The URL can be used to link to this page

01-6-93 Agenda and Packet AGENDA .— CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION FILE WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 6, 1993, 7:30 CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DR 6:00/7:30 p.m. - Interview Planning Commission Applicants CALL TO ORDER OLD BUSINESS 1. Lakeview Hills Non-Conforming Use Permit for a Recreational Beachlot located on the north side of Lake Riley. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Preliminary plat to replat 2 lots into 2 lots and 1 outlot on property zoned RSF, _ Residential Single Family and located south of Pleasant View Road, just north of Nez Perce Drive, Vinewood Addition, Stuart Hoarn. 3. Sign variance request to locate a monument sign within the required setback located at 600 West 79th Street, on property zoned BH, Highway Business District, Americana Community Bank. 4. Preliminary plat to subdivide approximately 60 acres into 4 lots on property zoned IOP, Industrial Office Park, located south of Hwy. 5 and east of Dell Road, Sunlink Addition, Sunlink Corporation. 5. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend Section 20-1023, Height of Fences and Section 20-1019, Location of Fences. NEW BUSINESS APPROVAL OF MINUTES CITY COUNCIL UPDATE ONGOING ITEMS ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS OPEN DISCUSSION ADJOURNMENT 661° APPLICATION Fir CHANHAS: N COMMISSION DATE: / 2/q COMMISSIONING FOR: 'I ALTERNATE: t144/4 . .0).4-/ell NAME: 1&4? j / 365 BIRTHDATE (optional) : /f /1 g 1 ADDRESS: 11/61 C (',4 (# i24 CITY: Al ZIP: '53'3/ 7 HOME PHONE: 470 WORK PHONE: 74A ' HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN A RESIDENT OF CHANHABSEN?: G, es HIGHEST LEVEL OFEDUCATION ATTAINED, PLUS DEGREES, IF ANY: 4 11�� PA/41"--el-Vg/&14'neia-reil CURRENT EMPLOYMENT: (State position, employer & brief description of duties. If with presentloygr fRr only s o�t time , list previous employment as well. ) f3 � N'I Rilfejr7,9 ,KIK eijir' -gie, • I . - . / :. :L L L. ACTIVITIES AND AFFILIATIONS: (In-lud = Ictiv off ce , o o s and recognitions received, if any. ) t t/ (\"1 Oltt eilLe4 t44,06Z REASONS FOR SEEKING THIS POS ION AND YOUR QUALIFICATIONS: 4/4 13( - b 4(dis 606,045P/ I. Io-r .(t04 PO!, r 94/4 4, ger-0461 Ito' 2evAT.- /7/( ,) LQ1L- 5/4 IKerit-c0 Ole* feL CebtiA• ar IN FILING THIS APPLICATION, I UNDERSTAND THAT A COMMITMENT OF MY TIME, ENERGY, INTEREST AND PARTI IPATION W LL BE INVOLVED, AND I AM PREPARED TO MAKE SUCH A COMMIT � ' IN T: 5 - ' NT I AM APPOINTED TO THE ABOVE COMMISSION. _ /, . SI AT,-;. r /to L5 APPLICATION FOR CHANHASSEN COMMISSION DATE: /7- 3 v- COMMISSION APPLYING FOR: PLF,7i7,;�� ALTERNATE: NAME: j�,,�r9 3 a7"2 P4) BIRTHDATE (optional) : 6 7 L-3 >' ADDRESS: 8cz (iJJ L4kt C% CITY: C 44,,r 44 5-yek, ZIP: SS317 HOME PHONE: - 2 S 7`' WORK PHONE: .Sy/-Y7` HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN A RESIDENT OF CHANHASSEN?: 7Gs74T HIGHEST LEVEL OF EDUCATION ATTAINED, PLUS DEGREES, IF ANY: Z5,4 ,4- /cLo, h7t 471 / CL24 CURRENT EMPLOYMENT: (State position, employer & brief description of duties. If with present employer for only a short time, list previous employment as well. ) )'i z /A)( ACTIVITIES AND AFFILIATIONS: (Include elective offices, honors and recognitions received, if any. ) 0I9A/ (/ 2 REASONS FOR SEEKING THIS POSITION AND YOUR QUALIFICATIONS: -- , 47 a .77 `? Cp/7c/„v ec-/ C, `2e Ge-t"-el Q'rfo7,4.7c .Z( cze/ -if” L ..7- 11iat p f#,z71 7L-, lc i „A/7-e, o ovv 7ecG7•7,'l Y'J /.) (-)4g 41V,rte, 1' 4- / 7/ 417 p��cct 7; b-2 Fart c e�c, c •4✓'f Lj<T,`J r e't tr Ic. 5'��7 i-tA i!CilIC, 1\ dCc. s'6►/�f l IN FILING THIS APPLICATION, I UNDERSTAND THAT A COMMITMENT OF MY TIME, ENERGY, INTEREST AND PARTICIPATION WILL BE INVOLVED, AND I AM PREPARED TO MAKE SUCH A COMMITMENT IN THE EVENT I AM APPOINTED TO THE ABOVE COMMISSION. SIGNATURE / I SVVNTS PS/CPE/OCS TO 99375739 P002 MN CITY CF CHANHASSEN 1!.39.1!!2 9$129 P. 2 11- 0-92 = Planning Commission )4U0111 • �- Judi Kurth AlltTgW1I'll (optional) 1-29-46 ID *Mg 1040 Lake Susan Hills Drive CITY(1040 Lake • 55917 MONIS 5F3-3195 1t LOI$G EAV YOB asm A PRITD VT 01P Omonnu astte 3 Years — luvr LEVEL OF $DUOATION ATTAIKD, PROS Tt ant vlankato State University Maior - Sociology 00AMINT nxp=,OYxaWT; stats position, sapioysr i brief desoriptioo of #tits. If with prtiont e*plOytr for oAly a short time i.stt pr ov.s e>mptoys tbt as veil.) f r Fi rs t Banks and �ay on s/Target _ 4.1 tate resionsibilities for service and projects Apt ITZE8 AKD PZLIATIOXII (Iso1u6s tieative ,ffioas, honors and re0 actions repaired, if any.) attact}ed NNSIopts POR BISNIMG T8r8 POSITION VD YOUR QuALrssca►TIOUAt - . • i . eart of a crowing„ progressive community IN OisNO TgIA *PPLI0ATI0K, I VINDOROTAND THAT A OOtWITl1lIIT 08 ICY TI !MAGI, *!TT R,AT ACID PA*TICIPlkTXOH WILL WE XXVOLvsD, MIDI AK PU D ?O moul Dos A .-• I navy Ifi ! ayslcls' I Ax APPozit'PLD TO TNS'; V1 coma's 0v. I . .-_ :-:- : . G' " PROM USW/NTS PS/CPE,/OCS TO 99375739 P004 JUDI A. KURTH • ADDRESS: 1040 Lake Susan Hills Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 PHONE: (612) 937-1700 - home (612) 663-3195 - business PROFESSIONAL To be a successful, respected manager known for solid, bottom line OBJECTIVE: contribution to our industry and community. SUMMARY OF * A high achiever with a proven ability to effectively QUALIFICATIONS: communicate with all levels of an organization and make significant contributions. * An experienced manager skilled at organizing a team and directing them to achieve difficult results. * Demonstrated ability for attention to detail, organizing, time management and consistency in meeting deadlines. * Highly motivated, goal oriented, persuasive, skilled in generating ideas and am known for creative, unique approaches to problem solving. Recognized as a successful community leader in economic development, community awareness and education. WORK HISTORY: November 1991 to Present ank SystemManager Systems and DaytonslSt at�egic Accounts 14 states April 1991 to November 1991 Service Manager for First Bank Systems and Honeywell/Strategic Accounts 14 states May 1989 to 1991 Manager-Installation and Maintenance, South Metro and Southeri Minnesota February 1985 to May 1989 Manager - Construction, Installation and Maintenance, Southern Minnesota April 1983 to February 1985 Manager - Cable Maintenance, Southern Minnesota December 1978 to April 1983 Manager - Assignments, Outstate Minnesota April 1977 to December 1978 Supervisor - Testing and Completion, Owatonna, MN August 1975 to April 1977 Supervisor - Service Center, Owatonna, MN 11-39-92 C9:S4AY FROM USW/NTS PS/CPE/OCS TO 99375739 P003 a a. L kap r. August 1973 to August 1975 Business office Supervisor, Owatonna, MN February 1969 to August 1973 Business Service Representative, Owatonna, MN April 1968 to February 1969 Business Services Instructor, Southern Minnesota December 1965 to April 1968 Service Representative EDUCATION: 1 9 6 4 - 1 9 6 9 Mankato State University, Mankato MN, Sociology 1 9 8 9 Minnesota Management Academy, University of Minnesota 1 9 9 1 Master of Executive Excellence, Carlson School of Business, University of Minnesota PROFESSIONAL * President, RAEDI (Rochester Area Development Incorporated), EXPERIENCES: 1989. * Vice President, United Way, Olmsted County, 1989, • Recipient, Council of Leaders, U S West, March 1989. * Secretary Treasurer, Rice Lake State Park, 1987 to present. ▪ Member, Riverfront Task Force, 1988.89. * Member, Rotary International, 1988 to 1992. * Minnesota Pluralism Council, U S West. 19825-89 * Vice Chair, Rochester 2000 Committee, Downtuµn Development, 1986-87. * Mayors Committee on Rochester Area Development, 1986-87. Responsible for the development of RAEDI and Woman board. rd. * Recipient, Athena Auard, Outstanding BusinessYear, Oldsmobile Corporation and Rochester Chamber of Commerce, October 1987. • Member, Land Improvement Contractors Association, 1985-90 FROM CITY OF CHANHASSEN 11 . 17. 1992 10: 14 P. 61 LP-- wee• IC TION FOR CHANHABB IBSION llf 25/92 DAT R . 00 IabION APPIYII-3 FOR: Plannipn Cnmmisoc ALD R NATE: : Diane Harberts BIRTHDATE (optional) : ADD BS: 7190 Frontier Trail CITY: Chan SIP:,.1;317 HO PHONE: 949-3R12 WORK PHONE: 934-792$ Howl LONG HAVE YOU BEEN A RESIDENT OF CHANHABSEN?:, 3 mos: l rkinn with HIGliEST LEVEL OF EDUCATION ATTAINED, PLUS DEGREES, IF ANY: B.S. (Four year college degree) ; some Master's level coursework a CUNT EMPLOYMENT: (State position, employer & brief description of ; uties. If with present employer for only a short time, list Rpr* ions employment as well. ) ISouthwest Metro Transit Commission --- 2+ years. Position: Administrator a Duties: Responsible for the management of the public trar)att authority. u.A.m A IVITIES AND AFFILIATIONS: (Include eleotiVs offices, honors and re gnitions received, if any. ) V. Pres elect Qf Mn P„hlir Transit 4EEoo. — Pr +grams Director/Board Member for Women Transportation Seminar organization; Mber of various transit and professional nrgani7atinnc: Dlumni Un of MN. �""'v`R' RE SONS FOR SEEKING THIS POSITION AND YOUR QUALIFICATIONS: am seeking appointment to the Chan Planning Commission because of my interest — 4 lo assist the City Council in meeting the development goals for our community. during the past two years. i have wnrkar1 rlpsGly with the Chan planninrl Srtiff o projects for Southwest Metro Transit. I believe my professional skills, m , interest to see my own community meet its development goals, and the working relationshi• that I have - . • ' •-• A . - - - • f iiii;1 FiLef1ik ifittfiiptphieaUag, CI mUNDEoBNIID o! n kxl 'cop MY TOLE, ENERGY, INTEREST AND PARTICIPATION WILL BE INVOLVED, AND I AM PR$PARED TO MAKE SUCH A COMMITMENT THE EVENT I PPOI ED TO TRS ABOVE COMMISSION• A -1_% 1,—L._ 1/_,/ BIGNAT RE . ***END*** Diane R. Harberts 7190 Frontier Trail, Chanhassen, MN Telephone: Day (612)934-7928; Eve (612)949-3812 Professional Experience: October 1990 - Present Transit Administrator, Southwest Metro Transit Commission 7600 Executive Drive, Eden Prairie, Mn 55344 As the executive director, responsible for managing the operations and activities of a recently formed nonprofit agency, for a seven member (appointed) Commission board and coordinating with city- county-state jurisdictions. Responsibilities include managing all financial activities (current 1991 budget of approx. $3 million); managing legal and legislative activities; managing transit operations including monitoring all subcontractors providing bus & paratransit and consultant services; managing personnel and capital resources; performing public relations activities; and direct the planning and refinement of existing bus & paratransit services and to coordinate services with a future light rail transit system. February 1985 - September 1990 Transportation Specialist, County of Anoka Courthouse, 325 E. Main, Anoka, MN As program director, developed and managed a 21-community based transit program for a seven member (appointed) board and coordinating with city-county-state jurisdictions. Responsibilities comprise of a wide range of progressive management responsibilities in areas of administration and planning, coordination, contract management, and marketing. Specific duties included, policy development, service contract monitoring, budget preparation and administration, service planning and implementation including coordinating bus and paratransit services with future light rail transit service; marketing/public relations, grants management, supervising, etc. June 1982 - January 1985 Assistant Analyst, The Pillsbury Company (TPC) The Pillsbury Center World Headquarters, Minneapolis, MN Apply research design, statistical analysis and outcome evaluation techniques to facilitate the accurate and timely analysis of factors essential to TPC risk position and provides. Duties included computer program and operation of spreadsheet and mainframe linear regression analysis,; communicate in written and oral reports to all levels of management at TPC; and independent project research. Education and Continuing Coursework: June 1982 - Bachelor of Science in Bus. Adm., University of Minnesota, Mpls/St. Paul, MN OTHER: (recent) Strategies to Improve Suburban Mobility, sponsored by UMTA in Washington D.C. Suburban Mobility Seminar, sponsored by National Association of Counties in Cincinnati, Ohio _ Regional Coordination, sponsored by Regional Transit Board in Mpls/St. Paul, Effective Travel Demand Management Actions, sponsored by the US Dept of Transportation Coordinating Transportation and Land Use, sponsored by UN of MN Center for Transportation Studies Solutions to Suburban Mobility Seminar, sponsored by National Associations of Counties, Miami, FL Professional Affiliations: Minnesota Public Transit Association; Appointed 1991 State Conference Co-Chair Seven-Metro County Transit Association Women Transportation Seminar Organization Metropolitan Citizens League Regional Transit Board: Provider Advisory Committee and Regional Marketing Committee American Public Transit Association Anoka, Hennepin & Carver County Regional (LRT) Rail Authority — References Available Upon Request kEcEw p NOV 2 5 1992 APPLICATION FOR CHANHASSEN COMMISSION C1TY OF ChIhNrlASS�n DATE: / COMMISSION APPLYING FOR: /q;'5/4.(4c/4.X'- ALTERNATE: NAME:\75---/-/A2 T (C.F BIRTHDATE (optional) : ADDRESS: 92,..) .Cc � -�C= CITY: �/ff•`vtirpiSQ, ZIP: s o'/7 HOME PHONE: '75/9- ;' ',<.' WORK PHONE: 9 ? - C c HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN A RESIDENT OF CHANHABSEN?: HIGHEST LEVEL OF EDUCATION ATTAINED, PLUS DEGREES, IF ANY: ///.--)A _ / _ i• CURRENT EMPLOYMENT: (State position, employer & brief description of duties. If with present employer for only a short time, list previous employment as well. ) Lic&/4x4--n'Tt,1/ey (= / / /it c C Ft: C T/o/V ie./ (7,20ik ACTIVITIES AND AFFILIATIONS: (Include elective offices, honors and recognitions received, if any. ) REASONS1FOR SEEKING THIS POSITION AND YOUR QUALIFICATIONS: -��i't'-:e.� ' / •7f= 7? l- /"e /-(!c'>i r7://3(c TX'%t' —4 ? / !;y 6/.5 •• /1•r/ ��'`. 5/C7- /4 . 4,,r/4,c-c(‘ E/CiQ�/1CC " .r� .'y' " J/51-%j',1/LPi7-f --72 47-LEA/ 7(cz>:/ 4-7/1714 e a* a (.6c-I/.. fi2:.S.7-4:?.. �7-c T} -'� �� "Q✓ ,i//,�' C ' /?E�SiIX'�l'i// i�r(.li"i G�'l~`1C(7',* 4fui i t=5 7 /ft /-e`"-'f i.S6/f/,) :-, yr2i u V"- IN IN FILING THIS APPLICATION, I UNDERSTAND THAT A COMMITMENT 6F MY TIME, ENERGY, INTEREST AND PARTICIPATION WILL BE INVOLVED, AND I AM PREPARED TO MAKE SUCH A COMMITMENT IN THE EVENT I AM APPOINTED TO THE ABOVE COMMISSION. / _- SIGNATURE /SIGNATZRE JOSEPH G. SCOTT BALFOUR 6129346494 P. 02 Tor PRINTED ON REC7CLEO PAPERri 6 Fc= : :7Y OF .HRN�-_3EH 12. 21. 1992 13= 32 F. 2 ZICATIOIf _TOREC CA)RAB@ t COKM188XO2� DATE 1 2-11 2t q1 — 0OMMI8B1OAP LYING FO tR ?CA ( NU (AJ ALTERNATE 'UM t .c . (f~ XIRTEDATE (optional) i I t S- _ ADDREB8 s O 5'/ 'P/1/�.( ( O LCITY, J i4b l' SIP* c-317. HOME PEONS t-. 3 f to ( 9 _WORK 1/$Oo'E t ` 6 U ROW LONG NAVE YOU SEEM A RESIDENT Op CAANAABSEN?s ((7 S EIQEEBT LEVEL 07 EDUCATION ATTAINED, PLUS MASSE, I! ANY? 0 _ v►'\3 ' Cou(, 1Abt . CURRENT EMPLOYMENT? (stat position, mmploysr tic brief dasaription of duties. If with prssBnt employer for only a short time, list previous smploymsnt as well. ) c. cv- • if, 7 ) SP ACTIVITIES AND AmmILIATIONa? ( nclude sisotive offioss, honors and recognitions received, if any. ) i U C v4 wt 1 ' 414E C (t. AEARONE FOR 'MING TRIG POSITION AND YOUR QUALIFICATIONS 1 Civ✓ .+AA kA- C k ;z _ c) I1A .s. L (-4 _ w • Icy k kik) , C c / v " wS;,� L` "J /\ • Ci.Q Jsz - a: ILi IN FILIN0 TNI APPLICATION, I 'UNDERSTAND TAT A COMMITMENT OP KY TINE, ENERGY, INTEREST AND PARTICIPATION MILL aE INVOLVED, AND I AM PREPARED TO MICE ME A COMMITMENT IN TEE EVENT I AM APPOINTED TO TEE ABOVE OOMMIBBION. adds • a H Q _ z 0 H EI U) W - a 3 w H > IX w E• z - H h 'p C4 CO w 0) a rc o 1.1 -0 H O QJ >, a) •-+ a) 11 10 C!) .0 a) .--4 0 'm > ••1 V) 11 N to 1i C 0) QJ H a) 40 O ••1 '0 m C E 0 0 a� O U E C c - Ii - O Cr w •.4 C) 1J O 0 v (s) U c Cr c -•i m U In E V) 41 C 0 0 11 C) 0) 11 ••1 C914 •-4 O h 14 Cr Cr ro 1.) E Z .0 >. >, Q) E b en C . •.1 E H .-1 14 0 a •-a ...I C E O 0- E Z 0 Cl. E 0 7 C - U U v a >,(,- cQ Q) O 0 0 0 al U 0 .0 64 C .-4 w . >, .0 .i 0 Z .6)a 00 1.4 .Q 41 11 a , a) E1) '0 --I 0 0 a) a) a) -•4 .0 to W 11 .0 0 1a 0 0) m 11 w +J Cr) m a 1.3 1a /0 1.4 .0 0 --4 0 --+ o) 40 c0 11 0 0 3 E c 1.) c 0) -+ 4.) .c 11 4.) 0 t))•.4 a) 0 0 0 11 0 a) ••r O o7 0 > c > h > (1) .0 .-1 •-1 U 00 Cr c a) 0) a) ori a) .b4 b E -0 10 a) Cr 0) -4 (%•• 0) -•+ 1.4 -.4 .,. C 0 c0 O Cr 1a -•1 0) •-1 01 +4 h .4 0 •-1 .••4 10 E 4.1 tr) O' C .0 o? 011 .0 a) .Q 0) 11 1+ •.1 1.4 c0 .0 0 Cr 11 .0 .0 .0 C m 10 0 .-4 C C W.0 C) C -.1 Cr 0 1+ 4-i U- ft 0h .CC 00) -143 0 •.4 0 >, 0 a) E + c0 >, C a0 040c 0 0 O 'p .0 0 ¢ --CJ --1 0 0 >, C 'c >, C >, '0 C 0 0 a 0 --I 0 U y et, 0 .-1 C 0 - m a 1Q 0) 1.1 0 0) •-4 C 0 1a 0 0 11 0 010 CS c0 10 Cr '0 a) ala 'p0 'p 0 0 0 c' t -.I C 11 a) O h 3 O 0) >, w .0 yyJ E i-1 •.r 4.Ic0 y U 4.1 >, 4.1 0) >, 0 cc c0 RS) E <o u c0 a) roc b 0 0 3 1 ..s4 0 L7 .0 0 .0 0 s 10 .0 1a .0 0 .0 w .0 O 0 0 10 11 3 +-1 3U 3w 3 Cr 3 v 3 0 3V = G 1J 10 0) E 0 . . . . . . • . • Z .-4 N en ar 1 In WD N m a, Cil X H a z = o H H CU a w H a w E't N z 'Ti H Q) ata ca, to C C ° C Z >4 a) .� .- 0N 4J O r-1 U .� . CO a) . Ks o .-� e° y o ,� U O C •-� H O �' y g v N m 0 i 0 •� U y .,4 1 U CG c O LiE ea C+ C co .� .i g t Z >' 1• 0+ 0 a' C t0 U d .. z 0 E4 U 00 d U a) .c a ° W n 4.) C A) m '' o i C. 000 cu Od w O .0 y 3 • 0 w a +' 1 o t) '''4 C1 • C a) d > d �E 4J c CD 03 0 Ad -.4 0 En el 0' C ..4 r in,., r .� O o ,� ,� o G � U O -. � .0 41) .0 .0 O ti,, w Q, C 16LI C 0 "4 C U 4. N .-I C r t C O to ,� >+ C �' C A-) CO 0 0 yv r+ C bO N 3 >, o o a a) .•4 64 ro Q+ 0 y m w cn o• IC M '° 0 y U '' �'' to a3 0 ° y b • ¢ m � b C sw 3 '� x G o A.) 4-) � 0 65 C.) .c 1.4 30 30 \ . t0 3V 3W •3a' vs 3 +� r d41 E eel C CITY OF ‘ ‘ CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER 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: December 28, 1992 SUBJ: Lake View Apartments Non-Conforming Recreational Beachlot UPDATE At the September 2, 1992, meeting of the Planning Commission, the non-conforming use permit for the Recreational Beachlot for Lake View Hills Apartments was considered. This item had been previously tabled from the August 5, 1992, Planning Commission meeting. The first time this item was tabled was to seek counsel from the City Attorney to see if any additional conditions can be placed upon this beachlot. This same question has come up during some of the other beachlot reviews. Roger Knutson, the City Attorney, said then, and continues to say, that the purpose of this hearing is to establish the level of use during the summer of 1981. The other issues being discussed are more of a policing matter. The main area of concern appears to be the open access to the beachlot. The second time this item was tabled was to allow for the applicants to provide documentation as to the level of use regarding the storage of boats on land. Lakeview Hills Investment Group has retained Craig Mertz to represent them. They applicants have resubmitted the application for a non-conforming recreational beachlot and the history of the site has been further investigated. This beach lot was not surveyed by the staff as to the level of use in the summer of 1981. The application outlines the Lakeview Hills documentation as to the level of use in 1981 as well as their request for the continued use of the beachlot es t PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Planning Commission December 28, 1992 _ Page 2 SUMMARY • Lake View Hills Apartments has requested: 1. Installation and maintenance of a gate which would be locked at night (but the residents of the complex would have lake access by keys furnished by the management); _ 2. Prohibit overnight boat dockage, prohibit overnight boat mooring, and prohibit overnight storage of boats on the beach itself, except for storage of canoe in — canoes racks (application requests 1 canoe rack with 8 to 10 boats stored); 3. All other overnight boat storage would be limited to designated portions of the _ existing parking lots (north of Lake Riley Blvd.) and other designated portions of the property lying north of the apartment building; 4. The dock length would be limited to 50 feet; and 5. Continued use of the boat launch. — Attachments: 1. Letter from Craig Mertz dated December 3, 1992. 2. Public hearing notice. 3. Planning Commission minutes dated September 2, 1992. RECE E `-e=. LAW OFFICES ��,r,� WURST, PEARSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD & M ERTZ ;j r: �� A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROEESSiONAL ASSOCIATIONS ONE FINANCIAL PLAZA. SUITE 1100 CITY Ui- 120 SOUTH SIXTH STREET _ A. THOMAS WURST, P.A. MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402-1803 TELEPHONE CURTIS A. PEARSON, P.A. (612) 336-4200 JAMES D. LARSON, P.A. FAX NUMBER THOMAS F. UNDERWOOD, P.A. (612) 338-2625 CRAIG M. MERTZ ROGER J. FELLOWS December 3 , 1992 Ms. Kate Aanenson Senior Planner City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 = Dear Ms. Aanenson: I am writing to you on behalf of Lakeview Hills Investment Group, the owner of the Lakeview Hills apartment complex on Lake Riley and Rice Marsh Lake. Enclosed you will find my clients' Application for a non-conforming recreational beach lot permit. You will note that some of the information is different from the original application as the history of the site has been investigated more fully. My clients' position is that its beach lot has the status of a legal and valid non-conforming use and that the city may not diminish those rights in this process. While your Ordinance No. 163 indicates a "trigger date" of January 18 , 1982 for the non- conforming use status of beach lots, my research indicates that Chanhassen Ordinance 47-AB (adopted January 18 , 1982) was not applicable to Lakeview Hills. Your beach lot regulations first became applicable to Lakeview Hills in 1987 when the definition of "recreational beach lot" was expanded to encompass shoreline areas which were not owned by a homeowner association. Nonetheless, in the interest of good relations with the community and without waiver of the owners' rights in the premises, the owners of the Lakeview Hills complex are willing to promulgate rules governing the use of their shoreline by Lakeview Hills residents. Specifically, the owners would be willing to do the following: 1. Install and maintain a gate which would be locked at night (but the residents of the complex would have lake access by keys furnished by management) ; and WURST. PEARSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD & MERTZ Ms. Kate Aanenson December 3 , 1992 Page 2 2 . Prohibit overnight boat dockage, prohibit overnight boat mooring, and prohibit overnight storage of boats on the beach itself - except for storage of canoes in canoe racks which would be specifically allowed; and 3 . All other overnight boat storage would be limited to designated portions of the existing parking lots (north of Lake Riley Blvd) and other designated portions of the property lying north of the apartment buildings; and 4 . Dock length would be limited to 50 feet. If you have any questions regarding the application, please call me. It would be appreciated if you would notify me as to the possible Planning Commission date as soon as possible. Very truly yours, IST, PEARSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD & MERTZ Craig M. Mertz CMM: lkg Enclosure CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 NON-CONFORMING RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT APPLICATION OWNER: 14EDWN $ S }CA $E': Lakeview Hills Investment Group CONTACT PERSON: Donna M. Bohn (AIMS, Management Company) ADDRESS: 9800 Shelard Parkway, Suite 20, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441 = TELEPHONE (Day time) 542-8111 'TELEPHONE (Evening): FAX 542-8130 Please provide all requested data consistent with what existed in the summer of 1981. 1. Number of homes ispcbritormeownesscAssociation 170 Units 2. Length of shoreland (feet) Approximately 1, 260 ' (per County Half Sectior Map) 3. Total area of Beachlot (in square feet) 52 . 8 Acres* * Apartment Complex and Lake Frontage are one parcel . 4. Number of docks 1 6. Length of dock(s) Approximately 48 ' Days and Evenings: Approx. 15 (5 fishing boat; 7. Number of boats docked Overnight : Zero or sail boats; 10 canoes) 8. Number of canoe racks 1 9. Number of boats stored on/canoe rads 8 to 10 overnight 10. Number of boats moored, i.e. canoes, paddle boats, sailboats. Overnight : zero Days and Evenings : as many as 15 (including tied to dock) 11. Number of boats on land days and evenings : as many as 15 boats overnight : as many as 15 boats 12. Swimming beach Yes x No Buoys Yes No 13. Swimming Raft Yes X No 14. Boat Launch Yes x No 15. Motor vehicle access Yes x No Number of parking spaces approximately 10 16. Structures, including portable chemical toilets: Fence Canoe Rack 17 . From time to time our residents have brought their own picnic tables down to the beach and have utilized the beach for bonfires and have used portable picnic grills on the beach. 18 . Copies of the Spring 1972 and Fall 1978 "Living Guide" advertisements are attached as Exhibit A. Similar have been run in the "Living Guide" consistently since 1972 . 19 . Affidavit of Sandra Durand is attached as Exhibit B. 20 . Affidavit of Steven Liefschultz is attached as Exhibit C. W1-1Z-OZ non 1 o.E3 P. uZ a--, •a'7.I: . , ../•..• • ' . • N•.%w.i. 1 •" . . '.A- ...:' .^ - - - miniIPP ♦• •; + 1.., f P m Ct O •~ f y r . . • , _,,,,,..,,. .. ... ..> . , . .„, . E i 4e„ E p_ c k. 1 . v:.1. 40,.....r.......... . _.... 1 .;5 ti ...I H 'Gi: ' w._ �'� d w ton Z 0 im„. ` C 01 T N G C cn j J tY .6' }' t! Y firs } t .1CC • Cm d 0 „.1 .0 n N « < • 0 A .• qCsd I`R yaJ _ � o p ,. r. . O no c yoc ma0,13 c ` „ w c � U.cag3 ,w 0 lu u, izr.1 Y N 44 ; « « p a C V • ti • 4 OZ I 5 1 c6oa c mT c 1:c if E e , ... r- kJ>.r� .... V` y7- N a�LILA :U � u8 .� : = « eV N h d , 1 ,` J ty ' o • I n 9 i/ A- > c nM o o .s .-�- O .h w Q J G 4. { 2. -may :, ri A c . Q ! Q its'+ :y= ): cCo ', z 15 15o _, 8 u =milk AREA 6 — •V 0I+ro, �t�..04.,-:gtmiTK92rtiliAd,.':Y:4 cM o.::r!'.0.4..v:r [:.�.:.9`J::.Yt{i!.r!4�' •-'W *.;-;s1Y7,-.4,. -•.�..,t4'SJ ,e0..k7^'7�ilvi+y.g:,AUr4►rokf wit.1.4.A...0i... n". z rr • In ifi ill IMI V sr.4- �: J .yr ✓ ' V N E Z7 '1 i.. �$if' •=.- .;.a,- VI G V Q J C C L. 'CJ� JOIL t•J_Q � st..� O - r NJ f • -_'':01:416.... ... _I. - '•:�.'�.�' lW o �.c m ..7 c m o J dfy O Q MOM __-4 O.Y « r. xi c it 2 r, CS I x.g. _t O U L 'G C u m Q z N r "y"••' `.-1 i `l : Q a 0 m C tC �C r N W Q 05 I�q �.c. W m Q d 7 r A k 4 k Ly�� v o a z a CL be t0 r '•'` , .- • • • • • • • • w -; . 'I \"7:1?. 4. 'jf.. 8 'S Yv,T m SJ `I r a 7ysl.•-_... get — Page 1 of 3 - Exhibit A OGT-1Z-9Z non io•zo P. 04 • • ,. . ,,, . . .. .. . • LCenturion t: , , . . . . . . al . . , the best answer to . .epartmen olligh all your housing needs APARTMENTS,TOWNHOUSES, FOR REN .„t �I i saL 7'� 1 .tea I-. . - ��, �� '1 IMIfr10' 17 1N'M� Ir - •••...." _ ;, l_ k II_ • -:. .--... ........-f..- f.._-/de AI ; 7 _ ..-----' •mil iI r _.x �, '_ 1 ,... . . . _ , _ . .. .. .....,_:...___ __ .-_...,. ._ . .. E-71.!1.T: Whether you're renting or buying, your "`••,`'"'`' :h :"' beautiful new home is waitingfor you at .• = =li '! _;'� - - i- 17 these convenient and attractive locations. - ._ 1 > � ,•., �• " ';f�„,i• k •a, Kam GRIAR1M00DA” t_,. `-_ I I+k -- - , _ -_ .� �� _ f- - , r • & �j GCpdARRON EAST m HWY 55 .1�� • .111.041 - � I — I`,- - .6-7.- � CIMARRON O r– --- _... 1. . . ` !..—_ PONDS ee '•;• 3 .. �. C PRESTON` r - ,,,,. 7 -- - bRECONW000 �y~ TRAILS WES WOOD '= 2 WbsT til -..- .. 1 i .�,_ IME5T8ROOKE HWY 7 . iwe -~/ :--r _• \ 1 tiY rz :yam_.-_''�.-.7'.• I leach] `" `.. .. '.z APARTMENT DIRECTORIES 2-.. ,. I GUIDES DF AMLRIC .IN; _ Centurion Properties working!.improveyour best. Y . ... 3 Es s411..b.f -. - ' ,e . y ► .:Cor rate head uarfs H ,kips office em z- 74. li1r11t•Oaks Gr,ltr 740-11th Awtilur South •t�_' .�� ► Ai _ Y 1550011eotala Bcuir,Qrd Hopkins,Minnto 55343 ; `"�•,~ -a -�. - _, ., ' '`�i1'):ulr,Alinnr.ola55391 Pho►r933-3311 ""� MT-1Z-9Z Z-9Z non 1 o i Zci P. 03 • • tuft — 1 F72"-- --- .. _ _:._ . -- '".`"'�• • .._-.•-- - • • it • - : . -,- • *,...e• • gi. r s eoLr • a. Jit. J' ': -.- . 4 1a.''.-z3a. ' 'i 1:F..- �#.' •, `-. �, • • �, .1. �!•��1 �. I - -� £ir k' 1 < _w ', Y t r.• •to t k` • { , ,•y -f:•:witithr .v1. _ ; -= T_ 1 '•r - I I 4,1[. 11TH 4)vs ..,-- ,., • t ,i 1 . ' '6'. - — ilit(WINI; . „...-1. .r , . , .... i s . f.ii -. L,. " -- -:.k....-- •:._7•:.:-...i.-_-_:::..14.7,trill ,tl".' ) A is '.1 Nfpw . ...... ill. _ 11 I,. ". : i.' ti.-r-TI- % a tic:: ,). 4 • ', - • Jir -02_,, - • r • ' ar More than 47 million people this -- �_`+ j•a• � -..,�. — year Many will stand in fine and wait for the _ - • i �'' • • • toga,moving company to give!hem a hand At a big . 1 ---..,:.-..r.'• ,..-�-y;,' price,of course Other more sensibre•practical folies rntl trAe the i me to foldout how easy and econom cat i a.,, •i"-i—: /"' • it isle move themse'ves.Ina Clean,roomy Chevrolet ,{$` } #, 4 � - {ldi•14.r. '.- 1rJcAor E Z low trailer from EZ - ' 3 • 5_ 'f- e'- -* •„,` ..1-.7-- • .' — j Haul. You'll move when you v< * 1 y• . • want to.a sGlutely guaranteed ��YS' fix.-„,3.,....__.--- -44,..,1,.._.+ �' _•...!..... . your belor n will rr I rS, fe^ ar �" 9i g t on ---.....--4- _-..----4,..i . :v.4�- _ • schedule With you. Visa your i ; as, --�.,- ,• .�_ friendly no aAaorhood E Z Haw' ', 1 +' L- - dealer and find out how you can •/ —"' 't' ..�, HAUL save lots of money find appra- Mt rutty/ :": - � - `� -e ms vation- The drone is yoY7a `I Urovu Gus Rfe74.1 CMtrIOW tIYlsti _.,..,,,,.4-irk ,' ,,r rr.-'='�—�^ - �aS ` One-way and Local Truck and Treitcr Rental -'— - _ '' . • - ' ',. • 8 2 7,.. 2 6 3 7 For information end reservations ,• �-�n.. _c/�p }� • .1 •t•M7+i'3071.Me mYG.Som.'5,.&...•G. - J-. -'-- F4 r7 E N T** ::-_,,-.a' E• _ y..- Page 3 of 3 - Exhibit A r : AFFIDAVIT OF SANDRA DURAND STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN _ I Sandra Durand being first duly sworn on oath states as follows: In 1981 I was the Senior Property Manager of the Management Company which owned and operated Lakeview Hills Apartment Complex in Chanhassen, Minnesota. — In 1981 and years prior, residents of Lakeview Hills Apartments were permitted to store their boats and canoes in the daytime, in the evening and overnight on the beach lot property and the residents IN FACT DID SO IN SIGNIFICANT NUMBERS. It also was our practice to allow boats and pontoons to be tied — to the dock during the day, during the evenings and overnight and the residents IN FACT DID SO IN SIGNIFICANT NUMBERS. In 1981 the boat dock at the beach lot was approximately 48 feet and at times during boating season the dock was fully occupied by boats, pontoons and canoes. The usage of the boat launch, boat dock and beach lot was extremely important to our marketing the apartments and is evidenced by our advertising in the Apartment Guide Magazines — dating back to 1972. FURTHER YOUR AFFIANT SAITH NAUGHT. - ---i4-142411L-th4::7-Zekt _ SANDRA L. DURAND Subscribednd sworn tpQ//before me thi iC/U day • /VNiji i'j , 1992 L. / 0 / // I/ — d"` An ("R'`_ KO: A 1 NOTAE. FJJ:—E' :XE:_ A DAKOTA COUNTY My Co.Rvn Ewes Ari 18.1981 miNMAAN~m~ ' — Exhibit B AFFIDAVIT OF STEVEN B. LIEFSCHULTZ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) Steven B. Liefschultz being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says as follows: 1. Your affiant is one of the principals in Lakeview Hills Investment Group which owns the Lakeview Hills apartment complex in Chanhassen, Minnesota. 2. That in the Summer of 1984 , your affiant investigated the feasibility of the purchase of the Lakeview Hills apartment complex by the entity which ultimately became Lakeview Hills Investment Group. 3 . That during the course of that investigation, your affiant observed, during the Summer of 1984 , that the beach portion of the subject premises was being utilized by Lakeview Hills residents for on-land boat and canoe storage purposes ( in the daytime and overnight) , boat launching purposes (in the daytime and during the night) , and for boat docking purposes (in the daytime, in the evenings and overnight) . AgucsoutstItItVa.4-..v,” - "•tt•t s-4 t - _ y = '1‘64.6-, -Igingifttottals F)alig ••:.•:,zaa • *a:4,Aii 14?. •W. :A. i .tai: 'is .. •.a ittiaTh, • W=6*6=n4 ic.• . .4 • i • • V' 1 i9cif,,) •i.�::i��i i. .fait.'♦ _". .,L�i.. •=jai .�i••. i-3i' .ell= :i:4/ i e 4.�'S Il niCIZIMWOMIGCUUDINI\AlliKaaMatiErtiainCaSEMODIMOZVG=00203001.%1Dat LNIAIDSIdatir:500a5COCCe1,U •14:4 :'►(. 4 OIL 4:1. 5 . I believe that in the Summer of 1984 , the dock was approximately four sections long, which would be approximately 48 feet, and that at times the dock space was fully occupied by boats. Further your affiant sayeth naught. P . AO. • IA_ ; Steven B. Liefschult. Partner, Lakeview Hills 11. -nt Croup Subscribed and sworn to before me this 23rd day of November 1992. L1 S. &,8-EI ' DANE CLOUGH /06 Notary Public E Hornig*County It- My Com Exp. 5447 Exhibit C 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 f time being . For Lakeview Hills Apartments , why don 't you give us a staf , 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 suggeste- 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 I 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 ONR 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 stat— 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 th 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 . No_ 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 o 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 and 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 lack 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 . ooking- 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 ther 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 Sohn: 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 articularpart 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 affordabi - 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 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 on 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 they 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 to 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 can 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 als 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 thi 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 ' 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 decisio- 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 your_ 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 kno- 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 '.. 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 shred 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 discussion 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 application 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 uncontrolle _ 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 i the expansion beyond '81 and there 's so many different problems with the recreational beachlot or dredging out a marina o.I 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 th 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 littl . light . Erhart: Well I guess my view is , Brian if you don 't feel that there wer 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 agen 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 fo 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 ithas 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 beachiot '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 the— 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 th 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 beachiot 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 beachiot 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 Ccontrol issue . Erhart: What 's the current ordinance? Conrad: And if that means revoking the beachlot , this permit , because o£ 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 ha it but there 's absolutely no reason that we have to continue adding to i 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 an- 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 . 1 �S-xc_ I `i�. --fes r/ it • - _� 'i 0 0 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ` --= _� 212 � ¶$ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ~---�� rsoPcsE !..---. – Wednesday, January 6, 1993 - 7:30 Lakcry e P.M. — –T-- s City Hall Council Chambers 41-1‘pow. 690 Coulter Drive , al.hf , ------------ Project: Lakeview Hills Apartments Eir A n y Non-Conforming Recreational .j--- -''Ji 1 - Beachlot A ' I 9 Applicant: Lakeview Hills Apartments % , „' E �f �� Homeowners Association '''RK Ai .;iii.,.....-..11 I 7 .1\it.14704'•:::%':: UNA& LAKE Location: North side of Lake Riley / ria%// s !� RILEY Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. Lakeview Hills Homeowners Association for a non-conforming recreational beachlot. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant'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 Aanenson 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 December 24, 1992. • RAYMOND & J. LEWIS BRENDA M. SCHAEF1 ±R ALBERT & C. TRAPANESE 9071 LAKE RILEY BLVD. 8591 TIGUA CIRCLE 8571 TIGUA LANE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 BRUCE & T BIRKELAND DAVID & C. NAGEL • RICHARD & J. LARSON 1140 WILLOW CREEK 8550 TIGUA CIRCLE C/O MGM CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 8590 TIGUA CIRCLE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DALE & R. BOYER JOSEPH & G. HAUTMAN BENJAMIN & P. SWENSON 9005 LAKE RILEY BLVD. 8551 TIGUA CIRCLE 9015 LAKE RILEY BLVD. CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 P.O. BOX 129 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 VENCIL & C. PREWITT LESLIE O'HALLORAN RICHARD J. CHADWICK 421 LYMAN BLVD. P.O. BOX 683 420 LYMAN BLVD. CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 LELAND & L. WYMAN AL H. KLINGELHUTZ JAMES & P. DOLEJSI 400 LYMAN BLVD. 8600 GREAT PLAINS BLVD. 9260 KIOWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 T. J. HIRSCH MGMT. CO. NORMAN, JR. & K. GRANT ARTHUR & J. MULLIGAN SUITE 30 9021 LAKE RILEY BLVD. 8501 TIGUA CIRCLE 45 SOUTH 7TH STREET CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 DAVID S. NICKOLAY MATTHEW & C THILL STEVEN & K BURKE 8500 TIGUA CIRCLE 9610 MEADOWLARK LANE 9591 MEADOWLARK LANE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANTHASSEN MN 55317 CHANTHASSEN MN 55317 WM & S PREDOVICH STEVE & CHAR ZUMBUSCH MICHAEL & M. WISTRAND 9611 MEADOWLARK LANE 9794 CRESTWOOD TERRACE 219 LOGAN AVENUE NORTH CHANHASSEN MN 55317 EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55347 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55405 DAVID AND LYNNE HIGH MICHAEL AND LISA REILLY NEIL A. KLINGELHUTZ 4330 OAKVIEW LANE 2305 INDIAN RIDGE DRIVE 9731 MEADOWLARK LANE PLYMOUTH MN 55442 GLENVIEW IL 60025 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT & D ROGERS MARK & STARLA DANIELSON 4917 DIANE DR 11150 SUMPTER CIRCLE MINNETONKA MN 55345 BLOOMLNGTON MN 55438 THOMAS & M ROGERS NORBERT & C LICKTEIG J & J HUNGELMANN 14700 EXCELSIOR BLVD 9111 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9117 LAKE RILEY BLVD - MINNETONKA MN 55345 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOHN JR & M GOULETT RICHARD & F OLIN JIM & JAN HENDRICKSON 9119 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9125 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9131 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 TIM & PATTY BESSER CURTIS KRIER GREG & KELLY HASTINGS - 9209 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9211 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9217 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DENNIS & A BAKER EUNICE KOTTKE ALAN & K DIRKS _ 9219 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9221 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9203 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GEORGE & M DEWITT RONALD YTZ.EN FREDRICK & J POTTHOFF 3127 4TH ST SE 9227 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9231 LAKE RILEY BLVD - MINNEAPOLIS MN 55414 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOHN W ARDOYNO PAUL K OLSON SUNNYSLOPE HOMEOWNERS 9235 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9239 LAKE RILEY BLVD LESLIE TIDSTROM CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 340 DEERFOOT TR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOY TANNER LUCILLE REMUS CRAIG & K HALVERSON 9243 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9245 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9283 KIOWA TR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SIDNEY MOSMAN GARY EASTBURN RICHARD BLUMENSTEIN 7311 IZAAK WALTON RD 9355 KIOWA TR 9361 KIOWA TRAII. MINNEAPOLIS MN 55438 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOHN W & B BELL HAROLD & J KING DONALD & K SITTER 9371 KIOWA TRAIL 9391 KIOWA TR 9249 LAKE RILEY BLVD - CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PETER PEMRICK JR BARRY & H BERSHAW JIM & MARY E JESSUP 9251 KIOWA TRAIL 9271 KIOWA TR 9247 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 . • DEL & N SMITH BOB & S PETERSON RAY & J LEWIS 9051 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9101 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9071 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 _ • RAYMOND & C BRANDT ; ARTHUR & M HALL WILLIAM BERNHJELM PO BOX 722 9376 KIOWA TRAIL 9380 KIOWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 . ROBERT & M EICKHOLT RICHARD A MOSMAN ET AL PETER & G LILLIE 9390 KIOWA TRAIL 541 FAIRFIELD 9355 KIOWA TRAIL - CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ST PAUL MN 55112 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MARK & P MOKSNES RANDALL DUSOSKI JAMIE & S HEILICHER 9381 KIOWA TRAIL 9270 KIOWA TRAIL 9280 KIOWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 FREDERICK & J AMRHEIN PAUL & M ZAKARIASEN ELDON BERKLAND 9350 KIOWA TRAIL 600 94TH ST W 9261 KIOWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 _ PC DATE: 1/6/93 C ITY OF CC DATE: 1/25/93 � � ClIANIIASSZN CASE #: 92-13 SUB - By: Aanenson:k STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Request to subdivide an existing metes and bounds parcel, .86 acres in size, into two lots of .48 acres and .41 acres. I- Z LOCATION: Nez Perce APPLICANT: Stuart Hoarn 6745 Amberst Lane Road 0. Eden Prairie, MN 55346 0 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Single Family Residential ACREAGE: 2.107 acres DENSITY: 2 units per 1/2 acre ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - RSF; single family residence S - RSF; Vineland Forest Subdivision E - RSF; single family residence W - RSF; single family residence [i WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. Ili. PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The lot is vacant. The site is relatively flat. There is a large stand of trees I"" in the southeast corner. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential Vinewood Addition January 6, 1993 _ Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a subdivision of a recently created lot. This lot was split with the Edwards Vogel Subdivision, 915 Pleasant View Road, last spring. The applicant is requesting to split this lot which is .86 acres in size into two lots. The lot split would create two lots, Lot 1 would be .48 acres and Lot 2 would be .41 acres. This property is zoned RSF, Residential Single Family. The minimum lot size in the RSF zone is 15,000 square feet. Both lots exceed this requirement. The requested subdivision is consistent with a conceptual layout that was revised several years ago in conjunction with the Vineland — Forest plat. The lots being created do not have frontage on a public street. The Subdivision Ordinance allows _ up to 4 homes to be served by a private drive. When the Vineland Forest Subdivision was created in 1989, staff proposed a street layout for all of the parcels in this area. The developers of Vineland Forest platted two outlots. Outlot A was created to give access to the existing home — on Lot 1, Block 2 of Vineland Forest. Outlot A is not being used and a portion of it has been included into the proposed lots. Outlot B was dedicated to the city for access and utility purposes. The city would like to retain ownership of this property for utility purposes. With the — Edwards Vogel Subdivision the city recorded an access agreement for Outlot B. Based upon our review, staff is recommending that the plat be approved without variances and subject to appropriate conditions. — BACKGROUND This lot is a portion of Vineland Subdivision platted in 1887. Vineland Subdivision had 11 lots and this lot is part of the original Lot 3. Most of the original Vineland Subdivision has been replatted, including most recently Vineland Forest and Troendle Subdivisions. During the — Vineland Forest plat, the potential division of this site was reviewed. Outlot B was specifically created to provide access consistent with that which is requested in the current proposal. STREETS/ACCESS The site is currently accessed via a gravel drive along the easterly lot line from Pleasant View Road. The proposed access for Lots 1 and 2 is from Nez Perce Drive via two separate driveways. It is recommended that the applicant combine driveways in an effort to reduce access _ points along the curve of Nez Perce Drive. A single access servicing these two lots is strongly recommended. A driveway or cross-access easement should be prepared to regulate access and maintenance responsibilities. _ This parcel is proposing to access onto Nez Perce Drive which is proposed to be extended westerly to Pleasant View Road in the near future. Since the applicant has not paid their fair — Vinewood Addition January 6, 1993 Page 3 share for access to a public street, it is recommended that these lots contribute towards the extension of Nez Perce Drive, similarly to the Troendle Addition which lies immediately adjacent _ to the west. The developer of Troendle Addition contributed $10,000 for the 11 lots in Troendle Addition. Therefore, it is recommended that the applicant contribute his fair share of approximately $900 per lot to the City for the extension of Nez Perce Drive. LANDSCAPING/'1'KEE PRESERVATION There is a significant amount of vegetation on the southeastern edge of the property. A driveway onto Nez Perce would result in the elimination of some trees. Not all of these trees are of high value. Staff would recommend that a home placement plan be provided, as well as a landscaping/tree preservation plan, to ensure minimal tree loss. GRADING/DRAINAGE A proposed grading plan was submitted along with the preliminary plat. The proposed grades are consistent with the overall neighborhood drainage pattern. No storm sewer improvements are proposed for this development due to the relatively small size of the project. Location of the driveway access may or may not require modification to the existing catch basin on Nez Perce Drive. The applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with modifying the catch basin if applicable. All work shall be inspected by the City. Erosion control measures are not proposed at this time since no grading will transpire until building permits are issued. Staff has typically assigned erosion control measures at the time of building permit issuance. Typically with all subdivisions a development contract is prepared and enforced: however, since this is basically a simple lot division and there are not public improvements being installed, staff feels it not necessary to prepare a development contract. UTILITIES Municipal sanitary sewer and water service is available to the parcel. Individual sanitary sewer and water service will need to be extended from the sewer and water lines which run adjacent to the west property line. Previous assessment records indicate this parcel was previously subdivided and assessed one connection charge payable at building permit issuance. The proposed subdivision creates and additional lot; therefore, an additional connection charge should be collected at the time of building permit issuance. The connection charge payable in 1993 is $7,907.44. This should be collected for each lot as the building permit is issued. The City will be responsible for extending the individual sanitary sewer and water services to the property line. The developer/builder will be responsible for extending into the house. Vinewood Addition January 6, 1993 Page 4 — EASEMENTS/RIGHT-OF-WAY The previous plat of this site (Edwards Vogel) dedicated an additional 7 feet of right-of-way along Pleasant View Road. It is recommended that this plat also dedicate an additional 17 feet of road right-of-way along Pleasant View Road over Outlot A at this time. Staff is questioning the intent of Outlot A. It is recommended that Outlot A be combined with one of the adjacent parcels to avoid the possibility of going tax forfeit. COMPLIANCE TABLE RSF District Lot 1 Lot 2 — Minimum Lot 15, 000 sq ft 20,900 sq ft 18,050 sq ft Lot Frontage 90 feet 104 feet 100' flag Min Depth 125 feet 333 feet 226 feet Front Setback 30 feet flag lot 64 feet 64 feet Rear Setback 30 feet flag lot 30 feet 30 feet Side Setback 20 feet flag lot 17 feet * 17 feet * * The side yard setback requirements for a flag lot is 20 feet. Both lots being created do not meet this standard. Staff is recommending that the house pad be reduced to meet the setback standards. A house 60 feet wide would still fit on the lot. _ RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Subdivision #92-13 with the following _ conditions: 1. The proposed house location meets the flag lot setback requirements. — 2. A landscaping, tree preservation, and home placement plans shall be submitted at the time of the building permit application for staff review and approval. — 3. The applicant shall dedicate to the City by final plat additional of road right-of-way on Outlot A along Pleasant View Road to arrive at one-half the total right-of-way of 40 feet — contiguous from the north line of Lot 2, Block 1, Edwards/Vogel Addition. Vinewood Addition January 6, 1993 Page 5 4. The remaining portion of Outlot A should be deeded or combined to one of the adjacent parcels. 