Loading...
09-16-92 Agenda and Packet AGENDA 1 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1992, 7:30 P.M. CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Non-conforming Use Permit for a Recreational Beachlot for Minnewashta Creek Homeowners Association. 2. Ryan Construction Company proposes rezoning 20.96 acres of property from BG,General Business District to PUD, Planned Unit Development, a preliminary PUD and site plan approval for Target Development on 10+ acres, and an interim use permit for grading of the entire site, Target Development. NEW BUSINESS OLD BUSINESS 3. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend Sections 20-1023,Height of Fences and Section 20-1019, Location of Fences. APPROVAL OF MINUTES CITY COUNCIL UPDATE ONGOING ITEMS ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS OPEN DISCUSSION 4. Tree Conservation Easements. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF t!t4if4 690 CO• CIIANIIASSEN ULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner DATE: September 10, 1992 SUBJ: Minnewashta Creek Non-Conforming Recreational Beachlot B ACKGROUND This beachlot first came before the Planning Commission on May 6, 1992. At that time there was a division within the Association as to what the level of use should be. The original application requested no boats, although two members from the Association stated that they have moored boats at the beachlot for a number of years and would like to continue to do so. The Planning Commission tabled this item and directed the Association to resolve their conflicts and come back with a new application. The Association has met and has submitted a new application. ANALYSIS The Minnewashta Creek Subdivision was approved in 1976. Although in 1979, a conditional use was approved for a beachlot, it is still non-conforming with the beachlot ordinance. There are 36 homes in the homeowners association. The beachlot is 10,500 square feet in area and has 60 feet of lake frontage. The beachlot does not meet the minimum requirements of 200 feet of lake frontage and the 30,000 square feet of area. The association received a conditional use permit for a portable chemical toilet in 1991 (see attached Conditional Use Permit). An inspection of this beachlot was performed by the city in 1981. At that time, it was observed that there was no dock or boats being moored. There was, however, 4 boats stored on land, 4 picnic tables and two grills. There was a swimming beach Is �$ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Planning Commission September 10, 1992 Page 2 with no raft. Upon inspection in 1991, a swimming raft was observed on the beach. There is no motor vehicle access to the site nor boat launching. At the May 6, 1992, meeting, two members of the Association stated that they have moored their boats at the beachlot since 1981, they were the Windschitls and the Thompsons. The Association is requesting the approval of two boats to be moored. At the previous Planning Commission meeting, Commissioners expressed concern with the safety of having two boats moored and a swimming beach. The Association is proposing to moor the boats off shore far enough so that the boats do not conflict with the swimming beach. SUMMARY The Association is requesting 1981 status quo of their beachlot with no dock but 2 boats being moored. They are also seeking approval of the swimming raft. NON-CONFORMING RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT PERMIT ASSOCIATION P.C. CITY COUNCIL REQUEST RECOMMEND ACTION Association Minnewashta Creek Lake Minnewashta Number of Homes 41 Size, square feet 10,500 sq. ft. Shoreline 60 feet Motor Vehicle Access none Off-Street Parking none Boat Launch none Buildings not requested Picnic Tables not requested Grills/Campfires not requested Seasonal Dock not requested Diagram Canoe Racks not requested Boats on Land not requested Boats at Dock not requested Boats Moored 2 Swimming Beach no Marker Buoys yes Swimming Raft yes Miscellaneous portable chemical toilet Items requested by the Association for determination. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 NON-CONFORMING RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT APPLICATION HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION: M N �.a s L.+ 4 C < < 1G ZS a.c raS► r�� A�+� CONTACT PERSON: 1 e -> N °► ^" a'' I NI '6" + s o •J ADDRESS: (i> S Z. s t•, ,, .. C t s c.l 4- E 1c c c t 5 s o r-, M a 55 331 — 4-14 - 3052. (41""1-'4) TELEPHONE (Day time) 53(.-"-'46 C4'4) TELEPHONE (Evening) : 14 -1110 &•.i) Please provide all requested data consistent with what existed in the steer of 1981. 1 . Number of homes in the Homeowners Association 14 2 . Length of shoreland (feet) to o — 3 . Total area of Beachlot (in square feet) 10, 5 0 0 4 . Number of docks 6 . Length of dock (s) 7 . Number of boats docked (76 8 . Number of canoe racks — 9 . Number of boats stored on canoe racks 10 . Number of boats moored, i .e . canoes, paddle boats, sailboats . Two ( Z) 11 . Number of boats on land C — 12 . Swimming beach Yes X No Buoys Yes No R , 13 . Swimming Raft Yes No X V St sy» A 114 Lip 30.0u:4041 sot, 14%2. 14 . Boat Launch Yes No X 15 . Motor vehicle access Yes - No X Number of parking spaces 16 . Structures, including portable chemical toilets : Por�Abl.. 0..%%41. .n6` 9rAN-ttfl i .,1 Rp�. 1 � ' . y1...p f`Q.NfW� Ir . 7v"ra ' 12.• Imo ►� q b Lt c.IN.a. 4. t e. A..O b St*t e a V.-101416 — b,,, ►t '� . + 5 -4-•, 1ta. L (saw wppee.,a.& p101a I Kate , Aug 15 , 1992 Enc - sed is our -omeowners Association Revised Applic on for our non-conforming recreational beachic Also included are: 1 )Memo -om myself to the Association requesting a vote on the boat mooring issue , 2 )Results of the vote , = and 3 )A rough drawing of how the beachlot would be configured . We have requested two (2 ) mooring spots which will , of course , be predicated upon our two homeowners providing satisfactory documentation that they had their boats moored prior to the 1981 date . If you need anything else prior to a Planning Commission meeting or have any questions , feel free to contact me . Ken Hannemann 474-1710 (home ) 536-4246 (work ) MININEWASHTA CREEK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA MEMORANDUM TO: Association Members FROM: Ken Hannemann, Pres. RE: Non-Conforming Beachlot Issue DATE: July 29, 1992 On Tuesday evening, July 7, 1992, the Association met to discuss the issue of the mooring of boats in the waters adjacent to the Association's lakeshore. Nine families were represented at the meeting. During the course of that meeting, it became apparent that their was uncertainty as to who would have the right to moor boats there if, in fact, the Association were to re-submit and the City were to approve a new Application for a Conditional Use Permit which would include two mooring spots. The question then became whether the mooring rights would accrue to the Association or to the individual members of the Association whose continuous use of these — waters for mooring since 1981 serves as the basis for the grandfathering of the mooring spots. The next day, on behalf of the Association, I contacted Ms. Kate Aanenson who is an Assistant — Planner with the City to pose the question. She stated to me, unequivocally, that the Association would hold the mooring rights, and not the individual members, if the rights were granted by the City as part of the new Permit. Her reasoning was that it is the Association that owns the — Outlot which is lakeshore property and, therefore, it is the Association that has the authority to apply for and to obtain the Permit and to exercise and to enforce any mooring rights granted. Therefore, if the Association intends to re-apply for a permit that includes two mooring spots, then, if granted, the Association will have to decide how the use of the mooring spots will be allotted between and amongst the members of the Association. The balloting of the Association represents the first phase of this process by posing the question to each homeowner: How many mooring spots should the Association request in the revised application? Please indicate on the attached ballot your preferred choice and return it to Nancy Nelson, our Association Secretary who resides at 3891 Linden Circle, no later than August 7, 1992, 7:00 p.m. If you do not return the ballot by the deadline date, it will be counted as a "no opinion" vote. The results will be tabulated and announced in a follow up memo, after which the results will be presented to the Planning Commission when we formally re-apply for our Non-Conforming Conditional Use Permit for the Beachlot. Please feel free to call me at 474-1710 if you have any further questions regarding this issue. — MINNEWASHTA CREEK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION • DATE: AUGUST 17, 1992 TO: ALL ASSOCIATION MEMBERS SUBJECT: RESULTS OF THE RECENT BALLOT REGARDING MOORING OF BOATS NUMBER OF BALLOTS VOTING FOR TWO SPOTS 14 NUMBER OF BALLOTS VOTING FOR ONE SPOT 1 NUMBER OF BALLOTS VOTING FOR ZERO SPOTS 7 NUMBER OF NO OPINION BALLOTS 12 TOTAL 41 GIVEN THE RESULTS ABOVE, THE ASSOCIATION WILL GO FORWARD AND RE-SUBMIT OUR NON-CONFORMING RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT APPLICATION REQUESTING TWO MOORING SPOTS. MEETINGS WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL WILL BE SCHEDULED IN THE NEAR FUTURE TO EVALUATE OUR APPLICATION. I WILL NOTIFY ALL ASSOCIATION MEMBERS WHEN THESE MEETINGS ARE SCHEDULED. KEN HANNEMANN R AFT • • 3 o pT ilk 2. Be, AT is 41, O tJ 0•-f S O 1 p • • NoR1' 14 V 0 / sovTN LAxE SHORE MIp.INEwASF! 'T• A CREEK ASSoc . MOORED GoAT5 1.JOU1- D 8E POSITIon1EO lo ' ogF 'THE Ex-7E•v1173ED PR-OPER-T.1 LIaE oa "THE i304lT).1 SIDE of THE, PADPEATY . Swtf.tiMtNG RAFT Wov ` O GE PDS iTtoaEO AS TA) DtcATED 4DvE COFF CE►./TE-R) To Aow FOA A %AJtDE0. ►., A..IE o %--.4 nN t'JCD T0.R crc_ . QoATS rhoe *LED CovLD OE PeStTtoaED A5 F . OFF ZI•►E SHoWEV.. L Pt5 IrLow £O B`( TME b 9. , A. b Co .� tr0 EvE,N BE Bvo'( ED oP F CAS T& DIGITED) PAo••r+ THE Sw , evnern t ,.IG R0.E R • RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT INVENTORY 1981 _ 1986 _ 1991 Minnewashta Creek 36 Homes Lake Minnewashta 10, 500 Square Ft. 60 ' Width of Shoreline Motor Vehicle Access no no no Off-Street Parking no no 1 no Boat Launch no no no Pernanent Buildings none none none Setbacks Temporary Buildings none none none Portable Restroom no no no Picnic Tables 4 4 4 Grills/Campfires 2 2 2 Seasonal Docks none none none Approximate Length Canoe Racks none none none Boats on Land 4 none 2 Boats Moored none none 1 Boats Docked none none none Swimming Beach yes yes yes Marker Bouys no no no Swimming Raft no no yes Comments: well well maint. maint. MINNEWASHTA CREEK TERRANCE THOMPSON SR. MAY 1992 3820 LINDEN CIRCLE EXCELSIOR, MN. 55331 1 . WE PURCHASED LOT OA IN 1978 . — 2 . WE PURCHASED LOT #1 IN 1979 . 3. WE BUILT AND MOVED INTO HOME IN 1980. 4 . WE HAVE HAD OUR PONTOON IN THE LAKE SINCE WE MOVED IN. 5. A LIST OF FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS WHO HAVE EITHER SEEN OR HELPED US PUT OUR BOAT IN LAKE MINNEWASHTA IN THE LAST 12 YEARS. (NAME) (ADDRESS) p — .f C).52---ae_A-A_ 1/1., ; 'J •.1 i YW / L L 1,2,o � `� 4., (1 • c 1 F* r (5"t milli 5-5- 3.3 / \L-\\1\.' \31-kt\Q....\-) s)CA-Ds-O (13. \\4\"-T1'6\1\ a\.r\I r � ,mom g \ CGS, Cc) t 4(214'144 C • • CITY OF CHANHASSEN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BEACH LOT - MINNEWASHTA CREEK ADDITION This permit and agreement, made and entered into this /Q.k day of `y+�4-,i,/,( ,,1 , 1979 , by and between Romarco Development, Inc . , and Minnewashta Creek Homeowners' Association of Chanhassen, Minnesota (hereinafter referred to collectively as the Applicant) , and the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as the City) ; WITNESSETH : That the City, in exercise of its powers pur- suant to M.S . §462 . 357 , and other applicable state law, and §7. 04 of the Chanh__ssen Zoning Ordinance , hereby grants to the Applicant herein a -.�nditional use permit to maintain and operate a private neighborhood associa+ion recreational area upon Outlot B, Minnewashta Creek First Addition, Carver County, Minnesota (hereinafter the Subject Property) , subject to the following terms and conditions, all of which shall be strictly complied with as being necessary for the protection of the public interest: Section 1. Recitals . 1. 01 Prior Platting of Minnewashta Creek Second Addition. Romarco Development, Inc. , as contract for deed vendees, acting in concert with one Donald B. Berkey and one Jane L. Berkey, as contract for deed ven- dors , have platted a tract of land in the City as Minnewashta Creek Second Addition (hereinafter Second Addition) , consisting of thirty-six (36) residential lots . 1 . 02 Outlot B. Romarco Development, Inc. , (hereinafter Romarco) , has purchased Outlot B, Minnewashta Creek First Addition, from said Donald B. Berkey and said Jane L. Berkey under a contract for deed. 1. 03 Homeowners ' Association. Romarco has incorporated the Minnewashta Creek Homeowners ' Association of Chanhassen, Minnesota (hereinafter the Association) for the purpose of acquiring and main- taining certain common properties for the benefit of the owners of lots in the Second Addition. Romarco has, by various contracts with purchasers of lots in the Second Addition, become legally obligated = to acquire the fee title to Outlot B, Minnewashta Creek First Addition and to convey the same to the Association as a common property. -1- 1 . 04 . Development Chronology. A. The City Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 25, 1979 to consider the issuance of the within conditional use per- mit and to consider the approval of the Applicant 's grading and landscaping plan for the subject property. B. The City Council, by its resolution of August 6 , 1979 , - approved the issuance of the within conditional use permit and approved the Applicant' s grading and landscaping plan. • Section 2 . Special Conditions . 2 . 01 . Permit Not Transferable. This permit is personal to the Applicant and to the Association, and is not assignable or transferable except upon the written consent of the City. 2 . 02 . Release of Romarco. The City, upon written request, shall release Romarco from its obligations hereunder upon receipt of documen- tation which demostrates (a) the proper incorporation of the Association pursuant to Chapter 317 of Minnesota Statutes, and (b) the conveyance of title to the Subject Property in fee simple to the Association for the benefit of all owners of lots in Minnewashta Creek Second Addition. No such release shall be given until such documentation has been approved by the City Attorney as to legal sufficiency. No such release as to Romarco shall have the effect of releasing the Associa- tion from its obligations, covenants , and agreements hereunder. 2. 03 . Rights Under This Permit Not Expandable to Other Owners . This permit is issued for the benefit of the owners of the thirty-six lots in Minnewashta Creek Second Addition. The Applicant agrees that the use and enjoyment of the Subject Property shall be limited to the owners of lots in Minnewashta Creek Second Addition. The use and enjoyment of the Subject Property may not extend to persons other than such owners . The term "owners" as utilized in this §2. 03 shall mean and refer to any natural person who is either (a) the record owner of a fee simple interest, or (b) the record owner of a contract for deed vendee 's interest, or (c) the holder of any possessory leasehold interest, in the whole of any lot or double lot in the Second Addition, including authorized guests and family members of any such persons . 2 . 04 . Description of Property Subject to This Permit. The premises subject to the within conditional use permit are described as follows : Outlot B, Minnewashta Creek First Addition, according to the map or plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of the County Recorder, in and for Carver County, Minnesota. -2- 2 . 05 Certain Site Alterations Authorized. The Applicant is hereby authorized to execute its grading plan and landscape plan prepared by Clark Engineering Co. under certification of June 14 , 1979 (hereinafter the Applicant' s Plan) . Except as provided in said grading plan and landscaping plan, no portion of the Subject Property may be developed , altered, or disturbed in any way. All work performed in execution of the Applicant ' s Plan shall be subject to the inspection and approval of the City Engineers . In case any work shall be rejected by the City as unsuitable or defective, then such rejected work shall be done anew to the satisfaction and approval of the City at the cost and expense of the Applicant. 2. 06 . Schedule of Work . The Applicant agrees that it shall have all work done and the improvements described in §2 . 05 above fully complete to the satisfaction and approval of the City on or before y 'I , 19 9-0 . The Applicant shall submit a written schedul in cating the proposed progress schedule and order of com- pletion of work covered by this contract which schedule shall be a part of this contract. Upon receipt of written notice from the Appli- cant of the existence of causes over which the Applicant has no control which will delay the completion of the work, the City, in its discre- tion, may extend the date hereinbefore specified for completion. 2. 07 . Erosion Control . Applicant, at its expense, shall provide temporary dams , earthwork or such other devices and practices , including seeding of graded areas , as shall be needed, in the judgment of the City Engineers, to prevent the washing , flooding, sedimentation and erosion of lands and roads within and outside the Subject Premises during all phases of construction. Applicant shall keep all public streets free of all dirt and debris resulting from construction by the Applicant, its agents or assignees upon the Subject Property. 2 . 08 . Certain Structures Prohibited . Except for the fence and sign described in the Applicant ' s Plan, no structure may be constructed, erected , or maintained upon the Subject Property. No docks, piers , = boat racks, or canoe racks shall be constructed, erected, or maintained on the Subject Property or in the waters abutting the Subject Property. 2 . 09 . Camping Prohibited. No owner, as defined hereinabove, or other person shall camp overnight on the Subject Property. 2 . 10 . Motor Vehicle Parking and Boat Storage. No watercraft shall = be parked or stored overnight or on a permanent basis on the Subject Property. Except for construction equipment necessary for the execu- tion of the Applicant's Plan and as necessary for the maintenance of the Subject Property, no motor vehicle shall be driven upon or parked upon the Subject Property. No boat trailer shall be allowed upon the Subject Property. Nothing in the preceeding three sentences shall be deemed to prohibit the launching of any watercraft from the Subject Property if — accomplished without the assistance of any motor vehicle or trailer or wheeled dolly upon the Subject Property. -3- • Section 3. Municipal Disclaimers . 3 . 01 . No Liability to Suppliers of Labor or Material . It is understood and agreed that the City, the City Council, and the agents and employees of the City shall not be personally liable or responsible in any manner to the Applicant , the Applicant ' s con- tractors or subcontractors, materialmen, laborers, or to any other person, firm or corporation whomsoever, for any debt, claim, demand, damages, actions or causes of action of any kind or character arising out of or by reason of the execution of this permit and agreement or the performance and completion of the work and improvements hereunder; and that the Applicant will save the City, the City Council, and the agents and employees of the City harmless from any and all claims , damages , demands , actions or causes of action arising therefrom and the costs, disbursements , and expenses of defending the same. 3 . 02 . Written Work Orders . The Applicant shall do no work nor furnish materials, whether covered or not covered by the Applicant' s Plan, for which reimbursement is expected from the City unless a written order for such work or materials is received from the City. Any such work or materials which may be done or furnished by the Applicant without such written order first being given shall be at its own risk, cost and expense , and Applicant hereby agrees that without such written order, Applicant will make no claim for compensation for work or materials so done or furnished. Section 4 . Miscellaneous . 4 . 01 . Severability. In the event any provisions of this permit shall be held invalid, illegal , or unenforceable by any court of com- petent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invalidate or render unen- forceable any other provision hereof, and the remaining provisions shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby. 4 . 02 . Execution of Counterparts . This permit may be simultaneously executed in several counterparts , each of which shall be an original, and all of which shall constitute but one and the same instrument. 4 . 03 . Headings . Headings at the beginning of sections and para- graphs hereof are for convenience of reference, and shall not be con- sidered a part of the text of this contract, and shall not influence its construction. 4 . 04 . Proof of Title . Upon request, the Applicant shall furnish the City with evidence satisfactory to the City that it has acquired fee title to the Subject Property. -4- • 4 . 05 . Notices . All notices , certificates and other communications hereunder shall be sufficiently given and shall be deemed given when mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, with proper address as indicated below. The City and the Applicant, by written notice given by one to the other, may designate any address or addresses to which notices , certificates or other communications to them shall be sent when required as contemplated by this permit. Unless otherwise provided by the respective parties, all notices , certificates, and communications to each of them shall be addressed as follows : To the City: City of Chanhassen City Hall 7610 Laredo Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Attn: City Manager To Romarco: Romarco Development, Inc. 3295 Hillsboro Avenue South — Minneapolis, MN 55426 To the Association: Minnewashta Creek Homeowners ' Association c/o Romarco Development, Inc . 3295 Hillsboro Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55426 4 . 06 . Owners to be Notified of This Permit. The Association shall furnish each owner, as that term is defined in §2 . 03 above, with a copy of this permit within thirty (30) days of any such owner ' s initial occupancy of any residential structure in the Second Addition. 4 . 07 . Term of This Permit. This permit shall expire on August 6 , 2009 . Section 5 . Enforcement Provisions . 5 . 01 . Reimbursement of Costs . The Applicant shall reimburse the City for all costs , including reasonable engineering, legal , planning and administrative expenses incurred by the City in connection with all matters relating to the administration and enforcement of the within permit and the performance thereby by the Applicant. Such reimbursement shall be made within fourteen (14) days of the date of mailing of the — City ' s notice of costs as provided in 54.05 above. The Applicant' s reimbursement obligation under this section shall be a continuing obliga- tion throughout the term of this permit. -5- • 5 . 02 . Performance Bond. For the purpose of assuring and guaran- teeing to the City that the improvements to be by the Applicant con- structed, installed and furnished as set forth in §2 . 05 hereof shall be constructed, installed and furnished according to the terms of this agreement, and that the Applicant shall pay all claims for work done and materials and supplies furnished for the performance of this permit , a..d that the Applicant shall fully comply with all of the other terms and provisions of this permit, Applicant agrees to furnish to. the City either a cash deposit, a corporate surety bond approved by the City and naming the City as obligee thereunder, or an irrevocable letter of credit approved by the City in the amount of $ y(V) 5 . 03 . Remedies Upon Default . A. Assessments . In the event the Applicant shall default in the performance of any of the covenants and agreements herein con- tained, and such default shall not have been cured within ten (10) days after receipt by the Applicant of written notice thereof, the _ City, if it so elect- , may cause any of the improvements described in the Applicant ' s Plan to be constructed and installed or may take action to cure such default and may cause the entire cost thereof , including all reasonable engineering, legal and administrative ex- pense incurred by the City, to be recovered as a special assessment under M. S . Chapter 429, in which case the Applicant agrees to pay the entire amount of the assessment roll pertaining to any such im- provement within thirty (30) days after its adoption. Applicant further agrees that in the event of its failure to pay in full any such special assessment within the time prescribed herein, the City _ shall have a specific lien on all of Applicant's real property within the Subject Property for any amount so unpaid, and the City shall have the right to foreclose said lien in the manner prescribed for the foreclosure of mechanic ' s liens under the laws of the State of Minnesota. In the event of an emergency, as determined by the City Engineers , the notice requirements to the Applicant shall be and hereby are waived in their entirety, and the Applicant shall reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City in remedying the condi- tions creating the emergency. B. Performance Bond. In addition to the foregoing, the City may also institute legal action against the Applicant and the corporate surety on its performance bond, or utilize any cash deposit made or letter of credit delivered hereunder, to collect, pay, or reimburse the City for the cost of making any of said improvements, * or for the cost, including reasonable engineering, legal and administrative expense incurred by the City, of curing any default by the Applicant in its performance of any of the covenants and agreements contained herein. -6- C. Legal Proceedings . In addition to the foregoing, the City may institute any proper action or proceeding at law or at equity to prevent violations of the within permit, to restrain or abate viola- tions of the within permit, or to prevent use or occupancy of the Subject Properly. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these presents to be executed on this / day of „„6,,,, , 1979 . ROMAR DEVELOP r,T, INC. MINNEWASHTA CREEK HOMEOWNERS ' ASSOfr+ :ON OF 4444•21.21N, MINNESOTA ' Its _0'; ____ And And Its Its • C"TYY HANHAS EN By. Its Mayor ATTEST: j tl- City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss . COUNTY OF On this /ovot day of -724-pc- , 1979, before me, a notary public within and or said county, personally appeared , and , to me personally known, who, being each by me duly sworn did say that they are respectively the -74: and the of Romarco Development, Inc. , and that said instrument was signed in behalf of sacorporation by authority of its Board of Directors , and said �,t ' and acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation. L _ _ / fr KAREN J. L.::.�LLHARDT Notary Public r r NOTARY PURUC- miNNESOTA kCA 'Fi�c•E? COUNTY r�1t M1' Cpmmiss o^.E•J`E3 Ott 11,1111116 IVY -7- STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss . COUNTY OF ) On this /Aci,e day of -11A.. ,1-1-, J , 1979 , befo e me, aminotary public within and for said county, personally appeared ( and , to me personally known, wh , being each by me duly sworn, did say that they are respectively the , >` and the of Minnewashta Creek Homeowners ' Associa- tion of Chanhassen, Minnesota, and that said instrument was signed in behalf of said corporation by authority of its Board of Directors, and said /� and acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation. _ - _ ice Ana otary Public KA- J. ENGELHARDT 1wormy PUBLIC-MINNESOTA STATE OF MINNESOTA ) CARVER COUNTY ) S S . ` t Oorr+rniis or 6..24es Oct 11,1085 COUNTY OF CARVER ) r.. On this /..47- day of , 1979 , before me , a notary public within and for said county, personally appeared Walter Hobbs and Donald W. Ashworth, to me personally known, who, being each by me duly sworn , did say that they are respectively the Mayor and City Manager of the corporation named in the foregoing instrument, and that said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said corporation by authority of its City Council , and said Walter Hobbs and Donald W. Ashworth acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation. IAS - - ' NotaryiPublic r. KAREN J. E'._ . HARDT L II • NOTARY PLJ L'C-MINNESOTA CARVER COUNTY W Oenlmfwon EAprq Oct. I.MS -8- Col; it I ' CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1 . Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants a conditional use permit for the following use: A portable chemical toilet on existing recreational beachlot. 2 . Property. The permit is for property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as follows: (RNK) 1st. Outlot B, Mi rnewashta CreekxRA4A2R4 Addition 3 . Conditions. The permit is issued subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant applies for a license from the city on an annual basis prior to installation of the portable chemical toilet. 2 . The portable chemical toilet shall only be permitted from Memorial Day to Labor Day and shall be removed from the beachlot during the rest of the year. 3 . The beachlot shall be maintained in good condition in a manner consistent with previous approvals and current ordinance requirements. _ 4 . The portable chemical toilet shall be located in accordance with the application/plans received by the City on May 20, 1991. 4 . Termination of Permit. The City may revoke the permit following a public hearing for violation of the terms of this permit. = 5. Lapse. If within one year of the issuance of this permit the authorized construction has not been substantially completed or the use commenced, this permit shall lapse, unless an extension is granted in accordance with the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance. 6 . Criminal Penalty. Violation of the terms of this conditional use permit is a criminal misdemeanor. Dated: July 8 , 1991 . , CITY OF CHANHASSEN . By: i Lle-- - - Donald J. • miel, Mayor By: 4(2 (::).L.: Don Ashworth, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA) ( SS COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 17 ' day of , 19 ( , by Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor and Don Ashworth, IjCity Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by its City Council . Notary 'frolic/ . DRAFTED BY: ',`- Campbell , Knutson, Scott rV,,i & Fuchs, P.A. 3460 Washington Drive, Suite 202 J Ea an Minnesota 55122 �`, KAaEN J. E�rc= ^r^T g r NOTFFY PL'?u, (612) 456-9539 �, CAr.V.: t C- RNK OFFICE OF COUNTY RECORDER STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY RVER Filing Fee This is to certify hat this do ent w �`l in tss fficeQg the day • 196f/.D.at 7 o clock %1 . and was duly recorded as do u ent no. 1.2.:). .13) , , . HANSON JR.by 41Af ��// uMy Rsco'�e;;�(�,�j/J� M _7ZG=G M a• Ciill A ���i'n" — NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING will, • ter" !% iii PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING p� ', a .. ` Wednesday, September 16, 1992 - 7:30 i F '.',0• ` \ - - — City Hall Council Chambers '. ' 690 Coulter Drive �,,,;14111111104. Illilli 11414 • '•''1 r•,w, _ M4 Project: Non-Conforming Recreational �' LTft c(• eree Beachlot .:,„,„1„.. - _ aUM: Applicant: Minnewashta Creek -= L A K E Homeowners Association 1 . el-15i -Mr ' Side of Lake :-• .,/ii l& M / N N E W A Location: Northwest _ 9:J.i . Minnewashta Cr FRD Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. Minnewashta Creek Homeowners Association for a non-conforming use permit — for their recreational beachlot. 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 Planning 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 Kate at 937-1900. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the Planning 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 September 3, 1992. — j: j( , •� ESTATE OF AHRENS MINNEWASHTA HOA HERBERT PFEFFER - RT 1 BOX 284 C/O LOIS GOEDE 2850 TANAGERS BROWERVILLE MN 56438 2851 TANAGERS EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 PER & E JACOBSON GENE FURY STEPHEN ORTLIP 2840 TANAGERS 2821 WASHTA BAY ROAD 14880 30TH ST SW - EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 WATERTOWN MN 55388 HARRY NIEMELA DONALD ANDERSON WAYNE HOLZER 2841 WASHTA BAY ROAD 2851 WASHTA BAY ROAD 2911 WASHTA BAY ROAD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 - NORMAN CASPERSON ALLAN TOLLEFSON GLENN COPPERSMITH 2921 WASHTA BAY ROAD 2931 WASHTA BAY ROAD 2941 WASHTA BAY ROAD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JOSEPH BOYER CURRENT RESIDENT SUSAN FIEDLER - 3630 VIRGINIA AVE 3111 DARTMOUTH DR 3121 DARTMOUTH DR WAYZATA MN 55391 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 THOMAS MERZ JAMES GINTHER STEPHEN MARTIN 3201 DARTMOUTH DR 3131 DARTMOUTH DR 3211 DARTMOUTH DR - EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 RAYMOND ROETTGER M MOORE/K HALL WARREN HANSON 3221 DARTMOUTH DR 3231 DARTMOUTH DR 3241 DARTMOUTH DR _ EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT WILLIAM NAEGELE CURRENT RESIDENT 6341 CYPRESS DR 4300 BAKER ROAD 3311 SHORE DRIVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MINNETONKA MN 55343 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 - BARBARA WINTHEISER FLORENCE BISCHOFF WILLIAM MCDANIEL - 3321 SHORE DRIVE 3331 SHORE DRIVE 3341 SHORE DRIVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 F DENTON WHITE HENRY ARNESON KARL VANLANGEN - 3351 SHORE DRIVE 3401 SHORE DRIVE 3411 SHORE DRIVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 M POSTHUMUS & E TUSSEY JOHN MCKELLIP CURRENT RESIDENT 3421 SHORE DRIVE 3431 SHORE DIVE 3441 SHORE DRIVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 _ MORRIS MULLIN RED CEDAR COVE INC WENDELL SCHOTT 3451 SHORE DRIVE C/O D C PRILLMAN 7034 RED CEDAR COVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 7064 RED CEDAR COVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 AURETHA SMITH CURRENT RESIDENT RALPH KARCZEWSKI - 7044 RED CEDAR COVE 7048 RED CEDAR COVE 7054 RED CEDAR COVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 WARREN RIETZ DAVID PRILLAMAN CURRENT RESIDENT 7058 RED CEDAR COVE 7064 RED CEDAR COVE 7068 RED CEDAR COVE - EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 - CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT STEVEN EMMINGS 7074 RED CEDAR COVE 7078 RED CEDAR COVE 6350 GREENBRIAR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 _ RICHARD HANSON ROBERT HEBEISEN RICHARD ZWEIG 6400 GREENBRIAR 3607 IRONWOOD ROAD 3601 IRONWOOD ROAD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT FRANCIS FABER RICHARD WING - 6331 CYPRESS DRIVE 3471 SHORE DRIVE 3481 SHORE DRIVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 WILLIAM TURNER DAVE HOELKE THOMAS WRIGHT 3501 SHORE DRIVE 3621 IRONWOOD ROAD 3611 IRONWOOD ROAD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MICHAEL MORGAN L 0 PARSONS CURRENT RESIDENT 3734 HICKORY 3732 HICKORY 3724 HICKORY - EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 -MARVIN YORK ALFRED SMITH GREGORY BOHER 3716 HICKORY 3714 HICKORY 3706 HICKORY EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 GARY PETERSON JAMES MOORE SAMUEL POTTS - 1769 20TH AVE NW 3630 HICKORY 3628 HICKORY NEW BRIGHTON MN 55112 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ERIC BAUER STEVEN KEUSEMAN KATHLEEN LOCKHART 3624 RED CEDAR POINT 3622 RED CEDAR POINT 8549 IRWIN ROAD - EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55437 EDWIN SEIM RICHARD SCHLENER THADDEUS SCHWABA 292 CHARLES DRIVE 200 COMMERCE CIR S 3603 RED CEDAR POINT _ SAN LUIS OBISPO CA MINNEAPOLIS MN 55432 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 93401 J D KNIGHT WYNN BINGER PAUL LARSON 485 PILLSBURY BLDG 2950 DEAN PKWY #1503 3609 RED CEDAR POINT 608 2ND AVE S MINNEAPOLIS MN 55416 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55402 LUMIR PROSHEK EMIL SOUBA BIRATA DUNDURS - 3613 RED CEDAR PT 14025 VALE COURT 3627 RED CEDAR POINT EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 LINDA JOHNSON CHARLES ANDING HELEN ANDING _ 3629 RED CEDAR POLNT 3631 SOUTH CEDAR 1708 E 57TH STREET EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55417 CHESTER LOBITZ LARRY VANDERLINDE ANDREW JENSEN 3637 SOUTH CEDAR 211 CHESTNUT BOX 277 - EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHASKA MN 55318 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DAVID HEMPLE FRANK BOYCE CLIFFORD PEDERSEN 3707 SOUTH CEDAR 3711 SOUTH CEDAR 3713 SOUTH CEDAR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 RICHARD ANDING BASIL BASTAIN CURRENT RESIDENT 3715 SOUTH CEDAR 3719 SOUTH CEDAR 3725 SOUTH CEDAR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 _ KENNETH SMITH ROBERT C OSBORNE WALTER SCHWATZ - 3837 RED CEDAR POINT 3815 RED CEDAR POINT 3888 FOREST RIDGE CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHAKSA MN 55318 - JEROME AHLMAN JOEL ANDERSON JOHN PETERJOHN 3896 LONE CEDAR 3894 LONE CEDAR 3892 LONE CEDAR _ CHAKSA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318 - CURRENT RESIDENT TERRANCE JOHNSON EDWARD OATHOUT 3890 LONE CEDAR 3898 LONE CEDAR 3940 HAWTHORNE CIR CHASKA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 GEOFFREY SCHIEFELBEIN STATE/MINNESOTA IN TRUST JOHN MERZ/DAVID TESTER -3920 HAWTHORNE CIR C/O CARVER CO AUDITOR 3897 LONE CEDAR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 600 EAST 4TH STREET CHASKA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318 Planning Commission Meeting May 6 , 1992 - Page 2 Batzli : So if for example there 's a dispute as to whether there was 2 or 4- boats , just by way of example , and you decided to go to 4 boats , would you need additional buffering as a condition? Conrad: Something like that . Aanenson: It sounds like a question for the attorney . I 'm not sure . We 're looking at grandfathering . If we 're moving outside of that arena to go into looking at a separate conditional use , because we 're trying to create a non-conforming permit . I 'm not really sure on that . I guess we would make a recommendation to the City Council and we can make that determination at that point . Batzli : Okay . Having said that , we 'll move along to the first public hearing . PUBLIC HEARING: NON-CONFORMING USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT FOR MINNEWASHTA CREEk HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION . Public Present : Name Address Mary Jo Moore 3231 Dartmouth Drive Dana Johnson Minnewashta Parkway Ken Hannemann 6580 Joshua Circle Billie Windschitl Minnewashta Creek Association Terry Thompson Minnewashta Creek Association Aanenson : I 'd just like to make a couple points of clarification on this . - There was some misunderstanding between the Homeowners Association and the staff . There is a pontoon boat being moored on the site . We kept asking who it belongs to because the adjoining property owner , Mr . Johnson is concerned because it appears that it 's really on his property . We kept asking the association , is it their boat? No , it 's not their boat . Well they were misunderstanding what they were saying . Yes , it belongs to someone in the association but it 's not the association 's boat . So there is a pontoon boat out there . Farmakes: Did that person live? Aanenson: In the association , yes . Farmakes : They belong to the association but do they live there? Aanenson : Yes . Yes he does . So the application that you have before you shows no . They 're requesting no boats because they felt like that 's what - they had in 1981 . But the gentleman here that has the boat is requesting that he be able to maintain that boat . Batzli : You 're getting ahead of me a little bit . Let 's back up . The way we will conduct the hearings is I will first ask for a staff report . If there are any issues that need further explanation and then I will request Planning Commission Meeting May 6 , 1992 - Page 3 that the Association representative address us if they so desire at that time . We 'd like to hear your suggestions or comments regarding why you believe , if for example you 're asking for something that 's in addition to what we think was in our 1981 baseline . We 'd like you to be able to present those things and be fairly heard but I would ask that you be brief — and try to limit your comments to 5 minutes if at all possible and then if there 's someone else that feels they have something in addition to and not just state what we 've just heard , I 'd be happy to hear them as well . If that sounds reasonable . So Kate , if you want to go ahead now . Aanenson : Okay . I 'm sorry about that . Okay just so there is a boat on there that they are asking for . I didn 't show that in the report , and they - hadn 't requested it either . They did come back last summer , excuse me in 1991 to ask for a conditional use for a portable toilet . They do want to maintain that conditional use status . They are asking for the swimming - raft which they didn 't have in place in 1981 either . If you look at the sheet where we 've shown the permit kind of crossing what we 're showing that we recommending . We 've shown what they are requesting and then we 've left _ kind of blanks for the issues that you really need to determine . Those being the number of picnic tables , the campfire grills , the swimming beach and the swimming raft . Again , just for some clarification . — Batzli : Under the ordinance , what are the numbers that would be allowed for picnic tables , grills , campfires? Aanenson: We don 't have a problem with 4 . There 's no restriction on that . I just want to make one point too . I 'm not sure if it 's clear on the cover that their covenants , which I have included in here stated , which they came _ back to the City in 1979 , stated that there would be no structures erected or maintained upon the property . No docks , piers , boat racks , or canoe racks will be constructed or erected or maintained upon the beachlot . That was part of their original covenants . Batzli : Would the Association representative like to address us at this time? Ken Hannemann : Sure . Batzli : If you could give us your name please . Ken Hannemann : My name is Ken Hannemann and I 'm the co-president of the Association . I live at 6580 Joshua Circle . Basically what I 've done , I - filled out the request form and basically wIat we 've asked for is the raft and the portable chemical toilet that we received a conditional use permit last year . There is an issue regarding the number of boats moored and the inventory that was transmitted to us in 1981 . We have two homeowners here tonight who have been residing in our association since 1979 and 1980 and contend that they were grandfathered into and have the right to moor a boat down at the beachlot . One being a pontoon boat , which would be very — difficult to move back and forth , in and out of the water . The other just a normal boat . It 's their contention that they have been in the Association prior to the baseline and were led to believe that they could moor boating out in the water . We 're not allowed to have a dock of course so mooring was the only option for them at the time . They are here to Planning Commission Meeting May 6 , 1992 - Page 4 — speak directly at that issue and I 've kind of just summarized the — circumstances here . Batzli : Is it the Association 's request that you get two boats or are these individuals not acting through the Association? — Ken Hahnemann: I would say it 's the Association 's request . I don 't think we have a problem with the boats being there . It 's an issue with the — adjoining properties and so forth . Emmings: Is your Association asking that the boats that are moored be — moored in front of the beachlot or continue to be moored in front of other neighboring properties? Ken Hannemann: Well that 's a good question because our beachlot is only 6C— feet . Emmings: And you have a swimming beach , is that right? — Ken Hannemann: Right . Emmings: So are you asking that the boats be moored in front of the beachlot or directly out from the beachlot? Ken Hannemann: Yeah . — Emmings: That 's what the Association wants? You want them moored in your swimming area? _ Ken Hannemann: Well , they 're right on the property line now so it still affords us swimming area off to the side . Emmings: Okay , just wondered . Ken Hannemann: So you may have an issue with the easements and so forth . — We haven 't had a problem in the past with the pontoon being moored probably right on or a little bit over the property lines . Emmings: You understand that there is a setback from the property line of 10 feet? Ken Hannemann: Right . And if that setback were to be imposed, in essense — the pontoon would have to sit right in the -middle of the lot . And if that 's the case , then I guess we couldn 't live with that as the Association . Because it would have to sit almost right in the middle of _ the beachlot so swimmers would have to go around . Emmings : That 's why I 'm asking the question and I guess I 'm clear then on what , does the Association want the pontoon and/or the other boat to be out— there but on the property line or over the property line in front of other other neighboring property? Ken Hannemann: I would say as close on the property line . Which could be an issue . Planning Commission Meeting May 6 , 1992 - Page 5 Emmings: Could be . Ken Hannemann: We do have the two homeowners here that are contending that they be accepted and be inventoried in this 1981 inventory so I would invite them to come up and address the Commission at this time . Billie Windschitl : My name is Billie Windschitl and I 've live in Minnewashta Creek Homeowners Association since 1979 and we 've had our boat moored in the water in front of our beachlot . Well actually we had it a little off the boundaries of our beachlot because there was an older women that lived next door to us in this old house and she passed away last year and that 's when the new homeowners came . But I heard somebody mention the name Johnson . Now to my knowledge Mr . Johnson doesn 't own that property but I don 't know . Mr . Lund does . Mr . Ken Lund and Terry and, Mr . Thompson and Brian and I , we 've had our boats out there for 12 years and it 's never been a problem . Batzli : Do you have the pontoon boat? Billie Windschitl : No . I have the regular boat . Batzli : Okay . Sorry . Billie Windschitl : It 's regular . It 's like a 16 foot . Batzli : Is this moored on the opposite side of the property then than the pontoon boat? Billie Windschitl : No , it 's like right past the pontoon boat . And they 're not close to , they 're nowhere near the swimming area . As far as safety goes , we never ever start our boats anywhere near the swimming area . Only past the swimming raft that 's been out there since about 1985 . Because nobody would swim out there . In other words , we wouldn't start our motor in the swimming area . I mean I don 't know what to say . We 've always had our boat there before , let 's see it must have been a year before the 1981 paper so . Emmings: Could I ask you ma 'am? Is the 16 foot boat , is it a runabout or what kind of a boat is it? Billie Windschitl : It 's like a ski boat . It 's a Starcraft . Emmings: And when you say it 's moored out :there . How is it kept in one place? Is it on a lift? Billie Windschitl : No . It just has a anchor . Emmings: Is it moored to a buoy? Billie Windschitl : It 's anchored in front and in the back . Emmings: Is it in front of the neighboring.property? Billie Windschitl : It was in front of the neighboring property . Planning Commission Meeting _ May 6 , 1992 - Page 6 Emmings: Last year? — Billie Windschitl : Yes . ' Emmings: Every year? Billie Windschitl : Every year when that older woman lived there because it never bothered her . She never came out of her house . Emmings: And what would you ask us to do about that? Are you asking us , do you want to keep parking your boat in front of the neighboring property?— Billie Windschitl : No . Emmings: What do you want to do? Billie Windschitl : I just want to leave it in the water so that we can use it everyday . — Emmings : So then you want it in front of the beachlot? Billie Windschitl : Right . Emmings: And you understand there 's a 10 foot setback . Billie Windschitl : Is it from the beach? Emmings: From the extended lot lines . You extend the lot lines into the water . There 's a setback on each side I think of 10 feet . Billie Windschitl : So it has to be 10 feet in front the edge of the lot line? Emmings: Well that 's what the ordinance says . — Billie Windschitl : Or 10 feet from the beach? Emmings: No . In from the lot line . Billie Windschitl : It 's a 70 foot . Emmings: Well regardless of the width , you•• want it then in the area in front of the beachlot? Billie Windschitl : Right . And you know we 've never had a problem with it and I don 't know , for us to take our boat in and out every single night , it isn 't going to make a lot of sense . And if nobody 's complaining , I don 't understand the problem . Why the problem even came up . Emmings : I think you can see the problem is that the neighbor doesn 't want it in front of his house . And the Association doesn 't want it in front of — the beachlot . Planning Commission Meeting May 6 , 1992 - Page 7 Billie Windschitl : No , they didn 't say that . Ken Hahnemann: If it has *to be in the middle , then we really couldn 't . Billie Windschitl : But if you were out far enough , would it make any difference? That 's why I mean. I don 't think they want it in the swimming area but it 's far enough out that you have to swim to it to get to it . Yeah , the pontoon 's on a lift . Emmings . Okay , thanks . Batzli : Thank you . Anyone else like to address the Planning Commission? The pontoon boat owner for example . Terry Thompson: No . Batzli : No? Okay . Anyone else like to address the Commission? Dana Johnson: My name is Dana Johnson . I 've just acquired the property next to these people . Back in 1991 they came to one of the Planning Commission 's , just like this tonight , and they objected to me about having two docks on my property . Me and Ken Lund and so we did get set back to have just one dock and the reason was because of the boat traffic . These people are asking for now to put a pontoon boat and motorboat out in front . At the same time they did limit it . Tom Krueger , that represented the Minnewashta Creek Recreational Beachlot , fought me , just limiting me to one dock on my property . Okay . And limiting my boat space also . So , and then the other thing too was that the ordinance says you have to be 10 feet from the lot line . Number 3 , the question is why didn 't they put on the application , on the beachlot application , why didn 't they put that they were requesting a boat and a pontoon at the same time? Now instead of coming here and applying for it now . I guess I wasn 't even aware of it . I just happened to come tonight just to check it out . Let 's see . And number three , there 's nothing written in the ordinance in Minnewashta Beach saying that there is , that they can moor a boat there at this time . To my knowledge , as Kathryn said earlier , that it 's outlawed in their ordinance and so forth . So those are some of the things I did want to address . At this time there is a boat and a pontoon boat out there . At this time . — Batzli : Did you buy the property last summer? Dana Johnson: I bought it about 2 weeks ago . I closed on it . So I officially own it now . Batzli : Do you object to them having the boats there or do you object to them being in front of your lot? Dana Johnson: Well I guess since they 're objecting , the whole Minnewashta Creek Recreational Beachlot was represented here last year stating that I can only have one dock on my property . Ken Lund also is buying the other half of the property which is going to be located near to them . He can 't make it here tonight so I guess I 'm representing us both because it 's still in my name totally . So I guess legally I can speak for the whole thing . I guess like I said earlier , just because they took and limited my boat Planning Commission Meeting May 6 , 1992 - Page 8 — access , I guess I have to object to their boat on the property . I 'm giving_ you Ken Lund 's feelings also on this due to the fact that he doesn 't want it on his side of the property either . Batzli : Okay . I think the answer was . — Farmakes: That 's the opposing lot on the opposite side? Dana Johnson: I 'm sorry . Farmakes: You 're talking about Ken Lund . Ken owns the one lot or? Dana Johnson: I own it all right now but I have split the lot . Okay . Ken Lund will be owning on their side of the association . Emmings: Ken Lund is immediately north of the beachlot and he 's then the next lot to the north . Dana Johnson: Right . Batzli : Not to belabor this point . When I asked the question I think you ended up , it started out that you were objecting to the both boats but then you ended up by saying that you don 't want it on your lot . Dana Johnson: Well my lot legally is the whole thing right now . — Batzli : Correct . Correct . But you don 't want it in front of Mr . Lund 's lot? Dana Johnson: That 's correct . I 'm speaking for Mr . Lund. Batzli : Do you really object to the fact that they have two boats if they — kept them in front of their beachlot? Billie Windschilt : Remember , we 're not Tom Krueger and we didn 't know — anything about . Terry Thompson: I have to apologize for Tom Krueger . I didn 't know anything like that went on . I swear to God . When did this happen? Batzli : You guys can discuss this after . Excuse me . Terry Thompson: We 're neighbors . I don 't Gant to start fighting with my neighbors . Dana Johnson: No , I don 't either . Conrad: I don 't even know if it 's an issue between you . It 's not an issue between the two parties . There are regulations as to how many docks so — it 's not like the beachlot , your beachlot would have said you can 't have two docks . There are ordinances that say that so don 't feel like that was the situation . — Planning Commission Meeting May 6 , 1992 - Page 9 Dana Johnson: My question is , I 'm speaking for Ken Lund tonight and he wanted me to express those feelings . That he does object to the boat . Batzli : Okay . Thank you . _ Mary Jo Moore : I 'm Mary Jo Moore . I live on Dartmouth Drive inbetween two beachlots . One conforming , one non-conforming and I guess I object to any expansion of the non-conforming beachlot . I don't think a swimming dock and , a raft is fine for the swimming beach but I don 't think it 's conducive with motorboats . Just for a safety factor if nothing else . And I don 't think this Council can rule whether a boat can be moored in front of somebody else 's property . And the Association's already said they won 't accept it on their beach so I think the boat issue should be just closed right now . And I do object to any expansion beyond the '81 numbers . Batzli : Thank you . Anyone else like to address the Planning Commission? Emmings moved, Ahrens seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Ahrens: Is the Association objecting having the boats in the beachlot area? Ken Hahnemann: I don 't think so as long as it doesn 't interfere with the swimming . However , the lot being 60 feet wide , we can put restrictions . . . Terry 's pontoon and it could be kind of difficult to achieve . Unless we put it out further . On the lake . Ahrens : Where 's the pontoon boat located? w Terry Thompson: Right on the property line . Ken Hannemann: Right on Mr . Johnson 's property line and our 's right now . Ahrens : So there may be some problems with the Association if you can 't find this up . Ken Hannemann: If they kept it in the middle we probably would have problems . If they could keep it where it is or even a little bit further back , that shouldn 't be an issue . A lot of the children in the Association are smaller and swim in the shallow water . And to my knowledge no one else in the Association has formally complained to me while I 've been the co-president that Terry and Billie 's boats . ere causing a problem . Or in years past . Emmings: But they 've never been parked in front of the beachlot right? Billie Windschilt : Yes . Oh absolutely . Emmings: Oh , okay . But that 's on the lot line . Terry Thompson: That 's on the lot line and mine 's been there for 12 years on the lot line . Planning Commission Meeting May 6 , 1992 - Page 10 — Ahrens: But if you move that pontoon boat in 10 feet , that would be the swimming area? — Ken Hannemann: Yes . . . Terry Thompson: Is there an ordinance . . .from being moved out? Ahrens: Past the raft? Conrad: Not one of our 's but the DNR might have . You can't be a hazard . If you 're a hazard to boat traffic . Ken Hannemann: If the raft is out beyond where the pontoon would be , is there a restriction on how far out it can go? Ahrens: There may be because the DNR has restrictions on that . Ken Hannemann : Because in year 's past we did put the raft out . . .further down the shore from our 's . Aanenson: It could become an obstacle if it 's out too far and the DNR would have to make an interpretation . That 'd be the instruction . — Farmakes: I have a question on the Minutes . Page 44 of the City Council meeting . July 8 , 1991 . The top . You 're the current president of — Minnewashta Creek Association? Ken Hannemann : Myself and Joan Skallman are co-presidents . Farmakes: Well this is her comment here . She 's talking about , if we have a conflict with the owner of the boat mainly because they sold the property in 1978 . They 're talking about a pontoon boat . Is that the pontoon boat — that we 're talking about here? You 're the owner? Terry Thompson: Yes . Farmakes: Where do you presently live? Do you live in the development? Terry Thompson: Right across the street . First house in the development . — Right across the street . I walk across the street and get on the boat . Farmakes: Okay , but you live in the development , correct? — Terry Thompson: Yep . Farmakes : Okay . Because I construed this to mean that you no longer lived in the development . Ken Hannemann: This is in error . That 's what Kate talked about earlier that she was under the . . . Aanenson: We called the Association and asked if this boat belonged to the_ Association and they kept telling us no . It wasn 't until today that they Planning Commission Meeting May 6 , 1992 - Page 11 said , oh it belongs to someone in the Association but not the Association . It was a misunderstanding . Farmakes: Okay , so you 're a card carrying member of the Minnewashta Creek Association right? I don 't know . It would seem to me the solution would -- be to move it out as far as you could . I know this is very difficult for riparian rights because the problem is that it 's a confusing issue . There are overlapping jurisdictions . Not only , I called somebody at the State DNR , Department of Waters today trying to figure out what this is because I 've heard so many different definitions of where the jurisdictions fall . The comment they made was , it 's depending on the lake but in this particular case , there are overlapping jurisdictions here . The fact of what it says on your deed means nothing . The City or the State still has jurisdiction in the matter and it 's overlapping . What they go with is the lead , the most restrictive of the Covenants . So I noticed that there 's less argument with this and yours than some of the others but I guess my heart kind of goes out to the people who purchase things that they believe were right in the past . A lot of this problem has to do with the people who are selling you the property . They basically were selling you rights that you didn 't have the right to sell you . Buyer beware . Unfortunately the City also has an obligation to maintain some sense as people buy a 60 foot lot and they want to put 20 boats in it . It 's not conducive to safety or good relations with your neighbors . I would hope on this thing , it seems to me that this is a reasonable , if you can move that out , or that boat out farther , that this would solve this problem . What they presently have on here compared to what they had in 1981 seems to be . . . Erhart : The way I understand this is that the boat , up until a year or two ago , really parked , was somebody 's boat parked in front of somebody else 's lot . Up until a year ago you had really no relationship to this beachiot . Only the last year was it in front of the beach . So the precedent there is only a year or two . The pontoon boat however you 're saying has been parked as part of this beachiot for 12 years? Terry Thompson : 12 years . Her 's has too . Erhart : It was parked in front of private , somebody else 's property . Billie Windschilt : No . I said it was parked right on the property line . Terry Thompson: The old woman that lived there , she never used the lake or even come out of her house . We moved it over a little bit on front of her house but she didn 't ever complain or nothing . And the pontoon's been out there for 12 years . On a lift . On the property line . Erhart : Okay , and you 're both members of the Association? Terry Thompson: Right . Erhart : Well I tell you the problem with this whole thing is , we 're going to have to all sit here and say , we 're going to have to develop some philosophy about what we 're going to do with these things . How many have we got coming in this summer? Planning Commission Meeting — May 6 , 1992 - Page 12 Aanenson: 12 . Erhart : And then the problem is , if you don 't do that , we can be inconsistent from one to the next . Batzli : We 're developing a philosophy as we speak right now . Erhart : Okay , can we pass it on then? Let it develop some more . Batzli : Sure . Ladd , go ahead . Conrad: I just got to repeat some , and we 're going to repeat a lot of stuff but the boats have been there for 12 years . Both boats . Terry Thompson: Both boats . Aanenson: That 's what they 're saying . — Terry Thompson: And they have been . Conrad: But we don 't have an inventory? When we did it . Aanenson : Whoever did the inventory back in 1981 didn 't appear to be any boats . - Terry Thompson: I can get affidavits swearing that they 've been there . Roy Leech , he launches and pulls my boat out every spring and fall . He 's — got a pontoon trailer . I mean I didn 't come here to lie to you . It 's beeT there for 12 years . Aanenson: And maybe it was because it was on the property line of the — neighbor 's property . Conrad: You 're going to have to bear with us because we are going to be — watching 12 different groups come and we 're trying to be consistent and so far we are not quite sure how we 're going to do that . We 're scrambling a little bit here . Ken Hannemann: We 're the first one? Conrad: You 're the first one . We thought you were going to be the easy — one . At least I did . Kate . There was a public notice sent . It was published in the paper . Notice sent to whoa Aanenson: On this one? Conrad: Yeah . Aanenson: Everyone on Lake Minnewashta and then the Homeowners Association . Conrad: Everybody on the lake? Aanenson: Yes . Planning Commission Meeting May 6 , 1992 - Page 13 Conrad: Every resident? Emmings: I didn 't get one . I live on the lake and I didn 't get one . I knew it was coming up however , because I got my packet but I didn 't get one . Batzli : But it was everyone on the lake plus the entire homeowners association should have gotten on . Ken Hannemann: I got a copy and I forwarded it . Batzli : You sent to every house within the? Aanenson: No , the president . Batzli : Just the president? Okay . Conrad: And that 's okay for homeowners associations . I think that makes sense . But lakeshore , I 'm real concerned about the neighbors on either side . We know we have one here but I don 't know who else . I 've got to be real careful . The swimming raft , in my mind , as long as the neighbors aren 't protesting that raft , I don 't see a problem with it . So I guess philosophically and I 'm going to try to tell you some opinions here . I 'm going to do a couple things . I 'm going to try for myself sink everything into the current standard but also use 1981 as a guideline . If I can . And some things will be in concert with what I hear neighbors saying . If they 're complaining about something , I 'm going to be real sensitive to that so that the raft , I don 't see a problem with because I haven 't heard the neighbors complaining a great deal about that . Which talks about - intensification of use . And I 'm not hearing that that 's a problem . But I 'm assuming Kate that neighbors got the notice . So some people did but anyway , so the raft is okay . I guess the boats moored . If there were 2 boats there in 1981 , and we have an affidavit sworn to the fact that there were . And because it 's less than what our ordinance would allow . Even