy Planned industrial development will be encouraged as a means of encouraging tax base growth and creating new employment opportunities. It is believed that planned growth can and should be designed to minimize environmental, neighborhood and traffic impact. The city will seek opportunities to provide transitions between uses of different types; the more incompatible the neighboring uses,the more important the transition zone. For example, natural features may provide good transitions between incompatible uses or uses of moderate intensity can provide transitions between high intensity and low intensity uses. The Land Use Plan also seeks the establishment of buffer yards where appropriate. These buffer yards represent areas of increased setbacks where a developer will be required to install landscaping and berming to offer improved separation of incompatible uses. Village on the Bluff March 6, 1996 Page 15 ATTACHMENTS 1. Memo from Dave Hempel dated 2/28/96 2. Development Review Application 3. Project Summary/Description 4. Memo from Bill Weckman to Robert Generous dated 2/15/96 5. Letter from Kermit Crouch to Robert Generous dated 2/2/96 6. Memo from Mark Littfin to Robert Generous dated 1/25/96 7. Notice of Public Hearing and Mailing List 8. Letter from Al Gomez to Bob Generous dated 2/28/96 9. Concept plan JAN-18-1996 89: 12 FROM RLK ASSoCiATES, ,LTD. . . = TO 37707Q2 P. CITY OF.CHANNASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEK MN 55317 (612)937-1900 • DEVELOPMENT REVIEWAPPUCAflON $ehe�Gyc4r-1—VA�VE-S, Vice PraSe ar APPLICANT& C2 -of— a ,_- AlauE5o44 OWN ER- C tic , M/----T-rS ADDREss,4S9 k/.OSif/ lt�Rl ,OQ/ o SL ADDRESS: 2 o VA-I--t~ L t-`TZ t Agm, l 65/zz • (Zo s -- 113 TELEPHONE(Day time). *4 • 5X/al 'TELEPHONE: X CDJ 1- 3 -S--O ` i'2f Comprehensive Plan Amendment •• Temporary Sales Permit • Conditional Use Permit ,__ Vacation of ROW/Easements Interim Use Permit _! Variance Non.ca7}orrilinp Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development' —_ zoning Appeal 1 Rezoning Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Notification Sign Ske Plan Review .- , Escrow for FFGnp Fees/Attorney Cost" ($50 CuP/$PRNACNARMAP,Metes end Bounds,$400 Minor SUB) .__.. Subdhisiore TOTAL-FEE$ if t A list of ad property owners within. 500 feet of the boundaries of the propeaty must be Included with the application. Building n*ectal samples must be submitted with site pian reviews. •11venty4bc full etre jskiggt copies of the pians must tier ubmftted,including en SYS"X t 1"reduced copy of Uenrpir ncyforeach plan sheet. M Escrow will be required for other apcilostions through the development Contract �NO E-When multiple epp6oefions we processed,the epOoprtat*fee shall be charged for each apptiaativn. V • JAN-18-1996 09:1?. FROM PAY S0 1 ATES .t_YD. , l u _ _ . PROJECT NAME M.- 1 r h. ~ P41'P • , LOCATION L-r�!'?7 �G L J 7r : L .s err�•• .. , - LEC.AJ.DESCRIPTION TOTAL ACREAGE WETLANDS PRESENT / _ YES NO PRESENTy�ZONING I� ZONING W./.E PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATiON 'F/ REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION, _Hl Ltlk £)' $ r /;) J R!`ASON FOR THiS REQUEST / 7YrR`� -�.�na►��W7'f This application must be completed In full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions, Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with ail City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership(either copy of Owner's Duplicate CerVflcats of Title,Abstract of Title or purchase agreement),yr 1 am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application, I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. i further understand that addltwonal fees may be ch. •_• for consutting Rices, feasbiilty studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The ••. merits and Information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my krwwtedpe. The et,hereby notifies the eppNoarrt that development review csnnot be completed %thin eo days due to public hearing requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day • • for deveioprflent review. Development review shall he completed within 120 days unless additional review are :,.. . • , •, . apptioart . , • (i1;74; Signature of Fee Owner Date Application Received on ' z, iriGP Fee Pald f , % • '• Receipt No.„ 7 sC% The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. Al not contacted,a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. January 19, 1996 Mattson Property Concept P.U.D. Project Summary&Narrative Chanhassen, Minnesota SUMMARY Name: The Village at Bluff Creek Location: East of Lyman Blvd., south of the Twin City&Western Railroad and west of Bluff Creek Land Use: Agricultural Land Use Guiding: Office/Industrial Zoning: A2, Agricultural Estate Acreage: Approximately 92 acres Applicant: D.R. Horton, Inc., Minnesota George Seagraves, Vice President 3459 Washington Drive#204 Eagan, MN 55122 Fee Owner: Charles W. Mattson 2870 Wheeler Street North Roseville, MN 55113 Site Planner/Engineer: Kevin Von Riedel, Project Planner Fran Hagen, Engineer RLK Associates, Ltd. 6110 Blue Circle Drive, Suite 100 Minnetonka, MN 55343 -1- January 19, 1996 SITE DATA Existing Zoning: A2 - Agricultural Estate 2000 Land Use Plan: Office/Industrial Proposed Zoning: R-PUD Commercial 5.22 acres 5% Flood Plain 17.31 acres 18.8% Open Space 17.45 acres 19.2% Residential 52.02 acres 57% Total 92.0+ 100% Proposed Gross Density 5.48 U/A Proposed Net Density - 9.69 U/A Units 7 - 12 unit bldg. 187 units 31 - 8 unit bldg. 248 units 2 - 6 unit bldg. 12 units 3 - 4 unit bldg. 12 units 37 quads 148 units Total 504 units -2- January 19, 1996 RATIONALE-REZONING/REGUIDING Several issues come to bear on the process to consider rezoning and reguiding the Mattson property from office/industrial to higher density residential. Those issues are land use planning, market diversity(housing opportunity) and fiscal. LAND USE PLANNING The Mattson property has been on the market now for quite some time. Current zoning for the property is A2-Agricultural Estate and 2000 Land Use Plan calls for office industrial. From any reasonable perspective, given land values in the Chanhassen market area, agricultural estate lots do not make good financial, planning or market sense. The case for officefmdustrial use could be made if you look at a planning microcosm. Across the border in Chaska is an industrial park with a railroad line that runs across the northern part of the property, allowing access to a nine ton design county road. On a broader scale it could be argued that the City of Chanhassen needs land available for future industrial growth. An area wide view of the Mattson property reveals a more diverse and complex land use fabric. To the north of the site - single family residential, to the west - single family residential, to the south-vacant land guided for future study. From a land planning perspective it becomes apparent that the Mattson property is a transitional site. That is to say that a land use between industrial and single family residential would be the most appropriate use for the parcel. Prudent planning principles (practices) would dictate that you do not design office-warehouse-industrial in close proximity to expensive single family developments. Candidates for transitional land use could include commercial, institutional and higher density residential. In as much as the City of Chanhassen desires to build and maintain a strong downtown image, commercial development on a large scale would not be a good use. Institutional (i.e. schools) could work, but would not need 92 acres. Higher density residential with some complementary service commercial would work as a positive transitional land use. MARKET DIVERSITY A part of any socially healthy community is its ability to provide housing and jobs for a variety of income levels. An active industrial climate presupposes housing opportunities that are commensurate with prevailing wages for industrial jobs. Presently, the City of Chanhassen is experiencing growth in the upper end of the housing affordability scale. With land prices being as high as they are, coupled with limited higher density zoned area for residential development, this proposal presents an opportunity for the City of Chanhassen to provide affordable housing opportunity while improving the viability of the industrial positioned land. -3- January 19, 1996 FISCAL At the current rate of industrial land absorption, the City will have a surplus of industrially zoned land well into the future, vacant industrially zoned land that could be generating tax dollars for the City sits as an untapped resource. High density residential, while not equal to industrially zoned land in its tax generating capacity, produces tax revenue nonetheless. In the case of the Mattson property, if the land, by way of residential development, were to start producing tax revenue in 1997 and continue add-infinitum, the tax benefit for the City would far outweigh a higher tax rate that cannot be collected in the near future on industrially zoned property. SCOPE OF PROJECT It is the intent of the builder/developer-D.R. Horton -to develop a residential townhome community in three to five phases over a number of years. Conceptually, the site plan calls for a main boulevard extension to a town"square" and connection to a trail system. Housing types will include back to back, row type townhomes in clusters of four to 12 units and a unit row type townhome. The town"square" feature will include active and passive recreation areas together with a shelter structure. The concept plan identifies a bus turn off and shelter on Lyman Blvd. EXISTING CONDITIONS The Mattson property is dominated by open space generally used for agricultural purposes. The eastern portion of the site is a floodplain/wetland complex containing the Bluff Creek flowage. The site is void of significant overstory vegetation save for trees separating the railroad tracks from the north edge of the property. An electric utility is at the south end of the property adjacent to the Mattson farmstead. Soils outside the wetland areas are generally suitable for the intended use of the property. STREETS All streets within the proposed development are planned to be private. The minimum street width will be 25 feet with surmountable curb. Two access points are shown with Lyman Blvd. An outer loop road serves the greater share of the housing with center cross roads serving the balance of the development. -4- January 19, 1996 PARKING All four unit townhomes will have two car garages with exterior parking between the garage and street. All back to back townhomes will have either one or two car garages with exterior parking provided. In all cases additional off street parking will be provided where possible. GRADING The eastern edge and southeastern area of the subject property are"low" areas associated with the Bluff Creek corridor and floodplain. From the floodplain the elevation climbs dramatically to a rolling condition. The grading concept for this site would use slope zones where elevation changes would create plateaus for housing. National Wetlands Inventory maps, floodplain maps and aerial photographs were used to identify potential wetlands on site. The site design and grading plans avoided these wetland areas for development purposes. UTILITIES Existing trunk sanitary sewer facilities are available in the Bluff Creek corridor. Lateral sanitary sewer would need to be extended to the development area. Trunk watermain is available just north of the site again, in the Bluff Creek corridor. Lateral watermain would need to be extended to the south. We will need direction from the City of Chanhassen Engineering staff as to how the watermain should be looped. LANDSCAPING The boulevard and loop roads will be"tree lined" to create a more intimate scale while driving and walking through the neighborhood. Where needed or appropriate, landscape buffers or screening will be used to create some visual separation between adjoining land uses. PARKS & TRAILS The concept plan for park, open space and trails includes a town"square" with a shelter structure and playground area for active play and passive use. This central area is connected by trails to Lyman Boulevard and the Bluff Creek Corridor. The Bluff Creek Corridor is identified as a future city trail. Other trails, including a fitness trail, can be incorporated into the design. -5- January 19, 1996 PHASING Phasing is typically driven by location of utilities and roadway access. In this case, road access is at the western edge of the site and utilities are at the eastern edge. The first phase of development therefore, will be along the Central Boulevard extending to the east and then north. Subsequent phases will go north from Central Boulevard and then south. -6- r-_______,„-- �W am W ----% u4 ! . �_ L. ► : u 1 �Y mi i 4 1P . \ ... r i • 4. \ g / . I.a z y tn rl ...-------..i if 11 I 2 els ( I I. CREEK ) gil gw fig 1 I j•••-"'-'--..."-- _. ..\ of J _ „...- „........____:._...) .c.i, pi i _ __-/-------1-- r-_______---„-----,___ \_-. , \ ---\___ ,N\ •,, , -', '-i iii ir ,%:,—,....x\- ,-- —,:"...\,...' . ,\ \ \\ \ I I ; 6 i ill ii \ \ 1 v s 2 I• � ' � _ _-fir� / I 1 � 1 \ \ \�� • I 1� -_ ____/ Jr \\ I I a ,, , l j ,� \ \ \ r i) ; .\Ji I ,\\�_ �� • \ J // /r / r ".././5/....'....' . ss \'1 ——-'4\2 6——--.:::(<-5-4/ L.' c ,,............. , 40 ___ ___7„ . .....„--- \ ` ! \\ ..... , ......... • ...... ....„..r___ _........., . _____ \i, , \ \ 1?,..„ \\,,,,,, ...... , ( Sk y.,\ \ \ , i `` a J 0 U \ X. • I9---jr,..----- N ------..1 ."--.........:................ I Th.), ____s] • - -- ----____ :-1 \ ,, -------7--..._ / ./.• a i )___ __ii 11. • i / .I ----....--..„,,. .........: 1 li ------ • > \K: 1 \--. \ \Y r•'-- . • • ____)„,:r_ '" / ' \.- o ff ./...„, .4 i il 1! -==. : 11 iiiii /1 • I — ,1 PIIIPW I -*.41: ( III I . ' .—ir. Q Pi 4 ��`��f ;Al:. y..a�, j+ 4 4 TI• ai t 4 °10`•;' g v ilea +. •� 'Is e i 1�` 4r ti .*4;4 CVl o ,� o- • '.Op .�i�� %l� esa 8 °aeit*.► +• .''+. U ;j of ;�r4 4=a 11 S-' watt a s 'AVIA•l •. 0.1 `�,�) . �! ! /17.0-...• '',1 9 (`��rOG,!'. �`t ^ - ,, �: i�!.:r•+71\�. 'OE Q a ` Ase �, ,Ia (I _ _ ,, • .•1 `, o®, taw's r, d —� :ft g:• . ae-"In min- 0 V111%, -..."A.Art.-4 A C3.9 •111.11(11% 7 ere / / •IUiG \ W'• v}i ck \ pyo `��i ,`)... ao .b. '+fA l ` i o ` •9.0 .•.. y. • / y «! ara .tafA *at • '/ d� .7,400„ e t/o- c,44.: f 3 a ppi ,;; i „ tps,54, .‘,,,..,., .....4. -.V- 4." • (,5>--- . /� s F f 1-.... cr �s. • r- G �Pr s i b = r • Z 4 Y. \\ .,>,,,,..,.' j 7 1i PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Carver County Government Center Administration Administration Building Parks CARVER 600 East Fourth Street Engineering Chaska,Minnesota 55318-2192 Highway Maintenance COUNTY Surveying&Mapping Phone (612) 361-1010 Fax (612) 361-1025 February 15, 1996 RECEIVED TO: Robert Generous, Senior Planner, City of Chanhass FEB 1 6 1996 FROM: Bill Weckman, Assistant County Engineer CITY OF CHANHASSEN SUBJ: The Village at Bluff Creek D.R. Horton Inc. Planning Case 95-2 Land Use and 96-1 PUD Following are comments regarding the Village at Bluff Creek land use amendment request transmitted to Carver County by your memorandum dated January 24, 1996: 1. Right-of-way widths listed in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study for roadways functionally classified as Minor Arterial (Class II) are: Urban Undivided Rural Undivided 2-lane Roadway 2-lane Roadway Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended 100' 110' 120' 150' Urban Undivided Rural Undivided 4-lane Roadway 4-lane Roadway Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended 100' 120' 140' 170' County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 18 (Lyman Blvd.) is functionally classified as a Minor Arterial (Class II) roadway in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study. The minimum right of way needs for this corridor include a 100 foot width. The corridor as shown would not meet the minimum recommended needs for an urban four lane undivided roadway. The other platted properties along this corridor have included a preserved right of way width of 50 feet from centerline or a total 100 foot wide corridor. It is expected by Carver County that any plat on this property will not be approved until a width with at least that dimension is reflected in the plat. The reconstruction of CSAH 18 is scheduled for 1996 to 1997. We would ask that Carver County has an opportunity to review any proposed lot configurations on this property abutting CSAH 18 (Lyman Blvd) prior to approval of the plat. There may be a need to make minor roadway alignment changes along this property. The City may wish to consider an even wider highway corridor along the proposed subdivision if a separate trailway is to be constructed along the county highway. Additional width may also be needed to accommodate public utilities and landscaping. Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer Printed on 1051 Post-Consumer Recycled Paper The 1990 Eastern Carver County Transportation Study forecasts traffic volumes of 16,000 to 18,000 vehicles per day on this corridor by 2010. This study was completed with the existing Office/Industrial zoning on this property. Traffic impacts due to the higher density zoning should be determined. 2. The accesses being proposed to CSAH 18 from this subdivision will need review and a permit from Carver County. No direct non public road accesses to CSAH 18 will be approved by the County from this subdivision. Any costs for right turn and by pass lanes that are needed as a result of this development would be the responsibility of the developer. We do have some concern about the distance from the northern access to the railroad track. Carver County has never encouraged bus stops along the county corridor. The speed limit along this corridor will probably never be lower than 45 mph. Further investigation needs to be completed to resolve safety issues before a bus shelter as proposed should be approved. 3. Any public utility lines that are to be installed within the CSAH 18 right-of-way are subject to the utility permit requirements of Carver County. 4. Any proposed grading and installation of drainage structures within the right-of-way of CSAH 18 is subject to review and approval of the county highway department. 5. Development activities (including the installation of both public and private utilities needed to serve the development site) that result in any disturbance of the county highway right-of- way (including turf removal, trench settlements, erosion, and sediment deposits) need to be completed in a manner that leaves the right-of-way in"as good or better condition"than what existed prior to construction. It is requested that the city include a provision in the developer's agreement that requires the developer to be ultimately responsible for the final condition of the county highway right-of-way. A clear understanding of this responsibility will result in fewer project oversight problems for both the county and the city. 6. Any trees or landscaping completed within the right-of-way must be approved by the County. When locating shrubs and trees, consideration should be given to maintaining an acceptable sight distance at the CSAH 18 intersection. Any trees or shrubs overhanging into the right- of-way could be subject to trimming for safety or overhead utility consideration. 7. As this area develops, the traffic on CSAH 18 will increase. The increased traffic will generate an increased noise level. The County would consider any type of noise abatement project, if necessary, to be the responsibility of the City or the developer. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the preliminary plat for the proposed development. Chaska February 2, 1996 Mr. Robert Genererous Senior Planner City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 RChanhassen, MN 55317 17 RE: REVIEW OF VILLAGE AT BLUFF CREEK FEB 0 5 1996 Dear Robert: CITY OF CHANHASSEI We have reviewed the above request for amending the Comprehensive Land Use Plan from office/industrial to residential high density. Our review comments are as follows: 1. We have some concern about the proposed five acre retail use at the southwest part of the site relative to poor visibility/site lines at that curved location along County Hwy. 18. In addition,the City of Chaska has a driveway and utility easement serving its adjacent substation through that sight. Five underground feeder circuits are located within this easement as shown on the attached document. 2. The net residential density at nearly 10 units per acre appears to be rather high for townhomes. While 19% of the site is open space, only a small portion appears to be useable open space. The remainder is primarily wetland or steep slopes. 3. The proposal at 504 units represents a large concentration of townhomes in one location. We would urge that a traffic analysis be required. Assuming each unit generates an average of six trips per day,the ultimate development would add over 3,000 trips to County Hwy. 18. 4. The buildings appear to be located relatively close to County Hwy. 18 which is classified as a Class II minor arterial. It is reportedly scheduled for upgrading in 1996. Chaska's set back requirement along Hwy. 18 is 125 feet from centerline. It appears that the 8 unit buildings are setback about 70 feet from centerline while the quad is only about 55 feet. The quad would appear to impact site visibility for exiting traffic. One City Hall Plaza 5531F-1.952 _ 5. The existing office/industrial designation is consistent with Chaska's existing development across County Hwy. 18. We would not be opposed to rezoning for medium density townhouse development, but are somewhat concerned about that large a concentration and that high a density. 6. Although not directly related to the present proposal, we would like to discuss with Chanhassen staff how the new pedestrian trial on County Hwy. 17 in Chaska can link with proximate trails in Chanhassen-potentially along County Hwy. 18 and Bluff Creek. Thanks for the opportunity to review and comment. Sincerely, /C Kermit Crouch Director of Planning and Development KC:jai CITY OF CHANHASSEN \ - 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 TO: Robert Generous, Senior Planner FROM: Mark Littfin,Fire Marshal DATE: January 25, 1996 SUBJECT: The Village at Bluff Creek,D.R. Horton Inc. Planning Case 95-2 Land Use and 96-1 PUD I have reviewed the site plan for the above project. In order to comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division, I have the following fire code on City Ordinances/policy requirements. The site plan review is based on the available information submitted at this time. As additional plans or changes are submitted the appropriate code or policy item will be addressed. 1. Submit street names to Fire Marshal for approval. 2. Submit utility plans for approval. 3. Submit radius turns dimensions for approval. 4. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet. Depending on road widths, "No Parking Fire Lane" signs may be required. This will be reviewed as more detailed plans are submitted. 5. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #29-1992 Premise Identification. Copy enclosed. Additional signs will be required. 6. Center roadway median dividers are not recommended unless proper radius and roadway widths are provided. ML/cmk encl. G:\SAFEfY\ML\t3LUFF.96 r- -g NOTICE OF PUBLIC ' " 7v4 HEARING 6111 ft., PLANNING COMMISSION awn' ,��,,� ��,02; MEETING \0111.n 06�� y ir e: Wednesday, March 6, 1996 C ry gpiri at 7:30 p.m. nit lie City Hall Council Chambers ''. ' M_joreenep-ARK 0 . 690 Coulter Drive ,- ; 411,1riab et_ lir Project: Village at Bluff Creek ` � � now 6 • Developer: D. R. Horton, Inc. Tom. Location: North of Lyman Blvd., South L ATION of the Twin Cities & Western Railroad Tracks Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicant, D. R. Horton, Inc., is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Amendment from Office/Industrial to Residential High Density. The applicant is also requesting Conceptual Planned Unit Development approval for a mixed medium density residential and commercial project on property located north of Lyman Boulevard and south of the Twin Cities and Western Railroad tracks, the Village at Bluff Creek. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting,the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting,please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project,please contact Bob 937-1900, ext. 117. If you choose to submit written comments,it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on February 22, 1996. 641/ �r (1 ) CHARLES MATTSON AUDOBON 92 DANIEL T& LISA A CHUMBLER 2870 WHEELER 15241 CREEKSIDE CT 2001 STONE CREEK DR ROSEVILLE, MN 55113 EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55346 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MARVIN V& CAROLE J LUECK HANS HAGEN HOMES INC THEO A& TERRY L JENSON 2019 STONE CREEK DR 941 HILL WIND RD NE 2065 BOULDER RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55432 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 GERALD W&JANICE K RICHARD D&CHRISTINE M BALM DANIEL J& KAREN O'BRIEN CRAWFORD 2093 BOULDER RD 2103 BOULDER RD 2079 BOULDER RD CHANHASSEN,MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHAD M& JILL C HAKE MICHAEL T&JANET E SNYDER DOUGLAS L&DEBORAH M SCALIT 2115 BOULDER RD 2127 BOULDER RD 2139 BOULDER RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JEFFREY R& KAREN H JONES JOHN MORAN WILLIAM D & MICHELE L HAAS 2151 BOULDER RD 2159 BOULDER RD 2163 BOULDER RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN,MN 55317 ABRAHAM A&NANCY E TODD M& DEBORAH S DOLAN STEVEN V & MONICA M WARD ZAATARI 2187 BOULDER RD 2199 BOULDER RD 2175 BOULDER RD CHANHASSEN,MN 55317 CHANHASSEN,MN 55317 CHANHASSEN,MN 55317 GREGORY J& MONICA PAUL PROCEVIAT JEFFREY B PALM&CHERI SWIERT BRADBURY 2219 BOULDER RD 2301 BOULDER RD 2207 BOULDER RD CHANHASSEN,MN 55317 CHANHASSEN,MN,55317 CHANHASSEN,MN 55317 RUDOLPH T& JEAN A LARSON TIMOTHY J& MARY C KRAFT RICHARD HALL ROWLAND 2291 BOULDER RD 2279 BOULDER RD 2267 BOULDER RD CHANHASSEN,MN,55317 CHANHASSEN,MN,55317 CHANHASSEN,MN 55317 STEPHEN& MELINDA PITTORF GARY L FELDICK& DONNA NOVAK PAUL T& KERRY S SWEATMAN 2305 BOULDER RD 2231 BOULDER RD 2255 BOULDER RD CHANHASSEN,MN 55317 CHANHASSEN,MN 55317 CHANHASSEN,MN,55317 SCOTT H & SUE J FERRELL MERLE D&JANE VOLK TODD M&JONI J NELSON 2243 BOULDER RD 16925 CO RD 40 8610 VALLEY VIEW CT CHANHASSEN,MN 55317 CARVER,MN 55315 CHANHASSEN,MN 55317 TERRY C & JANN M OLSON PAUL S & LAURA E GRAVES 8769 VALLEY VIEW PL 8634 VALLEY VIEW CT MARK R& LISA M ROESNER CHANHASSEN,MN 55317 CHANHASSEN,MN 55317 1814 VALLEY RIDGE TRL N CHANHASSEN,MN 55317 Gayle& Lois Degler TRUMPY HOMES INC CARLOS E&NORY MACHADO 1630 Lyman Blvd. 19097 TWILIGHT TRL 1834 VALLEY RIDGE TRL N Chanhassen, MN 55317 EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55346 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CEASAR J CRUDUP DOUGLAS A&CINDY L MERRIGAN ALVARO J &NANCY A GOMEZ 8712 VALLEY VIEW PL 8736 VALLEY VIEW PL 8748 VALLEY VIEW PL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN,MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN, 55317 TERRY C & JANN M OLSON MICHAEL C&JENNIFER ANDERSON DANIEL K& ROBIN L EDMUND 8769 VALLEY VIEW PL 8772 VALLEY VIEW PL 1861 SUNRIDGE CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN,MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Gareth Davies Michael Cochrane Marlin Edwards 1831 Sunridge Ct. 1751 Sunridge Ct. 8950 Audubon Road CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN,MN 55317 George& Desa Zraick Dean Degler 8850 Audubon Road 9111 Audubon Road CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 FEB-28-96 WED 02 :45 PM AL GOMEZ KRUSTEAZ 612 361 6775 P. 02 8748 Valley View Place Chanhassen, MN 55317 February 28,1996 Mr, Bob Generous City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Dr. P.O_ Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mr. Bob Generous: Thank you for time and consideration over the telephone on Wednesday, February 28, 1996. I am glad I was able to discuss the proposed Village at Bluff Creek project, since unfortunately I will be traveling on the day the City Council meets on this matter. I did want to submit in writing my reasons for voting no on this subject. I am very concerned with what a development of this magnitude will do to our taxes. I am sure it will represent a loss of tax revenue for the city, should this go from an industrial/commercial site to a residential high density site. I am also extremely concerned with what our taxes have done due to the increase in new and updated school facilities. I would venture to guess that this development would necessitate an additional 1/2 school to handle its population. I am sure the council is aware of were its constituents stand with regard to the tremendous tax hikes we have endured in the recent years with the development of schools in Carver County. I hope they keep in mind the referendum that was rejected in the fall on tax increases due to education.. I am also concerned with the location of this project. It seems to me that it would make more sense that this sort of development be more immediate or closer to downtown Chanhassen. Instead it is being proposed at a location that is well over 5 miles outside of downtown Chanhassen. Bob, thank you in advance for forwarding my family's vote on this project to the City Council. I hope my neighbors, who have shared similar concerns, make an attempt to attend the meeting to voice their opinions. Please call me at 361-6774 should you have any questions. Continued success, I Al Gomez 6, C I TY OF , 40"NI CHANHASSEN \,. , ._ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resources Coordinator John Rask, Planner I DATE: February 28, 1996 SUBJ: Amendment to the Shoreland Ordinance BACKGROUND ; 1, The Shoreland Ordinance, adopted in 1994, regulatesuses within the shoreland management district and is based on state ordinance. Alteration of shoreland vegetation is addressed in Section 20-482. It states that while"intensive vegetation clearing" is not allowed, an undefined amount of vegetation removal is. In the past year, staff has received several complaints concerning vegetation removed along a lakeshore. The violations in question were difficult to quantify due to the ambiguous nature of the ordinance. ANALYSIS As written,the vegetation alteration section of the ordinance is ambiguous and difficult to enforce. Without definitive numbers,the limitations are unclear and the interpretations confusing for homeowners and city staff alike. It is also necessary to clearly