5. The applicant shall utilize a single driveway access onto Nez Perce Drive. A cross-access or driveway easement shall be prepared guaranteeing access and maintenance responsibilities for the two parcels. 6. The City will provide and install individual sanitary sewer and water services to the property line at the time a building permit is issued for Lots 1 and 2,Vinewood Addition. At the time of building permit issuance for Lots 1 and 2, a connection charge in the amount of $7,907.44 (1993 balance) shall be collected. 7. The applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with modifying any manholes or catch basins as a result of the driveway access onto Nez Perce Drive. 8. The applicant shall contribute $1,800 to the City for future extension of Nez Perce Drive to Pleasant View Road." Attachments 1. Memo from Dave Hempel dated December 15, 1992. 2. Hearing notice. 3. Preliminary plat dated November 23, 1992. CITY OF 1 ‘ CHANHASSEN • 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Kate Aanenson, Sr. Planner FROM: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Techniciantv v, DATE: December 15, 1992 SUBJ: Review of Preliminary Plat for Vinewood Addition File No. 93-1 Land Use Review Upon review of the preliminary plat prepared by Ron Krueger & Associates dated September 25, 1992, I offer the following comments and recommendations: UTILITIES Municipal sanitary sewer and water service is available to the parcel. Individual sanitary - sewer and water service will need to be extended from the sewer and water lines which run adjacent to the west property line. Previous assessment records indicate this parcel was previously subdivided and assessed one connection charge payable at building permit issuance. The proposed subdivision creates and additional lot; therefore, an additional connection charge should be collected at the time of building permit issuance. The connection charge payable in 1993 is $7,907.44. This should be collected for each lot as the building permit is issued. The City will be responsible for extending the individual sanitary sewer and water services to the property line. The developer/builder will be responsible for extending into the house. GRADING AND DRAINAGE A proposed grading plan was submitted along with the preliminary plat. The proposed grades are consistent with the overall neighborhood drainage pattern. No storm sewer improvements are proposed for this development due to the relatively small size of the project. Location of the driveway access may or may not require modification to the existing catch basin on Nez Perce Drive. The applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with modifying the catch basin if applicable. All work shall be inspected by the City. t4: PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Kate Aanenson December 15, 1992 Page 2 Erosion control measures are not proposed at this time since no grading will transpire until building permits are issued. Staff has typically assigned erosion control measures at the time of building permit issuance. Typically with all subdivisions a development contract is prepared and enforced; however, since this is basically a simple lot division and there are not public improvements being installed, staff feels it not necessary to prepare a development contract. ACCESS The site is currently accessed via a gravel drive along the easterly lot line from Pleasant _ View Road. The proposed access for Lots 1 and 2 is from Nez Perce Drive via two separate driveways. It is recommended that the applicant combine driveways in an effort to reduce access points along the curve of Nez Perce Drive. A single access servicing these two lots is strongly recommended. A driveway or cross-access easement should be prepared to regulate access and maintenance responsibilities. This parcel is proposing to access onto Nez Perce Drive which is proposed to be extended westerly to Pleasant View Road in the near future. Since the applicant has not paid their fair share for access to a public street, it is recommended that these lots contribute towards the extension of Nez Perce Drive similarly to the Troendle Addition which lies immediately adjacent to the west. The developer of Troendle Addition contributed $10,000 for the 11 lots in Troendle Addition. Therefore, it is recommended that the applicant contribute his fair share of approximately $900 per lot to the City for the extension of Nez Perce Drive. The previous plat of this site dedicated an additional 7 feet of right-of-way along Pleasant View Road. It is recommended that this plat also dedicate an additional 7 feet of road right-of-way along Pleasant View Road over Outlot A at this time. Staff is questioning what is the intent of Outlot A. Will it be sold to the adjacent property owner (Cunningham) or will it be left as an alternative access to serve Lots 1 and 2? It is recommended that Outlot A be combined with one of the adjacent parcels to avoid the possibility of going tax forfeit. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The applicant shall dedicate to the City by final plat an additional 7 feet of road right-of-way on Outlot A along Pleasant View Road to arrive at one-half the total right-of-way of 40 feet contiguous from the north line of Lot 2, Block 1, Edwards/Vogel Addition. 2. Outlot A should be deeded or combined to one of the adjacent parcels. Kate Aanenson December 15, 1992 Page 3 3. The applicant shall utilize a single driveway access onto Nez Perce Drive. A cross- — access or driveway easement shall be prepared guaranteeing access and maintenance responsibilities for the two parcels. 4. The City will provide and install individual sanitary sewer and water services to the property line at the time a building permit is issued for Lots 1 and 2, Vinewood Addition. At the time of building permit issues for Lots 1 or 2, a connection charge in the amount of $7,907.44 (1993 balance) shall be collected. 5. The applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with modifying any manholes or catch basins as a result of the driveway access onto Nez Perce Drive. 6. The applicant shall contribute $1,800 to the City for future extension of Nez Perce Drive to Pleasant View Road. ktm c: Charles Folch, City Engineer _ �►'� LAKE / ( .4 „foNOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Ir(9. . i. ..►' , PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING / � ,�� „v Wednesday, January6, 1993 - 7:30 ►�J '© P.M. City Hall Council Chambers 690 Coulter Drive LiL Amtj � �Qn�i ►,,�`� Project: Vinewood Addition IiIII ergio i j :' mEEL ilLINLAZ=NP I Developer: Stuart Hoarn mirnalnesiagN RCIE I• A H' <72.ei Location: South of Pleasant View Road � and North of Nez Perce Drive — 1 .4m '� �i N! gm_ 12.1 mowmik ma 0. Vies EV17.1.11 1 IrttiA rtim Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The developer, Stuart Hoarn is proposing to replat 1 lot into 2 lots on property zoned RSF, Residential Single Family and located south of Pleasant View Road, just north of Nez Perce Drive, Vinewood Addition. 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 December 24, 1992. Jonathan & Linda McGrath Timothy & Theresa Klouda Erick & Jana Johnson 6381 Fox Path 6401 Fox Path 6411 Fox Path Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dennis & Ann Sullivan Charles & Beverly Enderson Steven & Kimberly Lattu 6421 Fox Path 6431 Fox Path 840 Fox Court Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Steven & Brenda Hachtman Jimmy & Mary Roane Frederick Bruno & 860 Fox Court 6571 Fox Path Mari Ann Skalicky Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 6560 Fox Path Chanhassen, MN 55317 Frank, Jr. & Marilyn Beddor Gordon & Patricia Whiteman William P. Cunningham c/o Victory Envelope 825 Pleasant View Road 865 Pleasant View Road 1000 Park Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Henry, Jr. and Sharon Graef Arthur & R. Owens Daniel J. Rogers 855 Pleasant View Road 6535 Peaceful Lane Sharon K. Peterson Rogers Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 1200 Lake Lucy Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Countryside Management David & Linda Lundahl Donald Shearer 1935 Wayzata Blvd. W. 6501 Nez Perce Drive 1935 Wayzata Blvd. W. Long Lake, MN 55391 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Long Lake, MN 55391 S. Thomas & Sharon Morga Todd Cocallas James & Kari Ledin Apt. 207 1935 Wayzata Blvd. W. 840 Vineland Court 603 Lake Street Long Lake, MN 55391 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Excelsior, MN 55331 Richard & Nancy Hajt Benjamin & Marjorie Lammers David & Paula Donna 820 Vineland Court 861 Vineland Court 881 Vineland Court Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Doug & D. Olsen Daniel & Janet Syverson Frank, Jr. & Marilyn Beddor 1935 Wayzata Blvd. W. 921 Vineland Court 7951 Powers Blvd. Long Lake, MN 55391 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Frank, Jr. & Marilyn Beddor Dennis & Gai Mathisen 4400 Gulf Shore Blvd. N. 850 Pleasant View Road Naples, FL 33940 Chanhassen, MN 55317 C ITY 0 F PC DATE: 1/6/93 1, C HA I H A E I'7 CC DATE: 1/25/93 `may CASE #: 92-11 Sign Variance STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: An 8 foot Setback Variance for the Construction of a Monument Sign on the Americana Community Bank Site z QV LOCATION: 600 West 79th Street - North of Hwy. 5 and east of Market Boulevard eL APPLICANT: KRJ Associates Q P. O. Box 635 Long Lake, MN 55356 PRESENT ZONING: BH, Highway Business District ACREAGE: 70,000 square feet DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - BG and CBD;Filly's and Country Suites Hotel QS - BH; vacant T— E - BH; vacant QW - BG; Market Square and fountain W WATER AND SEWER: Is available to the site PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site contains Americana Community Bank. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial Americana Community Bank Sign Permit Variance January 6, 1993 Page 2 • PROPOSAL/SUMMARY This request is for the construction of a 75 square foot monument sign to be located 2 feet from the westerly property line of the Americana Community Bank site. The base of the sign encroaches into a drainage and utility easement. The zoning ordinance prohibits any structures be built within any drainage and utility easements. The design of the sign is also being revised from what the Planning Commission and City Council originally approved on March 9, 1992. BACKGROUND On February 19, 1992, the Planning Commission reviewed the site plan for Americana Community Bank site. The plans showed 1 monument identification sign proposed at the westerly edge of the site. The sign had an area of 70 square feet with no base and a pitched element to it. The plans also reflected the sign location at 2 feet from the westerly property line. It was an oversight by staff not to note the setback; however, one of the conditions of approval of the site plan for Americana Community Bank stated that the applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site. On November 18, 1992, staff conducted an inspection prior to issuing a certificate of occupancy for the bank. At that time, it was noted that there was a sign base built close to the property line. Staff noted that the plans reflected a 2 foot setback; however, a sign permit had not been issued approving that location. Staff informed the applicant that the location of the sign does not conform with the sign ordinance and that the ordinance requires a 10 foot setback from the property line. The applicant elected to apply for a sign variance. The applicant is requesting an 8 foot setback variance for the purpose of erecting the monument sign. The zoning ordinance requires that all monument signs in the BH District be located 10 feet from a property line. The Planning Commission shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. That the literal enforcement of this Chapter would cause undue hardship. "Undue hardship" means the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within five hundred (500) feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that in developed neighborhoods pre-existing standards exist. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing from them meet this criteria. Americana Community Bank Sign Permit Variance January 6, 1993 Page 3 Finding - There were a number of factors that contributed to the hardship in this case. The oversight by staff to notice the sign shown at a setback of 2 feet from the property line was one factor. However, a condition of approval of the site plan noted that the applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on the site. The second factor was that the applicant revised the monument sign plans prior to consulting with staff. The original plans did not show a base. Staff first found out about the revisions in the plan when a site inspection was conducted for the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Had the applicant applied for a the sign permit prior to construction of the base, staff would have pointed out that the setback of 10 feet must be maintained and the design must be consistent with what was originally approved by the Planning Commission and City Council reflecting the pitched element. Approval of this application will create a precedent in the district. b. That the conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding - The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding - The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel. d. That the alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding - The difficulty is self created. Had the applicant applied for a sign permit prior to building the base of the sign, staff would have pointed out that the 10 foot setback must be maintained. e. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. Finding - Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. f. That the proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increases the Americana Community Bank Sign Permit Variance January 6, 1993 Page 4 • danger of fire, or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Finding - The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increases the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission denies a variance to Sign Permit #92-11." Should the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance to the sign permit, staff recommends that the following conditions be adopted: 1. The applicant shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the city agreeing that the city will not be held liable for any damages done to the sign while performing maintenance within the utility and drainage easement. 2. The applicant incorporate the pitched element in the sign as was approved on March 9, 1992." ATTACHMENTS 1. Design of sign approved by Planning Commission and City Council. 2. New proposed sign design. 3. Letter from applicant. 4. Location map. — 5. Application. 6. Staff report. 0 N`" TENANT ONE ; TENANT TWO- �ri MONUMENT SIGN 118" = 1'0" P) O'nnilen Crnmission Det n o ti n a- )\ u Ei, Inc:. kr. '4rv1 :sem �UI C{/1}IUIIWUIDJ II S31V1DOSSV ray — ............. �_..__, Bu��l.tawet 1I d ..--:: Cci;):, i rs 1:5---3 C --t—Z::. 0.t. F *N ii - ....- } C1 JV2- �Q OQ (no uu�?an �`� i -. ........8 c: Ir-} cna 0 �� U O .--j06 0 iv: -r,Pm j'=J W i...' m .`. O W N 3 p iy z 4�= m -4La I— Q CD J 5 co O i0h O >• E-3 J .L b � $"Y = i w W � i Z r O Q co immi ^' m Q O Z W Q '- .0 ; VARIANCE REQUEST SUMMARY AMERICANA COMMUNITY BANK 600 WEST 79TH STREET CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA Through the course of this project the Bank has made every effort to work with the City to assure a successful project. The monument sign has always been represented at the location which the base was installed, and had received both Planning Commission and City Council approvals. Upon applying for a sign permit to put the signage unit on top, we were informed that due to an oversight, the base had been located to close to the property line. We feel that the monument sign at the location where the base has been installed will present no problems to the city and we ask that a variance be granted to allow the completion of the sign. It should be noted that we are over 20' from Market Blvd and 12' from the sidewalk. As reference Market Square has two monument signs, one on Market Blvd and one on West 78th St., both which are closer to the road and sidewalk than we are requesting. I_CL euel�aweV SC• a• � . _ I S31YIoOSSV no 11' .•.•••• .�..._. Y y ia• 141:.-- ,j,' .; '�V / 8 I r a � laY �t i / . ` • 41211., we . t. tr 4 " la 000___,-. ?‘.. .( . I... ; , I I p 0 r • t 1 I i to "� \ - . ir • 3,+ I ,r - . -uck. - . .L.°.:4'' "NI U..1. 3 o y r..._ _ --%1: V, .,I _ k 1' —. Iia t, . •PL- !!��, • 0, ,V f I ��a Gl: �\ 4P 1- ••.0..4 OD 6Lr,a 0.-.0,4D,'''' ,- ,4D'''' , 1-- �• v6+t(b 'z-,t4 ' • l 1 �c)a <� tP 1 � ` Z tl. ;4.k.•-AI Z I �8-,9: •o-,-� 1 : � (.t,9 'o•'�•. + 4:•.' L f g w� ,. _: • moi 3�.+d I ;r fO�JIilI InCI AF:J�W g - . "0 ,i• r -r .� , • ` • ter,LI c- i I• I • 10 rt .,� f .i\I V • 1 r L :I I I • I`n'k zC� � ;• ., 1 J „ • 9. --_ , ....: ... 4 h. t i!- • ,,,, , 1....• • 1 • !iil••. )-- :1 0 `\ I I r--- ,, 4 1 L� • • _ ..,...,-",..- - .A i 1 lit _' d, J+3 `T�L7 C 3�Y u • • • . e --�- __.4 •� /it _ a I.o • • �jl i - ! = i :� •.�' Q I m / •.` Is. . '• ' 1 P,4 ; (s. Stits:aieltV .•. E �M_ lit 1 /. • , . - 4200 w* ' LN �� s 3\r/i1 q• •moi z i ..:777., i4. � v a �e� � < Q pW Z Of .t. to I CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: Sf g I Am, Jn-r-F 5 OWNER ,4,0 135c1.4 ADDRESS: P. D. 130Ne (3S ADDRESS: 64t7 v7q -)r -LD,1C. L MI,L TELEPHONE (Day time) ''/73- 1208 TELEPHONE: 131 - `151 C. 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Subdivision 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Vacation of ROW/Easements 3. Grading/Excavation Permit 13. Variance 4. Interim Use Permit 14. Wetland Alteration Permit 5. Notification Signs 15. Zoning Appeal 6. Planned Unit Development 16. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 7. Rezoning 17. Filing Fees/Attorney Cost - (Collected after approval of Item) 8. Sign Permits 18. Consultant Fees 9. Sign Plan Review 10. Site Plan Review TOTAL FEE $ A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must included with the application. Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted. 8W X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. * NOTE -When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME Arneic►ca'►A h.1.-"v.11T`r 13A-a< LOCATION 'OO \-/ts - 79t—% S'n-€c- LEGAL DESCRIPTION Wnaf '1O,000 if. of for I / /4.oc.x, 1, (RocS20RLiP e- 2_? Aoc),Tio.II PRESENT ZONING 13 It' REQUESTED ZONING PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THiS REQUEST cu.a 40.4 ►a J 4-C. This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. i will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and Information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded against the title to the property for which the approval/permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's Office and the original document returned to City Hall Records. /e3/9Q nature of 'p• cant Date C /a/3ate/ O • ture of FeeOwner D Application Received on 12.-7 ` /2--Fee Paid 5N Receipt No. `+ 17.\ 5o °bteco�'�;r This application will be considered by the Planning Commission/Board of Adjustments and Appeals on . , I T Y OF PC DATE: 2/19/92 \ I C H A I H A S S E CC DATE: 3/9/92 CASE #: 92-1 SITE 90-2 VAC 89-19 SUB STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: 1) Site Plan Review for an 11,468 Square Foot Bank and Office Building - Americana Community Bank 2) Replat Lots 1 and 2,Block 1, Crossroads Plaza, into two parcels with areas of 70,000 Square Feet and 164,762 Square Feet Z 3) Vacation of a cross access easement and an underlying utility Q and drainage easement located on Lot 2, Block 1, Crossroads V Plaza 2nd Addition D. LOCATION: North of Highway 5, east of Market Boulevard, south of Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul, and Pacific Railroad APPLICANT: KRJ Associates City of Chanhassen P 0 Box 635 LuuE L�.�, MN L.53:6 PRESENT ZONING: BH, Highway and Business Services District ACREAGE: 234,762 Sq Ft (Plat) 70,000 Sq Ft (Site Plan) DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - BG and CBD, Filly's and Country Suites S - BH, Vacant E - BH, Vacant Q W - BG, Vacant (Future Market Square) and - Fountain 0 WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. W I". PHYSICAL CHARAC;t'ER.: The site has been extensively altered due to the (n construction of Market Boulevard and West 79th Street. The site is flat and devoid of tree cover. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial Americana Community Bank February 19, 1992 Page 2 PROPOSAL /SUMMARY At the time staff submitted their February 19, 1992, report to the Planning Commission, the site plan for the Americana Bank was for a smaller building than what is being proposed Staff was informed of the revisions two days prior to the Planning Commission meeting date. The additional building area will be used to expand office space. The expansion illustrated but not proposed in the original plan. Since the change was minor and staff wished to expedite the review, we kept the site plan on the agenda with amended conditions. A second change in the site plan was the preparation of a traffic study investigating the safety of allowing full access (left/right in and out) curb cut on Market Boulevard. Staff was initially hesitant in recommending approval of such access, but the traffic study concluded that it could be accommodated Rather than writing an update to the staff report containing all the changes, staff rewrote the report. The original report submitted to the Planning Commission is attached (Attachment #1). This request is for the construction of an 11,468 square foot bank building on the westerly 70,000 square feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Crossroads Plaza. This parcel is currently owned by the Chanhassen Housing and Redevelopment Authority. The applicant is negotiating with the HRA to purchase the property. Approval of the purchase was scheduled to take place on February 20, 1992. As part of the agreement, the city is replatting the subject property and adjacent property (Lot 2, Block 1) which is also under the ownership of the HRA. The site plan is well developed. The architecture of the bank building attempts to reflect - the nearby Market Square Shopping Center through the use of stucco accent tiles, columns and accentuated gabled entries, as well as the roof line of the Country Suites Hotel. Staff is proposing that the type of shingle which resemble wood shakes from a distance be used similar to the Country Suites Hotel. One highly attractive feature of the site is the inclusion of a pedestrian plaza at the intersection of West 79th Street and Market Boulevard. A four _ lane drive-thru is provided to the north of the building. The stacking area for the drive-thru will be on the northeast portion of the site. The location for the drive-thru is appropriate as it places car stacking away from Market Boulevard and West 79th street. The drive-thru is screened by the bank building and landscaping from West 79th Street and Market Boulevard. The site landscaping is generally of high quality. Landscaping materials along the railroad tracks may be restricted due to sight distance limitations as it may obstruct visibility of oncoming trains to traffic on Market Boulevard. The Twin Cities and Western Railroad has been sent a copy of the plans for review and comments and staff has made several attempts to contact them by telephone. As of today, no comments have been received. Site access is of concern in this proposal. Several years ago, a subdivision and site plan for the Crossroads National Bank was approved for this site with two access points on West Americana Community Bank February 19, 1992 Page 3 79th Street. The most easterly access was to be shared by the adjoining property. That plan also had an access point on Market Boulevard with a right-in/left-in only. All of the above mentioned access points have been installed by the city. The applicant for Americana Community Bank requested two full access points. One via Market Boulevard (right/left in and out), and the second via West 79th Street. Staff had some concerns regarding the Market Boulevard island cut and allowing a left turn in and out due to traffic safety concerns. A traffic study was preformed by Strgar, Roscoe and Fausch, the city's traffic consultant, prior to the February 19, 1992, Planning Commission meeting. This study concluded that full access could be accommodated. The second access point is through West 79th Street. The access via West 79th street will be exclusively used by the applicant which in turn reduces one access drive. In an accompanying subdivision request, Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Crossroads Plaza are being replatted into two lots, one of which will contain the bank building and the second will be reserved for future development. The subdivision request is a relatively straight forward action. A simple utility and cross access easements vacation are being requested as well. These easements were part of a previous plat and are no longer needed. Based upon the foregoing, staff is recommending that the City Council approve the site plan, subdivision, and vacation requests for this proposal without variances and subject to appropriate conditions. BACKGROUND On February 12, 1989, the City Council approved the preliminary and final plat for Crossroads Plaza Addition. The plat consisted of two lots and four outlots. Lot 1 consists of 2.47 acres and Lot 2 is 3.02 acres. Two of the outlots were utilized for Highway 5 right- of-way dedication. The other two outlots were used for drainage and retention ponds. Lot 1 was to become the future site for the Crossroads National Bank. On October 23, 1989, the City Council approved the site plan for the bank. The site plan consisted of a bank and office building with a total area of 14,000 square feet. Operation of the bank was proposed to begin out of a modular banking facility while the permanent facility was being built. The city constructed a parking lot, three access points to the site, and installed light fixtures to prepare the site for the Crossroads National Bank's temporary facility. The site plan proposed an entrance only along Market Boulevard with an exit only at the southwesterly portion of West 79th Street to accommodate a drive-thru teller. Another full access was provided at the southeast corner of the site to be shared with the adjacent property to the east (Lot 2) in the future. The plans never matured beyond the site plan and subdivision approvals (Attachment #9). Americana Community Bank February 19, 1992 Page 4 The application in front of the City Council today will change the approved proposal for the Crossroads National Bank Site Plan. The proposed Americana Community Bank will invalidate the Crossroads National Bank Site Plan. Therefore, considering action of approval of the Americana Community Bank is contingent upon the withdrawal of Crossroads National Bank Building site plan approval. On August 7, 1991, the Planning Commission approved an application for Site Plan #91-3 for the Americana Community Bank Building to be located at the southwest corner of Market Boulevard and West 78th Street (Market Square Development). A planned unit development amendment and a subdivision proposal were reviewed concurrently. The proposal was approved by the City Council on August 12, 1991. The applicant elected not to proceed with construction on this site due to delays with Market Square Shopping Center and a design for increased visibility from Highway 5. SITE PLAN REVIEW General Site Plan/Architecture The building is proposed at the northeast corner of West 79th Street and Market Boulevard. Site access is proposed from both West 79th Street and Market Boulevard. The parking is located to the north and east of the proposed building. Vehicle stacking is provided northeast of the building so that direct distant views from West 79th Street, to the south of the site, will be minimized. Direct views of the stacking lanes will be screened by the building and landscaping from the west of the site. The architecture of the bank building reflects the shopping center's use of stucco accent tiles, columns, and gabled entries. Colors and material types need to be specified for staff approval. Low gabled roofs and a strong masonry base complete the bank's image for the prominent corner site. The applicant does not intend to have any rooftop HVAC equipment. All equipment will be placed on the ground. The applicant is showing the trash enclosure screened by a masonry wall using the same materials as the building and an air conditioning unit located on the northwest corner of the building. These units are screened by a berm and landscaping to the north,west, and south. The architect's intent to combine the style of the shopping center building, along with other downtown buildings such as the Country Hospitality Suites, is a sound one. Parking/Interior Circulation The City's parking ordinance requires one parking space per 250 square feet of gross floor area. The number of parking spaces required is 46 and the applicant is providing 52 parking spaces and 1 handicap space which satisfies the requirements of the ordinance. Traffic will be directed via West 79th Street running parallel to the easterly edge of the site then head Americana Community Bank February 19, 1992 Page 5 west into the bank site or via Market Boulevard, parallel to the northerly property line. Traffic exiting the site would utilize the same entrance points located to the northwest and southeast of the site. A stop sign is recommended at both locations to regulate traffic exiting the site. The Planning Commission recommended that the parking spaces located to the northeast of the site be designated as employee parking to minimize traffic conflict of cars continuously backing up an disturbing the flow of traffic headed to the drive-thru. Appropriate signage should be required. In general, the interior circulation and entrances are fairly reasonable in our view. There is one minor change to the set up of the parking lot. One turnaround area to the east of the proposed building must be provided to allow vehicles adequate space to back out of the stalls located at the east side of the building. Access There are three existing driveway access points (curb cuts) to the site. One along Market Boulevard and two along West 79th Street. The applicant is proposing to eliminate the most westerly access, and abandoning the existing easterly access on West 79th Street which was to be shared by the adjoining property, and building a new curb cut for the banks exclusive use. The existing curb cuts will have to be eliminated and restored as boulevard. The new entrance on West 79th Street will serve the parking lot and the drive-thru facilities as proposed. This entrance will provide a reasonably safe access to this site since it provides adequate offset separation between this site entrance and Market Boulevard. We believe the current proposal along West 79th Street is acceptable. The second access point would expand the existing curb cut on Market Boulevard located on the northwest corner of the site. As proposed, this would serve as the entrance/exit to the drive-thru lanes and the bank building. The plans propose to expand the existing curb cut and reduce the island on Market Boulevard which was originally constructed for Crossroads National Bank. The Market Boulevard access was reviewed by the City's traffic engineering consultant, Strgar, Roscoe, Fausch (SRF), who also prepared the downtown traffic study. Based on their calculations, there appears to be sufficient gaps in traffic movements on Market Boulevard during the peak periods to accommodate left-turning movements into and out of the site. Their study is based upon full development of the CBD. Although SRF's calculations are assumed on future land uses, should the land uses intensify, traffic counts may increase beyond what is being anticipated. This could occur if the CBD contains several major retailers. Staff believes it would be appropriate to place in the w ry. Americana Community Bank February 19, 1992 Page 6 • conditions of approval if two or more traffic accidents occurred over a 12-month period involving right-angle collisions on Market Boulevard, the City reserves the right to close off the median access and restrict the access along Market Boulevard to a right-in/out only. Staff also believes the Market Boulevard access could be left as is and effectively provide full access to and from the site. The only modification would be striping of a left turn on southbound Market. Signalization of the intersection of West 78th Street and Market Boulevard, which is currently under consideration by the HRA and City Council,will help traffic flow on Market Boulevard, although not reduce conflicts at this intersection dramatically. The bank's request calls for cutting back a median so that southbound traffic exiting the bank site could make a left turn onto Market Boulevard. Market Boulevard was widened south of the railroad tracks to accommodate right and left turn lanes into the site. The center median length and pavement markings have been reduced to below suggested standards to accommodate the left turn lane into the site. Further expansion of the curb _ cut would require reducing the median further. Both medians and pavement markings have a unique function in the proper control and regulation of traffic into the proper lanes in the roadways. By shortening the median areas further we may be creating confusion or delay in reaction by the driver for smooth and safe lane transition. Therefore, we are recommending that the curb cut of off Market Boulevard remain as is (26 feet), and not be • widened to a three lane (36 feet). This access point is further complicated with the relationship of the railroad crossing approximately 80 feet to the north. Although the crossing is equipped with flashing light signals and automatic gate arms, it still creates an additional distraction for motorists. Occasional use of the railroad tracks will create temporary stacking of vehicles back into the site. Layout of the parking lot gives motorists an option to loop back to the east to exit via West 79th Street rather than waiting to turn onto Market Boulevard. Staff is recommending that the bank provide the city with financial security in the form of a Letter of Credit to guarantee installation of the required improvements on Market Boulevard and West 79th Street. The applicant shall also be liable for all costs associated with the traffic study and construction of the curb cut. Landscaping The landscaping plan is well developed. Trees and hedges are proposed along the north, south, and east portions of the site. Staff is recommending that the applicant comply with any railroad guidelines for maintaining sight lines at the railroad crossing which may limit landscaping along the northerly portion of the west half of the site (See attachment #4). a- Americana Community Bank February 19, 1992 Page 7 • Lighting Lighting locations are illustrated on the plans. Two light poles are proposed. Only shielded fixtures are allowed and the applicant shall demonstrate that there is no more than .5' candles of light at the property line. Plans should be provided to staff for approval. Signage The applicant has submitted a signage plan. One monument identification sign is proposed at the westerly edge of the site. The area of the monument sign is 70 square feet. The ordinance permits up to 80 square feet. The applicant is also showing two 3-foot high wall mounted signs on each building elevation with a street frontage. We find the sign package to be reasonable and consistent with the ordinance. Sign permits are required prior to sign installation. Grading/Drainage Specific gradingand drainage plans were not prepared for this submittal. Given current conditions on the site and the proposed site plan, grading activity is expected to be minimal. The site plan proposes parking lot drainage divided with half the site draining to Market Boulevard and the remaining half to West 79th Street. Storm sewers should be extended from Market Boulevard and/or West 79th Street to convey runoff generated from the site prior to discharging into the City street. Final grading and drainage plans should be prepared for approval by the city, in addition to submitting storm water calculations for 10 year storm events. All plans shall be prepared by a professional engineer and submitted to the City's Engineering office for review and approval. The site plan does not propose any erosion control measures at this time. Erosion control measures (Type I - silt fence) should be incorporated on the plans along with 79th Street and Market Boulevard. Temporary gravel construction entrances should be employed until the permanent access points have been constructed. Upon receipt of an acceptable grading and drainage plan, staff will be able to recommend appropriate erosion control measures. Watershed District approval of this plan is required. The applicant shall receive a Watershed District permit and comply with their conditions. Utilities Municipal sanitary sewer and water service is available to the site from West 79th Street. A previous site plan proposal for this lot extended the water and sewer service into the lot Americana Community Bank February 19, 1992 Page 8 to accommodate a temporary building facility; however, the temporary building facility was never constructed. Therefore, the utility services will have to be disconnected by the - applicant at the property line and redirected to the proposed facility. Final plans for utility connection should be prepared for approval by staff. The Fire Marshal is requesting that utilities coming into the building as well as other fire hydrants in the vicinity be shown on the site plan. Park and Trail Dedication The Park and Recreation Commission acted to recommend that the city accept full park and trail dedication fees as part of this development. Fees are paid at the time the building permits are requested. The applicant shall also construct a concrete sidewalk, 6 feet wide, to be located south of the site and connecting with the sidewalk located to the west of the site. Americana Community Bank February 19, 1992 Page 9 COMPLIANCE TABLE WITH HIGHWAY & BUSINESS DISTRICT ORDINANCE Required Proposed Building Front Yard Setback 25' 35' Building Side Yard Setback 10' N 100'/E 130' Lot Area 20,000 S.F. 70,000 S.F. Parking Setback from Railroad 0 12' Hard Surface Coverage 65% 65% Parking Stalls 46 52 SUBDIVISION The metes and bounds subdivision proposal is a relatively simple request that will serve to realign the easterly property line of Lot 1, 40 feet to the west. Lot 1, Block 1, is proposed to have an area of 70,000 square feet and will be occupied by the bank building. Lot 2, Block 1, is vacant and there is no development proposed on the site at this time. This is a meets and bounds subdivision, therefore no action was required by the Planning Commission. The following easements are illustrated on the plat: 1. Standard drainage and utility easements around the perimeter of both lots (5 feet to the side, 10 feet to the front). 2. A utility and drainage easement over the northerly 20 feet of Lot 1 and 2, Block 1, Crossroads Plaza 2nd Addition. 3. The final plat must be submitted to staff for approval and recording with Carver County. VACATION OF A CROSS ACCESS EASEMENT AND UTILITY EASEMENT ON THE UNDERLYING PLAT The Planning Commission did not need to take action on this item as vacation require City Council approval only. As part of the plat and site plan approval for Crossroads National Americana Community Bank February 19, 1992 Page 10 Bank, a cross access easement was required to allow the occupants of both Lots 1 and 2, to share a driveway. With the new proposed site plan for Americana Community Bank, this — cross access easement will no longer be needed and will need to be vacated. Also, due to shifting the westerly property line of Lot 2, the drainage and utility easement along the previous lot line will need to be vacated. Staff is recommending approval of the cross access easement and utility and drainage easement vacation. PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE: A number of revisions took place between the time period when staff submitted their staff report and the day the Planning Commission met. These revisions include: 1. The applicants had originally planned on building the bank in two phases. Two days prior to the Planning Commission meeting date, the applicant decided to construct phase II of the plan now rather than wait for a future date. The proposed revisions to the site plan met all the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Those requirements included setbacks, hard surface coverage, and parking. The roof line on the building, including the addition was revised. Additional gables had been introduced and the overall concept was well developed. 2. The Market Boulevard access was reviewed by the traffic engineering firm of Strgar, Roscoe, Fausch, who prepared the Downtown Traffic Study. It was concluded that left turning movements into and out of the site on Market Boulevard can be accommodated. At full development, they found that during the peak P.M. hours, there is capacity for 68 left turns exiting the site onto Market Boulevard. They calculated that there would be 50 movements out of the site during the same time period. Additionally, the site allows for exiting out onto West 79th Street if the wait to exit onto Market Boulevard becomes too long. Engineering staff still had safety concerns regarding left turns into and out of the site on Market Boulevard. They recommended that if there is more than two traffic accidents involving right angle collisions on Market Boulevard, the access will be limited to right in/out only. The Planning Commission was satisfied with the changes, and recommended approval of the application. They commented that the design had been refined further from what was proposed on the corner of West 78th Street and Market Boulevard (the Market Square site). Americana Community Bank February 19, 1992 Page 11 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Site Plan Review Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motions: "The City Council approves Site Plan Review #92-1 as shown on the site plan dated February 27, 1992, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site. Stop signs shall be installed at both exit points located on Market Boulevard and West 79th Street. 2. Landscaping along the north edge of the site must be modified to meet all requirements of the railroad. The applicant shall provide staff with a detailed cost estimate of landscaping to be used in calculating the required financial guarantees. These guarantees must be posted prior to building permit issuance. Provide a plant schedule indicating the size and type of all plant materials for staff approval. 3. The applicant shall provide the city with the necessary financial securities to guarantee installation of the required public improvements and costs associated with the traffic study. 4. Revise architectural plans as follows: • Incorporate the use of Timberline or similar quality shingles that provide an image of a cedar shake roof. • Provide details of building exterior treatment for staff approval. 5. A grading and drainage plan, including storm sewer calculations for a 10 year storm event prepared by a professional engineer, be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. 6. The applicant shall indicate on the site plan utilities coming into the building and addition and fire hydrants in the vicinity. 7. The applicant shall include construction of the driveway aprons, any median improvements, sidewalk and boulevard restoration in the site improvements. All boulevard restoration, sidewalk, driveways, and median improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications Americana Community Bank February 19, 1992 Page 12 and Detail Plates (1992). Detailed plans and specifications shall be prepared by a professional engineer and submitted for approval by the City Engineer. 8. The applicant shall be responsible for all damage to the City's existing public improvements (i.e. streets, sidewalk, utilities). 