though that wouldn 't be a beachlot today but it is less than what our ordinance would allow today , I would feel comfortable with the 2 boats . But the 2 boats have got to be in front of the beachlot and can 't , have to consider the 10 foot setback . That 's real important . The neighbors have to have that space . Especially , that 's real critical so I think how this - gets worded later on , it 's going to be a beachlot . It 's going to be your Association that has to straight this out and I 'd rather have you straighten it out than us . Billie Windschilt : We have a neighbor on the other side that 's . . .and I don 't think he would have a problem if we put the boats . . . - Conrad: What we don 't know, doesn't hurt us . If that 's comfortable for him , that 's your relationship . We 'd rather have your relationship . The ordinance is there to protect your neighbor and if he feels comfortable or if they feel comfortable that you 're doing that , that 's between the two of you . Those are my comments . Dana Johnson: I just have a question here . How could the other neighbors comment when it was never really on the application in the first place? Planning Commission Meeting May 6 , 1992 - Page 14 When they applied . Batzli : That 's why , I 'd just like to say that what we 're going to do here tonight is make a recommendation . We 've had the public hearing . The neighbor , all the neighbors will , it will go in front of the City Council , and Dick? Richard Wing: I happen to represent that neighbor . He had called me . . . Emmings : This is now the lot south of the beachlot? Richard Wing: That 's correct . Chick Anding did call me specifically and I 'm Richard Wing . City Council . And I realize this is a hardy issue and you 're going to have some difficult decisions and I 'm hoping that the — decisions will be made here because we don 't want to deal with them . We don 't have the time and we 'll be there for days on end if you can 't resolve these . At any rate , in regards to Mr . Anding . He did call me . He said he_ had heard a rumor that they had asked for docks and so on and so forth . Apparently having to do with some Minutes from an annual meeting . I did call Kate and specifically ask what the permit was . She stated it was as status quo . No boats . No docks . I just referred that information to him . At that point he saw no reason to pursue this . He is concerned and he does care . About that issue . And if there were requests for docks or boats , he would clearly be here tonight . That 's my opinion and I can 't speak for — him . Conrad: The issue is on the applicant it said no boats because of their misunderstanding of what , who owns the boat . Richard Wing : The application , because it stated no boats . He was comfortable that it was status quo and it took no action on his part . Ahrens: Dick , did he say he objects to the pontoon? The pontoon is right next to his property . — Richard Wing: No . No . The pontoon boat is on Mr . Johnson's property . Terry Thompson: It 's not on Mr . Johnson 's property . It 's on the property line . Richard Wing: Well , alright . It 's on the property line . However , the moored boat was on Mr . Johnson 's property and that was an issue because that 's what prompted the recent City ordinance update . And I frankly , as long as I 'm here , am concerned because we put a lot of time and effort into_ the restructuring of the , it 's not the beachlot ordinance but the lake useage ordinance . And a couple things came out of that that are in effect at this time . Number one is that you have to moor the boat in front of your house if you own property . As it was before , in theory you could own — it anywhere you want to . City ordinance now requires that you moor the boat in front of your property specifically . There is no leeway . Also , and I don 't think staff has informed you of this adequately because these — ordinances are in effect and I 'm very sensitive about this dock setback zone . I don 't think that 's gotten enough issue tonight . If it comes to the Council , I 'm going to enforce the dock setback zone and it has to be Planning Commission Meeting May 6 , 1992 - Page 15 part of every permit that comes in . Whether it 's my home or anybody else 's home or a recreational beachlot . And that says , the dock setback . No boat , portion thereof , raft , moored boat , boatlift can be in the dock setback zone . That 's to protect the neighbor from neighbor . It protects the creek owners from Mr . Johnson throwing out his boat or pontoon or dock straight out his property line and cutting off their lake useage . Or on the other side . In theory Mr . Anding and Mr . Johnson could put docks straight out their property lines and cut this beach off altogether . That 's not fair and reasonable , nor is it fair to them to incringe on their property . So the dock setback had unanimous support of the City Council . Emmings: And that 's the 10 feet that you 're talking about? Richard Wing: That 's the 10 feet . So I believe that the permit , and staff should be making that clear . And I think I 've made it clear and I think the Council 's made it clear that we support the dock setback and the permits are going to require dock setbacks . Farmakes: What about the issue on the report from the Director . It talks aobut the setback but it also says that there 's a limit as to who can dock in front of the property . It says here that you 're changing that to eliminate that . Richard Wing : Okay , a non-riparian lot is different than a riparian lot . The riparian lot has to be owner or blood relative to have a boat . So I can have a boat or a blood relative . Now on the Associations , that 's irrelevant . Farmakes: Unless there 's a differentiation between the term moorage and dockage . Did the city make a differentiation between that? Aanenson: Yes . Richard Wing: Clearly . A moored boat cannot in it 's mooring be within the dock setback zone . Farmakes: The DNR says anything that confines a boat is a mooring . Whether it 's a dock or something you tie it up to a tree . Richard Wing: Well , because of this problem and the fact that the boat was physically on Mr . Johnson 's property , this is one that percipitated it . There was a couple on Lotus I believe also . Or Minnewashta Heights that just clearly put boat lifts 10-20 feet over'' in the neighbor 's property and finally someone had to draw the line . There had to be a game play that was fair for everybody . I keep within my property lines . Everyone is expected to do the same . Just the fact that they have 60 homes on a 40 foot lot such as Minnewashta Heights doesn 't justify they take over the side properties . So I 'll just put that out and again , I believe that staff ought to represent those ordinances . Aanenson: Can I make a clarification on that? And I know Dick has concerns about that . I did speak to Roger on this . First of all , it wasn 't addressed in this specific instance because they weren 't asking . The application came in with no boats , okay . So we didn 't address it . Planning Commission Meeting May 6 , 1992 - Page 16 Secondly , I asked Roger Knutson , City Attorney , how does grandfathering apply to this? Well , if they were in a certain area and they had their dock in place and it exceeded what our dock ordinance has placed , they would still have the same grandfather rights whether it met the dock — setback zone or not . So that comes into play . So it wasn 't addressed on this specific one because my understanding was , and it wasn 't clear until this afternoon , that those boats belonged to someone in the Association . _ And the application came in with none . We called people last week and they still told us , no . They 're not association boats . So we were very confused . Farmakes: So if the other lot owner agrees to them moving their boats over in front of and mooring? Aanenson: No . Farmakes : That does not come under , that would not be allowed under the ordinance? — Emmings: Right . Billie windschilt : What about if we just keep within our own area? We discussed that . I didn 't know anything about the setbacks . Farmakes: I don 't know that , the setback that I got from the DNR today was 4 feet so I don 't know how that plays into navigational hazards . Or if they 'll give you a variance on that . Batzli : Ladd , were you complete? Conrad: I 'm done . — Dana Johnson: I 'd just like to make one more comment on this . Batzli : Excuse me sir . Please . Let 's complete and you 'll get another opportunity , believe me . Ledvina : Okay . I guess one thing , if we do act on this this evening , we — would have to , or I feel the need for the approval for the action on this to include a condition which would require affidavits from the two boat owners that the 1981 survey was in error . — Terry Thompson: 1986 was too . Ledvina : Okay . Well , if we can go to that point and because our baseline — is the 1981 survey and I think we need to stick to that . As it relates to the boats that had been moored since 1981 or sooner , I think that would be acceptable and then also as stated here , the setback requirements . — Batzli : Okay , thank you . Steve . Emmings: Well , I don 't if this is as difficult as we 're making it . Maybe it is but I guess just my feeling on this is , number one . It 's obvious that boats that are there can 't be parked in front of somebody else 's Planning Commission Meeting May 6 , 1992 - Page 17 property no matter what else you do . And they can 't be within 10 feet of the lot line either . And now it seems to me the boats are in the swimming beach and I think that 's a real serious problem but I think it 's an association problem . I don 't see anything in the , whether those boats would have been grandfathered in as far as the city ordinance is concerned , had they been parked in front of the beachlot since 1979 , I don 't know , but I don 't think it matters because those aren't the facts . Then I look at the conditional use permit for the beachlot that the City of Chanhassen is _ a party to and I don 't see anything in there that allows any boats in front of the beachlot . So I don 't know what , they can 't be grandfathered in with respect to the covenants that set up the association and the beachlot . I don 't think . Erhart : Steve , is this the '79 document that you 're looking at? Emmings : Yeah . So I don 't really , I guess the application we got from the homeowners association does not ask that we approve any boats . Terry Thompson : I didn 't know we had to get an approvement for a boat in the lake . I didn 't know . Emmings : Now wait . I 've got the floor . The homeowners association has - not asked us to approve any boats . I want to know from the homeowners association if they 're asking for boats now , with this application . Because we 've got to act on this application tonight . Ken Hahnemann: And as the co-president , I would say we should have changed that to reflect two boats . I filled it out wrong I guess you could say because I just pretty much reiterated the inventory in 1981 figuring that we weren 't going to be allowed two boats . . .or be able to moor boats because the inventory showed zero . Therefore , we would be . . . Emmings : Now are you speaking on behalf on the association and saying that you want us to approve two boats in front of your beachlot? Ken Hannemann : Yes . Emmings: Okay . Well the swimming raft , I guess I 'd say in general to what Ladd and Tim have brought up in terms of having some kind of consistent - approach to these things would be real nice but I think we 're going to find out they 're all very individual and we 're going to have to very much go on a case by case basis . I don 't think we 're going to be able to develop a consistent philosophy that we 're going to be able to apply to each beachlot . With that in mind , en item like the swimming raft , since it 's a swimming beach , seems like a very reasonable thing to me to have out there and I 'd support it . In fact , I 'd support it even if the neighbors - complained about it . Just because it seems reasonable to me . I think having boats within that swimming beach with the raft and knowing how kids like to play around objects like a raft or a boat , if it 's parked there , I think it 's incredibly dangerous and would be a foolish thing for the homeowners association to do at best . So I 'd be , on those grounds , I would not be in favor of their being any boats . First of all because the conditional use permit in 1979 , which was in place at or before these people started putting their boats out there , doesn 't provide for any Planning Commission Meeting May 6 , 1992 - Page 18 boats . That would be my primary ground for that . And number two , I think it 's dangerous and unreasonable . I think it 's too bad but I also don 't think they can have their boats in front of somebody else 's property and they can say they 're on the lot line but when I 'm out on the lake , and I looked at those last summer , they weren 't on the lot lines . They were in front of the neighboring property , at least in my eye . And that seemed real clear to me . And it may be that the woman who lived there before — didn 't complain but I think that 's completely irrelevant . So I guess , bottom line here . I think that what they 've requested is all very reasonable . I would not approve the change for 2 boats . Batzli : Let me ask this question . Given the fact that we have at least one neighbor who did not come tonight because it 's not on the application . Seeing as how we really don't know where they would intend to moor the — boats in relation to the swimming beach . The issue is we don 't really know where they would put them . We didn 't know in advance they were going to have them . Staff didn 't have a chance to look at it or even contemplate it . Does it make sense basically to give this back to them and say , reapply with what you really want at this point? So we can look at it and actually consider whether we want to give them boats or not . Because it seems to me that at this point say yes or no to the boats . I don 't know . — It seems obvious to me they can 't put them on the neighbor 's but I don 't know where they would go in front of their beachlot or whether it would even be feasible . And it seems to me that I think the beachlot association_ really should consider and maybe , I mean he said that yes . He wants this to be part of their application but I don 't believe they came in here understanding that there 's a 10 foot setback that we 're going to put the _ boats into and do they really want the boats if they 're going to impinge on their beach . Because I think I heard the president at least partially say at one point , gee . Maybe we wouldn't want it then if that 's where they had to go . So what my recommendation would be , is to basically give this back — to the association and say , this is where , if we give the boats or even consider the boats , they 're going to have to go 10 feet in . And do you really want the boats and come back with a complete application with — everything in there that you really want . Because I don 't believe that it 's fair to have told at least one neighbor that don 't bother coming . There 's nothing in here and then we 're going to stick him with 2 boats potentially along his lot line . Even they 're only within 10 feet . I think— he should be given an opportunity to speak on that issue . Conrad: Do you want him to speak here or in front of the City Council? — Batzli : Well , that 's the issue . Do we want to look at it? Is there anything else for us to add? And if we decide that we want to act on it _ tonight , then I would propose at least one or two things . That we look at . At least have some sort of system in regards to this after going through this once . Farmakes : Are there other areas that they should be looking into with regards to safety of the issue of storing these boats within the lot line? Such as other jurisdiction? — Aanenson : Yeah , we 'll check on that . How far they can be out . Planning Commission Meeting May 6 , 1992 - Page 19 • Erhart : I might suggest that we do , someone entertain a motion to pass it with the boats . Anybody who wants to table it or vote against it can vote nay . You could vote against it , whether you want to table it or you want to vote it down , your mind wouldn 't change whether or not they brought it back . And then if it 's voted down , then we can vote then again to table it or to recommend no boats . That way we have the opportunity to pass it along here tonight . Do you understand what I 'm saying Steve? Batzli : So you 're basically saying that what Dick told us that he wants the decisions made here so they don 't have to have a lot of new people coming up in front of them is meaningless and we just should pass it on? Erhart : It 's possible here that a majority would say , they 're not going to vote for the boats whether or not they come back . Change their application . I can tell you , it 's not going to change my mind . It 's possible that we could finish it here tonight . If we vote on it that way . So if someone make a motion to vote it with the boats in . If that fails , then we can deal with the tabling and it 's possible that we could finish this tonight . You understand what I 'm saying? Emmings : I agree with Tim . Batzli : Is that , do people want to see it come back or no? Do you want to see it come back? Joan does . Farmakes : I 'm concerned about the safety issue . I 'm wondering what they 're going to do if it comes down between boats going in there or them using the beach . I realize that 's probably an issue to handle internally by themselves but I 'd like to know what the guidelines are regarding that anyway . Batzli : But see , I would like to see for example how big their raft is going to be . Where they 're going to put it and how big the boats are and where they fit in relation to the raft . I don 't see any of that . Farmakes: They 're talking 69 feet . Batzli : I don 't see any of that . I don 't know if it 's safe or not . So I don 't know that I can vote yes or no on the boats . I think that they were there in 1981 and if that 's what we 're going to use as our baseline , then maybe I 'll say yes . They may be entitled to some boats . But maybe I don 't want them to have a raft , even though it 's not as intense of a use because maybe I don 't want kids swimming out there and encouraged to swim out there to the boats . • Erhart : I have a question . Is it Council 's intent that we ignore the '79 contract? Emmings: Yeah . How he 'd get around the '79 thing? Erhart : With the reading that we 're supposed to try to find what was there in 1981 , yeah . Probably boats were there in 1981 but are we supposed to completely ignore the '79 contract? Planning Commission Meeting May 6 , 1992 - Page 20 Batzli : I don 't know . My understanding was we look at the '81 baseline and we use that . Emmings: But I think this case is a little different in that there 's an agreement to which the City is a party from 1979 talking about how that property is going to be used . Batzli : Well , that to me is another reason to bring it back and basically — say to our City Attorney , you know . Do we look at this document and ignore the '81 baseline under the Statute? Under our ordinance . Emmings : That certainly didn 't invalidate this agreement . That ordinance . Terry Thompson : On the safety issue , we do not start our boats until we 're out past . As a matter of fact , there 's water skiers that go right by our — swimming raft . . . There 's people that come right by there . When we push our boats out , we 're way out past in deep water before we start them . Batzli : Well see , we don 't have control over either the boats that come by right now and what we 're trying to do is we 're trying to avoid putting you know . Terry Thompson: This boat 's been there for 12 years . We haven 't had a problem . We 're real safety conscious . Batzli : But if we approve it , we will most likely require you to move it closer in to the center of your lot and that may be aggravating the situation . We don 't have all the information in front of us to be quite _ honest . We were all surprised at the last minute that suddenly there 's boats in this equation and none of us knew that . Conrad : I think we should table this because . . .unknown and I 'd like the — homeowners to make sure they 're in agreement . All of them and we need some guidance from the Attorney in terms of what this , you know the '81 versus the '79 conditional use permit . I don 't know how to treat that . — Batzli : I don 't know either . Conrad: There are enough things there that make it worth while . It would — go up muddy and I 'd prefer to have it coming back very clean . Batzli : Would anyone like to second that motion? Farmakes : Second . Batzli : Any discussion? All in favor of tabling this application and requesting that the Homeowners Association renew the application and republish and send it to the attorney . Emmings: Little discussion? Batzli : Yeah . Planning Commission Meeting May 6 , 1992 - Page 21 Emmings: I 'd like to see , I think it 's very important for the President of the homeowners association to find out what all of those families with all those children want to do in terms of having 2 boats parked in what 's going to be a 50 foot , or 40 foot area in front of the beach . Because you 're here representing them tonight and I know that but I don 't know if they knew that was a possibility . So it would be nice to know what they think about that . Conrad: Staff should be working in terms of what the DNR allows in terms of moorings . How far out . Safety issues . We need that . The homeowners or beachlot owners , you need to know that information so you should be working with our staff too . Emmings: I don 't think there 's anybody up here who wants to see you lose something that you 've had for 12 years , and I mean that sincerely . Even though right now I 'd vote against you having your boats , that 's not an easy thing to do and I don 't think anybody wants to do it . And if there is some way to accommodate it , and for us to accommodate that historical use , that 's fine . But I don 't see what it is right now personally . Batzli : Okay . I did promise this gentleman . Did you have something that 's still pertinent at this point? Dana Johnson: You pretty much covered it all . My question was , the 1979 covenants and you 've addressed that . Batzli : Yes , we will address that . Conrad moved , Farmakes seconded to table action on the Non-Conforming Use Permit for a Recreational Beachlot for Minnewashta Creek Homeowners Association for further clarification . All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously . Batzli : Please work with staff on resubmitting your application if you will . As far as the plan of attacking these , I think Ladd had an excellent idea and Matt as well . I think that if we 're going to take a look at - modifying our 1981 baseline based on the evidence presented , I think we would like some sort of evidence . Either by way of an affidavit , photographs , whatever . Something in writing . Something that we can take a look at and I would also like us to focus on whether it is an intensification which intrudes on the neighbors . Ladd kind of brought it up you know . The raft is fairly innocuous . Suddenly you start putting in boats . Intensifying it . It 's intruding more on the neighbors and I think - at least those two steps we need to take a look at as we 're going through these applications . Unfortunately I think we 're going to develop other factors as we go through these . Ahrens : I think too if we 're going to ask for affidavits , we should ask for affidavits from adjoining landowners rather than anybody out there who may be interested , if possible . CITY OEN SS F PC DATE: Sept. 16, 1992 ., � I , r-rG CHANHCC DATE: Sept. 28, 1992 ' '`� ' r_` CASE#: 92-5 PUD, 92-2 SPR 92-6 IUP STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Preliminary Planned Unit Development Approval Preliminary Plat Site Plan Approval for Target Store z Interim Use Permit for grading entire site Q VLOCATION: West 78th Street, north of Hwy. 5 east of Powers Blvd. and west of Monterey Drive Q. APPLICANT: Ryan Construction RLK and Associates Q 700 International Centre 922 Main Street 900 Second Avenue SouthHopkins, MN 55343 Minneapolis, MN 55402 PRESENT ZONING: BG, General Business ACREAGE: 22.03 acres DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - BG, General Business Q s _ Hwy. 5/ IOP Industrial Office Park E - BG, General Business W - R 12 High Density Residential WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. (f) PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site has a significant stand of mature trees including oaks, elms basswood and box elders. The site slopes to the south. Currency, a portion of this site is farmed. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial Target Development August 29, 1992 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota will be the developer of the Chanhassen Target store and outlot/retail sites. This will be the first retail project Ryan Construction has developed in Chanhassen. Target stores will be the owner of the Target store and property. The entire property is 22.03 acres including a 116,822 square foot Target store (10.29 acres), Outlot B offering space for 15,000 to 17,000 square feet of future retail development (5.91) acres, and Oudot A (1.54 acres)tree preservation area. The HRA is also considering a gateway treatment on a portion of Outlot B, which would be approximately .50 acres is size. The gateway area is located near the intersection of Hwy. 5 and Powers Blvd. It would be occupied by some sort of monument and a landscaped area to be designed by the city. The total acreage does include the Burdick Park Addition, Block 3, Lots 1 and 2. Staff had recommended that this area be added to the PUD at the time of preliminary plat approval. At this time,Target is requesting site plan approval. Approval for any development in Outlot B will come at a later date. Individual site plan approvals will be required. The applicant is requesting a grading permit as well as preliminary PUD and plat approval. The entire proposal has changed since the last Planning Commission meeting. Most significantly these changes include the design of the Target store, the design of Oudot B and a proposed relocation of West 78th Street. The proposed touchdown location of West 78th Street at Powers Boulevard has been moved 120 feet to the South. The relocation would bring the road closer to Hwy. 5. It appears that this relocation may work, but approval from the County Traffic Engineer, MNDOT, and the city will be required. If the road remains in the original realignment instead of the current Ryan proposal, the conceptual configuration of Outiot B would need to be revised. The major concerns of the Planning Commission at the time of conceptual review were the view (appearance) of Target from West 78th, increasing the amount of landscaping in the Target parking lot, lack of access between Target and the buildings in Outlot B, and the design of the Outiot B. Staff feels that these issues have been successfully addressed in the revised site plan. At the time of conceptual review, Ryan Construction has proposed 3 alternatives for Oudot B. The preliminary PUD has focused in on one design for Outlot B. This version includes four buildings ranging from 15,000 to 17,000 square feet located on 5.19 acres. The design for Outiot B also shows a redesigned road that provides a better flow through the development As before, the exact tenant mix remains unknown. However, there will be a maximum of only two fast food outlets. The purpose of the concept plan is to establish an overall layout of the outlot along with standards for building design, landscaping, pedestrian access and signage. We believe the current proposal, when combined with conditions proposed by staff, will be effective in directing the satisfactory development of this area. Target Development August 29, 1992 Page 3 A significant amount of landscaping has been added to the Target parking lot. In addition, the amount of impervious surface has been reduced. The parcels that are included in the Target PUD plan includes the Burdick Park 2nd Addition, Lots 1-5 and West Village Heights subdivision, Lot 1, Block 2, and Burdick Park Addition, Lots 1 and 2, Block 3. If the road moves to the south an outlot, 1.41 acres in size, will be created. It is envisioned that this would be combined with land to the north owned by the James Company. There is a large stand of mature trees located on this site. The HRA will be acquiring these trees and the Target store will be tucked against them. Loading docks and access will be located off of Picha Drive via Monterey. Therefore, all loading will be screened from view. The Target store will have the 8 inch tile glazing with blue, green and red located at 8 feet, 10 feet and 20 feet, respectively. The plan proposes a painted masonry with dark tan on the bottom one-third and light tan on the top two-thirds. Block columns, 26 feet in height, will be placed along the front entrance side of the building. The building will be 28 feet in height including a 3 foot 4 inch parapet wall. At the top of this wall will be a 11 corbelled element. The parapet wall would block all views of HVAC equipment; this would include views from Hwy. 5. A pitched roof element to the roof has been proposed over the entrance to the Target store. This pitch element is proposed to be a metal standing seam, bronze in color. This design element has been carried around to the West 78th side of the building. A facade punch out has been shown. The facade element will have a metal standing seam roof placed on 20 foot columns. There will be some back lighting to these elements, that should help soften the building. Staff feels that the design on West 78th is superior to the proposal submitted earlier. Although the building is of necessity, quite large, the new architectural elements are more reflective of downtown Chanhassen. We believe ft will be one of, if not the most attractive Target in the Twin Cities area. This development proposal calls for realigning West 78th where it touches down on Powers Boulevard. This proposal would move the road approximately 120 feet to the south or dose to Hwy 5. Strgar, Roscoe, Fausch (SRF), the city's traffic engineering consultants, advised the staff that this alignment may work. Tentatively, MNDOT and the Carver County Traffic Engineer concur but review and approval from these agencies as well as the city would be necessary before this alignment is approved. At the time of writing,.the exact location of the road remains undetermined. The alternative alignments have no impact upon the Target site, only Oudot B. The right-of-way on West 78th Street has been shown at 50 feet from the centerline for the entire length of the development. The 50 feet allows for two through traffic lanes, required turning lanes and, in some areas, sidewalks and landscaped boulevard. Strgar, Roscoe, Fausch (SRF), will be preparing the road design for West 78th. The Target proposal shows 3 access points into the proposed development; one at the entrance to Target, one into the Target parking area, and Target Development August 29, 1992 Page 4 one into the Outiot B parking area. SRF has recommended that the access closest to Powers Boulevard servicing the outlot be a right tum-in/tum-out only. A signal may be warranted at the Target entrance. Staff is recommending the use of the PUD zone for several reasons. These reasons include: preservation of desirable site characteristics (trees), improved pretreatment of storm water, improved and coordinated architectural standards(pitched roofs, uniform signage and building design), coordinated site development, traffic management and design techniques (reducing the potential for traffic conflicts), screening of undesirable views of loading areas. Staff believes that this project is well conceived but a few issues still need to be finalized before final approval of the PUD. The use of the PUD zone for this site shall ensure the type of development desired for this area. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning to PUD preliminary plat, site plan, and interim use permit for the Target store subject to the conditions in the staff report. Site Characteristics This site is currently vacant, although a portion of the site is planted with corn. There is a produce stand located on the property that has been there for a few years. There is a 3 plus acre area of trees. The site slopes towards Hwy. 5 and is approximately 25 feet below the road grade on Hwy. 5. The city, in conjunction with Barton Aschman, is in the process of developing a Corridor Study for Hwy. 5. The views from Hwy. 5 and the proposed development in this area is critical to the image of the city. The site is bordered by 3 major collectors, Hwy. 5, West 78th, and Powers Boulevard. SRF has been working on the West 78th Improvement District. Recently,the City Council has approved the location of traffic signals at Laredo, Kerber, Great Plains and Market. SRF is also working on the relocation and design of West 78th Street. There is a significant change in elevation from the Target site to the Burdick property to the east. There is a need for a retaining wall for the 5 to 6 feet in elevation difference. Access to the property to the east will be gained through the Target parking lot. Background The parcels that are included in the Target PUD plan include the Burdick Park 2nd Addition, Lots 1-5 and West Village Heights subdivision, Block 1, Lot 1 and Burdick Park Addition, Block 3, Lots 1 and 2. The total acreage to be rezoned is 20.62 acres if the road is moved to the south and 22.03 acres if the road is located on the proposed Comprehensive Plan alignment. Target Development August 29, 1992 Page 5 The Burdick Park Addition, approved in 1990, platted this area into 5 lots. Each of these lots could be developed individually. In the worst case scenario, they would each have incompatible architecture, individual pylon signs and separate entrances onto West 78th Street. At the same time, traffic generation would be similar to the current Target proposal. The PUD concept plan for Target was approved by the Planning Commission on September 2, 1992, and is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on September 14th. The HRA will acquire the property where the development is proposed. This purchase is contingent upon receiving all city approvals including rezoning, site plan, subdivision, etc. REZONING Justification for Rezoning to PUD The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 22.03 acres from BG, General Business to PUD, Planned Unit Development. 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 development 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. It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to realized as evaluated against the following criteria: Planned unit developments are to encourage the following: 1. Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features, inducting steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and scenic views. Finding. There is a significant stand of trees located on the southeast corner of the site. These trees include oak, elm, ash, basswood and box elder. The HRA will be acquiring 1.54 acres of the trees. This will include the area that is predominately oak, so that the trees are preserved. These trees are highly visible from the Hwy. 5 corridor and their preservation will be an asset to the city. They will offer considerable screening of a portion of the Target store and all loading areas. Target Development August 29, 1992 Page 6 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. The subject property is triangular and bordered by 3 major collectors. The advantage in the PUD proposal is that the city is gaining a totally planned concept. If this were to develop separately as individuals parcels, signage, landscaping, lighting and architecture would not be compatible. The coordination of the site development will also improve the efficiency and cost effectiveness of public improvements. There will be a comprehensive storm drainage system. The building pad on Outlot B will have a common access as opposed to separate drives. 3. High quality design and design compatibility with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned. Site planning, landscaping and building architecture should reflect higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the community. Finding. The applicants are proposing to submit individual buildings plans for each development lot. The city will utilize its normal site plan review procedure for each. The approved PUD documents will establish firm guidelines to ensure that the site is developed in a consistent and well planned manner. Higher quality development will result. There will be compatibility with the development occurring in the CBD. 4. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city will be encouraged. Finding. Sidewalks will be placed along West 78th and Powers Boulevard. Staff is also recommending sidewalks along the western side of the road through Outlot B and a pedestrian access between Target and Outlot B. In addition,the HRA is proposing a gateway treatment adjacent to Powers Blvd. Additional landscaping will be provided along West 78th, Powers Blvd. and Hwy. 5. The back of the Target store will be against the trees and all loading will be screened from view. 5. Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Finding. The Comprehensive Plan guides this area for commercial development. This area is adjacent to the Market Square development. The property north of the site is also zoned commercial and guided for commercial development. The city is currently reviewing a multifamily development in the vicinity. 6. 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. Target Development August 29, 1992 Page 7 Finding. The Park and Recreation Commission have recommended that sidewalks be placed along West 78th and Powers Blvd. The Commission also recommended that the park and trail fees be received in lieu of park and trail dedication. 7. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate with the PUD. Findinq. Not applicable to this proposal. 8. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sightings and the clustering of buildings and land uses. Findinq. Chanhassen is one of the few suburban communities that is able to have a pedestrian oriented CBD. This is possible by the creation of a centralized "downtown". There is a park and ride facility in the area and the downtown is connected by sidewalks. 9. 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. Findinq. Access to this site will be from Hwy. 5, Powers Blvd. and West 78th. The City Council has recently approved the location of 4 traffic signals on West 78th Street at Great Plains, Market, Laredo and Kerber Boulevard. Strgar, Roscoe, Fausch,the city's consulting traffic engineers, have recommended that a signal be placed at the main entrance to the Target store. Of the other 2 entrances, one will be a full access (non- signaled) into the Target parking lot and the other access to the building in Outlot B will be right-in and right-out only. Summary of Rezoning to PUD Rezoning the property to PUD provides the applicant with flexibility but allows the city to request additional improvements and the site's unique features can be better protected. The reduced standards allow the disturbed areas to be further removed from the unique features of the site. In return for reducing the standards, the city is receiving: • Consistent with Comprehensive Plan • Screening of undesirable view of loading areas • Preservation of desirable site characteristics (trees) • Improved architectural standards including; pitched roof, uniform sign and architecture • Traffic management and design techniques to reduce potential for traffic conflicts • Improved pretreatment of storm water Target Development August 29, 1992 Page 8 PRELIMINARY APPROVAL At this time the applicant is requesting preliminary plat and PUD approval as well as site plan approval for the Target Site. Staff is recommending the following to be used as the development standards for this PUD zone. General Site Plan/Architecture DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The applicant has proposed the following development standards in their PUD plan. Staff has reviewed these proposals, made comments or findings, and then given the staff proposal for language to be incorporated into the final PUD plan document. a. Intent The purpose of this zone is to create a PUD commercial/retail zone. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive proposal. All utilities are required to be placed underground. Each lot proposed for development shall proceed through site plan review based on the development standards outlined below. b. Permitted Uses Applicant's Proposal. The applicant is requesting that all building sites within the affected property shall be used solely for a Target store and commercial retail development. Target Stores, Inc. will be the owner of the Target store and property. Individual site plans will be submitted to Ryan Construction Company, the property agent for approval relative to architecture, building materials, and site improvements. Finding. The permitted uses in this zone should be limited to appropriate commercial and service uses consistent with the City's CBD development goals. The uses shall be limited to those as defined herein. If there is a question as to the whether or not a use meets the definition, the City Council shall make that interpretation. 1. Day Care Center 2. Standard Restaurants 3. Health and recreation clubs 4. Retail 5. Financial Institutions, including drive-in service * 6. Newspaper and small printing offices Target Development August 29, 1992 Page 9 7. Veterinary Clinic 8. Animal Hospital 9. Offices 10. Health Care Facility 11. Garden Center (completely enclosed) 12. Bars and Taverns 13. Fast Food Restaurants (Maximum of 2) * * Drive thru's should be buffered from all public views c. Setbacks Applicant's Proposal. The applicant is proposing to have all buildings no closer than 45 feet to Hwy. 5, Powers Boulevard and West 78th Street. Parking will be no closer than 20 feet to West 78th Street and Powers Boulevard and 15 feet from Hwy. 5. Finding. In the PUD standards, the building setback for commercial is 50 feet from any public right-of-way, parking along right-of-ways shall be set back 20 feet. Buildings located in Outlot B do not meet these standards. Staff is recommending the following setbacks. Street Building Parking Setback Setback West 78th Target 50 feet 20 feet Outlot B 50 feet 20 feet Powers Boulevard 50 feet 20 feet Hwy. 5 Target 100 feet 20 feet Outlot B 50 feet 20 feet The location of the Target store meets these standards one of the buildings on Outlot B are in non-compliance. Plans can easily be revised to eliminate the need for a variance. Target Development August 29, 1992 Page 10 d. Development Standards Tabulation Box USE Lot Area No. of Bldg. Parking Impervious Acres Bldgs. Sq. ft. Surface Target 10.29 1 116,882 585 76.30% (585 required) Outlot A Trees 1.54 none none none none Outlot B includes 5.19 4 15,000- 200 + 50.90% gateway area 17,000 (200+ required) Outlot C road 1.41 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. remnant Burdick Addition, n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Lots 1 & 2 TOTAL 22.03 4 average 785 + average * 132,822 63.6 % The PUD standard for hard surface coverage is 70%for commercial uses. The proposed development meets this standard with an average of 63.6%hard surface coverage. This excludes the 1.54 acres of trees and the .27 acres for right-of-way. Each site plan in Outlot B will have to be reviewed to see if the parking meets the parking standards. Each development must deal with the balance of the site. e. Building Materials and Design Applicant's Proposal. The developer is proposing that Target will establish the architectural standards. Ryan Construction will approve individual site plans to ensure architecture building materials and site improvements. Finding. The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural standards and site design. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building. Target Development August 29, 1992 Page 11 1. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Masonry material shall be used. Color shall be introduced through colored block or panels. Panted surfaces shall be allowed on the Target store only. 2. Block shall have a weathered face or be polished, fluted, or broken face. 3. Concrete may be poured in place, tilt-up or pre-cast, and shall be finished in stone, textured or coated. 4. Metal standing seam siding will only be approved except as support material to one of the above materials, curtain wall on office components or as a roofing material. 5. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary structure. All ground mounted equipment,trash storage,etc.to e fully screened by compatible masonry walls. 6. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by pitched roofs, except for the Target store shall have a parapet wall for screening. Wood screen fences are prohibited. Screening shall consist of compatible materials. 7. All outlots shall be designed with similar material and colors as Target. (Target will be the first store to build and they will establish or set the theme.) 8. All buildings on Outlot B shall have a pitched roof line and use architectural themes consistent with each other,the Target store and representative of the Chanhassen CBD. f. Site Landscaping and Screening Applicant's Proposal. The applicant has prepared a very detailed and high quality landscaping plan for the Target store. Sites on Oudot B will be landscaped in accordance with plans approved as development is proposed. The landscaping plan does an excellent job of buffering views along West 78th Street, breaking up the expanse of the building and breaking up the parking lot area The amount of landscaping meets or exceeds city standards. Tree preservation is also an extremely strong element. Finding. In addition,to adhere to the higher quality of development as spelled out in the PUD zone, all loading areas shall be screened. Each lot for development shall submit a separate landscaping plan as a part of the site plan review process. Target Development August 29, 1992 Page 12 1. All open spaces and non-parking lot surfaces (outlot) shall be landscaped, or covered with plantings and/or lawn material. 2. Outdoor storage is prohibited. 3. The master landscape plan for the Target PUD shall be the design guide for all of the specific site landscape developments. Each lot must present a landscape plan for approval with the site plan review process. 5. Loading areas shall be screened from public right-of-ways. Wing wall may be required where deemed appropriate. 6. Outlot B shall be seeded and maintained in a weed free condition in all areas proposed for future development. 7. Tree preservation areas shall be dearly staked and marked by snow fence prior to the start of grading. Staff will use its discretion to require minor revisions to grading including the potential use of retaining walls, if it appears that tree preservation will benefit. Protected trees lost due to development activity shall be replaced on a caliper inch basis in accordance with plans approved by staff. 8. A satisfactory letter of credit to ensure compliance with approved plans shall be provided prior to the start of grading. g. Signage Applicant's Proposal. The applicant is proposing each lot to have a monument sign and 2 pylon signs, one for Target and one for the outlot. Signage would be consistent throughout the development. Finding. Staff is proposing one freestanding pole sign be permitted for Target and one for the other buildings in Outlot B. All buildings on Outlot B should be limited to monument signs. 1. Each property shall be allowed one monument sign located near the driveway into the private site. Monument signage shall be subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance. 2. Wall signs are permitted on no more that 2 street frontages. The total of all wall mounted sign display areas shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent of the total area of the building wall upon which the signs are mounted. Target Development August 29, 1992 Page 13 3. All signs require a separate permit. 4. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and shall tie the building materials to be consistent with the signs. This includes the freestanding wall and monument signs. Signs shall be an architecture feature, they shall not be solely mounted on a pole of a foundation. 5. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights. 6. Sign permits from the city are required for each sign. 7. Temporary signs will be allowed in a manner consistent with the city sign code. h. Lighting Applicant's Proposal. The applicants are proposing a decorative shoe box fixture, with a square ornamental pole. These would be in the parking lot and the street right-of-way. Finding. 1. All light fixtures shall be shielded high pressure sodium fixtures. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than '/z candle at the property line.This does not apply to street lighting. 2. Glare, whether direct or reflected,as differentiated from general illumination shall not be visible beyond the limits of the site from which it originates. 3. Lights shall be on a photoelectric cell to turn them on and off automatically as activated by yearly conditions. 4. Light poles shall use shoe box light standards. Streets/Access This property is bordered by 3 major collectors; State Hwy. 5, County Road 17 (Powers Boulevard), and West 78th Street The Corrcxehensive Plan shows the proposed location of West 78th Street This proposal shows the road 120 feet to the south. This would create a lot remnant where the proposed alignment would go. SRF has stated that this new alignment may work but approval from MNDOT, the Carver County Traffic Engineer, and the city are required. Charlie James, the property owner to the north, has concerns about this realignment and how it impacts future development on his property. if the revised alignment is not selected, revised concept Target Development August 29, 1992 Page 14 plans must be submitted for Outlot B for city approval within 30 days of the City Council's action on this request. SRF is working on the design (West 78th Street Detachment Improvement Project) of this street. Plans will be developed jointly with the proposed Target development. All access to the site will be gained off of West 78th Street. The site plan proposes that the most westerly access be a full access intersection. SRF has recommended that this access be a right turn-in/right turn-out only, full access at this location would be dangerous. The other two accesses will be full intersections with a signal at the most easterly access to the entrance to Target. Two of these accesses will also serve the property to the north. Strgar, Roscoe, Fausch has looked at the traffic generation for this area and traffic issues. They have completed a future peak trip generation for the West 78th and Powers area based on complete development of this area (both sides of West 78th) as commercial development Even with total development the traffic as proposed will not exceed the design capacity. The ultimate Average Daily Trip (ADT) for this area going south on Powers and east onto West 78th would be 3830 or an increase from current levels of 800 trips. The projected ADT's from Powers Boulevard turning east onto West 78th Street would be 10,071, an increase of 7,071 trips. This increase occurs only on the short section of Powers between Hwy. 5 and West 78th Street. North of West 78th Street there will be a 10% increase in traffic over existing levels. Again,this ADT's include ultimate development in this area including, Market Square, and the James property to the north which is commercially zoned. During conceptual review the Planning Commission had recommended that a pedestrian access be made between Target and Outlot B. The applicant considers the sidewalk along West 78th to meet this need. Staff is recommending that access between Target and Oudot B be tied into a sidewalk along the westerly side of the road into Oudot B. The PUD plan proposed a 6 foot sidewalk along West 78th that will be developed with the Target store. The Park and Recreation Commission is recommending that an 8 foot bituminous trail be placed along Powers Boulevard. This trail will connect with the trail along Hwy. 5. Access to the Burdick property to the east will be achieved via the northerly parking lot of Target along West 78th. A retaining wall will also be built at this location. This keystone wall varies in height from 0-6 feet and will be 160 feet in length. The wall will be adjacent to the parking lot at the most easterly portion of the site and moves 90 feet to the west as it follows the property line of West 78th Street. At this location a pedestrian plaza is proposed. This element consists of 2 park benche§ with 3 trees places in wells. Target Development August 29, 1992 Page 15 Landscaping and Tree Preservation The site has a large stand, approximately 3. 5 acres, of mature trees. These trees include oak, elm, ash, box elder and basswood. The city has already identified these trees as an asset as a part of the Hwy. 5 Corridor Study. The HRA will be purchasing 1.54 acres of property for tree preservation. The applicants have proposed thinning out all trees under 6 inches in caliper. Staff is recommending that all trees regardless of caliper remain. The only trees to be removed from the site shall be those trees that are diseased or dead. The HRA is considering a gateway treatment at the corner of Hwy. 5 and Powers Blvd. This would be approximately 1/2 acre in size. The landscaping exceeds the standards of the landscaping ordinance. The landscaping plan shown for the Target site calls for extensive landscaping around the perimeter of the property and planter islands in the parking lot. Trees have been placed in the walkway in front of the Target store. Street trees are shown along West 78th Street. Drainage The majority of the runoff will drain to a detention pond located near the southwest corner of the Target building. The pond shall be constructed to NURP Standards from a water quality standpoint and provide storage capacity to yield a maximum discharge rate of 20 cfs under a 100 year storm event. A portion of the northwest comer of Outlot B is proposed to drain via storm sewer to a future storm sewer facility to be constructed with the West 78th Street Detachment Project. The retention pond has been redesigned to a 3:1, making maintenance of the pond more manageable. Staff is recommending that a drainage and utility easement be granted over the area and a graded turf driveway access be designed to allow maintenance access to the pond outlet structure. The project has received approval from the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District, subject to approval by the City. Utilities Water and sewer are available to the site. It is likely that future development of Outlot B may require the relocation of some portions of the sewer line. Target Development August 29, 1992 Page 16 INTERIM USE PERMIT/ GRADING PERMIT The applies are socking an interim use permit to allow site grading to begin on the project this fall prior to obtaining final development plan approvals. Staff believes the request is reasonable. The grading being proposed by the developer is consistent with virtually any reasonable commercial use of the site. A grading plan has been submitted as part of the overall development plans; however,they do not indicate whether there will be any phasing or staging of the grading. If this entire site is to be rough graded this fall without the installation of the proposed storm sewer system, interim detention ponds or drainage systems will need to be incorporated as a part the plan prior to approval. The building pad, as proposed,will require 8'of excavation along the north end of the building and the placement of approximately 16 feet of fill along the south side. tf the Target site were graded as proposed by itself, the site would be 40,000 cubic yards short of dirt and that is why they are proposing to rough grade Outlot B. Approximately 100,000 yards of excavation/embankment will be involved as part of the overall grading operation. The applicant has indicated that erosion and sedimentation control devices shall be established and topsoil stripped as a part of the initial operation. However,topsoil and poor soil stock piling locations have been indicated on the grading plan submittal. tt is estimated that approximately 10,000 cubic yards of material will need to be imported onto the site. The applicant has indicated that the haul route will make use of the T.H. 5 and County Road 17 to avoid hauling through the downtown area Construction trucks and vehicles shall access the site at approved rock construction entrances only. The applicant will be responsible for maintaining hauling routes,cleaning of dirt, etc. Working hours will be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, with no work occurring on holidays. The applicant estimates that approximately 6 weeks will be needed to complete the rough grading operation. An administrative fee and a letter of credit will be required prior to issuing a notice to proceed on the rough graing operation. The purpose of searing the graing permit as a separate process is done in case final approval is not secured at this time. The applicants want to ensure that this site is ready for work next spring. The watershed district has reviewed the grading plans and the Target Store project and approved them such with the following conditions: 1. The district approval is contingent upon receiving approval from the city. 2. All erosion control measures shown on the plan must be installed prior to the commencement of grading operations and be maintained until all areas altered on the site have been restored. In addition, they request that all areas disturbed because of construction be restored no later than November 15, 1992. Target Development August 29, 1992 Page 17 3. The district will required that the proposed storm water detention/sedimentation basins be constructed at the initial stage of the grading process. In addition, there was a farmstead at this location and the watershed district wants to ensure that if a private well exists on the property that it be abandoned in accordance with the Department of Health and Minnesota PCA standards. The standards for an interim use permit are as follows: 1. It meets the standards of a conditional use permit set forth in Section 20-232 of the City Code. 2. It conforms to the zoning regulations. 3. The use is allowed as an interim use in the district. 4. The date of the event will terminate. The use can be identified with certainty. 5. The use will not impose additional costs on the public if necessary for the public to take the property in the future. 6. The user agrees to any condition that the city deems appropriate for the permission of the use. The general issuance standards of the conditional use Section 20-232, include the following 12 items: 1. Will not be detrimental to or enhance the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. 2. Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter. 3. WM be designed, con ed, operated and maintained so to be compaticien appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. • 4. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. 5. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services,including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. Target Development August 29, 1992 Page 18 6. Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 7. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke,fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash. 8. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. 9. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. 10. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area. 11. Will not depreciate surrounding property values. 12. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article. Staff is recommending that because this grading plan is consistent with the site plan and PUD standards that staff has already outlined, we feel comfortable that this is moving in the right direction. Again, the reason for the interim use permit is to ensure that the site can be graded and corrections made so that work can begin next year on the project. Park and Recreation The Park and Recreation Commission met on August 11, 1992,to review this proiect There was a consensus among the members of the Commission to accept full park and trail dedication fees as a part of this development. The Commission is assuming there will be sidewalks with the development. Fees are to be paid at the time of building permit application. Presently, the figures for commercial and industrial property is$2.500.00 per acre for park dedication and $833.00 per acre for trail fees. SITE PLAN REVIEW Overview Target proposes to build 116,822 square foot building located on 10.29 acres of property. This site will have to be extensively graded and filled to accomplish the 958'elevation. One of the goals of placing Target at this location was to ensure that all roof top equipment would be screened. This proposal calls for a 3 to 4 foot high parapet wall around the entire building screening all heating, ventilating, and air conditioning equipment The highest elevation of Hwy. Target Development August 29, 1992 Page 19 5 at the bridge deck is 982.69'. The highest elevation on the parapet wall for the Target store would be 984.6'. Therefore, the parapet wall should extend 2 feet above the highest grade of Hwy. 5. Staff feels that this accomplishes one of the major goals of screening all HVAC. In addition, the trees located adjacent to Hwy. 5 will also provide for screening. The site plan, to date, has changed slightly since the conceptual review. The size of the Target store has gone down in square footage by 343 square feet. The location, as it exists on the site, has remained constant. Although the parking lot has been redesigned to take in concerns raised by the Planning Commission at their last meeting. These changes include additional landscaping in the parking lot, regrading of the slope around the retention pond from a 2:1 to achieve a 3:1 for better maintenance, and improved architectural standards, most notably on the West 78th Street frontage. General Site Plan/Architecture As previously noted, staff feels that this design is superior to the one presented at the time of conceptual review. One of the major concerns of the Planning Commission was the blank wall facing West 78th Street. Since this is the main corridor running through the downtown, views of this store were given high priority. Target has come back with a proposal that staff feels addresses the concerns of the Planning Commission. The facade on West 78th Street proposes to have a series of 3 punch out elements. These 3 elements would be spaced 60 feet apart They are comprised of 20 foot wide columns spaced 14 feet apart with a roof comprised of metal standing seam similar to the roof element placed on the front entrance to the store. The intent of this is to provide a more "human scale"and provide the residential motif on West 78th Street. Staff is also recommending that these elements have a back light to them to help soften the building. One of the other concerns of the design raised by staff and the Planning Commission was the view from the front entrance of the building. The design has shown tree wells located in the front entrance of the building with approximately 5 trees to be located in the sidewalk area. Again, staff feels this will help soften the look of the entrance to the store. One of the other major changes of this proposal from the original site plan is the columns placed around the building. Originally these were 10 feet and now they run the whole height of the building,which -- is approximately 26 feet. There will still be corbel element on the roof. This will be the top of the parapet wall. The intent of this corbel is to give it a strong cap to the top of the building. The colors will remain the same as proposed in the original plan with the dark tan on the bottom and lighter tan on the top,with the 3 color bands. The bands will each be 8 inches in width,the blue will be located 8 feet in height, the green at 10 feet in height and the red at 20 feet in height. This will go around all four sides of the building. One of the other significant issues raised by the Planning Commission concerns views of the parking area located in front of the Target store. This has been somewhat redesigned. There is an access from the parking lot going over to the Burdick property to the east and up in this Target Development August 29, 1992 Page 20 northeast corner is a pedestrian element with park benches and tree wells for 3 trees. Because of the change in grade from West 78th Street to the location of the store, the majority of the parking in this front parking lot will be screened via a change in the elevation between West 78th and the parking lot. West 78th will be approximately 10 feet higher than the parking lot. There is 20 feet of landscaping abutting the property line, the back of the sidewalk, along West 78th Street, plus additional landscaping islands in the parking lot itself. Again, staff feels that this provides an excellent screening for any viewing of parked cars. In addition, the northeast corner of the Target Store will be recessed. The actual height from this corner of the store will only be 21 feet. Again, staff feels this helps soften the visual impact of the massing of the Target Store from this view. Parking provided for this store includes a total 585 parking stalls comprising of 40 compact stalls, 12 handicapped stalls and 533 standard stalls. This meets the standards of this zone at a ratio of 5 stalls for 1,000 gross square feet of building. Target has proposed a 60 foot no-build area on two sides of their building, one being on the south side and the other being on the east side, which is on the Burdick property. Based on the size and type of construction of this building, building code would require a 60 foot no-build zone. The 30 feet shown on the Burdick property is the major concern of the staff. Staff would recommend that in the chain of title that this no- build agreement be placed ensuring that no variances be granted in the future on this property. The no-build to the south of the property should not be a problem since this is in the tree area that the city will own and no development should occur in this area. Access Access to this site will be off of West 78th Street. There are two proposed accesses to Target, one right at the entrance to the Target Store and the other will be approximately 400 feet to the west of this site. A signal is proposed at the most easterly access. Any proposed realignment of West 78th Street should not impact the access points into the Target location. All truck deliveries will enter Picha Drive via Monterey. This will screen any truck loading. Staff feels this separated loading area is very desirable to reduce conflicting car and truck movement. A 6 foot sidewalk is shown along West 78th Street with the entire segment up to Powers Boulevard. The applicants are proposing that when Outlot B is developed that the remaining portion of the sidewalk be developed. The Park and Recreation Commission is recommending an 8'bituminous trail along Powers Boulevard. The Planning Commission had recommended that consideration be given for pedestrian access through the Target parking lot over to Outlot B to ride easy access between Target and any developments that would occur on these outiots. This is not reflected in these plans. The applicants have taken the position that the sidewalk along West 78th Street meets these needs. Staff still feels that a sidewalk could be implemented into the middle of a parking stall standard running east and west that would provide a safe access and would enhance the project. Target Development August 29, 1992 Page 21 In order to provide a more moderate entrance slope at the easterly access from West 78th Street to the Target Store, the site plan proposes to lower the elevation of West 78th Street at this location an additional 11/2 feet from that proposed with the detachment project. The property owner to the north, Mr. Charlie James, has expressed some concerns as to the impact to his property pending further lowering of the roadway. Staff is aware that Mr. James and Ryan Development have had discussions on this issues related to the earth work operations. The impacts to both properties involved excess/shortage of material which should be accommodated by future site grading. Mr. James is also concerned about the proposed realignment of the detachment of West 78th Street the way it bisects his property and has expressed his disapproval of this realignment change. Staff is also concerned that enough time be allowed to conduct the necessary investigation or to address all of the impacts that would be involved in making such an alignment change at this time. Landscaping The landscape buffer along West 78th Street ranges from 20 to 52 feet from the West 78th Street right-of-way. Landscape will be bermed in combination will have boulevard trees and staff is confident that with the trees that this will screen the building and parking lot from direct view. In addition, the significant amount of trees have been integrated into the parking lot to planter islands. The street trees include a mix of Pin Oaks, Marshall Seedless Ash, Colorado Green Spruce, Black Hills Spruce, and a ground cover that includes Spirea and Potentilla. The landscaping in the large parking area includes Honeysuckle,Snowcrab, and Spirea and Honey Locus. The required parking lot landscaping for the Target Store will be 11,900 square feet. The plans proposed significantly increases that amount to 13,920 square feet. Staff feels that the landscaping plan is a significant improvement over the previous conceptual proposal. The landscaping plan is in compliance with the standards of the zone. Grading/Drainage/Utilities Water Service Water service for the Target Store is proposed to be acquired by connecting a 10"water main located at the westerly limits of Picha Drive and extending and 8"water main along the east and north sides of the building, ultimately tying back into an existing 8"water main along West 78th Street to complete the loop of the system. This water main will also provide future service to Lots 1 and 2, Block 3 of Burdick Park Addition. Therefore, the line is intended to be a public facility and utility easements will need to be acquired with the plat. Sewer Sanitary sewer for the Target site is proposed to be constructed along the eastern and northern sides of the building and connected to the city's 18" sanitary sewer along West 78th Street. It Target Development August 29, 1992 Page 22 is proposed that this sewer line will also serve Lots 1 and 2, Block 3 of Burdick Park Addition. Therefore, this line also is a public facility and will necessitate a 30 foot utility easement. Grading and Drainage The entire site is proposed to be regraded to desired development topography. The majority of the site is proposed to drain into a detention pond located near the southwest corner of the Target building. Initially, this pond was graded at a 2:1 slope and its revised plan now reflects the more desired 3:1 slope. Engineering calculations have been provided which show that the proposed pond will be constructed to NURP standards from a water quality standpoint and will provide enough storage capacity to yield a maximum discharge rate of 20 cfs under a 100 year storm event. The proposed sewer detention pond will be located within a drainage and utility easement. Therefore, the city will be responsible for future maintenance and operation of the ponding basin and outlet structure. A graded turf access drive will be constructed to allow maintenance access to the pond outlet structure. Lighting and Signage There are 24 high pressure sodium vapor lamps located in the parking lot. These are generally found in the planter island strips. The code does require that they bel foot candle at the property line. The applicant has stated that the Target standard is 1 foot at the property, and staff has made it known that they must be in compliance with the city ordinance. In addition,the applicants have stated that Target goes with a red pole. Staff has no concerns that these be a red pole as opposed to the corten steel generally recommended by staff. The signage proposed for this development includes one wall mounted sign with the channel letters located over the Target Store. As laid out in the PUD standards, staff has recommended that this not exceed 15%of the total wall area of the building. In addition,they are requesting a monument sign at the entrance to the Target Store and one free standing pylon sign. Again, staff has spelled out standards in the PUD zone that these signs, the pylon and the monument sign, be architecturally compatible with the building. To date, staff has not received specifics on these signs and would recommend before approval that they be submitted to staff for review. The proposed pylon sign will be 36 feet in total height, with the actual sign face itself being 12' x 12'. The proposed sign will be mounted on the similar masonry material used in the Target Store itself. In addition, it will have the same corbel element on the top that is found on the top of the parapet wall of the Target Store. Staff feels that this is architecturally compatible and meets the intent of the PUD zone. The monument sign is similar in architectural style will be 8 feet in height with the sign face itself being 6'x 6'. Again, staff feels this is compatible with the PUD zone and would recommend approval of these two signs. COMPLIANCE TABLE -PUD STANDARDS Target Development August 29, 1992 Page 23 ORDINANCE PROPOSED Building Height None 28' top of parapet Building Setback/Public 50' 50' ROW Parking Space 584 585 Parking Setback 20' 20' Public ROW Lot Coverage 70% average PUD 76.3% average PUD* Permitted Uses Retail Retail Building Materials and Masonry/pitched roof Masonry with pitched roof Design element Site Landscaping 11,900 s.f. 13,920 s.f. Parking Screening parapet wall parapet wall screening HVAC screening HVAC Signage 1 pylon 1 pylon - 36' high 1 monument - 8' height (144 s.f.) 2 wall-architecturally 1 monument - 8' height compatible (36 s.f.) 1 wall sign Lighting 1/2' candle at property 1' at property line Variances required - None * No variance is necessary. Lot coverage is computed over entire PUD. Total coverage is 63%. ** Must come into compliance RECOMMENDATION PRELIMINARY PUD APPROVAL Target Development August 29, 1992 Page 24 Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends preliminary approval to rezone 22.03 acres of BG, General Business to PUD, Planned Unit Development and preliminary plat approval as shown in PUD #92-5, subject to the following conditions: 1. Plat easements needed: A. 20-foot wide utility easement over Lot 1 for public portion of proposed watermain. B. 20-foot wide utility easement over existing 18-inch watermain through Outlot B. C. 30-foot wide utility easement over proposed sanitary sewer through Lot 1. D. 30-foot wide utility easement over existing 8-inch sanitary sewer through Lot 1 and Outlot B. 2. The 1992 edition of the City of Chanhassen's Standard Specifications for Construction shall govern construction of all public improvements. 3. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining all required agency permits such as PCA, Health Department, Watershed District, etc. 4. The applicant shall be responsible for a share of the costs involved in constructing one or more traffic signals on West 78th Street between Kerber Boulevard and Powers Boulevard (appropriate cost-sharing formula has yet to be determined). 5. If the West 78th Street detachment intersection with County Road 17 is to be shifted south, approvals will also be needed from MnDOT and Carver County and the applicant would be responsible for performing all necessary soil corrections within the new roadway alignment. 6. Storm sewer plan shall be revised to reflect site plan for Outlot B. 7. Vacation of the existing West 78th Street. 8. Acceptance of full park and trail dedication fees. 9. Compliance with the standards of the PUD zone outlined in the Staff report. Architectural compatibility with all buildings in the development. Compatibility with all signage, lighting, and landscaping. Target Development August 29, 1992 Page 25 10. Pitched roof lines are required on all building in Outlot B. Target shall have a parapet wall that screens all HVAC equipment. Pitched roof elements shall be introduced on the entry portion and the West 78th side of Target. 11. Submittal of all required site utility improvements including storm sewer, water and sanitary sewer. 12. Only two fast food restaurants are permitted. 13. Approval from MNDOT, Carver County Traffic Engineer, and the City shall be secured to relocate West 78th Street. 14. All site plan shall be consistent with the overall impervious surface coverage. 15. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Masonry material shall be used. Color shall be introduced through color block or panels. Painted surfaces shall be allowed on the Target store only. 16. Al open spaces and non-parking lot surfaces/outiots shall be landscaped or covered with planting and/or lawn material. 17. Each site shall be allowed one monument sign near the driveway into the private site, wall signs on not more than 2 street frontages. The signs are subject to the standards of the sign ordinance. 18. Target and Outlot B are each allowed one free standing pylon sign. 19. Lights shall be a shoe box fixture and light levels shall not exceed lh foot candle at the property line. 20. A 6 foot sidewalk shall run the entire length of West 78th Street. An 8 foot bituminous trail shall run the entire length of Powers Boulevard. 21. All development in this zone is subject to all the standards of the PUD zone. 22. If the revised alignment for West 78th Street is not selected, a revised concept plan must be submitted for Outlot B for city approval within 30 days of the City Council's action on this request." SITE PLAN REVIEW Target Development August 29, 1992 Page 26 The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review#92-2 as shown on the plans dated September 9, 1992, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Subject to compliance with the conditions of the PUD #92-5. 2. Pedestrian access be provided between Target parking lot and Outlot B. A 6 foot sidewalk shall run the length of West 78th Street. 3. The 3 facades shown on West 78th Street shall have back lighting. 4. Lighting shall not exceed '/z foot candle at the property line. 5. Signage for the monument sign shall not exceed 8 feet in height with a 6'x 6' foot sign area and for the pylon sign, 36 feet in height and not exceed 144 square feet in sign area The monument sign and free standing sign shall be consistent with the plans submitted in the September 9, 1992, site plan. The wall sign shall not exceed 15%of the wall face. 6. The development shall comply with all development standards of this PUD zone." INTERIM USE PERMIT The Planning Commission recommends approval of Interim Use Permit#92-6 as shown on the site plan dated September 9, 1992, and subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant needs to submit information on interim detention ponds and/or drainage systems for the site given that storm sewer systems will not be constructed until next spring. 2. The applicant shall show on the plan location of topsoil and poor soil stockpiles. 3. The haul route for material to and from the site shall be limited to Trunk Highway 5 and County Road 17. Construction trucks and vehicles shall access the site at approved rock construction entrance only. The applicant will be required to maintain haul route clean of dirt and mud, etc. 4. Working hours for the grading operation will be limited to 7:00 am. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday with no work occurring on holidays. 5. The applicant shall submit and administrative fee and letter of credit prior to commencement of grading operations. Target Development August 29, 1992 Page 27 6. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining all necessary agency permits such as Watershed District. 7. The entire site shall be restored and seeded by no later than November 15, 1992. 8. The city shall inspect the site before grading begins to ensure preservation of the trees and location of snow fences." ATTACHMENTS 1. Location Map 2. Architectural rendering, signs 3. Letter from Watershed dated September 2, 1992 4. Memo from Charles Folch dated September 9, 1992 5. Memo from Todd Hoffman dated August 12, 1992 6. Letter from Carver County Engineering dated August 4, 1992 7. Narrative Document from RLK dated September 9, 1992 8. MNDOT letter dated September 1, 1992 9. Letter from Steve Kirchman dated September 9, 1992 10. Letter from Mark Littfin dated September 10, 1992 11. SRF Traffic Study 12. Planning Commission minutes dated August 19, 1992 13. Site Plan dated September 9, 1992 VIII KE LUCY tit tc_Tif — .� iii';401.■ i • �1 � K__. ' .- ---------=- - A�A - ' t-..-_-, iii- . .r•.C,E -1111111111 1us syr ape • IIIIIIIIII t _______ _____ i ,, sit �' '.4 wiz: ga 160t o .. �1����suig- . *4 4 0 t J • 0 SHORES A N uaaaa '1 ♦ � '' ■ISI et 1 f• - lI ARK d 11111 �� 1:1"2:30'.414,14.41f� '�. MEADOW la• I©� ���� E, '►,9 E 12 ,`,`�#ir� tah....—. NA -N., ..,• \` GREEN PARK sp . ♦ ii� i K E ANN p'i� yb s� ������� � . M UM*� lci 7) 111111 # • cp '‘,,,eu,,, !_ al wi 0 A ** _ .1 I .:, , ,/ .,..,) »: ell, _, „1-111,0045 : -z-:; ;,, Aik yi-A64 �N� .•I • ny dap_itcmai r���`-moi s _ _ ' �� IP rin �'►I� � n a %0, ` ` affil a - •.�� l AKE I `�` ��i �� :" 0 /N HAA 1 4•' �r� �i .. . ANN P � tr_ns PARK poAN� i N-ti.�.-=-•- J?.. 76 - In SU ECS" a ��. Y 1 g -- s �� aQ. 2 ler ` _ 1\----a. A _i t b 11._:A.A*._,_. .1._,_ 14.2,., ..t__ 77: mmilmiiveillt 1 1 / 4 if ----''" " L - TCEGLVARp I� ®��� L —1 ,,, ilkp4.., , gig ; . Er 3 irii.. • a=..1._ __.A„, coo, _,, _ o•o 1,.___i ri&li �� lib c %Ii _..:::,:,,...;.;,141 ' se '�� Ssol ti 0 loft - TATE HIGH c i L 1; 7 t:,... , ,: / r . 1 V 12 • k...,„.,,k, . .5.• us • .• i. . t i' - it, -Or- v9.INr i PARK -\ d` • ,. Q? ,oc. -. Onft3V- ,-- ---__--7-_, ____ I \i ' 1 .5,-• t 411111077>-- N - I I ; vo 4101111e4ts 4, 1:14 elk 44-mr i • i R� 0�14 *! .!a i lig �� ` Wit LAKE SUSAN • -"ES: .0',wilt, .‘a _, 4 ,AUlla ,bok Irit i tvilli ■■ 116 , sv-i5 ,\ . moo F!?' i 7 <- ;; • - - SEP 10 '92 18:43 TARGET REAL ESTATE w P. 1 ;;r --; • 1 �. LA- M- .. :_ Double Face y _ - , - ,... -. A1uYninum Sign ']4 ' ~' a` : All dopy w b+._ .- . ' Y4' u..„-...z- /- - N.:.....--...7--• -` ,_� : Routed out and � 1 _ b dr,. ,, ;• -, � : ;' acicad up with isaceba • • • c` 3/16" Plexiglass t-.� :, �?�� . ,x ;_ ' f: "Target copy and �=,• bullseye to be • .j ##2283 Rohm & yea . ..�, `: Haas Red • ▪ -` Y�.yJ'`�- `=- � Sign will be internally yd it stji `�- •N�e.(. ,� ..._ :� : ., ��:' illuminated with .-`;, . ' =� :r._•.`,�.:r High Output ---:7:7-.:-,..7.-- _,,,--.-,,-;-:.-.„- •-•••---- Fluorescent b.ghting. 4P....1 .�S. .." �: ONLY the copy will - __�:- :1- .,;,;t: to at night ..%•:.:.::t•: .i t.7G;"3':r �::�. .Ti._ •--;:..-.....:-:: -_ -i v:: - rim�'•% ......,--:.,-.....-1-„....p...,....,-.4-,-7_:•;•. ,.;. Rarkgrrntncl tcl .-4". • :--„,,,....4:.•4•••••;;;;;;•,..4--.••:- fA•: be p3inted with •. . ;e7 Mathews Acrylic ::a ,—•-. -- • Polyurethane ._-,::,:'27"1.. _- � ;.r'.:=r:{ --,` - Paint to match .� ::.. ,...:_ :• used in :-.....-;1:.4-1-_,.:4-4.7,7:,.`:•:;,..-.:.:4:,..-.-...:; -: : Colors . . *• ,..: '� '- fi.• -.x: the building facsia -=s�:4--`-� -s . . 7-,!m = (. . -. _ _ • .-• : ,cL:�•e �f;.. . _, .i — -� -t•:,-.;- !%'.='.s "_Fly 'fi��•.s�.,.,•:,-.e � 1'•",t :t": l-- tiff •`r•• ":. x, .✓ 1 rfr-vY'-•ate• La.. _ _n •: .*:•It fig: •7- ''i 117',' •• _ . l_• • _ -rte...-•.• •M__•.•t:'-_ter+]-4.14 : �..'?•j.ic✓ ';•..:/• PrOp0Ci't-I i ' L' n ticn ICAXTRA S ITTAL MEMO G•NS_ Chane c IZ, \ i \ T°• NO.OF L oar: CITY FAX 1:91;7. 573 PACES August > 1 t[}., 1 �)�. FROMjr— 'r.PHONE: Z 12 - CO _ _FAX : (. PO$t.t br 1 fax w t1,a rThrru memo 7jQ�'' V LL �'MAtio4le II bY g. 6n/ . . ._ .._ 14 l'il T- it- _ - I r ' •!....... r ♦ , !lp• f,, ">.-5....:::::.:::::: a t 11 i Proposed Monument Sign Pobbcki & Sons Chanhassen, MN Llanm Bodes a rw.w 81Q.d Owp.y Caw mo SL July 30, 1992lax 4.14-272-0711 JUL-21-92 Tic . . c F. 03 (....----_--- _...-- N The standard identrfication package for the P1 & P2 stores is an interior Illuminated channel fetter display at the main entrance as shown, which COnSists of a 6' bullseye symbol combined with a set of 5' 'TARGET' letters. An alternate location for the display may be considered in cases of unusual visibility requirements. Consistency of image is critical to TARGETS success, therefore, - any variation aiation must II I �I��I� be approved �!` II � I �III�I' I� f - by TARGET. ;'•' - I r . ® TA31 GE ., ILII ;1 ,; ----- • I 1 tr rte:E �l .i'. :,., ;�;pl { , 1 1141111111111111111ii mambo i• rl Viri; 1.1 • D - °- 1: 1 o D P � o 0 o • CURVED-PANEL EC. 34'-0' �EC. I i l i IDs ° l I I 1 I I , I .1 1 c _ i I I I �11 III I iillplll9llil'yiiilllilrflli lllliUllQIT1 ' -r_ i �OTARGE1 ' ■acJoaona wEmilii,I. 111:1i0—.........i. _ _t E 1 • ELEVATION - BUILDING TYPE P1 & P2 SIGN AREA: COLORS: TARGET LETTERS-130 sq. ft. FACES- ROHM & HAAS 2283 RED SYMBOL-36M FT. RETURNS- CARNIVAL RED TOTAL(6)034)-204 sq.ft. ILLUMINATION: CONSTRUCTION: 15 MM CLEAR RED NEON ALUMINUM RETURNS & BACKS ELECTRICAL: 120V FLAT ACRYLIC FACES NOTE: SYMBOL IS COMPRISED CF TWO PIECES: OUTER RING & INNER DOT EXHIBIT B.1.3 02!2591 NEr..I '.:1:i -.,. 199*f. ,.....00. Riley-Purgatory u-Bluff Creek Watershed District ''q O 7c-‘- Engineering Advisor: Barr Engineering Co. • z‘ . ">,'-^„,,, ..,,,, 8300'.vorman Center Drive - , ;- Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55437 832-2600 - 1+ Legal Advisor: Popham,Haik,Schnobrich&Kaufman 3300 Piper Jaffray Tower 222 South Ninth Street Minneapolis,MN 55402 - 333-4800 September 2, 1992 Mr. Francis Hagen, II RLK Associates 922 Main Street Hopkins, MN 55343 RE: Permit #92-43: Chanhassen Target: Chanhassen Dear Mr. Hagen: The Board of Managers of the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District has reviewed the plans and grading and land alteration permit application as submitted to the District for site grading and utility installation for the Chanhassen Target to be located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of T.H. 5 and C.S.A.H. 17 in Chanhassen. The information submitted indicates - that site grading work will be completed by November 15, 1992, with building construction continuing through the 1992-93 winter months . The District is considering this item prior to receiving final approval by the City, as requested in correspondence dated August 25, 1992, from the City of Chanhassen. The Managers approve of the grading and land alteration permit subject to the following conditions : 1 . The District's approval is contingent upon full City approval. 2 . All erosion control measures shown on the plans must be installed prior to commencement of grading operations and be maintained until all areas altered on the site have been restored. If silt fence is used, the bottom flap must be buried and the maximum allowable spacing between posts is 4 foot on center. All posts must be either 2" x 2" pine, hardwood, or steel fence posts . If hay bales - are used, all bales must be staked in place and reinforced on the downstream side with snow fence. Mr. Francis Hagen, II September 2, 1992 Page 2 — 3. All areas altered because of construction must be restored with seed and disced mulch, sod, wood fiber blanket, or the parking lot restored with a gravel subbase within two weeks from the completion of construction or no later than November 15, 1992. — Area disturbed must ultimately be restored within two weeks from the completion of construction or no later than August 1, 1993. 4. The District will require that the proposed stormwater detention/sedimentation basin be constructed at the initial stages of grading operations and be functional during the majority of the site — grading. 5 . The District notes that a farmstead used to be located on this site and has been razed. The District wants to ensure that if a private well exists on site for domestic supply that the well is abandoned in accordance with Department of Health and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency standards. 6. The District must be notified in writing a minimum of 48 hours prior to commencement of construction. If you have any questions regarding the conditions of the District's permit, please call us at 832-2600. Sincere r - o eat C. Obermeyer BARR ENGINEERING C . Engineers for the District Approved by the Board of Managers RILEY-PURGATORY-BLUFF CREEK WATERSHED DI RT6/ — President Date: 7.-,'r — Ct RCO/pls c: Mr. Ray Haik Mr. Frederick Rahr Mr. Paul Krauss 23\27\053\FH0902.LTR CITY OF 04- CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner FROM: Charles Folch, City Engineer DATE: September 9, 1992 SUBJ: Site Plan and Interim Use Grading Permit Review for the Target Site File No. 92-11 LUR In review of the Target site plan submittal dated September 3, 1992, I offer the following comments: WATERMAIN Water service for the Target site (Lot 1, Block 1) is proposed to be acquired by connecting to an existing 10-inch watermain located at the westerly limits of Picha Drive and extending an 8-inch watermain along the east and north sides of the building ultimately tying back into an existing 18-inch watermain along West 78th Street to complete the loop of the system. This watermain will also provide future service to Lots 1 and 2, Block 3 of Burdick Park Addition. Therefore, this line is intended to be a public facility and utility easements will need to be acquired with the plat accordingly. Water service to Outlot B is available via an existing 18-inch watermain along West 78th Street. A watermain plan for Outlot B has not been submitted; however, it is likely that development of this outlot will necessitate relocation of some portions of the existing 18-inch watermain. A 20-foot wide utility easement over the alignment of the existing 18-inch watermain through Outlot B shall be established with.the new plat. Fire hydrant spacing and location requirements shall be determined by review of the Fire Marshal. Existing soil conditions may necessitate the use of granular pipe bedding for the watermain installation. The 1992 edition of the City of Chanhassen's Standard Specifications for Construction shall be implemented and govern construction of all public improvements on the site. 4rs • fair PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner September 9, 1992 Page 2 SANITARY SEWER Sanitary sewer for the Target site is proposed to be constructed along the eastern and northern sides of the building and connected to the City's existing 8-inch sanitary sewer along West 78th Street. It is proposed that this sewer line will also serve Lots 1 and 2, Block 3 of Burdick Park Addition. Therefore, this line will be a public facility and will necessitate acquiring a 30-foot utility easement accordingly. Sanitary sewer service is available to Outlot B via an existing 8-inch sanitary sewer line along the south right-of-way of West 78th Street. A sanitary sewer plan for Outlot B has not been submitted; however, it is likely that future development of Outlot B will necessitate the relocation of some portions of this existing sewer line. A 30-foot wide utility easement for the existing sanitary line through Lot 1, Block 1 and Outlot B shall be dedicated as a part of the plat. The 1992 edition of the City of Chanhassen's Standard Specifications shall be implemented and govern construction of all public improvements. As a general comment, the latest site plan shows future buildings in Outlot B being located over the City's trunk sewer and water lines. This of course will not be permitted. GRADING AND DRAINAGE The entire site is proposed to be regraded to create the desired development topography. The majority of the site is proposed to drain to a detention pond located near the southwest corner of the Target building. Engineering calculations have been provided which show that the proposed pond will be constructed to NURP standards from a water quality standpoint and provide enough storage capacity to yield a maximum discharge rate of 20 CFS under a 100-year storm event. The proposed storm sewer detention pond will be located within a drainage and utility easement; therefore, the City of Chanhassen will be responsible for future maintenance and operation of the ponding basin and outlet structure. A graded turf drive access shall be constructed to allow maintenance access to the pond outlet structure. A portion of the northwest corner of Outlot B is proposed to drain via storm sewer to a future storm sewer facility to be constructed as a part of the West 78th Street detachment project. The storm sewer plan for Outlot B has not been revised to reflect the latest site plan. STREET/ACCESS The entire site proposes four access locations, three off of West 78th Street and a fourth to be a service access from Picha Drive. The easterly two access locations off of West 78th Street are proposed to be full access intersections with the westerly access, serving Outlot Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner September 9, 1992 Page 3 B, being Right-in/right-out only in accordance with the recommendations from the recently completed traffic study conducted by Strgar-Roscoe-Fausch (SRF). At least one of the two full access intersections from West 78th Street will require signalization which will be constructed as a part of the overall West 78th Street detachment improvement project. Staff recommends that the westerly access to Lot 1 be considered for the signal location. This location is supported by Mr. Charlie James, the owner of the property along the north side of West 78th Street. Being that the Target site will be a major traffic generator in this vicinity, a cost-sharing formula needs to be developed for the installation of one or more of these traffic signals. This formula is expected to be known prior to final approval stages for the site plan. In order to provide a more moderate entrance slope at the easterly access to Lot 1 from West 78th Street, the site plan proposes to lower the elevation of West 78th Street at that location an additional 11 feet from that proposed with the detachment project. The property owner to the north, Mr. Charlie James, has expressed some concerns as to impacts to the future access of his property at this location (very steep grade) with further lowering of this roadway. Mr. James would not object to the lowering as long as he would be allowed some flexibility in the future siting of his access. Staff believes that this would be workable as long as Mr. James understands that moving this access location may result in a limitation to a right-in/right-out only condition. This latest site plan proposal also incorporates a West 78th Street detachment intersection location change with County Road 17/Powers Boulevard. This proposal would shift the original detachment location approximately 120 feet south . There are apparently a number of reasons that the applicant desires this adjustment, one of which is claimed to be poor soils for building pads, however, this has yet to be substantiated. This change may have some advantageous for the future extension of West 78th Street west of County Road 17; however, extensive soil corrections would still be needed for road preparation and other improvements may be needed on County Road 17 at Trunk Highway 5. The developer has indicated that they would be willing to perform necessary roadway soil corrections as a part of their grading operation, however, a formal traffic study needs to be conducted for which the results and proposed change would need to be reviewed and approved by the City, the Minnesota Department of Transportation and Carver County. Preliminary indications are that, as a minimum, side-by-side or double left turn lanes would need to be constructed on southbound County Road 17 at Trunk Highway 5 with corresponding adjustments to the signal system. It should also be noted that Mr. Charlie James, owner of the property through which the detachment roadway bisects, has expressed his disapproval of this realignment change. Mr. James has spent a great deal of money to correct and prepare the roadway subgrade for the previously established alignment. Staff is also concerned that _ enough time be allowed to conduct the necessary investigation in order to address all of the impacts that would be involved with making such an alignment change. Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner September 9, 1992 Page 4 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL 1. Plat easements needed: A. 20-foot wide utility easement over Lot 1 for public portion of proposed watermain. _ B. 20-foot wide utility easement over existing 18-inch watermain through Outlot B. C. 30-foot wide utility easement over proposed sanitary sewer through Lot 1. D. 30-foot wide utility easement over existing 8-inch sanitary sewer through Lot 1 and Outlot B. 2. The 1992 edition of the City of Chanhassen's Standard Specifications for Construction shall govern construction of all public improvements. 3. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining all required agency permits such as PCA, Health Department, Watershed District, etc. 4. The applicant shall be responsible for a share of the costs involved in constructing one or more traffic signals on West 78th Street between Kerber Boulevard and Powers Boulevard (appropriate cost-sharing formula has yet to be determined). 5. If the West 78th Street detachment intersection with County Road 17 is to be shifted south, approvals will also be needed from MnDOT and Carver County and the applicant would be responsible for performing all necessary soil corrections within the new roadway alignment. 6. Storm sewer plan shall be revised to reflect site plan for Outlot B. INTERIM USE GRADING PERMIT The applicant seeks an interim use grading permit to allow site grading to begin on the project this fall. A grading plan has been submitted as a part of the overall development plans; however, it does not indicate whether there will be any phasing or staging of the grading process. If the entire site is to be rough graded this fall without the installation of Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner — September 9, 1992 Page 5 the proposed storm sewer system, interim detention ponds and/or drainage systems will need to be incorporate as a part of the plans prior to approval. Approximately 100,000 — yards of excavation/embankment will be involved as a part of the overall grading operation. The applicant has indicated that erosion and sediment control devices shall be established and topsoil stripped as a part of the initial operation; however, topsoil and poor soil — stockpiling locations have not been indicated on the grading plan submittal. It is estimated that approximately 10,000 cubic yards of material will need to be imported onto the site. The applicant has indicated that the haul route will make use of Trunk Highway 5 and — County Road 17 to avoid hauling through the downtown area. Construction trucks and vehicles shall access site at approved rock construction entrance only. The applicant will be responsible for maintaining haul routes clean of dirt, mud, etc. Working hours will be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday with no work occurring on holidays. The applicant estimates approximately 6 weeks will be needed to complete the rough grading operation. An administrative fee and letter of credit will be required prior to issuing a notice to proceed on the rough grading operation. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR GRADING APPROVAL — 1. The applicant needs to submit information on interim detention ponds and/or drainage systems for the site given that storm sewer systems will not be constructed _ until next spring. 2. The applicant shall show on the plan location of topsoil and poor soil stockpiles. 3. The haul route for material to and from the site shall be limited to Trunk Highway 5 and County Road 17. Construction trucks and vehicles shall access the site at — approved rock construction entrance only. The applicant will be required to maintain haul route clean of dirt and mud, etc. — 4. Working hours for the grading operation will be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday with no work occurring on holidays. — 5. The applicant shall submit and administrative fee and letter of credit prior to commencement of grading operations. — 6. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining all necessary agency permits such as Watershed District. 7. The entire site shall be restored and seeded by no later than November 15, 1992. Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner September 9, 1992 Page 6 ktm c: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician CITY OF CHANHASSEN 10°1 1140 r 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Paul Krauss, Planning Director FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Coordinator DATE: August 12, 1992 SUBJ: Land Development Proposal, Preliminary Site Plan Review - Target The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the aforementioned proposal on August 11, 1992. A copy of the staff report presented that evening is attached. Mr. John Dietrich of RLK Associates, Ltd. was present at the meeting representing Ryan Construction Company, _ the applicant. Mr. Dietrich did respond to questions of the commission. Acting as the Park and Recreation Commission, there was consensus among the members in accepting full park and trail fees as a part of this development in lieu of any land dedication or trail construction. _ This is assuming that the Planning Commission will be requiring the installation of sidewalks along West 78th Street. However, a majority of the members acting outside of the parameters of the commission wished to voice their disapproval of this proposal. Upon conclusion of their discussion, Commissioner Andrews moved to recommend the City Council require the applicant to pay full park and trail fees in lieu of land dedication or trail construction. These fees are to be paid at the time of building permit application at the per acre rate then in force for commercial/industrial properties. At present, these fees are $2,500 per acre and $833 per acre, respectively and that the applicant is held to the highest standards of a PUD development to ensure a high quality development in the downtown business district. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Koubsky. Commissioners Andrews, Pemrick, Erickson, Schroers, and Koubsky voted in favor. Commissioner Lash was opposed. The motion was approved. is tat PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER K ( ttt I, 9�- - i. ` CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE ' "'"":"1 _ 600 EAST 4TH STREET PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT •` '. 'f CHASKA,MINNESOTA 55318 (6121 448-1213 t' %".\ F '3L1 COUNTY OF CAQVLQ August 4, 1992 To: Paul Krauss, Chanhassen Planning Dire for From: Roger Gustafson, County Engineer' [ Subject: Preliminary Site Plan Chanhassen Target Development Comments regarding the preliminary site plan for the Chanhassen Target Development dated July 20, 1992, and transmitted to Carver County by your memorandum dated July 22, 1992, are: 1. The county highway department supports the proposed concept of site access being limited to West 78th Street. 2. Discussion with the city about the potential redesign of CSAH 17 north of TH 5 to safely and adequately accommodate traffic in the area of the West 78th Street intersection is requested. A detailed analysis of projected traffic volumes and movements along this segment of CSAH 17 will be required by the county highway department as part of the CSAH 17 project review process. In particular, appropriate traffic control at the West 78th Street and the Oak Ponds development intersections must be studied in detail. Traffic signals at one or both of these intersections may be warranted. Necessary project revisions and additions may require area developers and/or the city to invest additional dollars in the CSAH 17 project. 3. It is not known if any public utility lines are to be installed within the CSAH 17 right-of-way. Any such installations 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 17 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 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, in my opinion, result in fewer project oversight problems for both the county and the city. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the preliminary site plan for the proposed development. RECEIVED Affirmati:t A-tiin'Lqual Opp.r»init) Empkot er. A UG 0 6 1992 Prmted mr Retlded Paper C"r r1C r NgNI-14.:QEN CHANHASSEN TARGET DEVELOPMENT CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA • Preliminary and Final P.U.D. Narrative Final Site Plan Approval Target Site Submitted: August 24, 1992 -. Revised: September 8, 1992 Resubmitted to the City of Chanhassen: September 9, 1992 PREPARED FOR: ritirm CONSTRUCTION COMPANY; Designers Bs OF MINNESOTA, INC. ■ Developers PREPARED BY: RIK 922 Mainstreet Hopkins, Mn. 55343 (612) 933-0972 ASSOCIATES LTD. fax: (612) 933-1153 RLK ASSOCIATES, LTD. PRELIMLNARY AND FINAL PUD NARRATIVE AND - CHANHASSEN TARGET FINAL SITE DEVELOPMENT Revised September 8, 1992 — INTRODUCTION Located in the east central portion of the City of Chanhassen, on the western edge of the Central Business District lies three parcels identified as Burdick Park Addition Block 3 Lots 1 & 2, Burdick Park 2nd Addition and Block 2 of the West Village Heights 2nd Addition. These three parcels in addition to the vacated West 78th Street right of way form a 22.03 acre parcel of property being proposed for a PUD development. Ryan Construction Company, hereinafter referred to as the developer, is proposing to develop the property into what shall be referred to as the Chanhassen Target development. Ryan Construction is proposing this PUD in cooperation with the City of Chanhassen with the intent of developing a 116,822 square foot Target store, and a retail/commercial development on _ the parcel identified as Out Lot B. The eastern two lots identified as Burdick Park Addition Block 3 shall be included in the PUD for development guidelines; however these two lots shall be developed by others. The PUD boundary and site plan for the Target development is identified on Sheet 1 of 7. This is the second step in the implementation of the Chanhassen Target development. The conceptual narrative and concept plans were submitted on July 21 and revised on August 6 for City review. This document represents the revised narrative and plan sheets which were originally submitted on August 24, 1992. Included in this September 8, 1992 submittal is a narrative that accompanies the seven site plan sheets, the two architectural plan sheets identifying elevations, materials, and floor plan and one plan sheet identifying cross sections and elevations from West 78th Street. The developer, via this submittal package, is applying for the Preliminary and Final PUD and final site plan approval for the Target site. It is the expectation of the developer that the following schedule will be adhered to. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PUD AND FINAL SITE PLAN FOR TARGET SI'1l✓ Submit August 24, 1992 Final plan package with narrative, developmental guidelines including the Burdick property to the east of Target in PUD district Resubmit Narrative and Plan Sheet Package September 9, 1992 Planning Commission September 16, 1992 _ City Council September 28, 1992 It is the expectation of the Developer to have a final decision on this site prior to October 1, 1992. The developer is committed to working with City staff on this schedule with the anticipated approval of the entire Target site plan which would allow the grading and building permit process to proceed subsequent to the September 28th City Council meeting. This schedule anticipates a decision is reached at the September 16, 1992 Planning Commission and the September 28, 1992 City Council meeting. _ The staff report dated August 12, 1992 as prepared for the August 19 Planning Commission meeting and September 14 City Council meeting has described in great detail the contents of the conceptual submittal. The applicant concurs with staffs recommendations with only minor exceptions. NARRATIVE - CHANHASSEN TARGET CENTER Page 1 RLK ASSOCIATES, LTD. Target Stores has presented a building facade and exterior treatment proposal. unlike any other store in the Minneapolis area. The design has been tailored to the City of Chanhassen. The entry canopy has been designed to resemble the pitched roof line existing throughout the downtown area. In addition, the color scheme and accent lines are new for a store of this size. Target has further proposed the entry canopy be incorporated into the north facade which fronts West 78th Street. The added architectural detail recessed floor elevation, landscaping along West 78th Street and landscape islands will enable the appearance of Target from West 78th Street to be integrated with the Central Business District of Chanhassen. PROJECT GOALS The primary goal of the Developer is to develop 15.48 acres of the 22.03 acre site into a Target store on Lot 1 Block 1 (10.29 acres) and individual retail parcels on Outlot B (5.19 acres). The remainder of the 22.03 acre site consists of proposed additional right of way for West 78th Street (1.42 acres). Outlot A (1.54 acres), which shall _ remain in the possession of the City for tree preservation purposes, Outlot C (1.41 acres), the remaining area of West Village Heights Second Addition north of the new West 78th Street alignment, and the two Burdick lots to the east of Target. There are several objectives that support the primary goal. 1. To integrate the Burdick Park 2nd Addition and Lot 1, Block 2 of West Village Heights Second Addition into a Planned Unit development with compatible site organization, vehicular access, pedestrian systems. utility systems, preservation of trees and architecture consistent with the City of Chanhassen development standards. 2. Provide as a catalyst for the City to authorize the final designs and reconstruct West 78th Street per the Year 2000 Land Use Plan and new alignment and grades as shown on the attached plan sheets dated September 3, 1992. The new alignment of West 78th Street as shown on the September 3, 1992 plan submittal provides for an improved alignment at a reduced cost to the City of Chanhassen. The developer is prepared to work with staff, Carver County. MnDOT and adjacent property owners as necessary to bring this roadway alignment to construction and completion by September 1993. The alignment of West 78th Street should not impact the final approval for the Site Plan for Target. 3. Provide two full turning movements with access from West 78th Street into the Target/Outlot B parcels which would also serve the James site to the north. A third access directly into Outlot B will be a right in right out only with a raised center on West 78th Street. The grade of West 78th Street at the main entrance of Target has been designed to be lowered approximately 2-3 feet over the present day grade and will be signalized. This drop in elevation decreases the grade originally proposed for West 78th Street by BRW approximately 2 feet. RLK has reviewed the impact to the James property to the north and based upon a preliminary review the lower elevation of West 78th Street at the Target entrance would not place an undo burden on this site and future development. Additional design and evaluation of grades and a site plan may be necessary. It is our understanding that Mr. James has retained an engineer who will study further the elevation, grades, and access impact to his site. The proposed grade is viewed as a compromise between the two commercial sites as a balance between the anticipated floor elevation of each proposed building. 4. To create a public utility system, ponding area and combination'of a public and private roadway system in conjunction with the site development. 5. Protect the majority of existing hardwood trees at the southeast corner of the lot in accordance with discussions and objectives of the City staff, by allowing Outlot A to remain in the City's possession. NARRATIVE - CHANHASSEN TARGET CENTER Page 2 RLK ASSOCIATES, LTD. 6. Develop a quality commercial/retail area compatible with the west CBD sub-area study prepared in April 1992 and the City's Year 2000 plan and code standards. The commercial site described and shown on the site plan is guided for General Business by the City's Comprehensive Plan. It is also zoned for General Business. In order to create a PUD for this site, the developer has followed the City PUD zoning approval process. The developer wishes to enhance the flexibility of development of the sites within the 15.48 acre tract of land through the relaxation of the BG zoning district standards. In return, the — developer's intent is to exchange improved quality and additional landscape materials for the finished development project. The PUD will encourage the items listed in Article VIII, Division I of Section 20-501. Later, in the details that are contained in this narrative document and attached plan sheets, the methods by which the City's expectations will be met are demonstrated. PRELLNIL ARY AND FINAL PLS AND FLNAL TARGET SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL PACKAGE EXPLANATION Discussion in this section of the narrative introduction briefly explains the contents of the submittal material. This data was transmitted to the City, with the appropriate Preliminary and Final PUD Final Site Plan approval for Target, Rezoning, Site Plan Review and Sign Package Fee. The items listed below are either included in this Narrative Booklet (N) or they are included with the plan sheets (P). On September 9, 1992 a revised narrative and plan sheets were submitted to the City of Chanhassen which identify a revised West 78th Street alignment, improved architectural enhancement on West 78th Street, additional plant materials in the parking lots and a single concept site plan for Outlot B. The developer and Target will provide colored drawings and exhibits at the subsequent Planning -- Commission and City Council meeting to fully describe the proposed improvements. 1. Completed application for Development Review (N) 2. Written consent of all property owners within the PUD (N) 3. Project narrative booklet explaining the project in detailed fashion using verbiage, sketches, charts, and an — appendices (N). 4. Set of 10 plan sheets that describe the entire development and specifically the Target Site the components of the project with appropriate detail (P). Sheet 1 - Site Plan; Final Site Plan for Target and conceptual arrangement in Outlot B, lots, roadway and access; Sheet 2 - Existing Conditions; Sheet 3 - Utilities; Sheet 4 - Grading, drainage and erosion control; Sheet 5 - Landscape; Sheet 6 - Preliminary Plat; Sheet 7 - Tree Survey; Sheet Al - Floor Plan for Target; Sheet A2 - Elevations of Target; Sheet A3 - Preliminary elevations of West 78th Street and cross — sections to building. 5. List of property owners within 500 feet of the PUD boundary (N) site. 6. Topography map and legal description of property proposed for PUD zoning and development (P). NARRATIVE - CHANHASSEN TARGET CENTER Page 3 RLK ASSOCIATES, LTD. BACKGROUND OF THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM PARTICIPANTS CHANHASSEN TARGET DEVELOPMENT Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota, Inc. will be the Developer of the Chanhassen Target site and Outlot B retail sites. Under the direction of Bill McHale and Bob Goodpaster, the project will be the first commercial retail development that Ryan has developed in Chanhassen. Target Stores, Inc. will be the owner of the Target store and property. Ryan has considerable experience in developing Target stores and their associated developments such as the Rockford Road Plaza in Plymouth and the Cliff Lake Centre development in Eagan. In addition, Ryan has developed a number of Industrial and Office Corporate Parks including the Chanhassen Business Center proposed for Audubon Road. Their commitment to the business client and the City to provide a quality retail and business environment helps to assure that the Chanhassen Target development project will be a successful development venture. Architecture for the site development within the Target proposal will be performed by the architects on the Ryan Construction Company staff in association with Target architectural staff. Margaret Fleck of Target and Greg Madsen of Ryan will be in charge of the architectural design and coordination with the other design team members. Site planning, surveying, engineering and landscape architecture services will be provided by RLK Associates, Ltd. Dick Koppy will serve to facilitate the project's involvement between the City and the developer on all items related to site planning and infrastructure development. RLK Associates has served Ryan Construction Company for over 5 years on many of their retail, industrial and office park development projects around the Twin Cities metropolitan area. * * * * PROJECT DETAILS Planned Unit Developments (PUD) offer enhanced flexibility for the developer to achieve a more creative use of the land while modifying the normal zoning district standard. In exchange, the City is provided a development plan which results in a significantly higher quality development and a more sensitive proposal than in the more standard zoning district development proposal. The opportunity for the City to address access, architectural details and site planning coordination is a distinct advantage for this site. This section of the Narrative discusses the strategies of the _ development plan for the Target Development and Outlot B related to criteria the City has indicated an interest in reviewing. Through the variety of land use, efficiencies of the utility, roadway and pedestrian systems the proposed PUD can — maximize the development potential of the subject parcel while remaining sensitive to the sites unique natural features. Powers Boulevard and State Highway 5 serve as a focus gateway location for the City of Chanhassen. It is the intent of this development to coordinate a location for the gateway feature with the City. The proposed site plan identified on plan sheet one of seven identifies the suggested layout of the Target site and parking areas. Several key issues identified on the plan sheet submittal are proposed in order to meet the City's objective of a PUD zoning district. NARRATIVE - CHANHASSEN TARGET CENTER Page 4 RLK ASSOCIATES, LTD. 1. Construct West 78th Street according to the Year 2000 plan. the alignment as shown on the attached September 3, 1992 plans and 2/19/92 SRF Feasibility Study to enable the Target site to be developed concurrently with an organized internal roadway system and coordinated access plan from West 78th Street. — 2. Two full movement access intersections are proposed from West 78th Street, one of which would directly service Target, one would be a shared access, for Target and Outlot B. A third access would serve Outlot B and is proposed to be a right in and right out only. The two full access locations are proposed to service the James — property to the north of West 78th Street. Signalized intersections will be according to the City's Traffic Management Plan, the eastern most access to the Target site will be signalized. 3. Target service area is to be accessed from Picha/Monterey Drive to minimize the impact on the existing woodland at the southeast corner of the site while providing screening of the loading/service facilities from Hwy. 5. 4. The stormwater ponding area has been sized to accommodate the Target site and portions of Outlot B and the Burdick parcels to the east. The ponding area is proposed to be a public facility with access provided to allow maintenance of the stormwater facility. Calculations for area and storage capacity have been submitted to the — City Engineering Department for review. 5. Portions of the watermain. storm and sanitary sewer are proposed to be public utilities and constructed to the City of Chanhassen standards. 6. There shall be a coordinated effort between the site development and West 78th Street construction to provide pedestrian access and walkways along Powers Blvd. and West 78th Street. It is proposed the sidewalk on West — 78th Street be constructed with the reconstruction of West 78th Street and be assessed back to the property owners in equitable percentages. Sidewalks into Outlot B and the Target site shall be provided by the respective developers. Target will construct the retaining wall, with railing and the pedestrian plaza feature at the northeast corner of the site, up to the public walkway. — 7. The north facade of Target facing West 78th Street has been recessed to reduce the scale of the facade. There is a combination of a slope and retaining wall up to six feet above the parking area, which will screen the parking — lot from West 78th Street. The view from West 78th Street will be through a double row of trees which will soften and screen the facade. Elevations, cross sections and perspectives of the site will be provided at the public hearings. 8. Develop the site and incorporate the design objectives featured in the April 1992 West CBD sub-area study of signage, access, preservation, gateway and landscape buffer areas. 9. The landscape buffer along West. 78th Street, ranges from 20 to 52 feet from the West 78th Street right-of-way. Existing landscape areas in downtown Chanhassen are 10 feet in width with minimal screening. This landscape and bermed area, in combination with the boulevard trees in the West 78th Street right-of-way, will screen the buildings and parking lots from direct view, enabling the Target development to be compatible with City design standards. 10. The Architectural detailing of the west and north facade of Target have been specially designed to accommodate — concerns of City staff and appointed officials. No other Target has the amount of facade treatment and landscaping in the setback areas and in the parking lot as this site demonstrates for the City of Chanhassen. NARRATIVE - CHANHASSEN TARGET CENTER Page 5 RLK ASSOCIATES, LTD. The following items for discussion and explanation have been taken from Article VIII Planned Unit Developments section 20-501 through 20-504. 1. Allowable Uses The proposed Target Retail store and the schematic Outlot B development is consistent with the Year 2000 comprehensive land use plan which identifies this site to be used for commercial purposes. The current zoning of BG - a general business category is not equipped to coordinate a large, integrated site development which is being proposed. Specific uses and performance standards for this commercial site development are addressed later in the narrative and on the plan sheets. 2. Preservation of desirable site characteristics, buffer areas, and protection of sensitive environmental features including mature trees, ponding areas and scenic views. The site is a combination of sloping land, containing open space, ponding areas, shrub massing and a significant woodland on the southeast corner. The open space areas south of the existing West 78th Street is still in an agricultural state. Plan Sheet 2 - (existing conditions) identifies the existing characteristics of the property. The existing utilities are shown on the map and the anticipated drainage patterns will be compatible to the SRF Feasibility Study for West 78th Street. The existing trees on the southeast corner of the site have been inventoried and surveyed. The trees over six inches in caliper diameter have been recorded with respect to their size, species and physical condition. Generally, there are three significant tree groupings: A. Boxelder with a few oak and elm B. Basswood with boxelder and a few oak, elm and ash C. Oak with boxelder and a few elm and ash. The significant clusters (B and C) with the dominate oak trees and other quality hardwoods have been designated to be preserved in most of their entirety. The trees designated for removal on the average are the boxelder and elm clusters and individual hardwoods which have suffered disease or storm damage. Refer to plan sheet seven of seven for a print of the tree survey. The replacement landscape quantities identified in the plant schedule on the landscape plan more than replace the quality hardwoods lost to the site improvement. The tree preservation enhancement plan includes thinning and removing all trees below 6" in caliper, removal of all diseased trees and all storm damaged trees in danger of falling over, in Outlot A. The plan was conceived in recognition of discussions with the City staff and the developer (specifically note the May 15, 1992 and the May 20, 1992 letters between Todd Gerhardt, City staff, Don Ashworth, City Manager, and Bill McHale, Ryan). In addition to the discussions and meetings held between July 20th and September 1st. The City shall maintain control of the property and will dictate if and how Outlot A will be thinned out. The Develop requests an opportunity to work with the City to improve the aesthetics of Outlot A, while maintaining the screening aspects. 3. More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through the coordination of West 78th improvements, access to the site and coordination of the utility system. West 78th Street has gone through the feasibility phase and the cost of the upgrading is known. The new alignment of West 78th Street as shown on the September 3, 1992 plan submittal provides for an improved NARRATIVE - CHANHASSEN TARGET CENTER Page 6 RLK ASSOCIATES, LTD. alignment at a reduced cost to the City of Chanhassen. The developer is prepared to work with staff, Carver County, MnDOT and adjacent property owners as necessary to bring this roadway alignment to construction and completion by September 1993. The alignment of West 78th Street should not impact the final approval for the — Site Plan for Target. The ability to refine the proposed grades of W. 78th Street at the entrance to the Target store will make for a higher quality development. The in place sanitary and water mains on West 78th will adequately service Outlot B and the Target Store. Access to Outlot B and the Target site will be constructed with two full turning movement intersections along West 78th Street and one right in and right out (see site plan). — The right of way on West 78th Street has been shown at 50 feet from center line for the entire length of this development. 50 feet allows for the necessary 2-thru traffic lanes, required turning lanes and, in some areas, — sidewalks and landscape boulevard, enabling this site to exceed the Chanhassen CBD landscape screening and plant material requirements. Area has been set aside adjacent to Powers Boulevard for the City to create the Gateway entry monument. Access between the Target site and the Burdick property to the east has been requested and is shown on the plans; however, due to the need for a retaining wall on the south side of West 78th Street on the Target site there is a 5'- 6' elevation difference at the Burdick property line. Further site adjustments to the grades between the two properties will be necessary. The developer is currently working with Mr. Burdick to coordinate the site development between these two parcels. 4. High quality of design and design compatible with surrounding community standards. Site planning, landscaping and building architecture should reflect higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the community. The layout of the 10.29 acre Target site and Outlot B totalling 5.19 acres shall be committed to architectural standards which will be established by the Target Store and compatible with the City requirements. The site plan concentrates the ponding area into one location south of the parking lot and west of the mature trees in Outlot A. The development plan for Target indicates a 76.3% impervious hard surface coverage. The landscape plan identifies a higher percentage of required plant stock to be installed as compensation on the slightly higher impervious ratio of 76.3%. The concept site plan for Outlot B identifies an impervious ratio of 50.9%. The entire development is at 67.8% impervious density if the Target parcel and Outlot B are combined in the — impervious density calculation. It should be noted, Outlot A has not been included in any of the above calculations and would greatly reduce the impervious ratio if included. The Target store is the only site of the development being proposed for the final site plan review at this time and is identified on the attached plan sheets. Outlot B is identified on plan sheet 1 of 7 and identifies the conceptual layout of individual lots, building massing, access from West 78th Street and internal roadway alignment. Prior to any development of Outlot A a formal review and submittal process by the City separate from the Target — submission will be necessary. Individual site plans will be submitted to Ryan Construction Company, the property agent, for approval relative to architecture, building materials, and site improvements. The basis of their approval shall adhere to the general guidelines briefly mentioned above and more explicitly contained in the Planned Unit Development, Developer's agreement for the Chanhassen Target Development. A. Building Materials and Design Standards • 1. All materials and colors shall be approved by the property agent prior to commencement of property — improvements. 