define vegetation removal limitati' _ ;t :use of its affect on lake quality. Existing shoreland vegetation plays a subtle, yet impo ,.e in the water quality of the lake and clearly reduces shland erosion. Removal of vegetation . i-'1, i.,- shore has a direct and negative impact on the lake. Staff recommends that within the shore acid bluff-impact zone.a,plean ,f-1 %or 30 feet parallel to the shoreline,whichever is lesser, be allowed.erhisivoilinermit a reasonable area for recreational purposes as well as provide an adt AZ avenue for lake viewing. or RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends that City Council adopt the following amendments as described in the staff report dated February 28, 1996: Planning Commission February 29, 1996 Page 2 Sec 20-482. Shoreland Alterations. (a) Generally. Alterations of vegetation and topography shall be regulated to prevent erosion into public waters, fix nutrients,preserve shoreland aesthetics,preserve historic values,prevent bank slumping, and protect fish and wildlife habitat. (b) Vegetation alterations (1) Vegetation alteration necessary for the construction of structures and sewage treatment systems and the construction of roads and parking areas regulated by section 20-484 of this article are exempt from the following vegetation alteration standards. (2) Removal or alteration of vegetation is allowed subject to the following standards: (a) Intensive vegetation clearing within the shore and bluff impact zones and on steep slopes is not allowed. Intensive vegetation clearing for forest land conversion to another use outside of these areas is allowable if permitted as part of a development approved by the city council as a conditional use if an erosion control and sedimentation plan is developed and approved by the soil and water conservation district in which the property is located. (b) In shore and bluff impact zones and on steep slopes, limited clearing of trees and shrubs and cutting, pruning, and trimming of trees is allowed to provide a view of the water from the principal dwelling site and to accommodate the placement of stairways and landings,picnic areas, access paths, livestock water ng areae•, beach and watercraft access areas, and permitted water-oriented accessory structures or facilities,provided that: (i) The screening of structures, vehicles, or other facilities as viewed from the water, assuming leaf-on conditions, is not substantially reduced; (ii) Along rivers, existing shading of water surfaces is preserved; and (iii)The above provisions are not applicable to the removal of trees, limbs, or branches that are dead, diseased, or pose safety hazards; and (iv) The clearing be limited to a strip 30% of lot width or 30 feet,whichever is lesser, parallel to the shoreline and extending inward within the shore and bluff impact zones. CITY 4 F CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: John Rask, Planner I DATE: February 28, 1996 SUBJ: Sign Ordinance Glitch Amendments SUMMARY On January 9, 1996, the City Council approved a number of amendments to the Sign Ordinance. After a year of implementing and enforcing the revised sign ordinance, several glitches have appeared. These minor discrepancies create confusion when trying to ascertain the true meaning of the ordinance. Often times people request or pickup a copy of the sign ordinance without speaking to staff; therefore, it is important to have an ordinance that reads clearly and is easy to interpret. The recommended amendments should clarify these problem areas. ANALYSIS Staff recommends the following amendments: Section 20-1255(9)a. Temporary development project advertising signs, currently reads, "Not more than two (2)nonilluminated signs or not more than one(1)nonilluminated sign per street frontage shall be allowed per project." Amend Section 20-1255(9)a. Temporary development project advertising signs, to read: "Not more than one(1)nonilluminated sign per street frontage, provided that the total number of signs do not exceed two (2) per project." Comment: This provision has created confusion over how many signs are allowed. The proposed amendment should eliminate this problem. Planning Commission February 28, 1996 Page 2 Amend Section 20-1301(2)Area identification/entrance signs to read: Only one(1) monument sign may be erected at the main entrance(s) en- -let, which shall not exceed twenty-four(24) square feet of sign display area, nor be more than five (5) feet high. Any such sign or monument shall be designed so that it is maintenance fee. The adjacent property owner or a homeowners association shall be responsible for maintenance of the identification/entrance sign. Such sign shall be located so as not to conflict with traffic visibility or street maintenance operation, and shall be securely anchored to the ground." Comment: The title of this section, area identification/entrance signs, should lead one to believe that the intent is to locate the sign at the entrance to a subdivision. However, in the past we have received requests to locate signs in areas away from the entrance, and to locate more than one sign at the entrance. The amendment should clarify this section. Section 20-1,Definitions. Sign, ground low profile business, means a business sign affixed directly to the ground, • • :- . . • -•• • . • •. . . grew-which directs attention to a business, commodity, service,or product offered on the premises. Comment: The height requirement is in conflict with the requirements for the specific zoning districts in which ground low profile business signs are permitted. The revised sign ordinance provides height and sign area requirements for ground low profile signs in each zoning district. Therefore, this part of the definition is not needed and is in conflict with other sections of the ordinance. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopt the following amendments as described in the staff report dated February 28, 1996: 1. Amend Section 20-1255(9)a. to read: "Not more than one (1) nonilluminated sign per street frontage, provided that the total number of signs do not exceed two (2)per project. 2. Amend Section 20-1301(2)Area identification/entrance signs to read: Only one (1) monument sign may be erected at the primary entrance(s), which shall not exceed twenty- four(24) square feet of sign display area, nor be more than five (5) feet high. Any such sign or monument shall be designed so that it is maintenance fee. The adjacent property owner or a homeowners association shall be responsible for maintenance of the identification/entrance sign. Such sign shall be located so as not to conflict with traffic visibility or street maintenance operation, and shall be securely anchored to the ground." Planning Commission February 28, 1996 Page 3 3. Section 20-1, Definitions. Sign, ground low profile business, means a business sign affixed directly to the ground, which directs attention to a business, commodity, service, or product offered on the premises. {ASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION AR MEETING ARY 12, 1996 man Mancino called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ERS PRESENT: Craig Peterson, Mike Meyer, Bob Skubic, Nancy Mancino, Don id Jeff Farmakes ERS ABSENT: Ladd Conrad PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II; Bob is, Planner II; John Rask, Planner I; and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer HEARING: 'UNARY PLAT APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE OUTLOT A, OAKWOOD ESTATES CRFS) INTO 5 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND ED AT APPROXIMATELY 532 LYMAN BLVD., EUGENE QUINN, FIRST [ON TO OAKWOOD ESTATES. 'resent: 1e Address Therese Quinn 4510 Shore Drive, Rapid City, SD Nina Skalberg 510 Lyman Blvd. & Russell L. Frederick 540 Lyman Blvd. & Tom Uppman 532 Lyman Blvd. ensen 530 Lyman Blvd. Dsberg 530 Lyman Blvd. lerick 540 Lyman Blvd. serous presented the staff report on this item. : Any questions from commissioners at this time? I do have one. Bob, number 15 of, as part of your recommendation. Can you Arhy we need the temporary turn around? That goes through doesn't it? s: No, it would dead end at the end of this subdivision and it would be an cy vehicle turn around. The snowplow turn around. From this point to the north it's drive and until those properties develop, there would be no need to upgrade that 1 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 Meyer: So that's the reason for that turn around? Generous: Right. Mancino: Excuse me. So it would be a turn around that also had access or curb cuts for the private drive to continue and as that, that goes east right now. Hempel: Correct. Mancino: And that is not going to be upgraded at all. It can stay as it is as a private drive, etc. Generous: Until those properties would come in for development. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Any other questions at this time? Okay. Would the applicant like to come up and address the Planning Commission at this time? Gene Quinn: My name is Gene Quinn. We now live in Rapid City, South Dakota but we lived here for about 14 years... As far as comments, as far as phase 2, we don't anticipate doing anything with that until somebody further north wants to develop and pushes the road. So as far as the turn around... Mancino: Okay. Any other questions that you had on the conditions of the staff report? Gene Quinn: I don't think so. I'm... Mancino: Any questions for the applicant from the commissioners? Thank you. Gene Quinn: Thank you. Mancino: Appreciate your comments. May I have a motion to open this for a public hearing please. Faimakes moved, Meyer seconded to open the public healing. The public healing was opened. Mancino: Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission please come up and state your name and address. 2 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 Russell Frederick: I'm Russell Frederick. I live at 540 Lyman Boulevard and with this development I see no problem with Lots 1, 2 and 5. 3 and 4 I think are not suitable ground to build on, number one. And number two, I think it's not considering the rest of the neighborhood. It's not blending with the rest of the neighborhood. This is my only real objection is those two points. Other than that, three houses on that 2 acres I think blends with the neighborhood real good and I don't see a problem. Mancino: We do have a city ordinance which does allow the landowner to subdivide and make it denser than the 3 lots. So that is in our city code. Our city ordinance that legally the applicant can. Russell Frederick: Is there also...5 development units? Mancino: Yes. Russell Frederick: For the sewer going in. Meaning the trunk line. Mancino: Is that correct Dave? Hempel: It would be in the future as the parcel subdivides. They would be responsible for hook-up and connection charges. Russell Frederick: But not the trunk line? Hempel: That would include the trunk line. That's a hook-up charge. Russell Frederick: Okay. Mancino: Any other questions? Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission? Tom Uppman: I'm Tom Uppman. I live at 532 Lyman Boulevard, just adjacent to this property and I guess I don't have a problem with developing in the city. It's their property. they can do what they choose. I was privileged to have a copy of the drawings that spelled out in much detail the discussion of the trunk watermain, the sewer, storm sewer and that and one of the notations on the drawing state that this will be supplied by others. I'm not a developer but I've purchased property from a developer before and all of those things were in and available to me when I tried to buy a lot and I just paid the hook-up charge for my house to the street. Being a neighbor there, I'm on a well and septic right now. I would be very strongly opposed to subsidizing any development in there for water and sewer. I agree with Mr. Frederick that there are two lots, they're Lots 3 and 4 that really need to be looked at and 3 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 studied. I don't believe that they're sound property to put a house on...I maintained and I mowed that area and it's constantly wet all the time. Mancino: So you're talking about the soils? Tom Uppman: I'm afraid that someone will put a house in there that will sink out of sight. Mancino: Well one of the conditions of our report is that the soils do have to be looked at and who was it, I don't know what department comes and checks the soils. Hempel: The building department's responsibility. They require a soils report from a professional soils engineer. Soils have to be, if they're poor soils, they have to be replaced with a granular back fill and capable of supporting. Mancino: So that means they're taking out, the poor soils are taken out and new soils are put in if they don't meet the test. The soils test. Hempel: That's right. Mancino: Okay. Tom Uppman: Another notation I noticed on the drawings for the pond there. They had a catch basin that would drain into the storm sewer, the city storm sewer. And I'm new in that area. I've only been there a couple years but it's my understanding that that pond was considered wetlands and there was drainage that drained into wetlands. I don't think a wetlands should...city sewer system. Mancino: Dave, do you want to describe how that? Hempel: Certainly. We did review the previous wetland history there, and according to the National Wetlands Inventory Map there was a small wetland on the property some time ago. It's our understanding that the applicant has excavated it to increase the size of it over the years. I also understand that there is an agricultural drain tile that does drain that periodically. It's my understanding from the property owner that there's water in it pretty much year round except during the summer drought. The water will dry down. What's proposed with this development is a storm sewer system that will maintain a water level hopefully throughout the year. To maintain the water level to create vegetation and habitat and essentially restore that wetland. Hopefully the wetland will act as a water quality pond as well as a water quantity pond to maintain flood control on it and so forth. The pond does require an outlet structure because of the agricultural tile that's in there right now. It 4 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 meanders through many properties downstream. Typically those do get abandoned as development occurs. This wetland, storm pond will be then tied into the city's overall storm sewer system in Lyman Boulevard and will re-connect. Mancino: Will it go to a regional pond? Hempel: It will go down to the wetland that's down by Lake Riley there on the north side of Lyman where it supposedly goes right now through a drain tile. Tom Uppman: There's no drainage tile. Hempel: There is some drain tiles underneath. Tom Uppman: There might be drain tile under it but it doesn't drain. Like I say, I maintain that and last summer during the rain season, water was all the way up to Quinn Road. That whole area was swamp. You couldn't even drive a lawnmower there. The drainage is not working. Hempel: That's one of the reasons why the storm sewer system will be put in to maintain that level so you don't have that flooding problem. Mancino: And the soils will be looked at too, so. Tom Uppman: I guess, you know the utility aspect of it...subsidize so. Mancino: I understand that. Dave. Are those people that live on the east side of Quinn Road, when this is developed, do they, they are required to hook up to city sewer when it is available? Hempel: With Phase II it would be required for the sanitary sewer and water lines be extended adjacent to those properties and the street upgraded. The city ordinance does require those properties that are adjacent to a sewer line be connected up within 12 months after a system becomes operational. They do not have to hook up to city water unless their well fails. Mancino: Okay. And they can at any time get a cost estimate from the city, how much it costs to hook up to the city sewer? Hempel: Certainly. We can get some figures. 5 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 Mancino: Okay, thank you. Russell Frederick: Can I ask one more question? Mancino: Certainly. Russell Frederick: This wetland, I thought I heard something stated that it was__.enlarged where the pond is. The reason this bothers me is this wetland is almost to the roadway. The platted roadway coming in and that is filled with anywhere from 18 inches to probably 2, maybe 2 1/2 feet of fill. This is why I mentioned before that Lots 3 and 4 are not suitable building ground. They would have to be excavated. I don't know how deep. I never did... but there's a lot of muck in there. So that is not suitable building ground...and considerable fill before you dare put a house in. Mancino: Well the city will investigate. Hempel: Madam Chair. One of the conditions of approval tonight is the applicant shall hire a wetland expert to delineate the edge of the wetland as a part of this project as well, so we'll know more from that investigation. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Aanenson: Maybe I can just make a little more clarification on that. Again we're just approving the first two lots. We agree that those other lots may be marginal and that's why we spelled out that there is an additional condition that they do investigate those. We want to make sure before we plat those lots that they are suitable, have a suitable building site so again we're just approving the first two lots and 3, 4, and 5 are for a future date. We had the concerns, the same concerns that have been addressed tonight about the soils and the wetlands. Mancino: But we are approving the preliminary plat with those conditions? Aanenson: Correct. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Sherry Benson: My name is Sherry Benson. I live at 530 Lyman Boulevard. I have concerns about the size of the lots. First of all they're not even half the size...half the size of one of the smallest lots which is...area so that does take off the balance then...it would wreck the balance... I also have concerns about the price of the homes that will be placed in this 6 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 area...third of an acre. I don't understand how you can put very large houses in there. Is there a...value of the homes surrounding that area. That's about it. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Anyone else? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? Farmakes moved, Meyer seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: Comments from commissioners. Questions or comments that you would like to make on the report on the conditions. Craig. Peterson: I think it's pretty well straight forward as far as the development goes. I really don't have anything to offer other than the fact that I wish they were all this easy. Mancino: Bob. I mean Mike, sorry. Meyer: Nothing. Mancino: Bob. Skubic: I don't have any comments other than it appears that the soil concern is well covered with the recommendations that the staff has made... Mancino: Don. Mehl: I also think it's pretty simple and straight forward, you know subject to the conditions and so on. I assume that the lot sizes are within the guide lines for the area. But other than that, I really don't have anything additional to say. Mancino: Thank you. Jeff. Farmakes: My only comment on this is, I'll touch on briefly, is to elaborate what you mentioned for the people who have questions in regards to minimum lot size. The city defines what the minimum lot size is for the zone and there may be adjacent properties who choose to build fewer dwellings on more land. That's their prerogative but that still does not change the minimum zone that minimum lot size is. And so you're going to have, as the city grows, you're going to have some large areas, larger lots I think someone mentioned an adjacent lot was 3/4 of an acre. There are very few homes now being built on an acre or 3/4 7 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 of an acre and the average price of the home in Chanhassen, which I think is like up to $140,000.00 some. Mancino: $160,000.00. Farmakes: Is it $160,000.00 now? As it keeps continuing to go up and up and up you're going to see the demand for smaller and smaller minimum lot sizes. Chanhassen actually has one of the larger minimum lot sizes in the metro area. And anywhere, that just brings you up to date on that. It might be helpful for some of the people who are upset about this. Other than that I have no further comments. Mancino: Okay, thank you. I have a couple, just a couple questions. I think it was Dave in your comments about dwelling type you had put down in the report that a split entry home would be the only dwelling type that you felt would work on this, in these lots. I mean I know we haven't had for 3, 4 and 5, we haven't had the soils testing done. However, I didn't see that in the conditions of approval and I also saw on this preliminary plat that most of the houses, the dwelling types that I see are walkouts. So is that something that should be a condition? Hempel: I believe condition number 2. Mancino: Does that say it? Hempel: It says revise the grading plan to show location of the lowest floor, garage floor elevation and the type of dwelling. That was a condition that we placed on the applicant to show on the grading development plan, what those elevations of the homes are and we've indicated to him, based on the 100 year flood elevation of the pond, that those homes will most likely be a split entry type home, or even a slab on grade home. You will not have a full basement because of the water level. Mancino: Because of the water level, okay. I just wanted to make sure that the applicant was aware of that and it was part of the conditions. Bob, can you tell me a little bit about Lyman Boulevard. Is that a collector? Is that what we would, is it a collector? Aanenson: To my knowledge it is. Mancino: Do we need to do some landscaping or some sort of berming when we have homes that face onto a collector, according to our city code? Generous: Based on ordinance, yes. There should be landscaping. 8 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 Mancino: Okay. Is there any in this plan for buffering of those homes on the collector? Generous: Just the requirement on Lot 2 that they provide 4 trees. It didn't go beyond that. And on Lot 1, it's mostly wooded so if they stick to a building area, they wouldn't be able to save the trees. Mancino: Are they going to be able to save most of those very nice older trees on Lot 1? Generous: They should be. We've required an easement over the rear and the western portion but not on the front. Mancino: Okay. When the final landscaping plan is developed, I'd like to make sure that we do have some sort of buffering there on the collector per our city ordinance. Did the Park and Rec Commission get a chance to look at that, and I didn't see anything about fees. Generous: I'm sorry. I must have, or Todd or I either missed it. Yes, they did review it. They're requiring the fees instead of the dedication of land and it's based on city ordinance in effect when they final plat. Mancino: Okay. So that we do need to add a condition that full park and trail fees shall be paid at the time of building permit approval in the amount in force at the time of the building permit application. Okay. Those are all my comments and questions. Is there a motion? Meyer: I'll make a motion. I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the preliminary plat of Oakwood Estates First Addition, prepared by William R. Engelhardt Associates, Inc., dated December 28, 1995 for five lots subject to the following conditions 1 through 20 with an additional of number 21. Review the plat to ensure landscaping is up to the city ordinance, and that'd be. Mancino: Along the collector road. Meyer: Along the collector road. And I'll let you go ahead with 22. Mancino: Okay. And 22 says, full park and trail fees shall be paid at the time of building • permit approval in the amount in force at the time of building application. Is there a second to the motion? Mehl: I'll make the second. Mancino: Any discussion? 9 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 Meyer moved, Mehl seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the preliminary plat of Oakwood Estates First Addition, prepared by William R. Engelhardt Associates, Inc., dated December 28, 1995 for five lots subject to the following conditions: 1. Submit an evaluation of the soils at the proposed house pads. This shall be done prior to issuance of any building permits. 2. Revise the grading plan to show the location, lowest floor and garage floor elevations and type of dwelling using the city's standard designations prior to final plat approval. the lowest floor elevations of all dwellings shall be constructed a minimum of two (2) feet above the 100 year flood elevation of the pond. The lowest opening or walkout of each dwelling shall be a minimum of one (1) foot above the emergency overflow swale elevation. 3. Rock construction entrances shall be employed and maintained at all access points until the street has been paved with bituminous surface. 4. The applicant shall be responsible for water quality and quantity connection charges in accordance with the City Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP). Credits will be reviewed and applied to these charges upon final plat consideration based on the applicant's contribution for meeting the City's SWMP requirements. 5. The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat a drainage and ponding easement over the pond up to the 100 year flood elevation and a 20 foot drainage and utility easement centered upon the common lot line of Lots 3 and 4, Block 1 for the emergency overflow swat e. 6. The applicant's engineer shall work with city staff in revising street grades along Quinn Road to provide for an emergency overflow from the pond out to Quinn Road. 7. Individual grading, drainage, tree preservation and erosion control plans will be required for Lots 1, 2 and 5, Block 1 at the time of building permit application for the city to review and approve. Lots 3 and 4, Block 1 shall be graded in conjunction with Phase II site improvements. 8. The public street and utility system shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the city's latest edition of street and utility standards. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted for Phase II for city staff review and formal approval by the City Council in conjunction with final plat approval for Phase II. The plans and 10 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 specifications shall be prepared in accordance with the latest edition of the city's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. 9. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the city's Best Management Practice Handbook. 10. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 year and 100 year storm event providing ponding calculations for stormwater ponds in accordance with the City's SWMP for the City Engineer to review and approve prior to final plat approval. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post-developed stormwater calculations in existing basins, created basins, and/or creeks. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. 11. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 12. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and the Army Corps of Engineers and comply with their conditions of approval. 13. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 14. The applicant has the option to install the storm drainage improvements from the pond to Lyman Boulevard at their own expense. If the applicant petitions the city to install these drainage improvements under the Lyman Boulevard Reconstruction/Lake Riley Area Trunk Utility Improvement Project No. 93-32B, the applicant shall accept the special assessment for the cost of extending the storm drainage improvements from Lyman Boulevard to the pond. The cost of these storm drainage improvements will be assessed on a per lot basis over Lots 1 through 5, inclusive. The applicant and/or property owners shall waive any and all procedural or substantive objections to the special assessments associated with city public improvement Project No. 93-32B 11 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 including, but not limited to, hearing requirements and any claim that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the property. 15. Quinn Road shall be extended and upgraded to a city standard urban road in the future. The applicant shall provide a temporary turn around with Phase II improvements that meets city standards with a barricade and signage stating that it is a temporary cul-de- sac and this road will be extended in the future. 16. Applicant is required to plant 10 trees as replacements for canopy lost. These trees shall be 2 1/2 inches in diameter and from the primary species in the Approved Tree List. Three trees shall be planted on each of Lots 3 and 4, and four on Lot 2. 17. A conservation easement or tree removal limit shall be placed over the following lot areas: a. The northern 145 feet and western 20 feet of Lot 1. b. The western 60 feet of Lot 2. c. The westerly 60 feet of the southerly 30 feet of Lot 3. d. The northern 35 feet of Lot 5. 18. Tree protection fencing shall be installed around all trees and wooded areas that are to be preserved on the site. Such fencing shall be installed prior to commencing grading, excavations or other site improvements on or adjacent to the lots. 19. Entry monumentation for the development shall require a separate sign permit and must comply with city code. 20. The applicant shall hire a wetland expert to delineate the edge of the wetland due to the marginal soil conditions in the area. Based on this delineation, Lots 3, 4 and 5 may not be developable or a Wetland Alteration Permit may be required. 21. Review the plat to ensure that the landscaping along the collector street meets city ordinance. 22. Full park and trail fees shall be paid at the time of building permit approval in the amount in force at the time of final plat. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE 1.22 ACRES INTO 3 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 8508 GREAT PLAINS BLVD, TED SLATHAR, SLATHAR ADDITION. Public Present: Name Address Pam B. 8508 Great Plains Blvd. Don Slathar 8508 Great Plains Blvd. Brad Willmsen 8510 Great Plains Blvd. George Gilman 8506 Great Plains Blvd. Ted & Tris Slathar 4425 Chatsworth, Shoreview Wayne Hultman 8524 Great Plains Blvd. Al Klingelhutz 8600 Great Plains Blvd. Norm Grant 9021 Lake Riley Blvd. John Rask presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: This sounds as if there's three lots right now, that if it goes, if the applicant is not going with two lots, that we may want to see that back and how the lots are split up and what can be done with the private road at that time. Is the applicant here? Do you wish to, thank you. Ted Slathar: My name is Ted Slathar and we're willing to comply with staffs recommendations. We'd like to, our main concern is to save as many trees and I think everybody's concern is that, to save as many trees as we can so we'd like to divide it to where the lot closest to the lakeshore and the parcel and lot... So we'd go with staffs recommendation on... Mancino: On what? Ted Slathar: On this. Mancino: On that specific division, okay. Any other comments on the staff report? Ted Slathar: No. I think that John did a lot better job of presenting this than I could. He handled everything, covered everything and we're willing to comply with everything... 13 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 Mancino: And I take it the property has been in your family for some time. Ted Slathar: Yes, for over 30 years. Mancino: Thank you. Any commissioners have any questions for the applicant at this time? Thank you very much. May I have a motion to open this, and a second, for a public hearing please. Farmakes moved, Meyer seconded to open the public healing. The public hearing was opened. Mancino: Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission at this time, please do. Please state your name and address. George Gilman: I'm George Gilman, 8506 Great Plains Blvd. Right next to the Slathar development, or proposed development. My main concern is, if this driveway is put in 20 feet wide starting down...is about 5-6 mature pine trees. They're 30-40 feet high. If the Slathar's agree to go back to 2 lots, which I think they're giving up a lot. Personally I hate seeing anything develop but I didn't make the laws and I got to go along with it. I would suggest that the driveway be left alone, the way it is right now... I measured it out last night. There's 25 feet from my property coming over to the center of the trunk of the trees. The trees could be trimmed up a little bit. The branches and leave the driveway the way it is... blacktop it. Raised it on my side that would keep the water on their side and drain it out towards TH 101. What also could be looked at, if I were to develop in the future, which I don't have any plans for it right now but if development proceeds, sooner or later I'm going to be forced to do it or sell it to somebody that's going to do it. My land, or the new driveway for my development could be pushed against that driveway and if more houses were built in there, I mean there'd be a wider driveway. I know there's concerns for fire trucks getting in there. If somebody had to get in, if they had a fire truck, knock down my fence if they have to. That really doesn't stop a fire truck from getting where they are. It's hard to get up and talk on this because I'm not developing right now and if I were doing a development I'd want three lots on there. The lot on the lake is worth the money. The way I look at development costs, you throw away one lot to pay for what the city wants in there. I like to be fair to my neighbors also and state that here. I could be standing here 3 years from now begging for three lots and I don't like...but it's going to happen. And I didn't buy with that intention. But I would suggest not cutting those trees. I won't object to the driveway coming up against my driveway. It's that way right now and one more house in there, it's not going to bother me. I don't want to see more trees come out of there than what have to. That's about it. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 Mancino: Okay. Thank you for your comments and your letter also. Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission? Brad Willmsen: My name is Brad Willmsen. I live at 8510 Great Plains Boulevard, adjacent to the proposed development. I'd just like to ask if the survey that was used for this development is recent or current. I understand there's some disagreements as to where the property lines, where they are along the lake and...how current that survey is. Mancino: Bob, what does the city, John. Thank you. I mean how do we know that ifs a legitimate survey? Rask: Well in this case, we were aware that there has been some disputes. I don't know if there is on this particular lot or not. The survey was prepared by a registered surveyor in the State. What happens is it becomes more of a civil matter between the two. The city's in no position to settle a dispute amongst property owners in this situation. If it doesn't line up, they may have problems recording the plat in each case. If it changes significantly, it could have to come back through. Mancino: Then it comes back and goes through. Rask: If it's a few inches here or there, I don't think we'd have to go through the preliminary plat. Maybe just do an administrative subdivision to settle it so it is something though that the property owners would have to work out amongst themselves. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Anyone else? Seeing none, may I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing please. Meyer moved, Farmakes seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: Before we start with commissioners, well I'll wait. Don. Mehl: I support the two lot concept. The one that was just shown up there on the overhead. It just looks like it's balanced better. And I support whichever one will result in the fewest trees being removed. I understand that that is the one that will take the fewest trees or am I wrong? Mancino: Will that take less trees? It certainly won't on the way coming into the driveway. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 Rask: Yeah, you'll lose some more from the driveway. It's kind of hard to tell at this point. You would lose a lot of the, if it's a 20 foot driveway, you would lose all of these pines pretty much. You're going to lose a few for the placement of the house pad and the grading of the house pad. If you move the property line back to here to try to put a house in here, you're going to lose almost all the pines and I believe there are some oaks there so it's hard to say. You're going to lose them either way. It's just which trees have to go. This one you do preserve that buffer along TH 101, which is kind of a nice amenity right now. With this one, because of the bluff, the setback requirement from the top of the bluff, in our current ordinances they would not be allowed to remove vegetation in that area so those trees would be preserved along the shoreline there. So it's hard to say which one's worst but they both have pros and cons. Mancino: And we can certainly off the suggestion of a variance for the driveway being 20 feet also. I mean there are different options, and just have two houses. Mehl: Yeah, I would support that concept. I like the buffer of TH 101 being maintained if we can. Mancino: Jeff. Farmakes: No further comments. I'm for the staffs recommendation. Mancino: Bob. Skubic: I have a question of John. If we approve the two lot plat here, would the applicant still be able to divide the, further subdivide in the future? Rask: Yeah. They would still be over on that impervious surface requirement so, I wouldn't say no. If they went in a combined development with one of the adjoining neighbors where they shared access or something, it could be possible that in the future they would get one more lot. But at this time, no. They would not be able to further subdivide. Skubic: Unless they got a variance. Aanenson: Unless they got some relief from the ordinance, correct. Skubic: Thank you. I have nothing further to add. Mancino: Mike. Craig. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 Peterson: John, if you could put up the slide again. I guess I'm a little confused as to where the, if we do two lots, where the pads... Rask: Yeah. On this one the house pad would remain as shown on the lake lot. On the riparian lot there and then this is the existing home so the home, these two lots would be combined so the home would sit on this larger lot here. The other option here, again these are all, we're trying to preserve the existing home. This would be a lot. You could possibly shift this house pad further to the north to make it fit in there better but we're still pretty limited because of the setback, as far as where they could go and then the existing house would sit on Lot 2 here which would be all of this so there would be nothing additional between the house and the lake. So you just move this one up slightly. Peterson: Are you recommending the first or are you recommending the change? Rask: I guess staff really didn't have a preference. They both meet ordinance requirements. I think the applicant has indicated his preference would be the additional lake lot. As far as we're concerned, they both meet ordinance requirements. The impact as far as tree removal are similar. Peterson: I guess if I had to approve one or the other, I guess I would have a tendency to approve the first one that the rest of the commissioners spoke of so no further questions. Mancino: Okay. I'd actually like to see this come back. I'd like to see it come back with some of the details worked out and that would be the two lots and I also concur with the applicant, with the Lots 1 and 2. With the front lot, the first lot be the one that has the existing building and the existing home and the second one be the one on the lakeshore. I'd like to see something worked out so we can save the trees. Not only on TH 101 but on the driveway because there's about 120 feet of mature coniferous trees there that add greatly to that lot and I'd like to see some way that we could keep the driveway existing and not make it wider. And if we do, I don't know what the width of the driveway is. I think it's approximately 10 feet and go 10 or 12 feet but we have given other variances to existing driveways in areas like this and there's only two homes off of it so I'd like to see staff work with the applicant and with Public Safety so we can work something out. And whether that even has to work with the property owner on the east, Mr. Gilman so that if there is an emergency, that something can be worked out to go over that private driveway too. So I'd like to see that come back. I'd also like to know where, if we have the two lots, where the driveway for that second lot will go. Whether it will go next to Gilman's. Whether it will cut and go a little west and enter that second lot. I'd like to see it pulled away from the Gilman property if possible and save those trees there. I have a question that Mr. Gilman wrote in his letter to us and one of it was having to do with the sewer line that's coming up 17 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 from Lot 2 that will come up. And he had a question about when you go to dig the sewer line, the compaction of the soils, will that be next to his property line because his home is 18 inches on the east side of the property line. Will there be any repercussions from that? From you know, to his foundation of his home, etc. Hempel: That's a good question. The sewer line would go along the north property line, probably 8 to 10 feet off the north property line. Mancino: To the east or the west? Hempel: Well I would prefer to the east I guess. George Gilman: How deep? Hempel: Well it probably would be in the range of 8 to 10 feet deep at that point. There's construction techniques such as a box to use to try and shorten or keep the width of that trench as narrow as possible, could be one technique. Compaction though would be, usually they use a mechanical vibrating hamper through there that will send some foundations through a foundation and so forth of adjacent structures so. Mancino: So what precautions does the city normally use? Hempel: Well, I don't know if the city uses any in this instance here but the contractor doing the particular work should be aware of the situation. I guess I would advise the homeowner adjacent to the property to document the foundation condition of their home with pictures or videotape to show that there has been damage caused if. Mancino: And at that time, can't the city kind of facilitate a meeting between the, whoever's putting the sewer in and the homeowner on the east. Hempel: Sure we could explain. Mancino: To make sure they know what's going on and when it's going to happen and how it's going to be. I think that'd be a good idea. Anyway, those are my comments. I'd kind of like to see it come back and see what's really going to happen there once the two lots are created and where the driveway is and what trees will be saved and if we can make sure that the driveway is paved for the length that it needs to be but it stays the same width. The existing width that it is now. May I have a motion? 18 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 Meyer: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends tabling the preliminary plat for Subdivision #96-3, Slathar Addition. Mancino: And do we need to state or articulate any reasons for the tabling? Rask: No. I think it's pretty clear. Mancino: Is there a second to the motion? Skubic: Second. Mancino: Any discussion of the motion? Meyer moved, Skubic seconded that the Planning Commission table the preliminary plat for Subdivision #96-3, Slathar Addition for further review. All voted in favor and the motion canied unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: SIGN VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SECOND WALL MOUNTED SIGN LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED BH, HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED NORTH OF HWY 5, EAST OF MARKET BLVD ON WEST 79Th STREET, TIRES PLUS GROUPE, INC. Public Present: Name Address Jim Dimond 8609 Lyndale Avenue So., Bloomington Ron Fiscus Yaggy, Colby Associates, Rochester, MN John Rask presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Thank you John. Is the applicant here? Ron Fiscus: It's been a while. A bit of history on this. Originally Tires Plus had an option on the parcel of property across...recommended Tires Plus. Tires Plus originally...piece of property across West 79th Street from this site where we're currently going and elected to move to another site on the encouragement of the city administrative staff. A couple of reasons for that. One was that they, the site that the HRA owned in this location had a portion of wetlands on it. The site that Tires Plus had optioned had wetlands on it but had 19 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 some doable space. So as the HRA was looking at trying to put their development together here, they thought this would be an excellent opportunity to swap wetland for non-wetland. A wetland mitigation site so on that, insistence from the HRA, Tires Plus said okay. This seems like a reasonable approach so they gave up that site on the south side of 79th Street, which interestingly enough has 2 or 3 street frontages, and in that process it would have been nice to be able to transfer those rights for signage on local frontages that come with all those street frontages they would have had to this new site, but that wasn't possible. So we're faced with trying to find a way to fit into the downtown commercial district and the frankly aggressive signage that is going on in many places in downtown and even very close to this site. And as we talked with John about signage within the community we've found that there have been numerous other conditions where signs on multiple building faces have been approved by one form or another. One of the facts that we're faced with here is that this is a bit of an unusual configuration for a site. We're backing back into the site. The angular streets in this location provide some interesting visual access to this. For example, Pauly runs to the north of the site. It winds up along through and as you look at, the sense you have for this property from Pauly Drive, it feels a lot like a double frontage lot. Not unlike the situation you have at Festival Foods where they have Highway 5 on one side, across the railroad tracks but it feels very much like they have highway frontage and then have frontage on Market Square so they have signs on two of their faces. Even though they only have one actual street frontage off of the Festival Foods property. The building feels a lot like a planned unit development. It's kind of functioning that way. It has a street in here. By virtue of an access that's being installed to connect the Americana Bank with this development, it's going to feel very much like a PUD that has kind of a corner situation. And this looks and feels a lot like several other projects with Boston Market...with Premiere Video where some private internal streets that provide access to internal lots are, from all appearances, dealt with as public streets and people are allowed to count those as frontages so for example, with Premiere Video you have signage on two of those building faces even though they only have...one public street. In this case, and in other cases...John, apparently the...Boston Market and Perkins was dealt with as a planned unit development. And as that was approved, building multiple signs on multiple building faces were approved as a part of that PUD. In this case, the public entity that is doing this development didn't provide that opportunity as a part of the up front request of the Planning Commission and City Council and the HRA as we were going through the subdivision process. So at this point we're forced to come back through a variance process to try and get that same approval that has been granted to other developments in the downtown area. An interesting angle with 79th Street. As you gain access to this property you have an opportunity for visual access through here, through here and then on Highway 5 as you look at the face of the building. As was said, there were several building faces, signs on several of the building faces proposed initially with the site development proposal. The owner, Tires Plus, would have preferred to have some...pylon sign but recognize that that just wouldn't fit with the other sorts of things you're 20 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 doing in this area of the downtown area. So they elected instead to do the sign on the building face and the peak that you had seen previously. It's a fixed sign. It doesn't provide the opportunity to address some of the angular, visual access you have to the site as your... So in this case it's felt that the angles, if we were able to put a sign on this face, which is the second sign that's proposed, it would provide the opportunity to make use of those angular vistas to the site and provide a better opportunity for building identification from those angles. Interestingly enough, the building has a showroom out in front of it so it has actually three faces on the showroom, not unlike Century Bank. Century Bank was allowed to put letters, identification letters on the three faces of that turret...front of their building. I have a couple boards here...I'11 pass them around that show some of the other circumstances in the community where signs on multiple building faces have been approved. Century Bank being one of those. So we elected not to try to do it on the three faces of the showroom. We elected instead to attempt to only get one additional sign face on the west end of the service area. As you look at the staff report, there's several of the findings that I can agree with. There were several that I want to take a bit of issue with. The first one has to do with undue hardship and under hardship can mean that you are eliminated from making any reasonable use of the property... But another aspect of undue hardship has to do with whether or not this property is being treated similar to other properties within close proximity. And as we look at that 500 foot radius around the Tires Plus property, there are certainly other uses, Wendy's for example, within about that 500 foot range that have signs on more than one building face, yet they only have one street frontage. The second aspect of the staff report findings talks about the conditions that are applicable to other properties within the same zoning classification. Well, that gets right back to those issues we just talked about where other signs on multiple faces of buildings have been approved in the same zoning classification and in very similar settings that we're talking about here. The third item has to do with self created hardship. In this case by agreeing to operate by those encouragements from the city administrative staff, the planning staff, about trying to make things work with the larger developments, where the city in effect has forced us into a position of...The other two items in the staff report have to do with not being detrimental to public safety. Staff has found that this isn't detrimental. We agree with that and that it will not impair adequate...or create congestion in the street and we agree that this is...two conditions. So bottom line is we're asking that we be treated the same as other businesses in similar settings within the community that have been allowed to do multiple faced signs. If this had been a private PUD, the developer might have addressed that up front. In this case...variance approach. And yet we are in a project that looks and feels and smells very much like the same sorts of PUD's that you've allowed that type of signage for. I think we are in a unique situation. We're on the back end of a project property. We don't have any direct adjacency to a street so we're trying to provide some reasonable means of identification for the building in a way that's going to be able to communicate to the public with these...vistas the fact that this is a Tires Plus building and just do a reasonable means of providing that identification. And we 21 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 think we're being reasonable, we'd like to think we're being reasonable with the request. It's not as though we're asking for an 8 x 12 sign on a 60 foot pylon pole that's going to...neon Tires Plus. This is intended to be very tasteful. Small, 30 inch high letters in addition to the basic sign of this building that it will be far less intrusive than a number of the other similar requests that have been approved recently. We are going to look and feel with this proposal very much like a lot of the other commercial businesses in the downtown area that are just trying to... Mancino: Any questions at this time for the applicant? Okay, thank you. This is a public hearing. May I have a motion to open it for a public hearing and second please. Farmakes: I believe Kate wanted to... Aanenson: I just wanted to shed some other light on some of the things that were said tonight. I think we need to clarify a couple of issues. First of all, it could have been addressed under a PUD. There's certainly another approach, and that is during site plan review, it's very common during site plan review to ask for variances such as Applebee's did last week. If Tires Plus wanted a variance on the sign when they came in for site plan review, it would have been very appropriate at that time to ask for one. So you don't have to only do it during a PUD. There was certainly another mechanism, if they felt strongly, that they needed a variance to make this happen. They could have approached it at that time. I just want to make sure that's clear. Their hands weren't tied. They could have asked for it at that time. Secondly, some of the other frontage, double frontage signs are under the old sign ordinance and as far as the pylon sign, that wouldn't have been permitted anyway so. Mancino: Market Square, most of the pictures of Market Square, that was a PUD that was approved in 1989, prior to our current sign ordinance. Aanenson: Correct. Mancino: So was Americana Bank was approved prior to our current sign ordinance. In fact our current sign ordinance, we worked on many, many hours with, just for the commissioners to know. I know that Jeff was in on this and we worked with the Chamber. We sat down and had three 2 hour meetings with the business community as a planning commission and sat with 3 or 4 members of the Chamber and went through our sign ordinance line by line and talked about it and came to agreement on it and passed the sign ordinance then onto the City Council. And that was approximately a year ago? Rask: Yeah, January of '95 so. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 Mancino: '95 so it is just newly, it has just newly been passed but, and it doesn't mean that any ordinance is 100%. You don't change it at all but it is a fairly current ordinance and I think had the participation of the business community. Downtown business community at that time of Chanhassen so, I'd just like to pass that on. Aanenson: I just want to make that clear that while the city did do the PUD, there certainly was an opportunity when they came in for site plan approval to ask for that at that time. I mean you can certainly ask for a variance at any time but we felt like... Mancino: Sure, it's a reasonable request and that's fine. May I have a motion to open the public hearing please. And a second. Farmakes moved, Meyer seconded to open the public hewing. The public heating was opened. Mancino: Anyone else wishing to, or not, is anyone else wishing to address the sign ordinance variance, excuse me, for Tires Plus? Seeing one, may I have a motion to close the public hearing. Ron Fiscus: We'd just like to offer one additional comment. At the time we applied for the site plan approval, and the city's HRA was going through the subdivision platting process, as was said, we did show multiple building signs on most of the building faces with signs on them. At that time staff advised us that that was not an appropriate action to be included within the PUD approval process or the site plan approval process. That we had to go through a separate process, which is why we're back at this point...directions on what we perceived to be the appropriate time. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Anyone else? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing and a second. Fwmakes moved, Mehl seconded to close the public heating. The public hewing was closed. Mancino: Comments. Questions from commissioners. Jeff. Farmakes: Well we knew this was coming. I don't understand, I haven't understood this development at all really. I mean the issue of putting Tires Plus in the middle of isolated area. An automotive retail sort of isolated in the middle of nowhere surrounded by banking, retail and restaurant and so on. As an industry, typically how they advertise and project themselves usually is just a little more low brow. It usually doesn't fit in with some of the other, i.e. Rapid Oil Change and some of the other automotive areas. We try to sort of keep 23 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 the automotive grouped together. I'm not sure, some of you may not have been here when Goodyear was done and Abra or 10,000 Auto Parts and so on, on the other end of town down there by the McDonalds. The way I look at this thing is, what's the practical advantage here of placing Tires Plus on the area that faces the drive-thru and the parking lot of American Bank. And if you're looking for a site right from Market Boulevard, signage of that size, and length from Market Boulevard to the building from, looking from west to east, is very little. It's cut off by the bank where it's going down. Going to the north down at Market Boulevard. By the time you get to the railroad tracks, you're not going to be turning around to look at the sign. And if you're looking at the junction of Market Boulevard and Highway 5...the front sign just as much as you would...the side sign. So in looking at like a Byerly's, we were dealing with this with Byerly's saying, when you're talking about the side signs. It's the same situation. It's just a matter of 5 degrees this way or 5 degrees that way. You're going to see both of the same signs and the issue that we dealt with on the signage and the reason that we came up with this restriction in the first place is, to reduce needless duplication of signage and often when you're in retail, the more signs the better. You can't have too many. And when we were dealing with issues of reasonable access to the public to identify your business, it should be reasonable. There should be reasonable access. I don't see where in looking at a variance here that making an exception to the rule on this issue is going to serve any real purpose. And visibility from that junction and that store from the front signage, I don't know how many people come through on TH 5 but it must be 50,000 a day at least and at that stop light, I always seem to hit it. So you're going to see these stores. The argument that's made that every signage application in Chanhassen in the last 20 years, that any new applicant should be allowed equal access to that type of display, obviously doesn't hold water because you're going to have rules change as the years go by. If Chan Theaters was done at a different time in the development of the city then, another example Wendy's. But Wendy's has thru streets going through it and parking areas so you do have, it's not just parking areas. There's a thru street going through. And again, if it's a PUD and so on, as to how they handled these issues and when they bring them up, there may be something about a lot that lends itself to...like it does a residential house or anything else. Where somebody's severely restricted and you use common sense. I don't see that here. I don't see where putting that sign on the sides is going to make or break that development. The other issue, as I understand it on the issue, I think you referred to it as product advertisement. Where does that stand? We really don't address the issue. That's this low warehouse prices, fast world class service. Rask: Yeah, they are allowed 15% of the sign area can be in product advertisement and it's provided for in the ordinance. And when we calculated the square foot, they were allowed 30, I believe 33 square feet and this actually breaks down to 32 so they are working within the sign ordinance for that first part. If you recall, when it originally came in they had Goodyear, BF Goodrich and all of those and they were told they'd have to drop that because 24 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 they were exceeding that 15%. So they have worked within the sign ordinance on the south elevation of the building. Farmakes: The issue of where the building goes, if it was supposed to go in another location at a different time, obviously that's not an argument either to change our ordinance. I don't see a compelling reason that again the sign facing to the west is going to make or break the identity of that building and I would recommend or go with the staffs recommendation on it. Mancino: Thank you. Don. Mehl: Yeah, I think the location of the building set back the way it is, is just going to offer the broadest angle of viewing on the front of that building. You're going to see it from all of 79th Street and a large distance along Highway 5. I guess I support the staffs recommendation also. Mancino: Bob. Skubic: I support staffs recommendation. Mancino: Mike. Meyer: Nothing additional. Mancino: Craig. Peterson: Nothing additional. Mancino: I really don't have anything additional either. I do know that we have had some sign variances come up in front of the Planning Commission lately and I just believe that we treat every business owner fairly and according to the ordinance. And so I would deny this variance. I don't see the hardship. And we have done that in the last 2 or 3 months and I want to make sure that it's a level playing field and that we apply the ordinances fairly to everyone. With that, do I have a motion? Farmakes: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council deny the request for Sign Permit Variance #96-1 based on the findings presented in the staff report and the following 1 through 5 in the report dated February 21, 1996. Mancino: Is there a second? 