9. The applicant shall provide a turnaround area at the east side of the proposed building. 10. The northerly 16 parking stalls shall be labeled "Employee and Tenant Parking Only". 11. The width of the easterly curb cut of off Market Boulevard shall not exceed 26 feet. 12. Plans for the plaza shall be submitted to city staff for approval. 13. Type I erosion control fence shall be installed along West 79th Street and Market Boulevard. 14. The City reserves the right to limit access to right-in/out only should two or more traffic accidents involving right-angle collisions on Market Boulevard occur within a 12-month period. 15. The applicant shall utilize the existing Market Boulevard access and provide a striping and signing plan for a left turn lane on southbound Market Boulevard. Subdivision Staff is recommending the City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council approves the subdivision proposal with the following conditions: 1. Park and trail dedication fees shall be paid at time of building permits are requested. 2. Provide the following easements: a. standard drainage and utility easements around the perimeter of all lots. b. The final plat for Crossroads Plaza 2nd Addition must be submitted to staff for approval and filed with Carver County. Americana Community Bank February 19, 1992 Page 13 Withdrawal of originally approved site plan 'The City Council withdraws approval of Site Plan 89-6 for the Crossroads National Bank building, concurrently with the approval of Site Plan #92-1 for Americana Bank. The applicant should file the notice of withdrawal against the property at Carver County." Vacation Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion: 'The City Council approves the vacation of the following easements: 1. The easterly 5 feet of Lot 1, and the westerly 5 feet of Lot 2, Block 1, Crossroads Plaza Addition. 2. The cross access easement located along the common lot line of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Crossroads Plaza Addition." ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff report and Planning Commission minutes dated February 19, 1992. 2. Memo dated February 19, 1992. 3. Memo from Engineering Department dated February 19, 1992. 4. Attachment showing railroad track sight restrictions. 5. Memo from Fire Marshall dated February 12, 1992. 6. Memo from Building Official dated February 6, 1992. 7. Memo from Senior Engineering Technician dated February 12, 1992. 8. Staff report dated August 12, 1991, Americana Community Bank. 9. Staff report dated October 23, 1989, Crossroads National Bank. 10. Plans dated February 27, 1992. ITY F P . DATE: 2/19/92 � � • CUAI' flAE1 CC DATE: 3/9/92 CASE # : 92-1 SITE 89-19 SUB B : A1-Jaff•v STAFF REPORT f PROPOSAL: 1) Site Plan Review for an 7, 268 Square Foot Bank and Office Building - Americana Community Bank 2) Replat Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Crossroads Plaza, into two parcels with areas of 70, 000 Square Feet and 164 , 762 Square Feet Z 3) Vacation of a cross access easement and an Q underlying utility and drainage easement located on V Lot 2 , Block 1, Crossroads Plaza 2nd Addition. nLOCATION: North of Highway. 5, east of Market Boulevard, south of Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul , and Pacific Railroad 0.. APPLICANT: KRJ Associates City of Chanhassen P 0 Box 635 690 Coulter Drive Long Lake, MN 55356 Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 PRESENT ZONING: BH, Highway and Business Services District ACREAGE: 234 , 762 Sq Ft (Plat) 70, 000 Sq Ft (Site Plan) DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - BG and CBD, Filly's and Country Suites S - BH, Vacant E - BH, Vacant Q W - BG, Vacant (Future Market Square) and Fountain Q WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. W PHYSICAL CHARACTER. : The site has been extensively altered due to 11 ""' the construction of Market Boulevard and West 79th Street. The site is flat and devoid of tree cover. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial Americana Community Bank August 7, 1991 Page 2 PROPOSAL /SUMMARY This request is for the construction of a 7 , 268 square foot bank building on the westerly 70, 000 square feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Crossroads Plaza. This parcel is currently owned by the Chanhassen Housing and Redevelopment Authority. The applicant is negotiating with the HRA to purchase the property. Approval of the purchase is scheduled to take place on February 20, 1992 . As part of the agreement, the city is replatting the subject property and adjacent property (Lot 2 , Block 1) which is also under the ownership of the HRA. The site plan is fairly well developed. The architecture of the bank building attempts to reflect the nearby Market Square Shopping Center through the use of stucco accent tiles, columns and accentuated gabled entries, as well as the roof line of the Country Suites Hotel. Staff is proposing that the type of shingle which resemble wood shakes from a distance be used similar to the Country Suites Hotel. One highly attractive feature of the site is the inclusion of a pedestrian plaza at the intersection of West 79th Street and Market Boulevard. A four lane drive-thru is provided to the north of the building. The stacking area for the drive-thru will be on the northeast portion of the site. The location for the drive-thru is appropriate as it places car stacking away from Market Boulevard and West 79th street. The drive-thru is screened by the bank building and landscaping from West 79th Street and Market Boulevard. The site landscaping is generally of high quality. Landscaping materials along the railroad tracks may be restricted due to sight distance limitations as it may obstruct visibility of oncoming trains to traffic on Market Boulevard. The Twin Cities and Western Railroad has been sent a copy of the plans for review and comments. As of today, no comments have been received. Site access is of concern in this proposal. A previous subdivision and site plan for the Crossroads National Bank was approved with two access points via West 79th, the most easterly access was to be shared by the adjoining property. The site also had an access point on Market Boulevard with a right-in/left-in only. All of the above mentioned access points have been installed by the city. The applicant for Americana Community Bank requested two full access points. One via Market Boulevard (right/left in and out) , which will require cutting back the existing island on Market Boulevard and widening the existing driveway apron. Staff has some concerns regarding the Market Boulevard island cut and allowing a left turn in and out due to traffic safety concerns. Staff recommends that a traffic study be preformed prior to the city granting full access drive. According to the Eastern Carver County Transportation study there is a potential for 7 , 400 trips per day on Market Boulevard by the year 2010. The second access point is through West 79th Americana Community Bank August 7, 1991 Page 3 Street. The access via West 79th street will be exclusively used by the applicant which in turn reduces one access drive. The bank representatives believe that the southbound left turn from the site on to Market Boulevard is critical to their operation. From a design standpoint, we believe this change is not likely to undermine the effectiveness of traffic flow on Market Boulevard. However, it is necessary to note that the City Engineering Department continues to have safety concerns with the left turn from the site to southbound Market Boulevard. If the applicant still desires to have a full access approved, they should pay for all associated costs related to preparation of a traffic study. The results of that study shall determine the feasibility of granting a full access. In an accompanying subdivision request, Lots 1 and 2 , Block 1, Crossroads Plaza are being replatted into two lots, one of which will contain the bank building and the second will be reserved for future development. The subdivision request is a relatively straight forward action. Based upon the foregoing, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve the site plan, and subdivision requests for this proposal without variances and subject to appropriate conditions. BACKGROUND On February 12 , 1989, the City Council approved the preliminary and final plat for Crossroads Plaza Addition. The plat consisted of two lots and four outlots. Lot 1, 2 .47 Acres, and Lot 2 , 3 . 02 Acres. Two of the outlots were utilized for Highway 5 right-of-way dedication. The other two outlots were used for drainage and retention ponds. Lot 1 was to become the future site for the Crossroads National Bank. On October 23 , 1989, the City Council approved the site plan for the bank. The site plan consisted of a bank and office building with a total area of 14, 000 square feet. Operation of the bank was proposed to begin out of a modular banking facility while the permanent facility was being built. The city constructed a parking lot, three access points to the site, and installed light fixtures to prepare the site for the Crossroads National Bank's temporary facility. The site plan proposed an entrance only along Market Boulevard with an exit only at the southwesterly portion of West 79th Street to accommodate a drive- thru teller. Another full access was provided at the southeast corner of the site to be shared with the adjacent property to the east (Lot 2) in the future. The plans never matured beyond the site plan and subdivision approvals (Attachment #2) . The application in front of the Planning Commission today will change the approved proposal for the Crossroads National Bank Site Americana Community Bank August 7 , 1991 Page 4 Plan. The proposed Americana Community Bank will invalidate the Crossroads National Bank Site Plan. Therefore, considering action of approval of the Americana Community Bank is contingent upon the withdrawal of Crossroads National Bank Building Site Plan approval . On August 7, 1991, the Planning Commission approved an application for Site Plan #91-3 for the Americana Community Bank Building to be located at the southwest corner of Market Boulevard and West 78th Street (Market Square Development). A Planned Unit Development Amendment and a subdivision proposal were reviewed concurrently. The proposal was approved by the City Council on August 12 , 1991. The applicant elected not to proceed with construction on this site due to delays with Market Square Shopping Center and a design for increased visibility from Highway 5. SITE PLAN REVIEW General Site Plan/Architecture The building is proposed at the northeast corner of West 79th Street and Market Boulevard. Site access is proposed from both West 79th Street and Market Boulevard. The majority of the parking is located to the east of the proposed building. Future parking is proposed to be added to the north of the site with phase II . Vehicle stacking is provided northeast of the building so that direct distant views from West 79th Street, to the south of the site, will be minimized. Direct views of the stacking lanes will be screened by the building and landscaping from the west of the site. The architecture of the bank building reflects the shopping center's use of stucco accent tiles, columns and gabled entries. Colors and material types need to be specified for staff approval . Low gabled roofs and a strong masonry base complete the bank's image for the prominent corner site. The applicant does not intend to have any roof top equipment. All equipment will be placed on the ground. The applicant is showing the trash enclosure screened by a masonry wall using the same materials as the building and an air conditioning unit located on the northwest corner of the building. These units are screened by a berm and landscaping to the north, west and south. The applicant has illustrated a building addition on the south side of the building, paralleling West 79th Street, which represents potential future expansion of the bank facility. This addition will overlook the plaza area. Upon review of the plans, staff concluded that additional parking will be needed to support a building addition on this site. The applicant has illustrated 16 additional future spaces. This building addition is supported by staff but the applicant will have to reappear in front of the Americana Community Bank August 7 , 1991 Page 5 Planning Commission and City Council for a Site Plan amendment at the time when the addition is to be built. Staff is recommending that the applicant illustrate how the roof line will be extended at the time the addition is built. The architect' s intent to combine the style of the shopping center building, along with other downtown buildings such as the Country Hospitality Suites, is a sound one. Parking/Interior Circulation The City's parking ordinance requires one parking space per 250 square feet of gross floor area. The number of parking spaces required is 30 and the applicant is providing 36 parking spaces and 1 handicap space which satisfies the requirements of the ordinance. Traffic will be directed via West 79th Street running parallel to the easterly edge of the site then head west into the bank site or via Market Boulevard, parallel to the northerly property line. Traffic exiting the site would utilize the same entrance points located to the northwest and southeast of the site. A stop sign is recommended at both locations to regulate traffic exiting the site. In general, the interior circulation and entrances are fairly reasonable in our view. Access There are three existing driveway access points (curb cuts) to the site. One along Market Boulevard and two along West 79th Street. The applicant is proposing to eliminate the most westerly access, and abandoning the existing easterly access on West 79th Street which was to be shared by the adjoining property, and building a new curb cut for the banks exclusive use. The existing curb cuts will have to be eliminated and restored as boulevard. The new entrance on West 79th Street will serve the parking lot and the drive-thru facilities as proposed. This entrance will provide a reasonably safe access to this site since it provides adequate offset separation between this site entrance and Market Boulevard. We believe the current proposal along West 79th Street is acceptable. The second access point would expand the existing curb cut on Market Boulevard located on the northwest corner of the site. As proposed, this would serve as the entrance/exit to the drive-thru lanes and the bank building. The plans propose to expand the existing curb cut and reducing the island on Market Boulevard which was originally constructed for Crossroads National Bank. The applicant 's position is that they want full access to the bank from both West 79th Street and from Market Boulevard. Staff Americana Community Bank August 7, 1991 Page 6 recommends that the applicant provide the City with a cash escrow to have a traffic engineering consultant, .prepare a traffic analysis of the turning movements onto Market Boulevard with recommendations for improvements, i.e. turn lanes, medians, driveway location, etc. Staff believes there ultimately will be too many traffic movements • occurring on Market Boulevard to safely exit this site onto southbound Market Boulevard. Signalization of the intersection of West 78th Street and Market Boulevard, which is currently under consideration by the HRA and City Council, will help traffic flow on Market Boulevard, although not reduce conflicts at this intersection dramatically. A right-in/right-out only entrance via Market Boulevard has always been the plan for this access. The bank' s request calls for cutting back a median so that southbound traffic exiting the bank site could make a left turn onto Market Boulevard. Market Boulevard was widened south of the railroad tracks to accommodate right and left turn lanes into the site. The center median length and pavement markings have been reduced to below suggested standards to accommodate the left turn lane into the site. Further expansion of the curb cut would require reducing the median further. Both medians and pavement markings have a unique function in the proper control and regulation of traffic into the proper lanes in the roadways. By shortening the median areas further we may be creating confusion or delay in reaction by the driver for smooth and safe lane transition. This access point is further complicated with the relationship of the railroad crossing approximately 80 feet to the north. Although the crossing is equipped with flashing light signals and automatic gate arms, it still creates an additional distraction for motorists. Occasional use of the railroad tracks will create temporary stacking of vehicles back into the site. Layout of the parking lot gives motorists an option to loop back to the east to exit via West 79th Street rather than waiting to turn onto Market Boulevard. Representatives from the bank believe that the Market Boulevard access point is vital to their operation. Final designs for this curb cut have not been developed. Staff recommends that the access point along Market Boulevard be restricted to a right in/out and left turn in from Market Boulevard. If the applicant wishes to maintain the current proposed plan of full access by expanding the access point with a left turn lane from the site onto southbound Market Boulevard, a traffic study should be prepared. Staff is also recommending that the bank provide the city with financial security in the form of a Letter of Credit to guarantee installation of the required improvements on Market Boulevard and West 79th Street. The applicant shall also be liable for all costs associated with the Americana Community Bank August 7 , 1991 Page 7 traffic study and construction of the curb cut. ' The traffic study would specifically address vehicle stacking needs, turning movements and related safety concerns at both the driveway intersection and railroad track intersection. Jandscaping The landscaping plan is acceptable. Trees and hedges are proposed along the north, south, and east portions of the site. Staff is recommending that the applicant comply with any railroad guidelines for maintaining sight lines at the railroad crossing which may limit landscaping along the northerly portion of the west half of the site (See attachment #1) . Although the landscaping plan appears to be generally reasonable, we do have several revisions to request. The first is that the plan does not specify type or size of all materials. Final plans should be developed that incorporate this and the size of all materials must meet or exceed normal city standards. Secondly, the applicant has failed to show any grades on the site. We are requesting that grading details of the site be provided for staff review. Lighting Lighting locations are illustrated on the plans. Two light poles are proposed. Only shielded fixtures are allowed and the applicant _ shall demonstrate that there is no more than . 5 ' candles of light at the property line. Plans should be provided to staff for approval . • Signage The applicant has submitted a signage plan. One monument identification sign is proposed at the westerly edge of the site. The area of the monument sign is 70 square feet. The ordinance permits up to 80 square feet. The applicant is also showing two 3- foot high wall mounted signs on each building elevation with a street frontage. We find the sign package to be reasonable and consistent with the ordinance. Sign permits are required prior to sign installation. Grading/Drainage Specific grading and drainage plans were not prepared for this submittal . Given current conditions on the site and the proposed site plan, grading activity is expected to be minimal . The site plan proposes parking lot drainage divided with half the site draining to Market Boulevard and the remaining half to West 79th Street. Storm sewers should be extended from Market Boulevard Americana Community Bank August 7, 1991 Page 8 and/or West 79th Street to convey runoff generated from the site prior to discharging. into the City street. Final grading and drainage plans should be prepared for approval by the city, in addition to submitting storm water calculations for 10 year storm events. All plans shall be prepared by a professional engineer and submitted to the City's Engineering office for review and approval. The site plan does not propose any erosion control measures at this time. Upon receipt of an acceptable grading and drainage plan, staff will be able to recommend appropriate erosion control measures. Watershed District approval of this plan is required. The applicant shall receive a Watershed District permit and comply with their conditions. Utilities Municipal sanitary sewer and water service is available to the site from West 79th Street. A previous site plan proposal for this lot extended the water and sewer service into the lot to accommodate a temporary building facility; however, the temporary building facility was never constructed. Therefore, the utility services will have to be disconnected by the applicant at the property line and redirected to the proposed facility. Final plans for utility connection should be prepared for approval by staff. The Fire Marshal is requesting that utilities coming into the building as well as other fire hydrants in the vicinity be shown on the site plan. Park and Trail Dedication The Park and Recreation Commission acted to recommend that the city accept full park and trail dedication fees as part of this development. Fees are paid at the time the building permits are requested. The applicant shall also construct a concrete sidewalk, 6 feet wide, to be located south of the site and connecting with the sidewalk located to the west of the site. Americana Community Bank August 7 , 1991 Page 9 • COMPLIANCE TABLE WITH HIGHWAY &BUSINESS DISTRICT ORDINANCE Required Proposed Building Front Yard Setback 25 ' 50 ' Building Side Yard Setback 10 ' N 80'/E 130 ' Lot Area 20, 000 S.F. 70, 000 S.F. Parking Setback from Railroad 0 12 ' Hard Surface Coverage 65% 62% Parking Stalls 30 36 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: Site Plan Review "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review #92-1 as shown on the site plan dated 1992 , subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site. Stop signs shall be installed at both exit points located on Market Boulevard and West 79th Street. 2 . Landscaping along the north edge of the site must be modified to meet all requirements of the railroad. The applicant shall provide staff with a detailed cost estimate of landscaping to be used in calculating the required financial guarantees. These guarantees must be posted prior to building permit issuance. Provide a plant schedule indicating the size and type of all plant materials for staff approval . 3 . The applicant shall provide the city with the necessary financial securities to guarantee installation of the required public improvements and costs associated with the traffic study. Americana Community Bank August 7, 1991 Page 10 4 . Revise architectural plans as follows: • Provide a concept of what the roof line would look like when phase II is added. • Incorporate the use of Timberline or similar quality shingles that provide an image of a cedar shake roof. • Provide details of building exterior treatment. " 5. A grading and drainage plan including storm sewer calculations for a 10 year storm event prepared by a professional engineer and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval . 6. The applicant shall indicate on the site plan utilities coming into the building and addition fire hydrants in the vicinity. 7. The applicant shall include construction of the driveway aprons, median improvements, sidewalk and boulevard restoration in the site plan improvements. 8 . The applicant shall be responsible for any damage to the City's existing sidewalk along Market Boulevard. SUBDIVISION The subdivision proposal is a relatively simple request that will serve to realign the easterly property line of Lot 1, 40 feet to the west. Lot 1, Block 1, is proposed to have an area of 70, 000 square feet and will be occupied by the bank building. Lot 2 , Block 1, is vacant and there is no development proposed on the site at this time. This is a meets and bounds subdivision, therefore no action is required by the Planning Commission. The following easements are illustrated on the plat: 1. Standard drainage and utility easements around the perimeter of both lots (5 feet to the side, 10 feet to the front) 2 . A utility and drainage easement over the northerly 20 feet of Lot 1 and 2 , Block 1, Crossroads Plaza 2nd Addition. 3 . The final plat must be submitted to staff for approval and recording with Carver County. Americana Community Bank August 7, 1991 Page 11 • Staff is recommending approval of the subdivision proposal with the following conditions: 1. Park and trail dedication fees shall be paid at time of building permits are requested. 2 . Provide the following easements: a. standard drainage and utility easements around the perimeter of all lots. b. The final plat for Crossroads Plaza 2nd Addition must be submitted to staff for approval and filed with Carver County. WITHDRAWAL OF ORIGINALLY APPROVED SITE PLAN "The Planning Commission recommends the withdraw of approval of Site Plan 89-6 for the Crossroads National Bank building, concurrently with the approval of site plan #92-1. The applicant should file the notice of withdrawal against the property at Carver County. " VACATION OF A CROSS ACCESS EASEMENT AND UTILITY EASEMENT ON THE UNDERLYING PLAT The Planning Commission does not need to take action on this item but we are including it as an informational item. As part of the plat and site plan approval for Crossroads National Bank, a cross access easement was required to allow the occupants of both Lots 1 and 2 , to share a driveway. With the new proposed site plan for Americana Community Bank, this cross access easement will no longer be needed and will need to be vacated. Also, due to shifting the westerly property line of Lot 2 , the drainage and utility easement along the previous lot line will need to be vacated. Staff is recommending approval of the cross access easement and utility and drainage easement vacation. ATTACHMENTS 1. Attachment showing railroad track sight restrictions. 2 . Memo from Fire Marshall dated February 12, 1992 . 3 . Memo from Building Official dated February 6, 1992 . 4 . Memo from Senior Engineering Technician dated February 12, 1992 . 5. Staff report dated August 12 , 1991, Americana Community Bank. 6. Staff report dated October 23 , 1989, Crossroads National Bank. 7 . Plans dated January 31, 1992 . _, ,.., _,-------d ....... C.i •aR / �o / %'41111a. p� \ . ' 4/4 ., ,.. .. , _ ....... �."_ t a W % . i ‘‘ 4 ..�-' ,!y`��Z I `1 � ��, \,' ��•� Gam';�• , %.,01i-1-• \ S 10-0 J ff.. ,. ��. '�'v 4\\\ .;•'- '.;:'t7ei''''-''' . .. '.° t 1 1 V / 1 N...4-..„...\ . \............... '• r.-CC;L:' :• • 4' 4.7.4.&,,:irt,,..,...,:r...,,i ..;",.., jit A ....::!..„:.„QS.,.::t,; '. i • \ % s+, . '••-.. 1 V.,.?:111-`;-":;:tt;',-" 'iii.'7.•:-..;-;:"r!q•.?.---!•' - 1-• p•--\ 1 .:77--3'" ' 0 W 1 I]airiN.1-r.:A7.-. .•>'%-...Iliiim;•1 , \ 111?\ii, \\ ., ,,4.. k ..,,,,_ •,i, %•fir-• •0.•••• • a)t A c),,..utZLIWZ;V: 3.•1.L I 4 1 I ` _e�•i i�pN�s i)t , % ,,,,, 0000000. it f 1 �j �, liiffi Rife"'. ,,.( V 410 . \ �� eo ___- .,. 0 -41.Ni . 4.':':,•• ' ' I\ •• i .1 : iii -7\\* dP ,...15::, ! 2 . irp 1 , 1.\\\ •%,I „ .... ... rb, .: . i ,n. .; . ,. I f till IF: `\moi �j / �/// z: , 1.- AD ..-----71” ...# . ; it."%k";1, 1 • , ii , .. cc li . . -t.. .?./7-----//"C --- , . , L..11. . ‘_, miiki. ) / r I • , i. ,/i , , • J l\ r ;;‘,.) -4 1':CESSIFW- / /01 / ,r, CP CD Alt. /...;,,,,.. r , , , .„ , - I.-. I , i" ``_ i��, ////ice/ _____---..:::://:' i :•ii 1 Co in 1:xi 17 . \ .. 04 1 14, _oelk �j Al ,-- :::<.:\I ia _ _— 5 , 1 � \ , t J 1 f m' j \ 1 i 1 F- NC' 1 1 c f oU,�N 1 I ,\ t \cV ; ) `1 1 z • CITY o ei : . ,: ,, . Iv, ..,. cHANHAssEN .4...,.._ -.„`-r ;�•.i . 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM _ TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: February 12 , 1992 SUBJ: #89-19 SUB and #92-1 Site Plan Please indicate the following on site plan: 1. Other additional fire hyhrants in vicinity. 2 . Utilities coming into building, i.e, water, gas, electricity .r. iz- al 34X�1L . _ a,+i. G-v'7T4;_-_....,.:Z.7 :: K...-9i:1:' -'+;-...V..;-:-.‘:::':2:‘-'2'.--< • 1 i` 'f t 0 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ( - • CITYOF ..,:ipi. _ -,..y- , . t. - CHANHASSEN , , . '; 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 s/ (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 l MEMO DATE (mm/dd/yy) : 02/06/92 • TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff TITLE/TO: Planner I — THROUGH: TITLE/THROUGH: FROM: Steve A. Kirchmank�W TITLE/FROM: Building Official SUBJECT: Planning Case : 89-19 SUB & 92-1 Site Plan _: Site plan review ::as been completed for the Americana Community Bank . I have the following comments . 1 . Construction of the "16 future stalls" will trigger the requirement for an addit cnal handicap parking space . Tha applicant may wish to design the parking spaces near the building entrance to accomadate the future handicap stall . — • a 2 . The Americans with Disabilities Act became effective on 1/26/92 . The designers are responsible for compliance to the ADA. — 2 . L -2 office occupancies of 8500 or more gross feet of floor area are required to be fire sprinklered: Gross feet of floor area includes the basement . — ';,-.:!-.5:—:..-. _ : 4 t. -f - t 1, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY o R CHANHASSEN _ ‘-:.:;1'.f. "liOri. -,--d • z k 11 -�t ;-'"1‘4„, 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM _ TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff , Planner I (-. I / FROM: Dave Hempel , Sr. Engineering Technician I. DATE : February 12 , 1992 SUBJ : Site Plan Review - Americana Bank, Northwest Corner of West 79th Street and Market Boulevard Lot 1 , Block 1 , Crossroads Plaza LUR 91-11 Utilities Municipal sanitary sewer and water service is available to the site from West 79th Street . A previous site plan proposal for this lot extended the water and sewer service into the lot to accommodate a temporary building facility; however, the temporary building facility was never constructed. Therefore , the utility services will have to be disconnected by the applicant at the property line and redirected to the proposed facility. Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control No actual grading and drainage plan was submitted with this proposal . The site plan proposes parking lot drainage divided with half the site draining to Market Boulevard and the remaining half to West 79th Street . Storm sewers should be extended from Market Boulevard and/or West 79th Street to convey runoff generated from the site prior to discharging into the City street . A grading and drainage plan including storm sewer calculations for a 10-year storm event should be prepared by a professional engineer and submitted to the City ' s Engineering office for review and approval . The site plan does not propose any erosion control measures at this time . Upon receipt of an acceptable grading and drainage plan , staff will be able to recommend appropriate erosion control measures . Sharmin Al-Jaff February 12 , 1992 Page 2 Site Access Three driveway access points (curb cuts ) along Market Boulevard and West 79th Street have been designed and constructed in accordance with a previous bank facility in mind (Crossroads National Bank) . That site plan proposed an entrance only along Market Boulevard with an exit only at the southwesterly portion of West 79th Street to accommodate a drive-through teller. Another full access was provided at the southeast corner of the site to be shared with the adjacent property to the east (Lot 2 ) in the future. The new plans propose to expand the existing curb cut on Market Boulevard and replace the two curb cuts along West 79th Street with one new one . Staff is comfortable with the full access being proposed along West 79th Street but has safety concerns with the expansion and proposed usage of the Market Boulevard curb cut . Market Boulevard was widened south of the railroad tracks to accommodate right and left turn lanes into the site. The center median length and pavement markings have been reduced below suggested standards to accommodate the left turn lane into the site. Further expansion of the curb cut will require reducing the median further. Both medians and pavement markings have a unique function in the proper control and regulation of traffic into the proper lanes in the roadways . By shortening the median areas further we may be creating confusion or delay in reaction by the driver for smooth and safe lane transition. According to the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study, Market Boulevard is classified as a Class I Collector. Market Boulevard is predicted by the year 2010 to accommodate 7 ,400 ADT. It is the City' s intent to limit the amount of curb cuts/turning movements on Market Boulevard due to the anticipated high volume of traffic . Staff feels the expansion of the access point on Market Boulevard to be unduly hazardous and not totally necessary for this site to effectively function. This access point is further complicated with the relationship of the railroad crossing approximately 80 feet to the north. Although the crossing is equipped with flashing light signals and automatic gate arms , it still creates an additional distraction for motorists. Occasional use of the railroad tracks will create temporary stacking of vehicles back into the site. Layout of the parking lot gives motorists an option to loop back to the east to exit via West 79th Street rather than waiting to turn onto Market Boulevard. Staff recommends that the access point along Market Boulevard be restricted to a right in/out and left turn in from Market Boulevard. If the applicant wishes to maintain the current proposed plan of full access by expanding the access point with a Sharmin Al-Jaff February 12 , 1992 Page 3 left turn lane from the site onto southbound Market Boulevard, a traffic study should be prepared. The applicant should provide the City with a cash escrow to have a traffic study prepared. The traffic study would specifically address vehicle stacking needs , turning movements and related safety concerns at both the driveway intersection and railroad track intersection. Site access from West 79th Street appears acceptable . The existing curb cuts will have to be eliminated and restored as boulevard. The applicant should include the boulevard restoration, sidewalk, driveway and median construction and access removal into their site plan improvements . Final detailed plans and specifications shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval . All boulevard restoration , sidewalks and driveway aprons (public improvements ) shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City' s Standard Specifications . The project specification documents should incorporate the City' s standard specifications . All work performed within the City' s right-of-way shall be inspected and approved by the City' s Engineering Department prior to releasing any financial security or issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. Recommended Conditions of Approval 1 . A grading and drainage plan including storm sewer calculations for a 10-year storm event prepared by a professional engineer and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval . 2 . The applicant shall include construction of the driveway aprons , median improvements, sidewalk and boulevard restoration in the site plan improvements . 3 . The applicant shall provide the City with a financial security ( letter of credit or cash escrow) to guarantee construction of the driveway aprons, center median improvements and boulevard restoration and all other proposed public improvements. The applicant shall furnish the City with a letter of credit from a bank, cash escrow or equivalent for $10 ,000 . The security shall be for a term ending December 31 , 1992. Once the required improvements have been inspected and approved by the City and a two-year maintenance bond received for the public improvements, the letter of credit shall be released. 4 . The applicant shall work with staff to develop an erosion control plan . 5 . The applicant shall be responsible for any damage to the City' s existing sidewalk along Market Boulevard. Sharmin Al-Jaff February 12 , 1992 Page 4 6 . The applicant shall receive a Watershed District permit and comply with conditions stipulated. 7 . If the applicant wishes to expand the existing curb cut along Market Boulevard with a left-turn lane from the site onto southbound Market Boulevard, a traffic study shall be prepared to determine if warranted. The City shall retain a consultant and all costs associated with the study shall be borne by the applicant . jms/ktm c : Charles Folch, City Engineer 1TY OF 1 ( _ .,ATE: 8/7/91 ::r. , , , . v „. CHANHASSEN CC DATE: 8/12/91 �� CASE #: 91-3 SITE 89-2 PUD, 91-8 SUB • B STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: 1) Site Plan Review for an 8, 365 Square Foot Bank Building, Imo 2) Replat a Portion of Outlot A, Market Square into a 40, 000 Square Foot Lot and a 39, 600 Square. Z Foot Lot V 3) PUD Amendment to Add a Bank Building to Market . Square Shopping Center .J LOCATION: Southwest corner of the intersection of Market Boulevard 0. and West 78th Street • Q APPLICANT: KRJ Associates P 0 Box 635 Long Lake, MN 55356 I PRESENT ZONING: PUD, Planned Unit Development ACREAGE: 40, 000 square feet DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - OI and CBD S - BG, vacant QE — CBD, Filly's and Hotel Cr W — BG Pawn 's ,_ Q WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. tr• _ _ W c:::— f• -i - yl PHYSICAL CHARACTER. : A level parcel. 6,:, s.-••- 1 v, Dei- 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial --- -- - -1. 1 I Americana Community Bank August 7 , 1991 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY On October 8, 1990, the City Council approved the final PUD plan for a shopping center subject to conditions described in the attached report. The site included 3 outlots containing a proposed veterinary clinic and a cleaners and one vacant outlot (Outlot A) with an area of 79,946 square feet. The shopping center remains undeveloped due to financing difficulties, however, these are in the process of being resolved and construction is likely to start in September. The current request is for the construction of a 8, 365 square foot bank building on the north half of Outlot A. The site plan is well developed. The architecture of the bank building attempts to reflect the shopping center's use of stucco accent tiles, columns and gabled entries as well as the roof line of the Country Suites Hotel. This type of architecture is consistent with the rest of the shopping center. Staff is proposing that the roof line of the bank be revised to accentuate the gables and to ensure that the shingles are of the type used on the Country Suites Hotel which resemble wood shakes from a distance. One highly attractive feature of the site is the inclusion of a pedestrian plaza at the intersection of West 78th Street and Market Boulevard. A four lane drive-thru is provided to the south of the building. Car stacking for vehicles waiting to go through the drive-thru will be on the south portion of the site away from West 78th Street. The location for the drive-thru is appropriate as it places car stacking away from West 78th Street. The drive-thru is screened by the bank building from West 78th Street. Upon review of the drive-thru by the Engineering Department, it was found that the proposed turn radius for the drive-thru exit was inadequately sized. Alternatives to address the problem and acquisition of additional land to the south or reversing the turn lane direction of flow should be submitted. The site landscaping is generally of high quality due to the attention that was paid to this issue by staff and the applicant. Additional landscaping is being requested north and west of the site across from the parking area. Site access has been a major concern of staff through the design of this proposal. The applicant originally requested two access points, one via Market Boulevard and the second through West 78th Street. Staff strongly opposed the Market Boulevard curb cut noting traffic safety concerns and the fact that this entrance was specifically prohibited by the PUD agreement. After a number of meetings with the applicant, the Market Boulevard curb cut was eliminated and the curb cut on West 78th Street was refined to allow a right turn lane only for traffic eastbound and a median cut allowing left turns for traffic westbound. A traffic study conducted by Strgar, Roscoe and Fausch, Inc. has been submitted to Americana Community Bank August 7, 1991 Page 3 the City in support of this curb cut and new median cut on West 78th Street. • The bank representatives believe that the West 78th Street curb cut is critical to their operation. From a design standpoint, we believe this change is not likely to undermine the effectiveness of traffic flow on West 78th Street. However, it is necessary to note that the City Engineering Department continues to have some reservations with the median cut. Staff notes that the West 78th Street curb cut does not specifically serve the bank but rather would connect to the main driveway for the shopping center. We would strongly recommend against any median breaks serving individual sites. Ultimately, the Planning Commission, City Council and HRA will need to make a determination if it is acceptable on aesthetic grounds. Since at least part of the landscaped median would be lost if the median cut is approved. If it is approved, the bank should pay for all associated costs related to studying, designing and constructing this curb cut. In an accompanying subdivision request, the outlot is being divided into two lots, one of which will contain the bank building and the second of which will be reserved for future development. The subdivision request is a relatively straight forward action. The plat should be corrected as required to reflect an additional 10 feet of right-of-way along West 78th Street that has been required by the City under the Development Agreement. Based upon the foregoing, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve the site plan, subdivision and planned unit development amendment requests for this proposal with appropriate conditions. SITE PLAN REVIEW General Site Plan/Architecture The building is situated at the southwest corner of West 78th Street and Market Boulevard. Access is gained off of a proposed curb cut on West 78th Street. Staff will discuss in detail the access aspect later in the report. Parking is located to the west of the proposed building. Vehicle stacking is located south of the site and the building so that direct distant views from West 78th Street, to the north of the site will be minimized. Direct views of the stacking lanes will be screened by the building and landscaping from the north of the site. The architecture of the bank building reflects the shopping center's use of stucco accent tiles, columns and gabled entries. Colors and material types need to be specified for staff approval. Low gabled roofs and a strong masonry base complete the bank's image for the prominent corner site. The applicant has failed to show a roof top equipment Americana Community Bank August 7 , 1991 Page 4 screening plan. Such should be submitted prior to the City Council meeting. The applicant is showing the trash enclosure screened by a masonry wall using the same materials as the building and located on the southeast corner of the building. Two electric boxes operated and maintained by NSP, as well as an air conditioning unit, are located to the southeast corner of the site. These units are screened by a berm and landscaping to the north, east and south. While we are generally satisfied with the building architecture and note that the applicant has worked extensively on this project, we do have several main concerns. These include the illustrated building addition on the north side of the building paralleling West 78th Street, the incorporation of what appears to be an extended canopied entrance into the plaza area, and the building roof line. As to the first issue, a building addition has been illustrated on the north side of the structure. This had been incorporated into earlier plans and was intended to represent potential future expansions of the bank facility. Upon review of the plans, staff concluded that there was insufficient parking to support a building addition on this site and believed we had come to an understanding wherein the addition was to be deleted from the plans. We wish to make it clear that this building addition is not supported by staff and we do not believe we will be in a position to recommend approval of it in the future. We are therefore recommending that it be deleted from final plans for the project. The site on which this bank is situated is a highly visible one at what is highly likely to become one of the most important intersection in the Chanhassen CBD. Setting an architectural standard for this bank is difficult in part due to its location. The PUD approval requires architectural consistency with the main shopping center building. However, at the same time, this site is essentially the transition point from the shopping center site into architectural styles found elsewhere in the CBD. Therefore, we believe that the architect's intent to combine the style of the shopping center building, along with other downtown buildings such as the Country Hospitality Suites, is a sound one. We continue to have some concerns over the visual massiveness of this building and its proximity to the street. In part, these concerns will be addressed by ensuring that the building maintains a 25 foot setback from the public right-of-way required elsewhere in the shopping center as well as by the taking of an additional 10 feet along West 78th Street which will be reserved for the inclusion of a second thru-lane when it is needed in the future. However, we continue to be concerned about the massiveness of the roof line and the inclusion of relatively diminutive dormers to break this up. We would propose that the dormers be increased in size to break up the roof line or that some other structural design for the roof be considered. We believe a peaked roof is essential on this Americana Community Bank August 7, 1991 Page 5 structure but are requesting that the applicant's architect be somewhat more creative in addressing this concern. How this concern is addressed will also have some bearing on our issue concerning the HVAC screening mentioned above as well. The third concern pertains to the ,plans for a canopied entrance on the northwest corner of the building. Staff supports the inclusion of a highly accentuated main entrance but wants to ensure a 25 foot setback from the right-of-way is maintained from all structures and we define the canopy as part of the structure. The plans are somewhat misleading on this point since it appears as though