2. Brick may be used and must be approved to assure uniformity. NARRATIVE - CHANHASSEN TARGET CENTER Page 7 _ RLK ASSOCIATES, LTD. 3. Stone shall have a weathered face or be polished, fluted, or broken face. 4. Concrete masonry details must be approved by Ryan prior to construction or alteration and shall be finished in stone, textured or coated (smooth surface or rock face). 5. Metal siding will not be approved except as a support material to one of the above materials. _ 6. No ancillary structures that are considered to be part of the building structure can be constructed without prior approval of Ryan Construction Company. 7. Sloping roof lines constructed of metal or asphaltic shingles which will adequately conceal any rooftop mechanical equipment. A-8 Target Store Building Material for Final Site Plan Approval Target Store Chanhassen Special Building Elements • The gateway enhance element will be accented with a bronze metal standing seam hipped roof at a height of 28'-8" above grade. The entry detailing will be incorporated on to the West 78th Street facade. • 8" x 16" masonry units with a rockface finish to vary up to 8' high at main portions of the building; at pilasters 3'4" these will be coated with a dark tan sealant. • 8" x 8" scored masonry units with rockface above 8' level with 8" x 16" block up to 20' height; this will be coated with a light tan sealant. • Parapet cap to be 8" x 16" masonry units corbelled in 1" out 2" to give a strong cap to the top of the building. • Pilaster elements will be 10' in height to break up long lengths of elevation into a more human scale. • There will be 3-8" bands of color blue at 8' height, green at 10' height, red at 20' height around all side of the building. B. Site Landscaping and Screening Standards 1. All open spaces and non-parking lot surfaces shall be landscaped, rockscaped, or covered with plantings and/or lawn materials. 2. Approved screening techniques shall be used to block sight lines from adjacent properties and roadways of service area. 3. The master landscape plan for the PUD shall be the design guide for all of the specific site development. 4. Landscaping as exceeding City codes and to be harmonious with existing streetscape features has been proposed on the landscape plan. The landscape buffer yard adjacent to West 78th Street is 20' to 50' in width which greatly exceeds typical zoning standards. NARRATIVE - CHANHASSEN TARGET CENTER Page 8 RLK ASSOCIATES, LTD. 5. Outlot B shall be seeded and maintained in a weedfree condition in all areas where grading operations have occurred up until the time of development. 6. Keystone retaining wall, with a horizontal steel pipe pailing to be located at the northeast corner of the Target site. A pedestrian plaza complete with benches and possibly incorporating a bus shelter could be integrated at this location. C. Open Space, Trails, Park Dedication 1. Outlot A for tree protection shall remain the property of the City of Chanhassen. The additional 10 feet of right-of-way along West 78th totaling 0.27 acres shall be deducted from the park dedication fees. Construction of the road, pond and suitable grading will be completed by the developer. The proposed park dedication fee is $2,500.00/acre and the trail fee shall be $833.00/acre. The total amount due on a per acreage basis is $3,333.00. The total acreage to be assessed for the Target proposal is 15.48 acres (10.29 acres, Lot 1, Block 1 and 5.19 acres, Outlot B). The amount due the City shall be paid at the same time permits are being purchased. D. Signage 1. Identification Signs: Identification signs will be building mounted in conformance with the City's sign ordinance and consistent with the Target standard. Each property shall be allowed one free mounted pylon — sign located near the driveway into the private site. 2. Pylon Signs: Two pylon signs are contemplated as part of this development; one identifying Target, to be located along Highway 5 and one identifying the retail area (Outlot B). The location of the pylon sign for the retail area in Outlot B shall be determined as part of the site plan approval for Outlot B. 3. Monument Signs: The retail businesses within Outlot B and the Target Store will have one monument sign, each. The signage will have consistency throughout the development. A common theme will be introduced at the _ development's entrance monument, the signage monument adjacent to Highway 5 and used throughout. E. Lighting — 1. A decorative, shoebox fixture (high pressure sodium vapor lamps) with a square ornamental pole will be used throughout the development area for roadway and parking lot lighting. 2. The same lighting equipment that is mounted in the public street right of way shall be used in the new public roadway areas. 3. Lights will be on a photoelectric cell to turn them on and off automatically as dictated by yearly conditions. This type of lighting is as energy efficient as possible. F. The retention pond will be constructed to NURP standards and be constructed to have access to the structures. NARRATIVE - CHANHASSEN TARGET CENTER Page 9 RLK ASSOCIATES, LTD. * * * * Agreement with details of the Preliminary and Final PUD Concept plan for the Chanhassen Target Development and for final site plan approval of the Target Site is being sought on the resubmission dated September 9, 1992. PLAN SHEET DEFINITION The verbiage in the following section of the Narrative briefly describes the contents of the plan sheets that are part of the proposed Chanhassen Target PUD. Master Site Plan: The site plan outlines the proposal of the developer with the PUD boundary as requested by the City, a realignment of West 78th Street, a final site plan for the Target parcel and a conceptual layout for Outlot B. Outlot A shall remain property of the City for tree preservation purposes. A walkway to Target and along West 78th _ Street (to be constructed with West 78th Street) will integrate this site with the CBD. Area for a gateway feature will be preserved at the northwest corner of Highway 5 and Powers Boulevard. The final Target site plan identifies the parking lot layout, walkway areas, service access, setbacks and the PUD legal description. Sheet 2 - Existing Conditions: The project boundaries are identified and existing conditions of the site are shown _ through the use of a two foot topographical survey. Topographic information was provided by the City and MnDOT and verified in the field. In addition, the adjoining properties, roadways and significant features are shown. A tree survey was completed on July 18 to identify and quantify species, caliper inch and location. The trees found on site generally are within three basic groups (see Sheet 7) for a tree survey. Sheet 3 - Utility Plan: This plan identifies the location of the proposed water main, sanitary and storm sewer for the Target site. In addition, the realignment of West 78th Street has been shown. The development of the utility plan for Outlot B shall be prepared upon the site plan approval. The utilities proposed for public ownership have been identified on the preliminary plat with easements covering their location. Water Main: Has been sized to effectively provide domestic and fire protection to each parcel. Looping of the system will be completed per City requirements. Sanitary Sewer: The site is within the MWCC service area and service is available along existing West 78th Street. Inverts of the sanitary are deep enough to allow the road access to be lowered from West 78th Street to the Target site. Storm Sewer: Pre-development drainage patterns will be maintained, with the ponding area adjacent to the Highway 5 embankment. All disturbed areas will be resurfaced with pavement, sod, landscape materials or seeded to minimize erosion both during construction and after. The ponding areas will be constructed per City of Chanhassen requirements and according to the N.U.R.P. Design Guidelines. Sheet 4 - Grading Drainage and Erosion Control: The grading plan identifies proposed contours, ponding areas and suggest new roadway contours for West 78th Street. It is imperative the Ryan Team and the City work together to construct West 78th and the Target proposal in concert. Due to the service access for Target designed to come off NARRATIVE - CHANHASSEN TARGET CENTER Page 10 RLK ASSOCIATES, LTD. of Picha, the floor elevation of Target has minimal ability to be adjusted. The contours on West 78th Street will have to be adhered to in order for the entry grades for the Target site plan to function properly. All contours shown are 2' contours. Sheet 5 - Landscape Plan, Exterior Lighting: The landscape plan identifies the location and placement of all new plant material, ground cover, and surface treatment. In addition, the area identifying protection of oak trees and other significant species is identified in Outlot A. All plant material will be installed per the planting details and notes and will conform to the City standards and approved species. The plant material for the Target site, which is being submitted for final site plan approval identifies caliper size, species and totals of plant material proposed. This landscape plan will establish the design standard for the remainder of Outlot B. The landscape plan has been designed to exceed the value of plant material as stated in City Code Section 20-1179, Landscape Standards. The projected value for the target development is 3.5 million dollars, which would equate to an approximate value of$37,500.00 in tree and plant material costs exclusive of sodding, mulch and irrigation. The — base quantity of plant material as shown on the plant schedule corresponds to a budget estimated at 37,000.00. The enhanced quantity and value of the landscape plan is being offered as compensation for the site's impervious density ratio being at 76.3 percent. The developer is proposing to install the base and enhanced landscape quantities as shown on the planting schedule. Sheet 6 - Preliminary Plat: The preliminary plat is a combination of two platted parcels and the vacated western extension of West 78th Street. The Burdick property Block 3 Lot 1 and 2 is already a platted parcel and will not be re-platted, it will only be included in the PUD zoning district. The proposed plat will be named Chanhassen Retail Addition with a the Target site and two outlots proposed. Outlot A shall remain the property of the City of Chanhassen which shall control the preservation of trees existing in this outlot. Outlot B shall be developed into individual lots at a later date, when the market conditions dictate. Prior to each lot in Outlot B being platted, the — City of Chanhassen will have an opportunity to review the site plan. Sheet 7 - Tree Inventory: The stand of existing trees have been inventoried with all trees over 6" in caliper inch identified. The plan addresses all trees in size but makes no value of a Boxelder vs. an oak tree or the quality of the tree. It is anticipated 1500 caliper inches of quality hardwoods are being retained. The quantity of quality trees proposed to be removed, excluding boxelder trees and/or diseased or storm damaged trees, is estimated to be 360 caliper inches. — Sheet A-1 - Floor Plan: Floor plan for Target Store, identifying entry location, service, exit doors, and footprint of a standard store internal layout. _ Sheet A-2 Elevation: The elevations for all four sides of the Target Store are illustrated with the materials as identified previously in the narrative. The West 78th Street elevation has included details from the entry canopy, which will help break this facade into smaller building modules. This added detailing and landscaping buffer will enable the West 78th Street facade to be in harmony with the CBD of Chanhassen. The elevation illustrates the recessed floor elevation along the north (West 78th Street) side, which greatly reduces the scale of this facade, when viewed from West 78th Street. Sheet A-3 - Cross Section/Elevation: The plan identifies preliminary cross sections and an elevational view from West 78th Street. The elevation and cross sections identify the landscape materials and recessed floor elevation as the building would be viewed from West 78th Street. NARRATIVE - CHANHASSEN TARGET CENTER Page 11 ot4EsoTq Minnesota Department of Transportation — Z° Metropolitan District RECEIViri Transportation Building 4:2St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 SE 1992 rOF ' Oakdale Office, 3485 Hadley Avenue North, Oakdale, Minnesota 551 v ,- (-pi,; , ,_s Golden Valley Office, 2055 North Lilac Drive, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 Reply to 593-8753 Telephone No. September 1, 1992 Mr. Paul Krauss Planning Director City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 In Reply refer to: TH 5 C.S. 1002 Target TH 5/Co. Rd. 17 Chanhassen Dear Mr. Krauss: We are in receipt of the above referenced plat for our review in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03 Plats and Surveys. We find this plat acceptable for development with consideration of the following comments: • Because TH 5 is currently under construction in this area close coordination should occur between the developer and the project construction engineer. The developer should contact Dick Hoppenrath or Dennis Wildermuth at 341-7427 with any questions. • Traffic generated by this development will amount to approximately 8,950 trips per day ("Trip Generation Rates," NCITE Transportation Utility Subcommittee, June 5, 1992). Because of this considerable increase traffic a traffic impact analysis should be performed to ensure a comprehensive evaluation of the impacts of this development on the surrounding road system. • • At the ponding area, water storage volume on the Mn/DOT side of the right-of-way line must be excluded from pond design computations (This is necessary to prevent Mn/DOT from having to mitigate that storage if the roadway is widened.) _ • The stormline along West 78th Street shows no outlet. If the outlet is to the North along CSAH 17, the drainage pattern proposed is significantly different from the 040467- .046 MINNE50?A 1990 An Equal Opportunity Employer Paul Krauss September 1, 1992 Page Two _ current pattern and somewhat different from the stormwater management plan and _ will require a permit from the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District. For this permit the applicant must provide stormsewer/pond computations including the effects to the downstream 48" RCP culvert under TH 5, inplace and proposed — drainage area maps with computations, the ditch grade to the pond area from the 12" CMP median drain, and the SRF Feasibility Study for West 78th Street as mentioned on page 4 of the Concept PUD Narrative. A Corps of Engineers permit may also be — required if there is construction in the existing wetland at the pond site. Please respond to Bonnie Peterson of our Hydralics section at 593-8505. If you have any questions please feel free to call me at 593-8753. Sincerely, 4111% ' 4 — Tim Henkel Planning Supervisor cc: Mary Anderson, Metropolitan Council Les Weigelt, Hennepin Co. Mike Reiter, Hennepin Co. CITY OF 4011°1111 CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 4EMORANDUM TO: Paul Krauss, Planning Director _FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official * , 'DATE: 09/09/92 -SUBJECT: 92-6 Rezone, 92-5 PUD, 92-2 Site Plan Review (Target) -Plans reviewed are dated 9/3/92 . 1. Allowable floor area for Target is dependent on maintaining 60 ' yards around the entire building. The no build agreement on adjoining properties must be recorded in the chain of title with the reason for the restriction included. No build area on property to the east should be extended to the Zorth and south to assure maintenance of 60 ' yards. 2 . Asphalt or concrete sidewalks, turnabouts or fire lanes should be extended to all required exits from the building. 3 . Building exit width appears to be deficient unless corridors 117 and 141 are rated. • is �up4. PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY OF 1111 :11. 11111rCHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317 _ (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Kate Aanenson, Planner II — FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: September 10, 1992 SUBJ: Site Plan Review - Target The Chanhassen Fire Marshal has reviewed the site plan for the proposed Target store on West 78th Street. The following list are requirements that shall be met: 1. FF indicates location of "No Parking Fire Lane" signs. Policy #06-1991 enclosed. Note: Additional "No ParkingFire Lane" signs may be required as situations dictate. 2 . Policy #04-1991 "Site Plan" enclosed. 3 . Policy #07-1991 "Preplan Map" enclosed. 4 . Painted yellow curb. See Fire Marshal approved site plan. 5. Policy #29-1992 "Premise I .D. " enclosed. 6 . 10 ' (foot) clear space around fire hydrants - City Ordinance. 7 . Fire department sprinkler connection must be installed near main entrance per Chanhassen Fire Marshal approval. See utility plan page 3 revised 9/3/92 . 8 . Relocate fire hydrant located N/NE corner. See utility plan, sheet 3 , revised 9/3/92 . 9 . Extend fire lane on south and east side. See site plan, page 1, revised 9/3/92 . n ti, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER .„. _ CITY OF -:1f :1}e 5/0 11-77 - • = :<f"`:;;� 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 - t 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. Other 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 H 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, additional numbers will be required on the buildings main entrance. Chanhassen Fire Department _ Fire Prevention Policy #29-1992 _ Date: 06/15/92 Revised: �- Approved - Public Say Director Page 1 of 1 to, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ..,, C I TY OF A ..J.44 ‘,. e VA:V.; pile I ' '.. ' '. ''•z:Alt:_.;f_-_."4"--a"- ii4 f" ; �. 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 — CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY REOUIREMENTS 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. I\ 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 — ,C;;>7 -217 Date: 1/15/91 Revised: Approved - Public Safety Director Page 1 of 1 OW t4 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER - CITY OF ,-,, :• , Ate_ vi., .,•—j...e.c,:.. .- 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 e: (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 deadend 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 — Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #07-1991 Date : 01/16/91 (Ce: Revised: Approved - Public Safety Director Page 1 of 1 Is 4. PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER _. . C I TY OF .,,, .. , ..--. . ..:11/...,; CHANHASSEN ‘._‘ ,:i.,,,x.... ,... .... .,,,,,,,, t..... ..„ ,„: „.„ , _ ,,,,, ,„:„.,,, ,/,,. ,... r . 4, - E 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 All the following required inspections shall be scheduled 24 hours in advance with the Fire Marshal: , 1 . Witnessing the flushing of underground sprinkler service line, per NFPA 13-8-2 . 1 . 2 . Hydrostatic test of sprinkler system and 24 hour air test for dry systems. 3 . Testing of all smoke detection, manual pull stations, and fire suppression systems. _ 4 . Installation of fire extinguishers 2A-40BC rated minimum. Install one by each exit door and as designated by Fire Inspector. 5 . Extinguishers shall be provided before final approval . 6 . A final inspection by a Fire Inspector before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. 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. Onsite fire hydrants shall be provided and in operating condition - during all phases of construction. The use of liquefied petroleum gas shall be in conformance with _ NFPA Standard 58 and the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code. A list of these requirements is available. . 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 . Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #04-1991 Date: 11/22/91 Revised: Page 1 of 2 Is• _ �.0 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 4 2 V O ^ W � Sa L D r (365) r c, (to-rk, 714i r, POWERS BLVD. n 2 i t 1 >a g .1\k v� C z c n c- any ,n L Q a C ^ c �Na wo j •— 24 r 24 C ' KERBER BLVD. (ZZs)uo-i �... m NNU _ 30 C104) T� W=-. -4- -^ 7Cst v�� 8 3� 02 j 47- u u - = 0 rbc s MARKET BLVD. 0 -< (;4':4 i �x � m —. r4 . 'n m C n 4a' *s S LOW (144) 41 z •-L01N �� > l y LAREDO DR. - .<N co c 9 ct i_z U) m ,. , _ E O Z m ig z rn A ,,s1,4� 0 I > Si,��c� j�• 1 34 FRONTIER TR. -cn ,� Z, . Ct) N a 1d� ^ i Z y cn C —4 n �Jl. Cods) NORTH U 2426 T.H. 1of 2 I a MI Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 11 Batzli : You 're comfortable with that? That that 's included? Aanenson : Yes . And I 've checked with the Carver County Recorder 's Office and they are willing to accept it this way . Ahrens : Did you read through this legal description? Aanenson : Yes . Batzli : If there 's no more discussion , I 'll call the question . Emmings moved, Ahrens seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision *92-9 to create one 5 acre parcel from a 19 acre parcel , subject to the following conditions: 1 . The City Attorney 's Office shall prepare a development contract statin that the remaining 14 acre parcel may not be developed until such time that this area is inside the Urban Service Area and water and sewer are available , or until such time additional land is acquired to meet the 10 acre density as required by ordinance . 2 . A driveway easement is secured and recorded allowing for access to the- remaining 14 acre parcel . More particularly , to that portion which lies north and east of the ravine . All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: CONCEPTUAL PUD ON 18+ ACRES FOR A COMMERCIAL/RETAIL CENTER LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WEST 78TH STREET AND POWERS BOULEVARD . TARGET DEVELOPMENT . Public Present: Name Address Judy Landkammer 6901 Utica Lane B .C . "Jim" Burdick Excelsior Bill McHale 12237 Chadwick Lane Rick Whitaker 9225 Rhode Island Margaret D . Fleck 4426 Haven Avenue Fran Hagen , II 8683 Shayview Court John Dietrich 2721 Colfax Avenue So . Tom Legierski , James Co . 6640 Shady Oak Road Charlie James 6640 Shady Oak Road Doug Kunin Eckankar Brad Johnson 7425 Frontier Trail Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item . Batzli : Thanks Kate . Anyone on the Commission , would anyone like to ask Kate any questions before we ask the applicant to make the presentation? Okay , would the applicant like to give their presentation . Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 12 Bill McHale : Good evening . I 'm Bill McHale with Ryan Construction . I will mostly be addressing our concept , as we 're talking about it Outlot B . _ I 've got with me Margaret. Fleck who is the architect for Target and I think it 's probably most appropriate that she go through that site , the building , etc . which is obviously the driving force behind the development and once any questions have been answered there , then I 'd just like to make some comments about the concept on the outlots . Margaret . Margaret Fleck : I 'm going to begin by just showing you what our standard new P193 prototype is and this is the new prototype . It 's slightly different than what you 've been seeing . Earlier renditions where we had a red truss system and it was also exposed . It 's a fairly simple building . Two tone and it has an asymmetrical . Batzli : Excuse me , can you maybe move the stand a little bit forward so it 's larger on the monitors and we can see it . Margaret Fleck : This is just for you to get an overview of what our prototype was . Or is . This is what we are proposing to put on the site . _ It 's varied quite a bit . We 're putting a pier element in that projects out from the wall surface and breaks up the wall surface . We 've added what we call our Greatland colors . The blue and the green . It 's normally in only our Greatlands but we feel that it 's appropriate here to break up the surface of the wall again . We 've put the gateway that 's very similar to our Greatland stores in here and have stayed with our prototypical colors . It is a masonry building . It 's what we call rockface . I believe the term that was used in the staff proposal or narrative was , weathered . And that is very similar to this element right here . It looks like a piece of rock rather than just a flat surface element and I will just set that down if _ somebody wants to grab it and feel it . The colors are very specifically chosen by our people to try to keep a certain image . It is a coated surface which is a sealant that coats the block or the masonry . The lower portion of the masonry is an 8 x 16 block . The upper colors , the lighter color is an 8 x 8 block . The massing changes along in here also so that we have some variation . We 've completed and followed this through on all the other sides . The line here that I 'm showing , we had a conceptual difficulty here . When I was first having this developed by my architect , he misinterpretted the grades and this is the true grade here . This area here will be changing to look a little , a bit more like this massing rather than the piers . There is a standing seam roof on the front entry area that does return and go back and show it 's face , just a side face on 78th Street . Does anybody have any particular questions on this? In general , that 's the basic building . We are 375 feet in front and approximately 400 feet front to back . Aanenson: If I could make just one comment . One suggestion we had to was _ that they put tree wells between those columns so we put that in the staff report to soften the building . Ahrens : Put what? Aanenson : Trees in wells or something along that sidewalk between the columns . Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 13 Margaret Fleck : In the sidewalk area we could leave , put leave outs and - add . We would like to stay with an oranmental tree . A smaller , maybe blossoming tree and keep it away from the actual building foundation that we could place then right along in here . And it already begins to be a landscape area up here so you already see them being reflected . I could even bring them to this distance . I would prefer not to bring anything within the gateway area . Emmings : . . . is the south facing , west side of the building? And the side that faces 78th Street is which one? Margaret Fleck : This one . Emmings : Okay . Margaret Fleck : This is , again the rear of the building . This would be the one going to . Batzli : The loading dock area is the lower corner on the right? Margaret Fleck : Yeah , this would be the highway side and that would be tha direction they 're running into and this is actually , excuse me . Along her would also be the dock area . Batzli : Okay . _ Margaret Fleck : There was also another comment in the staff report about rooftop units not showing and we did go ahead and do a sight line study which I have copies of . I apologize for not getting these here earlier . The study was done from two points on TH 5 . A high point that would be looking from up here across and none of the rooftop , well the rooftop units shows by .01 foot which is about a 1/16 of an inch . And that 's with a 4 foot additional parapet from what we do on prototypes . There is one element that does show currently . It 's a satellite dish which would be positioned right here . It 's mounted from the rooftop , it mounts and goes to 9 feet above the rooftop . You would see 3 feet of it . It 's approximately an 8 foot round satellite dish . You 're going to be seeing that the upper half of the sphere of it for 3 feet . So your top element - would be 3 feet and you 're only going to see about 6 feet across and that would hit right about here . And that would be seen from really TH 5 only . It 's for communication to our district offices of our sales data , etc . and it 's a very important element to our operation of our buildings . And part of it is also transmitting orders . That type of thing . Farmakes : Is it necessary that it be placed on the roof? Margaret Fleck : Our normal effort is to do it up on the rooftop . I don 't know where we 'd put it down on the ground and really have transmissions that we need . Farmakes : The total height there is? Margaret Fleck : The total height of the building here is 28 foot 8 . And that 's at the high point here . It does go . . . You 're seeing , that 's the 28 Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 14 foot 8 . 26 foot 8 is right here . Batzli : Does anyone else have any questions on the Commission? Erhart : The pitched part of the roof is only over the opening? Over the entranceway . Margaret Fleck : Yes it is . That 's , we worked a great deal on that and that is one thing that I went back to my people and we just feel very strongly that it 's an entrance element that really is , reads entrance to it . Especially on a commercial building of this type . And I made an effort , I can honestly say , for some depth . Aanenson : We also asked that the element be carried , instead of just the front facing Powers Boulevard but that element be wrapped around West 78th . — Margaret Fleck : When I came in to the staff , it was actually narrower than this and I have widened it to 12 feet from the 8 feet I previously did , which isn 't a great deal but I went back and tried to get more than that . In fact , when I first originally designed this , I had a larger pitch . I can honestly say that it 's going to be a big question . I could go back and tell them that it 's being asked for . It 's a cost . It 's a great deal of cost . Ahrens : It 's a cost and not a . . .design . . . .people won 't find the entrance to Target . Margaret Fleck : No . They 're not really concerned about that but it is architecturally an element that should be read for an entrance . If we _ bring it along this side , it reads that something should be there that is not truly there . Ahrens: According to them . Margaret Fleck : According to all of us , yeah for a pier . And then there 's the cost of it . It doesn 't do anything for our building whereas using it for an entrance identification , it does do something for our building and I can rationalize that cost . You 're talking another $100 ,000 .00 when you start turning around the corner . And a maintenance problem . Krauss : If I could touch on that for a bit . Well first of all we 're not asking you to look at cost projections and decide what 's reasonable . Our concern here , as Kate indicated earlier , we took the very unusual step of laying out a proposed or potential site plan since we knew Target was in the market for the site ahead of receiving their ideas on this property . And we factored in a list of items that we felt were important for the City . We being members of the planning staff , engineering staff , the HRA , Planning Commission , and City Council had a meeting . One of the things that came across very clearly is that a Target store or anything else on that block should not turn it 's back on downtown . Therefore we felt it was importart that since we knew that the primary entrance would be oriented to the west , but visually , architecturally the importance of the 78th Street frontage needs to be expressed and needs to be carried around on that side and that was our concern with that . Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 15 Margaret Fleck: And if I can interject on that . We really felt like we - did that without having to add a rooftop element where anybody that 's in a car or even walking in the area is going to have to look up 30 feet to see in comparison to piers that we put in and massing that we put in as it 's - brought down into a human scale . A walking and residential scale and that 's really where we felt the money was appropriate . Not up at the 30 foot height level . One of the things I possibly could look into is going on the 78th Street side with an element on the piers that gave you a littli bit of a , very similar to what you have . Just a framework like you have a your , I believe it 's the fire station across the street . That type of thing . Aanenson: This all will be . . .during the site plan review too . These are some of the issues that we 've raised and we 're moving in that direction . _ Batzli : Kate , let me ask one question about the report . You have staff recommends the pitch element be carried around the West 78th Street side of the building . You have in the next sentence , you 're recommending that the— design be further refined to offer roofline elements consistent with downtown Chanhassen . Are these two separate issues or are we talking about the same thing? _ Aanenson: Are you on the last page of the recommendations? Batzli : Page 3 . New page 3 . First full paragraph . Is this one and the same issue or are there two different issues here on our roofline? Aanenson : Same issue . Carrying that pitch around and trying to reflect - the other elements we 've got with Market Square and the visibility from West 78th . They 've oriented toward Powers but we 're also saying that that 's a long segment of wall too on West 76th that should also have a front door look . Batzli : Yeah , okay . Go ahead . Margaret Fleck : Do you have any more questions for me? Batzli : I don 't think we do right now . - Farmakes : I have one further question . You show trees on the bottom two views and then as you work your way up to the top the trees become much more scarce . Is there a line of thinking that it was important to see the building and that that interferes with the sight line for identification or , even when there 's no signage on the one side? Margaret Fleck: At this point in the development of the site plan , this i a landscaped area behind . We do not have a roadway back there so there is lands:aping shown . That 's the same along the sides and along the sides here and all the way around the far side . This is quite a large area of trees . That 's that lot that 's being saved . It was just one , we don 't normally care for maintenance reasons for leaves being on our sidewalk where our customers roll their carts and that type of thing . To put trees in if we can help it . We do do it and we will be happy to do it in this condition . It 's just something that we don 't normally do automatically . Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 16 And then there is , the main concern is to have some visual clearance for the sign at the building because it is another identifying element . Farmakes : So it 's not the building itself . It 's just the logo and the entrance? Margaret Fleck : Yeah , that I would need to maintain the clearance for . That and just a general area in here and sidewalk area . Our sidewalks are meant for our customers to be able to traverse into our building and not have to walk a great deal in the driveway . Erhart : Jeff , you 're talking about trees adjacent to the building? Farmakes : I 'm talking about there 's four views there and . . . if you look at the bottom two , there 's several trees running along the plane of the building . On the upper two , there are very few . I 'm just wondering , marketing wise , the intent . Erhart : Yeah , and your suggestions is . . .you 're suggesting that you might wart to have trees next to the building to further screen , is that correct? Farmakes : I guess that would be somewhat consistent with what we 've been requiring on other things . However , I wanted to know what their thinking was as far as marketing the site . Margaret Fleck : On the West 78th Street , I 'm not sure we 're showing all the trees that would be there . Next to the building , exactly next to the building there 's only a 3 foot sidewalk which has an overhang of 2 feet for your . . . Bill McHale : The landscape plan will . The depiction is , there 's actually trees along the boulevard but they 're not right next to the building so _ from the roadway you don 't have any problems . That 's all trees and the elevations she 's showing you doesn 't step back to the street to see the trees . One of the reasons that we don 't have much room in there is because the building , pursuant to staff , was pushed further north to save the big grouping of trees adjacent to the freeway and that limited the area . That elevation , it really isn 't representative . . . Margaret Fleck: . . .the architecture , not the trees . Aanenson: If I could make a clarification on that too . Actually at this point . . . Erhart : We 're ultimately waiting for the developer to do some drawings of trees . Margaret Fleck : We ' ll be happy to . _ Farmakes : No , but if you 're talking about adding elements to the side of the building to improve the look of the building . If we cover it up by trees , there are ornamental trees , it is kind of dubious whether or not we 're gaining anything . Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 17 Margaret Fleck: They could be shurbs , if you want some greenery or they _ could be flowered plants . You know I mean we can work with that . Batzli : Thank you . Bill McHale : I don 't have any pictures to look at so this is going to be dry . All I 'd like to do is give you I guess our reasons for why we 're going through kind of an awkward process with one site that 's so refined and one that we 're getting arms around everybody getting comfortable with . Obviously Target is what 's leading the direction and the outlots and the compatibility to develop them I think is something that 's desired by the City and Target and that 's what we 're trying to effect right now . One of the things that I feel strongly about is we need the flexibility to develo this site and that 's why we 're looking for something . If we 're to commit going here , we need to know what our possibilities are . A couple comments- We 're real comfortable with the materials that the staff has recommended and that the buildings on Outlot B are compatible . We don 't want them to look the same but we do think similar materials and the materials you use in downtown would be certainly acceptable . That 's no problem for us at all . There 's questions in the staff report regarding setbacks . One of th _ problems we 're having and we feel that the PUD should allow us a flexibility to some of those setbacks is , in addition to setting back from- the roadway , there are some utility lines that exist in the existing 78th that can 't be moved . That we can 't build on top of . Target has concerns about sight lines and we 're trying to preserve ones to the main intersections which should be to everybody 's advantage . If you take all that into consideration and then you set back everything , the projected 5C feet , in some cases there aren 't building pads available . If we can 't build on it , we can 't buy it and then we 're left with the question with , - who 's going to pay for the open space . So we think that if you look at tF entire Outlot B and have some flexibility , we think we can work that out . We are not sure where the two fast food restrictions came from . In talkin- to Kate earlier , I 'm not sure that she knows for sure . I sent a letter to Don Ashworth after several of our meetings a long time ago and told him that we felt that that was somewhat problematic . We would like the market_ to determine the appropriate uses . We think we can work within the landscape requirements . The City 's parking requirements but we feel strongly that anything that 's zoned for that area should be allowed . We have no problem working with staff and approving one building at a time . I- fact , that 's the way we 'd prefer to do it . That 's why we agreed with staf to come up with just Outlot B rather than platting it into separate lots which would give you less control . I think we understand where staff is coming with with pitched roofs . We would .Like at least the flexibility , depe^ding on the exact building sign when we come in . In some cases , maybe an increased parapet another element would be satisfactory . I think one of our major concerns here and yours are architectural and screening the rooftop units . We think we can accomplish that . One other thing that cam up is the seeding of Outlot B . I don 't put grass where I don 't irrigate because it doesn 't grow . The only thing that grows is the weeds . We also will probably be , we 're not positive at this point because of title . Titl issues and ownership issues , we 're not positive we can grade the Target site and Outlot B at the same time . So that may cause some problems . I think what we are comfortable with is where- we 've graded it , I think we ca take erosion precautions and we normally would throw down someting that Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 18 would prohibit growth until we brought in sod and irrigation . We have not had good luck at all with seeding areas , hydro seeding . Doubling the seed load . If we 're not going• to irrigate , we don 't seem to get grass . I think those are my only concerns with the staff report . I think otherwise we think it was fairly , very well represented and we think we 're on the same page . And I 'd be glad to answer any questions if you 've got any . Batzli : Does anyone have any questions of the applicant before we open it up to the public? Okay , thank you . This is a public hearing . Due to the probably number of comments and people commenting and offering their testimony if you will today , I 'd like to ask that you approach the microphone and give your and address for the record . Try to be brief . If — you can keep your comments to a couple of minutes , that would be much appreciated . Would anyone like to address the Commission? Okay , I ' ll ask for a motion to close the public hearing unless anyone would like to address the Commission at this time . Conrad moved , Ahrens seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Batzli : Tim , I 'm going to start at your end . _ Erhart : Well let 's start out where Jeff left off there and maybe add some good ideas . What 's the use for that vehicle? That parking there north of the building along West 78th . Bill McHale : Employee parking . Erhart : OH , that 's employee parking . Other than trees along West 78th , is there a berm there or anything else? Aanerscn: Right in here? Erhart : Yeah . Aanenson: They 're showing a . . .adding to the PUD zone because we think these are the only two lots that are left between Market Square that are unbuildable and it makes sense to tie those in architecturally in what we 're trying to do with the POD zone . We 're not sure that this connection is based on grades . . . We may recommend that it be more of a landscape element up in here but there is a change in grade . Erhart : What about along West 78th . . .row of trees and then it 's flat grass . Fran Hagen: If I may make a comment . The building itself . . . Batzli : I 'm sorry , who are you for the record? Fran Hagen: My name is Fran Hagen with RLK . What I was stating , do you have a grading plan by chance? I don 't know if you 've had a chance to see the site . It is falling away from West 78th Street quite , I think a total of 30 to almost 40 feet to the low point down where the pond will be constructed . What we have is coming into the site , 2% and 5% grade until Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 19 we get to the front entrance of the building . We 're proposing a grade at the street connection in front of Target of 63 .5 . Elevation 963 and the building will be set at 58 so that 's about 5 1/2 feet lower there . But as you progress further to the east , the east property line there , the elevation of the roadway is about at 72 so that 's about 12 feet . - Erhart : It slopes down toward the building? Fran Hagen: Right . There will be , there was I think a plaza area up them wasn 't there? Aanenson: That 's what we talked about if the connection didn 't go betweer- this parcel . Between the two parcels . That there 'd be a plaza . Fran Hagen : I believe on the landscape though , even with that parcel we were showing a retaining wall and a plaza area up in that corner . Proposed , not necessarily . Up in the northeast corner of the site . As fay as berming , I guess that 's what I heard you addressing . Erhart : I was just wondering if . Fran Hagen : It 's pretty physically . Erhart : Trying to understand what was there . Fran Hager : That 's where we hope the tree massings and we do have quite a bunch , what is it? 1 1/2 times the normal requirement . So we 're trying the best we can to mass some trees in there . Erhart : It appears that you 're doing more to the west of that with shurbs Fran Hagen : Again , the grade difference over in there is much less because by the time you come to the second entrance , you 've dropped down 10 more feet . That second entrance closer to , or further to the west is down at a 53 elevation . Proposed . In fact I think it 's been graded . Rough graded there if you were to see the site . It 's intending to drop down to a low point right around that westerly entrance to the Target site . Erhart : May I ask Chuck Dimler , we don 't see his stand on here . Where does that go when we 're all done? Aanenson : The corn stand? Erhart : Yeah . Fran Hagen: Probably right where the entrance is . Aanenson : Talk to Todd . Erhart : Okay , and what , nobody 's objecting to the idea of adding the Burdick Park Addition , Block 3 , Lots 1 and 2 . Is there a problem? Aanenson: We haven 't noticed that . We 're saying when it comes back for a preliminary , as we 've gone through this , we realize those are the only two Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 20 lots and what we 're recommending , when it comes back for a preliminary , we noticed that and put that in as a part of the PUD . Erhart : . . .be done? Krauss: There 's a lot of , I mean this isn 't the only action occurring on this . There 's a lot of negotiation between the city and the property owners and the HRA so yeah , that should all be resolved by that time . Erhart : Well , I guess it 's obvious from everything that 's been supplied , somebody 's put a lot of work into this already . Quite frankly , I was you know , like everybody else , you don 't want Chanhassen to change too much too fast and I 'm kind of nervous about Target coming to our little Chanhassen but after seeing the plan , I 'm just a lot more comfortable with it . Particularly pleased that we could save those trees next to TH 5 so it isn 't shocking when you , it doesn 't end up looking like Eden Prairie Center when you drive there on 212 . Regarding the , let 's see , at this point when would we expect the entire area , including Lot B to be developed? Assuming the economy doesn 't get any worse . Krauss : Well yeah , it 's really hard to know . It 's contingent upon market conditions but I think in the very brief period of the last 2 or 3 years , you 've seen the Chanhassen market just accelerate extraordinarily rapidly . Having market Square opening up in October is going to add to that . Having Target , Target wanted to break ground this fall yet . I can 't believe it 's going to be too many years before Outlot B is built out . Erhart : Your reaction to the statement about not sodding Outlot B . Aanenson: That 's erosion control . Hempel : I 'm sure Watershed would have some concern over that also . Erhart : Well yeah but yet we 've left the Charlie James property sit over there with weeds for how many years now? How do you differeniate our position? How do you justify our position? Hempel : Well our main concern is to control the erosion obviously and what we try to get is some fast growing cover . Not necessarily grass but we do get a clover , an oat , rye , barley type growth . Just to mitigate erosion . Erhart : Would we be doing something to the Charlie James property as well? Hempel : That 's exactly it . It 's left in it 's natural state and eventually weeds do overcome it or prairie like atmosphere . Erhart : Of course that 's all going to be redone now . On the other hand , I do think people do plant grass and it does grow . The Highway Department is proof of that . Batzli : My front lawn isn 't . Erhart : Anyway again , I 'm a lot more comfortable with it . Other than that , that 's about the only comments I had . Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 21 Batzli : Tim , speak to us philosophically for just a second about , by making this a PUD , what do we do with the areas around it? Does this change anything about the lots directly behind it between the building anc the Monterey there and the property to the north? Do you see a problem with redoing this as a PUD? Erhart : The last time we had this in here , I stated that I 'd like to see us do something to bring the whole Monterey Drive into the plan . But at that time , I thought the entrance was going to be to the north . Maybe that 's why , and this way , looking at it today and going out and looking at the site , and actually the back of the building faces Monterey , I don 't feel , I guess I didn 't feel that that was a problem . Your question regarding making this a PUD relative to the Monterey Drive area , I guess I don 't follow you . Batzli : Well this whole development . We 're looking at this as a conceptual deal . Do we want to rezone? Is this the kind of development we 're going to want here? I guess I 'm asking for your impression on what do we end up doing on Monterey between this and the back of a huge building? What do we do to the north? Do we want to realign the road tha_ way? We 're doing a lot of things here conceptual rather than you know , what 's the slope of the roof . I think . - Krauss : If I can touch on something you said Mr . Chairman . The alignment of the road is something that the City 's been planning on doing for a lar number of years . That 's not contingent upon Target or anybody else . That 's something that we need to do to have a safe intersection with 78th Street and the boulevard . We also intend to carry 78th Street to the west as a , I forget what we 're calling them now on the Highway 5 study . I see some of my task force members here . Batzli : Frontage . Krauss : Well sort of a parkway design and it 's going to have an entrance into the park and continue on down . That road needs to be back far enough from the TH 5 intersection to be safe and that 's why we 'd always planned t do that . Batzli : So you 're comfortable? Erhart : Assuming the area on Monterey would become , right now it 's zoned what? Aanenson: General business . Erhart : Yeah , so now we have an industrial . Essentially an industrial site there . I would assume that with Market Square and this being here , any future development would be more likely retail or office , would it not? Krauss : Well there 's no question that what occurs on the lots north of Pica Drive would fit into the commercial/retail context of downtown . Early on , the Assistant City Manager 's and was participating in some of these discussions . We looked at the building down on Monterey . The industrial building that 's back in there and they adviseability about including that Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 22 and it 's really innocuous . It 's really concealed from most off site views and it 's going to become even more so as it would develop and there really didn 't seem to be any need from a design standpoint to incorporate it into the project . Erhart : Yeah , that was the other thing when I made that statement that time was again I assumed that a lot of those trees would be , I thought all would be gone and you 'd essentially start with a clean sheet of paper on all parcels . Thankfully which is not going to be that way and you 're right , it 's low and they 're actually screened quite a bit by those trees . Batzli : What do you think about tying this in? Does this , according to the plans as they stand , do they tie in with the rest of downtown so that you get a feeling that this isn 't isolating this and the adjacent retail to the west from the remainder of downtown? Do you think they 've done an adequate job along the side of the building to West 78th to make it pedestrian friendly or don 't you care? Erhart : Well again , I would hoped that the entrance would have faced West 78th Street and I guess I always viewed it that way . Although I know , well anyway . The way it 's configured to the west , I guess it acts as a wall between the downtown and where everything here is going to be . In that respect , that 's where I was picking up on Jeff 's idea there . The importance of how this looks from West 78th Street along with the pitched roof . I guess I 'm not quite satisfied that we have an adequate appearance from West 78th . What we don 't want to do is to have it look like the side of Target like you do when you go to the Eden Prairie Center parking lot . I 'm not sure we 're that much different than that from what I 've seen so far . Batzli : I don 't know if we 're different at all really . Erhart : I hate to think that we 're going to go down West 78th Street and see a side of a building . Batzli : Big side of a building . Erhart : If your question is whether we want Target at all? Quite frankly , Eden Prairie with the traffic 's getting too far to go for diapers . Batzli : I 'm not asking that . I 'm asking philosophically , you know have we done the best job we can on that site to tie this into the downtown so it makes sense to do it this way . Because we're , and this is the conceptual approval stage . I mean do we kind of like what we see here? I 'd rather talk about whether they did a good job on the entrance treatment when we see the real plan . I don 't want to say yeah , that 's good tonight . I 'd like to see them work on it some more and I don 't really want to say you have to do this and you have to do that and we ' ll approve it . I don 't think that 's our function tonight . I 'm looking more for some suggestions or guidance on whether this fits in with what we want our downtown to look like and whether this is something we 'll be able to look at when it does come in and not suddenly say , what have you done . Ladd , go ahead . Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 23 Conrad: I 'll make my comments fairly brief . It 's good , I like Target coming to town . They 're a great retailer . I think some nice things have been done to date . I have some general directions that I feel real convinced about . That we 're not even close in terms of what the building should look like on West 78th . Not even close . I would like to see , and don 't know how that . You know we have to go back to the architect to make it kind of friendly . It 's 330 some feet and I don 't think we 've tried yet . I would like to see something that 's kind of friendly to Chanhassen residents on that side . I don 't care if it 's roofline or a grassy area . need something on the street itself . We 've got a sidewalk there and I knc.. we have some vegetation plantings but it just seems real unfriendly . Real cold and not what the rest of Chanhassen looks like right now . Other comments , I don 't know how big the parking lot is . It 's hard for me to tell but I 'm sure we don 't have a parking lot this big in Chanhassen yet . Other directions . I 'd sure like to see , it is kind of broken up with some- it 's omeit 's kind of broken up . I guess my preference , and this is a costly recommendation , but I 'd sure like to see a grassy area that divides that parking lot in two . Going from east to west . From the front door going to the west property line and I don 't know what I 'm talking about literally but I 'm kind of concerned that it is a huge parking lot and visually from the road , I 'd like to break that up a little bit . And then my last comment is , Outlet B . It just is hard for me to visualize it . It doesn 't- seem to be a PUD type of drawing . I don 't care if it 's any one of the three it doesn 't , I 'm not real comfortable with . It 's building , parking lot , building , parking lot and driveways going through and it just , I 'm _ kind of uncomfortable with that . Of all those comments that I 've made , tF critical one is how we look on West 78th . There 's just no doubt . In my mind we 're not even , Target hasn 't tried yet . Batzli : Steve . Emmings : My comments are going to sound almost identical to Ladd 's . I - wrote them down so I could repeat them . The 78th Street side of the building was number one on my list . The parking lot is number two and we 've had some discussions here about parking lots being able to be _ designed so they don 't look like parking lots . We haven 't gotten into the in any real depth yet . I don 't know what it means but I like the sound of it and that 's something I 'm going to be looking at real hard . Outlot B , the idea of that . It is hard to get an idea of what 's going on . They 're = even looking at three plans and I agree with Ladd , right now it doesn 't feel like it 's integrated either with this project or even with itself . The idea that that could be all fast food restaurants would be abhorent to- me . I would prefer there be none but setting a maximum on it seems like a real reasonable thing to do to me . I don 't have any idea what the implications are . All the truck traffic to the back of this building is going down Monterey and then over on Pica Drive . I don 't know what the implications are for the lots that are there or for the roads that are designed to handle that kind of truck traffic . But that must be a significant amount of traffic with some pretty big vehicles . I don 't know- Is that something we 've looked at or if it might be nothing to be concerne about? Krauss : Yeah , I don 't think it really is a major concern . Monterey 's bee accepting the truck traffic for the industrial building for quite a while . Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 24 It 's also the main access to the service area of Market Square . When the possibility arose of getting the service bays for Target back there where it 's really totally concealed from off site views , we frankly jumped at that chance . I think it should work rather well . Emmings: Okay . Well , that 's good to hear so I guess it 's the , I don 't mind the entrance . It would be nice to have the entrance on 78th Street but I don 't think it 's terrible where it is . I think I can sure live with that . I don 't think there 's anyway we 're ever going to think that this , we 're ever going to integrate this gully into the rest of Chanhassen just because of the scale . It 's so far off from anything else that we have , there 's just no hope of it feeling like it fits . I don 't think . But that _ just means that a lot has to be done to that 78th Street side to do the best we can . I think that 's about all I 've got . Right now anyway . Batzli : Okay . Thanks Steve . Jeff . Farmakes: I 'm just going to make a few general comments . You were talking about philosophy and I 've always been confused by what Chanhassen is philosophically . The city , because there really wasn 't a city here , sort of built up from the 70 's and basically were primarily in the commercial section here , the small strip mall . We sort of have evolved to a little larger strip mall from there and we have the possibilities of bringing in what is called some anchor to the retail section here to get people to drive to Chanhassen , and I know a lot of people are a little nervous about that . I 'm not really familiar with the marketing strategy behind Target putting a store here . It seems to me that it does not follow typically what they do in some of the surrounding areas here . Typically they position a store adjacent to another large commercial development . I think the nearest one here is Eden Prairie . Typically they don 't have residential across the street from there and typically they don 't make up half of the commercial area in a downtown . And so I think certainly , I understand some of the concerns of the people who have voiced their concern to me anyway about this , as to how that 's going to change what they perceive to be as Chanhassen . From what I see on the buildings here , you 're obviously trying to tackle that and I 'm sure that the staff is pursuing a PUD to try and achieve that and give the City some control over this thing . I 'm a little concerend about where these people are going to be coming into Chanhassen from . I know from what I 've heard , at least initially on this traffic report , is that it 's not going to impact the city but I can 't help but believe that we 're going to get a lot of people coming in here from Minnetonka . Or the Minnetonka area which is going to mean TH 101 or CR 17 or TH 41 , to access this area • from the north . We certainly don 't have a lot of people to the south here . We have a lot of forest and open farmland between here and Shakopee . But I 'm sure possibly your marketing reports tell you exactly where these people are , where you believe these people are going to be coming from . And I 'm a little concerned that once that traffic gets here , as to how it 's going to impact some of these problems that we have had . The island situation and visual clear sight lines coming in off of Market and looking down 78th . I 'm not a traffic engineer but I know when I come out into those islands , it 's hard to see and I have to commit to going out into the street before I can really see down the street to see what cars are coming up . And I 'm - wondering until we work out some of those problems , I 'm a little concerned Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 25 about bringing in this much traffic into town . Again , that 's a non- professional opinion . I am concerned about the sight line from 78th StreE for some of the reasons that I brought up earlier . Residential across the street . I think we have to be sensitive to integrating the commercial next to the residential . It 's going to overlook an awfully big parking lot which brings me to another issue . I thought in the earlier drawings we were going to try and minimize a very large expanse of impervious surface which we 've already got locked up . We really don 't have a main street . V. just sort of have a lot of parking lots and commercial areas off of what t. call main street . It certainly wouldn 't hurt to try and work in a few more trees into that parking lot . I know it may create a problem with the sight lines for the entryway and probably not something that you 're going to get a dollar back on but I think it would go a long way to try and break that impervious surface up and come in from the west . That brings me to my last comments . The Outlot B , I 'm a little worried as to what type of restauraT-. and what type of developments would be going on there . My hope is that WE would try and balance out what type of development we 're going to get there . Hopefully Chanhassen , we 're not going to wind up with the west - section of commercial being a discount area . Totally . And like an Arby 's and something like that there where we get a lot of back . . .plexiglass or something of that nature . But all and all , I think that the architect in _ this particular building , this is certainly a big improvement over Eden Prairie . That 's it . Batzli : Joan . Ahrens : I 'm going to start with Outlot B . You 're recommending that there be no more than two fast food restaurants in there but it looks like on th.e plan that there are other restaurants that are expected to locate there oT are possible . Aanenson: Correct . Ahrens : What kind of restaurants do you think are going to locate next to , like Perkins? Fran Hagen: An Applebee 's . . . We don 't know at this time but that 's the kind of things that could be in those . . . An Applebee 's or Bakers Square . Don 't know for sure . Farmakes : That 's in addition to the fast food? Ahrens : Right . I can 't tell by the plan -either what this is ever going t look like and I picture in my mind that this is going to look like one of those areas around Eden Prairie Center you know where the McDonald 's is an-cl a little shopping center and you have to drive . There 's lots of parking lots and it 's hard to get around and it 's just kind of , like somebody just dropped this commercial , little commercial area with lots of a couple fast food restaurants and a couple of other restaurants and it doesn 't look , it 's not a real welcoming place or real comfortable looking place from either a retail standpoint . A restaurant standpoint . . . The only thing I can think that this is going to look like by looking at the - plan . Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 26 Batzli : Are you thinking of the west end? Ahrens: Kind of west . It 's on that southwest corner of like 212 and Prairie Center Drive . That area in there . Batzli : Yeah . Kind of a jigsaw puzzle . Ahrens: Yeah . Yeah . So I think there needs to be a lot of thinking on what 's going to go on in this area because I can 't tell and it doesn 't look good from what I can tell . I thought we talked about a long time ago putting islands in the parking lot . The impervious surface for this parking lot , impervious area is , almost 80% right . What happened to that idea? Or was I dreaming that up? I heard putting islands in and you know making it , giving it a better appearance . Aanenson: Like I say , we ' ll be looking at the site plan more specifically . At this time we 're really focusing on the zoning and the PUD itself . We raised some of the issues we had . I 'm pointing them in that direction but if that 's the direction you want us to go with the . — Ahrens: I know you keep pointing us over here and we want to talk about these things over here . Aanenson: No , I 'm not saying , that 's what we 're asking for is direction . If you want us to look at the landscaping , that 's what we 're asking you for is direction . Ahrens : Okay , I think we should look at that . And I don 't see why we can 't incorporate or why Target can 't incorporate some type of an island . I know it 's not what they usually do . I know it 's more difficult planning wise . I know it will cause some maintenance , but who cares . The store itself , I don 't know . To tell you the truth , the Chicago type store or the Minneapolis type store , they all look pretty much alike to me . It 's just that there 's a stripe here and there and maybe an entrance monument . Batzli : I think she just committed architectural sacreligion . I 'm not sure . Ahrens : Well they 're gray . Long gray buildings . That 's why they put trees up . We do have to , I would like to see some , there 's got to be a lot more effort into how this looks from 78th Street . I agree with Ladd . I 'm not going to repeat everything and I wrote it down too but Steve already restated everything that Ladd said . I like the PUD concept . I think it has to be developed this way . I don 't understand what would ever go in to that lot that 's located between the Target store and Monterey Drive . Is that retail? Is that what we envision or what? Krauss: It would likely be retail or office that 's already into 78th Street , and frankly that 's , it 's a big element of tying the Target into the downtown streetscape because whatever 's there is going to conceal the back part of Target and kind of bring you around that corner which is now an open corner . Ahrens: But we would have control over what goes in there? Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 27 Aanenson : That 's why we 're recommending the PUD for that piece too . Ahrens : The store itself , it does need a lot more work . I mean I agree with Ladd . I don 't see a big improvement over anything we 've seen in the _ past . We want something different I guess . We just and I think we 've sai that all along from the very first meeting at the fire station through today . I mean we want something that 's very different from what Target normally develops and I don 't think it has to cost Target a lot more money - It may cost them more money but they also want to be in our community and think that we have the right to tell them what we want too . On the landscape plan , the plantings that they 're proposing to put in here are pretty small types of trees and bushes which doesn 't seem to me that it 's going to make a real big impact on how this building looks to people comir , into town and I think that needs to be redone and put some bigger trees on the plan and something besides the crab trees and that type of thing . Are- all three of these exits going to be , are there going to be stop lights? Aanenson : No . Ahrens : Which one? I forgot . Aanenson: This is where we 're recommending it be right turn in , right tur out only . This one will have a stop light at the entrance to the Target store and this will be , it may or may not be signalized . It will be a full intersection though . Ahrens: I 'd like to look at removing this parking lot too from the 78th Street side of the building . Margaret Fleck : Moving it this way? Batzli : That 's the employee parking? - Margaret Fleck : Oh this portion? Ahrens : Yeah . That 's all I have right now . Batzli : Thanks Joan . Erhart : Brian? Batzli : Yeah . Erhart : Do you want more , I have some more issues here . Batzli : Okay , let me run down a couple and we 'll come back to you . I think there 's been a lot of good effort that 's gone into this plan . A lot of work . I think the applicant is working with staff . It sounds like they 're being sensitive to a lot of things that we like . I think the plar needs refining . I think whatever we do along West 78th Street needs , careful attention needs to be paid to that . The Outlot B , Kate help me out here . Unless I miss something . Whatever happened to our Outlot B that wa— sort of a food court? What happened to that? Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 28 Aanenson: Well I think that their concern with the design and the views of Target and the spacing of the buildings . They 've basically thrown that plan out . That was one of the options that Barton-Aschman put together . Fran Hagen : And the parking . Batzli : Parking? Fran Hager : The parking was insufficient . . . Aanenson: They 're trying to maximize the views from Powers and so they have the outlots spaced so you can see the front of the Target store . Batzli : Because I think one fo the things we really liked about that plan probably unfortunately , given what I 've just heard , was that we could do a lot with the backs of those buildings we felt and put up some trees and do some things where there wouldn 't be a sight line at all from Powers into the front of the building . I guess in looking at these plans , I was disappointed in Outlot B from the standpoint that it seemed like a maze or — a jigsaw puzzle to traverse within the retail stores in that section . It didn 't seem particularly , there didn 't seem to be a logic to it then and I 'm sure I have an untrained eye and there is a logic to it but it did , — when Joan brought up that part of Eden Prairie Center , by the west entrance I think it is . I don 't even go to those stores because of , it 's just maze like in there . To me . I don 't go in there . It 's unfriendly . I don 't think that , the logic of how they have it arranged in any one of those three could be explained to me but if what I hear is that the logic is that they can see the entrance to their store , that doesn 't carry great weight with me particularly because I don 't want to see a poorly developed end to Chanhassen so that somebody can get a glimpse of the Target store as they zoom up Powers . There isn 't going to be an entrance there . If people are going to Target , they 're going to know that Target is there . I don 't quite _ understand that . So I would like to see , at least rationale presented when this does come back to us as to why it has to be arranged the way it does or certainly Outlot B needs a lot of redesign in my opinion . Is there any effect Paul , based on what we do tonight? Are we somehow limiting ourselves to one of these three choices that they 've presented for the Outlot by us approving this tonight? Or giving this the okey dokey on the conceptual stage . Krauss : I don 't think so Mr . Chairman . At this point , the level of design concept that is used in looking at is limited because they haven 't really had an opportunity to explore it fully . We 've raised a lot of the same questions you have . We 're convinced that under the PUD we can coordinate the development on this . I mean the worse case scenario from a visual traffic standpoint is if we go with the additional lotting that 's along — 78th Street . You quite frankly have the potential of having 8 fast food restaurants and a Goodyear store or something like that . Each having separate driveways . Each loading onto 78th Street . Each looking _ completely different and despite our best attempts , probably having a blue building here and an orange building there and that kind of a thing . This opportunity under the PUD is that we are going to coordinate the architectural styles around it and frankly Bill Morrish 's opinion on that — at that meeting was that unified building or individual buildings having a Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 29 similar architectural theme , you can probably achieve most these same goals . So we are certainly asking them to refine that more and we ' ll brii.g back more definition but it 's still an open question . They haven 't really laid one concept on the table and this is it . So we 've taken the proacti\-h step of saying okay , here 's our concerns so when you do bring one back in here 's the guidelines we 're going to live by . Batzli : Well my concern stems from condition 4 which says the three proposals for Outlot B may be acceptable . Is that saying to the applicant that the Planning Commission and subsequently the Council is saying yes . _ One of these three is fine as long as you go through proper channels to ge . each building approved . Aanenson: No , we go back through the preliminary process , we want to see those refined . Batzli : Well I know but we 're somehow giving guidance to the applicant that we find one of these three , one of these three may be acceptable . Aanenson: Right . What we don 't know , and it 's hard because of the mix of use . They each have different parking standards so you really can 't tie - that down too much because if it 's fast food versus sitdown versus retail we have different parking standards . Basically we know there 's only so much square footage and we 've given you the range based on the different versions . 25 ,000 to almost 30 ,000 square feet of additional buildings an( there can only be so much square footage on there . That parcel 's only so big . Yes , we agree that it needs to be refined . The maze look and some of those sort of issues but there can only be so much useage of that and we '7 , saying , based on that , we feel that the comparable range , that much square footage and it needs to be developed further . Krauss : At the very least , you 're going to have a concept that lays out the internal road system there that defines the architectural theme that they 're going to have that mandates a signage package . That limits the number of free standing pylon signs . Mandates a landscaping package . ThE limits the more obnoxious uses that are potential on that . And also it sets aside an appropriately sized piece of property . I think about a half acre for the HRA to work with developing entrance monumentations . We envision there being a prominently designed landscape structural feature similar to what we 're looking at doing on Market and other entrances into downtown . So there 's a lot of framework to hang anything they come in with in the future on . Batzli : Okay , let me ask my question one more time . By us saying the three proposals may be acceptable , not in terms of square footage or numbe of buildings but just in terms of the layout that we see on our plans today , does that mean that when we see this back as a plan , that we 're actually acting on , it 's more than likely we 're going to get one of these - three plans? Aanenson: I don 't think so . Krauss : I think you 're going to see a refined version of one of them , yeah . Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 30 Batzli : Because if it was up to me , I 'd say the three proposals for Outlot B are probably unacceptable and please redo them . I mean I 'd rather say that . I don 't know that any of us is enamored with it . I know the applicant hasn 't come up here and spoken with us and explained the rationale for why they 're doing things a certain way and as you indicated , they 're still working on it themselves . But you know , I don 't really want to say that these plans may be acceptable knowing what I know right now . So I 'm just trying to discern whether we should be a little bit more careful with this language . Krauss : It 's certainly appropriate to make these concerns known . The major part of this process at this point is to give them direction to come back in and resolve these issues . Batzli : That 's what I 'm doing right now . Is the sight line study that you passed out or Target gave you today , have you had a chance to look at it? And what does it say to you and why? In 2 minutes or less . Aanenson: Can 't figure it out . Krauss : We really need some time to go through it with them . I mean this is the kind of analysis we need to have done . When we opened it up , one of the pages didn 't seem to jibe with what we recall the elevations to be . _ Batzli : Generally . Sight lines from up on TH 5 . Given the elevation of the building and your understanding of the elevation of the road , are they doing a good job hiding the H back and the Satellite dish and whatever else they 've got on the roof? Krauss : It appears that either , yeah . That it 's going to achieve the goal . What they 're going to demonstrate to us here is the wall and does the wall need to be 2 feet higher to achieve it or that . But yes , you will not be looking down on a maze of pipes and air conditioners as has often happened in the corridor . Batzli : And I know that you said to Steve that there 's not a concern about the truck traffic going back on Monterey to the loading dock area . Is the outlot where the trees will be located , is that ever going to be some sort of , or is that going to be just kind of a nature area? Is the City going to have title to that? Krauss : The City would acquire title to that , yes . Batzli : That will not be maintained as a park or otherwise as an enticement to small children or anything else? Krauss : No . The idea is to preserve the trees in perpetuity . Batzli : And where do we envision the truck traffic coming into this area from? Krauss : Maybe that 's a question we can refer to our traffic consultants who are here tonight . There were several questions that were raised regarding approaches to the site . Not only from commercial traffic but Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 31 also from customer traffic . There has been a lot of study done on the downtown street system . The questions that Commissioner Farmakes is raising about the downtown street system are frankly , I mean we 've got the- design solutions for all of them and it was going to have been under construction this fall but after we started working with Target , we put oft the project a little bit to make sure that we 'd accommodate those concerns_. But I 'd like to have Tim Feeno from Strgar-Roscoe-Fausch , who is the City ' traffic consultant possibly address some of those questions on approach directions . Jeff Bedenaur from Strgar-Roscoe is also here tonight . Batzli : Okay , why don 't they do that real briefly . Tim Feeno: Jeff Bedenaur is our . . .specialist and he did most of the - traffic analysis that was done earlier on and I ' ll let him try . . . Jeff Bedenaur : Based on the region location of Chanhassen and the site in particular , most of the truck traffic that we anticipate will be trying tc ingress or egress the site would be coming from the east on TH 5 . Both fc the commercial/retail/wholesale outlets . Batzli : Excuse me just one moment . Can everyone hear or maybe you can gc to the microphone to make sure . Jeff Bedenaur : Based on our previous traffic study for downtown Chanhassen , the major direction of approach , because of the regional location of Chanhassen and the site in particular , is going to be from the east on TH 5 . There 's also a great number of trips who will come south or TH 101 and enter the downtown Chanhassen area from the east but they woulc be clients and patrons of the retail and commercial uses that are being proposed here . The truck traffic primarily would be coming in on TH 5 an& I would expect that there will be a desire for most of the truckers to con in probably at Market , once they know the site and how to get in and out , they ' ll probably come off TH 5 at Market . Come up to West 78th and then travel west to Monterey and into the site from that direction . There migF be some who continue on TH 5 to Powers and come around but it 's kind of a reverse movement and I wouldn 't expect there 'd be a great deal of that . Batzli : Wouldn 't they be making a left hand turn across traffic with islands right there for the stop light? Jeff Bedenaur : Right . There would be a traffic signal at the intersectic of Market and West 78th that would facilitate that turn for them . We anticipate that over time West 78th Street will convert from a 2 lane _ divided section to a 4 lane divided section as far east as Laredo and possibly Great Plains . Batzli : Do truckers like making left hand turns as opposed to right hand turns because they 're going to be making several left hand turns if they come in the way they propose on Market? Jeff Bedenaur : Right . Well as I indicated , they ' ll have a traffic signal at Market to facilitate that left . And then the left at Monterey shouldn ' .. be that difficult depending on the time of the day they make that turn . Typically I 'm sure that there are trucks that are going to coming in and - Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 32 out at all times of the day but I would expect' it would be during the off peak periods that most of the truck traffic would be entering the site . Batzli : Is that true? That people from Target , is anybody here from Target , is that when the trucks normally enter? Bill McHale: They try not to mix truck traffic with their . . . Jeff Bedenaur : And as Paul had indicated , that ultimately there would be also a traffic signal at Monterey and Kerber to help facilitate that left turn as well . Farmakes: Excuse me for a minute . Are your traffic comments directly related to the Target or retail in general in Chanhassen? Jeff Bedenaur : The direction of approach percentages , and if I can find them I can detail those percentages , are to the downtown in general . Farmakes: So the access that you 're talking about when you 're talking about accessing into town off of TH 5 from the east , is retail in general and not directed specifically to Target? Jeff Bedenaur : That 's correct . We anticipate that 30% of the traffic into and out of downtown Chanhassen would be coming into or leaving on TH 5 to the east . 25% would be coming in or going out to the north on TH 101 . 10% would be coming into downtown or going out of downtown to the north on Powers . 15% would be coming into or going out of the downtown area on TH 5 to the west . And additionally , 10% would be coming in from the south on — TH 101 . That 's the generalized directional distribution that we used in our downtown traffic forecast . The truck traffic in particular would be much heavier on TH 5 to the east . Farmakes: Doesn 't discount retail have a broader draw than normal retail though? Jeff Bedenaur : . . .didn 't have an opportunity to look at a great many or a large spectrum of directional distributions based on the land use that we were looking at for the downtown Chanhassen forecasting work . This is a generalized distribution and it 's one that represents a mix of types of land use . Office , retail , commercial , entertainment and so forth so it 's a real mix . It 's a real generalization . Farmakes: As I said in my comments earlier , what worries me though is that I believe the nearest Target to the north is Ridgedale . Is that correct? Jeff Bedenaur : That 's right . Farmakes : Okay , and then to the east is Eden Prairie , correct? And we have comparatively to our size , Minnetonka is 60 how many thousand is Minnetonka? Krauss : About 50-52 ,000. Planning Commission Meeting — August 19 , 1992 - Page 33 Farmakes: Okay . And they 're directly to our north . They 're a much larg( population base than we are and on the far north corner of that is a reta:_ market . I would assume that a lot of density along TH 7 will consider making the trip to Chanhassen from the north . Jeff Bedenaur : That 's right and that 's one of the reasons we have 25% of the traffic coming into the downtown area on TH 101 and 30% coming into the downtown area on TH 5 . Farmakes: But I know a lot of people also would cut across because of the limited amount of retail directly to the north . The communities of Shorewood , Excelsior , Mound , all over to the west because there is a limited amount of retail shopping there . How much traffic do you envision on Powers or even TH 41 or Galpin Road? — Jeff Bedenaur : Well we have estimated that there 'd be about 10% of the total traffic to the downtown area would come in from the north on Powers . I 'm not sure what the land use densities or intensities are for those ares— along Powers north of Chanhassen but we felt that based on the regional model that we used to help us develop these directional distributions , that that was reasonable . Batzli : What percent did you have leaving the site going north on TH 101? Jeff Bedenaur : 25% . Batzli : Is there going to be a traffic light at the intersection at the bend of West 78th where it turns into Great Plains and continues straights Is there going to be a stop light there? Jeff Bedenaur : That will probably be the first traffic light that will gr- in on West 78th Street . Farmakes: Is there an existing market study that Target has in regards to_ where you think your customers are coming from? Margaret Fleck: I 'm sure there is one . . . Farmakes: Have you seen anything to that or where they think the customer base is or where they 're drawing from? Krauss: No . I have no idea . Batzli : Thank you . Jeff Bedenaur : You bet , thanks . Batzli : Dave . You had I think a fairly lengthy memo as to things that — should be looked at . Do you feel comfortable with the resources that this building is going to take as far as water and sewer and what have you in terms of city? In terms of runoff into the drainage areas . Are you comfortable with the way this is going? T Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 34 Hempel : To be honest Mr . Chairman , Charles Folch the City Engineer was the one who actually reviewed this one and based on his memo to the Planning — Department on it , I believe he does feel confident that we do have enough infrastructure to accommodate the site and the proposed use . Storm drainage calculations of course were preliminary he looked at and there is an existing storm sewer line that could accommodate part of the site — drainage already . On top of that , the required on site retention pond would handle the remaining runoff . Batzli : Do we know Paul if a building like this is going to require any additional fire equipment or things like that? _. Krauss: No we don 't and we don't actually do a calculation of that . In terms of scale , if it puts it into perspective at all , this building is approximately 10 ,000 square feet larger than Market Square . And in terms — of what you 're going to see ultimately in downtown , it 's really kind of hard to project that far forward. But on the north of this site we have the Charlie James ' piece which is equally able to accommodate significant retail and which is appropriately zoned so in terms of what percentage this — will be of the total development in downtown , I did a guesstimate the other day and probably about a fifth of the total . The ultimate . — Batzli : That 's all I had . Tim , did you have something else? Erhart : Yeah , a couple of things . The size of the Target in Eden Prairie . — Bill McHale : It 's about the same . Erhart : About the same . And does the parking lot meet the new standards — that we put in in our PUD? In terms of the islands and things . We wrote into the PUD standards . If it falls into that . I mean it 's regulated by the new PUD . Krauss : It 's under the new PUD ordinance but it doesn 't have specific . I mean there 's density . Hard surface coverage requirements . — Erhart: There 's requirements in there for trees? Krauss: No . Well our parking ordinance does require a certain amount of parking lot landscaping . It always has . Erhart : Maybe that 's the one I 'm referring to. Does it meet this one? . . . — Aanenson: Yes , it does . Erhart : Okay , and then what , we were going to use pots to put these trees — in? Is that what I read in there? Aanenson: The ones in the front along the building? — Erhart : No , the ones in the parking lot . The islands are planted in the ground , not in the pots correct? — Aanenson: Right . Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 35 Erhart : What is the , in the CBD in this area if on a standard development what would be the impervious coverage allowed? And this is 70% . What are we looking at here? Aanenson: Well the average we gave you in the report , it talks about 60 something . Emmings : 68 and 67 . Erhart : Including Outlot B? — Aanenson: Yes . We didn't include this or we took out the tree preservation area and we took out the area for the monument too . We didn 't count those as part of it . Emmings: If you just look at the Target site itself , it 's real high . Aanenson: Right . But we did let them count the trees and it 's close to 80 . Krauss: But again , this is a very conservative projection. I mean if yot. draw the line around the entirety of the PUD , the average lot coverage comes out quite a bit lower . Erhart : Yeah but I 'm talking about just the Target site is well above 701 Regarding that West 78th side here I 'm still , it kind of , I wonder when you take the most valuable street we have in town in terms of facing in terms — of retail , is that we would put a side of a building there . I wonder if you couldn 't look at it in terms of reconfigure the building to make it more east/west and move the entrance to the corner so the entrance would face both north and west and then making the employee parking lot part of the parking lot . That would reduce the size of the west parking lot and break it up . Or why can 't you have two entrances? Both an north and a west entrance . Maybe you 've looked at all of this . — Krauss: Well I 'd let Target answer why they have to have one entrance . That 's an internal configuration but when we were trying to lay out the site configurations here , we 're not dealing with a site that 's terribly deep . The deepest spot is where the Target building is proposed right now . when we knock out the area we want to preserve for the tree preservation area , there 's a limited footprint left . You don't have enough, I mean people will only walk several hundred feet from their cars to a front door of a store . And if the entrances veered to the north side , the perponderance of the parking is moved away . — Erhart : But they 're there now . Krauss : It 's not that , it 's toward the north end of the building but it 's still fairly centrally located . Batzli : And that would be like going to t-he Knox store in Hopkins . I mea you talk about a weird entrance . -_ Erhart : Is that the entrance on that drawing? Is it on the north end? — Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 36 Bill McHale : Just about centrally located towards the parking lot . The parking lot veers north towards . . . Erhart : Well , I won 't spend any more time on it but it 's just that there seems to be , there 's something that can be done to make that north side better and I think we 've all said that and we 're just trying to . I 'm not the guy that ought to be trying to solve it for you but it seems to me there ought to be something more sensible . Krauss : Oh I think there 's a lot . There 's a lot of things that can be done there . Batzli : The only other comment that I 'd have is , I would like to at least see a discussion when we take a look at this , if the City Council approves it and we proceed , some sort of discussion about a sidewalk or something . Maybe not just along West 78th but to the other retail areas . If there will be any movement back and forth , if you park your car once and walk from Target over to the other retail centers , I would prefer to see some sort of sidewalk treatment there . Is there anymore? Farmakes : I don 't think we talked at all about lighting at all and I don 't know if technically we need to get into that but I know it 's been a discussion of some of the other things that we 've talked about . The intent of trying to minimize the indirect light that escapes . I know there 's a lot of indirect lighting for a commercial development . Where you get a concentration of cars and street lights so is that , the lighting was kind of , weren 't really addressed . Are we doing everything we can with the lighting to make sure that we minimize that impact? Because basically there 's a fair amount of single family homes just to the north of here and our park is to the northwest . Krauss : City ordinance requires that light spillage be limited to a maximum half a foot candle at the property line . Which is fairly tight . And they 're going to have to demonstrate to us that it achieves that . Now more than that , we get into , when we get to that level of design , what do _ the fixtures look like? They 're all downward oriented fixtures and arguably you can even get into what kind of fixtures should they be . That all comes out during the site plan aspect of it . We just want to make them aware that there is a concern with that and they 'll have to deal with it . Batzli : Is there a motion? Oh , yes sir . • — B .C . "Jim " Burdick : My name is B .C . "Jim— Burdick from Excelsior . I . . . negotiated out this arrangement to sell this to the city and then to Ryan Construction . And first of all , I appreciate your concern about those two _ lots on Monterey . I 've own those for a number of years and am very concerned about their position relative to this . Now in negotiations with Target , at one time that building was going to be katty corner and faced northwest . Another time it was going to be a bit farther south . And I gave on these points but it 's very essential for us that there be a drive from the Target parking lot into the two lots we have between Target and Monterey . There 's a racetrack style circle up there to identify them in the northeast corner and I negotiated this with Ryan and Target . Having this drive through there and I just wanted to bring up that this is very Planning Commission Meeting - August 19 , 1992 - Page 37 essential and important to us . And of course I do appreciate the concern that every one of you has shown about these two lots on Monterey . . .what 's going to happen to them . And I would like to bring up one other thing for your consideration and that is about moving the Target building a bit farther south and partly into this area of trees . I don 't like to see those trees , anything happen to them either but they 're oak trees . The larger ones are very old . Almost any development , the oak trees die . There 's no more sensitive tree than an oak tree . You can drive on maples and many other trees . Elm , if they don 't get a disease and even around birch , more than you can around oak . So intentions are good on saving _ those oak trees but believe me , it 's a job to save an oak tree if you 've ever built a house near one . If you 've got a house 50-100 feet from an oa tree and those will die . Not only 9 times out of 10 but probably 98 out of 100 . So if you 'd consider moving Target a bit to the south , it would most- certainly ostcertainly help us develop those two lots and I think be more attractive taking the picture as a whole because as things now stand , we ' ll be so to speak behind the Target building . I believe that 's all I have unless you have some questions . Batzli : Thank you very much . B .C . "Jim" Burdick : Thank you . Batzli : Is there a motion? Conrad: I 'm not sure what the motion is intended to do . There 's a lot of detail . I guess I 'm kind of uncomfortable with what 's here . There 's some details in here that I didn 't know were part of the conceptual review . Basically this is our time to tell the applicant what we think and kind of give some direction . So I 'm not sure what this , there are details in here that gee , I would have to reword the whole motion to tell you the truth . - But maybe staff is looking for us to somehow come up with some consensus c Paul , what are you looking for? Are you looking for , you know you 're going to go through the same steps with City Council so the applicant can hear _ their concerns and provide the applicant with their direction . What 's the point of the motion? Krauss : Well , to the extent that we haven 't articulated your concerns or if you think we 've misstated something . It would be appropriate to throw some language in saying that you have these additional concerns of da da da da da and we ' ll carry those forward to the City Council and the developer will go back and start working on it . You, know of course conceptual approval is by nature of the beast non-binding on all parties so you can have some latitude to say your piece . Batzli : You would prefer to see a motion which includes your points plus any additional concerns which we have? Krauss : I think so , yeah . Aanenson: If we could do like we did on the Oaks . We just said based on all the input . Just pass that report on and what we did is we took the Minutes and summarized those and made a laundry list of concerns and passeu those onto the Council . Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 38 Batzli : You 're uncomfortable with that? Conrad: No , not at all . I 'm not going to make a motion . Because there 's just a lot of debate in my mind on some of these things . I don 't know if there 's . Erhart : What happens if we want them to come back with something , just to come back with three treatments of the West 78th Street . What would happen? Conrad: That 's the point of why we 're doing this . Erhart : Well I 'm not sure we 're ready to make a motion . We don 't want to have it come back and look at it differently . I haven't seen any motions yet . I thought I heard a universal feeling from the Commissioners that the West 78th side is not acceptable . That 's what I heard . Krauss: Right . Erhart : So what 's the point in a motion? Aanenson: You tell them to do that . Krauss : Yeah , I mean you refer the item on . Erhart : Refer it onto Council? Emmings: My feeling about what we 're doing here is we 're saying , yeah . We think this whole area ought to be a PUD . We 're not opposed to something along the lines of what 's being proposed for the Target store in any way and I think that 's about it . And then there 's a bunch of particulars including some more reasonable or some better design of the West 78th Street side but they've heard all that . But I think the main thing is that we 're in tune with developing the site as a PUD. Erhart : Okay , so we wouldn 't be surprised if it came back then after tonight with a building that was reshaped? We aren't locking in on this shape? Emmings: I don't think we 've locked into any particular details have we? It 's a general concept . Krauss: Yeah , I think you should not expect , I mean unless you 're stating something specific , you shouldn 't expect radical deviations . A U shaped building would be pretty radical . Erhart : That 's what I would have gone for because I think the building shape isn 't right to optimize the use of the property . The use of the property and to solve a problem . Batzli : I think a lot of effort has gone into that particular point to date . Looking at all the conceptual things they 've done and given the slope of the lot , I wouldn 't expect that they would come back with a reconfigured shape of the building at this point . Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 39 Emmings : Ladd 's point is well taken . Why these conditions and we say we 're doing kind of a conceptual approval and yet we 're making these very specific recommendations here and really could make a lot more . Krauss : Kate and I had this discussion while we were writing this thing . - Should we be more specific or less? We came down in the middle . Aanenson : I don 't know if that 's true Paul . Batzli : You came down on Paul 's side . Aanenson : I said we should put as many conditions in here but , we had the- same concern with Oaks . Remember the residents got up and we spoke and a lot of time and you 're going to see a different design . They 've taken in . We forwarded it on , like I said , we made a laundry list of all the concerns . The residents concerns and I think you 're going to see a redesign . As you stated , I don 't think Target 's going to be completely reconfigured . I think we ' ll see the outlot reconfigured but if you want to throw this list out , I 'm comfortable with that . Emmings : I think what we did on that one was we said , with all of the conditions in the staff report plus all of the concerns raised by everyone- who spoke , either from the public or on the Commission . Ahrens : I don 't get the feeling we want to do that with this one . For instance , what Brian brought up earlier about the three proposals for Outlot B . I don 't think any of us are sold on those . . .and see one of those come back to us . Batzli : Well I might like one of them if it was properly explained too . I mean I tried to say that but . Ahrens: Right but are we limiting ourselves? Emmings : You can change may to may or may not . Ahrens : Well that makes it meaningful . Emmings : Yeah , I think it does . I think if you want to avoid being trapped into them saying hey , you led us to believe that one of these woul be , you haven 't done that . They can 't say that . That 's the only thing that helps . The point of that being is that regardless of what they do there , each building 's going to have to come through a site plan review . Batzli : I personally would be comfortable with the motion that talked in terms of we need work in these areas . The conditions set forth in the staff report and then I would hit the highlights of what we discussed tonight . I don 't think it 's necessarily fair to the developer to say , plus everything that was said . Well , go for it then . Do you want to make a motion Jeff? Farmakes : With all these lawyers here? Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 40 Erhart : Okay , let 's list the issues and then one of us will make the motion . One is the north , West 78th Street view . Emmings : Parking lot . Erhart : Parking lot , two . What else? Aanenson: Design of Outlot B . — Farmakes : Particularly in relationship to the park . Erhart : Anything else? Conrad: Jeff 's concern was traffic . Ahrens : I think we should say the size and type of landscaping as it relates to the parking lot on West 78th Street and wherever else people have a concern . — Farmakes : 78th Street view , do you have? Aanenson: Internal access into the walking? Farmakes : And it would be interesting to know that 20% that they 're talking about from TH 101 , it 'd be interesting to know how that relates to our Target . . .customers . Erhart : Okay , going once . I 'll move that the Planning Commission . Emmings : Okay , one other thing . On Outlot B , no one else really commented on what they felt like with regard to fast food restaurants . Ahrens : The number or? Emmings : Yeah . Ahrens : Well I 'd like to see none . Emmings: Yeah , so would I . Erhart : I would agree . Without getting into it but the thing , I agree with Brian entirely is the place at Eden Prairie , it 's awesome and I avoid it like the plague because you don 't know what 's in there and even if you — see the building in there , you can 't figure out visually how you get to it . You don 't go in at all . Ahrens : I went in once and it was a big mistake . Erhart : It 's goofy . On the other hand , I didn 't comment on it tonight _ because I somehow I feel we could spend another hour on that and you know when we actually saw reality , it wouldn 't be anything like we thought tonight anyway so I kind of feel it 's a waste of time . But I think the comments are good for whoever develops that area is that Eden Prairie area where they have the fast food restaurants in there is just goofy . It 's got Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 41 to hurt the potential business for the people there . Anything else Steve? Emmings : No . Erhart : Well let me take a shot here . I 'll move that the Planning Commission recommend the conceptual approval of PUD #92-5 as shown on the plans dated August 7 , 1992 with the conditions set forth in the staff report , 1 thru 11 with additional . And that the Planning Commission expressed additional concerns that we 'd like to have staff review further the subjects of the view of the building from West 78th Street . The view of the site from West 78th Street . The parking lot . What it 's view from all sides and the feasibility for either the size and type of landscaping .-. particularly as it relates to the West 78th Street and in the parking lot Four , the design of Outlot B . Specific concerns so that it 's useful and friendly . And five , the pedestrian . Whether or not they expect to have any pedestrian traffic and how they would get from Target to those buildings on Outlot B and possibly through to other areas that pedestrians might use such as the bus depot and so forth or whatever . And item number_ 6 , concerns with look further into concerns of traffic . Batzli : Is there a second? Emmings : I ' ll second it . Conrad: So what does that position us in in the staff 's 11 points? It - means we all endorse bringing the Burdick parcel in . Endorse a 6 foot sidewalk . That 's what bothers me . That 's too detailed but anyway , I just don 't like that . I think that 's not a big deal though . Erhart : Your concern is with the 11 issues are too specific? Conrad: They 're very detailed . I don 't want to tell the developer exact'-- what to do . I want to give them our feelings and it 's his duty to work with staff to see if they can resolve them . But I don 't want to delete or change your motion Tim , that 's fine . Erhart : Good , because I 'm not planning on it . Erhart moved , Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of PUD #92-5 as shown on the plans dated August 7 , 1992 , subject to the following conditions: 1 . Burdick Park Addition , Block 3 , Lots land 2 be added to the PUD at tt time of preliminary PUD . 2 . Submittal of PUD plans consistent with the recommendations of the stag report and Engineer 's memo . 3 . The most westerly access on West 78th Street shall be a right turn-in and right turn-out only , full access be limited to the other two locations shown on the site plan . 4 . The three proposals for Outlot B may be acceptable but each building must proceed through site plan review . This site plan review shall Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 42 consider the remainder of the balance of the site . This includes landscaping impervious surface , parking , etc . . Any major changes would constitute a rezoning . 5 . Vacation of the existing West 78th Street . 6 . Acceptance of full park and trail dedication fees . 7 . Six foot sidewalk along West 78th Street and Powers Boulevard . 8 . Architectural compatibility with all buildings in the development . Compatibility with all signage , lighting , and landscaping . 9 . Pitched roof lines are required on all building in Outlot B. Target shall have a parapet wall that screens all HVAC equipment . Pitched roof elements shall be introduced on the entry portion and the West 78th side of Target . 10 . Submittal of all required site utility improvements including storm sewer , water and sanitary sewer . 11 . Uses are limited to those outlined in the report including the limitation of two fast food restaurants . Further that staff review the following subjects: 1 . The view of the site from West 78th Street . 2 . The parking lot . 3 . The view from all sides and the feasibility for either the size and type of landscaping , particularly as it relates to the West 78th Street and in the parking lot . 4 . The design of Outlot B . Specific concerns so that it 's useful and friendly . 5 . Addressing pedestrian traffic and how they would get from Target to those buildings on Outlot B and possibly through to other areas that -- pedestrians might use such as the bus depot and so forth. 6 . Look further into concerns of traffic . All voted in favor and the motion carried. CITY 4 F CHANHASSEN 101!1'41 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 N MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I DATE: August 12, 1992 SUBJ: Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Amend Section 20-1023, Height of Fences and Section 20-1019, Location of Fences. Fences are common structures in the City of Chanhassen, often used for screening proposes. Regulating fences would allow the city to determine the type of fences used, the distance from a property line, and the height. Sec. 20-1023. dealing with the height of fences currently read as follows: Any fence over six and one-half (61/2) feet must receive a conditional use permit. The fence height is measured from ground elevation to the highest point on the fence. This section does not deal with the location of fences within a front yard. This matter need some clarification. Staff has recently received applications for fences to be installed within a front yard setback of a home. As the ordinance reads now, a home owner could put a 61/2 foot high fence within a front yard setback. There is also a safety issue that has not been addressed. Many residents request the placement of fences or hedges within the front yard setback of corner lots. _ Locating structures within a front yard setback creates blind intersections and blocks sight distances. The proposed ordinance amendment will remedy this situation and shall read as follows: Sec. 20-1023. Any fence over six and one-half (61) feet must receive a conditional use permit. The fence height is measured from ground elevation to the highest point on the fence. All other residential fences shall meet the following standards: (1) Side Yards and Rear Yards. In any required side or rear yard on lots, the height of fences shall not exceed 61/2 feet in height. (See Illustration #1). _ Is t4, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER — Planning Commission August 12, 1992 Page 2 _ (2) Front Yards. Fences in required front yards shall be allowed provided that solid type fences shall not exceed 3 feet in height, and open mesh type fences (for — example, chain link fences), shall not exceed 4 feet in height. (3) Corner Lots. In addition to the other provisions contained in this section, fences _ located on corner lots shall be subject to the following provisions: A. Any fence, wall and/or hedge on the front yard setback shall not exceed _ 3 feet in height if opaque construction, or 4 feet in height if open construction. B. In the side yard setback which fronts on a street, height up to 61/feet shall be allowed beyond 60 feet from the intersection measured from the intersection of extended curb lines. Height within the 60 foot area shall — conform to the requirements of a front yard setback. (See Illustration #2). C. Heights on the interior side yard setback shall not exceed 61/2 feet. — The Fence Ordinance also fails to address the location of fences in relation to wetlands. Section 20-1019. Location reads as follows: — All fences shall be located entirely upon the property of the fence owner unless the owner of the adjoining property agrees, in writing, that said fence may be erected on the — property line of the respective properties. Such an agreement shall be submitted at the time of building permit application. Staff is proposing to add the following regulation to regulate fences near wetlands: Wetlands. No fences shall be permitted below the Ordinary High Water Markof a wetland. RECOMMENDATION • Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section 20.1023, Height of Fences and Section 20-1019, Location of Fences, as noted above. _ ._. — ILLUSTRATIONS I yr). _ FENCE REGULATIONS — "1111 635 '1111111116.111. ..-•:..":.--, ''''';'.•.,..,, ..Siiii,-.;::::.:ii,: ::4;lig':: - .1:1,1••:•.-??,:. .-........... :::.,:,'::•,.,:::.:,...:,-,.,,,;?,.,:?,,,s.„ '-:., .":•,'•:,.. -f•':.•:•:;•.'..':::::•'-' '...:.4.F:7-c '1..:;-'1.:1::?,.-e:1;e:•::S-j- ::,•;:z:•••••••:.0:;•.•t:•:::):-.:," ---,.., • — '::'1•';',',E"ext:S;,-.-:,;.. ---, -.1:'....fi. .,..„ . ?,-f:?•-i4t.i':':-.1• _ ,.z„i.;:•;j::.:.fit.‘..l'e*:1:::: iCo.t. "'.3;:!:.1.''..;:in::-...:% =•••. ':. ..`'''. '''':1 ..:i:,--;-rs1::• .;:.:gli;,.4".'.....,, .'.*:•7:11:4C-. 6% -:,....::_, '•:::-:•.; 1%:::,7 i.;:f: :'::Ii'i:•.:".;,,,•., ....C1,:.:i„ .'''''.1 's**••• 0 Side Yards and Rear Yards. ;...,, Front Yards. ;-,:::., •-....,,,..t....,... --..--;f:-.:- ------ .-.,1;.; . .2::•;;;;;-,,?.1,:.. ..;ipt7=: . "=,?..•:.,-.. -.;:•;:r:.,•. .., ' •'-:::1.c...::...--,.... .-- •oitst:':---:-.•4: •••• - ... ''.-;-:1:-"...,. '4';F'..- i-, • ..•-• .0% c. .-•.:F:....-• t'.:1;.-5:•..... '-...:,,i;.:?...,,.1 ,...•-_,A0 ,colt4t;:f ;:e::,:....,... •:::="i."'`.7‘4%.;.7'CA'''''':' ."2.:•':4•:".Z:• - 1;••T''.‘::::••:::..:4" •Z..):•.•.:„ •.4.1.!...1,1:1.0.:•ef t• .%•;:t7::Z:... .'1 i:1,::11:.:.. .4;*"•• .....•.:e•;::i.. .... -Ner '1"1"------------ • ... . ‘13•....,:„...,,,,,...,,,,,,,:., .•,,.,...".......,.....„,„ ....,:„......,..„:„:„... ,...... ..„,::::::::..:„.„:,....... , .... .,..:.,..:,..,::..:.:..,:...:e....„....:..,,;„ • .."". '• „:„..,i....„,,, ''.:.:::::::::16:;‘:,...-,::3i:,;:i7;,;,‘. 411, . . , e 7-j.:;.:C.::'!:'...s.;'....7:•''. .- e'' -"‘ . littlkibk •::::.:`: "r•-::j'''''Wfii;:i.i.'i:il':-:• -''''''''''..7!'..**Y%-1:1?:.2%.-.71:;.:1`.••..7:*:' . ;,'' • "r. -''';-,::::,•:.;';'‘%... i,l'i.1:;t:5.:?*:.:!;;;;•,%:';:iii:•;•, .. .L 1,' ..... '';';':17.':.? '''':'S::::•::'.. '..:'A5i1:''''...::'..: ** :..'::.•:•1":i.f.:Tii§:;:.;Y:Z<i::::".4:•:•2:::.:';,:•,1:,;•I':- ., ... 1 -•.-.::7'-•4:.t-.-i*,1:".24-•-:;...;'?::..F,:t-i,!::::7;:i.Yie5-ge? .<11:5 . ":.;;;-... •tv;.5:. • ;41'-' -;=,--4-.:•-•%-61-..•-er-";:::7,,,,,re.;P:•:•• .':::. -`::-.:.•• 's:.--.;.1;., •,.:*" •0$:';1:-...,1,i-f*-.•1,Vk7.,..:-':•**:.7.-.4.•:io,‘;:::1 .-:Z: -;...-;%.,-,., R:.:..-44,-, ,r:17,-- 0 Ne...-.T.-,,,:;,.f.-ijy,I t-,:,...1,--.:2,4;:s6.,.;,,„,•::,•;i:::;: ...:,..:,, --.4.te,. "'t,:ikra I... '-'‘'.:•,.:55`) Vi!..i7e.01;'."‘;'-'1,i*.i-‘i":: .-; Sr::f::t •t:-*' — •.IJ,:...., "-':;',:f.r.:.:,..:;;:.:-2$4141-:.;:,;;::::',-'1:.1,•!*:::':;;:g..*)11.14:f• ...11::-1: ....,..1,... •-•tv.v..,•„•.*::::tfif.'::-...!•.,,;::1:...i'l'..:4::::::::elf;A%1 z:,t:*re• I.P; .. e."1--.1.I.::•',;;;4411..fl'i.'ki:I7e.;%- • ';•,1,,,, ‘-':.•.%;.,:i:ifit.!'•:',•.-.;:7%-:.::'-'-'..-:::.:P" ..-1::-.. ..-,.-'...:.. '•:t.',.,,,,,1-.!?:;A4=,.4.::leir'...::::;:' .-:,-;-:.,- ••• Fre..... :413i-.. 8,45,:;-•• ,,4.:r 66. '-'.5:!:• - -.''' :--; , - ,:c•.::: • 6 __ ' •• 1.,..$.:„., alit., ,Ifft":' •••;:v. '.,-. Corner Lots. 41iOt -Nor .. ... .... NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING — PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CITY OF CHANHASSEN NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, August 19, 1992, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 690 Coulter Drive. The purpose of this hearing is to consider an — amendment to the City Code concerning fence requirements. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions — with respect to this proposal. Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I Phone: 937-1900 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on August 13, 1992) CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 2 , 1992 Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7: 35 p .m . . MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart , Ladd Conrad , Matt Ledvina , Brian Batzli , and Jeff Farmakes MEMBERS ABSENT: Steve Emmings and Joan Ahrens STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss , Planning Director ; Sharmin Al-Jaff , Planner I ; Kate Aanenson , Planner II ; Dave Hempel , Sr . Engineering Technician ; and Don Ashworth , City Manager PUBLIC HEARING: METES AND BOUNDS SUBDIVISION OF A 1 .5 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 29 ,172 AND 20,000 SQUARE FEET ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF , RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 8412 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD , EUGENE KLEIN . Public Present : Name Address Gene Klein 8412 Great Plains Blvd . Norm Grant 9021 Lake Riley Blvd . Joe Eickholt 8408 Great Plains Blvd . Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item . Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order . Gene Klein : My name is Gene Klein . I live at the 8412 Great Plains Blvd . . I worked with Sharmin on everything and as far as I can see , I have no problems with anything . Batzli : Okay . So you agree with , have you seen the staff report? Gene Klein : Right . I agree . Batzli : And you agree with those conditions? Gene Klein: Right . Batzli : Okay , thank you . This is a public hearing . If anyone else would like to comment on the proposal before the Commission . I 'd encourage you to step forward to the microphone . Give us your name and address . Joe Eickholt : Good evening . I 'm Joe Eickholt . How you doing Gene? I live at 8408 Great Plains Blvd . . I 'm next door to Gene and I just walked in the door so I haven 't had a chance to see where the site of the house — is and the type of house that is proposed . Is that possible to review? Al-Jaff : None of that is available right now . It 's only a subdivision . Planning Commission Meeting September 2 , 1992 - Page 2 Joe Eickholt : I see . Al-Jaff: They 're just proposing to divide the property into two parcels — Joe Eickholt: Okay . So there 's no plans for a home at this time? Al-Jaff: A house , no . Joe Eickholt: I see . — Krauss: Maybe I should clarify something . The City is not in the business of approving particular house plans . We approve the lot it sits on . . .setbacks and open space ratios and that sort of thing but beyond — that , it 's up to the owner . . . Joe Eickholt: Okay . I saw you just put that up . Is that some type of - proposal for setbacks you do? Al-Jaff : No , that 's the existing structures . The garage is going to be _ torn down and a residence will replace it . Joe Eickholt: Okay . Batzli : At the time that the residence comes in , what approvals will the applicant have to go through? Does it just require a building permit at that time? — Al-Jaff : Correct . As long as they meet a minimum square footage , they should be fine . They meet the setbacks . That 's all we really look at . Joe Eickholt: Okay . I mean Gene and I , we 've gotten along real well an( he 's been the best of neighbors and I just , I did have some concerns about a structure going up there . As far as how it would affect my — property next door and activities and so on and so forth . Batzli : Do you live to the northeast? — Joe Eickholt : Yes . Batzli : So you 're closer to the metal garage than the current house? — Joe Eickholt: That 's correct . Batzli : Do you have any other comments , ,or? Joe Eickholt : No . I guess I don 't . Batzli : Thank you . Gene Klein: If I can address Joe . Basically the structure that 's there — now is going to be torn down and that would be where the house will be built . In that same location . . . % Planning Commission Meeting — September 2 , 1992 - Page 3 Batzli : Okay , thank you . Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Erhart moved , Conrad seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in — favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Erhart : I have one for 5 . No alteration or tree removal shall be — permitted within the 75 foot setback . Is going to be permanently or is that just during the subdividing of the lot? Al-Jaff : It 's extremely steep down there . Erhart : Okay , but let 's say a guy comes in and builds a house . Somehow we think that , this action doesn 't pertain to the guy that 's building the — house . It pertains to Mr . Klein . In my opinion . Isn 't that correct? Batzli : It would depend on who built the house , wouldn 't it? Erhart : This doesn 't pertain to the guy that 's building the house . Al-Jaff : It runs with the land . Whatever conditions we have , usually run with the land . Erhart : So we 're saying , it 's real steep there so . Al-Jaff : And wooded . We would like to preserve that area . Because if they remove anything , this could cause erosion into the lake . That 's the only reason behind it really . Erhart : That 's the only question I have . — Conrad : Nothing . Ledvina : No . Batzli : Jeff . Farmakes : There are State conditions covering the 75 foot setback too isn 't there? The DNR also requires a setback? Al-Jaff : Correct . And that is 75 feet so they are covered here . Farmakes : I have no further questions . Batzli : What are the other permitted or 'conditional uses in RSF here? In this zone . Is there any use that would allow him to keep his garage? Al-Jaff : No . None . Batzli : If that was the main structure , it was a conditional use allowed in that zone , couldn 't he keep his garage? Al-Jaff : It 's an accessory structure . You can 't have an accessory structure without a main structure . Planning Commission Meeting September 2 , 1992 - Page 4 Batzli : Assume for a minute that there is a conditional use that would be allowed in that zone where that would become the primary structure . Is that outside the realm of possibility? - Al-Jaff : Correct . It would be permitted in an Agricultural Estate district for instance . If you have more than . . .or more but not in an RSF district . Am I answering your question? Batzli : It just seems stunning to me that by subdividing he 's forced to tear that down . But he 's agreed to it , so I don 't have anything else . - Erhart : I ' ll make a motion . Did everybody get a chance? I ' ll move the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #92-10 as shown on - the plans dated July 31 , 1992 and conditions 1 thru 6 as stated in the staff report . Conrad: I second . Batzli : Any discussion? Erhart moved , Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision Request #92-10 as shown on the plans dated July _ 31 , 1992 , subject to the following conditions: 1 . It is preferred to have a single access to service both Parcels A anc- B; however , should the applicant wish to provide a second driveway access , a permit will be required from MnDot . If the existing driveway is utilized to service both lots , then a cross access or - driveway easement in favor of both properties will need to be recorded at the County . 2 . The following easements and right-of-way shall be provided : a . Dedication of fee ownership of Highway 101 right-of-way . b . A 20 foot wide utility and drainage easement centered over the existing sanitary sewer through both lots . c . Standard drainage and utility easements along each lot line . 3 . The applicant may want to consider petitioning the city for extension of trunk watermain facilities at this time in lieu of drilling a well . 4 . The newly created lot will be required to connect to municipal - sanitary sewer and pay the appropriate connection fees . S . No alteration or tree removal shall be permitted within the 75 foot setback from the ordinary high water mark of Lake Susan . Trees designated for preservation shall be protected by snow fence or other means acceptable to the city . Planning Commission Meeting September 2 , 1992 - Page 5 6 . The existing garage on proposed Parcel A shall be demolished prior to recording this subdivision with Carver County . All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: SITE PLAN REVIEW OF A 10,600 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION ON PROPERTY ZONED CBD , CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED AT 480 WEST 78TH STREET , ( PHASE II ) OF THE CHANHASSEN PROFESSIONAL BUILDING . Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report . Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order . Bob Copeland: My name is Bob Copeland and I am the applicant . And I 'd like to just address a few of the recommendations that the staff has given the Planning Commission here and just kind of go down them one by one if I may . I 'm on pages 6 of the staff report . On item number 1 , regarding a restaurant , we 've already agreed to that so we don 't have any problem with not having a restaurant in the western one-half of the building . Item 2 is really three parts . The first one is eliminating sidewalks projecting into the parking stalls . Our drawing isn 't very clear on that and what we really intend is to have two sidewalk projections into the parking lot . And this is consistent with the building that exists there now and it 's consistent with the plans that the City had prepared by BRW . We also have shown four areas which would be striped on the pavement where cars could not park . And I think these are the areas that are causing the problem and we will eliminate those . And by doing so , we should be able to be have the number of stalls that the staff is after . Sharmin , would you agree that by doing this , this will be satisfactory to the staff? Al-Jaff : Correct . Bob Copeland: Okay . Al-Jaff : Then you would be in meeting with what was approved in '89 . Bob Copeland : Right . The next item is to eliminate the access door to the building on the north face , and that 's the parking lot size of the structure . We had already agreed to that in our development agreement with the city and so we will go along with that recommendation . The next item is provide more detail on the roof . I 'm not sure if anymore detail is required at this time . Is there anything? Related to that . Al-Jaff : No , we discussed that earlier . Bob Copeland: Right . Al-Jaff : Basically we wanted to find out whether the top of the dormers _ extend like so . Into the roof so it would break it down a little bit rather than having one massive roof . And it does . Planning Commission Meeting September 2 , 1992 - Page 6 Bob Copeland: Okay . The next item is that we ' ll have no unpainted aluminum on the exterior , and that 's fine . Item 4 is erosion control and we ' ll certainly agree to that . Item 5 , I guess that 's just up to the — city and the HRA about the canopy . Whether the City wants that connection or not . We can see advantages and disadvantages and we 're not pushing for it one way or another . _. Conrad: Architecturally , what does it look like? Bob Copeland : What does the canopy look like? Conrad: Yeah . Bob Copeland: I have a rendering here that was prepared some years ago if that would be helpful . I only have one so you can pass it around and see what it would be like . Ledvina : The separation between the two buildings is 72 feet I see on the plan . Is that correct? Bob Copeland: That sounds like more than is there . If someone scaled that from the drawing , and that 's what it shows , then . Al-Jaff : I contacted BRW and had them survey it for us . They didn 't have time to send us plans but what they surveyed was 72 feet . Bob Copeland: Okay . I don 't know that that 's wrong . It just seems a little . Ledvina : So the canopy would be 72 feet? — Bob Copeland : It would be if it was constructed . Ledvina : That 's huge . Bob Copeland: The canopy is not part of our proposal at this time . Ledvina : You could put another building between there . Conrad: Yeah , I like that in what was original . So that would continue — the roof line all the way over . And basically the advantage of the canopy is purely , is weather or what was the advantage of the canopy? Bob Copeland : Just aesthetics? And that 's a matter of opinion . Some people like it . It sort of identifies an entry to the project . Conrad : And you can enter the two buildings from underneath the canopy? — Bob Copeland: You would not be able to , no . There is no entry planned for either building there . While you 're looking at that I ' ll just touch _ on some of these other points . Item number 6 , we will certainly meet all the conditions outlined by the Fire Marshal . Item number 7 is regarding amending the development agreement to allow an entry within 20 feet on the south side of the structure and certainly we go along with that . Planning Commission Meeting September 2 , 1992 - Page 7 Item number 8 is screening HVAC equipment . That 's fine . I just added my own item number 9 which really wasn 't touched on too much , or somewhat briefly , and that is the cut in the median to allow access to the building so that someone coming from the west can take a left turn into the project and , we have requested that and we feel that that is not really a problem and is not inconsistent with other situations that the City had . Has done in recent years . We think it 's just a matter of opinion as to whether it 's a safety problem . We don 't feel that it is . Also , it 's become very important to us because we have one tenant that 's moving out of our Phase 1 building because of the access to the property and others have complained about it although they haven 't threatened to move out . But we 've just become aware that that access , being able to take that left turn there is very important to our tenants . Batzli : You want the left turn between the two? Bob Copeland: Correct . Batzli : Phase 1 and Phase 2? Bob Copeland : Right . If you 're coming from the west and you are about even with the Riveria , you wouldn 't necessarily know that you should turn there and if you miss that turn , then you have to go about 800 feet down to the east to Great Plains . Batzli : Paul , where 's the stop sign? Krauss : Signal? Batzli : Signal going in? Krauss : There 's one at Laredo and one at Great Plains and then further to the west . We have very significant reservations about the median cut . We have regularly recommended against them where it provides anything less than access to a major site . The only time we considered making one was when on the north side of Market Square which serves 130 ,000 square feet of retail , and even then after the bank proposal was dropped , we decided not to make the median break . We 're dealing with roads that are going to carry extremely high volumes of traffic . Anytime you introduce a turning movement , you 're introducing difficulty . You 're also destroying the landscape median to accomplish it . This site has — relatively good access . It does have access to a median break . I guess that doesn 't show it as well as , we brought this here for a different reason . But you can see there 's a . . .right here . Here 's a full median break going between the main part of the ' lot for the Frontier Center . Here 's the right-in , right-out only . Here 's the other access . . . Frankly this site 's got better access than a lot of others we have here in town . If anything , we 're looking at modification to 78th Street to handle the more traffic and frankly this is a step in the wrong direction . . . I mean we just came from a meeting this morning where we are denying Target and another property who wanted two full median breaks and , 3? Four or three . Aanenson: Three full median breaks . Planning Commission Meeting September 2 , 1992 - Page 8 Krauss : And we would not give them that . They 're limited to two that serve both north and south sides of 78th Street . And that 's for 117 ,000 square foot store and outlots . Batzli : Do you have anything else on the curb cut Ladd? Conrad : Not right now . We ' ll come back to it . Bob Copeland: Okay . Then as far as this revision to our sign covenant that starts on page 6 and goes onto page 7 . We don 't have any problem — with the part on page 6 but at the top of page 7 , a significant change was made to what we proposed and it starts out saying that a tenant may have no more than one sign . On this project with people driving by on — one side and then accessing the building on the other , we feel it 's important to have tenant signs on both sides . And at least have the ability to do that . And we have that situation on the existing building where we have some tenants with more than one sign and we want to have that ability for this second phase too . We don 't see that it creates , should create any problem and we don 't really see why there would be any objection to this . — Erhart : You 're asking for one sign per side? Bob Copeland : We want to allow a tenant to have up to two signs . Up to and including two signs . Not more than two . Erhart : One per side . Bob Copeland: One per side . We 'd be happy to put that in there too if that further clarifies it . But you can 't see more than , you can 't see — the north and south side of the building at the same time so it , I don 't know why anyone would object to this . But you can understand how a tenant might want to advertise that they 're in the building to people driving by on West 78th and then identify where they are within the building to people parking in the parking lot on the other side of the building . So we think it 's a reasonable request . Batzli : Explain to me a little bit what kind of tenants you 're expectin to have . Bob Copeland: Well , we have some , they 're sort of called quasi-retail tenants . They 're kind of inbetween office and retail . People like chiropracters . Legal offices . Dental offices . Accountants . That kind _ of thing that have people that walk in a lot and they could either be in a retail space or an office space . We also have the sports , well I don 't know what they call it now . The business health group with Waconia Hospital is thinking about relocating their , portions of their business — in there too . But virtually every tenant wants signage these days and it 's a real important issue to us . Batzli : As you 're probably aware , we 've gone around and around on the number of signs on Phase 1 so this issue isn 't foreign to us . Do you have anything else? Planning Commission Meeting September 2 , 1992 - Page 9 Bob Copeland: Just a couple more things . On item 4 , it 's stated , or it 's proposed anyway that the signs on the north elevation or the parking lot side be non-illuminated . We just as soon have them be illuminated , just like the signs are on the south side and on both sides of the Phase 1 building . I think these signs are going to be that high in the air . You know they won 't throw off a lot of light . I can 't imagine that the residents in the single family homes to the north are quite a ways away from even the parking lot and there 's a lot more light thrown off by the parking lot lights themselves than these neon tubes that would be within the fixtures . So we 'd like to have the ability to have those signs illuminated . Farmakes : Do you consider your tenants or your quasi retail office tenants , whatever they happen to be , lawyers or chiropracters , conducting business after 5: 00? Bob Copeland: Could well be . Some of them could . Farmakes : Do you think they 'd be open until what? Bob Copeland: It 's dark at 5 :00 in the winter . Farmakes : No , I 'm asking what time do you think they conduct? Bob Copeland: Well I don 't know , you know . Probably not late into the night but certainly after dark during the winter months . The last point I want to make then is on the changes that were made to what we proposed under the section that 's entitled , ( c ) General . Number 1 . There 's a restriction in there on the size of real estate signs . This would be temporary signs for leasing the building , that kind of thing . And what we had proposed is that the signs comply with the current ordinance at the time that we apply for a permit for that kind of sign . And we don 't want to be bound to these restrictions . We 'll just comply with whatever your sign ordinance is when we put up a sign . In other words , these dimensions and so on , may be more restrictive than an ordinance that you may have in place 6 months or a year or 2 years or 5 years or whatever from now . Batzli : You may be better off under these . Bob Copeland: Well , we ' ll take our chances . We ' ll live with whatever your code is or your ordinance is at the time that we apply for a permit . In other words , we just want the same treatment as everybody else has , that 's all . In this regard . Batzli : Anything else? Bob Copeland: No , that 's all I have unless you have other questions of me . Batzli : We ' ll probably have some questions a little bit later on . Thank you . Bob Copeland: Okay , thank you . Planning Commission Meeting September 2 , 1992 - Page 10 Batzli : Would anyone else like to address the Commission at this time? It 's a public hearing . Is there a motion to close the public hearing . Ledvina moved , Conrad seconded to close the public hearing . All voted ii favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Farmakes : I was a little confused on 2 . Have you worked that out or is - it still a question whether or not it 's consistent with phase 1? Page 6 : 2 . Al-Jaff : No , we 've worked it out . Farmakes : You 've eliminated the sidewalk issue? Batzli : Let me just touch on that . I mean sidewalks were a huge deal when we first looked at this regarding walkways through the parking lot to the apartment building to the north and that type of thing . Does thr- all tie in with the massive amounts of discussion that went into it last time? I 'd hate to just kind of say yes , it 's been worked out . Al-Jaff : Maybe I shouldn 't have called them sidewalks . There are 6 doors , 6 access points on each side . . . .walkway that intrudes into the parking area and that 's where we are losing our parking spaces . Batzli : Since we don 't know what kind of , well I guess we kind of know what sort of uses these things are going to be . I always thought that the number of parking spaces that we needed depended on what the uses were in the building . How do we know how many parking spaces we need right now? Krauss: Well , let me approach that from a different angle . We 're dealing with a redevelopment project in here that has parking that serves a multitude of uses that we already know is extremely short or close or _ tight on parking . And knowingly give up stalls right in front of the doors just so we can paint out some spaces , for visibility or for whatever reason , it seems to be something that , a luxury we can 't afford . If there 's an ability to increase landscape islands in the parking lot - and that kind of thing , we 're the first ones to propose it but this is a parking lot that 's running very tight . Batzli : But how does it tie in with getting the people through the parking lot safely? Krauss : I guess neither Sharmin nor I are familiar with the discussion - Mr . Chairman . I mean this took place before either of us were here but the parking lot itself , as you see it today , I mean the parking lot can be constructed consistent with the plans that were approved 3-4 years ago . Batzli : But see I don 't know that we were really looking at this phase that closely when we did it . Al-Jaff : There is a master plan and this parking scheme does not fit with what is out there . In this case they are . . .from the Riveria parkinc- Planning Commission Meeting — September 2 , 1992 - Page 11 area . . . .this is what exists . Batzli : That 's what currently exists? Al-Jaff : Correct . Batzli : I 'll come back to this . Jeff , go ahead . Farmakes : Since I was not here when you did Phase 1 , I 'm assuming that what you 're going to work out is going to be consistent with what you did on Phase 1 with that issue . Al-Jaff : Correct . Farmakes: Going to line 5 , comment on the canopy . This is the original concept here? I think the overall effect of the canopy makes the building , the group look like a lot nicer . It breaks up the roofline . That 's a lot of roofline for one . I again have not been involved with your original issues on this building . It seems to me that canopy makes the overall effect of the entire development look a lot nicer . I 'm not sure what practical purposes it serves since that information 's not in here . Krauss : It serves no practical purpose . It was a design feature . There 's no physical connection between the two buildings that can be accessed through . _ Farmakes: Well it is , I guess it 's an effect that it makes it look more attractive and breaks up the long expanse of roofline . And makes it look like there 's something more than two long pitched roof buildings . I get back to 8( a ) where the applicant said 9 . There already is a 9 so I don 't know how you want to classify that request for the entrance issue . I 'm not a traffic engineer . I ' ll support whatever staff comes up with that . Getting 2 on 9 . This is consistent , the 12 inches? What was worked out with the City Council on the signage issue that we went in Phase 1? Al-Jaff : Correct . Farmakes : So that 's consistent , okay . On the issue of three . I can understand the applicant 's concern that the people understand where the store is when they come up from the , it would be on the north side of the building . However , don 't they have to drive past the south side before they enter primarily? The north is not the primary entrance . Am I correct? Would you drive through the south and then traverse to the parking lot? Al-Jaff : Correct . Farmakes : So you would have a basic understanding of where positioned in that building that would be? The signs are placed where the place of business is . Al-Jaff : Well , there are two accesses that they could . Planning Commission Meeting September 2 , 1992 - Page 12 Conrad : There 's no guarantee Jeff they 're going to pass . Al-Jaff : See the Colonial shopping center . They use the access off of - Great Plains Boulevard , then they won 't be able to . Farmakes : So a fair statement is that they may or may not? Al-Jaff : Correct . Farmakes: Alright . That 's a valid concern that the tenant has on 3 . Or- the issue of the illuminated sign , however that does concern me that that would be on the side of residential area . That those are illuminated after 5 :00 or after it gets dark . So I would support that they be non- - illuminated on that one side . To sum up this thing here , I still am terribly uncomfortable with how this whole thing is worked out . That there 's a quasi , to quote the applicant , a quasi retail office area . It - seems to me that what happens eventually is that visually anyway , the effect is that it becomes a retail area . And if we 're looking for some diversity in what we have going on here , in the future I hope that we , if we 're going to have a quasi retail area , that we zone quasi retail area that we know is going to turn out to look like retail when we plan . That 's the last of my comments . Batzli : Did you like the idea of the curb cut in the center of the building? The curb cut that the applicant is proposing? Farmakes: I would defer to the staff on that . On the issue of that access . Batzli : Matt . - Ledvina : Okay . Looking at the canopy issue , I guess I would agree that that kind of unifies the whole development there so I would support that .- I can see the increased traffic on West 78th Street and I definitely would concur with the staff on deciding not to put that median cut in there so I would not support an EA condition . The additional sign for - the tenant , that seems reasonable to provide identification on the north side of the building . That 's fine . Non-illumination for the north elevation sign , I agree with that point . And I feel that in terms of specifying the square footage of the sign , etc . , I guess I would agree with the applicant that they be allowed to meet the ordinance requirements . Whatever they might be at the time that they apply for a sign permit . So I agree with simplying I guess 9( c )( 1 ) . And that 's it . _ Batzli : Sharmin , is the sign covenant which accompanies this site plan , that 's what you 're talking about for the purposes of these various thing? The front/back illumination . That type of thing . That will become part - of this covenant that 's attached to the site plan? Al-Jaff : Correct . Batzli : Is there a reason why we were specifying the real estate sign? Planning Commission Meeting September 2 , 1992 - Page 13 Al-Jaff : That 's what in the city code right now . It 's not proposed to be amended . Kate is working on amending the sign ordinance and that section remains as is . Batzli : Okay , so we 're not gaining anything or losing anything really by just saying that they need to comply with the standard? Al-Jaff : No . Batzli : Ladd . Conrad: Briefly , real briefly . I like the canopy . I like how it looks . I 'm not paying for it but I like what that does . The median cut . I guess I don 't like the traffic flow into the building , period . It 's just — real cumbersome . No matter where it is , it 's real cumbersome . I don 't , you know by the Riv , I don 't like how that goes in . I don 't like passing traffic going through the turn by the clock tower and meandering around to the back . It 's just real sloppy . Batzli : Well sure , you didn 't support me when I tried to get that curb cut closed though did you , 3 years ago? Conrad: I don 't know . Maybe it was late at night and whatever . But it 's just . Erhart : You 're not negative on it are you? Conrad : It 's real cumbersome . I 'm amazed we 're doing this stuff and then if Target moves in , we have other problems along 78th Street . So yeah , I don 't want to , I think if the engineer says we shouldn 't have a curb cut through the median , that we have to pay attention but still I don 't like , I don 't like the access to the site , period . And I think with Target moving in , I would hope we 're doing some work on the entire West 78th Street . I would hope so and I think this should be part of that . The right place for people to enter is under the canopy which we may not build . But you know , that 's where it should be . I think absolutely that this is a retail center . Absolutely has to have two signs . One on 78th . One on the other side . The illuminated , I 'm not sure about . It 's facing residential . Even though it 's retail , I don 't know that we were , I think we were thinking office at the time and there wouldn 't be signage back there . I guess I 'm not real comfortable illuminating it . There very definitely has to be a sign over there . Has to be . Just no doubt in my mind . The free standing signs and all the restrictions , I 'm just assuming that all , well for the monument signs . _ No . No , I 'm not even . There 's a statement in here , the copy shall have a maximum height of 1 foot and be internally . Is that a standard or are we making that up? Al-Jaff : We 're making that up . That is what they are requesting in their covenants so . Conrad: So they 're comfortable? You 're comfortable with that? Bob Copeland : We bought that . . .Phase 1 . Planning Commission Meeting September 2 , 1992 - Page 14 Batzli : If the Council agreed to . . .Phase 1 . That 's consistent . Conrad: It is consistent? Batzli : That 's what staff said . Consistent with Phase 1 . Conrad: Then I really , when I start dictating copy size , you know , we can dictate signage size . I don 't have a problem with signage but when we start saying copy , geez . That 's not our business but if it 's consistent and the applicant is comfortable , I won 't make it an issue . I — want to move on . And then I feel comfortable with the applicant saying . hey apply the current ordinance and in terms of the general signage . Yeah , let 's just do that . So that 's all . — Erhart : Okay . I too , I was really sold on this project when Phase 1 came in because I really liked the canopy . So we ' ll add that to the stream of positives regarding the canopy . The question is , the building setback the same from the curb as Phase 1? Al-Jaff : Yes it is . Erhart : We certainly don 't want to have it any closer . You know I guess my feeling and I 've probably stated it 100 times up here is what we — should do , unless there 's a better plan coming , it sounds like there is on West 78th Street . I couldn 't agree with Ladd more . We 've got to do something . And without getting into it , the easiest would be just to get rid of the center median and put a third middle lane where people could turn . You know which is a turning lane . Get rid of the center median completely and it solves all these problems because really , quite frankly if you 're going to make a curb cut , as Ladd said , you 'd make it under the— canopy and eliminate the curb cut between the Riveria and the west end of the building . So I don 't know . Krauss : 78th Street is going to be modified a little bit and it 's going to be extended . Strgar-Roscoe who 's doing work for us has proposed some modifications to make turning movements more adaptable there and at Great Plains to fix the intersection there . Long term , in fact not very long term given the speed at which things are happening , they 're telling us that we 're going to have to widen that out to , we 've got 16 foot lanes now . We 're going to need the added lane width probably on the outside tc— get a full two lanes in each direction . As far as the appropriate place for the full median cut , yeah . I agree that that situation back there is somewhat confused and a compromise . The Riveria wanted their curb cut . The Frontier Center didn 't want to lose theirs . The one curb cut that we have there serves both north and south sides equally well of that curb cut . It is kind of messy but that was a design that evolved after several years of effort and the City actually owned all those parking — lots . We built them . Erhart: I kind of find it humorous because people always talk about how scarey it is to drive on TH 101 . I live down on TH 101 and there 's only one thing that scares me in this city and that 's trying to cross West 78th Street at Market Boulevard . Planning Commission Meeting September 2 , 1992 - Page 15 Krauss : Well that 's true and the Council 's already authorized the signals to go in . Erhart : That 's great . • Conrad: Paul , I don 't understand . Even looking at this . If we care about the . . .of this building , there could be a lot more people here or over there . Look at what we 're having them doing . They 're coming in here and around there and then we have them make a 180 degree turn to back here . Some of that stuff just doesn 't look right . You know , it 's just not well , that 's not how we should be pushing people around . I don 't know the other alternatives but that 's not efficient and in the same center we 're pushing , they have to go all the way down through the stop sign . Well , if they hit the Riv and they know how to turn , and they know how to go through the parking lot . See what we 're doing is we 're pushing people through a restaurant parking lot and then we get them into the medical professional center parking lot . You know , geez . Erhart : My turn again? Conrad: I 'm sorry . Batzli : He got that off his chest . Erhart : It would seem to me the simplest , moving on to signs . It seems to me the simplest is just adapt the same signage agreement that we spent so much time on in Phase 1 . I 'd just offer that as a simple solution . I would agree with the applicant that we should allow one side per sign . I also agree that it doesn 't seem , I just can 't imagine a illuminated sign , neon lighted sign effecting someone in that apartment building . Maybe I 'm not naive about that but secondly is the other building does allow — it , correct Sharmin? Illuminated north side signs . Phase 1 . It was allowed . Al-Jaff : I don 't know . Erhart : Do you know? Bob Copeland: It is allowed and there are two . Erhart : And lastly , if it doesn 't make any difference and the applicant wants to see it read , comply with current city ordinance , I don 't , I guess everybody seems to be agreeable to that . If it makes the applicant more comfortable . And that was it . • Batzli : Why do you want to give them what Phase 1 had for signage when none of us liked it and really one of the few reasons we gave it to them was that we were bushwhacked by an oversight from prior staff? Erhart : Well I ' ll have to look back here but actually I think I liked it . Now I 'm trying to remember how that all went . I remember we had discussion one night . I didn 't like the original signage which were all the light color and then there was one that came on that was gold . I guess if I remember right , and I think Ladd and I agree that we should Planning Commission Meeting September 2 , 1992 - Page 16 not have allowed the sign on the front of the , what do you call it? The porch or whatever . That 's where I think we ended up saying . The mistake was not , we should never allowed signs on that porch . - Al-Jaff : Dormers . Erhart : Dormers . What you call the dormer areas . They were fine in the background but what really made them ugly was on the dormers and maybe that 's the area we ought to look at . Batzli : You don 't mind the signs that are currently that building? Erhart : The ones that are on the main part of the building , I actually - like the logos and the color . Batzli : Do you? Erhart : Yeah . Better than what we saw a year ago . Just these gold stamped letters that looked like something out of , you know you go down to Target and , everybody 's turning now . Ladd , don 't look at me that way Farmakes : I 've always had a problem , not with the signs but with , as I said before in my statement , the content of the building . I think it 's a- mish mash and I think the purpose of , you have to admit anyway that there are a lot of professional buildings and a lot of office buildings that dc, not have signage . And again , allows for some diversity and this thing is kind of an apparition . It 's kind of retail but it says it 's an office and professional . I don 't think the signage enhances the building in an) way , shape or form . But it obviously enhances communication of potential customers for the business . So it 's serving it 's purpose . I have no - problem with it being consistent . That 's a consistent development . Batzli : Well but , if you 're trying to direct the type , well there 's two issues . One is , are we trying to make this one look like the other one so we should let that kind of sign . . . in there just to make it look consistent? Second issue is , if you really want to direct the type of tenant that 's going to go in there , you know the more retail oriented - things are going to want the neon lights . Whatever and the more "professional " type things , they might not care if it 's neon . Farmakes: Is that not what the building has been approved at? Batzli : I don 't know that we approved what . Farmakes: Well , if you offer them office and retail , according to the market that 's been developing here , it 's becoming retail . They obviously want retail signage and they want to be open after 5:00 . So I mean - that 's where the direction 's leading . Batzli : Right . But did we approve it as retail? - Farmakes : Well , you 're getting back to what we discussed then in Phase 1 . Planning Commission Meeting September 2 , 1992 - Page 17 Batzli : But I never envisioned this as retail . I viewed it more as office . Professional office services . Conrad : Office services , yeah . And as talked about then , it 's a matter of , whether service or retail , you can accomplish the same thing with the signs . Bringing traffic in . The question is how well do you do it and we sure fought that one the last time through . Farmakes: We were mixed however . If left up to the market , what you 're doing is visually you 're going to get all retail . So you lose any diversity you might have from having business within and having a professional . . . Conrad: I don 't know . I don 't know . Erhart : What do you mean? Conrad: If I had a service business , I 'd put it there and I 'd say , this is a plus to have a sign out on a high traffic area . Farmakes : Well , there are some professionals that are going into Eden Prairie Mall . Dentist , for instance . They want to be in a mall setting . That 's what they want . They want to be a retail setting . And there are other people who want to be in a professional building . Somebody accesses their business , they don 't want to come by with 15% off in the window . So it 's just a question of what it is . I 'm not positive for it one way or the other . It seems to me that what we 've got here is sort of an either or . Batzli : But you still would . . .the size . Farmakes : I think the cat 's out of the bag . I think if you 're going to be consistent in the building , we should be consistent with what Phase 1 is . Especially if there 's a canopy there . Basically what you 've got is one building . One development . Batzli : Phase 1 differed a little bit in that it 's internally accessed and there was some sort of prohibition about the number of signs that it had I thought . Al-Jaff : There 's a limit of 7 signs on Phase 1 on the south side of the — building versus there 's no limit on this one . Krauss : In trying to echo Jeff 's comments . That was our position initially that this was an internally accessed , two story professional building . You go down to the Southdale Professional Building and it 's full of doctors . It doesn 't have signs all over it . Now , they made the point that this is a mix type of building . Rightly or wrongly , that was what was approved there . But whatever we thought with that , the single story building is probably a lot more clearly retail oriented by design . Batzli : What kind of retail are you talking about? When you say retail , what are you envisioning? Planning Commission Meeting September 2 , 1992 - Page 18 Krauss: I don 't know . I mean I can tell you what I 'm envisioning but maybe it 'd be more important to see what Bob is , but maybe you want to have a Xerox printing store in there . Maybe it will be a chiropracter 's _ office . I mean I think you can conceiveably have a mix that 's not too much different than Town Square . Another Travel Agent . We 've already heard that there 's going to be some professional office space in there . _ Those kinds of uses are very adaptable these days . Batzli : Yeah , and like those types of uses would want those kinds of signs . Travel agent , a copy center , those kinds of things . - Farmakes: Sure , posters in the window . Fly to Jamaica . Batzli : I 'd like to see the canopy constructed , although I don 't know that I agree with Ladd 's comment that we 're not paying for it . Conrad : I didn 't mean that . I said I was not paying for it . Well , - yeah . Batzli : We 're all paying for it aren 't we? - Conrad: Yeah . See my comment wasn meant , I had nothing financially motivating it one way or the other . If it 's coming out of my pocket , _ then I might be concerned . Batzli : I think it 's coming out of all of our pockets . Krauss : I know that Mr . Copeland 's position that the HRA would pay for it . I have no reason to dispute that but I don 't know that to be fact or not . I assume , it 's part of the HRA 's agreement . Farmakes : Would there be signage on the canopy? Krauss : No . Farmakes : So you have some sort of thing worked out with that originally? - Krauss : There was no , the signage was allocated by tenant space . There 's no tenant space . _ Conrad: Eastbound traffic enter here . Batzli : We had discussions originally about whether fire trucks and the - like could fit underneath the canopy and whether this was , whether a center island could go in there . Whether the fire trucks could manage that . All that kind of good stuff . Have we looked at it in view of having a canopy on here so that we 're not approving something that 's going to burn down and our trucks sit out on the road watching it? Krauss : Well again , that 's not an issue that I 'm particularly familiar with but it sounds like your desire is to carry forward a recommendation that the canopy be considered and we can certainly have our Fire Marshall make sure the turn radii are acceptable . Honestly , one of the reasons - Planning Commission Meeting September 2 , 1992 - Page 19 why we 're going to be modifying a little bit the turn radii on 78th Street is our fire trucks are having trouble negotiating . So yeah , we think that it can be done but it 's got to be done right . And throw it at the curb cut has to be wide enough . Batzli : I guess for the life of me , I don 't know why they 'd be driving underneath a burning wooden building . Come to think of it . Okay . The signs , I don 't like but I 'm never going to get rid of them . I think the temporary real estate sign , they should have whatever they 're allowed to have . I don 't necessarily like the illumination to the north but if we 're going to give them on the south , I don 't see why , I don 't see the distinction unless these are going to be so bright that they would bother the residents across the parking lot . And I want to make sure that the staff reviews the Minutes from the meeting when we discussed people traversing this parking lot . There were a lot of safety concerns given the routing of the traffic through the back end of the lot . And there was talk about where we put the sidewalks . How to get people through there and I want staff to go back and look at that stuff so we don 't have to recreate the wheel here to make they 're addressing those concerns . Safety issue through this parking lot , given the fact we 're driving everybody through the Riv , then along the back of the building , there are going to be people moving along the back of the building at a relatively high speed and that has to be addressed . Those are my comments . Is there a motion? Conrad: Sure . I make a motion that the Planning Commission approval Site Plan Review #88-17 as shown on the site plan dated August 3 , 1992 subject to the conditions in the staff report with the following changes . On point number 2 , instead of eliminate sidewalks between the parking stalls , we will substitute , the applicant will eliminate four striped areas or the appropriate number of parking spaces to . . .the parking situation into compliance with staff recommendation . Everything stands through 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 . Batzli : Do you want to modify 5? Conrad: No . Yeah . The City recommendation that a canopy connect the two phases for point number 5 . Under point number 9( a )( 3 ) , change the requirement that the tenant may have one sign per side . Number 9( a )( 4 ) , based on what I heard here . That we will allow the north signage to be illuminated unless staff can present a stop strong argument against it . Under 9( b ) , stands . 9( c ) , to allow the current ordinance and it 's restrictions to apply to the general signage for real estate signage . And point number 2 . Tha staff should review the traffic movement within _ the Riveria and the professional building as well as traffic movement along 78th Street to make sure that it 's appropriate for Chanhassen in the long run . Erhart : I ' ll second it . Batzli : Is there any discussion? Farmakes : I have a question on 3 . Under the sign covenant , page 7 . You said on four sides of the building . Does that mean that one now is two Planning Commission Meeting September 2 , 1992 - Page 20 or three sides? Conrad: Are there three? Farmakes : Yeah , I thought we . Conrad: I said one side . Okay . Farmakes : There 's four sides to the building . Conrad: Good point . The intent is to have no more than two signs . Al-Jaff : That 's good . A tenant may have no more than two signs . Farmakes: What about the illumination? Is that being dropped? Batzli : Let me ask the question on the number of tenants . Currently this is being built out for 6 tenants . If you split some of these space and we limit it to the tenants rather than the size of the building , just by way of example . Let 's say you put a wall through the middle of one o{- these spots and you rented out one to each side . Would you want to have each tenant having a sign on both sides of the building? Conrad: Ah boy . That 's a real good point Brian and we struggled with that on the first phase . Farmakes : Signage to the north and south . Batzli : Could we limit it to no more than 12 signs maximum? Conrad: I don 't know how to address that . Yeah , we don 't want it over signed obviously . Farmakes : You can limit the numeric by eliminating the signage to the north and south . Batztli : 6 signs . - Farmakes : No more than 2 signs per , rather than say side , say no more than 2 signs per tenant . That will limit them correct to a sign to the - north and the south . Conrad: But still they could potentially chop that building up . I don 't think that 's realistic but potentially they could chop it up to put a sign every . Farmakes: Well they can have up to . If they 're a major tenant and they - go through to the back , but I mean the idea being is that someone can access the business to the back and see that it 's there . If it 's a different business , well then the point is made . But I don 't know how _ you 'd limit how many tenants there are to the building , I mean other that fire code . Planning Commission Meeting — September 2 , 1992 - Page 21 Batzli : Well , if you 're trying to make it look like the other building though , which is what I thought was one of our intents here , you don 't want to have 15 signs on the front , and 15 signs on the back . If that 's how many tenants there end up being . The applicant will probably tell me that 's not realistic but if we 're trying to keep the signage looking similar to tie the buildings together then . Farmakes: There 's a height restriction . You should get a similar density to the signage as you would in the other building . Unless somebody took several lower units . They have a height limit on the signage so that would limit the size of the sign . Batzli : What 's going to drive it is the tenant and the management . I want a sign or I 'm not moving in kind of a thing and if they can do it , they 'll put it up . Farmakes: Right . But your concern is that there be too many . Not that there be too few , correct? Batzli : Right . I would just limit it to 6 signs per side of the building . Conrad: Does that work? — Bob Copeland : Well , we have 7 on the south side of Phase 1 . Farmakes : Same width? Bob Copeland : The building is the same . Conrad: That makes a maximum of 14 . Batzli : That would at least make it look similar . — Conrad: I 'm not trying to do that . I 'm just , I don 't care . Batzli : You don 't want it over signed? Conrad: Yeah , that 's right . But I don't know how to deal with that . Farmakes : The City Council can screw around with that . Batzli : Put it in there , 14 . Conrad : So I 'd amend under 9( a )( 3 ) that 'a tenant may have no more than two signs with the building having a maximum of 14 tenant signs . Batzli : Who seconded that , do you know? Farmakes : Are we restricting signage to the north and south face of the building? Batzli : We haven 't so far I don 't think . Planning Commission Meeting September 2 , 1992 - Page 22 Al-Jaff : Do you restrict 7 to the north and 7 to the south? Conrad: Well , they 're not going to put it under the canopy . I don 't - think anybody 's going to put it on the east . Farmakes: You 're seeing a use like a Subway over here on Market . You 're _ seeing two signs on the corner of the building and wrapped . We get two signs right next to each other identical . Conrad : Yeah , I guess I would restrict it to the north and the south . - How about you Tim? Erhart : I thought that was in the staff report , so just add it to this . - Bob Copeland: It already says that it 's . . . Farmakes: The amendment though was referring to the sides of the building . Batzli : Any more discussion? Conrad moved , Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan Review #88-17 as shown on the site plan dated August 3 , 1992 , subject to the following conditions: 1 . No restaurant may be located in the western one-half of the Phase II building . 2 . Revise architectural plans as follows: a . The applicant will eliminate four striped areas or the appropriate number of parking spaces to bring it into compliance with staff 's recommendation . b . Eliminate the public access door on the north face of the building within the 20 feet of the west end of the structure . c . Provide more detail on the roof line . 3 . No unpainted aluminum shall be allowed on the exterior . 4 . Type I erosion control fence shall be installed along West 78th Street . 5 . A canopy shall be built to connect the two phases of the Medical Art$ Building . 6 . Meet all conditions outlined in the Fire Marshal memo dated August 6 1992 . 7 . Amend the Development Contract between the HRA and Chanhassen Medica: Arts Limited Partnership to allow a public access door on the south face of the building within the 20 feet of the west end of the structure . - Planning Commission Meeting September 2 , 1992 - Page 23 8 . All HVAC equipment placed on the ground must be screened with landscaping . 9 . Sign covenants shall meet the following criteria : a . Wall Mounted Signs : 1 . Signs are only allowed within a continuous 2 '2" high band near the roof line on the north and south sides of the building , including the projections over entries . Signs shall be attached directly to the building siding and not project above or below the designated sign area . 2 . All signs shall be comprised of individual letters and/or logos . Letters shall not exceed 12" in height and logos shall not exceed 24 " in height . 3 . A tenant may have no more than two signs with the building having a maximum of 14 signs total on the north and south sides . Copy is restricted to the tenant 's proper name or service offered . 4 . Signs on the north elevation shall be illuminated , unless staff can present a strong argument against it . Signs on the south side shall be illuminated . b . Free Standing Signs : 1 . Monument Sign: One Single Sided monment sign for building identification ( not tenant identification ) may be placed in the southwest yard between the building and the sidewalk . The top of the sign may not exceed 4 feet in height . The dimensions of the sign may not exceed 2 feet heigh by 14 feet wide . The copy shall have a maximum height of one foot and be internally illuminated . c . General : 1 . One non-illuminated temporary real estate which advertise sale of the building or space for lease within the building must meet the City 's current sign ordinance requirements . 2 . The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site . 3 . Stop sign shall be installed at the exit point proposed on West 78th Street . All voted in favor and the motion carried. Batzli : And this goes to the City Council September 28th as well . Okay . Planning Commission Meeting September 2 , 1992 - Page 24 PUBLIC HEARING: NON-CONFORMING USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT FOR MINNEWASHTA SHORES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION . Public Present: Name Address Mary Jo Moore 3231 Dartmouth Drive _ Jean Wood 6341 Cypress Pamela W . Illies 6221 Cypress Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item . Chairman Batzli - called the meeting to order . Jean Wood: My name is Jean Wood and I live at 6341 Cypress Drive . On _ your map it 's marked Dartmouth but it is nonetheless , we call it Cypress . Kate has stated very clearly our request . Where we do have some historical points I think to point out is on the 7 boats that sit on the boat rack which is located at the head of our marina . You really can 't - see it but it 's a series of posts . About 30 feet long and like I said , there 's room for probably , or as the City noted , 7 boats . We have no history in our Minutes as far as whether they were motorized or not - motorized to be quite frank so I approached the Chair . The Chairman of the committee who oversaw the dredging and the building of the boat rack about what was the history about that running from the installation in _ '77 thru '81 . He said that there have been over the years small boats , including small boats with motors and he identified them as being motors no larger than 15 horsepower . He said that most motored boats only stayed there for a few days and the motors are taken away , simply because- we have had three incidents , and I can 't tell you when these incidents were , of motors being stolen from the rack . And so basically they stay down there only for a few hours or a couple of days . It 's not a storage _ rack for motorized for the entire season . That 's not our tradition . Anc so what we would ask is that in your recommendation that you do give us some leeway or some flexibility for small 15 hp motors to be down there . Are there any other questions about the plan or the history? I had to - delve into this in great detail so I know all kinds of things now . Batzli : You 're bursting to tell us? - Jean Wood : No . No . Batzli : Okay , does anybody have any questions? This is a public hearing . We may have some questions for 'you a little later . Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Mary Jo Moore : Mary Jo Moore , Dartmouth Drive , Excelsior . I 'm on the lake . I have lakeshore property but I am a member of this association . Have been on and off for the 12 years since 1980 . We have definitely - researched and proved that there 18 boats in 1981 . This is one association that has not grown . I 've been here many times with others that have expanded on their dockage and their boats . It 's a very _ maintained property . It 's 2 or 3 acres , as Kate pointed out . I 'm in a Planning Commission Meeting September 2 , 1992 - Page 25 little bit of a bad position here because in 1981 I was secretary- — treasurer of the association and I happen to be this year also . However , I disagree with the association on the boats that are on the head of the marina . There were no motorized boats there . I kept a non-motorized — rowboat and a canoe there and my recollection was that there was one other non-motorized boat there at the time . So I wouldn 't want to see that expanded because if you put a 15 hp , I mean you could wind up with — some pretty large fishing boats and that sort of stuff and it would grow too much . So I 'm in kind of a bad position , on this one guys but my recollection , and I was secretary-treasurer at the time , was that there were no motorized boats there . Thank you . Batzli : Thank you . Would anyone else like to address the Commission? — Pamela Illies : Pamela Illies , 6221 Cypress Drive . I 'm also an homeowners association member . My husband and I have lived at that address since August of 1980 . My recollection of the time in question , 1980-1981 up until present date is that the site at the head of the — marina which is being called a storage area , is really more a temporary pull your boat up on here to do minor repairs . Leave it for the day while you go home and have lunch and go back out to go fishing . I have — at various times in the 12 years I 've lived there seen small motorized boats that have been pulled up in that area . Whether they 've been pulled up there and left for a longer period of time than a day or two , I can 't — say . Batzli : Could you point one thing out for me before you sit down? Can you show on the map where the raft is normally located? Pamela Illies: Yeah , the raft is right here . — Batzli : Okay , that 's for the non-motorized boats . Pamela Illies: It 's about 30 feet . Batzli : Okay . How about the swimming raft? Pamela Illies: The swimming raft? Batzli : Yeah . — Pamela Illies: The swimming raft is normally set on the side here I believe . Isn 't that pulled over on the side here and then it 's for storage and then it 's brought up to approximately this location . Batzli : Right out in front of the mouth of the . Pamela Illies: Right , that 's correct . Mary Jo Moore : There hasn 't been a swimming raft in , well there was one in '81 but there hasn 't been there since . There really isn 't any swimming . . . Planning Commission Meeting September 2 , 1992 - Page 26 Pamela Iilies: Yeah , the swimming raft is a portable raft and I don 't think it 's even in existence at this point . Batzli : You 've requested one in this application though . Pamela Illies : We 'd like to be able to put it out again . Batzli : Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Ledvina moved , Erhart seconded to close the public hearing_ All voted i favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Batzli : We don 't have our Lake Minnewashta person here . Jeff , go ahead Farmakes : I guess I 'm a fairly , do you have an explanation as to why the inventory differs so much from the request? For instance , boats moored . It says no , no , no . And these ladies are saying that there are boats moored there . Aanenson: No , moored would be if they 're anchored out into the water . Farmakes: Okay , boats docked . Aanenson: That 's how we 're interpretting that . Farmakes : Okay , so boats docked . There 's 10 and then there 's 18 . I 'm - sorry , I 'm on the wrong line . Are you comfortable with the documentatio. that you had with 12 in '81? They obviously differ here so what? Aanenson: The evidence of the letters that they provided to say that other people that have , that 's provided for you to make that interpretation but from what I 've read , it seems like it 's legit . I mean obviously who did the inventory . Farmakes : There might have been 6 boats out on the lake . Aanenson : Exactly . The person that did the inventory made a note that there was space for 20 , whatever that means but it seemed like there was a capability of having that many boats on the water at that time . - Farmakes : The number I have on my sheet here now says 9 , on seasonal docks . Or excuse me , 8 . There are 9 you say? Aanenson: That 's how many they would like , yes . Farmakes: Okay , so is that , you had more docks and you hadn 't put them - out that year or what is the? Jean Wood: No . According to the inventory . . .showed 10 . What we 're just_ claiming is 9 and what we 're saying is that the 10th dock is not put out Farmakes : So right now currently there 's 9 , not 8 correct? It says 8 in my packet here . Planning Commission Meeting September 2 , 1992 - Page 27 Batzli : As of June , 1991 . Our survey showed that there was 8 . Aanenson: In 1991 or '81? Batzli : '91 , correct . Mary Jo Moore: There was one dock that was temporary , voted on by the association on an annual basis . Jean Wood . That was not put in . And it was not put in . Mary Jo Moore : It was in in '81 but not in this year . Farmakes: Is it common to have a swimming raft when you don 't have a swimming beach? Pamela Illies: If you want swimming you have to have either a raft or a beach , you know . Farmakes : But I mean the issue is , do you promote swimming there? Pamela Illies: No . No . Farmakes: So the purpose of a swimming raft is , if you don 't promote swimming is what? Mary Jo Moore: The raft hasn 't been there for 10 years actually . Farmakes : It shows that the raft 's been there since '81 . I was just curious to know because you don 't have a swimming beach listed there . Pamela Illies : The raft was there in the early 1980 's because there were families with teenage children . That situation no longer exists . Families with children have younger children now . We 'd like permission for a swimming raft so that in 5 or 6 years when my daughter is a teenager , if they want to put a swimming raft out there so our kids are not going . . .to swim , we 'd like the capability of putting it out there . So we would just petition the City Council to not tell us we can 't have one . . .to be able to put it out again when we have children that would like to use it . Farmakes: We 're not really discussing that here . Whether you can or can 't . What we 're discussing here is what you had in '81 and that it 's not expanded and we 're trying to be consistent with all the . Jean Wood : Correct , we had it in '81 . Pamela Illies: We had it . Farmakes : That 's what I said . I was just curious to know what you had planned there because there was no beach . I guess I would support the issue of limiting boats on the storage so that 's not abused . Maybe clarify that . Other than that I don 't see where they 're being Planning Commission Meeting September 2 , 1992 - Page 28 inconsistent on what they had . . . .marina and this is not what we have been seeing from some of the other applicants . I have no other comments . Batzli : Matt . Ledvina : I had a question for the association there . How many peirs or _ docks are there right now out? As of this date . Jean Wood: As of this day we have 7 out . Ledvina : 7 as of today . Jean Wood: 7 as of today . — Ledvina : Okay , because I may have miscounted but I took a drive by there today and I believe I counted 6 . 4 on one side and 2 on the other side . Is that correct? Pamela Illies: My raft is there . It 's laying on the side and hasn 't been put out there . Ledvina : Okay . Will it put out this year? Pamela Illies : Pardon? Ledvina : Will that be put out this year? Pamela Illies : Not this year it won 't , no . Batzli : I thought I was late . Pamela Illies : There was a change because of the weather last year and a lot of docks poles being actually destroyed by ice so every association _ member , at our last meeting , chose to change the type of dock and we had to actually destroy our . . .docks and purchase new docks for the area . Anc it took a few of us a little bit longer to get our financial act together . Ledvina : Okay , what 's the minimum number of docks that have been put out in this location? — Jean Wood: Minimum? Ledvina : Yeah . • Jean Wood : Minimum number? Ledvina : Right . Jean Wood: I guess what 's out now which would be . Ledvina : The 6 docks . Jean Wood : 6 . I miscounted . 6 . Planning Commission Meeting — September 2 , 1992 - Page 29 Ledvina : Okay . I guess I talked to Kate about this issue a little bit and I guess it 's my understanding that what we 're trying to do is verify our grandfathering conditions and as it relates to grandfathering , if the use is decreased or if that use has ceased and as a grandfathering — status , that they 're not allowed to go back to an increased level . So do you want to comment on that a little bit Kate? Aanenson : Well , I think the gest of that is correct . I think this is an anomaly again because of the number of piers . Normally most of the beachlots would put it out every , their one dock every year . But that 's the way we interpret it . If it goes beyond a year and they haven 't put their dock in , then the grandfathering right would go . We haven 't even established a level of use yet on this one so I don 't know . I didn 't go out and inventory it this year . I can guarantee you next year after we 've got all these permits in place , staff is going to go out every year . Maybe it needs to be over the 4th of July weekend if that 's the peak of the summer and determine whether or not they 're in compliance and we 're going to do that . But I 'm not sure , we haven 't even approved the level of use yet at this beachlot to say whether or not they 're , I think that 's a question for Roger Knutson to see if he feels that 's something we want to look at and say 6 , if that 's what you 're getting to . Ledvina : Right . It 's generally 2 boats per dock , is that correct? Jean Wood : Correct . Ledvina : Okay , and you 're saying that in all of the years there were at least 8 , is that correct? Jean Wood: At least 8 docks out? Ledvina : Right . Jean Wood: Normally at least 8 docks out and a 9th was out in the early _ 1980 's . And this past year , as we have changed our docks over , like she said , some got bought a little later and are not in yet . Ledvina : So will those docks go in this year? Pamela Illies: They may not go in this year . They 're planning to do it next year for sure . I mean ours is purchased and it 's laying there . It 's a shared dock situation so the other householder , we said we ' ll buy it , you put it in . He didn 't put it in yet . _ Jean Wood : He also underwent triple by-pass surgery . It 's an older couple . Ledvina : Well this is kind of a tough issue because there 's , we 've heard many or a lot of testimony about the use of , the overuse of Lake Minnewashta and the number of boats on the lake and such and if we can support , if this grandfathering situation is such that now we 've decreased the use to 6 docks , maybe that represents the prudent limitation that we should take on this particular lake . I don 't know . I guess I don 't really have a strong feeling on it at this point but I Planning Commission Meeting September 2 , 1992 - Page 30 think we should look at that as a commission and see if that 's a viable thing that we should do as part of the provisions for grandfathering , so . I just wanted to raise that issue . Otherwise , the other items that were _ requested , I guess I would support that the storage area be for non-motorized use boats only and other than that , no other comments on the application . Batzli : By non-motorized you mean you have to take the motor off it before you store it? Ledvina : Right . Batzli : Okay . Ladd . _ Conrad : I agree with 18 boats and 7 non-motorized . And Matt , you know buy some of what you 're saying . I don 't know that we 've applied it to any other beachlot . Therefore , I 'm not picking up on what you 're saying - There 's aying -There 's some logic there but we really haven 't used it . If we use that same logic . We haven 't used the boats per dock logic on anything we 've done . We 're not using boats per riparian lot . There 's a lot of things -- we 're not using which should be used because that regulates intensity . That 's the point of the ordinance but in this exercise , we 're not using it . We 're establishing 1981 and therefore , I don 't know where to go with your comments . Ledvina : Well , it 's just that let 's say they had kind of , and let 's go to the extreme situation . Let 's say they had abandoned all use of the beachlot for 10 years and then all of a sudden this year they went out and put in 10 docks and where would we be on that issue . Conrad: All we 're doing is establishing '81 level . Batzli : The original intent was to keep the intensity from increasing over the level that it was at in the first instance when the City had adequate records , which was '81 . You raise kind of like a law school exam question . Well , what do you do about it? We haven 't been doing that . We haven 't been applying that . The one we looked at a couple of - weeks ago where they had 20 boats or whatever it was on one dock , if you look at that from year to year , there were some boats missing from that dock each year but we didn 't , the fact that they were able to trot out 15_ different years of we always had at least this many boats and up to 18 . Okay , you 've got 18 . Ledvina : Well they demonstrated the use every year . There was never a - fluctuating use that I saw . Batzli : Well there was , in the number of boats each year . - Ledvina : Well , the number of slips have essentially remained constant . That 's the way I saw it anyway but . Farmakes: Isn 't the general intent of what the useage was , and that it 's not expanded . We 're not requiring that everybody put their boats in by a certain date and take them off by a certain date . And that these checks - Planning Commission Meeting September 2 , 1992 - Page 31 are done at the same interval under the same conditions so . It seems unreasonable to assume that somebody might not take their boat . Take it boating somewhere else for , or have it out on the lake when the study 's being taken and it seems that they demonstrated here , by the City 's own statement that they had 10 docks and that you figure 2 boats per dock , that 's 20 boats . That 's '81 so . Ledvina : I understand the rationale that 's being discussed here but I think there 's a whole concept of grandfathering . I see that when you say that something 's grandfathered , you allow that use but then over time , you assume that will go away based on a changing situation . I think am I wrong about that? Batzli : Well that 's fairly accurate but if you look for example at their seasonal docks , we have three different inventories here . '81 , '86 and '91 and they 're fairly constant . I don 't think we can say that they 've lost something based on one season of use that isn 't done yet , and especially . Ledvina : Right , I know . I 'm not saying that the season is done and maybe they will put those docks in and get 9 docks but I guess it 's kind of a grandfathering philosophy and maybe , you 're saying it doesn 't apply to this situation . Farmakes: If you boat , you know that sometimes the boat needs repair . Sometimes it 's very expensive . Sometimes you take it out for the season . Sometimes the dock needs repair . Things don 't always , like I said , you don 't put it in in May and take it out in September . Sometimes there 's some variance there . As I said , I think the City 's own study shows that the variance has been pretty slight . Batzli : On a philosophical level , I agree with you but I don 't know that we 've done that to the other applicants on this situation . And I think that 's kind of what Ladd has said . It was philosophically you may be right but we haven 't looked at it that critically at the other ones so much as we tried to establish the maximum use that they had in '81 so that they couldn 't exceed that . Ledvina : I guess when this whole issue was described to me , it was described as a grandfathering situation and maybe it 's something different . Batzli : Well I think we all assumed that use on the lake intensified over time so we were going to cut them back to what they had in '81 . I don 't think anyone ever envisioned that the use had decreased since that time . Ledvina : Right . Well I agree . Batzli : Forgive us . We 're getting philosopical up here a little bit . Ledvina : Okay , well again I ' ll take that approach but I just wanted to , it was described a little differently and if that 's the way we 're doing Planning Commission Meeting September 2 , 1992 - Page 32 it , then again I can reconsider and look at the request as it exists and see that that 's reasonable . Batzli : Ladd , did you have anything else? Okay . Erhart : Kate how does , we have this lying boats on land on the other forms? On the other beachlots , do we have a line called boats on land . Was that on the? Aanenson: Pleasant Acres had it too . Erhart : Okay , so we allowed boats on land? Aanenson : Well , I think what you did on Pleasant Acres is you took some of the boats away from the dock and allowed those on land to be counted because they also had a canoe rack too . So I think you combined those two . Erhart : Does the boats on land include the canoe rack generally? Aanenson : No , they 've been separate . Erhart : They 've been separate so we put provisions in that state that it_ cannot be motorized in the past or have we not addressed that? Aanenson: Well I think the only other instance I can recall that we 've done is Pleasant Acres and that they 've had , I think they had 5 we — allowed them . We counted that towards our total of 14 . Erhart : So those could be motorized? Aanenson: Correct . But then they specifically had canoe racks and our ordinance says those are non-motorized . Erhart : Right . I guess my feeling on these boats on land , I mean any , if I 'm wrong . Any beach you can pull up a boat on land and walk down the street and go have lunch . I 'm not sure that this really , I 'm not even — sure it 's worth talking about to be honest here . To me if there 's 7 boats on land , if that 's what they want , that 's fine with me . Farmakes : Isn 't storage considered overnight? Erhart : The impression I got is that they don 't really leave them there with the motors on . The motors disappear . Or am I wrong? Batzli : No , I think that 's what . I think what they said though was that there were several that are kept there overnight on a continuous basis — and there are others that show up and disappear as people use them for a day or a week . Erhart : Do we stop other recreational beachlot users from doing that? Do we have anything in our code that disallows that? Not really . Batzli : I don 't know if that 's storage or not . Do we regulate storage? — Planning Commission Meeting September 2 , 1992 - Page 33 Aanenson: Well if it 's at the beachlot . I mean yeah . I think we say that you can only have two canoe racks , you can only have so many boats at the beachlot and those are counting towards the total number of boats which makes 25 . And basically in 5 years from now , if they still have 25 but they have a different look that they 're pulling up , how do we regulate that? I just want when I go out next year or two years from now . Erhart: Okay , so we 're regulating total number of boats , not just number of spots on their dock for a boat? Aanenson: Well the ordinance says you can only have canoe racks . So this doesn 't fall into a category so what we 're trying to do is establish so when someone goes out there to look at this in 5 years , what was the - intent of this and that 's what we 're trying to clarify in the permitting process . What is our intent? We 're trying to make it as clear as possible so when we go out later we know exactly what was meant . That 's really the intent . It 's not addressed in the ordinance . Erhart : Okay , 7 boats on land . Wasn 't there one other one where we talked about the swimming raft being a concern about safety when it was in the line of boat traffic? Aanenson: Several . Erhart : What did we do in those? Batzli : We required buoys I think in some instances . Conrad : We permitted them . Erhart : We permitted them but . Aanenson : I think a lot of them are used for water skiing purposes too . Erhart: I just think we should just be consistent with what we 've done . I think it is a safety issue but if we 've allowed them on the other ones , then I think that 's what we ought to do . Was there a requirement for buoys , do you remember? Batzli : I thought we did . I thought we required buoys on at least . Aanenson : Well the ordinance says if you have a swimming beach , it requires it to be buoyed off . As far as the raft , that discussion has _ come up a lot and they 're usually out past where the swimming beach is . You know they have to be , the ordinance requires that they have to be marked with reflective anyway . If it 's a device in the water . So that 's how it 's . . . Erhart : Well if that 's consistent , then I guess I 'm pretty much , I go along with what they 're requesting . Batzli : Is that it? Planning Commission Meeting September 2 , 1992 - Page 34 Erhart : Yep . Batzli : What is this seaplane deal? They didn 't ask for anything on the- seaplane . heseaplane . Do they need anything on a seaplane if they 're going to keep it there? This '81 , they had a seaplane there . Is that still there ever? No? Okay , good . I would , in this instance , approve the 9 piers . _ If I can find my sheet . Non-motorized , 7 boats on land . I guess total boats at the dock , 18 . I would prefer , on larger bodies of lakes , rafts are a little bit more regulated as far as how far out from the shore they can be . Things like that . I don 't know if we regulate that so much . M;- concern is not that the raft be marked because I don 't care if people hit that with a boat . What I 'm concerned about is someone swimming from the shore out to the raft that gets hit by a boat that 's pulling out . And - rafts unfortunately for people in their teens , having once been in my teens , are a drawing magnet to swim out there at night . If you have people coming in and out at night and you 're parking your raft right out in front , it 's very dangerous . You 're creating a very dangerous situation and that 's what we 're concerned about . And I don 't know that we 're going to tell you that you can 't have a raft but before you say I want to keep my kids close to go swimming , you may want them to be as far- away as possible , I guess is what I 'm trying to tell you . So having sai( that , is there a motion? Farmakes: Motorized? Batzli : I would say non-motorized boats on land . Now it 's going to regulate itself because they don 't have a launch so I don 't know why you 'd park a big boat down there with a big motor . I really I guess you know , my father 's had several motors stolen over the years so I can 't imagine anyone keeping their motor down there anyway . You buy the Sure - Locks and they just hacksaw right through those . As long as they don 't make too much racket anyway so . Is there a motion? Conrad: I make a motion the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Minnewashta Shores Non-Conforming Recreational Beachlot permit per their request allowing motor vehicle access , 4 off street parking , 9 piers , 7 non-motorized boats on land , 18 boats at dock . Batzli : Second . Any discussion? Conrad moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Minnewashta Shores Non-Conforming Recreational Beachlot permit per their request allowing motor vehicle access, 4 off street parking , 9 piers , 7 non-motorized boats on land , 18 boats at dock . All voted in favor and the motion carried. Batzli : When does this go to City Council? Do we know? Do we have a date? Aanenson : 28th . Planning Commission Meeting September 2 , 1992 - Page 35 PUBLIC HEARING: NON-CONFORMING USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT FOR LAKEVIEW HILLS APARTMENTS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION . Public Present: Name Address Marge Anderson 8800 Lake Riley Blvd . Donna Bohn 9201 40 1/2 Ave No , New Hope _ Ray Luis 9071 Lake Riley Blvd . John Bushey 9000 Riley Lake Road , Eden Prairie Batzli : Kate , are we continuing the public hearing? Do I have to open that again? Aanenson : I believe we closed that public hearing . We did commit to _ renotices and I believe that that was done . I 'm not sure if anybody 's here . Batzli : Okay , so this is a public hearing but it 's a separate and new public hearing because we noticed it? Aanenson: We just noticed it for , if the people wanted to come and hear more information . I 'm not sure it was noticed as a public hearing . Batzli : Okay , well I 'm going to treat it as a public hearing for the time being . For Lakeview Hills Apartments , why don 't you give us a staff report of what 's happened . Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item . Batzli : Now , just to clarify one point . Our City Attorney has suggested to us that we cannot make a condition of granting or moving this permit along , any kind of restriction on access to the beach or deny it because of the problems that they 've had . The police problems . _ Aanenson : That 's correct . What you 're directed is to establish the level of use in 1981 . Batzli : Okay . Is the applicant here? Are you the applicant? Marge Anderson: I 'm not sure we ever had an applicant because we were never at any other meeting but I 'm Marge Anderson and I 'm the Assistant Manager on site all the time and I can state that we very consistently , especially this year , have questioned people as they pull in , if we don 't recognize them , saying this is a private beach . You can 't launch here . We 've also put up signs that say , boats . Private property , no trespassing . Unauthorized boats and trailers will be towed at owners expense . And to my knowledge , and I 've been down there quite a bit this year , and we have residents also helping us when they don 't recognize somebody to say , you can 't come in here . Where I 've seen the boats come in is when I 'm going around the other side of the lake past the public beach and boat launch area . Pioneer Trail has only no parking just so Planning Commission Meeting September 2 , 1992 - Page 36 far just beyond the apple orchard and I see boats and trailers parked just beyond those signs . Like 8 , 10 , 12 of them and I see people walking back towards and that 's where the excess boats and I 'd love to see fewer - boats be out on the lake because we really do try and control it from Lakeview Hills . But that 's on the Eden Prairie side and they don 't think that we have much control over that . Yes , we have had some problems with_ a few parties . We 've had to call the police . We 've evicted a couple apartments of very young people that after talking with them , they just wouldn 't comply that we don 't want a party complex . We wanted a quiet , nice place for people to live so we 've already , two of them are - completely gone . Asked to leave . Whenever we see a problem like that , we don 't want any wild parties down there . We don 't want police problems . We just want it to be nice for everybody to live . I don 't - know what else to say . Batzli : If we have any questions , I 'm sure we 'll ask in a few moments . Thank you . Would anyone else like to address the Commission? It 's a public hearing , or at least I 'm running it as one for the time being . Ray Luis : I 'm Ray Luis . I 'm at 9071 Lake Riley Blvd . , across the bay - from the beachlot . At the last meeting I expressed some concern about several issues _ One of course was the noise . I understand that we 're not , that is a separate issue but the issue that I still would like to address is the issue of the effect on the lake that the boat launch ramp has . First of all , the DNR has created very strict rules about controlling potential spread of Eurasian Milfoil by boat trailers and the use of boat launch ramps and by having a launch ramp that 's not controlled , it opens up the lake to additional hazard from uncontrolled Eurasian Milfoil exposure . The other issue is the issue of erosion . I don 't know if the DNR has standards on boat launch ramps but as I look - at the boat launch ramp that 's on the beachlot , I see a partly earth filled and partly gravel launch ramp that has strong evidence of erosion . Whenever a rain occurs , I don 't see anything to stop soil from eroding _ down into the lake and erosion is a known problem for keeping nutrient levels of the lake under control . So I 'm very concerned about that and think that in this particular case , the overall good of the lake , and the lake quality , is to be used by the public and supported by the State , - should be considered as a higher priority than the established right and I think it 's purely a matter of convenience for the use of the launch ramp by the apartment dwellers . It 's really not very much trouble to - travel the quarter mile and use the launch ramp . The public launch ramp and that 's what the rest of us do . And by doing that , I think we would take one more step to insure or help insure the quality of the lake . So _ I 'd like to have that considered as the permit review process takes place . Batzli : Thank you . - Aanenson: Can I make a comment? . . .staff to look at having someone come out from the DNR to see if there 's separate ordinances that , separate from the permitting process that they may not be meeting and we can certainly look at that . Batzli : Okay . Would anyone else like to address the Commission? - Planning Commission Meeting September 2 , 1992 - Page 37 John Bushey : I 'm John Bushey . 9000 Riley Lake Road in Eden Prairie and I live just to the east of the beachlot in question . I have a couple questions . First of all , is the application also for a boat launch? Is that included in what they 're asking for? Batzli : Yes . John Bushey : That is included . And the other things , as I understand it , are for 10 parking spaces for boats or 7 boats and 10 parked cars or something like that and then the 30 foot dock . I guess I 'd like to state that I agree with Ray Luis on the erosion issue . I 've been studying the erosion problem into Lake Riley and this is not the only place where it is a problem but the sediment load into the lake is very high and this is definitely a source if you go and take a look at it right now . You can see erosion down through the gravel and into the soil . And it 's not the type of location that shows any evidence of maintenance in that sense , other than just dumping more dirt to be washed down in with the next rain . I don 't have any problem at all with the request for a dock on the use of the beachlot . It seems like a reasonable thing for the people who live in the apartments to have good use of the beach . I don 't see a need for a boat launch there . I don 't know , the question is the type of , is there any limitation on the type of boats that the 7 boats are supposed to be? Canoes or? Batzli : No . John Bushey : Any boats? Batzli : Any boats . John Bushey: If you take a survey through the parking lot , I think you ' ll see a lot of trailers with , the parking lot of the apartments . Not the beachlot . You 'll see a lot of trailers with boats and with , hold snowmobiles and the like and if that 's going to be the appearance down there , as viewed from Lake Riley Road or Lake Riley Blvd . on each side of the city line , that 's not a very attractive thing to be looking at is a bunch of boat trailers parked out there . And I think you should take that into consideration . Is there really a need to park boats on trailers a couple hundred yards closer to the lake than where they are already , particularly since you 've got to drive down to use the trailer anyway . So why not just keep the trailers up the parking lot where they are now . I guess as suggestions , which seems like a reasonable thing to do is to go ahead and grant the use of the dock and some limitation on the boat parking to canoes which are not easily transported . Or don 't need trailers to transport anyway and keep the boat launch , close the boat launch to alleviate the erosion problem and make it a more pleasant swimming area anyway if you don 't have launch traffic going on there . So it seems like that might be a reasonable compromise for the use of the lot and good of the people on the lake . Thank you . Batzli : Thank you . Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Erhart moved , Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed. Planning Commission Meeting September 2 , 1992 - Page 38 Erhart : I don 't have any problem with any of the things requested there I would like to address the boat launch . Do we have any right at all to ever close a private boat launch? - Aanenson : That 's what I was just mentioned before . That 's something that maybe we need to have the DNR go out and our staff too to look at , - if there 's erosion and those sort of things , that we can address separately as far as a policing kind of a thing . They are , the boat launch is grandfathered in but maybe there 's other things we need to do to . . .that situation . Erhart : Well okay . I think that 's one of the questions . . . I 'm not even sure if we even have the right to even regulate or to remove one . — Aanenson: Well there 's certain standards they have to meet , certainly . Erhart : Well yeah , that 's not what I asked . Second thing is , I guess that 's what I did ask . The second thing is that I agree , you know we have this storm water utility fund and all the committee meetings around and then the first thing we 're trying to get a hold of is any erosion ane- so , with regard to that , if there 's erosion here , we really ought to go out and get a handle on that and then come back with some ways to control this thing . I 'm not suggesting we eliminate it but I 'm suggesting that — if they 're going to have it , we get a handle on what 's going to be required to protect the city 's water and the neighboring citizens . And it may apply to all private boat launch . I don 't know how many private boat launches we 've got in the city . That 's it . Batzli : Do you feel comfortable that the applicant has demonstrated that they 've always had parking of boats down on the beachlot itself? Enough — to support that continued use . Erhart : Without any survey? How much are we expecting them to , I don 't _ know . How do you expect them to supply? Batzli : They haven 't supplied anything . Erhart : Have we asked them to? Okay , we 're not relying just on our lacl of a survey . Batzli : I 'm not . I mean I think we 've heard , there was tests , I should say there was a fuzzy picture that somebody gave us that there was a dock there . We know there was a dock there . We know there was a launch - there , based on what we 've heard from everybody coming in . I 've never heard from anybody that there 's always been storage of boats on the beachlot . Farmakes: If there was a launch there , why does it say no under 1991? Marge Anderson : We don 't store the boats at night down on the lake . _ There 's no parking . . . People have to remove their boats back behind our buildings after they 're through boating . . .or whatever so we don 't actually store them overnight down at the lake . Planning Commission Meeting September 2 , 1992 - Page 39 Farmakes: How long have you had a boat launch there? Marge Anderson: Forever . Farmakes : So the inventory 's mismarked? Aanenson: I did it in '91 . I may have missed it when I was out looking so . Donna Bohn: . . .one of the residents . . .prior to 1977 and . . .showed a dock and provided . . . Aanenson: They have it . Batzli : Yeah , we have that . The issue we 're discussing is whether there has been boat storage on the beachlot . Donna Bohn: I think what we 're talking about . . . Batzli : So you wouldn 't feel uncomfortable if we limited any boat storage to non-motorized boats down there? Donna Bohn : No . Marge Anderson : First of all . . .on a regular basis we don 't have overnight boat storage . Donna Bohn: Any larger boats . . .stored behind the building . Batzli : Okay . I think that 's what you were saying . That there 's boats back in the apartment building parking lot right? I 'm sorry , can you come forward and give us your name . Donna Bohn: My name is Donna Bohn and I am the property manager . And the loud parties that you have heard about are not all coming from Lakeview Hills . And while you have provided us with a police report , those are not all necessarily residents from our property . I understand from the police that they 've had a major problem this past year at various lakes , not just Lake Riley . We have a caretaker , several caretakers , two maintenance people , a manager , and assistant manager _ there . When we 're notified of any of these happenings , we try to first go down there and break it up . Get the people out of there . If not , then the police are called but the idea there is this property has about 52 acres of land and several hundred feet of lakeshore . This particular part that they use for a launching is for their resident 's use . Last year we put up a fence . We posted private parking . Violators would be towed . This year we put up another sign because last year the people that come off the street or maybe down the road had torn it down . So we are doing a lot of policing out there to try to keep this as an amenity for the people that we rent to . That 's part of the reason that they drive out to Chanhassen to live at this little property . It 's affordable housing is what it is and we 'd like to maintain that dock space and the ability of the residents to bring down a canoe or a fishing boat . They do a lot of fishing off of the dock too . Planning Commission Meeting September 2 , 1992 - Page 40 Batzli : Thank you . Where were we? Tim , were you done? Okay , Ladd . Conrad: I didn 't even know he started . What did you say? Erhart: I said we ought to deal with the launch in terms of regulating it and maybe that ought to extend to the off street parking as well . Again , I 'm not opposed to it but maybe in this situation where we 're — talking about apartment which is different than all the rest , is it what was concerned here is that we in fact assure that there 's a real effort made at this being used by the residents in terms of the parking and the — dock and the launch and all that . Maybe we could write that in as an additional requirement so that we can go back later when it 's not being done . Farmakes : A sticker or a gate or something? Erhart : Well , we just write it that they 're required to assure that the -- facilities he —facilities are . . .and then later on when it 's not , then they have to perform whatever 's required . Ledvina : That goes against the grade of what Kate said about as it relates to the attorney 's opinion as to the use . Aanenson: I guess it 's a police matter . I think we can go down there an inventory . If we go down there and we look up license plates and we find out that they 're not , then we send them a letter and they 're in violation of the ordinance . If we do that enough times and they ' ll come up with some other method to make sure that it 's controlled . Batzli : What ordinance are they in violation of? I missed that . _ Aanenson: We 're giving them a permit . They have to maintain that level of , we 've given them a permit that said they can do this . Whatever you decide you 're going to give them and if they 've not followed that , then - they 're in violation of that permit . Batzli : Well let 's say some people come from Eden Prairie and some from — Chaska and some from Lotus Lake and they launch their boat there and the) park their car down the road . What ordinance have they violated? If they don 't prosecure for trespassing , we have no control over that . Aanenson : I 'll have to ask the City Attorney on how you do that . Batzli : What we were still suggesting , even though we 're not supposed tc- be , is some level of control . Aanenson : I agree . — Batzli : So your control mechanism doesn 't help with at least what we were talking about . Aanenson : Yeah , we 're back to the level of use and the only thing we car do is if they 're not complying with that level of use . Planning Commission Meeting September 2 , 1992 - Page 41 Batzli : But if , it seems to me that the level of use is limited to the residents of the apartment building and that would be a legitimate level of use because that , in theory your private beachlot is just used by the owners which , or in this case tenants . That may be a legitimate condition . Aanenson: Well that 's what I 'm saying . Then they 're in violation of the permitting process and then you 'd send them a letter . Batzli : If we include that as a condition . Aanenson : I don 't think you have to include it . I think it 'd still be in violation but that would be up for Roger to say how we do . Batzli : So when you make the motion . Ladd . Conrad: The control is not good on the beachlot . And that concerns me a great deal . If only from the standpoint of checking for milfoil but also in terms of unauthorized use and you can 't tell me that the city and the police should be checking down there . And I don 't think that management has the ability to provide constant checking . So in my mind this is an uncontrolled beachlot . We may not be authorized to controlled it in this permitting process but we will have to go back and look at the beachlot ordinance because it 's just not controlled the way access to a lake has to be controlled . And I 'm not , you 'd have to live there next to the beachlot to control it , and you don 't . And you can 't be there at midnight so there 's something missing and we have to find that solution . _ I don 't really have a problem with what is being asked for , yet nothing 's been proven to me that it was there in '81 . There 's no information that I have in my packet that tells me what it was used for . There was a little picture but I just have very little information to make a decision on it whereas all other non-conforming beachlots came in with a lot of information and they put some energy into this and sometimes they sold more than what they really had rights to but they put some energy into it . I don 't see that here . And again it 's not to the point where I don 't think you could run a beachlot with allowing the things that you 're asking for because I think basically it 's not abusive but it 's not being managed properly and that 's what concerns me right now . And I don 't know how to solve that right now in terms of approving , well . The only thing I can say is , I don 't know what has been approved or what was there in '81 at this point in time . We don 't have control on the beachlot . It 's urgent in my mind , even though the season 's over with that we somehow have to find a mechanism that allows lots like this , and all beachlots to have some control , especially when it 's removed from , it has a distance away from really the people that it 's for . Batzli : You ask a lot of good questions . Conrad: Again tonight we can table this because I still don 't know enough to tell you the truth . That 's not solving my real problem however . My real problem is we don 't have any control on this beachlot . Zip . And I think the managers are saying they try , and I don 't dispute that . I don 't have any reason not to dispute that but the point is , it 's impossible to control that lot unless you put some kind of controlling Planning Commission Meeting September 2 , 1992 - Page 42 device on it . And whether that 's a keyed gate or something , we can 't have cars going through there that potentially can have milfoil . We can 't cars going through there that are potentially not the residents of the Lakeview Apartments and until that happens , I 'm just not comfortable granting a permit . Batzli : Okay . Matt . Ledvina : When we talked about this specific application about a month ago a question was asked , who 's burden of proof is it as it relates to - the use in 1981? We don 't have any information . There was no survey done in 1981 . We didn 't know it existed apparently so we do have a shrea of evidence that was supplied by Leo Ganglehoff and it says that there was a dock in 1981 and that there has been a dock there since the day I moved in . Included is a photo of a dock in 1977 . We also had discussioi. and testimony from some of the individuals , the public that attended and I distinctly recalling someone mentioned that that dock was used for a - period of two years as someone 's deck on their house . So I think that discussion would cast a big of a shadow of doubt on the information that 's essentially the only shred of evidence that we have . So going - back to the theory that the association has to prove their case , I don 't believe that there is any substantial evidence in this situation . I think there 's also the concerns that have been raised previously with the uncontrolled activities there and erosion . The milfoil . All very serious issues . I guess at this point I think the , we tried to impress upon the association the need to provide the information and perhaps it doesn 't exist . So I would either be in favor of tabling this applicatio• or denying it on that basis . Batzli : Jeff . - Farmakes: I 'm I guess a little confused about what we 're supposed to be doing here tonight . It 's my understanding , based on what I 've read here and what I 've heard the applicant say , that we 've got to be consistent - here as to how we 're addressing this to the other beachlots , even though it 's an apartment building . I don 't think we were clarifying that there 's any difference . This is a non-conforming recreational beachlot . - The first thing that I look at here is , I don 't think that our citizens are on trial here . I don 't think they have to provide beyond a reasonable doubt that they had a dock there . If the city staff is comfortable that there was some documentation to this , or taking into account that the city didn 't inventory this area . Perhaps there 's something in the tax records or something that there was a developed beachlot there . It seems to me that some situation can . . .there as to - what an established use was in 1981 . It 's not listed on here and the only thing I see here from the city is that they didn 't inventory it . So I think just as a pragmatic issue I think and some of the other evidence - that we saw from some of the other beachlots , I don 't know if it would stand up in a court of law or something and I 'm not lawyer but it would seem to me that for the most part we took some liberty with that , that they were telling us the truth . I agree with the issue of , if we establish that issue and that we agree that that use was there in '81 , and that they 're not asking or expanding whatever that use was , and that 's clarified to where the staff is comfortable with that , then the - Planning Commission Meeting September 2 , 1992 - Page 43 issue of the launch , certainly I agree with that . That it 's uncontrolled and measures should be taken but I 'm not sure that that 's part of this . Of what we 're looking at here . I thought what we 're dealing with here is the expansion beyond '81 and there 's so many different problems with the recreational beachlot or dredging out a marina or each one is sort of different and if we get into saying yes or no to the present day development , rather than looking at it as an expansion from '81 , we 're sort of getting away from what we 've been doing . So what I 'd like to do is to sum up , is to establish what the use was in '81 where the City 's comfortable with that and then deal with any of these other issues . If you want to table that and deal with that later , I have no problem with that . Batzli : Do you think that we have an acceptable evidence of what was on the beachlot in 1981? Farmakes: Presently , I think we have one photograph . However , the city has admitted that there may have been . They didn 't inventory it . So unless they have , I 'd say a reasonable case that there wasn 't any there , they should sit down and try to come up either with something or take the position that comes up with a guesstimate as to what they can live with , — both parties . Erhart : That 's the point . Staff is not saying that there wasn 't 10 off street parking lots in '81 . Farmakes : I would assume that taxation , whoever came and looked at the property every 6 years , has a figured use in there . If they have 120 feet of developed lakeshore , then you 've got , you 're getting taxed differently . Conrad: Yeah , but that won 't tell you whether there were stalls for 10 . Farmakes : Correct . Maybe there 's neighbors . Maybe there 's somebody , _ some more people other than this one photograph . Obviously it 's a little light . Erhart : Well I guess my view is , Brian if you don 't feel that there were 10 parking spots , or if you want more research that needs to be done , I think staff should do that and just table it . Where there isn 't much information here . I don 't think it 's left to us to be the research agent on this . Aanenson : I don 't think it 's the staff 's position either . We haven 't done any research . We 've always asked the applicants to provide that for us . The ones that were surveyed , we just said this is our best information . If you 've got something other than that , then you need to present that . We have never gone . Erhart : Do you feel that 10 parking stalls is appropriate for this? _ Aanenson: That 's really for you guys to decide . All we 're doing is presenting . I wasn 't here in '81 . Planning Commission Meeting September 2 , 1992 - Page 44 Erhart : I know . . .as it is today . Aanenson: Can the beachlot hold that many? Certainly . It 's a big beachlot . Farmakes: When were the stalls put in? There must be a record of whoever put them in . Who built them? — Aanenson: Frankly , I don 't think they 're stalls . They just pull over . It 's a pull over . — Farmakes: Well the purpose of what we 're doing here , correct or wrong , that we 're not supposed to be expanding the use from '81 . Batzli : True . Conrad: Okay , then the point is that the 10 , let 's just take one point — on the off street parking . There really aren 't any stalls there . Farmakes: That would be an expansion . — Conrad : So 10 is an expansion . Erhart : Then we shouldn 't say stalls on the form . It 's says off street parking . What does that mean? Does it have to be asphalt? It doesn 't say it has to be asphalt . It doesn 't say it has to have lines . Do the other ones have asphalt and lines? — Aanenson: Some didn 't , no . Conrad: Nobody 's asked for 10 off street parking . Aanenson: There 's no rules in this one . Batzli : I think the more difficult thing is , and if you 're looking at this with an eye toward , we 're comparing it some other beachlots and the difficult thing is , in this apartment I 'm sure they 've had one heck of a — lot more turn over . Aanenson: I was going to say , it 's transient by nature . It 's much more difficult for them to provide information . Batzli : And they won 't have Minutes . They won 't have little dues collected for , I mean I don 't know what they 're supposed to give us . Conrad: But it 's their job to do whatever it takes . Erhart : Let 's try another approach here . Let 's say we come back and approve that street and following that it would be logical to actually put stalls in because now the street 's got curb and gutter and everything . How would you do that and how many could you hold — reasonably? Aanenson: Parking on the street or parking in the beachlot? — Planning Commission Meeting September 2 , 1992 - Page 45 Erhart : No , on the beachlot . Aanenson: It 's a pretty big beachlot . Erhart : In the area you have , could it support 10 asphalted parking lots with lines? Aanenson: Yeah , I 'd certainly say it could . Conrad: I don 't know that you 'd want that there . Erhart : I 'm not saying you want it . I 'm just trying to , versus what? Conrad: I just don 't know that the beachlot 's purpose is to store cars . Erhart : No , but there 's other beachlots with off street parking . How are they doing theirs? Aanenson: Well most of them use , and I think that 's what they said is that they go down there . They park their cars while they launch their boats and they pull them out at night and they pull them behind the apartment building . I think they stated that they 're not sitting there overnight and that 's what Frontier Trail does . That 's what a lot of them do . They pull their boats down there and leave their cars there while they 're in the water . Erhart : That 's on street parking? Or it 's off street . Aanenson: Off street . Erhart : So they just drive it out in the lot . Aanenson: When they 're done at the end of the day . Erhart : Do they have a single access point? Here you just pull off to the side . So everybody backs out on the street again to get out of it . Is that correct? Batzli : Probably turn around on the lot . Aanenson : You can turn around on the lot . It 's sufficient size . Erhart : Then it supports 10 . Batzli : Well , just to put in my two cents worth . I think from what we 've heard , there was a beachlot there . There was probably a dock . I don 't know if there were boats there or not . I don 't know if there was offstreet parking or not . We 're trying to determine whether , trying to limit the use of this back to '81 levels . I 'd like to ask the applicants you know , do you have any records or any way to determine what was there in '81? Donna Bohn: I 'm sure that we can dig them up . . . if you look at the picture you can see that there was a pontoon boat and fishing boat on the Planning Commission Meeting September 2 , 1992 - Page 46 side of that . . . Batzli : . . . it doesn 't mention off street parking . It doesn 't mention _ the 7 boats . I mean it 's clear from looking at that that picture there 's at least 2 boats but I think what the commission is not yet comfortable with in it 's own mind is that there is no other evidence at all up to the level that you 're requesting and our task here tonight is to determine — what that level was . So what it sounds like we 're going to do is table it and let you have a chance to demonstrate to us that you did have these kinds of things back in '81 because right now there 's nothing in the — record at all , and we need to do that to be fair to the other applicants We made the other applicants do this and I think we 're going to have to ask you to do a little digging . Is there a motion? _ Erhart : yeah , I ' ll move to table the decision on this . Farmakes: Second it . — Batzli : Any discussion? Erhart moved , Batzli seconded to table the Non-conforming Use Permit for a Recreational Beachlot for Lakeview Hills Apartments Homeowners Association for further information . All voted in favor and the motion carried . Erhart : Let 's make sure that we 've got for Kate exactly what we want to see when we come back with this . We want to see more information from — the applicant about the 10 parking lots . That 's one issue . Or the 10 . Batzli : The off street parking . The boats on land . — Erhart : And the boats on land . Batzli : I 'm comfortable that there was a beachlot there with a launch and a dock . Erhart : Yeah , so you don 't have to waste any time with that . — Batzli : I mean I 'm sure that as digging up other information , that 's going to be in there as well but Ladd , are you comfortable with those things? I mean I just lightly said I 'm comfortable that there was a beachlot there . Conrad : Yes . - • Ledvina : I guess I would like to see more documentation on the dock . The existence at that time . If that 's possible . - Conrad: Again , this can be a resource that is real valid for the Lakeview Apartment owners . Don 't get our comments wrong because it can _ be a good resource but again , I think we have to make sure that it 's the right resource in that neighborhood and also it 's got to be controlled and that , I guess I , well . As a separate item but it 's still what I 'd Planning Commission Meeting _ September 2 , 1992 - Page 47 like to have staff report back on is how we can get our hands around the control issue . Erhart : What 's the current ordinance? Conrad: And if that means revoking the beachlot , this permit , because of abuse or something , I need to know that . Aanenson : We ' ll also look at the boat launch issue and the erosion . Conrad: And any kind of ordinance changes that just doesn 't single this out but ordinance changes that really reflects on control for boat access and primarily again I 'm real concerned with milfoil . Obviously Riley has it but there 's absolutely no reason that we have to continue adding to it — and that 's an issue that I think deserves some attention on all lakes , and I think this issue , this particular property is a little bit different but there may be properties like this in the future . So I _ just , I would hope that we could talk to the applicant a little bit about , I 'd rather negotiate a deal on that so we can somehow get some control rather than changing ordinances . But if that 's what it takes , we 're going to have to do something in an ordinance to somehow get our — hands around unauthorized use of that property . Batzli : Okay . Thank you very much for coming in . Due to the , are you sitting around waiting for the fence? I would rather table the fence and get onto the other stuff . Al-Jaff : That 's fine . Krauss: Before everybody leaves , I think we 'd like to renotify them of the next time this is going to be on . Since this is a holiday and with — Target being on the next agenda , I 'm not sure we can turn this around to the next meeting . So we ' ll send out notices . ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING FENCE REQUIREMENTS . ( TABLED ) Batzli : If you guys want to pass the fence , you can . Erhart : I think we ought to do the fence when Steve is here . He 's big on this fence thing . — Batzli : Well I live on a corner lot , I don 't like this . Okay . Farmakes : Do you have a fence? Batzli : No , but I was thinking about building one . I 'll have to run to Menards tomorrow . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated August 19 , 1992 as presented . Planning Commission Meeting September 2 , 1992 - Page 48 CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Krauss: Well I really don 't want to waste time going through it unless — you want me to but one thing I do want to tell you is when you get home tonight , in your mail you ' ll probably find a brochure for the State Regional Planning Conference that 's here at the end of September . I — think it 's a pretty good conference . There are some good tracks in the thing . There are some specific things for Planning Commissioners that may or may not prove to be of interest . You don 't have to go to it all . It 's over in the St . Paul Hotel . 23 , 24 , and 25 of September . If you — want to go , let me know . We 'll pop for it . Batzli : There 's a big legal seminar coming up on maintenance and — managing wetlands . Did you see that? It 's one of the people that we 've got hired as an expert is going to speak at it I think . I 'm going to fax you a copy tomorrow . Krauss : It 's in Brooklyn Park? Batzli : I don 't remember . I ' ll fax a copy to you tomorrow . I was — interested in seeing that . Did somebody from Larkin , is speaking and somebody from I think one of the people that we 've hired as an expert somewhere along the line . Or I 've heard their name . Anyway . It just _ struck me as you were talking about that other . Krauss: Like I say , if you do want to go , we ' ll gladly pay for it . Conrad: I went through that real quickly and I didn 't see . . .stuff that you think we should be attending . Krauss : Well there 's a lot of design oriented stuff that might be kind of interesting . There 's some specific wetland stuff . Conrad: Why go if we know it all? Krauss: I can 't answer that . I think it 's unfortunate the brochure came out about 3 weeks later than it should but I think it 's got a good range — of things . We have , I got Bill Morrish to do some discussions there . . . Erhart : One day? Is it a one day seminar? — Krauss : No , it 's actually 3 days but Planning Commissioners , for a nominal fee I can have you folks drop in and drop out at your leisure . Erhart : And where is it? Krauss: St . Paul Hotel . — ONGOING ITEMS: Batzli : Anything on our ongoing issues? Or can we blow right by that and get onto the good stuff . Did you change the status of anything on here? Planning Commission Meeting September 2 , 1992 - Page 49 Krauss: I always change it . Batzli : You probably took something off , and we didn 't even notice . Ledvina : Look at the asterick . Batzli : Yeah , but he puts these astericks on there and it 's like he corrects the spelling and then that 's a change or something . Or he moves it to be reviewed by Planning Commission in , it used to be July and he moved it back to September . OPEN DISCUSSION: Batzli : Let 's do entry monument and stuff like that here . This is open discussion . Or do you want to do Fred first? Krauss: Well I ' ll leave it up to you . In interest of the last hour , which project , I guess I ' ll ask the City Manager . Which project do you see as more timely? The monuments and the . . . JEFF FARMAKES - ENTRY MONUMENT AND PAULY, PONY , PRYZMUS CORNER DESIGN CONCEPTS , REVIEW AND DISCUSSION. Krauss : Just briefly , because I want to bounce this back to Jeff . For the last couple years the HRA has been looking into entrance monumentation at major intersections on Highway 5 . The reason is to make sure people know that they 're entering Chanhassen . That this is not just another community of strip roads and tip up buildings . That this is our downtown and there 's been , one of the primary entrance points that 's been looked at for media work is the Market Blvd . one and TH 5 . There 's been a series of designs . . .working with an architectural firm and they 've developed a couple and the HRA was not terribly enamored I guess with any of them and City Council wasn 't either . I think everybody had their favorites but one of the things the Council did is they said , well we 're _ not able to make a decision at this point . Why don 't we throw it open to see if we have a creative resident or two that might come up with something . Well Jeff filled that role and actually came up with some designs for an entrance monument and also for the Pauly , Pony , Pryzmus block which again , I don 't think we ' ll have time to get into tonight . He 's done a lot of work and was quite creative on that and came before the HRA with some success . I wasn 't at that meeting but I believe , what I heard is that they were quite comfortable with what Jeff had proposed . Now if you recall back to January , we had agreed with you that we would try to bring you on stream with HRA developed projects so that you have input into them before they 're set in concrete . So that 's why we 're bringing to you these three things tonight . And with that maybe Jeff , if you want to explain the . . . Farmakes : Well , part of what you said is correct . I actually worked on the monumentation sign as a part of the presentation that I made that had to revolve around city identity . On how the City 's handling identity . Identity being a logo useage and buildings , architectural and other uses . I did this as an example . Not this particular drawing but a different drawing dealing more in relationship with image of the leaf and type and Planning Commission Meeting September 2 , 1992 - Page 50 so on . It was more in a generic form . It was a generic discussion . Not necessarily as a monument solution . This was somewhat revised based on Barton-Aschmann , and I can 't remember the other firm . But anyway , this — was revised and then I brought it back at their request at the second HRE meeting and on this particular piece here , I could describe , I don 't have anything prepared here but basically it 's an element of a 30 sculpture — with bronze and copper of the image of the leaf and then something to encase it so it doesn 't fall over , on a Chaska ashlar , limestone type of semi circle which basically I think you 've seen here . Some time ago they brought forward a skirt design which this actually evolved from . For a - landscaping plan at TH 5 and Market Blvd . . We just saw the one plan I think at that time . And that was just an example that I used because it was sitting around here as to incorporate some of the critique issues — revolving in signage . So we wound up with this . And it deals with the elements of readability of type . Of image and it hasn 't been evaluated to actual site testing which still concerns me . That hasn 't been done up to this point . At least as far as I know . In other words , the size relationship as it is . I used the same size relationship as the architect who originally was working on the concept and it 's quite close . Within a few feet . Paul , is there anything more there that I 'm leaving — out? Krauss: No . I don 't think so except that you elude to the fact that this fits into a background . This is one element of , there 's a landscaping scheme behind it and I think we still have the open water part . Basically the other elements if you ' ll recall . There was one option that had a 50 foot high , somewhat monolithic . . .with a maple leaf — cut out of the interior lighting and the other one was an equally high clock tower kind of like the clock tower we have here but on stilts . Farmakes : I think there were two . The landscape plan that the architect came back with . One was nothing back there and some flagstone and some prairie grass . Is that right? I didn 't go through the designations of _ all the plantings but I think there was like a prairie grass thing . And then another one was more of a formal planting in the center of the semi circle and then kind of falling back into some larger ornamental tree . Krauss: Getting a sense of presence at that intersection is kind of tough . It really is on the edge of where the prairie starts in our community . It 's quite open and you 've got 8 lanes of traffic and turning- lanes . It really needs to be of significant size . Farmakes : And again , the site testing issue though , there 's two questions of a monument . One is , that you can see it from 20 miles away For example would be a highway type sign that you see coming into Hinkle that 's 120 feet tall . Another issue is that it identifies a place and that you see it in a reasonable amount of time to identify that it serve - the mark . This is not as tall but it , at approximately that size it should be able to be seen from a considerable distance down the highway . As a structure or to identify this is Chanhassen . But again , site — testing would be the issue here where they take character letters cut out at that size . Site evaluation . Whether or not if it 's built up or the ground level is built up at all or contoured . All that needs to be evaluated . — Planning Commission Meeting September 2 , 1992 - Page 51 Batzli : You say this is a Chaska brick yellow kind of? Farmakes: I 'm referring to the Chaska brick which is an early pioneer stoning product that they have around here . An ashlar pattern which to me is a random building pattern . That 's a concept sketch . It 's not a building plan so you might want to pass that around because it 's quite faint from here . Batzli : Well what do you want , is our purpose tonight Paul to take a look at it and tell the HRA to go with it or is our purpose tonight to just say , say what? Krauss: Well , it 's kind of tough . I mean this particular one is kind of tough with you because you 're not , I guess we didn 't plan to give you the three options to go with but it seems to me the HRA is focusing in on this design . See this is a real early stage . I mean the thing is not finalized to come to you for a site plan approval for example . Batzli : But if we hate it , you want to know that now? Krauss : Yeah , that would help . Batzli : Okay . Erhart : Where does this go? Krauss : Just south of the bank . Erhart : That 's the only one? Just one of these . Krauss : Well we 're doing other things at other intersections but they 're likely to be different . Erhart : This is the big , most expensive one . What does it cost to build something like this? Krauss: I don 't know what the cost is . Farmakes : The indication that they made , they have a budget obviously but the indication was that it was actually less than what they had originally envisioned . I think they had a 60 foot tower or something behind there plus the skirt . Erhart : What is that? Farmakes: I haven 't seen the budget . The overall working budget for that item . I didn 't design it to budget . Ashworth: $60 ,000 .00 to $80 ,000 .00 . This will be a fraction of that amount . I don 't know what fraction but under . . . Erhart : For this monument? Planning Commission Meeting September 2 , 1992 - Page 52 Ashworth: I have not asked the Barton-Aschman to do a revised estimate on this one but Jeff . Farmakes: Well , the basic building materials are there minus the brick , 60 foot vertical element behind it . It 's a bit bigger . It 's slightly bigger . The stone is relatively , if you get a nice produce that 's relatively low cost and has high durability . There 's some items around — here that have been here for 110-120 years . The sculpturing and the green fatining should limit any type of maintenance to pretty minimal . You get again a quality image versus say precast plastic or something like that where with the copper , you get a varying look . It 's not flat grained . It 's probably the closest example that you 'd see around here o, that would be the water , Northwest Airlines when you go in there . The waters I think it is . The green fatina letter , copper lettering . Batzli : Well , I personally like it . I just hope I never am the one that has to retuck point it in about 50 years but . I 've had to do that on a - couple of Chaska brick buildings and I 'm better at hitting my thumb than the end of the chisel after about 3 days of that . So does anybody hate it? Conrad: Just a couple of questions . Why is the ring around the outside of the leaf? Jeff , is this for support? Is it a design element? Farmakes: You have a three dimensional sculpture , it 's kind of a serrated edges there if you 're doing a leaf . You have to beef up the leaf a little bit to make sure that somebody doesn 't come by and kick it - in . If a brass element or bronze element goes around it , it 's going to give it some stability . Conrad: If you weren 't concerned with stability , would you design it differently? Farmakes: With that image and the amount of the weight that that would - be , I would be concerned about stability . Conrad: Really? Farmakes: Yeah , definitely . Somebody could get hurt . Conrad : So you 're talking , how big is that leaf? 4 feet? Farmakes: Probably at least that . Probably closer to 6 . Between 5 and 6 feet . Plus if it 's 3 dimensional , there 's going to be some weigh to - it . • Conrad : That 's another thought . You picked the leaf obviously . I know why but did you ever have any inclination to put like a . . .random sculpture there? Something that 's . . . Farmakes : Actually , the purpose of this is potentially a vertical sculpture or something could go behind there at a later date . In the garden area . But the issue of the leaf I think , that 's another issue that we talked about . That 's another kettle of worms which actually thia Planning Commission Meeting September 2 , 1992 - Page 53 started from . It was discussing the issue of how unfocused Chanhassen 's identity is becoming as far as signage goes . We use several different applications but the leaf seems to be the most readily identifiable useage that we 've got to this date . Batzli : The only concern I actually have is , would be that if we did choose a maple leaf , which is Maple Grove , Maple Lake . You know if you talk about trademark , likelihood of confusion , everybody and their mother uses a maple leaf . So it is the most readily identifiable but yet people don 't necessarily identify it with Chanhassen . — Farmakes : You 're correct . We didn 't identify it . The name reflects that , as I understand from the history , but the other issue is that , really we need to be identified by the communities that we surround . Obviously there 's going to be other areas that are going to use tree symbols or leaf patterns . It seems that the leaf identifies us from the communities that surround us . We also use a sailboat which is used by Excelsior and Minnetonka so that , the point I guess is not that I made and a different issue than this , was that we should firm that up or look at that . It hasn 't been looked at in a long time and it 's I think circuit goes back to when this was going to be kind of a western dell and the development that you see over by MGM and I 'm not sure how relevant that is . Batzli : Yeah . Well I think this is a real good effort and I applaud those efforts . I think you did a nice job . I think you 're right . You do want to concentrate probably on the communities surrounding us . Using Maple Grove and Maple Lake aren 't , I think Maple Plain probably uses a maple leaf too but I guess that 's not so big of a concern . I think it 's the arrival and the identification . You have arrived in Chanhassen . Farmakes: Subliminally , those types of elements are natural elements too . It gives it a positive image to the city . It 's one that generically acceptable as being a good thing . Good pleasant image . Batzli : Well I guess I 'd like to see him proceed in this fashion unless you guys would like to voice your displeasure one way or another . That 's what we 're here for . If you don 't like it , say so . Ledvina : I think the concept is very good . I like the idea of breaking . Originally we had a solid wall all the way across and that was the first thing that we saw . Essentially from a plainer perspective , a rectangle and this gives it just so much more interest , in my view . So I like it a lot . Conrad: I like the dimension of the brick on the bottom . I guess I 'm just thinking that , I don 't have a need to project maple leaf . Chanhassen says who we are and maple leaf has never , you know we 're not Daytons where you show a logo and you know that it means Daytons . So I 'm struggling saying okay , is the maple leaf what I want to see there? And I don 't have a real , I like the foundation a lot . I think that 's neat . I 'm just questioning whether we have to project the leaf . Planning Commission Meeting September 2 , 1992 - Page 54 Farmakes : Typical city useages are logos on cars . On police , fire , water towers . They tend to be more viewer friendly . Batzli : Viewer friendly but it 's used in connection with the services that the city is providing . It functions no differently than any other service or trademark . Farmakes: Sure . Batzli : It 's recognizable that this is Chanhassen service . Water tower firemen , policemen , whatever . Farmakes: No question but like any other trademark , they typically throv— more in than type to allow for some creativity of image . Conrad: Tim 's the art critic . Erhart : It looks great to me . Batzli : Okay , let 's move on to the next . Krauss : As this design gets refined , we ' ll make sure you get another look . — FRED HOISINGTON - CONCEPTS FOR DOWNTOWN, HOTEL EXPANSION, RESTAURANT , CONVENTION AND ATHLETIC CENTER ON THE OLD INSTANT WEBB/BOWLING CENTER SITE , REVIEW AND DISCUSSION . Krauss : The next one , I guess the last one for tonight , is a real exciting project that 's coming together very rapidly . It takes place in an area that 's been a problem from a planning standpoint for years . Nobody 's quite been able to figure out what to do with the back of the — Dinner Theatre area with the bowling alley area . And it 's taking on new prominence given it 's location from the new intersection . The City 's been rapidly developing some plans over there for a conference convention center . We asked Fred to come here tonight to give you an overview of how it lays out _ Again , this is a project that 's not fully developed but if rapidly , the design is rapidly materializing so you 're getting an early peak at it and I don 't think we have any elevations or anything — like that to show you yet but Fred 's going to tell you about the layout and how it comes together . Fred Hoisington: I 'm beginning to believe that there 's a conspiracy to , whenever Fred 's name is . . .don 't get to him until after 10: 30 . Batzli : You just made it by 2 minutes tonight . - Fred Hoisington: I remember only one time I think that I 've ever been on before 10:30 so we 're right on schedule . At least I am . Paul called ancl- indicated that it would be appropriate at this point if I would present some preliminary ideas about how the south side of West 78th Street might be redeveloped . As Tim and Ladd and Brian know , we 've been struggling _ with this last project . . .at least the city in that case owns the land but Planning Commission Meeting September 2 , 1992 - Page 55 in this case , this is a very difficult project to put together with some very good reasons for that . As you know , those of you who have a close sort of relationship in this area , everything faces onto West 78th Street for the most part . The bowling center does have a slightly different — orientation to the west and slightly to the south . But because it orients in that direction , this is the back side and it 's not only the back side but it 's downhill . It 's not on the same level as West 78th Street so our problem has always been , how can you make it , whatever happens here , either orient to the block to West 78th Street or create a new focus on the back side . And we 've never found a use . That 's always been a problem . We 've not been able to find a use that 's a viable use — for this location because of it 's tendency to be rather invisible . Let me tell you just briefly about some of the alternatives that have been considered . The ones that preceeded . . . The one alterantive that has _ been thought about to a great degree is trying to create a commercial or retail kind of focus on the back side . That 's very difficult to do but it can be done . It can be done by orienting the retail to Market Square across the street and essentially obliterating everything that 's in the back part of this block . It doesn 't relate well to everything else that 's occurring here but if the market is there for some additional retail in this area , this could represent a fairly good interface . — Across the street from Market Square . Another alternative is kind of to leave it as it is . I say that , re-use the buildings as they 're currently be re-used for permanent use or at least use the ones that are vacant . And what that says is we have a very difficult . . .who 's best use is probably a building center , lumber yard or something of that nature . So if we 're looking at keeping what 's here , we 're looking at sort of quasi commercial or retail sort of use out the back side which is not consistent with the Comp Plan . Not consistent with the zoning . As you know some of the uses that exist in this building over the past several years have been contrary to your zoning code but Paul has been very — generous in allowing sort of an interim use of these buildings and that 's been fine . But I don 't see that that 's long term future for this side of the street . The third alternative , broad alternative sort of is _ recreation/entertainment center . The neat thing about that is , the ingredients are already here . At least some of them are . This one being the most important . This one being supportive in nature but there are possibilities for other things that would interconnect this and perhaps — create it 's own focus and allow for the total reorientation of the block to the back side . Now let me tell you some of the things that we 've had to consider in this case . We have been forced to look at . We know for example , and I 'm assuming you do as well , that the scene shop wants to move and the scene shop is currently in this building . If you recall and they would like to go someplace else and there 's been some discussion the scene shop could go into the Frontier building , the lower . . .or that it might reasonably expect to have another location . We know that the hotel and the restaurant or that the hotel wants to expand and that there may be a need for another restaurant here . Or a restaurant . We know that — the hotel meeting space is deficient . They need some and that the hotel itself is willing to make commitment to build some of that kind of space here and we know there needs to be a linkage of that space and of the hotel to the Dinner Theatre . Filly 's elimination would be helpful . That 's been part of the reason that we 've had difficulty with anything occurring here and probably one of the reasons that the community center Planning Commission Meeting September 2 , 1992 - Page 56 was not approved in this location in the past because it was not a compatible land use . We also need to create a focus but we have to mitigate as much as we can the adverse side of this block . The railroad tracks are not a real plus here and the back side of the Dinner Theatre is not either and it sticks up in the air a long ways so how do you create something that is a barrier but that also makes sense in this location . Then the City has some meeting space needs . There is apparently a need for some city recreational development . Not necessarily here but this seems an appropriate place for it if the right blend of ingredients might occur here . There 's a need for pedestrian - access to link the whole thing together and of course there 's the need t4 phase , the need to satisfy political realities . But nonetheless , the existing condition , a very difficult one and one that needs to be - addressed , could be addressed in a number of different fashions . Some o the things that were considered , in the way of concepts here , were those that eliminated everything . Those that re-use everything . Those that _ re-use portions of , especially the bowling center building and built the new development and attached it to it . And the conclusion we reached after all of that as far as preliminary fashion . I don 't mean to suggest to you that this was the final because a feasibility analysis that still - needs to be done with respect to this project and that 's one of the reasons that important to the Planning Commission to give us at least some feedback . But this is the one that seems to be the most - appropriate . If we can expect the convention type facility here , someplace in this development I think we can expect a community center element in this block . That gives us the focus for the back side of this block . And all of that element constructed in this area . . . The bowling center , according to this plan would perhaps be public owned by the HRA and operated by a private developer . Something . . .perhaps the same person that is there . The Cinema is something that we kind of use interchangeably and I don 't know if Paul . . .parking analysis for this or not . We 're kind of , a couple of the proposals that have been thrown out by Mr . Johnson , Greg Johnson has been , there might be a cinema , there - might be a restaurant and there might also be a bowling center and so we 've evaluated a number of those and we have some parking . . .with a cinema and a bowling center and some ancillary use here , in addition to all this going to be supportive to the parking that 's here . So the - distribution isn 't perfect . . .overall parking would be adequate . One of the things that would help us a great deal in screening the south side of the Dinner Theatre would be able to go , be able to build a building in - this location . And a scene shop would be an appropriate use because thi! relationship is a very strong one . Building that they are currently in is inadequate and clearly incidental part of the Dinner Theatre complex _ so if it could be designed correctly , this could be a very important par of this whole complex . To say nothing of what it would do to screen the Dinner Theatre from the south side from the views from TH 5 . So this , one of the reasons that this concept is elongated as it is is because of - that along with . . . lose is a degree of efficiency in the complex itself because of that very elongation . The hotel 's here . This is the expansion proposed and essentially what these people are saying is , if we- can ecan get some of these elements in place , they will expand . The meeting space is an existing building . The retail , we 're suggesting perhaps a restaurant would occur in this gap next to the Dinner Theatre and that this all could be re-used or new . We 're not willing to state at this Planning Commission Meeting September 2 , 1992 - Page 57 point to which it ought to be because it . . .distant future before anything occurs in this particular case . What we 're saying is that there should be two phases . First phase will include the auditorium and convention and athletic facility and it would be built perhaps , and a pool . Perhaps this much could be built in phase 1 and the private sector could respond and the scene shop , the restaurant here , hotel expansion , meeting space and then the cinema and/or restaurant in this location . So we have a real , truly public/private sort of partnership of making this project work . The second phase then would be either a community center , if in fact it is politically correct to have a community center here , or to have the option to have retail as that element . And so there you have it . This sort of puts everything together . It uses all of the space that 's here . Retaining the park and ride lot . Providing for bus parking for the Dinner Theatre in this location . Perhaps elsewhere but it does work marginally in this location . And we think finally all the ingredients may be here for the project and I guess we 'd like your feedback and know where you stand and . . . — Batzli : Market Square is just across Market Blvd . there so we 're looking at the back side of a big Festival Foods or whatever it is . Does this tie in at all to that or how are we , it looks like you 've got it — landscaped a little bit along that edge but are just kind of ignoring it and saying