25 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 Meyer: I'll second that. Mancino: Any discussion? Farmakes moved, Meyer seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council deny the request for Sign Permit Valiance #96-1 based on the findings presented in the staff report and the following: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship that would warrant the granting of a variance. 2. Tires Plus has a reasonable opportunity to advertise their name and service with the wall sign and monument sign. 3. The variance is inconsistent with the purpose and findings of the sign ordinance. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mancino: When does this go in front of the City Council? Aanenson: March 11th. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO REPLAT 39.17 ACRES INTO 4 LOTS; SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR TWO 74,077 SO. FT. AND A 92,770 SO. FT. OFFICE INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS AND A VACATION OF A DRAINAGE EASEMENT ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK AND LOCATED SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5, WEST OF DELL ROAD AND SOUTH OF LAKE DRIVE EAST, FIRST INDUSTRIAL, L.P., FIRST INDUSTRIAL CHANHASSEN POINTE BUSINESS CENTRE. Public Present: Name Address Greg Palmer 18766 Wynnfield Road, Eden Prairie Mike Cleary 18612 Wynnfield Road, Eden Prairie Scott Knutson 18744 Wynnfield Road, Eden Prairie Phil Becker 18722 Wynnfield Road, Eden Prairie Steve Anderson 18788 Wynnfield Road, Eden Prairie 26 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 Duane Lund 7615 Golden Triangle Drive, Eden Prairie Todd Geller 7615 Golden Triangle Drive, Eden Prairie John Diedrich RLK Associates Steve Schwanke RLK Associates Rick Wesling EOS/TSP Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Any questions of staff at this point? Sharmin I just have one to give me context. If you can leave that up for a minute and show me. Where is the berm that's at the back of the residential complex to the south of this? I mean how many feet away or maybe the applicant can deal with that. Would you rather have the applicant? Al-Jaff: It doesn't matter. Either or. I can address it or. Mancino: Okay. So there are two berms. One that is berming the south of the parking lot and then when I went out to the site today, there is an existing berm that is at the back property line of the single family homes. Correct? So are there going to be two berms? Al-Jaff: Actually there will be one berm that we're just adding to. This is the existing building. Mancino: Okay. Al-Jaff: This is where the existing berm is. Mancino: And that's at the back of the single family lots? Al-Jaff: Correct. A portion of it is located on the industrial office site and not on the residential homes property. Mancino: Okay. So the top of the berm is the dividing and there are trees planted on it, etc? Al-Jaff: Correct. Mancino: So that berm will remain? Al-Jaff: Pardon? Mancino: So that berm will remain? 27 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 Al-Jaff: Yes. It will remain. Along Lake Drive there will be a berm only that berm is going to be between 2 and 4 feet in height. It's not going to be as high as the berm to the south. Mancino: Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you. Does the applicant wish to, or their designee wish to make a presentation? Duane Lund: My name is Duane Lund. I'm one of the owners of First Industrial. First Industrial is the developer of the project and what I'd like to do, before I turn it over to my team, is just give you a quick introduction of First Industrial so you know who we are and what we do and make you more familiar with our organization. First of all just to tell you that my team has informed me that to date...with the city has been very enjoyable and also very productive so for that we're very appreciative. First Industrial's a publically traded real estate company. I have some information here which you can look at which gives you further information about the company but we're publically traded on the New York Stock Exchange and we are the largest industrial landlord in the United States. We do business in 13 states. We own about 25 million square feet of industrial space and here in the Twin Cities we own 42 buildings, 3.8 million square feet and we're scattered throughout the Twin Cities but we're not in Chanhassen. We have a large concentration in Eden Prairie. A large concentration in Bloomington and our tenants are moving west so that's why we're interested in this project here. If you look at our portfolio, we're 98% occupied in the Twin Cities. The reason we're 98% occupied, the tenants are happy and our properties are meticulously maintained and we think this project here in Chanhassen will set a nice precedent for future development in Chanhassen and I think you'll be very pleased with First Industrial as a landlord because of our financial strengths and also our portfolio here locally. So with that I'm just going to turn it over to the project. John Diedrich is going to talk about the specifics of the project and answer any questions you may have. I'll be around to answer any questions you have regarding the ownership side of First Industrial. Mancino: Thank you. John Diedrich: Thank you Duane. Members of the team tonight also are Rick Wesling from TSP/EOS Architect and he will be discussing the architectural components. My job tonight will be to discuss the landscape architecture, site plan and site engineering aspect of First Industrial properties and I hope to be able to run through the different elements so that I can point out the items that we have looked at in dealing with staff and some of the concerns of why the buildings are sized the way they are and why the site has developed in the manner it has. For the overall development, the site plans that were submitted to you, to the city on January 19, 1996 identified three buildings with a total square footage of approximately 240,000 square feet. And with that the buildings from First Industrial have gone through the planning process and that's how we have designed the site. What I would like to just bring 28 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 up for a point of discussion tonight is over the last few days there has been a request by First Industrial to reduce the western most building by approximately 20,000 square feet so I'd like to just put up a site plan. In terms of this site plan and the change in this presentation is this building in Building No. 3 has basically been reduced by about 40 feet width. Going down from 94,000 square feet to 74,000 square feet. And the change was made due to their leasing and agreements as they're going through and marketing the buildings. But it also allows the existing DataSery property, parking lot to remain intact. So the plans that you have in front of you identify a reconstruction of the eastern half of the DataSery parking lot. That will not occur, nor will the grading that we had talked about on the south side of the DataSery parking lot be occurring. Other than reducing the width of Building No. 3 and the three properties of Lots 1,2 and 3 going down from 19.3 acres to approximately 18.5 acres, all of the other elements in terms of berming, screening, landscaping, site engineering will remain the same. With the site development that we have worked with staff and the city, with a lot of the elements that we looked at were how to develop this site so that there would be a number of elements that would be consistent with the overall zoning codes, setbacks, and the Highway 5 overlay district. The building design was predicated on trying to maintain view sheds, north and south through that property versus putting walls up along Lake Drive East. The regional ponds that was a part of the city's storm water management plan identified a 12 acre pond be placed at the eastern most corner of this site along Dell Road. This development is going to remove the existing pond that is currently on the east side of the DataSery parking lot and combine that into one pond on the east side of this site. We have discussed this with staff to look at one or two pond alternatives and it was determined from a maintenance and water quality standpoint, that it would be in the best interest to put it into one pond. It's also, it's referenced from the developer so that we would have an opportunity to concentrate on one pond for the storm water and use the remaining property for areas of build out. We have looked at the setbacks from Lake Drive East and we are 30 feet and beyond and along the south property line there is a 50 foot landscape easement completely on the First Industrial property which contains the existing landscaped berm and plant materials wholly within the First Industrial property. According to codes, we can go right up to that line with the building. We have another buildings further north by approximately another 50 feet. So in total the buildings are 100 feet from the southern property line and that existing landscape berm will be maintained in it's entirety and in some areas, especially behind...for Lot number 1, building number 1, that will be increased with additional plantings. And then the landscape plan does come back and add additional plantings along that berm, especially in the truck loading areas or have it screened. The pond to the east is also going to be part of Lot 1. The reason that is in that configuration is we wish to extend essentially the front yard of building number 1 out and around the pond and over to Dell Road. There is a drainage and utility easement over that pond that will allow the city to maintain the water quality and the water improvements in that area but it's our intent to maintain the edges of that pond in a manicured state so that it will be more of an amenity and a feature to help set off the building 29 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 and the architecture. Especially as you come into this development from East Lake Drive and also Dell Road. Dell Road will also be improved as this CSM development, which is north of this site and the First Industrial development proceeds. That is one of the conditions of approval and that will be one of the development... (There was a tape change at this point in John Diedrich's presentation.) John Diedrich: ...we would be in this 65%-66% impervious ratio. The elements of the landscape plan have been placed, utilizing the city's preferred planting list and we want to concentrate those at the areas of the entrances. A strong statement of boulevard along Dell Road and East Lake Drive and inbetween the buildings so that there would be a clustering effect between massive plantings of landscape materials and the building architecture. The landscape plans significantly exceed the standard codes from the city's perspective but the developer, First Industrial wanted to make a statement and they've taken this section of Chanhassen and realize it is your front door and want to present that as a grand an entry as possible. As part of the development we have also looked at a view perspective in order to show how this type is going to look and I have a couple of overhead views...that I'd like to run through and I also have, I apologize for not having enough color copies for everyone but I have three sets that I'd like to pass around as I would walk through the different view presentations. View number one would be looking basically southwest from the intersection of Lake Drive, or excuse me, East Lake Drive and Dell Road. So we would be looking across the pond towards Lot number 1. The intent is to show how that corner will work. We will have a site development sign at the intersection corner announcing Chanhassen Pointe Business Center and the building architecture will begin to sprout up amongst the trees at their initial planting. However, as the trees would begin to mature, they would over take the elements of the architecture because we're looking at strong boulevard plantings and some ornamental behind the signage. Mancino: John, is that a berm there? The front? John Diedrich: Along? Mancino: Along Lake Drive East on the, in front of the building. In front of Lot 1. John Diedrich: There is a berm where the parking is. It's about a 2 foot berm with plant materials on top of that. Mancino: So that is on the west side of the pond? I'm sorry. Right here there is a berm? John Diedrich: On the west side? 30 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 Mancino: North/south on the west side of the pond. John Diedrich: On the west side of the pond, we do not have a berm between the pond and the parking lot. We are looked at, utilizing plant materials with a slope coming down from the parking lot area. Mancino: So the parking lot is actually higher than the pond. John Diedrich: The parking lot is higher than the pond. The pond is at an approximately elevation, high water. I'd have to refer to my engineering plans. I believe about a 910, 912 elevation. The building elevation is at 918 and we would be sloping away so we'd be about a 916 at the edge of the parking lots. So we'd be up probably 4 to 6 feet above the pond edge. I should also say the buildings do step up in terms of floor elevation. Building number 1 is at 918. Building number 2 at 919. Building number 3 at 929. And for reference, the existing DataSery building is at about a 934-935 building elevation so if you look at the existing DataServ, 935, 29, 19, 18. Those are steps to follow the contours of the site as this berm also steps up from a 918 level up to a 930 level along the south side of the site. View number two is taken essentially directly south from the southeast corner of Lot 1 looking north. In terms of the elevation, these shots were taken approximately 70 feet south of the existing property lines which is at the building or the house plane of the development in Eden Prairie. If you are standing on the ground at that house, at that location, you would be, the ground level is 904. Your viewing height, assuming a 5 foot 5 inch height would be 909.5 and the top of the berm is 922. So you're looking up at this location approximately 12 feet. That's why you see most of the building covered up. Building elevation is at a 919 floor elevation. Mancino: And the vegetation is, that's a 6 foot tall? John Diedrich: No. The vegetation is probably a 5 year maturity. I would say this is in the range of a 10 foot conifer. Assuming it was planted at 6 foot. There is existing plant material out here. I'm only focusing on the new plant material at this time. So there is more plant material but I did not want to create a solid screen. View number three is directly south of building number 2. And the ground elevation begins to step up. The ground elevation is at a 916. The viewing height would be at approximately 921. The top of the berm is at a 924. So there's about a 3 foot difference, 2 1/2 foot difference. The top of the berm, 924. Building elevation 919. So there's a 5 foot difference between the top of berm and bottom of building floor elevation. And view number three is looking almost directly south of Lot number 3. Excuse me, view number four from the residential side. At this location there is a drainage swale that is pulling a lot of the water from Eden Prairie onto the First Industrial DataSery site so we need to keep the drainage swale open so that we're not flooding the rear 31 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 yards here. At this location the ground elevation at the rear of the building is 924. Viewing height elevation is at 929.5. Top of the berm is at 930. So there's not a lot of screening on this one. We are restricted with that drainage flow coming across building elevations from plane at 929. I do feel we do have a little bit of flexibility to puff up that berm 1 or 2 feet in this location if we're careful about some of the drainage. But we cannot have a constant berm across here like we've had on the other two. The landscape plans shown here utilizes the revised site plan that is being proposed with the narrower building on Lot 3, so this site plan is the plan we would be proposing to move forward with in terms of the final plat and with hopefully your approvals tonight on towards City Council. We will submit to re-drawing the entire plan package so that all of the plan sheets will fit this site plan. In terms of the overall development, we feel we've made a number of elements to keep open the site lines. Orient the building so that we have screening of the loading dock between the building utilization of strong architecture and a significant planting of landscape plant materials in order to provide screening. One element we will do is plant larger conifers at the ends of the loading docks so instead of 6 foot conifers as we had proposed, we would put, we would be happy to put in 8 foot conifers in those locations in order to start that screening immediately. Light standards that would be placed on the site would be of a shoe box, down cast type fixture similar to some of the lights that are out there today. We anticipate the height of those lights to be 25 foot in height and they would be along the perimeter of the parking lot areas. Essentially around the site. And any lighting that would be on the south side of the parking lot would have a...so that the lights would be reflected so that there would be no glare reflected north. But all the lights would be the shoebox fixture with the concealed... We would anticipate wall packs of wall mounted lights within the loading dock area between them. With that I've basically completed my presentation. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Otherwise I would like to turn it over to Rick Wesling...architecture. Mancino: Any questions for the applicant at this point? Thank you. Rick Wesling: Good evening. As John shared, my name is Rick Wesling. I'm with the architect and engineering firm of TSP/EOS. Share with you very quickly about the process we went through in terms of picking the family and the trails to use on this building. Trying to measure against all the contextual elements in terms of planning a facility this size and in this location. One we all recognize as a commercial facility and it has commercial neighbors to the north. But equally as important, if not more important is the fact that it has residential neighbors to the south. A building that is approximately 480 feet long and 160 feet deep. Clear day height of 24 feet can become a very imposing structure unless you are careful to keep your selection of materials and how you articulate the envelope of that building in both plan and the elevation of that building as it meets the ground and meets the sky. We have chosen, because of the building's use and because of the height necessary to make it a viable commercial entity, to use a pre-cast panel for the structure of the building. The envelope of 32 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 the building with very carefully placed materials, brick, burnished concrete masonry and not clear glass but some glass that brings some color to the building as well as bringing some color into the coping. The specific materials we have chosen, and I'll begin with the pre-cast because I know that is a material that I'll be quite honest with you, can scare a lot of people. We're all familiar with the pre-cast that we've seen back in the 70's when in fact that industry was probably in it's infancy but it is quite impressive what the manufacturers are able to do with the material today. With the colorations in the concrete, the very careful selection of aggregates and how they finish the concrete. They can get a panel of very great detail and a very great variety in terms of the surface textures. The bulk of our panel, the lighter color you see here would be the color that we're looking at right here, which is a plain color concrete. All colored interval with a very slight acid wash on it which takes off some of the paste. It removes that shiny, fresh out of the form feel and gives it more of a stone like appearance. The darker colors which we had used to articulate both the recessed symbols or decoration if you will, for lack of a better word, on the face as well as articulate the rhythm of the building marching along. We're proposing to use an exposed aggregate. Exposed aggregate in the pre-cast concrete. The aggregate is integral all the way through the concrete. A retarder is spread on the pre-cast panel. Once it's pulled from the form, they actually wash the paste off the top of the panel exposing the aggregate in the interior panel. That begins to form the framework from which we begin to articulate the building further. To further articulate the building we have established a rhythm which both marks the corners of the building. In other words, the framing these two buildings together if you will. Making this building a part of the family of all three of these buildings as well as articulated a change in materials in the center so we have a rhythm. The building doesn't appear to be one big long mass. It appears to be an articulated building. Each one of the, at each one of these faces, the building steps back approximately 7 feet. So it's not like it's this artificial skin that's placed on it. There is enough movement in the plan so it looks like it makes sense and indeed we're working with a much larger group. In terms of the remaining materials, I'll focus on the areas which we use face brick and CMU. As a base to the building, something to anchor the building to the ground, we're proposing a burnished CMU. It has a very stone like appearance. It's actually physically ground and the aggregate and the stone shines through and it has a sealer on it. In addition to that, between each of the CMU base elements if you will, we've used the modular brick. Now typical brick of the same scale of brick in this room. And the brick that surrounds each of the glazed areas would be a brick of this color but it was lighter and more of your scale. And that's again to make sure the scale of the materials we use in the building are appropriate to the scale of the overall building. In addition, capping off the brick, we're proposing using a roof edge of this blue color. Capping off the spaces...these elements where the building meets the sky, the green. Carrying that vocabulary forward using a green tinted glass. This is a sample of the span row panels. More difficult to show you what an actual insulated panel you see through would look like. In a dark....finish for the window mulients within these glazed areas. We've chosen to 33 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 strategically place these...areas so when they softened the building against the neighbors to the south, and present a very sophisticated if you will, appearance to the main commercial thoroughfare. That, in a nutshell is how we address the public area. And again in the interest of economy, and I'm not going to hold this one up very long. On this truck apron portions of the building. The portions of the building that are not generally viewed by the public using a, what's called a raised panel where the aggregate again receives a series of grooves. Very small and becomes a very fine texture versus the heavy ribbed texture you're probably familiar with in older pre-cast buildings, and then again some of the aggregate is exposed in this panel again to make sure that the color is within the family of all the other materials that have been chosen for the building. I'd be happy to entertain any questions. That was a very quick over view but I'd be happy to entertain any questions. Mancino: Any questions? Nothing at this time. Rick Wesling: Okay. At this point I'll turn it over to Steve Schwanke to discuss some of the details of approval. Conditions of approval. Steve Schwanke: Members of the Planning Commission, my name is Steve Schwanke with RLK Associates. We have just a couple of comments and I guess Madam Chair, we'd defer to city conditions. We could go over these right now, if that's the pleasure of the commission. Otherwise we'd be happy to defer and listen to the discussion of the commission and the public hearing. Mancino: How many points do you have tonight? Steve Schwanke: We have four points. Mancino: Why don't we do that now. Steve Schwanke: I'd be happy to do that now. Now I'm going to actually come around here and use this exhibit as much as I can. We have four points, and actually a couple of them are just relative to clarification and what we are asking for commission consideration. The first one is regarding signage and specifically the condition that's found on page 14, number 2(b) of the staff report and I'll just take a minute to summarize that. That'd be page 14, item 2(b) regarding wall signs for buildings and reads specifically, will be permitted along the north and east elevations of Building 1. So in effect on the north side and on the east side of Building 1, and then it goes on to say that only for, they'll only be permitted on the north elevations for lots, or buildings 2 and 3. It's our understanding that that condition comes from Section 20-1304 of the code which basically says that one wall sign will be permitted. Wall business sign will be permitted per street frontage. What's happened here in effect then is, again if we 34 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 understand this correctly, is because there's frontage here and frontage here, then in effect the wall signs would be allowed here and here. Given the design of this, again if you go back to John Diedrich's comments, the design of this has been to allow for the view sheds here and to ease the impact on the neighborhood in this area...effect that that has though, is because the buildings do not necessarily front on this road here, where those signs would normally occur, are being restricted in these areas here and not being allowed in this area here, which is really where the businesses are. Which is where the signs are required. Our reading of the code doesn't necessarily preclude this from occurring. Though we could see how one might interpret it that way. So again we ask in effect for the commission's consideration regarding that and we'd be happy to abide by it. Second one relates to the Dell Road improvements. That's on page 17, number 5 of the staff report. The commission may recall that this item also came up a couple of months ago with respect to the CSM development up in this area here. Madam Chair I'll just summarize very quickly. The commission may recall that Dell Road in approximately this area here has not been fully improved, particularly on the Chanhassen side. Given the CSM development up here and/or the First Industrial development down here, there's a logical opportunity now to improve Dell Road. CSM currently, our understanding is, has committed to the improvement of Dell Road in this area here. Their concern all along has been how though, if they improve this road, Dell Road in this area here, will be compensated for that work. We understand that CSM now has in effect reached a verbal agreement with the city as to how that will occur. Our client here, in this case First Industrial, while being held to the same condition, hasn't been privy to that conversation. So their only point this evening is, they don't have a problem with this condition and actually would support the improvement of Dell Road. They just want it to be on the public record that they need to get the details yet as to how that reimbursement or how they would be compensated when and if they did happen to improve Dell Road in this area here. The third item is on page 18. Condition number 16. This is related to the potential for the need and installation of a traffic signal in this area here. Again the commission may recall that a traffic study was required by the city as a part of the CSM development to the north where the traffic study in effect indicated that possibly at some future point, a traffic signage may be needed here and the indication was basically about the only time this traffic signal would be needed is when and if Dell Road, at some future point, was eventually connected with the construction, or potential construction of Trunk Highway 212. Our concern is, again First Industrial has no problems with contributing to this traffic light, when and if it occurs. We're not so sure anybody wants to actually take a bet though as to whether that traffic light's going to be needed. So we're asking that again, First Industrial is happy to contribute financially to that traffic light but that the money be escrowed when the warrants are actually met...likely to be installed. So it's more of a timing issue here than whether the light is actually needed or not. And then finally the last item is really a clarification on page 9 of the staff report. As Mr. Diedrich indicated, page 9 of the staff report, the second to the last paragraph, or it's actually that very large paragraph. Let me see if I can just explain it 35 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 very quickly. As Mr. Diedrich indicated, the regional pond in this area here, this lot, this pond is actually part of Lot 1. This property here will be owned, or continue to be owned by First Industrial. Will continue to be part of Lot 1. So in effect the ponding itself will be continued to be owned by First Industrial. Obviously a drainage and utility easement will be placed on it so the city's able to go in there and maintain it. But the actual ownership of it will be maintained by First Industrial. The staff report indicates the bottom of that last paragraph there on page 9 that these, it states that these improvements will become owned and maintained by the city. These improvements here, as was referenced in the staff report, relates to pond and a trunk storm water system that will be in this area here and obviously related to the trunk storm water system, that will be owned by the city. We just want to clarify that the regional pond in this area here will actually be owned by First Industrial. Madam Chair, unless there's any questions by the commission, that concludes my comments. Mancino: Thank you. Any questions at this time? The four points that Steve just brought up, I'll be asking different staff members to respond to, if you'd like to or if you would like to, you need more information...applicant after we have the public hearing. And it is in the ownership of the regional pond on page 9. And his concern about wall signs on page 14, because I would also like to hear staffs opinion on it. And number 5, the details of the compensation. And on condition 16, the timing of the money that's escrowed for the light. So we will do that when the public hearing is over, thank you. Steve Schwanke: Thank you. Mancino: Is there any other member of the team that is going to be approaching the Planning Commission at this time? Steve Schwanke: That concludes our presentation. Mancino: Thank you. May I have a motion to open for a public hearing please, and a second. Faimakes moved, Meyer seconded to open the public healing. The public healing was opened. Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission at this time. Scott Knutson: Hi. I'm Scott Knutson. I live at 18744 Wynnfield Road in Eden Prairie. I don't know if you still have that last slide. It's your last color slide. 36 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 Mancino: The view boards? Scott Knutson: That would be the one. That's my back yard. I'm assuming at least. And I guess the fact that there's that pond there right now...something this high above the berm... Hopefully the berm can be built up a little bit more or possibly more evergreens... Mancino: And hopefully you did know, when you bought your property, that is was zoned industrial south of you and at some point that would be developing. Scott Knutson: I did know that. I did not know that the wetlands would be removed. Mancino: Thank you. We'll take your comments about, and I think it was talked when Mr. Diedrich talked about increasing the height of that berm as much as they possibly could but they also need to make sure that they route the drainage towards the regional pond on the east so it may go up a foot or two, was my understanding, but not too much more than that. And have you seen the plans? The landscaping plans at City Hall? Scott Knutson: Yes. A couple other things. During the transition phase, I know in Eden Prairie at least they have some rules and regulations as far as berming and screening during that transition process. Is that a rule and regulation in the city? Mancino: What do we have in effect Dave that happens during the construction? Hours. Hempel: Not really anything is screened during construction. Construction hours are 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No work on legal holidays or Sundays. Mancino: But there is nothing that we have in our ordinance that makes them do, makes the developer develop or put up any screening while construction's going on? Hempel: No. Mike Cleary: My name is Mike Cleary. I live at 18612 Wynnfield Road. View 2 I guess on the screen...I just have a couple questions. Who will be, after the landscaping is done on the berm, who will be responsible for maintaining that? It's a question because we're in an association on Wind Pond, the Lundgren site or... Mancino: I believe that that's First Industrial's and they do have an irrigation system in that will be in place and obviously they take meticulous care of properties, if I can so speak for them. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 Mike Cleary: Another question I had is, the improvement of Dell Road, where it's not finished. Is that, you know under CSM, is that the lake property up, who's, where does that stand? I thought that was made a part of the conditions list. Could that be further explained? Mancino: Mr. Hempel can. Hempel: Madam Chair, thank you. The previous site plan that was in oh, maybe a month ago on the CSM Corporation, which is the site directly to the north of Lake Drive, and west of Dell Road. As a part of their site improvements, they were required, or are being required to install the remaining portion of Dell Road with their improvements. It's my understanding that the schedule right now, it's hoped to be completed by November of '96. Mancino: Now Dave, is that improved prior to the start of construction? I mean what's the timing? Is it parallel to construction? Hempel: It would be parallel to construction of their site, right. Mancino: So you're going to hear it all at one time. I mean you're going to hear the construction of that property plus the construction of Dell Road. Mike Cleary: And the final question I had was regarding the traffic situation. A point of going through to 212...to us that will be a big influx of the First Industrial building along with the new CSM building trucks coming in and out...into Dell Road and I'm just curious if that's, you know to me that may be a condition before 212 comes into play. Mancino: It may be. Hempel: Madam Chair, maybe I can touch on that too a little bit. As this area develops and traffic increases there, the most likely warrants will be met for, most likely a 4 way stop sign at that intersection. That usually happens first before you get semaphore and traffic signals installed. I would envision as the service level increase in there, you should see 4 way stops. Mancino: And the city will be doing traffic studies inbetween to determine when a light is needed? Hempel: We can periodically monitor that, as well as Eden Prairie. Mancino: Anyone else wishing? 38 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 Phil Becker: Phil Becker, 18722 Wynnfield Road in Eden Prairie. I guess my concern is the removal of the pond behind my property. That's currently that's tied with in a couple other ponds that are on the other side of the berm for overflow control and I guess that wasn't clear from the plans whether that was taken into account when the pond behind my property was removed and the concern is, because there's an overflow basin uphill from my lot, that tends to fill up when it gets a lot of rain and it doesn't fill up as fast because it goes into the other pond on the other side of the berm. Is there something that takes that into account? Or is there another connection to the pond down on the east side of that property then or how is that going to be handled now because now that will fill up much more rapidly and in some of the cases, in some of my neighbors yards, it takes up almost most of the yard when it overflows so, I guess there's a concern there that if we don't have that extra capacity there, we're going to end up with a lot more water in the back yard. Mancino: Well the new regional pond I know is 3 acres and it takes, it accounts for 60 acres? Hempel: That's correct. With the relocation of the pond on the DataServ, that DataSery pond does take drainage from the Eden Prairie residents. That, one of the conditions that we placed in the report was that that drainage pattern be maintained so we didn't impede or flood out properties in Eden Prairie as a result of relocation so there is a storm sewer system that's being extended to pick up that drainage runoff where the DataSery pond is today. Mancino: So should those residents have less water in their back yards because of this than they do have now? Will it make any difference? Hempel: It should not make a bit of difference. Mancino: So they'll still have the same? Hempel: Right. Phil Becker: So there'd be a storm drainage that's going to run, that storm drainage is going to run down all the way down to the other pond? Hempel: That's correct. Phil Becker: Okay. I guess the only other concern is maybe view number, was it 4 or 2, whatever. Since I live right next to Scott...the only other concern is the fact that at the height that it's going to be at, those houses are going to be looked into the first floors of all the houses so the question is, is screening going to be good enough so I don't have to worry 39 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 about a privacy issue? From a standpoint of being able to look, you know from those windows into the home. I mean farther down they're so low as comparison, it might be the second floor, is what it looks like from here...looking into the first floor of the homes at this point. Mancino: John, do you want to answer that? John Diedrich: Sure. Do you have the landscape plan? In looking at view number 4 here. In terms of Lot 3, we have looked at placing plant materials where the storm sewer system would continue to come through. These is existing plant materials here. We could take a look at relocating some of the plant materials on and within this area to help screen these areas a little bit more. I think that would help your concerns. However, the building is 100 feet north of the property line and at this location, view 4, your home or the back yard, the back facade of your home is approximately 85 to 95 feet away from the property line so there's really a distance of about 195 feet between the office building and where your house would sit. So there is still quite a good distance away. Phil Becker: Yeah a distance but they're still, I mean they're almost on the same height from the standpoint of the elevations. John Diedrich: There would be a comparable elevation of 925. Phil Becker: Right. John Diedrich: Or 929 to your first floor elevation of approximately 924. Mancino: You probably won't get 100% screening to begin with. As trees mature. Phil Becker: No, I understand that...fairly small that will be put in. I guess the only other question I was, is that per chance is there a requirement when there's development this close to a residential area, that there'd be any meetings with the residents before plans are presented or is that just, you have to show up at the planning meetings to find out what's going to happen? Mancino: A lot of times developers do have neighborhood meetings. It is not something that the city requires. John Diedrich: I would like to add, as part of the development, they're proposing this additional 50 foot extension from the existing landscape easement that comes into approximately this location. That a 50 foot landscape easement be part of the plat so that it 40 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 would be a perpetual easement of landscaping for that 50 feet for this entire proposed development. Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing and a second? Farmakes moved, Mehl seconded to close the public hearing. The public heating was closed. Mancino: Discussions. Questions. Comments. Craig. Peterson: I think the residents, there might be some legitimate concerns but I think that seemingly the developers have taken a proactive step in addressing some of those and I think that my sense is that they are even willing to go farther I think in any ability they can to mitigate the concerns the residents have on the residential side of it should be done, can whatever possible. As I look at the materials presented in the plans, I think it will be a nice first view of Chanhassen of sorts from what has been presented and I would certainly vote to approve without any hesitation. I would like to hear from staff regarding the four issues that RLK did bring up before making a final recommendation. I wonder if that's appropriate for staff to do that now. Mancino: It's a good time. Good idea. Let's, looking at 1, I think Dave, the first one would go to you about the Lot 1. The regional pond being in the ownership of the First Industrial. Hempel: Sure. That is correct. The property will remain a Lot 1. The city is simply going to have a drainage utility easement over that area to maintain the storm water pond and storm sewer pipes. The pond will be technically First Industrial's. Maybe I can touch on the next point. Item 16, on page 18 regarding traffic signals. That was a tough one to be honest, for me to put in knowing the 212 situation. I guess, I don't know if this would be an acceptable compromise to the applicant. If they would agree to waive their rights in the future for an assessment for the traffic signal based on traffic trip generations from their site. Maybe there's some language we can put in the development contract that would suffice both parties. Mancino: And maybe we can...say that you and the developer will work through number 16 to what's agreeable to both parties. Hempel: That'd be acceptable, sure. Mancino: And what about number 5? 41 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 Hempel: The Dell Road upgrade? Sure. We do believe CSM Corporation will continue on their path for final plat approval. However, stranger things have happened where things fall apart at the last minute and with this development, First Industrial, the amount of traffic generating and as with any other improvement, they're normally responsible for upgrading the streets and infrastructures that border the property or benefit the properties. Mancino: So you would want to keep it as it is? Hempel: I would want to keep it as it is. Aanenson: Otherwise they tie it back...coming back into the prematurity. We believe that it would be a premature subdivision at this time if we didn't have the street upgraded. We'd want to re-evaluate that so we just want to make sure that that's understood. That they need to both track together. Mancino: Okay, thank you. And Sharmin. Looking at the buildings and how they're going to be on the side. Not street frontage yet every business will need to have some sort of a wall sign. Al-Jaff: This is not a commercial building. It is an office/industrial building so when we look at it, we don't really see a need for the signage along the east elevation. The only thing that we need to point out is, should you recommend approval of providing signage along the east elevation or west elevation of Buildings 2 and 3, we need to add to this condition that no back lit signs shall be viewed from the residential neighborhood to the south of this development. Mancino: Okay. And otherwise they can have the signs in that area? Okay, thank you. Actually it might be helpful if you could kind of word something like that as we're talking to change that condition. Thank you. Peterson: My feelings are the same as the plan as presented would be approved. Mancino: Mike. Meyer: Just a question of staff. Are you comfortable with the change that you made? Al-Jaff: Yes. Meyer: That's all. 42 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 Mancino: Bob. Skubic: I think it's a quality, well thought out plan. The...that struck me was the orientation of the building...residential neighborhood. And this is a difficult transition between office industrial to the residential and I think the applicant did a real nice job on this. I have one question for staff regarding noise. I don't know that anything can be done about that but do we have any regulations...trucks will be loading and unloading in this area. Al-Jaff: We do have a nuisance ordinance that we would require the applicant to abide by. Aanenson: There are performance standards that they have to meet if there's complaint about noise, and that's one of the reasons why the industrial, that we do require...because you're right, there might be some loading at certain hours. That's part of the reason with the landscaping for noise...but that's certainly something, if there's complaints on... Mancino: And what are the hours that you can unload and load? Aanenson: It just has to meet a noise level. There isn't really hours of operation. It just has to do with the noise level. The performance standards themselves. Just like lighting. Mancino: So once the building is built and the residents start hearing noises in the middle of the night because you know, somebody's working all through the night. Has 3 or 4 shifts, we can as a city limit when they can be loading and unloading if the noise level is past a certain. Aanenson: Correct. Skubic: I support the signs along the eastern and western side of the buildings 2 and 3. It seems to me there will probably be offices along those areas that will need to be identified. Aanenson: Right, it will be a multi-tenant building which we understand but we want to make sure that, the word commercial came up. It's not commercial. It's zoned industrial and it will be office industrial. Skubic: Thank you. Mancino: Jeff. Farmakes: The materials on the building are very nice. They should go well with the other facade. Other than the fact of, we were talking to you about modifying some of the screening 43 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 on the windows going into the other houses on the south elevation, hopefully they'll...material. So that it does provide screening later on. I don't have much else to add to this. Mancino: Okay. Don. Mehl: Yeah, I think it's a well done project. It will look great. I agree with the other comments that have been made here and really don't have anything additional. Mancino: Thank you. I have just a few more questions and comments. Sharmin, what about the roof equipment. Will the parapet wall be high enough so that we won't see any roof equipment and there won't be any...from the residential homes from the south. Al-Jaff: We asked the applicant to prepare cross sections showing the parapet wall. I believe they're right there behind this. Rick Wesling: Behind the elevation here we have prepared a cross section which places the vehicle...along Dell Road and cuts the section directly through the first building. Buildings 2 and 3 are close enough to a public way, given their height, it would have to be a monumental size piece of mechanical equipment before you can see anything without a parapet. Yet we cut a section through Building 1 because perhaps that's the building that would have the greatest opportunity to ever see any mechanical equipment. Sitting in the vehicle, assuming a 48 inch elevation of the occupant eye level, looking out over the top of the parapet, which were on over this portion of the building, at the center of the building and repeats themselves again at this corner of the building. Placing a mechanical unit roughly 40 feet back from this front edge, assuming a height of 4 feet off the roof, and in our section we have not taken into account the fact that we intend to provide internal drains on the building, i.e. the roof will slope towards the center of the building. So we're gaining a foot but for purposes, or greatest...conversations we've ignored that. The parapet over these portions of the building should screen that mechanical unit from cars passing by. Now finally when we've had...we'll have to measure that parapet height again in terms of does it adequately meet those needs. But we've thought that through to what level we're able to with the information we have given at hand. Mancino: And if those change, will the parapet become taller to address? Rick Wesling: We'll need to make that decision very quickly and as the construction building team moves a little bit further forward and some of those further building parameters are decided. In other words, what number of units will we serve the multiple tenant situation with. What is a likely location to place those units and being able to run mechanicals up to serve all those areas and we'll have to look at those again. And if that means raising this 44 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 parapet height a little bit more, we'll have to seriously take a look at that and I would implore the commission to leave that in the hands of staff so...certainly that issue is not lost. That's a very important issue. Mancino: I would also like to see the issue addressed from the residential side too. If you could do views from that side for the City Council meeting, that would be helpful. Unless you already have. Rick Wesling: Well this is the beginning of that discussion. I think the views from the residential area from the residents standing on the ground at the rear of their house. Again if we place our units a reasonable distance back from the edge of the building particularly, a typical 4 foot high unit should not be able to be seen. Now we can either look at what happens from the second story window but obviously the higher the resident gets in their own house, the more difficult it's going to be, and in fact the impact of screening those units may be more of a detriment to the residents than recognizing the fact that it's. Mancino: No, I understand. I hear a lot of should's and I guess what I'd like to make sure is by the time it gets to City Council, that there's not so much should's but they're definites. Rick Wesling: Within the level of what we can do to represent two dimensionally to the plan, I agree with you. But obviously I'm... Mancino: Thank you. Has it been decided Sharmin where the trash enclosures are going? Al-Jaff: It was one of the questions that we posed to the applicant and the answer was, as of this time the intention is to have them inside the building. However, if they were placed outside, it would be within the loading dock area and they would have winged walls to screen the trash enclosure and I believe the applicant would like to add something. John Diedrich: May I address that? In terms of the trash enclosure, we've taken a look at how to address that so that they would be properly screened and we were concerned about locating physical features within the truck loading area and there would be conflicts with the turning movements of the truck. So we've looked at, we do have berming that's occurring along Lake Drive East at these three locations and possibly bringing in that landscape a little further south into the loading dock area and extending out a section of that wall and bringing that berm right up to the back of that enclosure so that we could limit the amount of brick that would need to be placed for that enclosure. And we would probably do the same at these three locations. So we're going to have to re-work this corner down here and these two locations so we're looking at essentially two locations for each building at either end. 45 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 Mancino: The north and south end. John Diedrich: Of the loading dock areas. Mancino: Thank you. John, can you answer another question for me and that has to do with, again concern from the residential area to the south. A lot of times at warehouses there are trailers that are just left overnight in parking lots or dock areas. Will that happen here? I mean I would not like to see trailers left in the south parking lot at all. Would they only have access of the big trucks into the loading dock area? John Diedrich: The truck movements would be coming in in these two locations. This really would not allow a semi-trailer to turn and go around the building. It's more circulation of smaller vans. Of car vehicles. Those type of elements. So there would not be any parking of semi-trailers along this southern portion of the site. Secondly this is not a, how should I say, a McGlynn's type regional, massive distribution center in terms of the number of trucks that are going to be out here. It is more of a service oriented office warehouse where the number of units, number of trucking do not even come close to that type of facility so the loading docks have been looked at that they would handle any of those truck movements essentially... Mancino: And if they were to be in there overnight, they would stay in that area? John Diedrich: They would be in the truck loading area. Mancino: I would like to see that as part of the conditions. Some way that there aren't trucks, there aren't trailers out in that southern parking lot area between the building and the south boundary line. South property line. I have no other comments. I think this is a wonderful development. I think that the amount of detail that you have put into the landscaping is, and the amenity of the pond, I think it will be a great asset to Chanhassen in this area. My overall landscaping would be, principle would be to just make sure that we do have really good adequate buffering in those open areas in the south where you can look through into the docks. If anything, I would put your coniferous trees there and I certainly do understand and want to thank you for changing some of those heights to 8 foot high trees because I think that that will help immensely. But to really take a good view at those areas on the south where you can see into those dock areas for the residents. And I know that the other commissioner who didn't make it tonight, Ladd Conrad was also concerned about that and called me and expressed that concern, to make a special phone call. With that, do I have a motion? 46 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 Farmakes: Could we take time to go through the several options here that we have? Modifications which I believe tally up to nine. Eight or nine I believe. Mancino: Okay. Let's start with the option of, I would like to, boy I can't even. One of the options that's, and I'm looking at page 14. I'm starting from the very beginning. If everybody would like to understand where I'm starting from. Staff recommendation, page 14, site plan review. Number 1. One of my recommendations, and I would like to make this a recommendation, is that we add to sentence number 1. Materials used to screen the trash enclosure shall be the same type of brick used on the building, and that the trash enclosures be located within the loading dock area. Also on that same page, under signage criteria. Number 2. Sharmin, have you had time to wordsmith (b)? Al-Jaff: Sure. Mancino: So that we can all hear it. Al-Jaff: Okay. Wall signs for Building 1 will be permitted along the north and east elevation. Building 2, along the north and west elevation. Building 3 along the north and west elevation. So 2 and 3 along the north and west elevations, I'm sorry. Signs will be located within the sign bands shown on sheets 10, 12 and 14 of the plans dated, that portion remains the same. February 13, 1996. Signage, I'm sorry. No back lit signage shall be viewed from the residential neighborhood to the south. Mancino: Now are we going to add that as (j)? Al-Jaff: Yes. Mancino: And would you state that one more time please. Al-Jaff: No back lit signs shall be viewed from the residential neighborhood to the south. Mancino: And number 3, which the neighbors brought up was that the applicant must add evergreens to the proposed plantings of the summit ash at the western end of the existing berm. Just so the neighbors know that. Al-Jaff: I'm sorry, I didn't. Mancino: Number 3 reads the same but I just wanted to make sure that we're adding evergreens in that location. 47 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 Al-Jaff: Okay, good. Mancino: Are there any other changes on page 15? Farmakes: Yes...ask for a clarification on 5. Mancino: That's not on this particular page. The applicant did not ask for verification on number 5, did you? Farmakes: No clarification of 5. Mancino: Concurrent with the building permit. A detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted. That was fine, correct? Duane Lund: Yes. Mancino: 5 on the subdivision. Do we insert in this area, in the site review Sharmin, the addition of 8 foot coniferous trees around the dock entrances? So number 16 would be the replacement of the 6. The applicant shall replace the 6 foot coniferous trees with 8 foot trees. And added to that, that the applicant and staff will make sure that that is 90% to 100% screening...Number 2 is subdivision and the applicant wanted clarification for number 5 which I believe Dave gave, he really did not want to change. So it is as is. Actually I'm going to do a number 17 under site review plan and that is that the applicant requests that the 50 foot buffer be a conservation easement. Number 16, under subdivision will stay the same with a sentence that says that the applicant and the city will come to. Hempel: Develop language to provide for future installation if necessary. Mancino: That meets both parties. Okay. Were there, from the staff or commissioners, was there anything else that needs to be added to the conditions? Meyer: Nancy? The modification that you made just before this one. What was that number? You lost me on that one. Mancino: 17 under site review. The 50 foot buffer be a conservation easement. Thank you for getting the motion ready. Would someone, may I have a motion please. Skubic: I'll make a motion. Mancino: And let's do one at a time. 48 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 Skubic: Yes I've accepted the clarifications along the way too. I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan Review #96-1 as shown on the site plan received January 19, 1996, subject to the following conditions 1 through 15 with the following alterations. Item number 1 shall read, the material used to screen the trash enclosure shall be the same type of brick used on the buildings and that the trash enclosures be located within the loading dock area. Item 2(b) is to read, wall signs for Building 1 shall be permitted along the north and east elevations. Wall signs for Buildings 2 and 3 will be permitted along the north and west elevations, and I'd like to add. Mancino: And then continue that last sentence? Signs shall be located. Skubic: Signs will be located within the sign band shown on Sheets 10, 12 and 14 of the plans dated February 13, 1996. And then I would like to add item (j) shall read, no back lit signage shall be viewable from the residential neighborhood to the south. And I'd like to add item 16. That the applicant must replace 6 foot trees around the loading docks with 8 foot trees and staff and the applicant will ensure screening of dock areas is 90% to 100%. Mancino: Would you accept a friendly amendment? Skubic: Certainly. Mancino: The friendly amendment would be to add number 17. That the 50 foot buffer area be a conservation easement. Skubic: Your amendment is accepted. Mancino: Thank you. Is there a second to the motion? Farmakes: I second the motion. Mancino: Any discussion? Skubic moved, Fatmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review #96-1 as shown on the site plan received January 19, 1996, subject to the following conditions: 1. The materials used to screen the trash enclosure shall be the same type of brick used on the building, and that the trash enclosure be located within the loading dock area. 2. Signage criteria: 49 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 a. All businesses within a single building shall share one monument sign. Monument signage shall be subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance. b. Wall signs for Building 1 will be permitted along the north and east elevations. Buildings 2 and 3 will be permitted wall signage along the north and west elevations. Signs will be located within the sign bands shown on Sheets 10, 12 and 14 of the plans dated February 13, 1996. c. All signs require a separate permit. d. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and add an architectural accent to the building. e. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights. f. No illuminated signs within the development may be viewed from the residential section south of the site. g. Back lit individual letter signs are permitted. h. Individual letters may not exceed 2 feet in height and logos shall not exceed 30 inches in height and consistent with the standards for the signage. i. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be permitted on the sign. j. No back lit signage shall be viewable from the residential neighborhood to the south. 3. Applicant must add evergreens to the proposed plantings of summit ash at the western end of the existing berm. 4. The applicant shall enter into a site plan contract with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping. 5. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted. 6. Meet with the Building Official as requested in his attached memo to discuss commercial building permit requirements. 50 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 7. All roof top equipment must be screened in accordance with city ordinances. 8. The parking area for Lot 3 shall show a proof of parking for an additional 3 spaces. If the need arises for these additional parking spaces, the city will require that they be added. 9. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The erosion control fencing and rock construction entrance shall be denoted on the final grading and drainage plans prior to final plat approval. The plan shall be submitted to the city for review and formal approval_ 10. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 11. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way. Landscape materials shall not be placed within drainage swales or over utility easement conditioned upon the applicant entering into an encroachment agreement with the city. 12. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall re-locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 13. If exporting of earthwork materials is necessary, a haul route and traffic control plan shall be submitted to the city for review and approval. 14. The drive aisles and parking stalls shall be redesigned in accordance to city ordinances. the drive aisles for the truck parking/loading areas shall be 28 feet wide. All driveway accesses onto Lake Drive East shall incorporate the city's industrial driveway apron (Detail Plate No. 5207). Cross access and maintenance agreements shall be prepared for Lots 1 and 2. 15. Approval of this site plan is contingent upon the recording of the final plat for Chanhassen East Business Center with Hennepin County prior to final plat approval of Chanhassen Pointe Business Centre. 51 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 16. That the applicant must replace 6 foot trees around the loading docks with 8 foot trees and staff and the applicant will ensure screening of dock areas is 90%to 100% 17. The 50 foot buffer area shall be a conservation easement. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mancino: On the subdivision, may I have a motion please. Skubic: I'll continue my motion. The Planning Commission recommend approval of a preliminary plat for Subdivision #96-1 for Chanhassen Pointe Business Centre as shown on the plat received January 19, 1996 with the following conditions 1 through 19 with the following alterations and additions. Item number 16 should read, the installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Lake Drive East and Dell Road is expected in the future. The developer shall be responsible or share the local cost participation of this signal on a percentage basis based upon traffic generation for full development of this site in relationship to the total traffic of Dell Road. And I'd like to delete the next sentence. Security to guarantee payment for the developer's share of this traffic signal for the entire development (Phase I and II) will be required and change that to read, that staff and applicant will work out an agreeable solution for the security. Mancino: Is there a second to the motion? Farmakes: Second it. Mancino: Any discussion on the motion? Skubic moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #96-1 for Chanhassen Pointe Business Centre as shown on the plat received January 19, 1996, subject to the following conditions: 1. Park and trail dedication fees to be collected per city ordinance. 2. The applicant shall dedicate cross-access easements into Lots 1 and 2, Block I. 3. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The erosion control fencing and rock construction entrance shall be denoted on the final grading and drainage plans prior 52 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 to final plat approval. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval. 4. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 5. The applicant shall upgrade/extend Dell Road south of Lake Drive East to the south City limits as well as install a storm drainage system from Lake Drive East to the regional pond site. All public utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. The private utilities will be inspected by the City's Building Department. The applicant and/or builder shall be responsible for obtaining the necessary permits from the City. 6. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 year and 100 year storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve prior to final plat approval. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post- developed stormwater calculations for 100 year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basins, and/or creeks. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. 7. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 8. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers, and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. 9. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall 53 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration shall also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas. 10. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to wetlands and storm ponds shall be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100 year high water level. 11. A regional water quality and water quantity pond shall be provided by the applicant on site to pre-treat stormwater runoff prior to discharging under Dell Road into the Eden Prairie wetland. The proposed stormwater pond must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 throughout for safety purposes. The stormwater pond shall be designed to 60% to 75% phosphorus removal efficiently. A landscape plan providing upland and wetland plants to naturally blend into the landscape is recommended. 12. Existing wells and/or septic systems on site will have to be properly abandoned in accordance to City and Minnesota Department of Health codes/regulations. 13. The proposed industrial development of 19.38 developable acres is responsible for a water quality connection charge of $48,585.00 and water quantity charge of $84,497.00. These fees are payable to the city prior to the city filing the final plat. The water quality fees will be waived if the applicant provides for on-site stormwater treatment. Credits will also be applied to the applicant's SWMP fees based on oversizing costs for the pond and trunk storm sewer system. Credits will be determined upon review of the final construction plans. 14. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall re-locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 15. The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat the Dell Road street easement as right-of- way. 16. The installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Lake Drive East and Dell Road is expected in the future. The developer shall be responsible or share the local cost participation of this signal on a percentage basis based upon traffic generation from full development of this site in relation to the total traffic volume of Dell Road. Staff and the applicant will work out an agreeable solution for all regarding the security to guarantee payment for the developer's share of the traffic signal installation. 54 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 17. The final grading plan shall maintain the existing drainage pattern from Eden Prairie, south of DataServ. 18. If exporting of earthwork materials is necessary, a haul route and traffic control plan shall be submitted to the city for review and approval. 19. Approval of this subdivision is contingent upon the recording of the final plat for Chanhassen East Business Center with Hennepin County prior to final plat approval of Chanhassen Pointe Business Centre. All voted in favor and the motion caned unanimously. Mancino: May I have a motion on the vacation please. Aanenson: Madam Chair. Only the Council acts on the vacation. We just put that in for your edification but formally you don't make a recommendation on that. Mancino: Okay. Thank you very much. When does this go in front of the City Council? Al-Jaff: March 11th. Mancino: March 11th. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF A RETAIL BUILDING OF 8,321. SQ. FT. AND A PARKING LOT SETBACK VARIANCE ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD, AND LOCATED ON LOTS 2 AND 3, BLOCK 1, MARKET SQUARE, MARKET SQUARE 3 PARTNERS, INC., AMCON CORPORATION. Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Any questions of staff at this point? Would the applicant like to present at this time? Vernelle Clayton: My name's Vernelle Clayton. I live at 422 Santa Fe Circle here in Chanhassen. This project will be developed by the same owners and owned by the same folks that own Market Square I. They're also essentially the same...own Market Square II. These will be the exact same folks and will be re-acquiring the Lots 2 and 3 from the HRA... hopefully as soon as possible... We refer to Lots 2 and 3 and we have assumed for some time 55 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 that these two lots would be combined as one and so there will be one property of one lot and as the staff report indicates, there will be... I will be relatively brief once again in my presentation due to the hour and just tell you that a couple of things. We have designed the building very deliberately to be, not only compatible with Market Square I and the terms of the PUD. The covenants in the PUD state but to be...similar to Market Square I. We missed an opportunity to some extent with Market Square II. We have a nice building on main street. We don't really have something that fits really terribly well with Market Square. We missed an opportunity...but we want the opportunity to bring Market Square I up to West 78th Street...anywhere looking at Market Square, it's going to look like one large building. That will be to the benefit of those folks that work and make their livelihood in both buildings. You have... We also think that it will be the benefit of the...West 78th Street. We already have in that immediate area two quite small, uniquely designed brick buildings. We think by making this...one larger building we will, not only make the streetscape more interesting but it will avoid kind of the business that you get on the building here...appear kind of cluttered architecturally. Therefore we are very pleased with the design of the building we've come up with. At the same time I think he was able to articulate a bit of upscale elements which will be important to our tenants. I think very important to one of the tenant's representatives is here tonight. Dale Almquist sitting in the first row here is with Redmond Products and they are the folks who will be the lead tenant in that building. They'll be doing a salon of...and they're quick to tell me, well no, not really. Our's is going to be more of... They have bought into the entertainment shopping center experience by way of...coffee bar and even a shampoo bar where they'll mix some of their client's shampoos and so forth on the site. At this point then I guess give the time...and then I'll be back to talk a little bit more. Mancino: Thank you. Bill Brisley: As Vernelle mentioned. Mancino: Would you please state your name and address. Bill Brisley: I'm sorry. My name's Bill Brisley. I'm an architect with Amcon Construction Company and...Market Square Partners. As Vernelle told you, we're upscaling this building a little bit with some curves and some up's and down's along the roof edge but really it is just an extension of... Exact same materials with the same base and the same stucco...exactly what we're going to do...Redmond and some of the others had ideas...turning the canopies downward...above the larger windows. You can see the repeat there. They're about 2 feet by 2 feet. That gives it a little more quality look than what is done at Market Square I, which was just plain... So little things like that I think are what we mean by upscaling it slightly. But the other...very, very similar to the center. The materials themselves, as I said, they are 56 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 the same as the center. The gray rock face block for a base. Would you like me to pass these up there? Mancino: I don't need to. Does anyone want it right here? I think we're fine, thank you. Bill Brisley: Okay. Green metal will match something like this. Kind of a, it's called a, now I've forgotten. Kind of a teal or, it's not even a teal. It's a darker green than that...dark green and we will match these... Canvas burgundy. Burgundy canvas canopy with silvery steel standards to hold them. All the windows are the same steel...clean anodized window material. The majority of the building is stucco. Again we'll match the original building...that does show, as does on Market Square I there are medallions and light fixtures that are on every single pier and they will be identical to what's down there, except for a possible upgrade from a tenant to a more design tile to fit into those medallion areas but that would be from any distance, it would be the same colors... Screening of the mechanical units is like Sharmin told you. It's all handled with the parapets. The minimum point above the roof where the maximum depth of the mechanical piece of equipment would be in this...and then it grows from that and the roof goes down. So like it's goes up almost 8 feet with no screen so the majority of them are in the 5 foot area. So they're, and that's taking it right directly from, looking at straight at the building...so really from the sidewalk it would seem higher than that... The entries are... The main entry would be here. Coming in off of this parking lot for... that's the salon. And really the only two sidewalk areas are, this would be the main one for the largest tenant and they are like___and then we're looking at another coffee shop...that would go here and there is a little space for a small tables on the sidewalk. That also would happen down here. We have a stairway that comes down. This side is very, very steep...I have a stairway here coming down from West 78th and then it's really quite a drop. About 5 feet so in fact where the video is sitting right now, you could see what that retaining wall would be like because the building has to be set down into... Mancino: Bill, what's the material for the retaining wall? Bill Brisley: Concrete. Same as the sidewalk and any of that material... Mancino: Just plain concrete. Bill Brisley: Yeah, that would be my choice...Coming down from 78th, there's a stairway there and that's what's happening right here. It turns in behind...and then along this side is a...this would be the front of the other tenant. Then there's a stairway that, because of staffs comments, can be moved down directly, it's going to come down off this sidewalk and go directly over in front of Subway and then of course we're taking... We started absolutely flat sidewalk here but the time we get down here, it's 2 feet over the drop so it's a very, very 57 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 difficult site... Trash at this point is down here. Right where we're coming around the corner to Kerber. The reason it's at this angle is to get a nice long straight shot. I think we're probably going to be widening that a little bit. Our current trash...suggest we bring it up to the building... Mancino: Any questions at this time? Bill Brisley: I could at this point... Mancino: and where would the signage go? Bill Brisley: Signage is on, basically over the canopies. Wherever there's a canopy, there's a sign... Mancino: And Bill a question about recessing. What's the amount of recess? Bill Brisley: In the wall...?Each one of those center sections. So on either side of the high section... Mancino: Any questions from commissioners? Mehl: Yeah I've got one. How tall is that retaining wall on the north end of the parking lot? Bill Brisley: It's about 5, the parking lot part? Mehl: Well from the parking lot surface up to the top of the retaining wall. Bill Brisley: About 3 1/2 feet. The one behind the building. Mancino: There are two retaining walls. Mehl: Okay. You say there were two retaining walls? Mancino: Yeah, aren't there two different ones? There's one on 78th. Bill Brisley: There's one along the back of the building...and then there's one in the parking lot... Mehl: Right. How tall is that one? 58 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 Bill Brisley: That's the one that's... Mehl: I'm looking at a drawing here, SB-2 and I'm trying to get some elevations comparisons here. Bill Brisley: I'm sorry, it's 5 feet. It's the same as the other one. They're both 5 feet. Mehl: Okay. I was just curious, I look at the drawings and it looks like about 974 1/2 upper elevation and about a 967 1/2 parking lot elevation. That's a difference of 7 feet. Bill Brisley: Well we have a small area of sod there which would kind of slope down and then there's a 6 inch drop of the curb and then the parking lot, as we know is about 5%. So it will be between 3% and 5%. Mehl: Was that elevation at the north end of the parking lot based on the 5% slope in the parking lot? So staff is recommending 3 1/2% which over that distance will add about another foot and a half to the height of that wall. Bill Brisley: Which is one of our objections to that solution. Hempel: Madam Chair, if I could interject at this point. We met, Vernelle and I discussed one condition, item number 12 about the parking lot grades being the 3 1/2%. After looking at it a little bit closer, they're actually probably in the range of 4% and with that, it's similar to Wendy's parking lot grade. Side slopes. It's desirable to have less than 4%, or 3 1/2% from an access. Mancino: So you want to keep 12? Hempel: We could actually delete 12. Mancino: Does that answer your question Don? Mehl: Yeah. It eliminates the difference between the 5 and the 3 1/2. So the height of that wall is what now back there? I came up with a difference of about 7 feet here. Bill Brisley: 974 pretty much at the highest part and then the sod right down to the low end, on the low side is 969. About 5 feet...It's difficult. Mehl: Okay. One other question here. I've got a couple more. I'm looking at drawing SB-2 which is a grading plan drawing that shows the configuration of the parking lot and so on and 59 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 then I look at drawing SB-5 and it looks, they're different. The islands are shown different. The parking lot configuration on the north side is different. You've got some great insets into the...Which one's correct? I know they're dated a day apart. Bill Brisley: This is a landscape plan done by our consultant. He took the background... Mehl: Okay. Mancino: Any other questions at this point of the applicant? Mehl: Can I ask one more? Mancino: Sure. Mehl: On the north side of the building you've got what looks like a, kind of a tunnel like walkway. It looks like it's maybe 5 or 5 1/2 feet wide. Then you've got the building on the one side which of course goes up and then you've got a 5 or 6 foot retaining wall on the other side. And that goes down the north side of the building to an emergency exit door which is on the east end of the walkway. Is there any concern about that tunnel walkway getting filled with snow? What happens when it snows 4 or 5 inches with a good wind? You know is it going to level off. You're going to have to be able to get that door open. What do you do with the snow? You know who's going to throw it up that high? Bill Brisley: It's going to have to be maintained. Mehl: Yeah, it's going to have to be. The door has to be easily opened all the time. Bill Brisley and Vernelle Clayton made comments from the audience which were not picked up by the tape. Mehl: That's the last one. Mancino: Thank you. Is there anyone else presenting Vernelle? Vernelle Clayton continued her presentation, but it was not picked up on the tape. Mancino: I just have a couple suggestions and that would be that in the retaining wall, the 5 foot retaining wall where that kind of tunnel area is, that there be some lights nestled in the retaining wall. 60 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 Bill Brisley: Every corner has two and every recess has one. Those large ones that we have on Market Square I so the building's going to be well lit... Mancino: Within that kind of 5 foot emergency, kind of tunnel area where you have the, there might need to be some lighting. At least that retaining wall down below so when people are walking through, that they have some lighting on that side that kind of tells them where the retaining wall starts. And also, maybe not just concrete retaining wall but something that has an aesthetic texture to it. To add to it. Vernelle Clayton made a comment. Mancino: Some sort of texture of concrete. Vernelle Clayton: I wanted to make a couple more comments... I guess I would like to suggest that we add to that, or as approved by staffs subsequent review of the plan and... At number 9. The width of the existing drive aisle along the south side of the development shall be increased to a minimum of 26 feet wide, fact to face. We talked about that... Mancino: Vernelle tell me again, which number are you on? On 9? Vernelle Clayton: ...we just thought we'd like to clarify that... Bill Brisley: ...very, very flat area at this end and this road naturally right now goes downhill very fast and ends up being... Vernelle Clayton: ...those are the only questions that were...except for item number 2. We have a very unique situation here in that we have covenants of record that state exactly what staff had recommended. We were able to live with them on Market Square II. We have a different situation here in that there are two elements that... One is we have a very...to 36 inches in that area and 30 inches in the other area. The other thing we want...we're asking for is...precedence in Market Square and that there be signs allowed on three sides. We have... signs to the entire building. We really need to be able to put signs on West 78th. The end tenant on the other end, the east end will need a sign on West 78th Street... The problem therefore, we need to have signs, if we're choosing two sides, we need to choose north and south. The problem arises in that Redmond, and I think it's a good idea...but their front door is facing west. And they would...sign above the front door. So that's the dilemma and we don't argue with staff recommending. Their role is to interpret...What we're asking for... Dale Almquist: Good evening. Dale Almquist. I represent Redmond Products, 28930 West 78th Street. We are very excited about this project. It's kind of a new venture for Redmond 61 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 to open a salon and retail outlet. It's not going to have the Redmond name on it. It's going to be independent and the beginning of bigger and better things. It's going to be called Capelli's which is Italian for hair...but after looking around the Twin Cities they decided they really wanted to stay right here in Chanhassen, so the site became very important. And Vernelle stated it very well. The two sided sign ordinance, it leaves one plane exposed and... can't have that. In marketing, you can't get enough... This is a unique building in that it doesn't have a back side. It's completely three or four front sides. Each side faces an important direction but we certainly want a sign facing West 78th Street and a sign facing the parking lot of the Market Square. And also...but this is the entrance to the building and we definitely want a sign...and we are asking for an exception. An exception is always a hard thing to ask for but we think it's well warranted. Vernelle Clayton: ...with Subway, they have signage on all three sides of the building... Mancino: Now Wendy's has signs on two sides and so does the Edina Realty building. Vernelle Clayton: Right. Mancino: Okay. Farmakes: All of these buildings were completed at different times in our ordinance's history. Vernelle Clayton: Right. I don't have anything else but I appreciate your time and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have. Mancino: Vernelle I have a question for you. On condition 14. Where it says the trash enclosure may be relocated to the northeasterly corner of the parking lot. I'm assuming the way that that is worded, you are still working on that with staff or? Vernelle Clayton: I will talk about that...talked about the elevation here and if you walk along the street, whether you walk down the sidewalk... Mancino: You'd see the trash. Vernelle Clayton: ...this is all going to be under the same ownership and we will be, really this... Mancino: I have another question for you. Let me ask Sharmin and Dave, does that work for you two? About keeping the trash enclosure in that or is that something you still want to work out with the applicant? 62 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 Al-Jaff: No, we understand the circumstances so. Mancino: Okay. From the report I read, that there was one extra parking space. Vernelle Clayton: Yes. We should address that. It shows, this is a difficult area right in here...and we really did not want to give up the sidewalk... Mancino: Okay. So we're down to the minimum number. Because I was going to say, if there was another place where I think we could give up the parking space, would be right in front of the entry to the Redmond. I mean you know, when you go to places, it's so nice if you have an area where you are to walk in and nobody can park and you don't have to go between cars. Vernelle Clayton: ...handicapped kind of serves that purpose... Mancino: Any other questions for the applicant at this time? Mehl: What is the physical size of that trash container or area? Vemelle Clayton: This one is probably about...We need to widened it just a little bit. Mehl: What were those numbers? Vernelle Clayton: Probably about 14 by 10. Mehl: 14 by 10. By how high? Vernelle Clayton: 14 wide and...it will be exactly the same as all the others along Market Square. Mehl: Which is what? Vernelle Clayton: ...8. Farmakes: The gray stucco that is currently showing as white on the computer rendering. Is that the same color gray as the building currently...? So that's a darker gray. Vernelle Clayton: Same color as the stucco would be compatible... Mancino: You should have wood. 63 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 Farmakes: Okay. Do you have a sample here of that coloration or the materials that you both held up. I believe it's concrete. You have, the building appears to be in the rendering much lighter than what I would envision Market Square... Bill Brisley: Well one thing, this is video and video has definite color shifts. It's darker. It's lighter than that shadow and lighter than the bright sunlight areas but...what I'm saying is that we will match that exactly with a subcontractor. He'll go out and match that... Farmakes: So this is the texture of the material but not the color? The color is. Bill Brisley: Very, very close. Farmakes: Is a cooler, grayer material. Mancino: And I have one last question Vernelle. You are requesting wall signage on three sides. The west side, the north side and the south side, correct. Okay. And you're all done presenting? Vernelle Clayton: Yes I am....walk away from you. Mancino: Not sure if we should start the public hearing or not. Vernelle Clayton: I'll be happy to answer questions... Mancino: Thank you. May I have a motion and a second to open this for a public hearing. Farmakes moved, Meyer seconded to open the public healing. The public hearing was opened. • Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission. Seeing none, may I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Fannakes moved, Meyer seconded to close the public healing. The public heating was closed. Mancino: Comments, questions from commissioners. Don. And obviously one of the big questions is signage. Allowing signage on three walls, which was within the PUD covenants in 1989. And then addressing the conditions and just the overall site review. 