the canopy would extend out over a portion of the patio area. Due to the lack of time, we have not had an opportunity to explore this more fully with the project architect but are certain that this matter could be resolved in the final plans. Parkina/Interior Circulation The City's parking ordinance requires one parking space per 200 square feet of gross floor area. The number of parking spaces required is 34 and the applicant is providing 35 parking spaces which satisfies the requirements of the ordinance. Traffic will be directed via West 78th Street running parallel to the westerly edge of the site then headed east into the bank site. Traffic exiting the site would either use an exit located at the southeast corner of the site or utilize the same entrance located to the east of the site. A stop sign is proposed at that location to regulate traffic. In general, the interior circulation and entrances are reasonable in our view. The proposed exit along the south property line is intended to become part of the entrance/exit to whatever develops on the southern portion of Outlot A. The remaining area of Outlot A is unlikely to be able to support any other entrances and exits apart from this one. A cross access easement running in favor of both lots being created from Outlot A, over this driveway and over the northern 30 feet of the lot to be created south of the bank, will be required to ensure that this element can be incorporated. However, during review of the access proposal by the Engineering Department, a problem has surfaced. When turning templates were put on the drive-thru lanes, it became clear that cars exiting the site would be unable to complete the turn required to transition into the exit lane. Again, this problem surfaced too late to be able to discuss it more fully with the project designer. There are several possible ways of addressing this issue. The first would be to incorporate a larger radius turn which would require the taking of additional land off of the southeast corner of the site or the reversal of traffic flow through the facility. There may in fact be other alternatives and we would be open to suggestions from the project designer as to how to resolve this issue. • Americana Community Bank August 7, 1991 Page 6 Access There are two sets of access points requiring discussion. The first is the internal access onto the shopping center driveway system. The second concerns proposed revisions to the shopping center access from West 78th Street. As to the first question, there are two access points being proposed off the internal driveway system. The northern most access is the major site - entrance which will serve the parking lot and the drive-thru facilities as proposed. In discussions with staff, we found some difficulty in providing safe access to this site since we wanted to provide the maximum offset separation between this site entrance and the major shopping center entry point on West 78th Street. We believe the current proposal is acceptable and resolves this concern. The second entrance point is the proposed exit lying adjacent to the south edge of the site. As proposed, this will serve as the exit to the drive-thru lanes. In the future, this exit would be shared with a new entrance to serve whatever is to be located on the remaining undeveloped area on Outlot A to the south. Staff supports this option noting that, due to the relative limited size of the newly created lot on the south portion of Outlot A and its location adjacent to the main entrance to the shopping center from Market Boulevard, this future common entrance point, shared with the bank, is likely to be the only means of entering and exiting this site that can be allowed. Staff is recommending that cross access easements be established in favor of both the bank parcel and the future lot to the south to guarantee that the shared access arrangement can work in the future. One of the major points of discussion between staff and the applicant on this proposal concerned external entrances into the site. The applicant's original position was that they wanted entrances to the bank from both West 78th Street and from Market Boulevard. Staff noted that any additional curb cuts into the Market Square site are specifically prohibited by the approved PUD plan, however, at the applicant's request we did have the city's traffic consultant, Strgar, Roscoe and Fausch prepare an analysis of both proposed curb cuts. Their report is attached to the staff report. Essentially, they agreed with the city's original position that a Market Boulevard curb cut into this site is unacceptable from a traffic safety standpoint. There are simply too many traffic movements occurring with southbound cars on Market Boulevard attempting to decelerate and move to the right to turn into the main shopping center entrance and cars from making a left turn to Market from West 78th Street accelerating. A final problem occurs with the proposed signalization of the intersection West 78th Street and Market Boulevard that is currently under consideration by the HRA and City Council. The SRF study concludes Americana Community Bank August 7, 1991 Page 7 that the stacking of vehicles waiting for the light to turn green would extend beyond the point at which the curb cut had been proposed. Discussion then focused on the proposed north median cut into the shopping center from West 78th Street. A right-in/right-out only entrance to the main shopping center drive had always been incorporated into plans at this point. The bank's request called for the inclusion of a median cut so that westbound West 78th Street traffic could turn into the shopping center site. Representatives from the bank believe that this entrance is vital to their operation. The SRF study indicated that this could be incorporated from a traffic safety standpoint. It became clear to staff that the only way we could support this was that the shopping center entrance continue to be structured as a right-in/right-out only, thus traffic would be unable to exit the shopping center site at this point crossing 78th Street median to make a left turn onto westbound West 78th Street. Westbound traffic on West 78th Street would, however, be able to turn into the Market Square site. • Staff would never want to be in a position of recommending a median cut to serve a specific site. We believe it would be highly inappropriate to do so since this would in essence establish a new turning movement to the benefit of a single property to the detriment of all traffic flowing through the downtown. However, we believe this request is somewhat different. This median cut would not specifically serve the bank but would directly serve the main shopping center driveway system. From the studies that have been done, we believe that it could probably be incorporated in an acceptable manner from a traffic safety standpoint. We must point out though that in spite of the SRF study, the City Engineering Department continues to have some reservations with this request. The ultimate decision as to whether or not this should be included truly rests in the hands of the Commission, City Council and the HRA. Much of this decision will rest on an aesthetic determination as to whether or not the city wishes to see landscaping in the center median island and be compromised to some degree to support the turning movement. Final designs of this curb cut have not been developed and there is some expectation on the part of staff that we would be able to salvage much of the landscaping that occurs in this area. We are currently in the process of asking SRF to look at possible designs for this curb cut in conjunction with their work on signalization of the downtown intersections which is currently in process. Should this curb cut be approved, as called for on this site plan, staff is recommending that the bank be liable for all costs associated with the traffic study and construction of the curb cut. Americana Community Bank August 7 , 1991 Page 8 Landscaping Staff worked closely ,with the applicant to design the landscaping plan. Berming is proposed along the northeast and westerly portion of the site. Staff is recommending additional screening along the northerly edge of the site to block the parking lot area from views from West 78th Street. Although the landscaping plan appears to be generally reasonable, we do have several revisions to request. The first is that the plan does not specify type or size of all materials. Final plans should be developed that incorporate this and the size of all materials must meet or exceed normal city, standards. Secondly, a hedge and berm is illustrated along the West 78th Street exposure west of the building. Grading details do not show a berm in this area and staff does not believe a significant berm can be incorporated, given the limited size of this area. We are requesting that details of this area be provided for staff review. In addition, two additional over-story trees should be incorporated in this area. Lighting Lighting locations are illustrated on the plans. Two light poles are proposed. Only shielded fixtures are allowed and the applicant shall demonstrate that there is no more than .5' candles of light at the property line. Plans should be provided to staff for approval . Fixtures should match those being used elsewhere in the shopping center. Signage The applicant has submitted a signage plan. One monument identification sign is proposed at the westerly entrance to the site. The area of the monument sign is 70 square feet. The applicant is also showing three 4-foot high wall mounted signs on each building elevation. Staff has some concerns over the signage proposal. Although it is attractive, we believe that the number and size of the signs are excessive relative to other buildings in the shopping center as well as other buildings in the CBD. The normal provisions of the sign ordinance are not applicable within the PUD and all development within it are subject to covenants approved by the city. We note that the 3 wall mounted signs appear appropriate given the multiple exposure this building has but note that the Chanhassen Bank has one major wall mounted sign even though it occupies the entire south end of a city block. Having said that, we are not sure which sign to recommend be deleted since they each appear to be appropriate given the design and location of the Americana Community Bank August 7 , 1991 Page 9 building. We are, however, going to recommend that the size of these signs be reduced to a maximum height of 3 feet which is consistent with approvals granted for the Medical Arts Building, which was recently considered by the Planning Commission and City Council. Given the number of signs on the building, we cannot support the currently proposed 4 foot height. There is an additional 70 square foot monument sign proposed at the southeast corner of the site adjacent to the internal shopping center driveway. We find no justification for this sign since the bank building and all wall mounted signage will be highly visible from this location. We are recommending that this sign be deleted. In its place, . there should be directional signage clearly illustrating the appropriate bank entrance and drive-thru exit lanes. Gradina/Drainage Specific grading and drainage plans were not prepared for this submittal . Given current conditions on the site 'and the proposed site plan, grading activity is expected to be minimal. Storm sewer connections into the shopping center system are illustrated in concept, but plans have not been developed. We do not anticipate any significant problems in this regard but final grading and drainage plans should be prepared for approval by the city, in addition to submitting storm water calculations for 10 and 100 year storm events. Watershed District approval of this plan may be required, although they have already reviewed the shopping center plans. Utilities City utilities are available to the site. Final plans for utility connection should be prepared for approval by staff. Park and Trail Dedication The Park and Recreation Commission acted to recommend that the city accept full park and trail dedication fees as part of this development. Fees are paid at the time of the building permits are requested. Americana Community Bank August 7, 1991 Page 10 COMPLIANCE TABLE WITH PUD ORDINANCE As a PUD, most of the usual ordinance provisions pertaining to dimensional criteria are waived. Required Proposed Building Setback 25 ' 25 ' Hard Surface Coverage N/A 73% Parking Stalls 34 35 ,SUBDIVISION The subdivision proposal is a relatively simple request that will serve to split the 1. 6 acre outlot into two lots. The northerly lot will have an area of 40, 000 square feet and will be occupied by the bank building. The southerly lot is vacant and there is no development proposed on the site at this time. The final plat needs to be revised to provide the additional 10 feet of right-of- way along West 78th Street that is being required by the City. The following easements are either illustrated on the plat or should be required: 1. Standard drainage and utility easements around the perimeter of both lots. 2 . A utility easement running in favor of NSP, located to the southeast corner of the building, 10' x 30 ' . 3 . The final plat for the entire Market Square shopping center must be submitted to staff for approval and filed with Carver County. The plat needs to be revised, as does this requested lot division to accommodate the additional 10 feet of right- of-way along West 78th Street that is being required by the city. 4 . Cross access easements need to be provided over the south driveway and northern 30 feet of the newly created parcel located south of the bank on Outlot A. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT This application is consistent with the overall planned unit development concept for Market Square. The only change is the curb cut and median cut access point off of West 78th Street. As stated Americana Community Bank August 7, 1991 Page 11 before, a study was conducted by Strgar, Roscoe and Fausch supporting this amendment. While we believe that this proposal is consistent with the PUD guidelines established, we note that at the time of writing the PUD agreement, development contract and final plat for Market Square, they have not yet been finalized or recorded. A condition should be added that no construction is to occur on the bank property until this documentation has been completed to the satisfaction of the city and a construction time table has been established for interior streets and utilities on the Market Square site that will be necessary to support the bank. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: Site Plan Review "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review #91-3 as shown on the site plan dated July 29, 1991, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site. Sign plans should be revised to eliminate the monument sign, reduce the wall sign height to 3 feet and incorporate requested directional signage. 2 . Additional landscaping shall be provided along the north edge of the site as proposed in the staff report. The applicant shall provide staff with a detailed cost estimate of landscaping to be used in calculating the required financial guarantees. These guarantees must be posted prior to building permit issuance. Provide a plant schedule indicating the size and type of all plant materials for staff approval. 3 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required. If the West 78th Street curb cut is approved, the applicant shall be required to compensate the City for all costs related to its design and construction. 4 . Revise architectural plans as follows: • Incorporate dormers of increased size or other acceptable measures to enhance the design of the roof line. • Provide details of HVAC screening. Americana Community Bank ' August 7 , 1991 Page 12 • Incorporate the use of Timberline or similar quality shingles that provide an image of a cedar shake roof. • Provide details of building exterior treatment indicating consistency with shopping center construction. • Eliminate the proposed building addition from the plans since adequate parking cannot be provided on site. • Revise plans as necessary to ensure that a 25 foot setback is provided to all portions of the building, including the entrance canopy. 5. Revise the plans as required to ensure that room is provided for safe turning movements for cars exiting the drive-thru lanes. " Subdivision "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Subdivision #91-8 as shown on the plat dated July 29, 1991, with the following conditions: 1. Park and trail dedication fees shall be paid at time of building permits are requested. 2 . Provide the following easements: a. Standard drainage and utility easements around the perimeter of all lots. b. A 10 ' x 30 ' utility easement located to the southeast corner of the bank building running in favor of NSP. c. The final plat for the entire Market Square shopping center must be submitted to staff for approval and filed with Carver County. The plat needs to be revised, as does this requested lot division to accommodate the additional 10 feet of right-of-way along West 78th Street that is being required by the city. d. Cross access easements need to be provided over the south driveway and northern 30 feet of the newly created parcel located south of the bank on Outlot A." Planned Unit Development Amendment "The Planning Commission recommends approval of an amendment to PUD #89-2 as shown on plans dated July 29, 1991." Americana Community Bank August 7 , 1991 Page 13 PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE The Planning Commission reviewed this item on their August 7, 1991 agenda. The applicants indicated that they were comfortable with the recommendations in the staff report. Most of the Planning Commission comments focused on two issues, including building architecture and the inclusion of a median break in West 78th Street. On the first issue, the Planning Commission addressed architectural concerns in detail. Staff had worked with the applicant extensively to revise architectural plans and a number of changes had been incorporated; however, we continued to be of the opinion that the roof line as presented gave a somewhat massive appearance. We noted to the Planning Commission that as an outlot on the Market Square site, a PUD condition for the Market Square development comes into play. This condition requires that buildings constructed on outlots be architecturally consistent with Market Square. The bank attempted to achieve this goal while at the same time recognizing that it is across the street from other buildings such as the Hospitality Suites. The Commission 's comments on the building were rather severe. They believed that the appearance was not generally one of "an inviting" type of structure and that there was a massive feel to it. Some suggestions included modifying roof lines, enlarging windows and altering color schemes. On the matter of the median break that is called for in the plans, staff indicated that in all honesty that there was some difference of opinion at a staff level as to whether or not this was reasonable. The City Engineer continues to have reservations with this proposal that are fully understood by Planning staff; however, at the same time we believe it is not unreasonable to think that there should be a northern entrance into the shopping center including a median break. As we indicated in the staff report, there is also a design issue in that median breaks such as this should be limited only to major site entrances for uses such as the shopping center and not individual buildings. The Planning Commission strongly agreed with us on this point. The current proposal complies with this standard since the median break serves the main shopping center driveway and not the bank site. The other design issue is that a median of this type is likely to compromise the landscaping theme on West 78th Street, and this is something that the City Council and HRA may want to evaluate this. However, the Planning Commission discussion regarding the median break was extremely favorable. Each of the members of the Commission voted to support it. Americana Community Bank August 7, 1991 Page 14 The Commission ultimately recommended that the plans be approved and sent to the City Council. The applicant was strongly encouraged to rework architectural plans to accommodate the concerns and issues that have been raised. This matter would normally have come before the City Council on August 26, 1991. However, staff is attempting to work with the time demands of the bank, who are under regulatory requirement to open before the end of the year. We spoke with them on the morning after the Planning Commission meeting and indicated a reluctance to take a plan containing unresolved architectural issues to the City Council . The bank's representative indicated a strong desire to work with the city to resolve these architectural issues. They believe that a plan could be presented to the City Council that would accommodate most of these concerns and if approved, final details could be worked out with staff after the fact. We agreed that if an acceptable plan could not be developed prior to the City Council meeting that this item would be deleted at the applicant 's request and held over to August 26th. We regret that this puts us in a somewhat uncomfortable position of bringing to you a set of plans that have yet to be refined. However, we are trying to balance this by attempting to meet the bank's time constraints if this is at all feasible. The Planning Commission revised conditions pertaining to the architectural design of the building. These changes have been reflected below. However, pending submission of final architectural plans by the bank, staff believes that we may recommend further changes in these conditions based upon final plat. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Site Plan The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Site Plan Review 4,91-3 as shown on the site plan dated July 29, 1991, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site. Sign plans should be revised to eliminate the monument sign, reduce the wall sign height to 3 feet and incorporate requested directional signage. 2. Additional landscaping shall be provided along the north edge of the site as proposed in the staff report. The. applicant shall provide staff with a detailed cost estimate of landscaping to be used in calculating the required financial guarantees. These guarantees must be posted prior to building Americana Community Bank August 7, 1991 Page 15 permit issuance. Provide a plant schedule indicating the size and type of all plant materials for staff approval. 3 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required. If the West 78th Street curb cut is approved, the applicant shall be required to compensate the City for all costs related to its design and construction. 4 . Revise architectural plans as follows: • Incorporate dormers of increased size or other acceptable measures to enhance the design of the roof line. • Provide details of HVAC screening. • Incorporate the use of Timberline or similar quality shingles that provide an image of a cedar shake roof. • Provide details of building exterior treatment indicating consistency with shopping center construction. • Eliminate the proposed building addition from the plans in part because we would never be necessarily approving the proposed addition. • Revise plans as necessary to ensure that a 25 foot setback is provided to all portions of the building, including .the entrance canopy. 5. Revise the plans as required to ensure that room is provided for safe turning movements for cars exiting the drive-thru lanes and submit the same for staff approval. 6. Parking stalls located to the south of the site shall be designated for employees only." Subdivision The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Subdivision #91-8 as shown on the plat dated July 29, 1991, with ' the following conditions: 1. Park and trail dedication fees shall be paid at time of building permits are requested. 2 . Provide the following easements: a. Standard drainage and utility easements around the perimeter of all lots. Americana Community Bank August 7, 1991 Page 16 b. A 10 ' x 30 ' utility easement located to the southeast corner of the bank building running in favor of NSP. c. The final plat for the entire Market Square shopping center must be submitted to staff for approval and filed with Carver County. The plat needs to be revised, as does this requested lot division to accommodate the additional 10 feet of right-of-way along West 78th Street that is being required by the city. d. Cross access easements need to be provided over the south driveway and northern 30 feet of the newly created parcel located south of the bank on Outlot A. " Planned Unit Development Amendment The Planning Commission recommends approval of an amendment to PUD 89-2 as shown on the plans dated July 29, 1991. ATTACHMENTS • 1. Staff report dated 10/8/90. 2 . Memo from Park and Recreation Coordinator dated July 29, 1991. 3 . Americana Community Bank Traffic Study dated June 5, 1991. 4 . Project statement. 5. Plans dated July 29, 1991. 6. Minutes of the August 7, 1991 Planning Commission Meeting. C I TY 0 P.C. DATE: 1/6/93 14, TF C II A ASSZN C.C. DATE: 1/25/93 1 • f r CASE: 92-14 SUB 92-8 Vacation B v: AI-Jaff STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: 1) Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 63.560 Acres into 4 Industrial lots 2) Vacation of Utility Easement and Previous Alignment of Lake Z Drive East QV LOCATION: South of Hwy. 5, east of Dell Road 0. APPLICANT : Mr. Randy Cadenhead Sunlink Corporation Q 1100 Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30309-4599 PRESENT ZONLNG: IOP, Industrial Office Park ACREAGE: 63.560 acres ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - Hwy. 5 and IOP S - Eden Prairie and RSF E - Eden Prairie/Dell Road/RSF W - BH and RSF SEWER AND WATER: Services are available to the site. 1.1 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The site has been extensively altered with the construction of Lake Drive East and the widening of Hwy. 5. Portions W of the site are covered with natural vegetation. The Datasery building occupies the southwest portion of the site and a concrete pad occupies the northwestern portion of the site. The concrete pad is the remains of a farm house. The southeast corner of the site is occupied by 2 baseball fields. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Industrial Sunlink Subdivision January 6, 1993 Page 2 ` PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is requesting approval to subdivide a 63.560 acre site into 4 industrial lots. The site is located south of Highway 5 and east of Dell Road. Access to the subdivision will be provided by the existing Lake Drive East. Lot 1, Block 1 is proposed to be the future site for — a park and ride lot to be constructed by Southwest Metro Transit. Lot 2, Block 1 contains the concrete pad from the farm house that used to occupy the northerly portion of the site and will be reserved for future development. Lot 1, Block 2 contains an existing one story building — (Dataserv) and Lot 2, Block 2 will be reserved for future development. All of the proposed lots meet the minimum requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The majority of the site has been farmed or altered through construction of Lake Drive East and widening of Hwy. 5 and is covered with natural vegetation. There is an existing retention pond located to the southwest corner of Lot 2, Block 2. Staff believes this plat request is a reasonable one and is generally consistent with the guidelines established by the city's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Staff finds it to be well designed and is recommending that it be — approved with conditions outlined in the report. PRELIMINARY PLAT — The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 63.560 acre site into 4 industrial lots. All of the lots meet or exceed the minimum of 1 acre in area. Staff notes that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. UTILITIES — The parcel was recently divided with the extension of Lake Drive East from Dakota Avenue to Dell Road. In conjunction with the street construction, municipal utilities were also extended. Each proposed parcel has the ability to connect to municipal sanitary sewer and water lines. The property also contains existing sanitary sewer and storm sewer easements which were previously dedicated. It is recommended that these easements be dedicated on the final plat as drainage and — utility easements. The easements shall be 20 feet wide over each individual utility line to provide adequate room for maintenance. In conjunction with the City's Lake Drive East improvement project, utility lines were relocated from the previous roadway alignment. These easements and right-of-way shall be vacated in conjunction with final platting. — GRADING AND DRAINAGE The parcel conveys storm water runoff overland through a couple of the proposed lots (Lot 2, Block 1 and Lot 2, Block 2). Both drainage areas may involve alteration when the individual Sunlink Subdivision January 6, 1993 Page 3 lot is developed. On Lot 2, Block 1, the northwesterly corner of the parcel receives storm water runoff from Trunk Highway 5. The drainage follows the old roadway alignment thus, when the roadway right-of-way is vacated, a drainage easement should be reserved. If in the future this parcel is developed, alternative drainage modifications may be employed. At that time, the appropriate drainage utility easements may be conveyed and the existing ones vacated. On Lot 2, Block 2 an existing drainage ditch conveys storm water runoff from Lake Drive East to the wetland/retention pond on the east side of Dell Road (City of Eden Prairie). In an effort to improve water quality from this development consistent with the City of Chanhassen's standards, the applicant shall design and construct a storm retention pond on Lot 2, Block 2 to intercept the storm drainage prior to discharging into Eden Prairie. The storm pond shall be _ designed to NURP standards. According to the City of Eden Prairie, the treated runoff can be discharged into the Dell Road storm sewer system at a peak rate of 38.4 cfs for a 100-year storm event. The applicant shall be required to build the NURP pond at this time to accommodate the future predicted runoff conditions based on land use. Drainage calculations shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. The final plat should dedicate the appropriate drainage and utility easement over the proposed ponding areas including access routes for maintenance. STREETS The site is serviced by Lake Drive East and Dell Road. Dell Road south of Lake Drive East, however, is only partially constructed. The City of Eden Prairie has constructed their half of the street this past year. As with other typical developments, the applicant is responsible for constructing the public improvements associated with the overall plat development. Besides the storm drainage retention pond, the applicant should be required to improve the westerly half of Dell Road lying south of Lake Drive East. Another option for the construction of Dell Road would be for the applicant to petition the City of Chanhassen to construct the street improvements associated with the project. The project would be assessed back to the applicant. The City would require the applicant to enter into an agreement waiving their rights to an assessment hearing and the appeal process. In conjunction with the platting of this development, we recommend that the applicant dedicate the necessary right-of-way and temporary easements for the construction of Dell Road south of Lake Drive East. According to street construction plans prepared by the City of Eden Prairie, the applicant should dedicate the easterly 60 feet of Lot 2, Block 2 for right-of-way. This would also facilitate construction of a sidewalk/trail element along the west side of Dell Road to connect with the existing sidewalk along Dell Road north of Lake Drive East. Since this development will require public improvements (storm water pond and street construction), it is recommended that a development contract be prepared in conjunction with this development and the applicant provide the City with the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval. Sunlink Subdivision January 6, 1993 Page 4 — PARK AND RECREATION • The Park and Recreation Commission will be reviewing this application on January 26, 1993. The Park and Recreation Coordinator has forwarded his comments in regard to this application request, and they are as follows: — Parks: This site is on the fringe of the park service areas for South Lotus Lake Park and Rice Marsh Lake Park. Although much of the site is park deficient, the desirability of pursuing — acquisition of a park as a part of this subdivision is not great. It should be noted, however, that the city maintained and scheduled two ballfields on the DataSery property, now Lot 2, Block 2, for a period of years. If during the development of Lot 2 this use could be retained, A would be of benefit to the city's park and recreation system. If the preservation of one or bcth of these ballfields was realized, an appropriate reduction in park fees would be credited. If not, Lot 2, Block 2 and Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, would be subject to full park fees at the rate in force upon — building permit application. Currently the park fee for commercialfmdustrial development is $2,500 per acre. — Trails: Concrete sidewalks currently exist along the north side of Lake Drive East and on the west side of the north half of the segment of Dell Road located in Chanhassen south of Highway 5. An easement for trail purposes shall be obtained along the easterly border of Lot 2, Block 2 of sufficient width to allow continuation of this pedestrian route to the south, allowing for connection to the Eden Prairie trail system. This trail segment would most likely be completed with the construction of the Chanhassen segment of Dell Road and represents an important inter- community connection. It will also provide direct access from the large residential area being developed south of this site to the proposed park and ride facility at the corner of TH 5 and Dell — Road. All vacant lots in the SunLink Addition will be subject to trail fees at the rate in force upon building permit application. Currently the trail fee for commercial/industrial development is $833.00 per acre. — Compliance Table Lot Area Lot Width Lot Depth Setback — Ordinance 1 acre 150' 200' N•30' S-50' — E-50' W-10' Block 1 Lot 1 4.1 acres 395' 470' Lot 2 15.788 acres 2,000' 470' Sunlink Subdivision — January 6, 1993 Page 5 — Lot Area Lot Width Lot Depth Setback N-110' — Block 2 21.279 acres 1,200' 850' S-350' Lot 1 E-450' W-360' Lot 2 18.789 acres 1,300' 620' — VACATION OF OLD UTILITY EASEMENT AND PREVIOUS ALIGNMENT OF LAKE DRIVE EAST The Planning Commission does not have to vote on the vacation, however, we are including it as an informational item. The applicant is requesting the vacation of the old utility easements and previous alignment of Lake Drive East. The old alignment is reflected on proposed Lot 2, Block 1. On Lot 2, Block — 1, the northwesterly corner of the parcel receives storm water runoff from Hwy. 5. The drainage follows the old roadway alignment. Thus, a drainage easement should be reserved. If in the future this parcel is developed, alternative drainage modifications may be employed. At that — time, the appropriate drainage utility easements may be conveyed and the existing ones vacated. In conjunction with the city's Lake Drive East improvement project, utility lines were relocated from the previous roadway alignment. These easements and right-of-way will be vacated in — conjunction with the final plat, with the exception of the drainage easement located within the old 40 foot wide roadway alignment. — PRELIMINARY PLAT RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Preliminary Plat#92-14 creating 4 industrial lots, Sunlink Addition, subject to the following conditions: 1. Drainage and utility easements should be shown on the final plat over all utility lines and ponding areas outside the road right-of-way. The minimum width of the utility easements shall be 20 feet wide. 2. The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat the easterly 60 feet of Lot 2, Block 2 for Dell Road right-of-way and grant the City at no cost temporary construction easements as necessary for the construction of Dell Road south of Lake Drive East. Sunlink Subdivision January 6, 1993 Page 6 — 3. The applicant has petitioned the City to vacate the previous frontage road through Lot 2, Block 1, a drainage easement shall be reserved over the existing 40-foot wide right-of- — way to maintain drainage rights from Trunk Highway 5 to Lake Drive East. 4. The applicant shall enter a development contract and provide the City with the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval. 5. The applicant shall construct a storm retention pond on Lot 2, Block 2 to intercept the — storm runoff from the development prior to discharging into Eden Prairie. The storm retention pond shall be constructed to NURP standards. Discharge into the Dell Road storm sewer system shall be limited to 38.4 cfs for a 100-year storm event. Detailed storm drainage calculations shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. A storm retention pond on Lot 2, Block 2 shall be constructed to accommodate the development at "built out" conditions. 6. The applicant shall construct the westerly half of Dell Road lying south of Lake Drive East. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to the City of Chanhassen for review and approval." ATTACHMENTS 1. Memo from Dave Hempel dated December 21, 1992. — 2. Memo from Todd Hoffman dated December 22, 1992. 3. Letter from MnDOT dated December 30, 1992. 4. Memo from City of Eden Prairie dated December 22, 1992. — 5. Hearing notice. CITY OF Oot‘lhl' CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I FROM: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician 41' VA—, DATE: December 21, 1992 SUBJ: Review of Preliminary Plat for Sunlink Addition LUR File No. 93-2 UTI LITI E S The parcel was recently intersected with the extension of Lake Drive East from Dakota Avenue to Dell Road. In conjunction with the street construction, municipal utilities were also extended. Each proposed parcel has the ability to connect to municipal sanitary sewer and water lines. The property also contains existing sanitary sewer and storm sewer easements which were previously dedicated. It is recommended that these easements be dedicated on the final plat as drainage and utility easements. The easements shall be 20 feet wide over each individual utility line to provide adequate room for maintenance. In conjunction with the City's Lake Drive East improvement project, utility lines were relocated from the previous roadway alignment. These easements and right-of-way should be vacated in conjunction with final platting. GRADING AND DRAINAGE The parcel conveys storm water runoff overland through a couple of the proposed lots (Lot _ 2, Block 1 and Lot 2, Block 2). Both drainage areas may involve alteration when the individual lot is developed. On Lot 2, Block 1, the northwesterly corner of the parcel receives storm water runoff from Trunk Highway 5. The drainage follows the old roadway alignment thus, if the roadway right-of-way is vacated, a drainage easement should be reserved. If in the future this parcel is developed, alternative drainage modifications may be employed. At that time, the appropriate drainage utility easements may be conveyed and _ the existing ones vacated. of t 4: PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Sharmin Al-Jaff December 21, 1992 Page 2 On Lot 2, Block 2 an existing drainage ditch conveys storm water runoff from Lake Drive - East to the wetland/retention pond on the east side of Dell Road (City of Eden Prairie). In an effort to improve water quality from this development consistent with the City of Chanhassen's standards, the applicant shall design and construct a storm retention pond on - Lot 2, Block 2 to intercept the storm drainage prior to discharging into Eden Prairie. The storm pond shall be designed to NURP standards. According to the City of Eden Prairie, the treated runoff can be discharged into the Dell Road storm sewer system at a peak rate of 38.4 cfs for a 100-year storm event. The applicant shall be required to build the NURP pond at this time to accommodate the future predicted runoff conditions based on land use. Drainage calculations shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. The final plat — should dedicate the appropriate drainage and utility easement over the proposed ponding areas including access routes for maintenance. STREETS The site is serviced by Lake Drive East and Dell Road. Dell Road south of Lake Drive East, however, is only partially constructed. The City of Eden Prairie has constructed their half of the street this past year. As with other typical developments, the applicant is _ responsible for constructing the public improvements associated with the overall plat development. Besides the storm drainage retention pond, the applicant should be required to improve the westerly half of Dell Road lying south of Lake Drive East. Another option _ for the construction of Dell Road would be for the applicant to petition the City of Chanhassen to construct the street improvements associated with the project. The project would be assessed back to the applicant. The City would require the applicant to enter into an agreement waiving their rights to an assessment hearing and the appeal process. In conjunction with the platting of this development, we recommend that the applicant dedicate the necessary right-of-way and temporary easements for the construction of Dell Road south of Lake Drive East. According to street construction plans prepared by the City of Eden Prairie, the applicant should dedicate the easterly 60 feet of Lot 2, Block 2 for — right-of-way. This would also facilitate construction of a sidewalk/trail element along the west side of Dell Road to connect with the existing sidewalk along Dell Road north of Lake Drive East. - Since this development will require public improvements (storm water pond and street construction), it is recommended that a development contract be prepared in conjunction with this development and the applicant provide the City with the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval. Sharmin Al-Jaff December 21, 1992 Page 3 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Drainage and utility easements should be shown on the final plat over all utility lines and ponding areas outside the road right-of-way. The minimum width of the utility easements shall be 20 feet wide. 2. The Applicant shall dedicate on the final plat the easterly 60 feet of Lot 2, Block 2 for Dell Road right-of-way and grant the City at no cost temporary construction easements as necessary for the construction Dell Road south of Lake Drive East. 3. The applicant shall petition the City to vacate the previous frontage road through Lot 2, Block 1, a drainage easement shall be reserved over the existing 40-foot wide right- of-way to maintain drainage rights from Trunk Highway 5 to Lake Drive East. 4. The applicant shall enter a development contract and provide the City with the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval. 5. The applicant shall construct a storm retention pond on Lot 2, Block 2 to intercept the storm runoff from the development prior to discharging into Eden Prairie. The storm retention pond shall be constructed to NURP standards. Discharge into the Dell Road storm sewer system shall be limited to 38.4 cfs for a 100-year storm event. Detailed storm drainage calculations shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. A storm retention pond on Lot 2, Block 2 shall be constructed to accommodate the development at "built out" conditions. 6. The applicant shall construct the westerly half of Dell Road lying south of Lake Drive East. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to the City of Chanhassen for review and approval. jms/ktm c: Charles Folch, City Engineer CITY OF _ .i ‘ CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I 7 FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Coordinator .1 DATE: December 22, 1992 SUBJ: Sun Link Addition The preliminary plat to subdivide approximately 60 acres into the Sun Link Addition will be reviewed by the Park and Recreation Commission on January 26, 1993. However, to accommodate your review schedule, I am forwarding the following comments in regard to parks, trails, and recreation. — Parks: This site is on the fringe of the park service areas for South Lotus Lake Park and Rice Marsh Lake Park. Although much of the site is park deficient, the desirability of pursuing — acquisition of a park as a part of this subdivision is not great. It should be noted, however, that the city maintained and scheduled two ballfields on the DataSery property, now Lot 2, Block 2, for a period of years. If during the development of Lot 2 this use could be retained, it would be of benefit to the city's park and recreation system. If the preservation of one or both of these ballfields was realized, an appropriate reduction in park fees would be credited. If not, Lot 2, Block 2 and Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, would be subject to full park fees at the rate in force upon — building permit application. Currently the park fee for commercial/industrial development is $2,500 per acre. Trails: Concrete sidewalks currently exist along the north side of Lake Drive East and on the west side of the north half of the segment of Dell Road located in Chanhassen south of Highway 5. An easement for trail purposes shall be obtained along the easterly border of Lot 2, Block 2 — of sufficient width to allow continuation of this pedestrian route to the south, allowing for connection to the Eden Prairie trail system. This trail segment would most likely be completed with the construction of the Chanhassen segment of Dell Road and represents an important inter- community connection. It will also provide direct access from the large residential area being developed south of this site to the proposed park and ride facility at the corner of TH 5 and Dell — Road. All vacant lots in the SunLink Addition will be subject to trail fees at the rate in force upon building permit application. Currently the trail fee for commercial/industrial development is $833.00 per acre. s� `4' PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 0,NNESot Minnesota Department of Transportation t2° Metropolitan Division Transportation Building St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 Op-TIAP,‘"‘ Oakdale Office, 3485 Hadley Avenue North, Oakdale, Minnesota 55128 Golden Valley Office, 2055 North Lilac Drive, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 Reply to Telephone No. 593-8533 December 30, 1992 Jo Ann Olsen Senior Planner City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 In Reply refer to: TH 5 C.S. 2701 Sunlink Addition Lake Dr./Dell Rd. Chanhassen Dear Ms. Olsen: 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: • No direct access to TH 5 will be allowed. 