well , we 're looking at the back side so forget it . Let 's just concentrate here . Fred Hoisington: We 're really not looking at the back side . We are looking at the wall . We 're looking at the side of Market Square . And we 're really leaving this much , well really all of this pretty much as it — is . This will tend to focus or orient south . Of course Market Square is here and orients toward West 78th Street . The two are sufficiently different but they don 't necessarily have to interrelate but I don 't see them in conflict at all . It seems to me the two can co-exist with whatever their respective orientations with no problem at all . Krauss: One of the real important orientations to view this from too is , if you 're eastbound on TH 5 or if you 're coming north on the highway up to Market Blvd . , you 're confronted with that red neon bowling sign on a 40 foot high tip up panel building and then the back of a former lumber yard and over the tops you kind of see where there 's the church steeple and the oak trees and the town gets nice again . We 've often talked about ways to get new facades on the building . Well in one fell swoop here this pretty much does it for us . And it 's real interesting to see how the views are developing there . Stand out by the new bank and look back this way . That 's probably the most , that is going to be main street Chanhassen _ That is our million dollar street , if we have one . Fred Hoisington : What we 're getting . . .to carry through what Paul is saying is , as part of the proposal , not only would this all be built . . . everything new from here to here but we would also rennovate this building facade . . . Batzli : What do you think Ladd? Planning Commission Meeting September 2 , 1992 - Page 58 Conrad: I don 't know . It looks pretty . First reaction is , it looks like we 're pushing everything indoors . You know we have a community center and stuff like that and I guess I have , I like to see walkways and_ places outside for people . I 'm sure you have parking situation that is really a concern but that 's my first reaction is we 've got stuff inside . And I don 't know what the uses are that should be there . I think it 's - accomplishing some of the things that staff or Fred want to . I 'm just trying to sink into , do I want people . It looks like a big shopping center from looking down on it and I 'm not real wild about big shopping centers . I kind of like places for people to walk . If we 've got a - community center , I 'd kind of like to think that people could be outside by that center . But I know the restrictions . I know there are parks close by but that 's my first reaction . The other thing is we have the Soo Line there . I assume we 're not part of , that 's not going to be used for anything . And Fred you said , it 's a liability . That is a liability . We can 't , there 's no asset value in the road right there huh? Fred Hoisington: Well Ladd we can do some things in the way of landscaping and one of the things we talked about for a long time and one of the things that we 're proposing here is to perhaps some of that - existing Soo Line right-of-way could be acquired . And if not , to do some landscaping within their right-of-way as a part of this . It is an indoor sort of environment . There 's no question about that and we 'd like to see an internal connection that would come from the hotel expansion and come down into this lobby and continue along the back side of the main space in the front end of the retail and the Dinner Theatre . We think that is kind of a critical part of this whole concept . On the other hand , we don 't preclude , this is only a concept . This is not the detailed final plan and we are not precluding an exterior . We see this whole outside edge here is also providing pedestrian access so I don 't necessarily look_ at it as a totally internalized thing . I think it has some . . . Conrad: Do you feel it fits in with all the , the negatives about malls _ these days? There are a lot of negatives on shopping malls . Fred Hoisington: What kind of negatives are you talking about? Conrad : Places that people really don 't want to go to . I guess you track from the Star and Tribune . Fred Hoisington : The regional malls , people want to go to the regional malls . I mean there 's no question . There 's a real strong attraction there . When it comes to the smaller malls , you have so many of them that we over supplied the marketplace and as a result people are not going there because there aren 't enough dollars to spend on all of these centers . Conrad: The regional malls , people are looking for a controlled , predictable environment . Is that what you 're providing here? Or is this just a collection of stores? Is this a mall? Fred Hoisington : Well , I don 't know that it . Conrad : What is this? Planning Commission Meeting September 2 , 1992 - Page 59 Fred Hoisington: First of all we have , it 's a mixed use development . Conrad : Sort of back to back . You do have a corridor in there but they 're buildings are sort of back to back . Fred Hoisington: Well no , this would not have a corridor . The corridor would be through probably this area . In this fashion . Upgraded . . .and so you wouldn 't tend to have an orientation . This would tend to be somewhat separate from this but there would be ways to penetrate it so you could interconnect it . Krauss : Ladd , if I could too . I think you 've got to put it into the context of the downtown as a whole . We have been developing a pedestrian enabled or oriented downtown . Very much so . I mean compared to just about anything else . Conrad: I don 't buy that . — Erhart : I don 't either . Conrad: You find somebody walking downtown Chanhassen . We 're doing a — terrible job in my estimation . Krauss : But the framework is there . It 's hard to make people come downtown unless there 's something to come down for . This is one of the — destinations . One of the problems is we never had a good destination type of use to go back here . What 's a destination? Well the hotel 's going to expand . They need a swimming pool . They need convention — facilities . They ' ll use that . If there 's a pool , it will be a public pool that people can use . Come in there to use that . The bowling alley 's a draw in it 's own right . Movie theaters are a draw in their own right . A community center , if that 's done is a draw in it 's own right . This thing is also virtually across the street from a major new downtown city park with an outdoor amphitheatre that 's going to be developed , which is right outside of City Hall . I mean it 's basically , you walk across the street and you 're there . It 's also within walking distance of the shopping area . I 've been telling people that , I think we 're going to have a lot of walking seniors start coming in as soon as the shopping — center opens up . There 's not been , I mean the infrastructure 's there . We 've developed a downtown that 's actually a pretty friendly place to walk . It 's got nice sidewalks . It 's a comfortable place to be . It 's set up for it . There just hasn 't been any reason to do it . Erhart : Well , not only that but you can 't , without the traffic lights , you can 't walk . You can 't cross West 78th Street . Krauss : Well , signals are on the way . Conrad: And you really can 't walk . You know we 've got people walking across it . We 've got sidewalks on one side of the road . I guess I know what you 're saying Paul . There 's some things there but again I 'm looking at this and I 'm saying well , and we 're in the very preliminary stage — here . And we . . .and I think it 's meeting some needs but I 'm challenging the thinking of , drive your car . Park it and go into someplace . What Planning Commission Meeting September 2 , 1992 - Page 60 are we doing to facilitate it for people and then the community center . I guess I 've never though . There 's just a lot of issues that I don 't have a clue on . I guess my idea of a community center is not always indoors . There 's an outdoor part to a community center but I guess that 's the indoor part and the outdoor part will be in the park across where it is now . One of the marketing concepts that I heard them talking about for almost I guess an abbreviated community center . It was more adult orientated which would tie in more with the conference center , marketing type plans _ I don 't know how that affects the overall outdoor activity and concentrating the younger kids and so on . Fred Hoisington: It 's clearly more of an athletic club than a community center . Erhart : What you 're showing? So it 's what , for adult? — Fred Hoisington: More of an athletic club . Erhart : So more for adults than kids? Fred Hoisington : I would think that both adults and kids could use it but it will be , I hate to use Flagship as an example because it wouldn 't be like a Flagship . . .but nonetheless , it would tend to be more of those kinds of uses than it would to . . .community center . Erhart : So it would be like a Flagship . Unlike or like a Flagship? Fred Hoisington: Well , like a Flagship in that that 's an athletic club _ as opposed to , this would have gymnasiums , racquetball courts , pool but probably a smaller pool . It would tend to have things , no hockey . None of the things that kids are attracted to but I 'm not saying kids won 't come here . Kids will come here but it 's just that it tends to be more o an athletic type facility than it does a community center type of facility . So it is compact . It 's small . But Ladd , regarding your concerns about pedestrian access . Unfortunately , all of the things that _ are occurring here are the sorts of things where people drive to one store . Shop . Get back in the car and leave . This does not , it has a synnergy that a shopping center has and you probably would never see that . Watch Market Square and see how much pedestrian movement you ' ll get over there . What you ' ll find probably , and I . . .all people but I am , they will go to the grocery store . If they need to go to another store at the other end , they ' ll drive . They will not walk and yet the walking capability is there . Erhart : Are you done? Conrad : Go ahead . Erhart : I guess my view is just the opposite . I think you ought to make— it an indoor . I think you 've got a great idea here and what you want . You 've got the hotel . You want people to come there for a whole weekend and never have to go outside that building in the wintertime . — Planning Commission Meeting September 2 , 1992 - Page 61 Conrad : But they have to . Erhart : Why? — Conrad : Because they 're not connected . Erhart : That 's what has to be changed . Conrad: Well but you have to go outside . Erhart : No . Fred Hoisington: How do you mean go outside? Conrad: You said that there 's one connection . Erhart : You can get through from the hotel . But I think what you ought to do is expand that and make it an indoor , large courtyard in there where you have a two story courtyard with a lot of glass ceilings . Where you have sunlight come in and put in like an outdoor restaurant only it 's indoors . Where you have tables and you have the feeling that you 're — outdoors in the wintertime and if people could come to those hotels and spend 2 or 3 days in there and hit all the things with the family . You know you 've got the theatre , the bowling alley , you 've got the movies . I _ agree 100% . It should be an athletic club . Not a place for the local kids to play hockey . A place where people can come in and come in for a whole weekend and just go nuts on entertainment . Plus sell associated things like the scene shop and maybe other kinds of things . You have 2 — or 3 different restaurants that are unique so every night someone could hit a different flavor . But I think what 's missing is the interior courtyards so people don 't , because right now I tell you , the whole — building is , once you 're in there , it 's kind of like you 're crawling through caves to get from one point to the next . It 's dark . It 's dingy . Tiny . Go down to the basement . What you want to do is take it like a _ mini-Southdale so once you 're out , you know the retail space and entertainment faces into this courtyard and once you 're in there , you feel , you know it 's January but you 're warm and you forget this feeling of , you 're inside . It 's strictly entertainment . I think entertainment , — you 're hitting right on with that . Fred Hoisington : All of this will be of course . . .This , we have suggested or would encourage , would also be , but we need to be realistic and we 're not . . .to say , that it needs to be . . .but we would sure like to see this whole thing designed as a unit . What I would do is express those kinds of concerns and when the design occurs in this thing and really what we 're doing is creating now only sort of an envelope and we 're showing you a way to service it and showing you some of the interconnections that can be made here and solving some of the problems that exist with this — site but there 's a lot to do . I mean all that design has to be done . We don 't do that . That 's to be done by an architect and your ideas are good . . .perhaps optimistic because we probably won 't have . Erhart : Hey , I wanted a median on TH 101 south remember? With the trees . Planning Commission Meeting September 2 , 1992 - Page 62 Fred Hoisington : I remember . Conrad: Show me again Fred . From the hotel , where can you get to? _ Fred Hoisington : Okay , from the hotel . You come through the hotel expansion and you can get down into this complex . Conrad: But you can 't get to the bowling alley and you can 't get to the theatre so it 's all outside . Fred Hoisington: How do you mean outside? Krauss: No , there will be internal connections to the bowling alley . Fred Hoisington : There will be a way to get through this and into the bowling center . This will be essentially , you ' ll be able to get through this entire complex inside . Not all from the outside . — Erhart : The way you see it now , it 's essentially halls . Krauss : Not necessarily . Erhart : Narrow corridors . One 8 feet high . Fred Hoisington : I don 't think that 's the case at all . We 're looking at an escalator type access here . Very open . High ceiling . Krauss : Keep in mind , you 've got that grade transition to make and it does allow you to make atrium type spaces in there . Fred Hoisington : We 're looking at the two ends here tend to be more solid elements because . . .and probably a multi-purpose meeting space woulc be . . .on the inside here that provides some light penetration . So you end up with a very light kind of feeling in this whole area . But then the — challenge is Tim , to make this connection into the bowling center so it works so you can actually come in here and continue through this . . . Erhart : So the main thing , the closest to what that is is like the downtown Minneapolis area , the newer hotels that where you get around . You go through escalators and different floors and glass and stuff and it 's not open like Southdale but it 's a combination of some halls . Or like the skyway system . Some halls . Some open . Which is kind of neat . I guess I 'd like to see more , you know I guess the more open space you 've got obviously the better you feel in January when you 're in there . On — the other hand , that costs a ton of money . Fred Hoisington : . . .your concerns here as I am in this part that is — developed right here . Farmakes : Even the present building , if you 're in the back , it 's quite cavernous . It 's not like the front that you 're describing . There 's some big open spaces back there . It 's quite deceptive . Erhart : In where? Planning Commission Meeting September 2 , 1992 - Page 63 Farmakes : In the back of . Krauss: Where Hooked on Classics was . Farmakes : Yeah , back in there . Back some of those open areas . There 's quite a bit of space back there . Conrad : Why not put an atrium in the middle? Fred Hoisington: You could design an atrium . You essentially have an atrium right here . Erhart : Expand it a little . We 're saying expand it more so that , I mean let me ask you . How do you , where 's the main entrance to all these entertainment points? Is it from the outside or is it from the inside? Fred Hoisington : Well you 've have both . The bowling center will want it 's access here . The cinema will want it 's access probably about here . Erhart : So you can 't get to it but all from the inside? Fred Hoisington: No , there will be way to penetrate through here , except we need a way to also close it off . So that they can operate . . .so you will have a way to enter right here , a way to penetrate here , a way to penetrate here , and a way to penetrate here and a way to penetrate here . — So you ' ll have several ways to get into this complex . And then . . .on the inside becomes a walkway through this area . It 'd be pretty much glass . It will be very appealing in it 's design the way the architect proposes . — You ' ll have a connection then through the bowling center and into this complex as well . That 's going to be a little bit more challenging because you know where this is currently . It 's right behind the lanes . . . but all those things are design issues and short of tearing this down , there are going to be some things that are gong to be a little bit more difficult to do . But they can be done . — Batzli : Matt , did you want to throw in your two cents worth? Ledvina : Well , I like the concept plan here . I think it deals with a — lot of difficult elements and there 's consideration on a grand scale and the views and the overall property . So I do like that . Batzli : How about you Jeff? Farmakes : I like this thing a lot . I had the opportunity to look at , be at some of these HRA meetings where they 're going over this thing . In — regards to Ladd 's comment . I don 't think in our lifetime Chanhassen is going to be a main street type town . I agree with the things that you say and I hold those suspicions too . We have designed our lifestyle to cars and we have set pedestrians behind the cars . They come second and unfortunately all you have to do is look at how our city is . It is built for cars first and pedestrians second . You 're not going to get a lot of people traffic going up and down unless they 're going to access their car — out in the parking lot . But that doesn 't mean that we can 't do some things to buffer that . I think our city has expressed an interest . . .the Planning Commission Meeting September 2 , 1992 - Page 64 ground cover and the impervious surface are up there . I really like that Boy , that would be nice if we could get Target to do some of that on their open end on the west end . Or even enough just to break up some of — the visual sight lines of pedestrians walking through the area . So you don 't see one big mass of cars . It 's broken up with some tree buffering and not just an occasional oranmental but some serious coverage . The other thing is I think , what Paul said about the parks in the strategic - areas of town . At least that would offer the city some area to soften the overall effect of what 's on there because even what 's not colored in there to say the northeast , that 's all parking lot there . To the north - of the center , that 's all parking lot . We 're basically in a sea of parking lots and anything that we can do to change that I think it 's great and what is in that turn area to the south side is , I think would _ go a long way to help that out . I like the idea just from the marketing concept of turning and not trying to make one thing suit everybody and the issue of how we look at a community center . There is different needs for recreation from adults to children . I don 't know if we should - put one before the other in how this comes down but I really think that 7 like the separation of how this is . One of the things I was uncomfortable when they were discussing this thing on the HRA is that it — was going back and forth between a community center and a conference center and a retail center and again , I get kind of uncomfortable when they were flopping around back and forth and I really think that as a conference center and an adult type recreation area , that those types of things would , those make sense to me . And then the nice thing about this is that it 's using some of the existing structure that 's already in place . I think it 's a nice concept . - Erhart : Well if I could just repeat . To not confuse what this is . That is so important to define what it is that you 're going to service . If you have a bunch of different stuff muddled together , it 's going to be a financial failure . Batzli : Okay . - Conrad: Brian , what do you think? Batzli : What do I think? Better to make this work and to make it be successful , it has to draw people and there has to be movement within the various aspects I think and in order to do that , if you put in "skyways" , like they have some of them in St . Paul . They 're dark . They 're tunnels They 're after thoughts . They 're hallways down buildings that they decided they were going to wall off and let the public walk through them . They 're not inviting . There 's nothing on the walls . They 're not particularly kept up well because the management of the whole building takes care of it so you know , they put in the minimum amount necessary before the tenants scream . To make this successful , I think it has to be- open . Something like Tim was saying , some sort of an atrium . Restaurant or some central place . Some central focus to the entire . To me it 's kind of a mass and the analogy of a rat going through tunnels kind of , you get a feel of geez , they 're going to have all these . I don 't know it you 've ever been to the , up to Banff and they 've got this big old lodge up there . Banff Springs Hotel . And it 's beautiful . It 's great . Built in the 1800 's but they put in all these retail shops in the lower level . Planning Commission Meeting September 2 , 1992 - Page 65 There 's something like 30 shops and that 's their big drawing card . You - don 't even have to go out of the hotel the whole time you 're in Banff . Well you feel like a rat down there . They 've got windows . They 've got them but it 's the little maze like , you know and they 've got low ceilings and you 're down there and you just say , ooh . It 's not inviting . It 's not friendly . You walk in the shop and it 's suddenly nice but this little maze of tunnels to get you around between them is very uninviting and very threatening and you simply can 't find your way around down there . Erhart : I think the key is that once you 're in there , that you feel that the front of the stores are facing you . Even though occasionally you 've got to go through a hall or something to get to it but that once you 're in , you don 't have to carry your wool coat around to go and do what _ you 're going to do . You can spend the whole weekend and leave your coat in the hotel room and roam . Do what you want . The athletic club or you go to the play . You go to lunch . Batzli : If the focus was almost turned inward . Erhart : Right , that 's the way I see it . Look inward . Batzli : It 's nice from the standpoint that it does some things for the city . It hides some views . It solves some problems but I think we can go a step further and make it better and maybe that costs a lot more money and maybe nobody 's interested in doing it that way but that 's where I 'd like to see our focus . Fred Hoisington: Brian , let me just respond to that . I don 't think in these , through this complex you need to be concerned . That can all be designed to work very well . Have a very appealing . Batzli : But see I picture what you 're going to design is the Yorktown Mall where you 've got a glass front and an internal sidewalk , or Ridge Square does the same thing I think . You know it 's , you 've got doors going in and you 've got glass on one side . Then you have what is in essence a mall with a covered , enclosed walkway along the front . I think what we 're saying is if you turned those front pieces around so that they face inbetween the buildings , and I don 't know if that 's possible because the buildings that you have in existence already face West 78th . _ Fred Hoisington : You have a grade change . Your concerns are legitimate . I mean I don 't mean to suggest that they 're not at all . I am again , I like to see where this whole element designed as the movement can somehow or another do the kind of thing you 're talking about . Batzli : If it 's a two story atrium , it doesn 't make a different if you 've got a grade change . I mean the fronts of those stores might be . Fred Hoisington: Figure out a way to do that . What the city or HRA would have to commit to do is take all of this . No choice . You have to take it all . And you 've got to give the architect when the time comes essentially everything that 's here and tell him , now these are the kinds of things I want to achieve and I think you have the private sector is Planning Commission Meeting September 2 , 1992 - Page 66 going to buy that because they keep telling us all this stuff is just fine . I 'm not convinced of that . But that 's the way to make this thing come together in a totally integrated fashion . Other than that , to keep this you have a barrier in the center . . . Erhart : This could be really something unique in this part of the country if you can get ahold of the whole thing and make it really an - entertainment center . Inside entertainment center . I think you 're looking at quite something . Conrad: Going back to the railroad tracks , what are the plans? What 's happening? Krauss: It 's going to continue to be used . Conrad : It 's discontinued? Krauss: No , no . Conrad: It is continued and that 's going to happen , that 's going to be continued forever? Farmakes : . .a couple of trips a day or something? Krauss : It 's used almost as frequently as it was before . It hasn 't change much but they 've been selling off to these short line railroads for a long time . - Farmakes : Well now you 've got a place to put the old depot . Krauss: It appears at least one in every sketch of anything to do aroun< here . Fred Hoisington: We 've had it in here several times . Then it 's been out- and utand then it 's been in and then it 's been out . . .not a viable use . If I were you , I would simply , we hope you kind of endorse the concept but I would have no hesitation if you wanted to go further and suggest a more _ integrated kind of thing . I think the footprint is here . It 's only a matter of how you can do it better to make it all work together . Erhart : Well I don 't know , I guess I 'd like to see us challenge the HRA to look at a bigger concept . Not bigger in terms of footprint but bigger in terms of what it 's going to be . Farmakes : Square feet? Erhart : No . Well maybe . No , more in terms of pizzaz . Batzli : It needs sizzle . It has no sizzle right now . Erhart : Yeah , I have a feeling it 's just not going to make it . The ingredients are there but they ' ll all be viewed as separate things . Planning Commission Meeting September 2 , 1992 - Page 67 Farmakes: What if they can design the structure around the atrium that you talked about and that there was a primary entrance focus at the south and the north and west . You can see it from TH 5 . You can see it from Market and you can see it from 78th . Erhart : Yeah , I agree . It doesn 't have to be one entrance . There can be numerous entrances . It 's like a shopping mall . Farmakes: It would be nice to have something to the south in place of what 's there now so at least visually you could know that something 's there . Erhart : I assume that the whole south would be redone . Farmakes : But I mean , usually there 's a focal element . Ashworth: I wasn 't going to talk . We have sent out proposals for a construction manager for this project . Those have to be in by September 17th , in which case Todd and I will go through those and set up interviews that will occur in front of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority on September 24th starting at 5:00 to 5: 30 that afternoon . The specific task given back over to the construction management firms have included , how will you carry out that corridor construction and demonstrate to the HRA that your firm is the best firm to be considered for that activity . What is your experience and what is the best , show us what you might do with this convention center area including auditorium , ways to get people around , escalator , the pool , the glassed areas , etc . . I think you 're going to find the proposals as they come in that — afternoon , very exciting . Maybe in a similar degree to the storm water management when we brought in the 3-4 different firms and had them kind of competing for why we should select one of those firms for that particular process . I would invite Planning Commission members to come in during that process . Listen to what some of these people have to say . I think that they 're going to , you 're going to be surprised . They 're going to be addressing the same issues that you 're talking about tonight . They 've already identified the importance of some of those same issues . I think that I 'm really looking forward to the 24th . I really believe that we have five firms out there that could head this project up . Make it something that would be very worthwhile for the city and I anticipate that the HRA that night , the 24th , will make a selection of one of those five firms . Erhart : So you right now have to decide whether you 're going to tear everything down other than the bowling alley building and the Dinner Theatre or whether they might save something buildings? That 's all up in the air yet? Ashworth: Well , no . I mean the portion of the Instant Webb building that 's currently owned by Bloomberg will go down . The back side of Merlyn 's will go down . Bloomberg has responsibility to remove those . The two , the scene shop and the other building will go down . You 're _ literally talking about new construction throughout the entire area . The only spot that might be considered for rennovation would be the Merlyn 's Planning Commission Meeting September 2 , 1992 - Page 68 existing building and then the building for the Guys and Dolls . The barber shop type of thing . Batzli : Thank you . Does Fred need anything from us tonight? Okay . Fred Hoisington : Really this is going to be in the hands of the construction manager . And that process will continue and you just need to kind of keep tabs on what 's happening as it progresses . Erhart : It looks exciting . Batzli : Yeah , I think so . Thank you for coming in . Can we table our tree conservation easement? Erhart : Yes , yes , yes . Erhart moved , Ledvina seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in favor and the motion carried . The meeting was adjourned at 11 :20 p .m . . Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim REVISED SEPTEMBER 2, 1992 ONGOING ISSUES STATUS Comprehensive Plan Issues 1.* 1995 Study Area (North) Public Information meeting on Issues and and Hwy. 5 Corridor Study Opportunities scheduled for September 10. 2. 1995 Study Area (South) Assigned to Planning Commission staff. Work to be initiated as time commitments allow. OTHER ITEMS 1. Rezoning BF Dist. to A2 Staff preparing updated information for Planning Commission direction. 2. Sign Ordinance Work is continuing to progress with task force. Program expected to be completed shortly. 3. Tree Protection Ordinance Inventory is completed. Over view of Mapping of significant existing tree protection regulations requested vegetative areas by Commisser Erhart. 4.* Wetland Ordinance/Surface Main group establishing public information Water Management Program and erosion control program along with Task Force established. other work. Special wetlands subcommittee '- completed work on August 3, 1992. SWMP reviewed in full committee on August 13. Revisions requested to PC by October. 5. Shoreland Ordinance Staff is currently working on a draft of the ordinance. Initial comments delivered to MnDNR. Will place on upcoming PC agenda. 6. Group home ordinance PC reviewed on 3/4/92. Currently preparing draft ordinance. 7.* PUD Ordinance PC approved on 7/1/92. Scheduled for CC review on 9/14/92. 8.* PC input in Downtown Ongoing - Review of items scheduled for _ Planning and Traffic Study September 2, 1992 meeting. • 9. Review of Architectural 1992/may be combined in part with Hwy. 5 — Standards to Promote High work. Quality Design 10. Bluff Creek Corridor With adoption of Bluff Line Preservation Greenway ordinance, CC referred item to Park and Recreation Commission. Staff working with _ Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District to develop joint Bluff Creek corridor program. Meeting held on conceptual Bluff _ Creek park design prepared by Lance Neckar of U of M. 11. Ordinance amendment to Non- PC approved. City Attorney to redraft. conforming use section to clarify — ordinance. 12. Temporary uses, sales - Guidelines memo reviewed by PC — new ordinance. and scheduled for CC. Ordinance revisions to follow. Public Safety Director proposing changes to ordinance. — 13. Truck and trailer rental standards. Requested by PC. 14. Sexually oriented businesses PC reviewed on 3/4/92. Sent to Public Safety Commission. Reviewed on July 8, 1992. To be forwarded to CC. — 15.* Tree conservation easements. To be reviewed by PC in September. 16.* Fence Requirements. To be reviewed by PC in September. 17.* Open Space Zoning. Requested by PC. * Change in status since last report CITY OFOP:114i CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning director DATE: June 25, 1992 SUBJ: Tree Conservation Easements At past meetings, staff has been asked to elaborate on tree conservation easements which have been utilized on several recent plats. The City Attorney has developed the easement format that is attached to this memo. What it essentially does is permanently identify an area that is to be protected for tree conservation purposes and bind all present and future property owners to maintain the forested area in its natural state. The only activities allowed in this area are removing diseased or storm damaged trees. Some of the commissioners have expressed potential concerns over permanently binding a _ home owner from doing anything relative to trees. I would point out that these tree conservation easements are used sparingly. They are used only when a specific concentration of trees worthy of preservation can be identified. Staff has taken pains to ensure that they do _ not hinder normal use of a lot to either build a home or accommodate normal household functions. I would also point out that these tree conservation easements are developed as a fundamental tool for addressing the impact of development. That is the preservation of these trees may often be the key to gaining approval of the plat and designing a development that is acceptable to the city and neighbors. Therefore, we believe it is reasonable to provide permanent protection for these areas. Arguably, some of the City Attorney's language is rather strict and some modifications may be appropriate. For example, while we would not want any permanent structures built in a tree conservation area, the construction of walkways, placement of playground equipment, or some other normal activities associated with single family lots may be appropriate. Staff looks forward to getting your guidance on this matter. a PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CAMPBELL , KNUTSON , SCOTT & FUCHS , P .A May 15 ,92 10 :25 No .007 P .02 CONSERVATION EASEMENT INSTRUMENT made this day of , 19 , by and between ("Grantors") , and the CITY OF , a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City") . The Grantors, in consideration of good and valuable consider- ation paid by the City, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, grant the City a permanent conservation easement as that term is defined in this instrument over, under, and across the premises described in the attached Exhibit "A" ("subject property") . 1 . Grantors for themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, agree that the following are prohibited in perpetuity on the — subject property: A. Constructing, installing, or maintaining anything made by man, including but not limited to buildings, structures, walkways, clothes line poles, and playground equipment. B. Cutting, removing, or altering trees or other vegeta- tion, except those diseased or storm damaged. C. Excavation or filling. D. Application of fertilizers, whether natural or chemical . E. Application of chemicals for the destruction or retard- ation of vegetation. F. The deposit of waste or debris. G. The application of herbicides, pesticides, and insecti- cides. H. Outside storage of any kind. CHAN:FORM ._nr /m r Inn CHAN:FORM r05/15/92 CAMPBELL . KNUTSON , SCOTT & FUCHS , P .A May 15 ,92 10 :26 No .007 P .03 I. Activity detrimental to the preservation of the scenic beauty, vegetation, and wildlife. 2. Grantors for themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, further grant the City the affirmative right, but not the obli- gation, to enter upon the subject property at any time to enforce compliance with the terms of this instrument. GRANTORS: GRANTEE: CITY OF BY: Its Mayor BY: Its Clerk/Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( SS. — COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 19 , by • — NOTARY PUBLIC -2- CAMPBELL , KNUTSON , SCOTT & FUCHS , P .A May 15 ,92 10 :26 No .007 F .04 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF _ ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 19 , by NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 19 , by , Mayor, and by , Clerk/Manager, of the City of , a Minnesota municipal corporation, in behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority of its City Council . NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: Campbell , Knutson, Scott & Fuchs, P.A. 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, Minnesota 55121 (612) 452-5000 -3- Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 65 Ledvina : If I understood the criteria by which this proposal was being evaluated , I would try to make some determination but I 'm so confused as to what we 're looking at . Farmakes : We were too . Conrad: But we voted . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated June 3 , 1992 as presented . OPEN DISCUSSION: DISCUSSION OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT FORM . Krauss : That one I think we ought to maybe lay over because there 's some questions . Erhart: Also I think , I haven 't talked to Steve about this but I know in the history . . .he has strong feelings about people 's rights to do things in - their own yards and if somebody wanted to hold this over , I think it 'd be just fine . Farmakes: I 'd be curious as to how this fit in with this thing on Monday where they talk about the city compensating landowner 's for trees on their property . Krauss: Oh , you mean the Lucas Decision? Farmakes : The Supreme Court . Krauss: I don 't think anybody really knows yet what the implications are but I had a conversation with Roger about that decision this morning and I used to get all worked up about these Supreme Court decisions thinking the sky is falling and generally you find it 's because somebody screwed up or did something . . . I 'm not sure they 're nearly as pervasive as you might think at first blush . Batzli : Where 's that thing about this article? One Planner 's Reflection of the Edge City . You write that? Krauss: Yeah . Batzli : And it 's going in which issue? Krauss : It should be this coming on . Batzli : Congratulations . You downplayed your work . I liked it . Should we table this easement? Okay . If nobody 's opposed , we 'll table that over to the next meeting . Erhart : The next meeting is what , the 15th? Krauss : The 15th , yes . Erhart : Why does Council want to meet? - Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 66 Krauss: The Council , I 've got to double check if that timing works but the Council wants , on an annual basis they sit down with all the Commissions _ and keep the communications open . Ask what your issues are but hopefully they ' ll tell you what their issues are . I 'm not sure if we 'll have frankly enough time to do it on the 15th . Erhart: Is this an annual meeting? Krauss : I think we 've gotten them once or twice before . Farmakes : Can I ask you a question since we spent so much time on this PUD and we just sort of skipped over the City Council update . Do they really believe you when you tell them that that 's just sort of a variance guideline , the PUD situation? What 's your opinion on that? Krauss : What do you mean a variance? Farmakes: The Councilmen that I 've talked to on this PUD thing , it seems to be mistrust that what they 're doing is making an ordinance people can _ build on and that the City 's committed to . But the way it 's been explained to me over and over again is that it 's really a variance . That the City can refuse if they don't feel that it 's appropriate to approve it . So why then do I continue to hear this almost a reluctance that we 're approving this type of thing? Is there a trust factor there? Krauss: I don 't think it 's a matter of trust because staff 's relationship - with the Council is a pretty good one . But I think , I don 't want to characterize it unfairly either but you 've got the Council , the people I 'm most familiar with on the Council are people who have moved to this _ community 15-20 years ago and they did it for some very explicit reasons in terms of what kind of liftstyle was offered . I don 't know , maybe there 's something of a mind set that that 's exactly what everybody wants as the standard mode of living . There 's also , I mean they 're very comfortable - with the lifestyle they have . They have good lives here and they think that that is something worthy to pass on . I guess I don't dispute that but I think there 's other ways of getting at it and I 'm not all clear if the Council 's going to go through with it or not . Farmakes : When they come in here , should there be more discussion with us in regards to those issues? Those issues and the second coming of American city . A lot of stuff that we 're doing is the exact opposite of what they 're . - Krauss: See that 's the thing . I mean you talk to people like Councilman Wing and he 's got very strong feelings of support for the neo-traditionalist movement and the kind of stuff we hear from Bill Morrish . This PUD is fully consistent with achieving those goals , yet they 've got a lot of trouble digesting that . I don 't know how to rationalize that , except to maybe ask Bill to talk to him about it because they have some type of . . . Farmakes: Well a lot of traditional suburban planning , which we 've been into here for , since after World War II , or at least the past 25 years , is not really based on diversity . It 's highly suspicious of it and I get a Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 67 lot of feedback from that and I 'm sure maybe you do too . That that 's why - the 10 ,000 square foot and so on . A buzzer goes off whether it's relevant or not . There seems to be a lot of walls that we smack into there when we start to discuss some of this stuff even in the HRA and the downtown development . We continue to build these large parking lots facing access streets and we place the building farther back when a lot of current design information has been coming out the past 10 years saying no , that 's not the right thing to do . It used to be the right thing to do back in the 70 's but now we 've discovered that we should be doing it differently . We continue on . And basically the developer is framing that down into reality . We say yeah. It 's sort of a philosophical thing . I 'm not sure if we caught up with that and I 'm not sure , they 're sort of accountable to their voters . What kind of information they 're getting there and whether or not they really believe it . From a professional level . Krauss : There 's a real philosophical change I suppose that needs to come but you know , it 's one thing to see and read all this stuff and be interested and want to try some of this stuff but on the other side , there 's a reason that all of us , myself included , moved to the suburbs . And there 's a million and a half people in the Twin Cities did it . It clearly offered them something they were seeking so I 'm not as willing as the neo-traditionalist are to throw it all on the , and say everybody 's wrong . All the decisions you made were erroneous and you're foul people and you messed up the world and let 's remake it . On the other hand , I think Chanhassen 's in a really unique position to do some very nifty , innovative stuff that will make this a community that 's different than most of the suburban communities . And I think we 're well on the way to achieving that and it 's stuff that I 'm pretty convinced , maybe conceitedly - that most people , once it 's here , most people are going to be real proud of it . And real comfortable with the changes it has . With the ability to have a real downtown . With the ability to walk to places or bike to places . With the ability not to go on a highway to go everyplace you have to go . Those are things that we can offer here that most people can 't . Most towns can 't . Batzli : So , do we talk to the City Council about these things? Krauss : I think it 'd be an interesting discussion . Frankly it 's probably a whole lot more interesting than , what do you want us to do next year . Don 't rock the boat . Batzli : One question before I want to adjourn and that is these provisional population estimates by the Met Council . Are these meaningful to us? Krauss: Very . Batzli : Why? That 's what I didn 't get . Krauss : Did I give those to you? Batzli : Yeah. They 're on the back of your article . Administrative section . Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 68 Krauss: Oh . When you go to the Metro Council with a comp plan amendment , or to justify , rationalize building a road or to rationalize getting funding for a county park or a trail system , or build a sewage treatment plant like in Chaska . The first thing they do . They make projections okay and you think projections are innocuous . If it doesn 't turn out to be correct , we ' ll change the projections . They don't . They change reality to fit the projections . You 're way ahead of the game to have projections that are real and reasonable . For the first time I , I think it was the first time I 've ever heard of it . The Metro Council 's population projections are actually larger than we projected when we did the comp plan . Now that doesn 't necessarily mean that people are going to come and knock on the door at Chanhassen tomorrow and say the Metro Council told me to move here so I 'm going to come . But it 's indicative of the fact that the Metro Council agrees with us that this city is in a real , it 's in the driver 's seat . Batzli : And everything else is moving along? Target 's moving? Task force 's are moving? Krauss: First task force meeting for the corridor study is on the 15th before the Planning Commission meeting . Batzli : When does the City Council talk to us? Krauss : It should be on the same evening . Batzli : Okay , so everybody will be here for that . Krauss : We 're starting to get a lot on that agenda . I 'm a little bit leery of it . Erhart : The 15th? Conrad : I won 't be here . _ Batzli : I don 't know if I ' ll be here or not . Okay , as far as HRA , have you been getting the HRA packet now? Krauss : No . We talked about that this morning . Batzli : Here we 've got a guy who actually is going to go to HRA meetings for us . We 've got to start getting him the packet . Because they 're going a lot of stuff right now . They 're doing the bowling alley thing . Krauss: That 's why I included , in fact Ashworth asked me to make sure that you got all those reports because we thought you 'd find it interesting . Batzli : On the Target and the bowling alley and all that stuff? Yeah . Conrad moved , Farmakes seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 p.m. . Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 September 1 , 1992 Mr.. Bob Davis Metropolitan Council Mears Park Centre 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Dear Bob: I appreciate your rapid response to Chanhassen's concerns regarding Metropolitan Council projections for employment in our community. I believe that your revised forecasts showing an increase of 5,515 jobs through the year 2020, as opposed to the original forecast of 2,495 and is more reflective of what has a high probability of occurring in our community. Of course, the only way we will know for sure is to come back and revisit this issue in 5 or I() years. I do feel confident that these totals will be met, if not exceeded, and in all probabli,ry this will occur in a much shorter time frame than anticipated. By way of confirmation of the statements that are outlined above, I am enclosing a copy of — the proposed Gateway West Business Park that is currently scheduled for conceptual review by the city. Located largely in the southeast corner of the intersections of Highways 5 and 41, it covers approximately a total of 190 acres. The concept calls for almost 1 million square feet of office and industrial uses, and this does not even include an additional 30 acres for which no uses have yet been projected. The proposed developers include a team comprised of the Opus and Steiner Corporations, both of which have a long and excellent track record of producing quality projects in the Twin Cities. This project alone could add 5,000 jobs to the community. Thank you again for your prompt attention to this concern. We look forward to continuing to work with you and other Metro Council staff on matters into the future. Sinc u auss, AICP Planning Director pc: Planning Commission Mayor and City Council - Comprehensive Plan File rs, �01 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER METROPOLITAN COUNCIL dears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 612 291-6359 TDD 612 291-0904 mmk DATE: August 15, 1992 • TO: Paul Krauss, Planning Director, City of Chanhassen FROM: Bob Davis, Metropolitan Council Staff SUBJECT: Chanhassen Forecasts, Employment Change — Thank you for your response to the Council's forecast mailing. As a result of your comments staff has reviewed the data and assumptions used to prepare the Chanhassen employment — allocation. Our preliminary estimate showed employment increasing by 2,495 during the forecast period. As a result of our review, we have increased the City's allocation reflecting significant job growth. The revised forecast shows employment growth of 5,515 during the forecast period. Our — revised allocation shows City employment at 8,670 (2000), 10,890 (2010) and 11,620 in 2020. We will continuously monitor job growth and will be revising our forecasts in approximately five — years. The Council also has established an Interim Forecast Process to address growth changes between forecast revisions. If Chanhassen appears to be adding jobs at a rate different than our forecasts we will make an appropriate adjustment. If you have any questions please call Tim — Fleetham at 291-6374. CITY TF CHANHASSEN 01 °v. 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 September 8, 1992 Ms. Vernelle Clayton Lotus Realty P. O. Box 99 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Vernelle: We met on August 31, 1992, to discuss a proposal for an ice cream shop to locate at the Market Square site. A condition of approval for Market Square PUD was that two restaurants would be permitted and that any additional restaurants would require site plan approval. The reason for this condition was that the Market Square PUD had the potential to be short on parking depending upon the type of uses located at the site. The city felt the parking provided by the site plan could accommodate parking demands of two restaurants, but that any additional restaurants would have to provide proof of parking. Currently. there are two restaurants located at Market Square which have received building permits and are near completion. These two restaurants are Subway and Guy's. In July of 1992, you spoke to Paul Krauss about the ability to locate a restaurant called Frankies at the site. It was Paul's understanding that Frankies would replace one of the two original restaurants and that it could be located at the site as one of the two permitted restaurants (Guy's Taco Shop was the other restaurant). Paul was unaware that Subway was also planning to locate in the center. Since Subway already existed, Frankies would actually be a third restaurant and could not be permitted without site plan approval. Staff has reviewed the conditions of the site, including parking availability and parking demand, to determine whether Frankies and the ice cream shop could be permitted through an administrative site plan approval. The total square footage for the shopping center is 98,127 square feet (this includes the 10,000 square foot expansion for the grocery store). When calculating the parking requirements for the shopping center, staff used the ratio of 4.5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of building. This results in a parking requirement of 397 parking spaces, 442 parking spaces with grocery store expansion. Is �4, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Ms. Vernelle Clayton September 8, 1992 Page 2 The site plan submitted as part of the building permit provides 399 parking spaces with 36 future parking spaces (total of 435). Of the 399 parking spaces, 6 have already been lost due to location of a trash compactor and transformer (south of the grocery store). Therefore, the actual number of present parking spaces is 393, or 429 with future parking. SQUARE FOOTAGE PARKING REQUIRED PARKING PROVIDED 88,197 sq. ft. 397 spaces 393 spaces 98,197 sq. ft. 442 spaces 429 spaces (with expansion) As you can see, with the loss of parking spaces, the site plan is already slightly short on parking and some of the future parking spaces should be constructed at this time to make up the difference. The addition of two restaurants and the medical offices could result in the need for additional parking. The Planning Director has reviewed the parking being provided and the parking demand and has agreed to approve an administrative site plan to allow two additional restaurants at the Market Square Shopping Center, specifically, Frankies and the ice cream shop, with the following conditions: 1. The owners of Market Square Shopping Center shall enter into an agreement with the City, drafted by the City Attorney, which will require provision of additional parking spaces in one of the outlots located on the site if the current number of parking spaces proves to be inadequate. Staff defines inadequate parking as when the city documents parking within fire lanes, off site on public right-of-ways, etc. If additional parking is required, the owners of the shopping center shall be required to submit a site plan for staff approval which provides details on the parking area including landscaping, grading and drainage. 2. The owners of Market Square Shopping Center shall have additional parking spaces constructed at this time to provide the stated 399 parking spaces. The 399 parking spaces must be provided prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 3. Any additional restaurants proposed for Market Square shall be required to receive site plan approval. Ms. Vemelle Clayton September 8, 1992 Page 3 Sincerely, I L011r* Jo'Ann Olsen Senior Planner pc: Paul Krauss, Planning Director Roger Knutson, City Attorney Scott Harr, Public Safety Director Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal Steve Kirchman, Building Official Planning Commission City Council CG/ > c- Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. / 5 111 Third Avenue South, Suite 350 Phone:(612)332-0421 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Fax: (612) 332-6180 USA September 8, 1992 Mr. Don Ashworth City of Chanhassen — City Hall P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — Dear Mr. Ashworth: You undoubtedly have been briefed, or will be briefed shortly, about the recent meeting between MnDOTs Golden Valley staff, Chanhassen city staff, and Barton-Aschman staff. This meeting was held to explore revisions to the TH 5 mainline as well as potential TH 5 north frontage road improvements. After reviewing the proposed alignment of 11-1 5 in the vicinity of the storage facility, child care center, and Prince's studio, MnDOT has suggested that the mainline alignment of TH 5 be relocated 62 feet to the north just east of CR 17, for a distance of — approximately one mile, to avoid expensive right-of-way taking. MnDOTs request came after they were approached about MnDOT support for the north frontage road which will encroach on park land. — MnDOTs feeling is that if the city is prepared to build the frontage road within the park, an additional 62 feet to accommodate the mainline TH 5 design, would have a — marginal impact. The 4(f) and 6(f) statements would have to be prepared for this alignment due to federal — guidelines. However, the positive impact for the city is that the entire frontage road between CR 17 and TH 41 will now be eligible for federal funding. This would result in a considerable savings for the City of Chanhassen. — Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. September 8, 1992 Page 2 In addition to the savings for the frontage road construction, MnDOT would reimburse the City of Chanhassen the appraised value of the approximately 1.75 acres of right-of- way required within park boundary to accommodate the realigned TH 5 mainline. According to federal regulations, this money would have to be used to purchase additional park land within the City of Chanhassen because of the use of LAWCON funds. Land purchased does not necessarily have to be adjacent to the existing park although Paul Krauss, City Planner, suggested that that is part of the city's long-range plan. It was the consensus of those at the meeting that, if the frontage road continues to be pursued, all efforts should be made to incorporate construction of the frontage road in with the 1996 construction of mainline TH 5. As a result of this consensus, it is critical that all environmental as well as the 4(f) and 6(f) work begin as soon as possible. Based on this meeting with MnDOT we have revised Table 1 from our July 14, 1992, _ letter to you indicating potential cost to the City of Chanhassen with MnDOT assistance and without MnDOT assistance. When you have had time to review this new information, along with the information provided in our July 14, 1992, letter, I feel it _ would be beneficial to sit down and to discuss future actions necessary to implement this critical improvement for the City of Chanhassen. Sincerely yours, John C. Mullan, P.E. Vice President JCM:kro cc: Paul Krauss - City Planner Charles Folch - City Engineer Ron Erickson - MnDOT • Barry Warner - Barton-Aschman Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. — • TABLE 1 (Revised 9/8/92) NORTH FRONTAGE ROAD COSTS* TO CHANHASSEN WITH MnDOT Assistance WITHOUT MnDOT Assistance l — EA (FONSI) $100 - $120* EAW $50 - $60* 4(f) & 6(f) Statements $15 4(f) & 6(f) Statements $15 — Design (6%) $120 Design (6%) $120 Construction** $320 Construction** $2,000 Construction Inspection -0- Construction Inspection (6%) $120 — TOTAL $555 - $575 TOTAL $2,305 - $2,315 * All costs in thousands. ** Construction cost provides for grading, base, surfacing, and storm sewer. City utilities such as water and sanitary sewer would be at additional cost. Pedestrian _ crossings would also involve additional city costs. Note: All frontage road right-of-way costs will be at city expense. MnDOT will purchase _ all right-of-way for TH 5 mainline construction. CITY OF 00OrtCHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 August 31, 1992 Mr. Don Halla 10000 Great Plains Boulevard Chaska, MN 55318 Dear Mr. Halla: On Monday, August 23, 1992, the Chanhassen City Council reviewed your request to place fill material within the ravine on your property. After your visitor presentation on August 10, 1992, the City Council requested background material to be presented at the next City Council meeting. After review of the report presented by staff and hearing from Paul Neumann, Soil and Water Conservation Service, the City Council unanimously recommended denial for an administrative approval to place 1,000 cubic yards of material in the ravine. The City Council stated that you should be required to go back through the Interim Use Permit process, with a public hearing in front of the Planning Commission, before any more fill within the ravine is permitted. The City Council also directed the City Attorney to investigate any state laws requiring the proper maintenance of the darn. The City Council is concerned that the dam was improperly designed and incorrect fill material has been used which is accentuating the problem rather than correcting the erosion taking place within the ravine. Should you wish to continue with the process, please contact me to begin the Interim Use Permit application process. You should be made aware that the same submittal and supporting data is required as with your previous IUP application, and that the city will continue to visit the site to prevent fill from being illegally placed in the ravine. .' es to0 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Mr. Don Halla August 31, 1992 Page 2 The City is willing to work with you on this project, as it is in the best interest of everyone that the problem be resolved. The city's goal in making you go through the proper procedure, as with any other applicant, is to ensure that the work is done correctly so that the problem is resolved. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 937-1900. Sincerely, Jo Ann Olsen Senior Planner pc: Paul Krauss, Planning Director Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician Roger Knutson, City Attorney Scott Harr, Public Safety Director __P ening Commission City Council CITY OF i ‘ CHANHASSEN \ - 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 July 9, 1992 CERTIFIED Mr. James Jessup 3323 Lake Shore Court Chaska, MN 55318 Dear Mr. Jessup: I am pleased to inform you that on July 8, 1992, I received a letter from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency concluding that the investigation and clean-up performed on your property located at 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard, has addressed the petroleum contamination. The letter also states that you may begin construction at this time. On February 10, 1992, the City Council approved your request for a variance extension for the construction of your new single family residence (#89-1), 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard. The City Council approved an extension for one year, until February 10, 1993, with a review of the situation in six months, July 31, 1992. The City Council indicated a desire to see this situation resolved and it is unlikely that further extensions will be granted. Based upon the foregoing, you should apply for a building permit and start construction prior to February 10, 1993. If you fail to do so, your variance will expire. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, 24114CC,C4`2,-t I Sharmin Al-Jaff • Planner I pc: Roger Knutson, City Attorney Paul Krauss. Planning Director Steve Kirchman, Building Official City Council Board of Adjustments and Appeals t4: PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER acs Le L L u,con 2s • Minnesota Pollution Control Agency g Y iippismipailior Celebrating our 25th anniversary and the 20th anniversary of the Clean Water Act RECERIED JUL 081992 CII ! Lit Linhuvrth1SSEN July 6, 1992 Ms. Sharmin Al-Jaff City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Dear Ms. Al-Jaff: Re: Rudolph Remus Petroleum Release Site Site ID#: 0001700 The purpose of this letter is to clarify the MPCA's position with respect to the recent letters sent to Mr. Rudolph Remus and Mr. James Jessup. Although not expressly stated in either of the letters, the MPCA staff has no objection over Mr. Jessup beginning construction of his new home. The June 11, 1992, letter to Mr. Jessup provides the MPCA's recommendations for assessing contaminant levels in soil and ground water. We see no reason why he cannot begin footing and foundation construction at this time. I thank you for your interest and patience in this matter. Should you have any questions, please call me at 297-8613. Sincerely, John R. Moeger Project Leader Tanks and Spills Section Hazardous Waste Division JRM:np cc: Rudolph Remus, Chanhassen James Jessup, Chaska Anita Crews, Peterson and Hektner, Minneapolis John Bonner, Parsienne, Bowman, Levy, Minneapolis 520 Lafayette Rd . St. Pau!, MN 55155-3898: (612)296-6300: Regional Offices: Duluth•Brainerd•Detroit Lakes•Marshall•Rochester Equal Opportunrty Employer•Pnnted on Recycled Pape'