64 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 Mehl: The little drive there going around the north and west end of Subway. I guess it wasn't clear in my mind and the discussions here as to, understanding it's going to be widened to 26 feet on the north end but for some reason it couldn't be widened out to that going around the west end of Subway. Mancino: Dave, could you address that? Hempel: Kerber Boulevard along the west here. The new curb line that with the staff report is proposing would be the red line here to widened the drive aisle out to 26 foot wide in this area. As a result this is the trash enclosure location just shifts approximately 3 to 4 feet over. It would maintain that 26 foot aisle until you get into this proximity and would match the existing curb alignment that's in place and that I believe is 25.4 feet wide in this location here. Feel it was warranted to remove the whole curb line... Mancino: You're sure it's 25.4? Hempel: That's what I'm being told. Mancino: I'm just kidding. Meyer: Dave can I ask you? Do you think there's a safety issue having, that's a bad corner as it is. Having that garbage location there. Hempel: Typically the garbage pick-ups are off peak hours. They're not during the noon rush hour... Aanenson: I just had a comment on that. Staff looked at that option. Actually that's probably what we spent a lot of time discussing. And all three of us had a different opinion but when it came down to it and looking at, you're impeding other sidewalk movement and what it does to the physical look of the building. As they indicated, putting it next to West 78th. You don't want people looking over the top of it. My preference was to put it on the other side of the building and again, that impedes the sidewalk for people coming down off of West 78th and around. So really it was compromised. It's not the ideal location but really it's probably, well it's the most efficient. Meyer: ...is that a possibility? The entrance to the garage...back in from the parking lot somehow? Aanenson: Oh. Behind one of the islands? 65 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 Meyer: Instead of being on the main drag there. I don't know. Aanenson: There was another dumpster further down on, yeah. Right where approximately Dave's pointing now there's another dumpster located back there. I guess that's kind of what we were looking at. As far as visibility, if you're coming down West 78th, your sight line's blocked by the bank so I guess we were looking at it from that perspective. It kind of, that sight line is not what the building is blocking. It's probably the most screened. But we all concurred, that was our problem with this. Trying to find the best spot for that. Hempel: There's some exposure from Subway. I believe Subway has a window or two back in this area... Mancino: Go ahead Don. Mehl: Well I guess I'm still confused. Can you turn that back on Dave? Did you say that now that we can in fact go to the 26 feet? Hempel: That's what we're recommending, yes. In this area here, rather than need a new curb line proposed. Mehl: Right. Mancino: But once you get past that turn, you're back to 25.4. Mehl: Right. Yeah, I agree that that corner around the end of Subway is a tough one. People come off of Kerber and make a left hand turn and come around there and they're going too fast you know and you wonder if you're going to get nailed. Hempel: We also looked at a thru street. Trying to straighten that out. Mehl: Yeah, I understand. Hempel: And the grade difference plus the stacking of vehicles here for the intersection was of great importance. Aanenson: Plus we also felt it might encourage more speed because you have a straight shot. So actually this main, because right now there's no hinderance for you to slow down. So actually, even though it is a little bit wider, you have to slow down for the sight lines because there's other movement there. Right now there's nothing else to really slow you down. You don't have to worry about someone else except for when you get closer to that intersection. 66 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 Mehl: Well is there any way that you could put in a couple of big speed bumps on that? I mean to force people to slow down. Like one right in the entrance as you come off of Kerber. Make them go over a big speed bump right around, just as they enter and then one about midway in the driveway. Mancino: Well if there's anyone else in the driveway, you slow down anyway because you can hardly get two cars passing each other. Hempel: It's very congested the way it is. This should open it up a little bit... Mancino: Is that even workable to think about speed bumps? Hempel: Some shopping lots, or parking lot areas do have speed bumps. I guess I'm not a proponent of them. They probably do more damage to snowplows than anything. Mancino: I'll just talk from, my driveway has them. And I mean, it's a problem. Taking different equipment up and down the driveway. The tractors and plows and everything else. Farmakes: You should slow down. Mancino: Going about 60 mph down that road. Mehl: Yeah, other than that drive around there. Again which I'm uncomfortable with you know the speeds and the close quarters. People making the tight turns. Expanding that out to 26 feet is in effect going to, as you're exiting that drive, your person exiting actually has to make even a tighter turning radius to get out onto Kerber because the whole curb is moved over 4 feet and tightening the whole bend. Mancino: This isn't going to make it great. I mean it's not going to solve everything. It's going to make it better. Mehl: I'm a little uncomfortable with that retaining wall. I don't know how tall it's really going to end up you know. It could be 5-6 feet. I don't know if it's a safety issue. We kind of talked about those here a month ago or so. And again I'm a little concerned with that. That exit door, that emergency door. Ice build-up and so on. It could be a problem but it has to be maintained. As far as the signage goes, I think we have to follow the new sign ordinances. Go with two sides of the building. Whether it be on the, you know maybe it's on the west and the north, you know I don't know. But other than that I think I support staffs recommendation. 67 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 Mancino: Jeff. Farmakes: I'm going to back up a little bit farther back. Sometimes we encounter and talk about these projects that take place over a period of years or bump up against changes in the ordinance and so on. Some things that I like about this and some things that I don't so. The shape of the building and what the architect's trying to do, I think he's tried to implement what the client's asking for but the problem, backing up before that is what the client's asking for. The continuation of Market Square, the large section of Market Square along. Bringing it up into the main street area is sort of counter productive of what we discussed in previous buildings, which is quasi i.e. office retail, which is primarily retail. But it's with the brick building here on the corner and the discussion that we talked about there is bringing higher end materials, higher grade building. It's adjacent to a civic area and so on and what the city plans to do and try to bring up the scale of that property. On one hand we're running into conflict on how they're marketing the larger percentage of square footage involved in the development. Obviously from a marketing standpoint they feel they've made their case as to why they would like to see that direction encountered. The problem with that is that from a civic point of view, you look at it and you look at main street and you see that building and what do you have. You have a gray stucco building that is basically a medium grade retail building. There's nothing special about it. There's nothing extraordinary and it was the same argument that we were making and I did not, I was a dissenter on the other Market II buildings. I didn't think that, the city's losing an opportunity I feel to ask for more. It's always a problem with retail when you ask for more because it's not profitable. It's simply not as profitable and we've had this argument over and over again because as we sit here with our wish list, we would like pie in the sky. We would like to see important architecture done and so on for our community and what we run up against of course is that, well we're not making any money on it so we're not going to do that. Somewhere in the middle maybe lies the difference but in this particular spot, this is an important spot. This isn't just a typical retail spot again. I would like to see something...we relooked at the building as far as the architecture. And it's not looking at this computer drawing. It's looking at, do we buy into the argument that it should be a continuation of what is basically a typical retail type structure. Market I. So I would like to see something more and what bothers me about this is when I look at the materials, I see nicer materials going into a warehouse building that we were presented here than what we're seeing here. And I'd like to see...given to me. It seems to me, based on where it is in our community, that we should be seeing more. Mancino: So you would like to see something different in design and in quality of materials? Farmakes: Well I feel that the design is probably not outside of what we ask for, although a 2 foot...now that's the bare minimum that we're looking at. I don't feel that, you know again there are a lot of possibilities out there but if you're going to define that you want an 68 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 extension. You want an extension of the existing structure. Well you're defining that. You're closing in the architecture. You're telling them that too far away from that is not what you want. So again we're coming back to a marketing idea versus something of civic interest. Again we're talking about gray stucco. You can't get much more neutral or boring than gray stucco and even the retaining walls. Poured concrete so if you have concrete, they're gray concrete and gray stucco and again, I go back to I think we could do more with that or ask for more. In talking about issues of signage, it's a very low impact signage area. There's very little competition for the eye. The car has to drive virtually next to the building. I don't see any case for a 36 inch sign versus 30. There's a stop light close by. Cars are going to be interrupted. You couldn't help but see whatever's on that building. If we make exceptions, I think from any signs, we will be here with every applicant giving that. Already today we've treaded on this issue more than once in asking for exceptions on signage. But again, perhaps there's something that needs to be rethought out, either with the monument sign or however that's traded. To alleviate the problem of how they want to divide up... But I do think that the basic problem that we need to discuss here is, do we buy into that fact. That that should be a continuation of Market Square I because we're defining how that building looks then if that's true and in that case, do we feel it's in the best interest of the city. Mancino: And in the last two years, with the addition of the Wendy's and the Edina Realty, it seems as if the city were looking for something not of the same thing. Farmakes: I don't see that as any different. The premise for that and I certainly think that the Wendy's is successful. The other building I think was a compromise of sorts but again, I don't think that the adjacent property would be any more important to the city than where that chunk is adjacent to us. So it's an important part. So I've talked enough. Mancino: Bob. Skubic: Well it seems to be a difficult site because of the grade there and I'm not too crazy about the retaining wall...in front of the building on the north side. I don't know what can be done about that. Perhaps that could be a split entry building. I've driven by that site prior to seeing this and I've often wondered how that site could be utilized and very, not very easily I guess is the answer. But that's all. That's my only comment. Mancino: Any comments on architectural or the main question that Jeff has brought up about extending Market Square. Skubic: Until Jeff brought up that point, it made a lot of sense to me to have those compliment Market Square. I appreciate the different view point on this. I don't know. 69 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 Mancino: Mike. Meyer: That is exactly what I was just thinking too. I hadn't thought of it in that way. That being such a focal point. I had already thought that I didn't like a 5 foot high retaining wall of just concrete. I tend to agree with Jeff on his points as far as maybe going with some higher quality materials for the siding for the structure. I'd also like to see some kind of other solution for having signs on three sides. Maybe they can do something with a monument sign or something of that sort. I don't have the answer but I'd like to see something just with two sides. That's it. Mancino: Craig. Peterson: I was struggling with this one for the last week. My first reaction was as they described the stucco and the gray again and I looked at the sheer amount of retaining wall that was going to augment that building. Augment or detract from the building in my eyes. I starting thinking in the same realm that Jeff was thinking also. Is that I don't feel as though it's, it is somewhat of a step up just because of the architectural lines of the building from Market I but I agree that with the plane, at a minimum I would like to see the retaining wall done something different than straight concrete because I think it does detract from the building. But I concur. I think that we will have a lost opportunity if we don't do something different than the stucco. So I would be in favor of, the building itself doesn't bother me. If we could do something other than stucco, other than the concrete retaining wall to take the harshness and coldness away from that building. I think it would be very advantageous to the city. And the signage, I think we went on record tonight and numerous nights before that there isn't that compelling reason to change from the sign ordinance. I don't think it's been presented here tonight so I couldn't support that either. Mancino: And for commissioners to know it's not so much, I mean we do have the sign ordinance but it is in their PUD contract, correct. That it's the two sides. And yet I understand very much how I would want to have a sign, no question on the north side, the west side and the south side too. I mean you want people who come in on the south side that are, you know when you get into the center, to look around and to see that it's there. And as I'm coming west too. Is there, I mean I would like this worked out with staff and the applicant to see if there's something that could be done to the monument sign or, are there any other alternatives? Al-Jaff: There is an existing sign. Monument sign along the north. Mancino: And doesn't it have, what does it say on that signage? 70 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 Al-Jaff: Right here? Mancino: Yeah. It says Market Square but then doesn't it list everything that's. Al-Jaff: Well, they have the option of advertising. Mancino: So they could put the name of the tenants on this building, on that sign and make it, hold on Vernelle until we're done. Okay, thank you. They could have the option of putting the tenants of this particular building on that sign. And there is also, well just a minute because you can... because there is also another monument sign on the corner. They have two monument signs on 78th. Al-Jaff: The corner of 78th and Market. Mancino: We have two monument signs on 78th. One on the corner of Market and 78th and one on 78th and then we also have another one on Market. So there are three monument signs strategically placed for that square. And I'll wait to hear why we cannot but I would, I understand the need. I would like to see it resolved in a way that we use the monument sign and then two wall signs that stay with the covenants of the PUD. I must admit I was concerned a little, as Jeff was, on the building. I like the architecture, the simplicity and the cleanness of the design of the building. I don't feel that it has the same quality of feel with the other buildings that are on 78th Street now. So I guess that I'm saying, is your question, do we want to see Market Square continued up to 78th. And I guess I'm saying, no. I would like to see something else. Farmakes: My question, to clarify that as Market Square I architecturally. Mancino: Yes, thank you. And I just don't think it meets the city's standards or the city's character right now in that area and what we've seen put in in the last 3 years that I've been on the Planning Commission as far as architecture and a lot of detail and the type of material. So I would like to see this come back in. Any other discussion on this from, would anyone else like to add at this point? Peterson: I agree. Mancino: Vernelle. Vernelle Clayton: Technically the monument signs belong to Market Square I and they're... and it can't be used by Market Square III. 71 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 Mancino: Not at all? Vernelle Clayton: No. Mancino: Okay. Aren't they owned by one and same owner? Vernelle Clayton: They are owned by the same one but the leases the tenants have, we have promised those tenants...and they don't have to be owned by the same owner. They can't really make promises. Just because they're owned...and then tomorrow they sell the property to two different people. Mancino: Do you have different tenants on each monument sign? Vernelle Clayton: No, the same ones are on each one. There are two monument signs for Market Square I and one for Market Square II. The two for Market Square I have the same tenants on it. Mancino: Gotch you. On Market and on 78th? Vernelle Clayton: Right. Mancino: And the one that's on the corner is Market Square II. Vernelle Clayton: Right. Mancino: Well we haven't solved that one yet. Peterson: Well staff, is there room for another monument sign anywhere that you can see? Aanenson: I think at this point, if you're going to table, I think that's something that we would be willing to look at. If that's the direction you're leaning. Mancino: Do I have a motion? Farmakes: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission table the site plan for Market Square III, #95-22 SPR, that's dated February 7, 1996 on the staff report dated February 21, 1996. I'd request that the applicant options be worked out with staff in regards to looking at the structure, the permanent structure as far as materials go. I'm looking for some creativity here. Options. Looking at the issue or looking at alternative issues or working out your signage options with your tenants that fit within the city ordinances. And looking at creative 72 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 ways for architecturally...looking at the retaining wall situation. Structure of the building itself or the shape of the building I don't think is a major issue of contention. The quality of the materials, perhaps the color scheme or dealing with the continuation of Market I architecture. Does that seem to clarify what I'm trying? Mancino: Well yeah. I mean I think this is very compatible with, and I would still like to stay in that compatibility range of Market Square I but add to it as far as architectural details and architectural quality of materials. Anyone else who would like to make it even more clear. Al-Jaff: Do you want the comparison between compatibility with Market Square II versus I? Farmakes: I think that's certainly, that's an option. Again, we got into the same argument. I made a motion so I don't know, maybe we should deal with that before we discuss... Mancino: I just want to make sure the staff has clear enough direction. So we will go ahead with the motion and we will make sure that it is clear. Is there a second to the motion? Mehl: I'll second it. Mancino: Any discussion? During this discussion time, does staff need clear, definite guidance? Aanenson: Can I just respond back to you what I believe the issues are? Mancino: Yes. Aanenson: That you want us to look at the materials. There seems to be some consensus that the design of the building is okay but you want to review the materials so we'll take several approaches to do that. Secondly, you want us to look at the sign options and we've got the direction that you want us to look within the ordinance to see if there's some other alternative there. And finally look at the retaining wall materials. Mancino: Thank you. Farmakes moved, Mehl seconded that the Planning Commission table action on the Site Plan for Market Square III (#95-22 SPR) for further review. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mancino: So we will see this again when it's ready. 73 Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Farmakes moved, Meyer seconded to note the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated February 7, 1996 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Chairwoman Mancino closed the video portion of the Planning Commission meeting. There was open discussion to consider amending IOP, Industrial Office Pari( District to include auto sales. The public portion of the meeting was adjourned at 11:05 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 74 0ii ,i, l CITY of ....... _ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM To: Planning Commission From: Kate Aanenson, AICP, Planning Director Date: February 29, 1996 Subject: Seminary Site Please find attached a report from Steve Kirchman regarding a home at 1350 Flying Cloud Drive. This home is located on the seminary site. The home is served by an on-site sewer treatment system. The sewer system has failed and is leeching into the stream. The City Council did approve the order to vacate and repair or remove the hazardous. This item is for your information. The Seminary site is the most valuable environmental area in the city. We appreciate the Building Official's actions regarding protection of this resource. glplan\ka\seminary.pc 410 a OF CITY j11CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 C (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth,City Manager FROM: Steve A. Kirchman,Building Official (y0 THROUGH: Scott Harr,Public Safety Director DATE: February 21, 1996 SUBJECT: Order to vacate and repair or remove hazardous building The Carver County Sheriff's Office requested an inspection of a dwelling at 1350 Flying Cloud Drive on 2/14/96. The Inspections Division has determined it is a hazardous building and wishes to request the City Council to issue an order to vacate and repair or remove the building. Background: The dwelling is located on the site known as the seminary property. It is the middle building of the three dwellings on the property,and is served by an onsite sewage treatment system. The seminary building to the west is unoccupied, and the other single family dwelling to the east is occupied. A site plan of the property is attached(Attachment A)with the subject building clouded. There have been a number of inquiries over the years about redeveloping the property,but nothing is currently active with City staff. Analysis: Inspections Division staff performed inspections on two separate days (2/14/96 and 2/16/96) with the permission of the tenants. We were accompanied by officers from the Carver County Sheriff's Office and Chanhassen Public Safety Department. Violations too numerous to list separately were observed at both inspections. Pictures were taken on 2/16/96. and are attached (Attachments B1-B4). I have also included copies of our inspection reports(Attachments Cl-C3). Don Ashworth February 21, 1996 Page 2 Dangerous electrical code violations were observed which can easily result in a fire or electrocution. HVAC code violations were noted that could also result in a fire, explosion or carbon monoxide poisoning. Numerous plumbing code violations were also observed. These violations could result in disease or death due to inhaling methane gas. In addition to the plumbing violations inside the house, we observed an open trench directing untreated sewage into the stream to the north of the dwelling. Numerous attempts at remodeling(all without permits)have resulted in uncountable building code violations. These numerous violations make us fearful for the health and safety of the tenants. The violations are so extensive and numerous that, in my opinion, the dwelling should not continued to be occupied,nor should it be reoccupied until all corrections have been made and approved. I have spoken with the property owner, who tentatively agreed the dwelling should be vacated. Minnesota Statutes 463.15 through 463.261 (Attachment Dl-D7)provide for the abatement of hazardous and substandard buildings. MS 463.16 requires the governing body of the City to order the correction or removal of the building. I have enclosed an order drafted by the City Attorney (Attachment E). This order will insure that the dwelling is vacated as quickly as possible regardless of any action or inaction on the part of the owner. I believe that the City should act at once in this case to protect the tenants. Unfortunately the Council agenda on 2/26/96 is full. Accordingly,I would like to place this item on the consent agenda,and provide enough information in the packet to enable council approve the order without discussion. Recommendation: I recommend the City Council approve the order to the property owner directing the dwelling be vacated and repaired or removed. attachments: A, site plan B1-B4,pictures C l-C3,inspection reports D 1-D7,Minnesota Statutes 463.15-463.261 E 1-E3,order to vacate. F, resolution G-safe..sak memoswisc113 Wfdd , \ 1 \I\ \ -...:?.: .4,, 0 - 4 .....-•--,. • •, n • \N, it t . \ -'7U • /4: ,-----=---- " 2 Attachment I . . ,-V—v-- . \. 1z \ -..... •, 't , T • \ •- . r V c . .• „ - -..... -- 1 \\ .-----\-\-- ..... ,.--- '•,si \ -.. i • cry • f i ! If c;.. ) !, •I • \ -Z. "-•'•' o ,,•, --I'll .\ .."- t . \ ::, t 1:4 ver/f; {* , \ .3 Ilik - (-171 -0 1 \ Z• - ,\ 12 • .\ • \ ( ---,,„) , . , . / /141'1 //../ ( ,5 11' V • • if/ . ...t s'. - s'-r( \ r•-^) - \ 1,_ ,i', • ,--1,.'1'.. -• % . .. ' _ •__, . -i.--//— . ( (---- ' •• I _ :`'--• • , . ' , 1 t—A\ ', .1. \ , IF .)..,,. i \ '•' , .. .\ \\.. - ) ) ,.,., Attachment B 1 • .... vr. . ik • -- •• " '- .' . -- l'•irseallittt 0 - . t‘ ir f: 1 • ,r..::1111444.4.a‘l.-...:::,•:,•:,-,,,7,,,.t.15:0:,:.:i.ii-i,...„,_;),...,.. • -- .. ... ......,..-.--,..- -,?....", ..- Tr ,, ._,,..:-..-••,,, ,,...t At.....dw,-.1 - . -A 9PRI IMMI ._. !". 'I""..7'.:;,..'...'""fel".` -1_.:k;t4I'''''''.1..r"-'-- t'0 . i .7. • - N.-ie.:1=e=...,:.... , :' . •.1 , Mil ' ar-V;;;;? Itivk:a ..-,.. --:•':::----.--- r ..;, •:- iti. -• aatak t. ......S - • ar.:.:,...,...:— v tiv l'*2•-•‘.- * , -1 % •-•.•.,. • a-A i..ti-: •% . . No • . _ v --..a . , ... .:-••.".. I.-, I- -at. ,• a I. - • r-- ...6:a\--•- • 014.4,,, i _ ,, _ . .• .... .„1 , ... 114..t..i..; . • . fri. '''-' ...""""leZ. è • . ..1•7•'..,tv-7 . . - • r •••, "--i-:- •Ip , . - /.. . . •. _., •,, ,:•-.- - •-: i, ; ?i-,:-;;;:&,4,.k. . . 11.411 1 *. • . •,_-4i...*:,11 --—:-- ` ....... . 1 ., . .... r-- -! i 1 - f i........ W • Va. r.,---...oti: ..-.--.. .....— I • ,v- ..;.---,!- . . _ • F„...„..,-, ,,, _ .,, I.-,!, 7,. -.; ..,.. t--.... .. .. ID. 1 , _ , iii,,,,..„. . _ , ,_. • ,,,,,_:„........ ., . . ....:....... ,:s.„....i.,,,e41- -!..,.41; ._:-.., . . - - ' . :-. .,.-- 7 .--T-,..0 _ _.__._..,.. . .t, . ._ . .. .. t -4.' . _ • .1 ., ......-_ •.., . . , r el..1 Z.i kfiilt I 2.• z-7.41:10,4`;:f :' . 6 - , T•Jwit,t• •. '• -.---.,4•7.0."'" . • • 6 Si Ali' I e r4)•*)*-r-f: 4, • - • .• -" il • .4 il All --.:).":. ,1 . I -'" ... --I. ;;4•.-4!..:::1-4 t'e f Z- ... t -' ::- : ______- - 1 4 .1 r;:--: . •' ., ....:,..1 1 4, .(... ;.!-_, •,17:,-,, - i -7--- - .......„.....„:1_1....;:. 1..il:::•.`.‘! • Ill . . 1 11.4'it. : .- IF 2. •• .. •.i - . -1 1 .) • • , • $ • _ _ • • • • I . I : '• - ----ier,:r"--7, --22.-.• $.4•• ,,...,:•,a-..__- •=-7,.. .. ,... , .. - I --t ii•-44;47.'62-.4e.a41-i'si-14-75-14::•.-7.:-. •••• •...:-•?-, --,,----------- - -.„.-c it • t• I VI. '...1(•.-' - 11•71: . - ellhk...... ... 174 'di - ; ., i ..4.. • . / = . . •.- - ..,.. 11.1::,;.....-t....,,,,,,...„.,54,"....1....,,,,..-____4! . ii , •,.•-4,)A.!.I.114\ -s-: -,r-,- . ..,,•,.. ./ - iiiittd1 • 4 -•• ..IP ril.4,-4.,,,,,.4v4; __.er --- i-ilfillali .. . ..- . ,..... . .-,:-.;.:::•..0.1 il,;.•- if 4 . I I • _ " • v r Pi#i..;,- - - : a . 1 ...... • . - - - 0,,..,e--... • \•": ,-. • +4,_ 4? .- ... •••:‘-;:- I, t.:.-ilia, -(324 ......„ -.. .. . , • . ..: -...„, ••4.c .5..:::_ \‘. \ '., 4 .t_ ,-.J.,:, -- Li--t..“----.' ••-- .. . . ... 411.- •. ''.4:.1 •--- - . •....54. \: \ . :- - ' j t•... .,... ...: 1Zei . --.•/ ..- -.4. - , - 1 ø;c.. , - '• •;- N • 1.. .. ._ • .....:-.:0-- Ta.-- a-f•- .-- '' '1 - i ..••Ll_ .. „, • ilt. 4:,,:.\\\,177..,,, . _,- . •• • Ni," - ,.. .-....,-,•••A . ,* ..-- .. . N. ' .. . . - 1 i .. ‘ - •':- • .. 'ter- ' ,4t-t.• . . ..-... , - - -.,..,.....t7-14 ,b, - i • 4 .-. . . . . — . 11 A-1.-i...,..,,,,,.-Vi.., .I.-, ': ii•,..... ,.,...j., . - .._ t -"'"I.,,,,1";:--1.....''..-? ,- 1. • 4.1 . A. \ .-..24* - :-4 ''''''' '-' .• •-•- 7t'11.4V.-... ‘ :s . :,''. . ...:t:e.f.' :'':;.-- - • . - .•-.7 . .......11-..-:L.-. '''!*../".....•; • . li. ' -'- ' •;k '',44 • • 41-:' ; '••• -;• ...--..,.. .•.$............... . 4,4AN _s;.• .1 ... . •. ,,:-.,par..71;•A'7••,. ,-' . / ..,i.1.-...,'.t...., 4 1:ffi-,. : —11 . ... . • 7.___ • _ .... ,...,., ,,,- ...:_.,....._ _,......„ ,, . . :I • • .... • O. . B c . . Attachment B rt J' �. �''. '-l Ili .r` ,..,.ti,� lieot ,_ y i , .‘. '''r1. -----.. -41..--. 4it y�- ,` t ,,� a � f �—:�� z1. 14 . " .-.- • r r '11, a .1 s .r. _ 3 li . �. • L a B2b -t.-.... y's fir' f ,.....---"•........-1.•.:,‘,....- • el. p,.. Ta ��.r� 1 �i , 7 A -te - . ' _ , .. :- --z-ax---t.-'7.-,".„74-,. � _ I [ 'f-: _.x - 7---e.•. 1 �"AS -..-'.0. ,.-1.S ,-.0..".-r...,.:.'„0.-•."•F • -•-'• a f ..' _'..r..-1-..--..4:444.114..- �•5• - ' �� - 1f+fit-S��n."w M- r �M . B • --- ' -If ;• ' • - -•• - - :., ;:„.:;: ... . . • ; -- i ; f.-; .. _: : .. . . . . . • -- At..-'iP . • . 1 i 1.,,.-_.... -....-: ...,.... . fs.,f...._1 ... - - ,....:.--;;;!&.• ,,:..--;c. ,.,/,'.. ,.1 :i.',,,:-:,!:47-,:._. ,„-::4,,-„,-;.-7' •. rt:..,-. . .... ...., .7=':•:•,.7'.