11-1 5 has been upgraded in this area and Mn/DOT has no plans for further improvements to accomodate additional direct access at this time. • Current drainage patterns and rates of runoff should be maintained. If you have any other questions please feel free to call me at 593-8533. Sincerely, -1/14aert_C(S:04)-L. William A. Sirois Senior Transportation Planner cc: Dotty Rietow, Metropolitan Council Roger Gustafson, Carver Co. Engineer RECEIVED John Freemyer, Carver Co. Surveyor DEC 3 1 1992 CITY OF CHANHASSEN An Equal Opportunity Employer DEC: 22 '92 11:06 TO:9-9375739 FROM:CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE T-226 P. 01 Post-Ir brand fax transmittal memo 7671 Mor pagee . 1 MEMORA cod •°v'htih i I►I ♦o/ .ue i Ry..as � Co., ,(j . a g.. Ysgir/ Dept. Phone w TO: Mike Franzen, Senior Planner Fax x 9 31-5737 Fax THROUGH: Alan D. Gray, City Engineer FROM: Rodney W. Rue, Assistant City Engineer' &i DATE: December 22, 1992 SUBJECT: Comments on City of Chanhassen's Sunlink Addition — The following are our comments regarding the preliminary plat of the Sunlink Addition in the City of Chanhassen. • We recognize that the City of Chanhassen has an excellent water quality program that we are confident will provide the necessary facilities to ensure quality storm water entering Eden Prairie. However, we should remind them about a couple of items that _ were discussed at the time of the Multi-Site Drainage Study (Jamestown, Shores of Mitchell Lake and Windfield); 1. Ail drainage from this site needs to be directed and routed through a pond designed to NURP standards (as required by the City of Chanhassen). 2. This treated water can be discharged into the Dell Road storm sewer system at a peak rate of 38.4 CFS for a 100-year storm. This rate is equivalent to the pre- development runoff rate. (See attachments from Multi-Site Drainage Study, including letter from OSM) • We would encourage that the proposed pond near Dell Road be constructed as soon as possible. This would provide both a quantity and quality control system during development of this 60 acre site. We would request that grading and ponding plans adjacent to Dell Road be forwarded to the Engineering Division for review and comment. — • This plat needs to dedicate 60 feet of right-of-way for Dell Road together with a 10-foot drainage and utility easement along Dell Road between Lake Drive Fast and Chanhassen's southern border. Temporary easements will also be needed on this property in order to complete the construction of Dell Road and the appropriate storm sewer improvements. • With the dedicated right-of-way as proposed, the City of Chanhassen needs to commit to building the western half of Dell Road (between Lake Drive East and Chanhassen's southern border) in 1993 in order to provide a complete road section through this area. RWR:ssa Dsk:RR.SUNLINIC NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ;i i m , PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING •� p 7416 4. 454 �/ Wednesday, January6, 1993 - 7:30 ,rr4 s t, pR ..//1° - , City Hall Council Chambers 690 Coulter Drive 2 77th ST• C° 1 W :TH ST 3 1 Project: Sunlink Addition Developer: Sunlink Corporationis NOPT'd4t Location: South of Hwy. 5 and East of &ea. �-- HANHASS N Dell Road no: 011440.�� . ESTATES `7r � � RENNE�/INI,'PAR a del �' �/ lora' VSA' ` Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. Sunlink Corporation proposes to subdivide approximately 60 acres into 4 lots on property zoned IOP, Industrial Office Park, located south of Hwy. 5 and east of Dell Road. 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 Sharmin 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 December 24, 1992. y. 2.4 . /2/23/f; / : Chanhassen Holding Company McDonald's Corp (22-146) Systems Control, Inc. 14201 Excelsior Blvd. AMF O'Hare 755 Mary Avenue No. Minnetonka, MN 55343 P. O. Box 66207 Sunnyvale, CA 94086 Chicago, IL 60666 Walter & Kathleen Schollman Ramond & Mary Ann Jezierski Eugene & N. L. Gagner 8011 Dakota Avenue 8013 Dakota Circle 8025 Dakota Avenue Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Richard & Mary Dorfner Michael W. Farrell Robert & Barbara Armbrust 8026 Cheyenne Avenue 8024 Cheyenne Avenue 8022 Cheyenne Avenue Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Douglas & Kathleen Bagley George & A. Jennings N. Einar & Valborg Swedberg - 8020 Cheyenne Avenue 8018 Cheyenne Avenue Co-Trustees Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 8016 Cheyenne Avenue Chanhassen, MN 55317 Daniel & Linda Robinson Mitchell T. Lebens Richard & B. Frasch 8014 Cheyenne Avenue 8012 Cheyenne Avenue 8010 Cheyenne Avenue Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Michael & Cynthia Koenig Gerard & Lindsay Amadeo Alex & Marilyn Krengel 8005 Cheyenne Avenue 8007 Cheyenne Avenue 8009 Cheyenne Avenue Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Alice L. Sieren Stephen & Joann MacDonald Russell & V. Hamilton 8011 Cheyenne Avenue 8017 Cheyenne Spur 8019 Cheyenne Avenue Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Glenn & Bonnie Hageman Thomas & Joy Eastman Craig & Kathryn Humason 8021 Cheyenne Spur 8023 Cheyenne Spur 8025 Cheyenne Spur Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Alois & M. Stumpfl George & Theresa Thomas Robert Seward 8027 Cheyenne Avenue 8029 Cheyenne Avenue 8031 Cheyenne Avenue Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Conrad & L. Fiskness Mary Ann Wallin Michael & Marie Kraus 8033 Cheyenne Avenue 8035 Cheyenne Avenue 8037 Cheyenne Avenue Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (18210 W. 78th Street Lotus Lake Garden Center, Inc. Frank Beddor, Jr.) 78 West 78th Street Eden Prairie Assembly God Church Chanhassen, MN 55317 16591 Duck Lake Trail Eden Prairie, MN 55346-1298 Terry & Margaret Lewis (18556 Wynnfield Rd.) 8013 Cheyenne Avenue Lundgren Bros. Construction Chanhassen, MN 55317 935 East Wayzata Blvd. Wayzata, MN 55391 Vernon & Barbara Husemoen 8015 Cheyenne Avenue Thomas & Patricia Redmond Chanhassen, MN 55317 c/o Redmond Products, Inc. 18930 West 78th Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 Lyman Lumber P 0 Box 40 Excelsior, MN 55331 Chanhassen Center Partners Randal & Cynthia Bottelson c/o Builders Development P 0 Box 637 8084 Crescent Court Wayzata, MN 55391 Eden Prairie, MN 55347 T & P. Redmond Tandem Properties c/o Pat Webber 2765 Casco Point Road 17429 Valley Road Wayzata, MN 55391 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Windfield Ltd. Partnership c/o Pemtom Land Co. 8200 Humboldt Avenue S. Bloomington, MN 55431 The Press, Inc. 18780 West 78th Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 CITYOF CHANHASSEN -- i 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I DATE: December 31, 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 (612) 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 612 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 (612) 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 side or rear yard on lots, the height of fences shall not exceed 6/ feet in height. (See Illustration #1). _ Is ot PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Planning Commission December 31, 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 61/2 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 Mark of 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. r ILLtSTRATIONS I JO. FENCE REGULATIONS Via.. 634 - moi: •;: :� • .I^�.✓.,,.• . s :;1: ., ,.,:l.Iigfgj 'Xi::".-- r :' :. 634 :ice^ .`T4: Front Yards. `'}. 01Side Yards and Rear Yards. •''•Sii-.:**;::::::•1••:::-.:.;•..; ',....• _ow riii 11141111 N. ... 01 ":....:44..:. .• �/ .,..-...-,:.,..,-_-.::,.....k..-,-.:;.,...7.:,1,,,,,,,..;,,,,,z,:-.,...,,......._:..-.i,..,--... '. ..,1,.....1:-. .- -....-..:::.,? r':::::.':.,,,-,.„.. ' •••,.:-,10- ..., .:.. •. Vit'• ''!' a•,• lir Y.. ;r,'� F::•%., M: ci .:.. :i;' j. •�•;•:,' .. w :f''�.::4 ':�- r4:, ,yam :,,•" cS • s•"• •.�'•_ �;:.r/�•t:•, �:;of f`'� .:ti S•n�< ;C • Corner Lots. `- 41151 r Planning Commission Meeting _ September 16 , 1992 - Page 62 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 limtied to 7:00 a .m . to 6 :00 p .m . , Monday thru Saturday with no work occurring on holidays . 5 . The applicant shall submit an 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 . 8 . The City shall inspect the site before grading begins to ensure preservation of the trees and location of snow fences . All voted in favor and the motion carried . ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-1023 , HEIGHT OF FENCES ANC SECTION 20-1019 , LOCATION OF FENCES . Conrad : Mr . Chairman , I 've got to bring Steve home . Emmings : You know , we could make a motion on this next one . Aanenson: We 've got a big agenda next week too so tabling 's not going tc help . Farmakes: Let 's get it done . Erhart : I move it . Krauss: Could you also open and close the public hearing . Batzli : This is a public hearing? I open the public hearing . I 'd lI'ke - the record to show that there 's no one here from the public that wants tc comment on our Zoning Ordinance Amendment . Ledvina moved, Erhart seconded to close the public hearing. All voted it favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Batzli : Does anyone have any comments on this? Ledvina : No . Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 63 Batzli : I have comments on this . I hate this . I don 't think iths necessary . I don 't know why we 're doing it . I 'm going to vote against it . Anybody else have any comments? Erhart: Why did we start this? Emmings: You hate this? Batzli : I live on a corner lot . I don 't like it . Emmings : You want people to build 6 foot fences in their front yards? Batzli : I don 't care if they do . Erhart : What initiated this ordinance review? Aanenson: We 've had people request to do that . Krauss: Over the years it 's caused us problems . People have blocked sight lines . We never had any regulations about it . People have asked questions about it . Batzli : Look at the guy across the street from me in a PUD that has about a 10 foot , you know he 's as close to the road as he can be . He needs a fence and this wouldn 't allow him to do it and you 're asking him to sit in the middle of the road on corner lots in a PUD when they 've got a small lot . Erhart : He bought the lot . Batzli : Well yeah . Mr . Liberal . I think this is totally unnecessary . If they 're going to do it , they 're gonna do it on a case by case basis . If you want a personal attack . I think this is intrusive . It 's unnecessary . If we 're going to do it , we should limit it a little bit more to close to the intersection or whatever you 're really trying to protect here . The sideyard of a corner lot in a PUD , well what in essence would be a sideyard but it 's sometimes a front yard , I think this is too intrusive into that . If you guys want to go look at a fence before we act on this . I would encourage it . To go look at the fence right across from me on Fox Hollow Drive and take a look . See if you hate that fence . It 's more than 3 feet . And it 's necessary for him to use his back yard at all . He has no back yard other than the area that 's protected by the fence . Otherwise he 's minimum distance away from the other house . Minimum distance . Emmings: This doesn 't prevent him from building in his back yard . . . Batzli : It would be along what 's considered the front yard because it 's a front yard on a corner lot is on too many sides . Aanenson: You have two fronts , yeah . Batzli : He 's got two fronts . He would not have any area of his yard that I think would , he would have any privacy in under this ordinance . Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 64 Farmakes: Would that be an exception to the rule? Could he ask for a variance? Conrad: I think yobshould tell the home audience that it 's Steve 's anniversary tonight . Batzli : It 's Steve 's 25th anniversary and we aren 't going to let him go . Conrad : It 's 5 minutes to 11 :00 and he 's dead . Erhart : Well what do you want to do here? I mean do you want to delay it? Conrad: Let 's table it . Aanenson : We 've tabled it three times and the next agenda will be just as crowded . Batzli : Well but you never got my comments until now . Now you have my comments . Now you know what you have to take care of . Go look at Chip Brown 's house , right across from me . I don 't know what it is . 151 Fox _ Hollow . Whatever it is . Look at his yard and you tell me how he could have any privacy without building the big fence? Ledvina : That 's an existing? Batzli : But you 're putting PUD 's in all over the place with the minimum of 10 ,000 square feet . We have to cover this issue . On a small lot where the guy 's got a house right on his side . He 's got two front yards , The only thing he 's got is this little piece of back yard that needs to be fenced . Erhart : Okay , I ' ll move that the Planning Commission recommend . Emmings: Did he build this fence after you moved in? That 's all . Erhart : Could you get some control over the audience? I more that the Planning Commission . . . Batzli : All because it 's along the front yard that 's built along the road . Erhart : Section 20-1019 , location of fences as noted above . Ledvina: I ' ll second that . Aanenson: This area right in here , as long as they stay on that triangle . Batzli : Any fence on the front yard setback shall not exceed 3 feet in height . That 's the ordinance . That 's the wording . Emmings: This is a corner lot right here . Here 's the example . This is his rear yard . This is his front yard . This is his side yard . Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 65 Batzli : No , his rear yard is to the back projection of the picture . All the way up . Yeah , that 's his back yard . He has 10 feet on the side . 15 feet on the back where you 're saying his back yard is . Aanenson : He 's got the side yard . This is his back . Batzli : That 's his side yard . The way you 've got it drawn because the road is going on the right and on the left in that V . Aanenson: What that reflects is the sight distance so you can see . That 's what that line is . Batzli : Isn 't that where the road is? Aanenson: Yeah . Batzli : Okay , then I 'm saying is , is the only part of his yard that you can do anything in is part of the front yard? Aanenson : Outside of the sight triangle . Batzli : This is front yard and that 's front yard . His only part that he has that he can do anything in is back here . There 's a house on this side . So if he , his fence sits right here . That 's what he 's got fenced 6 feet so that he 's got a deck in his back yard so he doesn 't sit on his _ deck and watch all the cars go by all day long . And this would be considered front yard . He could not put the fence up . That 's the 3 foot fence that he 's got that he needs in this configuration . Krauss : I think we 've got to continue it now . Well , you still have a quorum . Batzli : I 'm just going to vote against it . You guys can vote . You 'll have a majority . Erhart : Do you have an understanding . Does Brian understand what you 're proposing? Krauss: I don 't know but if you want to continue it . Batzli : The ordinance clearly says , in a corner lot you can 't have anything higher than 3 feet in height if opaque . He 's got an opaque fence . He needs it . Erhart : Are we doing something here we don 't want to do? Batzli : No , I 'm saying that if we 've got small corner lots , and you 're tucked up against the house on one side , which you 're going to do in a 10 ,000 square foot lot , you 're going to have one area that 's useable as a yard in those situations . And this will not allow those people to have any privacy in their one little part of their yard . _ Aanenson: So you 're asking us to look at those small lots and come up with some different language? Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 66 Batzli : I don 't know . - Aanenson: Or not use it at all? • Batzli : I don 't know . Erhart : I guess I don 't understand . I mean this guy 's got his , he 's set back 30 feet and he 's got a whole back yard there . - Aanenson: He 's saying in those instances where people don 't have that . Batzli : Well I don 't know . Erhart: If you have a specfic example . Batzli : He can 't be pulled 30 feet back to have the 6 1/2 foot , I know he can 't get that . But anyway . Maybe I 'm wrong . Go look at this lot and tell me that this meets the ordinance , because I think something likE- that 's reasonable . If we 're going to allow real small , dinky lots like that . Anybody have any changes to the Minutes? Aanenson: So it was tabled? Batzli : Yeah , we 're tabling it unless somebody wants to bring up a motion? - Erhart : You didn 't hear a motion did you? Batzli : Okay , we closed the public hearing . All in favor of tabling sa) aye? Batzli moved , Erhart seconded to table the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend Sections 20-1023 and 10-1019. All voted in favor and the motion carried . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated September 2 , 1992 . ONGOING ITEMS . Batzli : Are there any items that we need to be looking at? Krauss : Oh yeah , we do have probably our biggest development the city ever had . 190 acre office/industrial park at the corner of TH 5 and TH 41 . PUD concept plan is on your next agenda . - Farmakes : Which corner? Krauss : Southeast . Farmakes: Any major tenants we should about? Krauss: I don 't know of any yet . It 's a concept . CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 2 , 1992 Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7 :35 p .m . MEMBERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad , Jeff Farmakes , Brian Batzli , Matt Ledvina , Steve Emmings , Joan Ahrens and Tim Erhart STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson , Planner II ; Sharmin Al-Jaff , Planner I ; Dave Hempel , St . Engineering Technician; and Todd Gerhardt , Asst . City Manager PUBLIC HEARING: BEISNER, LTD . PROPOSES THE CONSTRUCTION OF GOODYEAR TIRE AND ABRA FACILITIES ON PROPERTY ZONED BH , BUSINESS HIGHWAY AND LOCATED SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5 , NORTH OF LAKE DRIVE EAST AND EAST OF THE CHANHASSEN EMISSION CONTROL STATION: A . REPLAT OF LOT 2 , BLOCK 1 , CHAN HAVEN PLAZA 3RD ADDITION INTO 3 LOTS . B . CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO LOCATE AN AUTO SERVICE RELATED USE IN THE BH , BUSINESS HIGHWAY DISTRICT . C . SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 5,397 SQUARE FOOT GOODYEAR TIRE BUILDING AND A 6 ,494 SQUARE FOOT ABRA FACILITY . Public Present: Name Address Thomas N . Thompson 1011 Butte Court Michael Koenig 8005 Cheyenne Avenue Tom Kotsonas 8001 Cheyenne Avenue Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item . Batzli : Did that correspondence , was that written after the current? Al-Jaff : Yes . Batzli : So they had seen these? Al-Jaff : No , they haven 't seen these . Batzli : Okay . And another question . Your first condition of the site plan review talks about the applicant preparing revised architectural plans . Al-Jaff : Correct . We hadn 't seen the plans at the time when we wrote this report . We don 't usually do this . Batzli : In view of the plans that we now have , that were hand delivered to us , would this condition change? Are you asking for something in addition to what was hand delivered to us? Al-Jaff: We are still asking for dormers on the Goodyear building . Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 2 Batzli : Otherwise staff is , finds that the current revised plans that were hand delivered are acceptable? That 's staff 's position , other than — the dormers? Okay . If the applicant would like to make a presentation regarding any of the conditions or revised architectural plans , why don 't we do that right now . — Al Beissner : Mr . Chairman and members of the Planning Commission . We have taken the time and effort we think to revise to reflect what came out of our meeting a couple of weeks ago and we did meet and if there wa<— a timing problem or a gap it 's because we were under some pressure to tr) and get it done in time and I hope what we put together reflects what meeting we had with Jeff was helpful in bringing forward . I have my — architect here and I have some colored renderings of what you see there that will better reflect . We even have an elevation taken from or drawn from a view from Highway 5 . That we ' ll show with our perming and you 'll _ virtually not see any cars at all that are parked there . Where as you drive right now by the McDonald 's and the Emission Control building , you can see the pavement and you can see cars that are parked there . My architect is here and I 'd like to at least show you our color landscape — plan , building plan and elevation plan if we could . Batzli : That 'd be fine . — Al Beissner : We were also under the impression , and mistakenly so obviously that we could put signs on all four sides of the building . We didn 't in our original drawing and we can modify that to what city requires . Batzli : In order for the camera to see these , they 're going to have to — be slid over more toward the podium . Al Beissner : I 'll start out briefly explaining what Johnas did in here _ with his detail . First one is just basically a colored site plan showin<, the existing lot that 's not being developed and the twD lots with our coverages . Green area to asphalt and to building area and as before , we have met the requirements of the city of Chanhassen . .e 've also in this — elevation , in this landscape plan , put in the additional trees that were requested last time that we were here . This is an eleiation taken from Highway 5 and this is what your view will be with the terming that we have proposed and that 's in place . If you look closely you can see a couple of cars drawn in here . With the normal standard size American car , that 's probably about how it will look from the freeway . If we get _ some bigger campers or things , you ' ll see at least the tops of them but you won 't be seeing grills . You won 't be seeing headlights . You won 't be seeing anything like that with the proposed berming that we have . This was the same berming we had last time but wasn 't illustrated as it — is here . This is the proposed Goodyear elevation , and we do have in the drawing 2 weeks ago , we did have gables on the end of the roofs here . We now have introduced the gables on the sides and have broken up a lot of _ it and I think put some of the detail into the Goodyear store that we didn 't even discuss last time . And this is the Abra store . The one tha we put a lot of time in and discussed last time and it doesn 't look even close to what it was last time . And I 'm again trying to interrupt what everybody wants architecturally is difficult sometimes and I don 't know Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 3 still if this is all that we had in mind but we think it 's gone a long way in accomplishing what we had to do as far as screening our rooftop unit . Creating something different than what you will see in any of the drawings that we 've had . This is the elevation from the freeway and as you saw in the berm , the berm would come across here and you 'd only probably see the top . This is the elevation that you would see from Lake Drive , if the trees were down . The trees aren 't down so it 's there . This is the elevation as you look from the Goodyear store and this is the back elevation that faces east . And like any good architect , when he thought we could have signs on all four sides , we put them on . We didn 't proposed it the first time and we can take some off . So the architect is here , Johnas Blumental , if you want to ask him any questions about it , feel free . Johnas Blumental : I guess I can answer questions or explain what we are talking about . These are mansard roofs and they enclose equipment . These docks . . .spots , they are mansonary recesses to give a little more interest to it . The idea is created to break up the roofline but obviously these are not downtown buildings . There is no pedestrian traffic walking by . . . As what you can see from Highway 5 , and people that are out in the parking lot , so like I mean when I read the report about dormers for a Goodyear , instead of putting several small dormers , we are using one larger dormer and breaking up the roof line . That was the idea . And we are also breaking up this roofline on the end of the buildings so there is not that , pardon me for the expression , a barn look . And we are creating the peaks and we have a . . .because we have in this case , there is really attic effect on . . .we need some louvres for roof ventilation anyway so we are oversizing them I mean for the architectural effect . In a way this probably is probably very telling elevation of the entire site because this is what the public will be seeing . They will see the different roof lines and so on . And as Al was explaining about the cars , berms for me have an elevation shown here on a _ side . Usually the berms are 4 feet higher than a parking lot . And normal car is 4-4 1/2 feet high so it might be that the car top , 6 inches or so might show . That is . . . Batzli : Is there something architecturally or some architectural reason why you don 't want to put the dormers that the staff is requesting on the Goodyear building? Johnas Blumental : My understanding was , we talked about the dormers in a meeting . . .the report . And we made one big dormer instead of several smaller ones because the reason why I mean that that will be more noticeable from the highway than I mean several small things . Batzli : So you feel that breaking up the mass of the building has been accomplished by the one large dormer? Johnas Blumental : Right , yes . Batzli : Anyone else have any questions? Ledvina : Was there any attempt to coordinate or propose the coordination of building materials between the two Goodyear and Abra buildings? Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 4 _ Johnas Blumental : Actually they are very similar in a way . I mean they are concrete block and moving some , I mean one is ivory color . One is - beige color and so everything is coordinated . They both have stripes . I mean obviously the Goodyear has different color stripe and things like that so we felt very comfortable that they are two individual buildings - but they are coordinated obviously . It 's not the same design . Ledvina : One of the comments that we had at our last session related to _ the possibility of having the same type and color of building materials . Maybe the same types of roofing materials and things like that . I don 't know , was that discussed with Jeff at all? Farmakes : We were not defining materials at that point . We were talkin< about architectural issues of bringing light industrial to what we would consider I guess more of a retail type building where 4e had more detailing . And we were not , there 's only so much you can do in one meeting . I think that the next step maybe would be to consider to look closer at the materials that they 're talking about . Johnas Blumental : My comment would be that the materials would be , should be complimentary but not necessarily the same and that 's what we are trying to do . - Farmakes: The blue that you have issued on the Goodyear building . Is that indicative of the blue that you 're proposing there? Johnas Blumental : Not exactly I mean . This is our print . It 's rather regular blue color that Goodyear uses but it 's not exactly the final selection . I was just trying to illustrate that it is going to be blue . - Al Beissner : We will get color chips from Goodyear on what they proposed and what they use and what is their standard and this is about as close . - When lose . -When Johnas asked me , this is about as close as we couLd come we thought to duplicating it . Farmakes : That 's a colored stone? Al Beissner : Yes . . .And the other thing that I think , '.o answer your question , we talked last time if we wanted the buildings all to be the - same or be in a shopping center kind of look and they '•-e small enough here so they can be individual , almost like homes . You don 't want the same home repeated but yet you don 't want a very inexpensive rambler next to a very expensive two story . So we did take that into consideration trying to do it but we didn 't , it would be virtually impossible to try tc get Abra and Goodyear to be identical because each company seeks for their own identity so we thought we did that . If you would like , I have - the prints that I had here 2 weeks ago that we didn 't Like . If you want to rehash that and refresh that? Batzli : No . Al Beissner : No . Okay . Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 5 Farmakes: The color , the proposals that you 're doing here for the exterior is far different than the samples that you brought in previously . Do you have samples here? Al Beissner : No , I don 't have samples here . This , the Goodyear , in their specifications have what their talking about and they have different shades of what they have . We went to a lighter shade here to try to coordinate with the lighter shade that Abra has . They will give us their samples and say these are the , this is the color that are in the specs that we can choose from but they 're shades of that . Farmakes: The shingling that you 're putting on the roof , is that a _ raised type shingling? The sample that you had was sort of a black shingle . Al Beissner : That was from their colored rendering that they supplied us that basically was their standard throughout the country . We don 't have samples of the colors of the shingles that we 'd like to use yet . Farmakes : But you anticipate that it 's going to be close to what you have here in the color renderings? Al Beissner : Yes . We used the black one before . They had a blacker and a grayer and the blue tone . Now we 're going into a beige and a lighter and we can do that . Johnas Blumental : The idea is that the roof would be a little darker than the building . _ Batzli : Okay , thank you . Have you had a chance to look at the staff report? Are there any conditions that you don 't agree with at this point? Al Beissner : Well the only one I think we had a misinterpretation about the dormer thing and when Johnas came up with this big dormer as opposed to the small ones , I think when we talked about dormers last time we put the smaller ones in and that 's . Farmakes: I think the issue of dormers that 's not functional . It may let a little more light on the inside . It may create a little bit more problems for the construction . The issue of dormers again is if you look at the mass of the roof there , there 's nothing much breaking it up . These large expanses of nothing being broke up are typical of more industrial type structures . It is more of an aesthetic thing than functional . Al Beissner : I think when we put that up before we had one solid roof and then we were throwing in , you know small dormers here and there . Here Johnas thought it was better to go with bigger ones on each side than say 6 smaller ones . And again , I don 't know . The dormers were , are false dormers . They don 't provide any light inside the building . They 're just there for the aesthetics from the outside . Other than that I don 't have . Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 6 Farmakes : I have one question on the Abra structure . You know have I — believe a garage door on both ends of the building , is that correct? Al Beissner : We 've always had a garage door on both ends of the building . Farmakes: You have? Al Beissner : Yes . Farmakes : Okay . That was my error then . Al Beissner : This is , that 's for the paint line that Degins at one end and comes out the other end at the back of the building . If you have a site plan , that 's always been there . — Farmakes: And then that 's the air conditioning vent? Al Beissner : That was the problem we had . It 's right over here . It 's right over here . Farmakes: The north elevation then would be the side that 's facing the highway? Al Beissner : Correct . And if you get back to , that will face the — highway . We still have the grove of trees that 's between us and Lake Drive that someday will probably come down but they aren 't coming down when we 're developing this . — Batzli : Thank you . I 'd like to give any member of the public here tonight an opportunity to speak . I would ask that if you can keep your comments fairly brief , that would be appreciated and also please step up to the podium and give us your name and address prior :o speaking for the record . Would anyone from the public like to address ,he Commission? Tom Kotsonas: Tom Kotsonas . I live at 8001 Cheyenne Avenue , Chanhassen Estates . I 'm not too sure how brief I 'm going to be but I 've got a statement to make . I spoke to you last time also when we talked 2 weeks _ ago and I wish to again street some of my concerns and point out that as far as our neighborhood is concerned , that both of these businesses are an extremely negative and will have a negative impact on our residential neighborhood . And would like , if they are going to go through , to keep - several things in consideration . The buildings , as been talked already , should be as pleasing and the roof line should be imaginative . Something noticing as they 're driving through Chanhassen , looking at the new bank — building . I thought that was an imaginative design . The Country Suites the new Market Square mall . Also the roof line again , for such a large building , large site is rather well developed I thought . Another thing to keep track of is what 's going to happen to trash and cars left overnight as we talked about before and the layout of the buildings , I don 't understand and maybe they could point out where these things are . What are we as a neighborhood going to be facing? Is all the traffic in — and out of the garage doors going to be facing our neighborhood or is it going to be facing the highway? That 's something that should be Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 7 considered so that what we 're looking at . Also the trees and the evergreens that are going to be planted , that they 're strategically placed so that they do give us privacy and and our neighborhood privacy so that they 're not all on the highway side . Or facing the emission test center which does nothing for us . So that when that third lot does get developed someday , which probably will be in the near future , that whatever goes there , we also are well protected from whatever goes there and whatever is developed . And keeping these things in mind then , please keep in mind that the site should be developed so that not only the owner but the neighborhood and the city of Chanhassen can be proud of whatever goes in there and whoever enters into Chanhassen coming through the east end can look at that and say , well that is a well developed , well designed , commercial site . Okay , thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to you tonight . Batzli : Thank you . I was actually pleased that you noticed some of the new roof lines . We put a lot of effort into trying to , thank you . Thank you for your comments . Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Mike Koenig : Hi , my name is Mike Koenig . I live at 8005 Cheyenne Avenue and I guess a couple of my concerns is there seems to be a lot of talk about how we 're going to put a berm up to block it from Highway 5 but what about on the other side where taxpayers are going to look out their back windows and see this all the time . This grove of trees that you 're talking about , right now I can look out and see all the way through it . That 's not going to help us at all . Another question , a sign on all 4 _ sides of the building . Is this the lighted sign that I 'm going to look out my window at night and see lighted signs? That 's not real appealing . My taxes , or real estate property values were raised last year and this going in is definitely going to not increase them . It 's going to lower them and at least if it 's going to be there , let 's put some trees or something . Evergreens or something to block it from us . Thank you . Batzli : Let me ask you a question . From your window you say you can see through the trees . Is that because the leaves are down? Mike Koenig : Right . Batzli : So you prefer to see something green all year? Mike Koenig: From the time that they 're , in the fall when they drop their leaves until they 're full in the summer again , you can see all the way through there . Obviously something 's going to be going in there before long and they won 't be there is another concern too . Batzli : Thank you . Would anyone else like to address the commission? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Emmings moved , Conrad seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Batzli : Just by way of introduction , to those of you who may not have attended a Planning Commission before , we 're now going to ask each one of the commissioners for their comments on the plan . From time to time Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 8 people do have questions right in the middle and we 'll try to entertain those questions if we have time at the end of each commissioner 's comments . Joan . Ahrens: The only issues we 're discussing are the architectural issues? - Batzli : Pardon me? Ahrens : The only issue we 're discussing is the architectural issues? Batzli : You can bring other issues up . Ahrens : Well I didn 't attend the last . . .but I 'm glad to see some progress here in the architectural plans . However , I Jon 't think that they are creative or attractive . . .along Highway 5 . I think that they , _ I like the . . . I think you did a good job on those . Farmakes : They 'll be copyrighted next week . Ahrens : I like the dormers along the roof . I think teat 's nice . I like the brick on the front of the Goodyear building . We need buildings like this . Too many cities have buildings like this towards the entrance of - their city and . . .and I think that we need to provide tlat . . .our city wil : be proud of . . .As far as the trees , I think if these people think that there 's not enough trees in there , there should be some more trees . . . Batzli : Jeff . Farmakes: I share the concerns about the car care development center - developing on it 's own on that end of town . We 've had a long discussion on this . I 'm not going to repeat myself , about our ability to control the development there . I think that the applicant , in the meeting that _ we had , had made a start with this . They have taken some of the element: that we discussed . It 's not the intention that the sketches that we worked on were to be done verbatim . It was simply to be used as a tool to communicate what the city is looking for and the quality of - architecture . Not necessarily that we have a comtempo'-ary building or that we have a theme building throughout the city . Or that sort of thing . We weren 't discussing style as much as issues of detail and - quality of materials and things of that nature . Typically with car care type structures you wind up with the very minimum it takes to do the job . That 's the type of light industrial use that you often see with these type of buildings . It is not something that I think would be in the interest of good planning to be putting next to both the entrnace to the city and single family residences . Very close by . I too would like to see landscaping , evergreen type to be a year round barrier continued over- on that east side of that property on the lot that 's yet to be developed We need to also be thinking about how to incorporate the pylon signage with this new type of architecture that we 're looking at . I 'd like to _ see the detailing that they 're working on , whatever it winds up being an( the building to also work it 's way into the pylon itse:.f . The signage is an issue that has yet to be resolved . I think it 's a major issue - considering the single family residents close by . Actually in materials that are being used on the buildings I think would also go a long way in Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 9 helping the discussion here . Perhaps at the next round here we could discuss those more in detail rather than a colored magic marker . I know obviously when a client is looking at what they 're going to buy , they see a sample . It would be helpful I think to assess the quality of the type of the building if we could see some samples . I think the Goodyear is perhaps more cohesive as a design than the Abra . I think the work on the roof needs to further modify . I like the different approach the client , the applicant has taken to the color . Again that they 're attempting to be less obtrusive and relying on their signage to identify their position and not the gawdiness of the structure . I think it needs work , to sum it up but I do believe that we 're no longer on step one , where we were at the last meeting . Emmings: I 've got a couple of questions . When staff says they 'd like to see more dormers on the Goodyear building , what have you got in mind there? All the dormers , do you want a bunch of them or one more? Al-Jaff: We want the roof broken up more . You still have a long roof line on the building . If we can break that up someway and the thought that comes to our mind is , dormers . I don 't know if that helps . Emmings: Well you don 't have a specific? Al-Jaff : No . We don 't have a specific design . Emmings: In your condition number 4 on the site plan review you 're talking about an additional 16 evergreens on the south side of Highway 5 . Is that in addition to the landscape plan that we 've seen? Al-Jaff : Those have been shown on this plan . The plans that were submitted to you on Friday reflect that , yes . So we no longer need condition number 4 . Emmings: Okay . For my two cents worth on the way the buildings are looking . I agree that , I think the landscape plan looks pretty good . Perhaps there should be some more evergreens to the south but otherwise I think it 's a pretty nice landscape plan that we 've seen . I don 't really have any reservations about the Goodyear building . I personally don 't like the Abra building . I think the roof line is just too choppy . It just , the building itself is not something that I particularly like but I have mixed feelings about how far we go with what we like and don 't like . I don 't think it 's an inappropriate use here in this location . Those are my comments . Ledvina : I generally share Jeff 's sentiments as it relates to the architecture . I guess softening that a little bit . I think the _ applicant has gone quite a long way in this process and I 'm sensitive to that too . He 's spent a lot of time and money in developing many different concepts . I would have hoped that we could have zeroed more into what we really want at this point because there has been a lot of effort on both sides and I know that . But still I feel we do need some more work with the building and if it 's adding dormers , well that 's fine . I generally agree with the landscaping plan . It seems to , from Highway 5 I think that will improve the view of the buildings and I 'm not too sure Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 10 about the south side of the site . There are quite a few plantings there but I don 't know if there would need to be some more evergreens in there -- I I don 't know how staff would feel about that . I really don 't see evergreens . Mostly honeysuckles and things like that . About the lighting issue , is there a possibility that they could have lighted signs- on that south side of the building? Al-Jaff : They 're entitlted to one but it 's a conditional use permit . If you want to have non-illuminated signage to the south , illuminated to thE north , I think you have the option to do so . You can make it a conditioi of approval . Emmings : Can you also limit , if there are lighted signs , can you limit the time that the lighted signs are on? Al-Jaff : It 's a conditional use permit , so yeah . Ledvina : That might be more appropriate . Their working hours . And I don 't know about that . I think that was it in terms of the site plan . did have one thing on the conditional use permit . I guess in the staff report we talked a little bit about the pollution and that ought to be associated with this development . And I think that the discussion that — we had at the last session related to cars coming in and out of the facility . The pollution as it relates to more traffic . I guess I feel that that is really pretty much out of the control of the proposers here in that they can 't obviously keep cars from coming in and out . That 's what they want . I guess your condition number 7 , pollution levels shall meet standards set by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency . I just , there are literally thousands of pollution levels and I don 't think it 's applicable . I think they 'll do what they have to in terms of their sanitary discharge and I guess I would just propose that we would delete that condition . I don 't think it 's useful . That 's it . Batzli : Thank you Matt . Ladd . Conrad : I think that the applicant has made some strides and I 'm — comfortable with some of it . Most of the issues that were brought up thE last time . I hear the neighborhood concerns and I think if I were them I 'd still be concerned as to how this looks and their impact . Overall I — think it 's a good site plan . And overall I think it 's , based on the zoning , it 's appropriate . I don 't have a problem with the Goodyear . Whether it 's the current design or whether it 's one with more dormers . _ The current design is fine . I really don 't like Abra . Batzli : The roof line? Conrad: Yeah . The roof . Abra 's welcome here but the roof line is just not , it 's not there yet . I 'm real uncomfortable with that . I think the north/south elevations are okay . The east/west is just choppy and the _ mansard enclosures of the mechanicals are not good . So real briefly that 's where , I think some good strides have been made and again , as we 're playing around with architecture , we 're doing a lousy job folks . We don 't have standards to apply . Remember , we took Target . They had a -- 330 330 foot expanse and we put one dormer . We put one big block in the Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 11 middle of it , okay . So let 's be kind of realistic what we 're doing . We 've got a building that 's a whole lot smaller here so . It doesn 't mean we shouldn 't have our standards . It is a gateway . It is the way people come into Chanhassen but we don 't have those architectural standards that are real solid that we can apply in every situation here and I get uncomfortable . I don 't want 7 of us designing this building . However , I don 't like Abra . I just don 't like how that looks . It 's got to change and I don 't think I 'm asking for a great deal . I think I 'm talking about that roof line . There 's just something wrong with it . Batzli : So Ladd , before we move on to Tim , what would you propose we do with Abra? I mean do you want to see one more shot at it here? Conrad: I really don 't . To tell you the truth , I feel real uncomfortable talking architecture . Real uncomfortable . The Planning Commission shouldn 't be doing that . We should have some standards out there that guide . That guide the developers and the architects and then we just make sure they follow the standards . We don 't . We do have some power here simply because we do have some conditional use . This is an area that we perceive to be an entrance to Chanhassen so I think we have some power that can make the developer do some things that we like . But you know , again I just don 't want , I want staff to do that and I prefer to have it go to City Council because they 're going to see 5 new perspectives once it gets there . But it 's not going to go up there with , the Abra building 's not going up there with my approval . Batzli : Thank you . Tim . Erhart : Well looking at the landscape plan , I think there 's a lot of trees on the north side of this site with all the evergreens . It 's just a matter of years and you 're not going to be able to see these buildings from Highway 5 at all . In 10 years so I 'm not asking anybody to take them out but I 'd say the landscaping site is pretty good in that area . The south side we don 't know what 's going to go in there ultimately . I 'm surprised . I guess I thought at the last meeting I thought we had an understanding with the developer that they were going to make the roof lines like we wanted them and Jeff raised his hand to go tell them what we wanted . And I think , this is what you did Jeff? Is this your work? Farmakes : Yes . Erhart : Yeah . I think Jeff did a great job and then they came back with something different so I 'm confused because we spent quite a bit of time listening to the developer tell us that they 've gone back and forth at the request of staff and that it was staff leading them around the loop and all this and then we bought that . So then we gave them a chance to show them what we wanted and they come back with something different . So now I don 't understand anymore . But I agree with everything that 's been said pretty much here . Abra is just awful . We 've got partial flat roofs and partial pitched roofs and it looks like there wasn 't any planning into it at all so . The Goodyear building , I 'd say it 's marginal . At least it has a pitched roof over the whole thing . Certainly it could be done with a little more pleasing to the eye . I think Ladd you hit it on the nose . We pass this up to Council tonight and let them take a hack at Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 12 it . Probably the best thing to do . I think the site plan 's pretty good . The conditions seem to make sense . I hope it makes the motion to pass it on with our comments . Batzli : Does it make sense to you Tim to require that they put evergreens in there which will really be interim screening until the — southern piece develops? You 've indicated that the northern side looked good and would you require them to put a couple more evergreens in on the south side? Erhart: When all these trees , essentially this area here is going to remain in until it 's developed? Batzli : Right . Erhart: Yeah . Well in the first place , I don 't think so . They 've gone -- beyond the requirements already on this . Extensively 'beyond the requirements . I guess without studying it anymore , my reaction would be , I think they 've done a pretty good job . Al-Jaff: The . . .landscaping could be required when site 3 develops . Because right now you do have existing trees that will provide some screening . If that would help . — Batzli : You think we should make that a condition? Currently or just when it develops? _ Al-Jaff : When it develops . When site 3 develops . Then we could require that additional landscaping . Because right now they are providing some landscaping around the drainage pond . — Batzli : Right . But those are hackberries and things like that . They 're kind of low . Al-Jaff : Yes they are . Batzli : Okay . My comments are more of the same . I don 't mind the Abra building north and south elevation . In fact , I think there 's almost a repetition of the shed dormer almost effect from the background to bringing it in the foreground in the Goodyear building but then I start — designing their architecture for them and I didn 't wantto do that either . The side elevations do , we 've added depth to the , last time we talked about how it looked like a set from an old western when you went — to the side and it 's just a piece there . We 've added depth . We 've broken up the middle . We 've added some interesting elements but I think , from what you 've heard from the commission , there 's still a problem that looking at it it either looks contrived or choppy or something doesn 't — jell . I think , obviously I 'm not going to tell you how to build buildings but if there 's a certain number of people up here and all of them kind of look at it and kind of go , I don 't know . I think you want — to be pleasing to your customers and be visible and want to construct a good building . So with those assumptions , I 'm hoping that they 'll try to take one more shot at it as it goes before City Council because I think _ they may have somewhat the same reaction . I would have liked to have Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 13 seen a couple of evergreens shifted to the south . But just to break up that southern side because we don 't know when that particular parcel will be developed so I would prefer not to wait with that . I would ask that whoever makes the motion at least consider shifting some of the trees to the back . I think we 've done a real good job on the north and in fact I agree with Tim . I think you 've got a lot of evergreens and I think we could move a couple of them to the south side . With that I ' ll entertain any motion on the site plan review . Or should we do subdivision first? It doesn 't matter . Conrad: Okay , I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review #92-3 as shown on the site plan dated September 21 , 1992 subject to the following conditions . With the conditions as per the staff report except the following changes . Condition 1 , that the applicant present a revised building elevation for the Abra building concentrating on fixing the choppy roof line . The second part of _ condition 1 is to consider adding more dormers to the Goodyear building and be prepared justify it 's current design to the City Council . Changing condition 4 . To eliminate condition 4 as it stands in the staff report but to recommend the shifting of an appropriate number of evergreens to the south side of the project to do , per staff recommendation , to help screen from the neighborhood . That 's all . Emmings : I 'll second the motion . Batzli : Discussion . Emmings: I 'd like to have , with regard to the sign . Condition number 3 Ladd . I assume that your motion , because they still have to obtain a sign permit , you 're not , your motion doesn 't in any way approve the signs as they appear on the plans that we have in front of us? Conrad: No it doesn 't . Emmings : Just so that understanding is clear . Batzli : Well actually the plans that Ladd included in his motion don 't have all the signs on it . I mean if we 'd really would probably like to include these new plans in the motion . Emmings: Okay , I assumed that we were talking about the new plans . Batzli : Have these been received? Date stamped received by the city? No . Ledvina : These are dated November 25th . Emmings : So are the plans that we 're approving the ones that we all got at home that are dated September 20 . Ledvina : Two of them are September 29th . . . Batzli : Well , Ladd if you 'll reflect your motion to say something folksy like the plans we 're looking at tonight , I 'm sure that by the time it Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 14 gets to City Council . Conrad: Yeah , that kind of sounds like me too doesn 't it Brian? Yeah , the plans I see in front of me . Boy that 's just so , I don 't even want to do that . Al-Jaff : We received those plans on the 30th . The revised plans . Can we change the date on the site plan to November 30 , 1992? Emmings: Instead of September 21? Al-Jaff : Please . _ Conrad: Yeah . I would change my motion to reflect the site plan dated November 30 , 1992 . Emmings: And then? Conrad: I don 't need to change 3 Steve . — Emmings: No . I don 't think so as long as the record 's clear that you 're not , and by my second , I 'm not approving in any way any of the signs that appear on these plans . They 're going to have to come back and get those approved . Al-Jaff: Do you want to make a recommendation on the illumination of the- signage facing? Conrad: Do we do that here or do we do that in the conditional use — permit? I thought that 's where we 'd put the condition on . Batzli : Any more discussion? Ahrens: Ladd , on number 4 , did you just change the first sentence? Was that what you were changing? Conrad: Number 4 I took entirely out Joan except to move certain of the trees , and I don 't know how many , to the south side . So that condition no longer applies based on the plans that we have . They have done what this motion was to , made them do . It 's already on the plans so that , 4 does not exist except to shift some of what they 've put on the current plans to the south side . Ahrens: Including the part about the detailed . . . Aanenson: That 's city ordinance . That 's a requirement: anyway so they 're- going hey 'regoing to have to do it . Ahrens: Okay . So why was this included in there? Emmings: That would be before they saw these new plans . The new plans reflect some of those things I think . I 'm not entirely , even though I seconded the motion and I 'm going to vote for it , I have to say that I 'm — not entirely comfortable taking away trees from the Highway 5 side and _ Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 15 moving them back there . I 'd rather see them add trees . If we think they 've done a good job on Highway 5 , why wreck that to give them a little bit on the south side . Ahrens: I agree . Emmings: So I would leave the north side alone and I 'd rather see the , I would be willing to just leave the south side alone for now until it 's developed and make sure we do a good job of landscaping once we know what 's going in there . But if the feeling is that there should be some additional trees back there , then those should be in addition to the Highway side . Ahrens: I agree . I mean I can 't think of one plan or one development in the city that we 've ever over landscaped . It may have looked great on the plan . Emmings : Well a good example is the . Conrad: We took of the median down main street I think . Emmings: Yeah but a good example is the Valvoline , the quick oil change you know . We saw those plans . You know , you couldn 't see that building unless you got in a helicopter because it was hidden in a forest of trees . You look at it now and it 's up there and you wonder where all that landscaping went you know , and maybe it will be there in 10 years but somehow I don 't think so . Conrad : Okay . Batzli : Amend your motion Ladd . Conrad : Yeah , I 'm going to withdraw my change to condition number 4 . See if you can decide whether you , but my motion or my change would now reflec the following . That the , 4 is worded is entirely deleted but that I 'd request that staff review the need for additional screening on the south side with the applicant . Emmings : Yeah . . . Batzli : Is there any other discussion? Conrad moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan Review #92-3 as shown on the plans received November 30 , 1992 and subject to the following conditions: 1 . That the applicant present a revised building elevation for the Abra building concentrating on fixing the choppy roof line . Request that the applicant consider adding more dormers to the Goodyear building and be prepared justify it 's current design to the City Council . 2 . The applicant must revise plans to include trash screening for the Abra site with a gate facing east and a second for Goodyear with a Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 16 _ gate facing west . Plans must be submitted for staff review prior to City Council meeting . 3 . The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on the site . Provide a detailed sign for staff review prior to the — City Council meeting . The monument sign may not exceed 12 feet in height . Sign covenants are to be submitted outlining the use and limit of one common sign and allowances for its use by the remaining __ undeveloped lot . 4 . Staff review the need for additional screening on the south side with the applicant. The applicant shall also provide staff with a — detailed cost estimate of landscaping to be used in calculating the required financial guarantees . These guarantees mist be posted prior to building permit issuance . 5 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required . 6 . The applicant shall provide a flammable waste separator as required by Building Code . 7 . Provide a complete , final set of civil engineering documentation to staff for review and approval . 8 . Meet all conditions outlined in the Fire Marshal memorandum dated October 8 , 1992 . 9 . The applicant shall post "No Parking-Fire Lane" signs along the soutt— curb line on Lots 1 and 2 , Block 1 . Signs shall be placed at 100 foot intervals and the curb painted yellow . 10 . Concurrent with the building permit , a lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted . 11 . The applicant shall pay $7 ,580 . into the Surface Water Management Program fund for water quality treatment downstream of the site . 12 . Compliance with conditions of Subdivision #90-17 and Conditional Use Permit #92-2 . All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Batzli : Is there a motion on the subdivision? Emmings: I 'll move the Planning Commission recommend approval of — preliminary plat for Subdivision #90-17 for Chan Haven Plaza 4th Addition as shown on the plan dated September 21 , 1992 with the conditions in the staff report . Batzli : Is there a second? Ahrens : Second . Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 17 Batzli : Discussion . No discussion . Emmings moved , Ahrens seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #90-17 for Chan Haven Plaza 4th Addition as shown on the plans dated September 21 , 1992 , with the following conditions: 1 . Park and trail dedication fees to be assessed at the time building permits are requested . 2 . Provide the following easements: a . A standard 5 foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated along the common lot line between Lots 1 and 2 , Block 1 . b . Drainage easement located over the drainage pond . c . A drainage and utility easement along the easterly 20 feet of Lot 3 , Block 1 . 3 . Enter into a development agreement acceptable to the city . 4 . A driveway or cross-access easement for use of the existing and proposed street shall be dedicated in favor of Lots 1 , 2 and 3 , Block 1 . The easement agreement shall be drafted and filed concurrently with a private maintenance agreement acceptable to the City . 5 . The developer shall obtain and comply with all necessary permits from the Watershed District , Health Department , etc . 6 . If construction of public improvements proceed beyond freeze-up , special modifications to construction practices shall be incorporated as directed by the City Engineer , i .e . full depth select granular material for trench backfill , etc . 7 . The developer shall construct the sanitary sewer and watermain improvements in accordance with the latest edition of the City 's Standard Specification and Detail Plates and submit final plans and specifications for formal City approval . 8 . Outlot A shall be included with the replatting of Chan Haven Plaza 4th Addition . The outlot shall be replatted/combined with Lot 3 , Block 1 . 9 . The developer shall revise the detention pond to accommodate 0 .95 acre/feet of runoff below the 927 .0 ' contour line . 10 . Erosion control measures ( silt fence - Type 1 ) shall be shown on the grading plan . Type I silt fence shall be installed along the north , east and southeasterly perimeters of the plat . 11 . The applicant shall reimburse the city for all engineering consultant fees associated with the storm water study . Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 18 '- 12 . Compliance with conditions of approval for Site Plan Review #92-3 and_ Conditional Use Permit #92-2 . All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Batzli : Finally the conditional use permit . Ledvina: I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of - Conditional Use Permit #92-2 subject to the staff conditions with the deletion of item 7 and the creation of a new item number 7 which would read , if illumination is used in signage on the south side of the two _ buildings , that illumination would be limited to the operational hours o- the businesses . Batzli : Is there a second? Conrad: I second . Emmings: When it says they have to come in for a sign permit . Who does that in the city? Al-Jaff: I do . Emmings: Okay . And is a sign permit a conditional use permit? Is it a type of permit where you can impose restrictions on things like - illumination? Al-Jaff: Whatever you approve now is going to be my guideline to approve_ that sign permit . Emmings: Well that and the sign ordinance . Al-Jaff: Correct . Batzli : We need to add something . Jeff requested that we tie it in - somehow with the architecture of the building , at least the pylon . We kind of skipped over that thought in the first two motions . Is that something that 's appropriate here? Al-Jaff: Or in the site plan . Farmakes: As a condition? I thought we weren 't approving the signage ar shown . Batzli : We aren't but if you don't impose a condition now , they would - merely have to comply with the sign ordinance . They wouldn 't have to tie it in architecturally . Farmakes: Yeah , I think that 's what we do with Market Square . We ask - them to do the same thing . I don 't see why that 's any different . Batzli : We can 't I don 't think . Move to amend? Would you like to move - to amend the motion? Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 19 Farmakes: I thought the motion was made already . Batzli : Yeah , but you can move to amend it . We 'll vote on your amendment then . Farmakes: I ' ll move to amend it . Batzli : To include architectural equivalent standards on the pylon? Farmakes : That would be with the signage design . When they do it . Batzli : Is there a second? Ledvina : Second . Batzli : Okay , any discussion on the amendment? Emmings : I want to be clear on what it is . Because I 'm not . What you want to do is see some kind of architectural compatability between the sign and the buildings . Farmakes : To the monument sign . Emmings: Now how do you define that? Al-Jaff : You can make a condition to see the signage before it goes up . Farmakes : Yeah , I thought that 's what we were doing . Al-Jaff : So you can review the signage separately . I mean you pass this but we ' ll bring the signage in front of you . Batzli : Okay . Does our motion accomplish that? No . Emmings: We 're getting real tangled up here aren 't we? Aanenson : You can either spell out the standards or ask to see it again . That 's really your two options . Ledvina : Well , why don 't I just , I 'll amend my motion to add an 8th condition which would say that the Planning Commission shall review the actual signage for this project . Batzli : Okay , is there a second to that? Farmakes : Second . Batzli : Okay , let 's vote on Jeff 's original amendment . Farmakes moved , Ledvina seconded an amendment to the motion to include a condition that would require architectural standard equivalents to the signage designs . Farmakes, Ledvina and Ahrens voted in favor . Conrad , Erhart , Emmings and Batzli voted in opposition. The amendment failed by a vote of 4 to 3 . Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 20 Batzli : Okay , so that motion fails . We 're going to vote on our second amendment . Is there any discussion on that amendment? So that we see - the sign back in front of us at a later date? Okay , no discussion . Ledvina moved , Farmakes seconded to amend the motion to include an 8th condition which would state that the Planning Commission shall review th( signage proposal for this proposal . All voted in favor and the motion for the amendment carried. Batzli : Is there any other discussion on our amended motion , conditiona use permit now in front of us? Ledvina moved , Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #92-2 subject to the following conditions: 1 . Compliance with conditions of approval for Site Plan Review #92-3 an( Subdivision #90-17 . 2 . No outdoor repairs to be performed or gas sold at the site . 3 . No parking or stakcing is allowed in fire lanes , drive aisles , access_ drives or public rights-of-way . 4 . No damaged or inoperable vehicles shall be stored Dvernight on the Goodyear and Abra sites . 5 . No outdoor storage shall be permitted at either site . 6 . Noise level shall not exceed OSHA requirements or linnesota Pollutio Control agency guidelines at the property line . 7 . If illumination is used in signage on the south side of the two buildings , that illumination would be limited to the operational hours of the businesses . 8 . The Planning Commission shall review the signage proposal for this project . All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE CITY CODE , SECTION 18-37, EXEMPTIONS CONCERNING SUBDIVISIONS . Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item . Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order . Erhart moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing_ All voted i' favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Batzli : Tim , do you have any comments? We 're on the subdivision ordinance . Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 21 Erhart : No , I don 't have any comments? Conrad: Me either . Ledvina : No comment . Emmings: No . Farmakes : No comments . Ahrens: There was a typo in here . Aanenson: Yes , it 's been corrected . Ahrens : Okay . Aanenson : Paragraph ( c )? Ahrens: Yes . Aanenson: Yep , got it . Yes , it 's been corrected . Ledvina : Mr . Chairman , I did have a question for staff . In the introduction here , I guess I was wondering , are we reducing the level of review for these types of subdivisions then that come in front of us? Aanenson : No . What we are , we 're saving them actually the time and when it 's pretty straight forward and there 's no dedication required , we 're saving them time and expense . If it 's straight forward , it 's just a matter of doing a legal description . That 's really all we 're doing . It 's the same level of review internally . Between engineering and planning . Ledvina : Okay . That 's it . Batzli : I have no comments . Is there a motion? Emmings : I 'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the amendment to Chapter 18 , Section 18-37 . Batzli : Is there a second? Conrad: Second . Batzli : Is there any discussion? Emmings moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend the City Code , Section 18-37 , Exemptions concerning Subdivisions as presented . All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously . Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 22 PUBLIC HEARING: WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR A SEDIMENTATION BASIN ADJACENT TO A CLASS I WETLAND AND MODIFICATION OF AN EXISTING SEDIMENTATION DOND FOR THE OAK PONDS/OAK HILL PROJECT LOCATED NORTH OF WEST 78TH STREET , BETWEEN KERBER AND POWERS BOULEVARD , LOTUS REALTY . Public Present: Name Address Bob Bohara 7510 Canyon Curve Jack Thien 7570 Canyon Curve Bill Dolan Meadowwood Engineering Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item . Batzli : Can you tell us what the status of the overall project is with _ City Council? Aanenson: They 've submitted everything to date to be on for preliminary approval for the December 14th meeting . Preliminary site plan approval . — Batzli : This is a public hearing . Is there anyone that would like to address the commission? If the applicant is here . Bill Dolan: I 'm representing the applicant . Mr . Chairman and members oi the Commission . My name is Bill Dolan . I 'm a consulting engineer and _ I 'm representing the developer this evening . We have , as Kathy said , reviewed all the reports and everything and we agree with the reports anc the method of handling the storm water . She also eluded to the fact that they 're still working on the costs and of course we want the right to review those costs too . But other than that why we agree with it . Batzli : Okay , thank you . Is there anyone that would like to address _ this Commission? Jack Thien: Hi . My name is Jack Thien . I live at 7570 Canyon Curve and I 'm just curious being that my property is adjacent to that one particular pond on the east end , in what way that might, effect my land oi my property , if at all . Aanenson: The pond along Kerber? Jack Thien : Yeah . Aanenson: Maybe Dave can specifically . Hempel : The proposed development will not raise the elevation of the pond . The improvements that they 're proposing on the pond is to modify the outlet control structure to , as you may be aware of that when we do get a good rainstorm that the water over tops and essentially washes out _ the berm from time to time . City crews have gone in and tried to modify that to rectify that problem . In the past there 's been cattails and Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 23 debris getting stuck in the pipe itself thus causing the overflow problem . What 's being proposed here this evening with the overall development is modifications to those berm areas with what is called a broad crested weir . It 's essentially a notch in the berm that provides emergency overflow should 100 year flood take part . That broad crested weir is designed so it will not wash out like it has in the past . That is done with rip rap rock and from an aesthetic standpoint , what is proposed is to backfill over that rip rap material with topsoil and re- establish the vegetation so you will have , similar to what is out there today with the exception of the elevations . There will be a , I believe it 's a 20 foot wide gradual slope with a V notch so at the low point of the overflow , be approximately 18 inches lower than the rest of the berm . Bob Bohara : Bob Bohara , 7510 Canyon Curve . Where is this sedimentation , new sedimentation pond going to actually go? Aanenson: This is Powers Blvd . The edge , would be the southerly edge . Bob Bohara : Right at the edge of the road there? My only concern was , as on the road side , that 's very steep there and going up the other way it 's also , it 's not as steep but it 's still fairly steep there and I don 't know where you 're going to get any significant volume of water in that area without significant cuts and they 're already cutting from the top to add that road on there so I don 't see how it all goes together . Hempel : Mr . Chairman , I can address that . Essentially what they 're providing here is a sediment trap or sediment basin . It is not designed to handle the 100 year storm event . It is designed to handle the 5 to 10 year type storms which our storm sewers are designed for . It 's strictly for a sediment removal prior to discharging into the wetlands and further on down the stream . Bob Bohara : Is there going to be erosion problems from the road side? Or you don 't know yet? Hempel : Well we don 't believe so . Not with the measures , the slopes I believe will be a 3 : 1 slope and will be re-vegetated with native grasses and so forth . Bob Bohara : How close to the actual roadway . . . Hempel : It is outside the road right-of-way . Aanenson: And the bike trail . Hempel : And the bike trail , that 's correct . Bob Bohara : That was the next question . How does that , and were you going to have to build up for the bike trail too or something? Hempel : I believe the bike trail will be basically notched into the side of the hill and a retaining wall possibly on the inside slope to retain that . Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 24 Batzli : As you have it illustrated Kate though , the dark line is the right-of-way line . That 's not the edge of the tar , is that correct? Aanenson : Correct . Bob Bohara : Okay . Batzli : Thank you . Is there anyone else that would like to address the _ Commission? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Conrad moved , Erhart seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Batzli : Joan , do you have any comments? Ahrens: No . Except for on condition number 4 . I think it should read cash contribution in an amount determined by the City . Batzli : Anything else Joan? Jeff . Farmakes: No comments . Batzli : Steve . Emmings: No . Ledvina : I did have a few questions and number one , a general comment that I have and it relates to the report itself . I know that there might be some concern to work this through to City Council and I don 't know maybe catch it up with the other things that are going on with the site but we talk about the drainage plan for this project and throughout the staff report we 've cited areas C , D , E and G , etc . And from the — information that 's given to us we really can 't evaluate what those drainage areas are . Aanenson: You should have been given a drainage plan with this . Ledvina : We do have a water plan with this but it doesn 't , to my , maybe I didn 't catch it but I don 't believe that there 's a delineation of how — the different drainage areas , from what I saw . So I think that would have been helpful . Aanenson : That was a mistake . You obviously got the wrong set of plans You should have gotten a copy of them . Ledvina : There 's a different set of plans that goes with this proposal? Aanenson: Yeah . There 's one that shows the A , B , C , yes . Ledvina : Okay . So that was a concern that I have . I think that from m; evaluation of what 's provided here , it all seems to fit together but I don 't have a real solid way of making my own evaluation . So just in the _ future if we can make those changes . Or I 'm sure that 's , we have the information that should be provided that 's discussed in the staff report . Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 25 One of the comments from the engineer 's report relates to the erosion of the wetland . Currently there 's a meandering channel in the middle of the wetland , as I understand . The engineer 's indicated that the flow rate from or the flow to the wetland as a result of this development will increase . I guess 1 don 't understand what the provisions are going to be to mitigate this situation . It seems to indicate some work , some additional work that would have to be done downstream and if that 's not part of this project , how do we insure that that happens without further damage to the wetland? Hempel : One of the improvements proposed at these berms is what we call a surge basin at the bottom of the outlet to dissipate the energy of the runoff through the storm pond . The water quality issue is being dealt further downstream with the Eckankar pond . That pond has been designed to take in the consideration the additional runoff generated from this site . We 're controlling the runoff underneath Powers Blvd with a control rate structure so that we maintain the pre-developed runoff rate on this site and underneath the culvert to the west of the Eckankar property . _ Ledvina : Okay , so you mentioned a surge basin at the outlet of the wetland , is that correct? Hempel : At the berm , yes . The downstream side of the berm at the outlet . The end of the outlet pipe , that 's correct . Ledvina: Okay , is that part of this proposal? Aanenson : The second retention pond you 're saying? Hempel : The second retention pond . Ledvina : Oh , the second retention pond . Aanenson: Not the wetland . Ledvina: How does that deal with the issue as it relates to the erosion and the wetland which is downstream from the second retention? Hempel : That erosion we believe has transpired over the last few years with the overtopping of these two storm retention ponds . By correcting the outlet of these two retention ponds and providing surge basins , we hope to mitigate the erosion downstream . Ledvina : So by equalizing the flow , we won 't have a situation where there will be a concentrated large volume of flow? _ Hempel : That 's correct . We 're hoping to regulate it and keep the velocities down . Ledvina : And you believe that will be the case even though the volume , the runoff volumes are? Hempel : Based on the hydraulic models our storm water consultant has provided , he 's comfortable with the proposal . Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 26 Batzli : Ladd? Conrad: Nothing . Batzli : Tim? Erhart: I don 't have anything . Batzli : My only comment is somewhat technical and that is , the motion — that we adopt , we should probably recommend approval of the wetland alteration permit rather than approve it and we should probably do it in accordance with the plans stamped October 22nd? Or is there a different — set? Or should we do it in accordance with the staff report? Aanenson: I 'd do it with the staff report because it 's , his map 's in here and that 's really what it , yeah . Batzli : Okay . Is there a motion? Erhart : I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #92-11 with the conditions listed in the staff report and as described in the staff report . Emmings: Second . Batzli : I 'll call for discussion and then I 'll ask if you would be willing to modify condition 4 in accordance with Joan 's request to read cash contribution as determined by the City to the Surface Water Management Program Fund . -- Erhart: Sure . Batzli : Second , do you accept that? Emmings: Yeah. Batzli : Is there any other discussion? Erhart moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #92-11 with the following conditiof 1 . The limits of the sedimentation trap shall be limited to the 944 .0 contour adjacent to the Class B wetland . 2 . The existing two storm water ponds shall be limited to modification as proposed including the weir and outlet structures . 3 . Type III erosion control be in place around the construction boundaries of the wetland . _ 4 . A cash contribution in an amount determined by the City to the Surfaces Water Management Program Fund . All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously_ Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 27 PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE PUD FOR CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER . THIS AMENDMENT WOULD ALLOW A CHURCH AS A PERMITTED USE IN THIS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT . THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF THE CHICAGO , MILWAUKEE , ST . PAUL, AND PACIFIC RAILROAD AND EAST OF AUDUBON ROAD, CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER , RYAN DEVELOPMENT . Public Present: Name Address William & Marilyn Stewart 17005 Honeysuckle Lane , Eden Prairie John & Judy McDaniel 6502 Grand View Drive , Eden Prairie David Bradshaw 6975 Pima Lane John , Eileen & Rosa Hiltner 2975 Autumn Woods Heidi Zimmerman 8675 Marigold Circle Kristy Heglie 1001 Pontiac Court Troy & Tana Theiser 12790 Primrose Lane , #106 , Eden Prairie Chad Walker 425 Chan View #120 Matt Gustafson 15906 Cedar Ridge Road , Eden Prairie Richard & Cynthia Miller 425 Chan View Mark Beiger 1029 Smetana Road , Hopkins Sandra Stoltz 15200-18th Avenue No , Plymouth Sue Hour 8351 Mitchell Road , Eden Prairie Stephen G . Kern 6540 Devonshire Drive Richard & Effie Taylor 7365 Howard Lane , Eden Prairie Mark & Heather Brown 7641 Bittersweet Drive , Eden Prairie Darryl & Alicia Laube 8471 Pelican Court Lynette Danz 6540 Devonshire Drive Tess Husemann 8471 Pelican Court Yvonne K . Kerm 6540 Devonshire Drive Wade Peterson 361 Trappers Pass Martin Andreasen 19330 Vine Ridge Road Gary & Susan Harju 5985 Mill Street , Shorewood Randall & Joan Johnsen 8580 Magnolia Trail , Eden Prairie Ron , Amy and Carol Curie 110912 Von Hertzen Circle , Chaska _ Jule Eggen 5701 Bluebird Lane , Minnetonka Charles W . Mattson 287 Wheeler St No . , St . Paul 55113 Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item . Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order . Batzli : . . .are we really approving a change to the PUD to allow for a church in general on Lot 1? Aanenson: Yes . Batzli : Because they have not actually provided us with any documentation . Aanenson: Correct . But that 's what we did like with the National Weather Service . The same thing . We 're assuming that they 're going to go on . They haven 't . Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 28 Batzli : But in our discussions we 're discussing whether a church in general should be permitted on Lot 1? Aanenson : Right . Batzli : This is a public hearing . Well first I should ask , is there a representative of the applicant that would like to address the Commission , prior to opening it up for general public comment? Richard Taylor : Richard Taylor , 7365 Howard Lane in Eden Prairie . Memb(_ of the congregation . I don 't know just what to say until I find out what the reaction is of others here . We have been looking for a place . A building site and many times we come up against various problems . All I would say is we would be very willing to do whatever is necessary to make this , any adjustments that need to be made . We 're willing to cooperate — with the City Council . With neighbors . Just to give you an idea , our meeting times , if we had a Kingdom Hall built there , our meeting times ale Tuesday evening at 7: 30 , Thursday evening at 7 : 30 and Sunday morning so it is not a problem for traffic . We have our own parking . It 's a controllcf crowd . It 's not loud . And that 's about all I can say . If there 's any other questions , then we 'd want to be able to talk about that . Batzli : Is there a standardized building that Jehovah Witnesses normall; would erect? Would it be a problem in a PUD where we night have additiona' sorts of conditions placed upon certain building types? _ Richard Taylor : Our buildings are all very attractive . We showed the c� �> some of the , and we have some plans . I have some pictures of the different ones with me if you wanted to see them . Batzli : We have a couple pictures representative , year . Aanenson: If I could just qualify that Brian . We did sit down with ther and go through the whole standards of the zone , including signage , lighten to let them know that they ' ll have to meet those standards and it appears that they can do all that . Batzli : I have one other question and that is , is there any possibility it many churches and things nowadays we 're seeing preschools and things likkT that . Is there any intention on your part to do any of that? Richard Taylor : We have none . _. Batzli : Okay . Does anyone have any questions before I open it up to the. public? Okay , thank you . This is a public hearing . [f you 'd like to address the Commission , please step forward and provide us with your name` and address . Charles Mattson: I am Charles Mattson . My address is 2870 Wheeler Stree , North in Roseville , Minnesota . My interest in this hearing is relative t , the fact that I own 90 acres of land to the west of this Audubon 92 property . And also I hold a contract for deed on this Audubon 92 contract . I appear here in opposition to this request for the special use for a church . First of all I believe it 's incompatible with your city 's Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 29 comprehensive plan . As has already been mentioned , this would remove some property from the tax roll . I am not opposed to church use per se . However I do raise two objectives to this hearing as to it 's notice . First of all the notice did say that the property lies east of Audubon Road . Really it lies to the west of Audubon Road , so I wasn 't even sure at first if it was the property I was thinking about . And secondly , it does indicate that this is to be for a church special use . There was no identification in the notice as to the church and I think the public at large would like to have your notices to be a bit more definitive as to who the applicant is . I _ have no objective in terms of any particular church . It 's important that any group have a place to worship as they feel they should . However , we 're dealing here with a group that has some very special doctrinal positions . Down through the years I 've always been very patient and spoken with people as they have called at my home , so I 'm somewhat aware of their positions . For example , I could envision the case where there might be some public cememony held out there at the Chanhassen Business Center and in terms of potential litigation , I 'm sort of wondering , will there be some raucous raised as to whether or not the United States Flag should be saluted or not . Our not saluted but should the Pledge of Allegiance be said . So at any rate , my position here is not one of economics . In fact in my persona. — case it would probably be better to see that this go forward . I could get paid some money potentially because at the present time this underlying contract for deed does not have any release provisions in it and therefore the entire balance will have to be paid off on the contract that I hold on this property before there will be a release made . Or a sale finished in this case . So I appear here primarily based upon my sense of conscience — and civic duty and it 's not one of these things that I particularly enjoy doing but I wanted to make my position know . That I do appear in opposition to this . Batzli : Kate , do you have an overhead which shows the parcel more generally? Aanenson: With the whole park? Batzli : Yeah . In relation to the map that 's up here . Could you point to the property that you said you own currently? Charles Mattson : My property lies to the west and southwest . . . Batzli : South and west of the whole parcel then? Charles Mattson : Right . And I do , as I pointed out , also . . .92 acres that you see there are under my contract for deed . Batzli : Okay , thank you . This is a public hearing . Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Stephen Kern : Mr . Chairman and the Planning Commission . My name is Stephen Kern , 6540 Devonshire Drive , Chanhassen . Member of the — congregation . We 've been looking at land here in Chanhassen since October of '91 . We 've considered some 23 sites that had some possibilities for us as far as acreage . And of the 23 sites , -we approached the Planning staff on 7 or 8 of them . During that discussion with Paul Krauss 9 months ago Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 30 and then later on Jo Ann was involved , problems came up such as being in a residential area itself . For the most part there 's not much precedent fc - a church being in a residential area in Chanhassen . Most of them are downtown or like the Lutheran Church is in an industrial area near Rosemount Manufacturing . Or issues came up like we 're not on a collecto-- street with particular sites we were discussing or there was covenants ii that residential area holding us back . Didn 't really like to see us in a residential area period . But by our presence often they saw that we were serious and we 're going to be pursuing this until we find a place becaus: we 'd like to be in Chanhassen . We have many , many families here in Chanhassen that have been here for a long time and we attend temporarily a hall that 's in Minnetonka . We borrow their use there . Also , there was ( 1E site that was recommended to us by Mr . Krauss and then later on that was concern about some protected trees in the area or it might be a potential wetland area . We 're not sure but at first we were encouraged to be there- and then later on we were encouraged not to be there . That was on the southwest corner of Lake Lucy Road and Powers Boulevard . So then that olte was excluded . We were just about to the point to offer a bid to Mr . Kerber on that property . So we moved on and were working real close for sever& months with Mr . Morehouse who 's representing a lot of the commercial development areas and told us how , here 's a site that you could fit in with . It 's a preliminary plat condition has been finalized and so on . Fac being that although our buildings , we presented a building as you saw in the picture . It 's called Plan 3-B that does meet a lot of the requirements as far as the brick structure , roof line , different things seem to be - pretty compatible . It looks much like an office . Like a dental office c other such type offices , and yet we have many other plans . And also I 'vL. always , not only had these specific plans but we have built halls that are per se constructed and designed right from scratch too to meet city need:- And so we don 't have any raucouses out in front of our Kingdom Halls . A. the activity is contained inside and 99% is the main meeting of Thursday night and Sunday morning . Maybe 50 cars might pull in on Sunday morning - and about 35 on Thursday night between 7 : 00 and 7 : 30 dD they enter so we i certainly be helping the traffic problem . Whereas if you had an office there during the day and we understand there 's going tp be thousands of _ cars per day in the coming years on Audubon , so we 'd be solving that problem . And we have very compatible group for the city and a nice building for that development and we think it would look good and also start that development on it 's way for future sales . Thank you . Batzli : Thank you . Is there anyone else? Let me make sure no one else and then you can have a turn at the end okay? Is there anyone else that - would like to address the Commission? Okay . Richard Taylor : I 've already given you my name . I was just going to say that we have about 40-50 congregations in this area . They all , most of - them have their own Kingdom Halls here . Generally , or all the time they get along very fine with their neighbors . I know we were going to , the Golden Valley congregation was going to change and leave their location - there and go to another location . Build a new building and the neighbors objected to us leaving so after you 're there , they 'd been there for 30 years , they got to know our people . There 's no , as mentioned , a raucous , whatever be going on there . There 's always people that disagree with our teachings but I didn 't think that that is a qualificat'.on for building a _ Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 31 building and the matter that the gentleman brought up about Pledging Allegiance . I believe the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled on that matter but all we could say is we 're , we need a place to meet and we — need a building site and we always get some objection from some people over that but we 're willing to , like I say , we 're good neighbors once we get established . And we feel that 's the criterian that we have a right to have a building just like anyone else has a right . Okay . Batzli : Thank you . Is there any other public comment? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Ledvina moved , Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Batzli : Joan , comments? Ahrens : Well , I have no comments at all on the Jehovah Witnesses located there _ I think our discussion should center around whether or not a churcr whether it 's a proper site for a church . And I don 't know frankly . If it is a proper site for a church . I guess I don 't have any objections unless the City can prove that it 's a detriment to the . . .taxwise which I don 't think they have . . .so I 'm going to go along I guess unless I hear some strong arguments that convinces me otherwise . I 'm going to go along with the staff report . Batzli : Okay . Steve . Emmings: As far as making the driveway directly across from Stockdale 's driveway , what 's the purpose of that requirement? Hempel : Like to consolidate access points . Keep them more of an intersection than have random offset turning movements on Audubon Road . Aanenson: And to add to that , that property may be developed further in the future . That may be a residential subdivision so we want to have the traffic coming out there . — Emmings: That was my thought but if it is developed in the future , would we then require that he leave his driveway there because it 's across the street from the driveway for the church? It may not be where it ought to be for a subdivision . Hempel : It 's also possible that that site may be accessed off of Lake Drive West in the future when that is extended east of Audubon Road too . Emmings: Okay , well . It 's not a big point . Hempel : It 's a guess . Emmings : Yeah . I think that this is probably as good a use as you could find for that lot as you could imagine . I like the fact that their peak traffic hours are going to be different than the rest of the trafffic that 's using that area , or most of the rest of the traffic is using it once it 's developed as a commercial area . I always wondered what was going to Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 32 go on that lot and I think this is , I think it fits in very nicely so I 'U certainly be in favor of this and I 'd support the staff report . Batzli : Okay , Matt . Ledvina: Well I wasn 't here when this originally went through the first time on the preliminary plat and Kate , if you could respond for the comprehensive plan compatability . How do you see that? Is that really true? Aanenson: Well we 've got an opinion from the Attorney on that church 's L3E is basically , they 're permitted in pretty much any zone . Because this is a PUD , it 's kind of an anomoly but we said the first thing is , well our fi•-->t choice is to leave it industrial park but then we looked at it . It 's a corner piece and it 's going to be buffered and then we felt , really for the residents on the other side of the street , and the massing of the building and what would it hurt this 2 acres . It may be a good buffer use . Ledvina: I would also agree with staff conditions . No other comments . r Conrad: I agree with the staff report . Batzli : I was backtracking . Steve , do you want to? Emmings: I just wondered if there was something , is it okay to amend a PUC that hasn 't been finally? Aanenson: Yes . That 's why we 're doing it . Calling it an amendment to this PUD . We have a precedent set . I mean we 're following procedure on the PUD ordinance that allows for an amendment that hasn 't been final , y("' . Emmings: Oh okay . Aanenson: But we did leave off the number which is important . The PUD number 91-4 . Batzli : Okay . Ladd , you didn 't have any comments? Tim . Erhart : When we lay these things out , both in the Comp Plan and in the PUC amendment , or the PUD plan here , do we take into consideration the tax issue and where we site churches? Or is that too detailed for that leve. of planning? Aanenson: The only concern we did have originally was the assessment fol+ the new Bluff Creek sanitary sewer and water , but as Dave has pointed out , that they 'd be required to pay those assessments anyway . Erhart : They 'll pay for that , yeah . So there 's no concern or no master plan where we put churches with regard to the lack of tax input? Aanenson: I don 't make that . Erhart: Because we did the Comp Plan . Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 33 Batzli : How big is the entire PUD? Aanenson: 90 acres . Erhart : The question would be , if you started opening up , I personally have no , I think it 's a great place for a church so I 'm just pointing out , if you just start taking , all of a sudden I mean we 've got one very large parcel in town here that doesn 't pay taxes now . You start getting a collection of parcels that doesn 't pay taxes , sooner or later you erode the basis on which we planned out development to the community in terms of where do the taxes come to pay for the staff and community and so forth . I was just wondering if anybody 's looking at that . . . Aanenson: We had the same concern but I 'm not sure there 's a good answer for that . Erhart : So with regard to that , perhaps if there 's any recommendation at all , it 's to look at what in the future , if we look at another thing like this , maybe some more background on . Batzli : Well , we looked at this before . We looked at this about 3 or 4 years ago when we talked about having some sort of condition , you know they 're not closer than a couple miles apart or something because we talkec about it in connection with Tanadoona and then when Eckankar came in and WE were taking big chunks of land out of the city . And we talked about that at a meeting . And I don 't remember where that went but as I recall , we gave it up . Conrad: I don 't think little issues like this , we don 't need to be concerned . I think the Eckankar parcel was a major concern but 2 acres here and there , we can 't control that . We can 't plan that . This is beyonc what we need to really forecast . The major 50 acre thing taken off the ta> roll , I totally agree Tim . Erhart : Okay . With that then the only thing I 'd change is then is when WE make a recommendation . We 're recommending the PUD amendment for a church at this location . Not necessarily a Jehovah Witness . That was your point . Okay . The only comments I 've got . Batzli : Okay . I don 't have any additional comments . Aanenson: Can I just set one comment that you had Brian . I think you mad€ a good comment that I hadn 't thought of and that was the preschool use . I 'n _ not sure if that 's a concern to you or not but I guess I was looking at approving the church use itself and I 'm not sure if you want to look at expansion or ancillary type uses they would have . If you want to put any conditions on that . Batzli : Well that was the interesting thing because we were approving thiE as a church and not necessarily the particular applicant 's church . And I asked them specifically whether they were planning on doing that but assumE for a moment that they determine that this parcel was unsuitable and another church came in and developed it . And ran preschools and did Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 34 things , then it might not be such an ideal location given , you know , I don 't know . Aanenson: It 's something to think about . I hadn't thought about it . Ahrens: I don 't think , I think if you allow a church , we have to allow whatever they do in that church . If it 's preschool . Batzli : But then we should evaluate the location in light of other activities . Ahrens: When that proposal comes through. Batzli : Right . I think so . Aanenson: They would still have to go through site plan review. Richard Taylor : I just want to make a comment , in case you didn 't know that we do have a contract with the 92 Audubon Partnership . Solid contract . Large amount of money down and we have a solid preliminary approval with the Chaska Bank for the remainder of our loan . Very large downpayment so it should close on January 10th . We should be in there . Batzli : Okay . I don 't have any other comments . Is there a motion? Emmings: I 'll move the Planning Commission recommend •approval of the proposed PUD amendment allowing for a church on Lot 1 , of the Chanhassen - Business Park as shown on the proposed plan amendment to the Chanhassen Business Center PUD dated November 4 , 1992 subject to the conditions in the staff report . _ Batzli : Is there a second? Ahrens: Second . Batzli : Is there any discussion? Ledvina: Do you want to add the PUD number 91-4? Is that something we want? Aanenson: Yeah , got it . ` ( Jeff Farmakes had left the meeting and did not vote on the remaining items of discussion . ) Emmings moved, Ahrens seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed PUD amendment allowing a church on Lot 1 of the- Chanhassen Business Park as shown on the proposed plan amendment to the Chanhassen Business Center PUD #91-4 dated November 4, 1992, subject to ...te following conditions: 1 . The driveway to Lot 1 shall be perpendicular to Audubon Road and shat be located to tie directly into the Stockdale 's driveway to the east . • i Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 35 _ 2 . Lot 3 shall not have direct access onto Audubon but rather from the extension of Lake Drive West . 3 . Submittal of an acceptable site plan in compliance with the development standards/guidelines established for this PUD . All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously _ Batzli : When does this go to the City Council? _ Aanenson: Well we 've directed the applicant , the owners of the property that we 'd like to see this final platted and we 're trying to push this witF the final plat because we 've gone in there and condemned to get sewer through there to benefit their property and we 'd like to see them final plat this . So we 're hoping that we can put this all together and do it in January . Emmings: Is the weather station still , they 're still planning to build a weather station? Aanenson: Yeah , they 're supposed to be operational by June of '94 so we expect to see them shortly after the first of the year too . Batzli : Okay , thank you for coming in . PUBLIC HEARING: CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL FOR APPROVAL TO REZONE 178 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD , PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT THE SE QUDRANT OF HIGHWAYS 5 AND 41 AND NW QUADRANT OF WEST 82ND STREET AND HIGHWAY 41 , GATEWAY WEST BUSINESS PARK , OPUS CORPORATION . Public Present: Name Address Michele Foster Opus Corporation _ John Uban Dahlgren , Shardlow and Uban Peter Olin MN Landscape Arboretum Paul Paulson 3160 West 82nd Street Bruce Perkins 125 West 82nd Street - Harry Adams 115 West 82nd Street David Dungey 105 West 82nd Street _ Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item . Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order . John Uban : I ' ll just give my name . It 's John Uban , consulting planner working with Opus Corporation . What I 'd like to do is show you some of the things we showed the Highway 5 Task Force so I can kind of reiterate and discuss a little bit about some of their concerns and comments . And then show you . . . illustrate to you a little better what our intentions are . Since the last time we met , we made some changes to the plan and I think staff has shown . . . Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 36 Batzli : Excuse me , before you continue , would it be better for him to use the microphone for the recording? Yeah , could you do that . John Uban : I 'll show you some of the changes that we have made . Previously we had industrial all on the west side of Highway 41 and the concern was , how does this work with the Arboretum and neighbors to the south and Chaska . And we of course had to address what , we don 't know what 's going to happen with the site that was going to be for Nordic Track and it 's for sale now for $1 .00 to try and encourage some development there . But in the past , we don 't know if it 's going to be a truck industrial site or a corporate site . There 's those possibilities . But we , this had been the area at the intersection of 82nd and 41 for some commercial to serve the business area and the traffic and so forth in this area . And so we , at this time looking at a small business , - service or daycare and gas station , convenience . Basically for employees of the area as well as people on Highway 41 . But we looked also , and this area is not adjacent to the Arboretum per se but this portion along TH 41 is and we instead said , let 's try and use the attractiveness of the area and sited then multiple family on this site . And we need , in order to do that of course , have direct access to TH 41 but that corresponds _ directly where we would have access to the larger site . So this works out just right and we 've worked this out with MnDot and this is appropriate spacing and so forth and works out for them . It also offers us flexibility and opportunity to work with the Arboretum to secure for - them an access point that they can use in the future also . And so this can , through an easement that we 're willing to work out with the Arboretum , to give access to the Arboretum . They 're interested in another access point from TH 41 . When Highway 212 is completed , they anticipate more of their visitors may be coming up from the south as the; come out on the faster highway rather than coming in on TH 5 . So this may prove to be a good entrance for them at some point in the future . SC- we (we would continue to coordinate that with the Arboretum . That allows a lot of this site to remain an open space . Then the parcel that is also adjacent to the Arboretum but along 82nd Street , before we had industrial development in here but now we 're showing it , not just industrial but some office . Also in a single structure in trying to illustrate some of the controls we can put on that particular site . One , we would buffer around the edge . Set it back farther . We 're also anticipating for this residential use to the north that a residential driveway can be put in place right next to the wooded area of the Arboretum . That way it would take their entrance off of 82nd Street that is in this area . If they - want to be industrial to the north , then we would provide the easement that they already have and that could be their industrial access . So we have an option of doing both here at this point . But additionally , the building itself would shelter the noise and activity of the area to the east for the area that lies to the west because we would have loading anu the parking on the east side of the building . Totally screened and entrance then as far down 82nd Street as possible . And that would then - consolidate a more quiet use . Obviously busy during the day as any business would be but in the evenings and on weekends , that business would be more quiet . And that is what we 're trying to do . Have the control here so it 's a good neighbor for both the Arbo-etum and the residents . Basically the same as what Chaska 's been doing to the south . The rest of this has stayed primarily the same except for the water tower Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 37 site . The reason we looked at this is we kept placing it in different places and everyone had an objection , one way or the other . In placing it up in here , the Arboretum was concerned that they might see it . And so when bringing it down here , you may recall this site , it 's one of the few treed areas along the highway . And in the regrading of this area , this tree knob could be left as a feature because there 's some nice evergreens and other things on that site . The water tower might work very well if the final design works out so we think this is a good alternative to look at . And it may , if the program works out with the existing owner , it could be a way for them to stay there and still have the site used for the water tower . Furthermore , our road system is as we had shown before , follows basically what 's in the comprehensive plan . It curves through the site , opening up a lower tier of lots and then this is stepped because the site is rolling . We haven 't done a grading plan but each one of these are tiers as it matches the surrounding road system . We have shown additional parkland from the last time . We 're up to about 33 acres . 19 of those acres are developable acres . Not wetland but we have included the wetlands also . Our approach has been that we 've taken what we thought was most attractive part of the site and turned it into park . The Park Commission has reviewed this several times now and this was what we added for the court activities in this area . We took off a lot and moved everything over . This is , we had worked this out with the city staff , at a city staff meeting . This might be a good compromise . Since then Park staff had asked for some more . About another acre and a half . But at the actual park meeting , they asked for more yet . So there 's really a point here where the city has to decide , here is something , a significant amount of this can be had through just the dedication process . But how much more should the city really want to acquire because at some point the city has to buy the additional land . When in fact there 's an opportunity through dedication to fulfill all the park needs for the adjacent parcel . And maybe patience is the best thing . The most cost effective way to fulfill all your park needs in a cooperative fashion . And that 's what we 've tried to express here . But obviously if the city wants to buy a lot and do all the park at once , we ' ll be subject to that desire . What we 've also tried to illustrate here is some of the design features that we think will eventually be incorporated in the final design certainly with perimeter landscaping . We 're talking about having a 50 foot landscaped perimeter edge around the development that will then be consistent and bring the whole development tied together as a uniform property and a uniform pattern of development . This then is part of a corridor planting but also city staff had also _ talked about having a feature of some sort at this intersection . Now we haven 't designed this but we have offered a suggestion to start the ideas flowing . And we presented this to the Highway 5 corridor . And what we 're just suggesting is that landscape earthen feature that encircles the intersection will create like a room , a turning room as if it 's turning around for locomotives . It 's a European round where the cars zipped around until they found their exit . This could be a symbolic then entrance to two communities . The Arboretum , Chaska and Chanhassen . So in a cooperative way something very interesting could happen here . And so we 're just suggesting an early idea of that . We found also that it _ was hard for the task force to really visualize what we were really saying here because this is roof tops and parking lots and roads and it 's hard to bring that home . What does this really mean when you see Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 38 development . We showed them two existing developments . This is in Plymouth , the industrial area of Plymouth . This is 494 , 694 rather . And here is Highway 55 . This is looking south . City Hall 's over here but this shows that this is an industrial area . Sort of in a grid pattern but they see the pattern of roof tops and parking lots and this is how this particular one developed . But this is the one Opus did which is called Opus in Minnetonka . Here , more curvalinear road system . A savin<,� of open space and trees in sensitive areas like we are doing with the park and the wetlands and so forth . Here , they have different entrances off the Highway 169 . And once again it 's roof tops and parking lots but - it got them to see the pattern on the plan was similar to a pattern that they see in an aerial photograph . And when they saw visual keys or photographs that were taken all around the community in other places , they liked the way the roads looked at Opus and they liked the way entry monuments looked . So those were some of the positive images they chose . And then we showed the typical kinds of buildings that have been built by Opus in the past . Certainly Rosemount , and here are a variety and these are once again about 15% to 20% office and the rest industrial manufacturing . The architecture is tied together . There are different types for different kinds of industrial needs . A variety of architecture- but all of this is tied together with standards . Architectural standards . Landscape standards . A variety of site criteria . So this is the kind of view and kinds of buildings that will eventually be built on _ the property . So we wanted them to start visualizing and getting some idea of what that could be . We showed them the four alternatives and as staff has said , they saw the institutional kind of mixed use hotel , office , so forth . Headquarters , industrial , corporate and a retail . An(- of these three , the retail they didn 't like . It was mostly , parking was up front versus the building . But retail they didn 't like this particular one but they still said , where should retail be? How should it work and so forth? So these were the other ones that they looked at and they said yes . These are the sorts of things that look reasonable . We don 't know how the Task Force is going to develop their criteria for aesthetics and so forth over the next 6 to 10 months . We 're here tonigh' trying to get a general concept approved and we 're still saying on this site , we really don 't know what 's going to happen but 4e do want to hold it and make sure the best thing happens . And so we hale that commitment - and drive to what we 're trying to do . That 's why that site is saved as focal point to the whole development . And we 're committed to putting in the best architecture and so forth into that site . So when we come back _ to this concept plan , we 're really looking at the general use pattern , road system , how we 're preserving open space through dedication as an public park for those portions that are wooded and so forth . And our general use and we 're trying to soften this edge against the Arboretum . - So these are the basic things we 're attempting to do and we 've worked with staff and Michele Foster from Opus has reviewed tie staff recommendations . We have a few comments and she would like to make those-- comments hos«comments to you at this point . Michele Foster : Mr . Chairman , members of the Commission . My name is Michele Foster and I 'm Director of Real Estate Development for Opus Corporation and one of my primary responsibilities is ::he development of Gateway West Business Park in Chanhassen . I guess I will not repeat the beginning parts of this letter which John basically summarized for you - Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 39 which are the changes that we 've made since the last Planning Commission meeting . And I 'd like to direct you to the basically four issues that we 'd like to briefly discuss where we would like to see some amendments to the staff recommendation that you have before you . The first has to do with the role of the Highway 5 Task Force . And you can see that what we are asking is that conditions number 1 and number 10 be deleted and replaced with a condition that states , the applicant shall continue to consult with the Highway 5 Task Force with respect to site design criteria , bicycle trails , and pedestrian crossings and landscaping themes and gateway treatments . Our concern here is that as we understand the staff report , basically the direction seems to be to defer the decision on what kind of land uses should occur on the property west of Highway 41 . We feel that we have really made every effort that we can to be responsive to the concerns of the neighbors and the Arboretum . The wetlands that are there . The visual concerns about the Highway 41 corridor and it 's important to use to be able to proceed with some assumptions about land use on the Highway 41 property so that the project _ can proceed and we can continue to do the kind of analysis that we need to do . As John mentioned , we think the neighborhood commercial is very limited in scope and is very necessary for a project of this scale . We think that it can be accomplished within the kinds of quality and design standards that the city and the Highway 5 Task Force will be developing . So that is our basic concern . We really feel that we need to reach some decision on those land uses . We feel that that is certainly within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission to consider and we 'd like to be able to move forward with those land uses in place as we show them on the concept plan . The second issue has to do with the environmental impact statement process . This is not a major issue but in order to facilitate the development of the environmental impact statement , we would very much like to be able to use our consultant for the traffic study . We understand that our consultant will need to confer with the city closely about the scoping of the work and the nature of the work that 's included there but it would very much facilitate what is a very complicated process if we could use our traffic engineer as part of the total _ environmental impact statement process . Therefore we would like to see that condition revised as stated in our letter . The third issue relates to park dedication and I won 't spend a lot more time on that since John basically described our position there . As John indicated and to clarify what the staff said , the Parks Commission position at the meeting last week is that they want all of the park , all of the community parkland to be taken out of the Gateway West Business Park . So that means all of the passive components and all of the active components should be shown on our property . That means that we think , and we haven 't done a layout , but we think that probably means another 8 acres of property of Gateway West Business Park needs to be shown for active park components . We would like to resist that . As my letter states , you know we 're trying to meet a number of multiple objectives . We understand there needs to be a park but the park needs to be located in such a way that it allows the land to be utilized for it 's highest and best purposes that creates or locates the park in an area that will serve not only the industrial park but the residential property that 's going to develop to the east . And _ also creates an economical solution for the city at a time when we know that park resources are very limited . And we came up with the concept of a more comprehensive approach to the park issue by looking at both our Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 40 property and the property to the east . We 're trying to create a fair anc balanced solution to creating a park , which we understand that the city needs to create here but we don 't think that requiring another , it 's - probably 9 1/2 acres from what we are showing on our plan , is necessary . We think that there 's a better solution that works better for us and works better for the city and would like to see that given further - consideration . My interpretation , and I don 't want to put words in the mouth of the Parks Commission , but my impression was that the Parks Commission was interested in our proposal but they were mostly concerned that the city didn 't have the kind of controls that it needed to assure - that that plan could be implemented . And that 's why I recommended that condition 7 be revised to state , the kind of condition that it does which is that the dedication of the parkland be approved as we have requested - but that it be subject to the development of appropriate safeguards to assure the city that this plan can be implemented . We think the city has the kind of controls that it needs to designate that property for a - community level park . It has the same kinds of dedication requirements that it has of us . But we understand that the Parks Commission wasn 't feeling comfortable that they did have those kind of controls . We would like the opportunity to work closely with staff to go forward with the - kind of solution that we are recommending but that it be conditioned on the assumption that we can come up with safeguards that the Parks Commission , the Planning Commission and the City Council feel comfortabla- with . We 'd like the opportunity to do that . If we can 't , then we can 't But we 'd like that opportunity to pursue this kind of solution . As you can see , the current plan that we have presented shows 13% of the developable property in park . Most communities will say that 10% is the standard . We 're already showing 13% . If we needed to provide another 8 acres , obviously that percentage continues to keep increasing . We 'd like a more balanced approach to that if it 's possible and we 'd like your - consideration for that . John also mentioned the fourth issue which is the shopping center option as one of the four options for Lot 1 . The staff has recommended that that option be deleted . Because we don 't know_ what can , what is going to occur on that property , we would like to have all of the options available at some point in the future to consider tha',_ and so we ask that that land use option not be deleted from consideration . So those are the four areas where we have some disagreements and where we 'd like to ask that there be some consideratio> to these kinds of changes . Thank you . Batzli : Thank you . Aanenson: Brian , can I take an opportunity to respond to those? - Batzli : Sure . Aanenson: I can just quickly articulate them . Paul and I did take a fei- minutes to go over this this afternoon . The role of the Highway 5 Task Force . As you recall , there was some talk of a moratorium you know because the concern about getting some of the goals and objectives of - the Highway 5 Task Force out in front . We felt that that wasn't necessary . As I stated earlier , they will be meeting in January trying to resolve . We 're taking this issue first . What shou:.d be the commercial in this area? Whether it be , -there 's different scales . Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 41 Neighborhood , community , regional commercial , and at this time , the PUD allows for 25% ancillary support commercial . We 're not sure that this is the appropriate location for that . Maybe it needs to be interior . I guess what we 're saying is , we certainly don 't want to drag them through every Highway 5 Task Force meeting but we feel at this time it 's a little bit premature to say this is the uses we 're looking at and how they should be laid out . We feel strongly that we need a little bit more _ time before we can decide that those are the appropriate uses . What we 're talking about is basically on 82nd , the majority of that property . The Wrase 's in the south , where they 're showing the commercial on that , what 's adjacent to the Arboretum which would be on the west side of TH 41 . Secondly , the traffic engineer study . We feel it 'd be in the best interest to have a traffic engineer working for the city . That 's our position on that . Again , it 's not a big issue as they stated too . The park dedication , we certainly don 't want to usurp the Park Commission 's authority but as my understanding of how the meeting went Tuesday , there were some misunderstandings and I think this is something that can be resolved internally with the staff . Certainly there 's some credit given for you and we went through this problem with Hans Hagen . You know the Park Commission wanted to see a lot of the flat area and we also want to preserve some of the natural and giving them credit for that and I think that 's an internal decision that needs to be made and we certainly want to sit down with the applicants and try to resolve that . I think that can be resolved . Number 4 , the shopping center option . We feel strongly that needs to be eliminated as a possibility . It 's inconsistent with the Comp Plan at this time and it should just be not considered . Batzli : Let me back up and ask one question about the parkland . If you take out the wetland , how much land would they be dedicating to the city? Aanenson: Well they 're showing 19 acres but that would include some of that wooded area to the south along 82nd . Where there 's some trails and the like so . My understanding , the Park Commission wants like 14 to 17 acres of balifield , tennis , which would be right along that frontage _ road . What they really wanted was an additional acreage right in here . Chopping into one of their lots . Batzli : Okay . And normally in a situation like this , where wetlands can 't be developed anyway . Aanenson : We don 't give them credit . Batzli : We don 't give them credit . Aanenson: Correct . So they do have acreage that they 've taken out that 's undevelopable . They are showing actually , they 've taken out for the wetland . The 22 acres . So that is not included . And some of that again , where they 're showing the park trails along the south side , some of that may be questionable as to how they would get access to it and develop it too . _ Batzli : Just for my own clarification , the nice park that they show to the east , who owns that right now? Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 42 Aanenson: That 's not their property . Batzli : I know . But do we know who owns it? — Michele Foster : I don 't know her first name . It 's Mrs . O 'Shaughnessy who owns that property . _ Batzli : And is this her entire parcel that you 're showing as parkland , except for that 8 acre exception? Is that all owned by one person? Michele Foster : My understanding is that that property includes everything from our easterly property line to CR 117 and south . . .that entire property that abuts our property . Some of it is zoned for multi family . Some is zoned for single family . John Uban: There are significant wetlands in that area . But only the , _ if I could show this board real quickly . There are large wetlands in here that are wooded wetlands and they 're protected . And then this portion of it here that is more developable for field or ballfield activity . This area also has some fairly poor soils in it . The upper — portion , once you get out of this sort of drainage area up in here that 's developable on that piece . So once again it 's sort of attaching the two pieces together to take advantage of both the high wooded areas here and some of the low ballfield type area on the other side . . .all that can be combined in a very large . . .park . As a park planner , we do this for other cities , this would be a very difficult approach to try to assemble with _ multiple properties , the best pieces of both that work for a park . Let that plan work the best to really make the private development even better . You know so the two really work hand in hand to make what is included . . .on two different uses . Say residential or multiple family over here and the business , industrial office business park over here . . . Batzli : Thank you . This is a public hearing . If there 's anyone else iu, attendance that would like to address the Planning Commission , please come forward and please give your name and address for the record . Paul Paulson: Mr . Chair and Planning Commission . My name is Paul Paulson . My address is 3160 West 82nd Street and I live directly north of Lot 20 . I have a prepared statement I 'd like to read tonight . Just to I guess give you a sense of our perspective on the development , I 'd — like to give you a brief history of our involvement with the property that we live on . In 1986 we began our search for a rural property on which to establish our residence . We were looking for a quiet , rural _ setting safe from development . We purchased our property in August , 198; and at that point began planning our house . We had planned to have construction complete by July , 1989 but due to circumstances beyond our control , were not able to begin the project until November , 1989 . We '- first heard of the purchase agreement between Bill Owa.11ey and Steiner Development in the summer of 1989 . Steiner Development purchased their property in December of 1989 . The City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan was made public in the spring of 1990 . This was the first indication that we had that the city intended our property and the surrounding property to be guided for commercial development . Given the circumstances , we prefer things the way they are out here now and are Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 43 surprised by the development around us , although we recognize that it 's taken place and now expect it to proceed . We are still not convinced that the PUD should extend to the west side of Highway 41 . In fact that part of the plan west of Highway 41 seems more appropriately used with the Arboretum and existing Chaska uses to the south . So we continue to be concerned about the planned development west of Highway 41 . The plan will impact us in many ways . Not the least of which is property taxes . I called the Carver County Assessor this morning to get an estimate of our property tax once the surrounding property is zoned PUD . He estimated that our property tax could jump from $4 ,000 .00 today to around $9 ,000 .00 at that time . The new plan shows the easement moved to the west end of Lot 20 . This was not our idea . It is not clear to me that moving the easement is in our best interest and at this point we have not agreed to move it . The staff report recommends that a public street be built on the current easement . This seems reasonable to us and we support it . We would like to see a time table for commercial development on Lot 20 . Not enough information is available yet to understand the _ impact on us and our property . For example , if the city street is constructed on the current easement , how does that effect the location , size , and orientation of the development on Lot 20? In regards to the overall project , we 're just small potatoes but we do not want the overall project to lose sight of our property , it 's value and it 's future use . At this point we would like our property to be included in the PUD since it 's exclusion from the PUD will be a drawback to the future use of our property consistent with the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan . If that means designation of our property as PUD at this time , then perhaps the PUD should not go forward without that taking place . At a minimum , our property much be planned into the development . Thank you . Batzli : Thank you . Would anyone else like to address the Commission? - Peter Olin : Mr . Chairman , Planning Commission . Peter Olin through the Arboretum . I would like you to bear with me for a minute because in the past meetings I have made some comments and some recommendations along with the neighbors which I thought would , they were professionals would be taken into consideration . I don 't think they have been and therefore tonight I 'd like to address you , not only as Director of the Arboretum but as a professional and give you a little background of my professional background . In 1963 , 29 years ago , when I started as a landscape architect and planner in Hartford , Connecticut , I worked for a firm where I learned that planners could be more effective at destroying land than - developers because they had the tools to manipulate everything . It was a poor job but a great learning experience . In Massachussettes in '67 where I learned how good PUD 's could be designed while working on two of _ them , seminole ones in Amhurst , Massachussettes . In 1970 I worked on a major regional plan for southeast New England with the New England River Basin 's Commission . In '71 I was working for a planning research firm analyzing factors that make up the scenic qualities of the State of Vermont . In '72 I worked on some developments with a landscape architect in Vermont , including town plans , zoning ordinances , PUD 's , shopping centers and so on . '73 I worked on several developments in the Boston area for Carol Johnson and Associates . And from '74 to present I have been with the University of Minnesota as a Professor of Landscape Architecture . Teaching both design and planning . I hate to do this but Planning Commission Meeting — December 2 , 1992 - Page 44 this Gateway West PUD is one of the poorer designs that I 've seen . If a student turned this in I 'd give them a D . That 's not passing for a design course . PUD is a unique opportunity for a designer/planner to _ work with landform and the native environment so that it isn 't destroyed And for the developer , the way to preserve part of the site and increase the amount of development , that they would not be able to do under regular development guidelines . For the City it 's a way to retain the — character of the land and provide amenities for it 's citizens . For the people who work or live there , it provides a better setting , a more environmentally compatable and sensitive place in which to work , reside , and recreate . This plan does none of those things . The road rips across the landforms destroying them entirely . The buildings cannot be put up On most of the lots without either removing the entire hillside , where we 've got 90 feet of drop across the lots . Or massive retaining walls . — The parking lots all face the road making the drive through the site a tour of parking lots . There 's no respect for the Arboretum , which is a major , as a major regional resource needs major buffering considerations— A couple rows of trees doesn 't begin to do the job to buffer a potential machine shop , fast food restaurant , gas station , multi family housing or whatever else they 're proposing in there . It does not respect the importance of entry into Chanhassen on Highway 41 . The welcome they propose will greet people with a gas station and a fast food restaurant . At Highway 5 , where there is only the most sketchy of ideas about industrial , office , commercial , or whatever have you , there 's not much tc— say Chanhassen is a different community and you 're entering it now . I think the only thing they did respect was the wetlands , and of course that 's only because the law won 't allow them to do anything there , or at _ least without major access cost to the developable sites . A PUD is the way to creatively approach development . In this case , the importance of the site in relationship to the Arboretum and to Chanhassen 's major entries , needs a major creative design development . Certainly the city — entrance needs far more than a circle of shrubs or trees or a berm . I 'm not sure what it is that 's proposed exactly . The city wants to protect this rolling landscape and that is the character and the characteristic — of Chanhassen and it 's in your city plan . This proposal will eliminate it . Actually I 'm surprised that the Planning office , again asking the Planning Commission to give preliminary approval with the very slight changes made from the first plan which was a very poor plan to start with . For the PUD you are allowing this developer to nake much more money on this property than he would be allowed to under the conventional development pattern , if he were to follow them . You deserve and should demand a creative development solution for this site at the conceptual stage . I strongly recommend that you not , no approval be given of this plan until a plan is presented that minimally , one , gives the Arboretum a_ major buffer of appropriately compatible development . Not just a row of trees or a berm . Office and light industrial or other 8:00 to 5:00 uses come immediately to mind and I 'm talking about that whole corner . This is a major resource . And that it not be crowded up against the Arboretum 's boundary . Two, that this minimally respects the rolling landform of the site for both roadway and building location . Three , that it shows at least block grading to indicate how roads , parking lots and — buildings can be placed on the site . Any PUD I worked on , it was required that we show that we could put those roads and buildings on a site and it could be graded properly . Block grading means you use 5 or — Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 45 10 foot contour intervals or something that is a little more gross than any kind of detail grading . Four , that begins to develop some type of logical and appropriate entry sequence to Chanhassen , both on Highway 41 and Highway 5 . And 5 and finally , to indicate that this development will be more than a parking lot tour as one drives through it . Just as a side thought , the highest and best use of any property could very well be parkland . Not necessarily commercial and industrial where something that squeezes the very last dollar out of developing that piece of land . Thank you . _ Batzli : Thank you . Does anyone else have any comments they 'd like to present to the Commission? Bruce Perkins: My name is Bruce Perkins . I live at 125 West 82nd . I 'm one of the residents south of Lot 20 . As I look at the plan , it seems that Lot 20 sticks out to the west . As you look at it coming from the south , you have residents and parkland in Chaska . Lot 20 breaks that _ contour . You have a residence to the north of it . A residence and parkland to the south of it . Why not continue the current use of that corridor of housing and park area on Lot 20? A single family home , or parkland covered with trees would be the best to protect the sanctity of the Arboretum and continue the current use . If Lot 20 and the property west of TH 41 is developed , for my neighbors and for my family , we would no longer live in the country . We would live in an industrial park . Potential buyers of our property would say , these aren 't country homes . These are homes in an industrial park . The residents around Lot 20 would be severely hurt by development of Lot 20 as anything but a single family residence or a park covered with trees . The Arboretum will be damaged by commercial development on this border as well . Please don 't ruin our country living and our country living experience and don 't intrude on the Arboretum . Office development on Lot 21 seems appropriate but a daycare or a restaurant or a service business that would operate 24 hours a day would bring a lot of traffic to our area . This will cause pollution by noise , light and traffic congestion at a variety of hours . A service station on Lot 22 is totally unacceptable and if it 's meant to service the industrial park , it should be on the east side of Highway 41 , not on the west side . Lastly , the plan still does not reflect the fact that the Paulson house is existing on the lot north of it . They say there isn 't something on record to show that that house is there but a simple drive out will show that it 's there and it should be listed on the plot and the plan , just so you don 't forget that there is a residence to the north . Thank you . Batzli : Thank you . Would anyone else like to address the Commission? David Dungey : David Dungey , 105 West 82nd Street and my neighbors and friends have pretty much said it all but I 'd like to just very briefly address the traffic congestion issue . If in fact the support commercial uses that are proposed for the people who work in the industrial park are allowed to be in the west side of Highway 7 , it simply means that anybody coming to work who wants to use the daycare center , gas station , must exit or leave Highway 41 , go to the west , do their business and again enter TH 41 or cross TH 41 to get to their place of work _ If these commercial support businesses were on the east side of TH 41 , people Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 46 going to work could exit , do their business and get to work on secondary roads . Not having to get back onto TH 41 again and leave it again . So from a traffic flow standpoint , I just think it makes an awful lot of — sense to keep any commercial support to the east side of TH 41 . And I '1. just cut my remarks there . Thank you . Batzli : Thank you . Would anyone else like to address the Commission? — Harry Adams: Mr . Chairman , members . My name is H . Adams . I 'm the last resident in the line of four residents that have spoken tonight , and I — strongly endorse what you 've heard from all of the speakers to date . I would add one thought . I 've been in contact as recently as 6:00 tonight with the planners for the City of Chaska and they would generally be supportive to those objectives to the commercial properties being west of TH 41 . They regret that they weren 't here tonight . They 'll work with your planners as we move forward and make those comments directly to them . Thank you . — Batzli : Thank you . Kate , will you refresh my recollection one time . The property in Chaska to the south of Lots 21 and 22 , what is that zoned? — Aanenson: Industrial . Batzli : That 's zoned industrial . — Aanenson: Then there 's the ravine and then you 've got residential . Can I just make a couple other comments? I feel like I need to defend — myself . We 've had this problem when we did Lundgren where we came in with a preliminary plat and we were giving a conceptual . . .and I 'd just like to , for Peter 's benefit , read what the requirements are for conceptual approval . And that 's looking at the overall density , identification of lot size and width , the general , general location of streets . The general location of open spaces . The general location and types of land uses and intensities , and staging and time of development . — So what we 're looking at is conceptual here . I certainly am uncomfortable with the information . That 's why we 're saying we need to go the next step and look at how , what the amount of grading . We — certainly are going to look in detail at the amount of grading and the cuts and fills but we don 't have that level of information here . And what the applicant is seeking is , are you looking favorably upon this _ layout in the conceptual stage so they can go to the next one . I certainly expect to see modifications as I 'm sure the applicant is too a: we move through the process . And I just want to make that clear that it is conceptual and we certainly , this is not the depth and breadth of - information that we need to do a thorough review of a project . Batzli : Okay . Mr . Olin , we 'll come back to you if there 's no other — comments okay? Is there any other comments? Go ahead . Peter Olin: The concept in the course of any kind of land development has to fit on the land . . .but if the topography is a major factor in a . 