‘L. • t.' •,',.... ' •.'i•-: . ••••'•:.:,t'.,,.'•-‘c.' r . , . . .., r • - - . . ..7.7• yi•. . a- ,...--,f,,. A',-.......,.4i.:-..3;.,:..; • — ' / ' - • :6.„.. ..,..,..,....-,... . . •.... ..z,..• n. • I. '',4,7;•`': .:. II .. ':11:?.ri ' a1 t A • " ; -4, ,'!i'r....• •• I.- '' • • . . . .!. ......111r...1 ei• •-. : :. 1 • . '1.-.....••• . . .•. ! -• r: . ;r\ i -•- •-' .-, ,--.. • . . ••• • • - ---• . -7•4 '. -' ' ..,..c. •;. . .. - •• .....,- • --. -..-.....: i i ' . -..- -7-.7,1 - - -. •• .r.,-, 4,,,..--........". . - $ : ,,,-:-.1.,-_ , .,:: . •.-. a,. ...., - li • , : 4,-- ,,:, 1,,,,-•ii - ,At. i ..'c ,',,• •..._.:: . . 40 j, ..kv..2i.z. ' 3 •• •-• -••• •• P,-, • .: , . •) i - - , ••,........, • , - . -y . i,-- .----.:- .1---.--;•.F.' • .." 0: . . .. - 4.---:!.. ) '"I it, ' ,,•,,,.:..f.- . . :,,t, • . „. . .. - . 4- .. . / . ,.1 •'! . - -•' . . , '7-7-.Ill • • ' .' . ,-.7...,_1•;If_ 1 i .;.:,:;,,;.,,'•.-....t ...;,. : •t. • -} I,- • •• ... . .. .: .. • •.... • - -"4: ", • -• -,,::,:...•• a, - •it.; .f•• Ai_I• - Ii ••...-.,... - . . •• •••••'..2 in •. ••• ••• 1 -..: :; •- -I.Z-••,••-- • .. - .. , ......,..,...-; • . ..--,•• - ,..›,,t.,441-*I-•ri-•••:;1 i . .-• , • • ., .....--_,•47•-•-•-•c - •--I ,./ .-•.: --•,•_= •:-....:-41-r•'I: i •' -' '. • d•-I.'-- -'-'-' •'•••• -'"'"--4 .--- .:.,.. _- • z,...,1-,..--•. • . ' , .....''''-••..-f,a.:.,:3"--',1*.,..q.--;:.".A".-2..1.:It:.:..: : sr" ,-,i, •-• - .4...-i,-,-.--... -.. _ -, fb,,•1-,..:-- -----.--:,-,-:,-;:.•-:... .:„-, ... , 0:, ...........„ -•-• ..,... k.,......., „...,-.... B3b 7. a . I. If... , : . • •.: -... • : : . ,•• ,... • ,• :: .... . i - I• i - ..-1,-,;.i. ,----- - ••I.._-:...f•-".,••• :-.... 4,• - --- .•. . . , - , .• • t . . • . i,' '• • ',' •. "-- .:---'-7.;-,---!.'—a'.'.-i.7-114'''." -• lt.''7-' ----' -...... „ • . .ri • ',/.i I. [Cf/ 11. .1 -- ' 1- • •. .. ....• • - - • 4.1 .- - \ 3 ' .. k. -,..= .. - ' -----. •,a.&IP. -- " - .e. " . ..1110• l' • ' •--....:.,-,"-, ':1 n_• --s )1 ,i.v7014Trz:.--r. hkr 7••,„;,,. .. .,.„ • „_,,,-4.., .. -7:....--:0":1'.:.; • .744•7" 407,..450.--•''1 14. ! ...._- ......., 151, •• -' .' -.•.`:.*,..:1::, III• f.--•1 t 1 : I • 6 . a,,_.. i . _ ...... „...: - . -„,..,_-_4--. - w., 10. , , `•:-1f:,,Litieg. , ..4-1 . E..-..t . ._ , ..,, _.........._.. , • --- 1 I-1 ._,. -_ - • -•',:z''=••-• • •-•-• • --.••••-, 44.:'1,1_ 1,_ - t ,) • ;44 -,---.:__-_ , ,--, , _ ...r.. „, .... ...„........„, .• .4 • .-ri-1,14'7, T7::71,0 -- _ • . -ct 1,...,1 --,;•.--g24,z4 li:7-:•-•.-1.. , i -.•-• . --..-.,....,....1%. ii. -._. c..-..._-- :_:_ . ... sm3h-um 1 . mil 1 • ,; 'f'. r...74-.1..j,,-7.4'- i,r!',..--,...-;-. 1 11 A J.,:-;.:1-_ ,E,.._ , , '- - - '' -.. ' .*7-.• ,-'.• • aii. -.,'"."-- r-•• .••,.. ' .“ ... !'ki fi -tif,:.?...:A•A.,..!.' _ . . I • ' -I •••-•: .••.:10" " -.. -.. . , fi.;„:. . A --- --",""••`•••••••••-----I- • -,- .,,-,-. •-.•'-v7II-I-:. : .. , . ,. I.. .. , . • •'• - • i ---7.-ii.;. ••• • •. . . i- , , -• ,.I•.•• -v,".t. ... .•• I . L . ,r.-• .. imp.. ,- - . ,.. 46 . - 4 I'.. .' r1 _ — — • , If. :.i0, • • . .,• ., . - . v i B3d ,.. . -- c Attachment E --"—•-•"-Ii‘z,:2_:- ___-.. _ , Av- '• 1 , i 1 1.i li --... 11. •..... i ...• 1 r.,• • Ik, - I . / 1 ....,. .......d.• . ,. ....Axil). ..3 •-,'.i..:-. 11P,S1..... ; . f 1 $ 4 li- . ' ... 3:. •I"0-.;,,i I , - ...• 741'' -- - - •I-.-.1 .' • ....,.., 4 t'.4....:7::- •'4-' I. • . " ' ..• •2/61,1".., '.... •._.-,...._ - lZr. '-‘...5.A e.-- Jeri",• • . - . . ',...... +.•...-"..m.L•44Alk..... ...‘11.-7.-,.4•00 t•.' . • I L ri;te xi . -* ',--•:-.:;. --.«. 1-. ; ..1 -Ai:• •„„. . . .-74. sz,..: • . 1.--- .s.'.7....i '• .."' .... . •l 'IL..--.:::.4; -111 • ' _ 0 l).:••11% i' '.- ' :15114.%• ..... i 7 L.:N. •-... ...1,.; .•-•'s - .,...-"---... lik:1 • " -.7., AP...- .. •..., 1-1--- - _ - „ -. __. _ ....:.••, .1 - .„e- - • , - • ..k I's 4. •4.1.-... ""•'.. . , • -\ '• • • _Ail. .4,-- - . • --. ...di e• ii, - . . .- fr• ir' •... " ar / • -• - ,-. _ : . • ...' • • ..___,.•-. i - . , .... ‘ . _ .. • — 4 • 44• 0.0,'•P•--''''.. .IoI"'i /, ..A1.•1,- 1...'..,- • ••• Ji. • -- - _ 2.' ' -'• - - .- r • -•• t /-4111P ...-. . • ,. .., ...... ...1., .... -_ ... . •• . - - 41 --' af-•••7 i'lls• ..i . •/Vt. • - t-..1.,t../ •:•,::',. ..-za...:\.Ali( ., .• - . ,-.. • . .6.4 : it - ....--f, ..,........-._,2.. •.1,.......,, 44-•;..--.4-4‘.. --- - , 7. . ., „. .., . ,.....-- • . .,-t......„ _• ..,...... - . .e..- ,--- : ,,o- • . -......„,,...i• ....- • • . .. .,,,,,........-N, . ._ • - •,, • •„.,.. ' ,/, 1 . •-_-•:..„..,._.-.4. - : 47% . IM -. - 4-:i- 'els - - -' - • ' - ..• ' e ,--if.Lik r. —. -'-'-`=--s---. '' • , . • - --.. • ih, - .- -. ...,,,• ... ..p_ ..r......-.,....,, F. - .., ..,0...... .....,„ Qr.,...,..--.no ii.rwor......,.••• •s• • . f . - -• -"M.-. ' "-r: -'-....... 31171• N's ---• •IfOitt-41-.. . .-460;•-•_•7.-:— ,,,.. ,- - ,.•:-....4. .. lie4t.-4,-- , N•1-.. — .,„ . . • - 77:4.•;1 fits.0,1-:•• *,... 3-- ,' ..: .".,,„ %-1.iic . •"c•:* .- - ''.•• r.,1.1%-`-• .. ,, , ..... - . . ... . . • . ...- - ...,,,A , . • . -,.. : '•': • •1,- :•tio.M431F•div• ..,........a.„-,., ,fh,.... .., , -..,-•-• : . - .. • -• •p.„••,x): is • 01,4-4,11...-J. -.- r---_-• RV *4 .r• . ti, t. . • ,• . . 1 '1'. •- s • .4.--', ,- Y t . • .. ,..x.—• --• .1,......Z-.-:.1:-.1..•', •,:- -'','-i , - I ..-- •• ..,•,.. .-.—•-.-;--...,:-----;••., •:-__-. --.- -1. --,.,, it 1 w1/4 le- • t - ..•.- .„.. ,•v , ...% , • , ..1`.114 •7 '.4•47:4acsi••- -•• t• r....- • .---.!ii,--•-- 414 1,..,. ....,..,.,•__._ , •. t. ,...., .0111,,,.. . . • ...4.11,...„.„.. „--..:..„.?„..,......, . . • 44 • ZiP ... •- ..i.. ".......r..`"t".: 7 ..i&_-1,4*KAr•,- . . _,.... ',. • .:,.. -I,41jigi.Z.Z.'1 ,11,7---•.. ;yr, - :. .i_,&-, • _ .1111C*".. ' . -. ',. '.., L... 164 0111P4.•,ttp..•: '1 - f i X ."- . .1 ' II• • .1k '.::.:... ...*..g ,Iss ,r,-.-y: .1..z.•'„,.._..„.: -,—; .071'1 • - . •%., • ii•G“...„." .S.,',...Se•-ill''' •• i2,,- .1 s • . ' "L •" . ' , -.. .1":..... '1. .ras7.., . . .- ... ... ,.....„. : • . ,..• ir,- ,,.. ,•-.4,... Lii . _- ...., •7.......„...--.„.- : " t„ I ;:-Nr— % - I • =,' ,,eq. -.,... .2 1 - •1 1 , _. 'IkXr ....... tl. ..1, •• • ..-- •-• . •. I*. ... • 4:,.i - ! '-k 11 ., -•.... • , li . . . • . - • • • i ''- 4-'''--..*- . • . 10 '''•••,...L/I• ''•-• - . ' . a .-.. _ • A,. . ' _AA-• . . .- . , 14.: '• I ,x Iiii' I/ .t- . '`4 s s •-, . .' ?.4:• - .-. .....t...„ . 1-- . -"ik ••-'...-; • . • •• t s. •st- t ‘f s , _•'. .e. .410,.. - ...,. lo.4 . ......... ••.: . -.: - - ,-, - - , . . .., N. • ---- ...._ • ". N ' .. . ..,--••••-..... .....,- .. ,•• _ • . ...... \ 1 Is • .s ..N . .1' -‘.. •• . \1!. B4d ib.. _. ill• .g..,.. 1.k•-• , •1... /Ill ..44P ,. • --''' ----- \ 1 1 • ' • .._ > Nittillilia, : 4c 1 Cl INSPECTION REPORT CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 937.190(1 kj(i5INSPECTION FOR DATE kr\TILf\F"-- TIME & DATE INSPECTION DESIRED 'Q 1341.1MIT ADDRESS t� -(] �� C lr (J�() NO. AY/— CONTRACTOR TAKEN BY: WATER METER NO. Q eiJi-e/5 - (M 6 "\- REMOTE NO. � , , � (Cti Z 6 LOCATION (A)e1 ov\ S �i- CORRECTIONS -t1(e. 54 /du n fr)(c.„.. (J-(-) P-E-43 _ z (-U cvS�. � � �� mss uLM�-�� Tz, 0.-N- Pm-kr r st_ (4) ,�/' c vk.A, e YT Erec :E6ea -4) c,Ott47NrC ` -6).r3 r,,.1 ;1, k y -Wren( A .L _L. I. . 5 k c . t: cur(( C4 (( ML5c (Vs t:i ) z-) t .– N 110�sL.. u fikfe If no corrections are listed above, approval is hereby given to proceed. You will be in violation of the ordinance if you do not call for the proper inspections and make cor- rection as called for. ( 9 (4' 3 -. 57— Date Time Inspector r>0 0 5 le.1) � 15 0 C' INSPECTION REPORT CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 937-1 00 6),K6C-i-1-1`Th1-5 INSPECTION FOR ----Ii‘riSiejA'" D1110 U6 ATE TIME TIME & DATE INSPECTION DESIRED ADDRESS '.-i—) ‘57v -Fti EVIG C(O�j,4, P RMIT NO. J CONTRACTORRSCLA - — C �- t ,� TAKEN BY: a 60/1/4121- • WATER METER NO. y �ti ,� 5L-C( -Ty\ , JOT (,GLJ 5 l VY.c-A.— � t REMOTE NO. •_ • •- "-- V • `t./ ai_ ° . ► +/t ' {,‘ LOCATION -T` G1/4„--7-4y . ..."-74. vµ Q 9 c\o e-o V.2"--- Owl._ty - l'A.Jok(J. ' CORRECJ1S 1 -Q m Le)-47 (1" ‘ Wd . cc(ct 5 "-J 7 -. (,.0,( z_c D( --f_Av\i s 1 � 4,),%_..4 N-L-,- k),-_, c,J---- ((. Wk-,L 1 Pk(3J ,- 0,c,, ,, c,,4,4___ u_,-,) (,�,Lis • J PJ c-.6 cvA-c2_ .1-- 4,2 45L-1:1(J-iv\-5 5 Osr kli•-e-% k-e re,CI 1-6t,j ej, (._ rh, I k-E +0 dd-c, ,,e_ 2,/-0,,, l/1 ti l�t If no corrections are listed above, a proval is hereby given to proceed. You will be in violation of the ordinance.if you do not call for the proper inspections and make cor- rection as called for. (76r( /.7)(2 ate me • I nspector C3 INSPECTION REPORT CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 937-1900 r/� INSPECTION FOR&* DATE TIME TIME & DATE INSPECTION DESIRED /*C`-' ADDRESS f7y/l/ C/Ce-c/D. MIT NO. CONTRACTOR TAKEN BY: -R\NN... WATER METER NO. REMOTE NO. LOCATION CORRECTIONS 74c /ion f /7g//;1S - % egCAid cs e - If no corrections are listed above,.approval is hereby given to proceed. You will be in violation of the ordinance if you do not call for the proper inspections and make cor- rection as called for. Date Time Inspector D CHAPTER 463 BUILDING LINE EASEMENTS; BUILDING REGULATIONS; AND HAZARDOUS BUILDINGS HAZARDOUS AND SUBSTANDARD BUILDINGS 463.15 Definitions. 463.151 Removal by municipality; consent; cost. 463.152 Exercise of eminent domain. 463.16 Repair or removal of hazardous building; hazardous property conditions. 463.161 Abatement. 463.17 The order. 463.18 Answer. 463.19 Default cases. 463.20 Contested cases. 463.21 Enforcement of judgment. 463.22 Statement of moneys received. 463.23 Payment, tender, deposit in court. 463.24 Personal property or fixtures. 463.25 Hazardous excavations. 463.251 Securing vacant buildings. 463.26 Local acts and charter provisions. 463.261 Relocation benefits. HAZARDOUS AND SUBSTANDARD BUILDINGS 463.15 DEFINITIONS. Subdivision 1. Coverage. For purposes of sections 463.15 to 463.26 the terms defined in this section have the meanings given them. Subd. 2. Building. "Building" includes any structure or part of a structure. Subd. 3. Hazardous building or hazardous property. "Hazardous building or hazardous property" means any building or property, which because of inadequate maintenance, dilapidation, physical damage, unsanitary condition, or abandonment, constitutes a fire hazard Cr a hazard to public safety or health. Subd. 4. Owner, owner of record, and lien holder of record. "Owner," "owner of record, " and "lien holder of record" means a person having a right or interest in property described in subdivision 3 and evidence of which is filed and recorded in the office of the county recorder or registrar of titles in the county in which the property is situated. HIST: 1965 c 393 s 1; 1967 c 324 s 1; 1976 c 181 s 2; 1989 c 328 art 6 s 5,6 CITY OF CHANHASSr=;'J 6'90 COULTER DR(VE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 32 (612) 937-1900 ____-- _ S D2 F' 463.151 REMOVAL BY MUNICIPALITY; CONSENT; COST. The governing body of any city or town may remove or raze s•_' any hazardous building or remove or correct any hazardous Yr condition of real estate upon obtaining the consent in writing of all owners of record, occupying tenants, and all lien holders of record; the cost shall be charged against the real estate as provided in section 463.21, except the governing body may provide that the cost so assessed may be paid in not to exceed five equal annual installments with interest thereon, at eight percent per annum. HIST: 1967 c 324 s 2; 1974 c 341 s 1 463.152 EXERCISE OF EMINENT DOMAIN. Subdivision 1. Purpose, public interest. In order to maintain a sufficient supply of adequate, safe, and sanitary housing and buildings used for living, commercial, industrial, or other purposes or any combination of purposes, it is found that the public interest requires that municipalities be authorized to acquire buildings, real estate on which buildings are located, or vacant or undeveloped real estate which are • found to be hazardous within the meaning of section 463.15, subdivision 3, and the acquisition of such buildings and real estate is hereby declared to be a public purpose. • Subd. 2. Acquisition; procedure. In furtherance of the public policy declared in subdivision 1, the governing body of any city or town may acquire any hazardous building, real estate on which any such building is located, or vacant or undeveloped real estate by eminent domain in the manner provided • by chapter 117. HIST: 1974 c 341 s 3; 1976 c l s 140 463.16 REPAIR OR REMOVAL OF HAZARDOUS BUILDING; HAZARDOUS PROPERTY CONDITIONS. The governing body of any city or town may order the owner of any hazardous building or property within the municipality to • • correct or remove the hazardous condition of the building or • property or to raze or remove the building. HIST: 1965 c 393 s 2; 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7; 1989 c 328 art 6 s 7 463.161 ABATEMENT. In the manner prescribed in section 463.21 the governing body of any city or town may correct or remove the hazardous • condition of any hazardous building or property; the cost of which shall be charged against .the real estate as provided in section 463.21 except the governing body may provide that the cost so assessed may be paid in not to exceed five equal annual installments with interest therein, at eight percent per annum. HIST: 1974 c 341 s 2; 1989 c 328 art 6 s 8 • 33 • D 463.17 THE ORDER. Subdivision 1. Contents. The order shall be in writing; recite the grounds therefor; specify the necessary repairs, if any, and provide a reasonable time for compliance; and shall state that a motion for summary enforcement of the order will be made to the district court of the county in which the hazardous building or property is situated unless corrective action is taken, or unless an answer is filed within the time specified in section 463.18. Subd. 2. Service. The order shall be served upon the owner of record, or the owner's agent iE an agent is in charge of the building or property, and upon the occupying tenant, if there is one, and upon all lien holders of record, in the manner provided for service of a summons in a civil action. If the owner cannot be found, the order shall be served upon the owner by posting it at the main entrance to the building or, if there is no building, in a conspicuous place on the property, and by four weeks' publication in the official newspaper of the municipality if it has one, otherwise in a legal newspaper in the county. Subd. 3. Filing. A copy of the order with proof of service shall be filed with the court administrator of district court of the county in which the hazardous building or property is located not less than five days prior to the filing of a motion pursuant to section 463.19 to enforce the order. At the time of filing such order the municipality shall file for record with the county recorder or registrar of titles a notice of the pendency of the proceeding, describing with reasonable certainty the lands affected and the nature of the order. If the proceeding be abandoned the municipality shall within ten days thereafter file with the county recorder a notice to that effect. HIST: 1965 c 393 s 3; 1976 c 181 s 2; 1986 c 444; 1Sp1986 c 3 art 1 s 82; 1989 c 328 art 6 s 9 463.18 ANSWER. Within 20 days from the date of service, any person upon whom the order is served may serve an answer in the manner provided for the service of an answer in a civil action, specifically denying such facts in the order as are in dispute. HIST: 1965 c 393 s 4 463.19 DEFAULT CASES. If no answer is served, the governing body may move the court for the enforcement of the order. If such a motion is made the court may, upon the presentation of such evidence as it may require, affirm or modify the order and enter judgment accordingly, fixing a time after which the governing body may proceed with the enforcement of the order. The court administrator shall cause a copy of the judgment to be mailed forthwith to persons upon whom the original order was served. 34 D4 HIST: 1965 c 393 s 5; 1Sp1986 c 3 art 1 s 82 463.20 CONTESTED CASES. If an answer is filed and served as provided in section 463.18, further proceedings in the action shall be governed by the Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts, except that the action has priority over all pending civil actions and shall be tried forthwith. If the order is sustained following the trial, the court shall enter judgment and shall fix a time after which the building must be destroyed or repaired or the hazardous condition removed or corrected, as the case may be, in compliance with the order as originally filed or modified by the court. If the order is not sustained, it shall be annulled and set aside. The court administrator of the court shall cause a copy of the judgment to be mailed forthwith to the persons upon whom the original order was served. HIST: 1965 c 393 s 6; 1Sp1986 c 3 art 1 s 82; 1989 c 328 art 6 s 10 463.21 ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT. If a judgment is not complied with in the time prescribed, the governing body may cause the building to be repaired, razed, or removed or the hazardous condition to be removed or corrected as set forth in the judgment, or acquire the building, if any, and real estate on which the building or hazardous condition is located by eminent domain as provided in section 463.152. The cost of the repairs, razing, correction, or removal may be: a lien against the real estate on which the building is located or the hazardous condition exists, or recovered by obtaining a judgment against the owner of the real estate on which the building is located or the hazardous condition exists. A lien may be levied and collected only as a special assessment in the manner provided by Minnesota Statutes 1961, sections 429.061 to 429.081, but the assessment is payable in a single installment. When the building is razed or removed by the municipality, the governing body may sell the salvage and valuable materials at public auction upon three days' posted notice. HIST: 1965 c 393 s 7; 1974 c 341 s 4; 1989 c 328 art 3 s 3 463.22 STATEMENT OF MONEYS RECEIVED. The municipality shall keep an accurate account of the expenses incurred in carrying out the order and of all other expenses theretofore incurred in connection with its enforcement, including specifically, but not exclusively, filing fees, service fees, publication fees, attorney's fees, appraisers' fees, witness fees, including expert witness fees, and traveling expenses incurred by the municipality from the time the order was originally made, and shall credit thereon the amount, if any, received from the sale of the salvage, or building or structure, and shall report its action under the 35 D' order, with a statement of moneys received and expenses incurred to the court for approval and allowance. Thereupon the court shall examine, correct, if necessary, and allow the expense account, and, if the amount received Erom the sale of the salvage, or of the building or structure, does not equal or exceed the amount of expenses as allowed, the court shall by its judgment certify the deficiency in the amount so allowed to the municipal clerk for collection. The owner or other party in interest shall pay the same, without penalty added thereon, and in default of payment by October 1, the clerk shall certify the amount of the expense to the county auditor for entry on the tax lists of the county as a special charge against the real estate on which the building or hazardous condition is or was situated and the same shall be collected in the same manner as other taxes and the amount so collected shall be paid into the municipal treasury. If the amount received for the sale of the salvage or of the building or structure exceeds the expense incurred by the municipality as allowed by the court, and if there are no delinquent taxes, the court shall direct the payment of the surplus to the owner or the payment of the same into court, as provided in sections 463.15 to 463.26. If there are delinquent taxes against the property, the court shall direct the payment of the surplus to the county treasurer to be applied on such taxes. HIST: 1965 c 393 s 8; 1974 c 329 s 1; 1989 c 328 art 6 s 11 463.23 PAYMIT, TENDER, DEPOSIT IN COURT. The net proceeds of a sale under section 463.21 or section 463.24 shall be paid to persons designated in the judgment in the proportions as their interests shall appear therein. Acceptance of such payment shall be taken as a waiver of all objections to the payment and to the proceedings leading thereto on the part of the payee and of all persons for whom the payee is lawfully empowered to act. In case any party to whom a payment of damages is made be not a resident of the state, or the place of residence be unknown, or the party be an infant or other person under legal disability, or, being legally capable, refuses to accept payment, or if for any reason it be doubtful to whom any payment should be paid, the municipality may pay the same to the clerk, to be paid out under the direction of the court; and, unless an appeal be taken such deposit with the clerk shall be deemed a payment of the award. HIST: 1965 c 393 s 9; 1986 c 444 463.24 PERSONAL PROPERTY OR FIXTURES. If any building ordered razed, removed, or made safe and sanitary by repairs contains personal property or fixtures which will unreasonably interfere with the razing, removal, or repair of such building, or if the razing or removal of the building makes necessary the removal of such personal property or 36 • • D6 Fixtures, the original order of the governing body may direct the removal of such personal property or fixtures within a reasonable time. If the property or fixtures are not removed by the time specified, and the governing body subsequently desires to enforce a judgment under sections 463.15 to 463.26, it may sell the same at public auction as provided in section 463.21, or if without appreciable value, the governing body may destroy the same. HIST: 1965 c 393 s 10 463.25 HAZARDOUS EXCAVATIONS. If in any city, an excavation for building purposes is left open for more than six months without proceeding with the erection of a building thereon, whether or not completed, or if any excavation or basement is not filled to grade or otherwise protected after a building is destroyed, demolished or removed, the governing body may order such excavation to be filled or protected or in the alternative that erection of a building begin forthwith if the excavation is for building purposes. The order shall be served upon the owner or the owner's agent in the manner provided by section 463.17. If the owner of the land fails to comply with the order within 15 days after the order is served, the governing body shall cause the excavation to be filled to grade or protected and the cost shall be charged against the real estate as provided in section 463.21. HIST: 1965 c 393 s 11; 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7; 1986 c 444 463.251 SECURING VACANT BUILDINGS. If in any city a building becomes vacant or unoccupied and is deemed hazardous due to the fact that the building is open to trespass and has not been secured and the building could be made safe by securing the building, the governing body may order the • building secured and shall cause notice of the order to be served upon the owner of record of the premises or the owner's agent by delivering or mailing a copy to the owner or agent at the last known address. Service by mail is complete upon mailing. If the owner of the building fails to comply with the order within ten days after the order is served, the governing body shall cause the building to be properly secured and the cost thereof may be charged against the real estate as provided in section 463.21. HIST: 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7; 1973 c 520 s 1; 1986 c 444 463.26 LOCAL ACTS AND CEARTII2 PROVISIONS. Sections 463.15 to 463.26 are supplementary to other statutory and charter provisions and do not limit the authority of any city to enact and enforce ordinances on the same subject. HIST: 1965 c 393 s 12; 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7 37 D' 463.261 RELOCATION BENEFITS. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 117.56, or any other law to the contrary, all acquisitions of buildings and real estate upon which buildings are located by governmental subdivisions pursuant to the exercise of the power of eminent domain as provided in section 463.152 shall be acquisitions for the purposes of sections 117.50 to 117.56. HIST: 1974 c 341 s 5; 1976 c 2 s 141 • t tl 38 •• CAMPBELL , KNUTSON , SCOTT & FUCHS , P . A Feb 22 ,96 12 : 17 No .006 P . 02 El STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF CARVER SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT CASE TYPE: Other Civil Court File No. In Re the Matter of Repair or Removal of a Hazardous Building Condition at 1350 Flying Cloud Drive, ORDER TO REPAIR OR City of Chanhassen, Carver County, REMOVE HAZARDOUS BUILDING Minnesota TO: Mr. Arnold Feinberg, Chanhassen Springs Company, 4725 Excelsior Blvd., St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55417. PLEASE BE ADVISED that pursuant to order of the Chanhassen City Council and by authority of Minnesota Statutes Section 463.15 et seq., you have twenty (20) days from the date of service of this Order upon you, to remedy the hazardous condition of your building situated on property at 1350 Flying Cloud Drive, in the City of Chanhassen, County of Carver, State of Minnesota, legally described as follows: That part of the North Half of the Southwest Quarter and the North Half of South Half of the Southwest Quarter all in Section 35, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of said Southwest Quarter; thence North 1 degree 34 minutes 02 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the west line of said Southwest Quarter 884.38 feet; thence North 74 degrees 43 minutes 56 seconds East 336.82 feet; thence North 2 degrees 12 minutes 12 seconds East 919.92 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence on a bearing of South 79 degrees 28 minutes 50 seconds East 828.54 feet; thence North 88 degrees 00 minutes 05 seconds East 44.88 feet; thence South 87 degrees 23 minutes 31 seconds East 78.04 feet; thence North 80 degrees 55 minutes 13 seconds East 67.88 feet; thence North 89 degrees 17 minutes 18 seconds East 49.82 feet; thence South 88 degrees 10 minutes 29 seconds East 35032 CAMPBELL . KNUTSON , SCOTT & FUCHS , P .A Feb 22 , 96 12 : 17 No .006 P . 03 E2 35.89 feet; thence South 42 degrees 02 minutes 37 seconds East 49.26 feet; thence North 86 degrees 31 minutes 24 seconds East 44.94 feet; thence South 88 degrees 23 minutes 32 seconds East 39.68 feet; thence South 55 degrees 13 minutes 12 seconds East 30.40 feet; thence South 46 degrees 21 minutes 41 seconds East 79.25 feet; thence South 86 degrees 27 minutes 14 seconds East 17.46 feet; thence North 87 degrees 38 minutes 09 seconds East 15.82 feet; thence South 5 degrees 36 minutes 37 seconds East 28.44 feet; thence South 48 degrees 56 minutes 15 seconds East 34.76 feet; thence South 12 degrees 10 minutes 35 seconds West 24.33 feet; thence South 87 degrees 07 minutes 12 seconds East 95.09 feet; thence North 50 degrees 57 minutes 02 seconds East 51.68 feet; thence South 50 degrees 21 minutes 21 seconds East 55.88 feet; thence North 57 degrees 28 minutes 34 seconds East 67.28 feet; thence South 79 degrees 59 minutes 47 seconds East 45.76 feet; thence North 32 degrees 49 minutes 05 seconds East 18.99 feet; thence North 28 degrees 32 minutes 31 seconds West 24.87 feet; thence North 18 degrees 40 minutes 11 seconds East 43.65 feet; thence North 62 degrees 35 minutes 06 seconds East 40.46 feet; thence South 64 degrees 04 minutes 42 seconds East 67.56 feet; thence South 32 degrees 12 minutes 40 seconds East 53.46 feet; thence South 28 degrees 17 minutes 10 seconds East 42.43 feet; thence South 88 degrees 53 minutes 35 seconds East 25.82 feet; to the northwesterly line of State Highway No. 212; thence southwesterly along said northwesterly line to its intersection with a line bearing South 2 degrees 12 minutes 12 seconds West from the point of beginning; thence North 2 degrees 12 minutes 12 seconds East 877.98 feet to the point of beginning. The house as it is presently situated constitutes a health, safety, and fire hazard to the residents of the City of Chanhassen. If you fail to remedy the situation the City will seek permission from the District Court for the City to do so and that you immediately vacate the premises. The City will move the District Court for summary enforcement of this Order pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 463.19 unless you remedy the situation with said twenty (20) day period or unless an answer is filed within twenty (20) days of service of this Order upon you. Upon enforcement 35032 2 CAMPBELL , KNUTSON , SCOTT & FUCHS , P . A Feb 2296 12 : 18 No .006 P .04 E3 of the Order by the City, the cost will be charged against the property pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 463.21. Dated: 1996. CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A. BY: ROGER N. KNUTSON, #57186 Chanhassen City Attorneys 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, Minnesota 55121 (612) 452-5000 ACKNIQWLEDGMENT The City of Chanhassen, by and through its undersigned attorneys, acknowledges that costs, disbursements and reasonable attorney and witness fees may be awarded to the opposing party or parties pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 549.21, Subd. 2. Dated: , 1996. ROGER N. KNUTSON, #57186 35032 3 CAMPBELL , KNUTSON , SCOTT 8, FUCHS , P .A Feb 22 ,96 12 :28 No .007 P .02 F CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chanhassen has attempted without success to have the owner of certain property repair it; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the property constitutes a hazardous building within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes Section 463.15, Subd. 3. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen: 1. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 463.17 et seq., the City hereby adopts and approves the Order attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 2. The City's legal counsel, Roger N. Knutson, Campbell, Knutson, Scott & Fuchs, P.A., 317 Eagandale Office Center, 1380 Corporate Center Curve, Eagan, Minnesota 55121, is directed to serve the Order and to proceed with enforcement in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Section 463.15 et seq. PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1996, by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen. ATTEST: Don Ashworth, Clerk/Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor 35031