1•1 site , look at the grades on it . I don 't see how you could even develop concept without . . .or knowing that that kind of topography should be developed , and I don't think it can . — Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 47 Batzli : Thank you . Is there any further public comment? Is there a move to close the public hearing? Emmings moved , Ahrens seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Batzli : Tim , we 're going to start at your end . Erhart: The developer 's asking for the PUD , correct? Aanenson : Correct . Erhart : Over a straight commercial/industrial development , what is he looking to get from a PUD? Aanenson: Again , I think there 's a misconception of what they 're getting . What we 're getting is we 're getting the development standards that we can tie them to a cohesive storm water management , design elements , a contract that holds them to this . Erhart : It works both ways . Aanenson: Well they can come in and split , come in and split off 5 acres . Maybe they want to respond to that . Just chop off 5 acres . 5 _ acres here . 5 acres . Leapfrog kind of thing where right now we 're getting tight development standards to make it cohesive architectually , landscaping , and all those features , the park issue . Batzli : But from your perspective , what is the developer getting? Why are they doing this? Conrad: You can ask them . Batzli : I don 't want to know what they think . What do you think? Aanenson: I 'm not sure what the benefit is to them to do it in the cohesive , you know marketing wise , they 've got a park . I think we 're getting more from them . I 'm not sure they 're getting more out of it . I certainly don 't see that as an issue . Erhart : Well yeah , I 'd like John to respond , or someone . Michele Foster : The reason that we 've submitted a PUD application is because it 's our understanding that that 's what was going to be required . Quite frankly a PUD process , from a governmental point of view , is far more restrictive for a developer in many ways than it is beneficial . Which is not to say that we would not do many of the same things with development standards and preservation of open space , but the PUD process is far more restrictive to us than it is beneficial and we would have preferred not to do that . But we understood from speaking with staff that it was important to do that . That it was the only way really that the City was going to want to consider that property , and if those are the rules , then that 's what we 're going to do . Quite frankly , the Opus II development which , you know I 'll take a little bit of issue too with Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 48 Mr . Olin 's statements . The Opus II development in Minnetonka is an aware winning , nationally recognized industrial park . It is not a PUD . The things that we did in Opus II we did voluntarily . We were on the cutting- edge of the development process when that park was started . And the kinds of development and constraints that you see there , while developed in conjunction with ,the city , were done voluntarily because that 's the _ quality of development that we uphold and that we intend to uphold here . But quite frankly in this case , I think the PUD process is probably a bit more onerous to us and is far more beneficial to the City because of the kinds of controls that it gives you . So that 's our response . — Erhart : Okay . Yeah , my question doesn 't imply that I don 't think it should be done as a PUD . I just wanted to get a response on that because a lot of the issues being discussed are , who's going to give up what . I kind of wanted to set who 's getting what and it seems to me that I think we 're . . . Aanenson: The City certainly is . Certainly when we have concerns about what those setbacks are going to be from Highway 5 and TH 41 , landscaping treatment , that 's going to all be part of those development contracts — which we have control over with the PUD and it 's cohesive . Erhart: On Lot 20 , there was some suggestion that that should be _ residential . Could it be residential? Aanenson: What the PUD ordinance says is up to 25% of the PUD zone , if permitted by the Planning Commission and City Council , could be for — alternate uses . If it 's in the best interest of the city . And I guess that 's why we were kind of looking for the Highway 5 guidance on that and that seems to make sense . You know what is in the best interest of the _ City and that 's why we really wanted to get their input again . Going back to Michele had raised a concern that they didn 't want to have to , they feel like they should be able to go forward and we still feel like there 's some issues the Highway 5 Task Force needs to look at . Erhart : Okay , so you think the Highway 5 Task Force would get into the Lot 20 situation? — Aanenson : Yes . Erhart: Even though it 's off Highway 5 . Aanenson: Well they 're looking at the whole commercial . Where it should be in relation to that , yes . — Erhart: Okay , and the line that everything west of that diagonal line in Chaska there is zoned residential? _ Aanenson: Correct . Emmings: There 's some parkland in there isn 't there? Aanenson: Parkland , residential , yeah . Or open space I believe it is . Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 49 Erhart : What 's Opus ' response to the concept of that Lot 20 being residential? Michele Foster : We have two concerns . One of which is a marketing concern . We looked at the issue of making that site a multi family site after the last meeting and there 's two issues there . One of which is we don 't feel there 's a market and we understand that isn 't necessarily always the driving force but in consultation with some residential developers , that was one reaction . And the second quite frankly is that from our experience , a good quality office , industrial neighbor is often preferable to single family homeowners than a multi family development with lots of traffic and kids and activity 24 hours a day , 7 days a week . And for both of those reasons we decided that that was not the best use and we felt that we could develop with appropriate standards an office _ industrial use there that would be a better neighbor to the single family , and maybe even to the Arboretum . I don 't want to speak for them . Erhart : Single family homes developed for what reason? Michele Foster : Quite frankly we didn 't look at single family as an option . I don 't know John if you have a response to that . John Uban : If you 'll , although we don 't have good information as to exactly what 's happening to the south , we do have this flat industrial _ piece which . . .but what is separating this and Chaska from the single family that exists on 82nd Street is the large wooded ravine , which is a good separation . It 's a good way to make a transition between an industrial use , Highway 41 , and single family come back this distance . When we go to the north , you don 't have the wooded ravine . I mean it 's just open prairie quite frankly . And so we don 't have that kind of buffering . To put single family in here then , we 're really exposing that more directly to what even a potential industrial use down here . This area is much more exposed than to that industrial development . So the single family here doesn 't have that sort of natural buffering up here . So what we 're proposing to do is to lighten our plan for an office industrial use here . To make it as quiet as possible where we can control it for the homes that are to the south here . Just moving it back so directly across from these single family homes is all open space to the north . Aanenson: Can I just add to what John was saying . I think one of the _ things , I 'm not sure what that use is going to be . I don 't want anybody to think that I 'm stating that 's what it 's going to be but we talked about with the PUD that maybe this is a site where we say anything on this lot has fixed hours . No truck traffic . Closes down at 6:00 where it 's more compatible with the neighborhood uses . Try to make it more fit in so it 's not as obtrusive as having truck traffic all night long or something like that . That 's a possibility too with the PUD zone . Putting those type of controls on whatever goes on that lot . Erhart : And our Comp Plan calls for that , what they call Lot 20 is zoned , or the Comp Plan is . Aanenson: Is guided for , yes . Industrial commercial . Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 50 Erhart: We 're not in any , are we in not a position today to modify that' Conrad: You can tell them what you think . Aanenson: Sure . That 's what we 're looking for . Erhart: If we 're looking for residential . — Aanenson: Direction to what you feel the uses should De , yes . All I was saying is through the PUD there 's another way to approach it . Yeah , _ right . Erhart : I was going to say . It just seems to me that Lot 20 , maybe the best use is that for residential . I 'm not sure you just didn 't contradict yourself when you said at one point that yeah , you can contro: it better . Make it compatible with homes there . But then you just said industrial commercial isn't compatible with the homes that you would put _ there . Paul Paulson: Excuse me . I just want to agree with what Michele said . That as a residence , I think all of my neighbors would agree that we would much prefer a well done industrial piece of property compared to a multi family . Erhart: I wasn 't disagreeing with that . Paul Paulson: I know you weren 't but I just wanted to emphasize that — point , and I think all of the neighbors would agree with that . Erhart: No , I understand that . Well I 'll leave that to someone else . . . Again , your reason for not allowing retail up in that corner . Aanenson: It 's inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan . Erhart: Okay . And we expect to have retail on the northeast corner? Aanenson : Well that 's what we 're trying to decide as a part of the Highway 5 Corridor . We briefly got into a discussion that , do we need — some retail at this end of the city and at what scale that should be . An( if it 's going to be on 82nd and TH 41 , does that preclude anything north? And again , what scale and what types . Should it be smaller . A series of- 20 ,000 square foot . Should it be one big user . That 's something that the Highway 5 Task Force will be working on . Erhart: Okay , and you responded that you would like to at least see conditions 1 and 10 remain where they are Kate? Fairly strongly . Aanenson: Yes . - Erhart: Okay . That 's the only questions I 've got right now . Conrad: Generally I like how the plan looks . I thought Peter brought up some good points and I 'm sure going to pay attention to those as we go through this in more detail . But generally to the east of TH 41 , on the Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 51 surface I 'm comfortable . The southeast corner , just so you know where I am , and I 'm not going to change . It will never be a big parking lot which may dictate that you 're not going to put retail there or whatever . So retail is , boy you 're going to have a tough time selling me on retail . I just want you to know that . Okay . And there may be at some point in time something that came along that I 'd look at but right now , I want to be real clear about that . It 's a real important intersection . Lot 20 bothers me . I don 't know what to do with that . It sort of juts out — there . I think we just have to real sensitive to the neighbors and the Arboretum . I 'm not sure Kate why , to the west of TH 41 is part of the PUD . Not real clear to me . Don 't think it has to be . The rest does . — Absolutely , the rest of this is a PUD . Erhart : Why wouldn 't you want it? Conrad: We 've got a barrier called TH 41 between these two and I don 't . Batzli : We already rezoned this as PUD . Conrad: What? Batzli : I think we already rezoned this . Aanenson: No , we 've guided it for industrial commercial so whether we zone it PUD or not , they could still request . Conrad: It doesn 't have to be part of it . _ Aanenson: They still own it . They can still request to come in for a commercial industrial use . _ Conrad: Why include it? What is the advantage? We can control it? This is just lot , lot , lot , lot . Tell me what the advantage is and then maybe I 'd consider that but TH 41 is the boundary . TH 5 is the north leg . You know there 's some real good reasons for the rest of this being part of a PUD and I think they 've done a good job at the conceptual level . Right now again I 'm paying more attention as we get into the detail but I just don 't see why . — Erhart: Because if you don 't put it , then there 's some guy that buys Lot 19 and he could put anything he wants in there . — Conrad: Yeah . Within our zoning . Erhart: Cold storage warehouse in there . Conrad: Possibly . Erhart: Make that a PUD , we could put some controls on it . Conrad: We can rezone that right now anyway . What 's it zoned? Aanenson: It 's A-2 but it 's guided for commercial industrial . Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 52 Emmings: It 's A-2 right now? Aanenson : Yes . Erhart : If it 's guided . . .that , how do you stop them? Conrad: Anyway . I guess the applicant is asking for some things on — point number 1 and 10 and I think the Task Force , I think there has to bf some accountability from the Task Force . And I think the applicant would like to hear what that is , and so would I . I guess we typically do a lot— of the zoning here and make those recommendations and I 'm not sure what the Task Force is , what they 're doing versus what our role is but I think we should have a date associated with that . I 'm not sure I need to _ change the wording per the applicant but again I think we need some input from the Task Force and this should be on some kind of a schedule . The Park and Rec thing , I don 't have a clue what they 're doing . So I ' ll just wait for something to happen on them . In terms of staff 's , I 've got to go with the city staff 's recommendation in terms of who does the traffic I can 't make a decision on that . I have to trust our staff . That 's all . Ledvina : I think that the conceptual really has to evaluate the topography in detail and that 's one of the things that I thought we were going to get when we saw this again , because the topography is just , it 's very critical . You have , for instance in the parking lots of 4 , 5 and 6 which would apparently be leveled . Maybe you could get 10 feet stepping across the thing or something like that . There 's 60 to 90 feet of contour elevation difference and I just don 't ever see that working — without massive earthwork and that 's just , it doesn 't suit the site . I just , I think that that should have been addressed with this additional plan . And I don 't know , the applicant has made some changes and open _ some things up in terms of the park and worked on that end and I 'm sure has made some progress with this area west of TH 41 . .Again , you have Lot 20 , the potential building pad there is a fairly high elevation and if you put a warehouse or whatever up there , that 's going to be , I don 't think it can be screened very well so I think maybe that would almost seem to be a site for an office headquarters or something like that . It looks to be a pretty good piece there but I don 't know about an - industrial application there . I guess on the issue of the traffic study I would agree with the applicant . I think that we can , the city can provide some direction in terms of what needs to be done there but the City would be spending the applicant 's money on that and I think the applicant probably could do that more efficiently with the same results . Or acceptable results at any rate . I was wondering , in the Opus response regarding the Park and Rec , they suggest that , I think the term was used suitable controls or the City could do something to insure that this part area is integrated in a uniform manner . Can you expand on that? What kinds of things can we do at this point to make sure that a ball , a = softball field would be built in those areas . Aanenson: On the adjoining property? Ledvina : Right . Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 53 Aanenson: We don 't unless we buy it . We 've had numerous people look at that property . It 's a significant development problem . It is guided for multi family so we 're at the whim of waiting for development to occur . And if that 's part of what the ballfield area , they hence wouldn 't get built so I guess that was the concern of the Park and Recreation Commission . We have a development in front of us and they can get the property now to make a useable park instead of waiting . It 's unknown as far as when that development would occur . Ledvina : So we have to buy it? Aanenson : Well I 'm saying we can wait until , we have the choice of either buying it or waiting for someone to develop and ask for dedication at that time . There 's two options . Batzli : Well , assuming that it 's all one lot , would what we would be able to get under our current ordinance , include for example the softball _ areas and things like that so that we have a park that makes sense? Or is this one next door to us small enough that we 're not even going to get enough to put on two softball fields? Aanenson : Are you asking me if we can get enough useable area with this , with Opus ' piece? Batzli : No , with the second one . What would be required to be given to the City under ordinance on that second parcel? Aanenson: The same that we 're applying here and it kind of fluctuates . Like Michele mentioned , it 's generally around 10% . Batzli : Okay . How big is that lot next door? Aanenson : I don 't have the exact details on that . Ledvina : I guess otherwise I would support the staff and the other recommendations that were made regarding the Highway 5 Task Force . I believe that we should eliminate the option as it relates to the retail on the corner , so I 'd be in support of that . Batzli : Okay . Anything else? Ledvina : No . Emmings : First off I think , I agree with everybody that it 's good for the city to have this developed as a PUD . My overall reaction to what they brought back is that it 's surprisingly similar to what they brought last time . I see that there are some differences but it looks a lot more the same than it does different . And I don 't think it does much of a job at taking into account the comments we made last time . It is a concept plan and that 's very broad and you read us the stuff that we 're supposed to take into account but there 's a lot of specifics on this concept plan . And there 's a lot of specifics on this concept plan that I can 't accept , and those specifics are part of this drawn plan and I don 't accept them . Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 54 Aanenson: I agree with you . We certainly have those same concerns . Emmings: It may be that they should have been left off . — Aanenson: Right . Exactly . I see some of these lines being shifted based on topography and the like . _ Emmings: Maybe they should have been left off but they 're there and I couldn 't live with that . Aanenson: Footprints of buildings , that could have all been left off . We just needed the lot lines . Exactly . Emmings: If they want to do anything close to what 's on here , I couldn 't be for it because the grading , I 'm totally untrained in this but when I look at the contour lines on the plan , there are so many lines inside some of those spaces that you know the grading is going to be dramatic and it 's going to ruin that piece of property , in my opinion. They showed us a picture of the Opus Center in Minnetonka that you do voluntarily and I don 't see those same ideas brought to this plan . I — think what you did in Minnetonka is beautiful and I don 't see you doing it here . So while I applaud you for that effort , I wish you 'd come and do it here . In Minnetonka you have patches of things distributed _ throughout and here you 've got it , all the green is shoved down to the corner into the wetland that you can 't use anyway . So I don 't see how , and maybe you have a response but I don 't see how you brought those concepts or that feeling or whatever it is to this big parcel of propert; here . My specific comments with regard to Lot 20 would be , oh! I have question first for Kate . When we did that other business park we did here tonight . Chanhassen Business Center PUD amendment . We talked at — great lengths on that about the fact that we were butting the industrial up against residential and we had to have a big buffer yard and we came up with the buffer yard concept and we put it in our ordinance and if _ I remember right , it called for 100 feet between those conflicting uses of trees and area that would be left in a natural state . Why don 't we see that here on Lot 20? Aanenson: I raised that issue with Mr . Krauss . For some reason it got put between Mr . Paulson 's property and this development which I 'm not sure makes a lot of sense because if he wants to be included in this PUD and become the same ultimate zone , that 's not where you want the buffer . You want to buffer to the east . We can certainly put that in as one of the development standards . Emmings: It seems to me that all sides of that thing need a buffer yard and maybe the whole thing ought to be but I could see that with a buffer yard , if and maybe a professional office building that 's used just you — know , during kind of 9:00 to 5:00 hours that you could put a use in there of that kind . I don 't know if there 's a market for it but I don 't think that that would be , with that kind of buffering and that kind of use , I don 't think it would be a horrible neighbor there . But anything more intensive than that I 'd sure be opposed to . With rega•-d to Lot 1 , the big one on the corner , is there a pond comtemplated right on the corner? Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 55 — Aanenson: There is a wetland . A small wetland right now . Emmings: It 's a wetland? Aanenson: Right . Emmings: Well that 's good because whatever happens out there , the corner — has to be left very open it seems to me and that 's real essential . I agree there should be no retail , even at this conceptual stage we shouldn 't even be considering retail . The idea of a corporate — headquarters , one building that would sit there certainly appeals to me more than anything else . With regard to condition one , I don 't think it says anything and that bothers me . It says the Highway 5 Task Force shall further define the uses permitted adjacent to the Arboretum . So — what? First of all I think you ought to add , and along Highway 5 . Not just adjacent to the Arboretum but also all the way along Highway 5 . You know that sounds like an instruction to the Highway 5 Task Force . It doesn 't really say that Opus has to do anything so that bothers me . I guess somehow they have to be subject to those recommendations or conform to the recommendations but you can 't just say , you can 't just tell us — what the Task Force is going to do because it doesn 't make sense in this context . I don 't have problems with the other specific ones . I don 't understand condition 11 . That the City Council should consider gaining input on the design of Highway 5 and 41 . — Aanenson: That 's the landscape feature . The gateway kind of treatment . Including that maybe . Emmings: Well when you say gaining input , you want the City Council to have input or they want input to the City Council? I didn 't understand _ what it says . What did it say? Aanenson: Paul wrote that one . Emmings: Oh sure . Dump on the guy who 's not here . Aanenson: If I can try to explain what I think he meant . I believe what — he 's saying is that this may be something that we 've used tax increment money for and kind of create a gateway treatment . Emmings: That 's fine but again. Aanenson: Maybe they should come up with a design . Not Opus come up with a design feature but maybe we should have another consultant . The — City Council fund that or the HRA fund that . Come up with a design element . — Emmings: That 's fine but again , that 's an instruction to the City Council or a suggestion to the City Council and what this should say as a condition to their proposal is that they would have to conform to it or be subject to it or . Aanenson: Certainly . Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 56 Emmings: Okay . Can you tell me just , and you probably wouldn 't want to if you could but I don 't know . Can you give me a ballpark idea of what — Lot 20 is worth . I mean nothing that I 'd ever hold you to , I 'm just curious . What 's a lot like that worth? Michele Foster : As an industrial site or? Emmings: Ah , okay . Michele Foster : Just to throw out probably an average type of number . Maybe $1 .00 per square foot with the buyer assuming whatever special assessments there might be . — Emmings: And then as an office building . Now when you say a square foot , are you talking about the building that 's on it or the land itself? Michele Foster : No . . .for the land . They pay $1 .00 per square foot of land . Emmings: And then is the value as office , if there were a market . Michele Foster : That 's the problem , there isn 't . Quite frankly there is- not . s.not . Emmings: And as homesite of course it 's much lower I take it . Michele Foster : You 're talking about a single family homesite , yeah . I 'm not a residential developer and never have been so I 'm not sure I can help you out there . — John Uban: Paul Steiner , who is Steiner Koppleman does a lot of single family development . We did talk just briefly about residential potentia._ on the site and he said he would never put single family there . . .on that particular lot . Emmings: Because of it 's exposure to what 's going to be east of it? — Because certainly what 's west of it . John Uban: . . .yeah . You know , if for some reason in Chaska , industrial _ development had not come up from the south , we would be looking at other land patterns there but it 's how Chaska has really , al:. the way along TH 41 , brought their development right up to the edge . We really have to address that and it really continues to the north . -" Emmings: So when something bad happens somewhere else we ought to just keep on doing it . No , I know what you 're saying . It 's there and we have— to recognize it . John Uban: There 's nothing bad about industrial development . Emmings: There 's something bad about it when it bumps into the Arboretum . That is something bad . There we need . John Uban: It doesn 't have to be . Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 57 Emmings : Well I guess maybe that 's a matter of personal opinion . But if we say it 's bad when development like the weather station which is very non-intensive , and pretty low profile and everything else butts up against or has residential neighbors across the street and we require 100 foot buffer yard there to make sure that those uses are separated , and certainly you 'd want at least that much separation between an industrial use and the Arboretum wouldn 't you? I mean that conflict is greater to me than the residential industrial one . This one is greater . In my mind . So anyway , those are my comments . Batzli : Okay , Joan . Ahrens : I agree with Steve that the more this changes the more it stays the same . . . I couldn 't approve even a concept plan looking at this concept plan because it 's just too specific and I don 't like what I see . West of TH 41 , I don 't understand , I 'm not sure we finished the discussion . I know this is guided in our Comprehensive Plan as commercial industrial . That doesn 't mean we have to rezone it . Aanenson: I believe you do . You could recommend denial . That 's what _ it 's guided for . Ahrens: I know it 's guided for that but does that mean we have to do it? Can 't we just leave it A-2? Aanenson: I don 't believe so . Emmings : Well now wait a minute . John Uban: If I could interject . The law , the State law really mandates that the city rezone it 's property in conformance with it 's comprehensive plan . So when you create a comprehensive plan , approve it , approve the Metropolitan Council , that then is the guide for your rezoning . And the law technically says that within 6 months of doing a comprehensive plan you 're supposed to rezone all that property . Most cities don 't do that . They wait until a development comes through . But that is the guide for rezoning and the city has to then change . . . Ahrens: What if we don 't rezone it? Will we get penalized? Aanenson : That 's up to whatever challenge they want to take . Michele Foster : I think the city would be ultimately challenged . Basically it will have taken the value of the property that was once there and taken it away without compensation . Ahrens : But we can amend our comprehensive plan? Aanenson: Yes . That 's a possibility , yes . Ahrens: I think it was probably a mistake in the first place for us to ever designate this as commercial industrial . Emmings : It was your idea wasn 't it? Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 58 _ Ahrens: You have such a good memory . I mean who cares if Chaska has industrial coming up from the south . That doesn 't mean that we have -' to . . . I think this should stay A-2 and whatever we have to do to accomplish that , I think that we should do that . Aanenson: Are you talking the whole thing or west of TH 41? Ahrens: West of TH 41 . I know this is not a specific plan John and I don 't know if this was your idea or not . What my little public policy statements are , but whoever told you that a daycare should go inbetween z service station and whatever Lot 20 is supposed to be . Industrial . Is way off base . I mean do you really think a daycare should go in — inbetween uses like that? John Uban: Daycares go actually where . Ahrens: Do you think? John Uban : Yes . -' Ahrens: You think that 's appropriate? John Uban: Yes . Emmings: We 've got one down in our industrial park over here . Ahrens: I think it 's absolutely crazy . There 's one right near Eden Prairie Center . You drive by there and these little kids are out playing in this little tiny area . — John Uban: It 's a business that where the people want . . . Ahrens: I realize that planners can justify this . I personally think that as public policy that that 's a bad use of space . A terrible place to put a daycare . . . Those are my comments . Batzli : Okay , thank you . Kate , on Lot 7 , is that actually part of the Wrase 's property right now? Aanenson: Correct . Batzli : But they 're showing it as , we , the City or they , somehow — purchased it and put a water tower up , correct? Aanenson: Yes . It 's our understanding that the policy is , since we need the water tower , and maybe Dave came help me out with that , is that the — City would be involved as far as some compensation as far as the establishment of that water tower . - Batzli : But given the fact they have absolutely no underlying agreement with that lot owner , you know , why would we put it the-e as opposed to somewhere in the area? Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 59 Aanenson: It may be beneficial to them because they would to stay on the property . And if the City does do a condemnation for the whole piece , it gives them a security as to what the value of their property is that they bought out . They have a life estate and their first choice is to stay there . So that may be acceptable . We 've met with them and that is an acceptable option . They 're not sure that 's what they want to do at this point . Emmings: Spend the rest of their days living under a mushroom . Kind of neat . Aanenson: There 's a concern , you know how close would be the house and if they did decide to pursue that , the next step would be to see how close it would be . Batzli : But why on a conceptual plan wouldn 't that be shown on their property rather than on someone elses that they have absolutely no interest in the land yet? I don 't understand that . Michele Foster : The history behind that particular location is that , when we first brought our plan into the city during the summer , that is the highest point of the property which is where the water tower wants to be located . And the engineering staff directed us towards that location . We had some concerns about that . Number one , because there will be some grading that occurs there and we 're not sure yet if it will be the highest ground . And we thought that there might be some better locations . As you recall , in our last plan we showed it on the southerly part of Lot 1 , right across the street from the Arboretum and they objected to that . We decided that we still needed , therefore we needed to move it to respond to the Arboretum and we needed to get it towards where we thought the highest ground was going to be and we felt that that might be a solution . It can still go somewhere else but we keep bringing in proposals and everybody says no and if we can get some direction on where they would like it , we 'd be happy to work with that but we 've been . Batzli : Well you understand my objection that you 're not putting it on _ property you own . You 're putting it on , you put it on Lot 1 where you 're not going to develop and then you put it on a piece of property you don 't own . That was my objection . Michele Foster : We felt that there may be a way to be able to allow that residential use to stay and put the water tower there and still eventually have a developable parcel if that property owner decided to move . If we need to move it somewhere else , we will . That 's not a big issue . But we 've been trying to respond to a number of multiple objectives . Obviously we 're not succeeding so , we 're trying to respond . _ The primary concern of the engineering department is it 's got to be on the highest part of this development , and we ' ll continue to keep trying to find that . Batzli : No , I understand that and my comments will be much more general . My concern was the location and I appreciate the fact that you 're trying to work something out with those people . I appreciate the fact that in fact one of our conditions is that you work out the two exemptions Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 60 because I think that 's important rather than build around the way it currently looks . I don 't like the way that that exemption sits there . — So I hope that that can be worked out . We 've kind of beat this concept versus some detail in here to death and I 'm sure that we had a hand in telling the applicant what they should bring in . I 've sat on this _ Commission where we 've seen conceptual plans that were sketchier and we wanted more information . This is a real chicken or egg kind of thing . I 'm sure we wouldn 't have liked it had we not seen anything on these lots . And now that we see something , we don 't like it . I don 't know what we do about that . In general , not looking at the buildings and where the parking lots are necessarily going but the roadway through here and the general layout , at least east of TH 41 . Assuming for a minute — they don 't grade it flat , and if you just ignored the contours which is something that Mr . Olin has told us we can 't do , I think I 'd like it . But we can 't ignore those and then I wonder whether , as part of our PUD , _ we 're kind of protecting some of that character of the land . I don 't know from this and I don 't know if you guys know or if that 's something that you 're going to be taking a look at down the line . I think that 's part of our uncomfort level . Is that by what our fear is , is if we — approve this tonight and we see 15 contour lines running through a parking lot and we 're wondering , my God , what are we telling them they can do out there . And that 's something that , I think that 's what we 're — really hesitating about doing tonight and I 'm not sure what we can say about that other than we have a contoured piece of property and we 're putting a big development on it and while it 's conceptual , we seem to need some sort of assurances that you 're not going to go out there and dc— that . And I don 't know how we do that at this stage . But I think you know what our fears are from listening to us tonight . I don 't know if that helps or not . I think west of TH 41 , I agree there needs to be — buffering . My initial hope , after last week , was that Lot 20 would somehow come back as a real low intensive use or parkland or something creative out of all of this so that we get a buffer and a large buffer . _ Now obviously we 've just heard that a $1 .00 a square foot , we 've got to use the building alone for 77 ,000 feet . How many acres is Lot 20? Aanenson : 9 .6 . Batzli : Yeah , so that 's a lot of bucks . I don 't know how we 'd do it . I mean I would , the ultimate best use from my perspective of that particular parcel is open space . As just a big open space buffer to the Arboretum , and having the two , Lots 21 and 22 be not necessarily supporting commercial . I tend to agree a little bit , depending on what we do with Lot 20 , I supposed there 's some sense , well Lot 19 isn 't connected to it . I was going to say . If Lot 19 was connected down that way , then there might make sense that it would support the multi family housing . But currently all it does is support Lot 20 , unless you include- trips back and forth across the highway . And it is in':eresting why that wasn 't necessarily put on the east side of the road . I think I like Lot 19 better than it used to be . My hopes have been dashed though on Lot — 20 . They really have . I don 't know what we can do about that . Aanenson : Brian , if I could just add to that . Mr . Paulson had spoke tonight that he wanted to be included . Maybe that allows them some more flexibility if they can work something out . Pushing something back . I 'r Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 61 not sure , pulling it away . I don 't know , gives them more acreage . I don 't know if it helps or not . Michele Foster : If I could ask for clarification on that . I heard Mr . Paulson say that he wants to stay where he is but he also wants to be included as part of the PUD and I don 't know what , I don 't know how to do that . To me those are two conflicting positions and if the Planning Commission could give us some direction . Quite frankly I don 't know what to do with that . Those two different messages . And I suspect he doesn 't want a public street put in if he has to pay the assessments on it , because that 's not pretty and if I were in his position , I wouldn 't want to do that either . So if by saying he wants to be part of the PUD , does that mean he 's acknowledging that he wants to be industrial someday . Because that 's one , that 's certainly an alternative . But I don 't understand and we need some clarification on why . . .part of the PUD but wanting to stay residential . If somebody could comment on that . Conrad: Well we can 't . Do you know what you 're asking for? Paul Paulson: I think so . I think there might be a little bit confusion maybe by my opening remarks . I intended to just give a perspective on the way we 're looking at the development . How we got out there thinking , wanting to get away from the city and being out in the country and thinking that we were far enough to escape development for a while . But now it 's just all around us . Now I do believe I know what I 'm asking for when I ask to be part of the PUD and that means that our property would become part of the development and that eventually we would have to leave in order for that development to occur . I don 't know if that necessarily means that we need to leave immediately or if we could be included in the PUD and then move , have the opportunity down the road at some point when we do feel like we move out , to at that point have it developed . Does that help? Ahrens : But that could bring development closer to the Arboretum . Aanenson : Well yes and no . I mean it gives you a bigger piece to buffer too . Maybe get a bigger piece of residential . I don 't know . Conrad : How do you want to buffer the Arboretum? We 're buffering a buffer basically . Ahrens : I don 't think it should be developed . Conrad: But the zoning right now says it can be . Ahrens: Yeah . I think I was opposed to that all along though . Batzli : We 're correcting the record as we go . Conrad: We have nothing to stand on . It 's not , I don 't even know that that 's reality . Ahrens: That what is? Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 62 — Conrad: That going to A-2 is a reality . Ahrens: We don 't know that but , we don 't know that sitting here tonight And we may need to get a definitive answer from Roger about what we can do . But why eliminate that as a possibility if it may in fact be a — possibility? Just because we don 't have that answer tonight . Conrad: I don 't think it 's a possibility . Ahrens: Well you know , you may not think so but it may be a possibility It doesn 't do us much good though to say yes , it 's not a . . . Conrad: I guess , I don 't want to stay here all night on some of this stuff but , I think the best thing we can do is try to get some kind of consensus . I 'm not sure if we have the right 11 motions here . Again , what these people want to hear is some consensus of our opinion that the; go away with at least 4 people giving them , 4 out of the 6 of us , giving them some direction . In my mind we 've given them some pretty good direction in terms of what we want on the corner . I think we were prett;— consistent there . I don 't know that we 've given them direction in terms of our overall perspective east of TH 41 . Is there consensus on that? Do we like what we see in general but we 're tied into some specifics? — Emmings: Well what is there in general? Conrad: The road layout . Emmings: That 's it right? Conrad: The road layout , you 've got a corner that 's going to be developed . You 've got a park area and wetlands . You can smuggly say that but that 's not bad . You take a look at what 's been done around the — wetlands , that 's a really nice area . Again , there are some physical constraints to developing this and it 's not a horrendous . Now there may be some things that Matt 's pointed out in terms of some topography issues that I don 't know yet . But I 'm just trying to get us to make some , give them some clues . You know if this is totally unacceptable , then they should hear that . If it 's something that we feel a little bit comfortable with , we have to give them that direction too . Michele Foster : Mr . Chairman? Batzli : Yes . Michele Foster : If it would be helpful to the Commission and if there was a desire to add a condition regarding the grading and that at the next level of approval where the grading plans would be brought forward , that if you wanted to direct us that that plan needed to . . .aren 't probably exactly the right words but that grading plan should respect to — the greatest extent possible the existing topography so that we have that direction and that you do then have the ability to evaluate us against that direction when we come back? I don 't know if that gives you any assurances but we would much rather come away with an approval with those Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 63 kinds of conditions so that we know what you want us to do when we come back . Is that going to help? Aanenson: That 's a standard condition in the next phase . Again , I agree with what Peter said . There is some concerns about this . You know the grading . We certainly have that concern and that 's what you do in the next step and if it doesn 't meet , just like when Lundgren came in , we shifted the road . We shifted the lot configuration because that 's the definite objective with the PUD is to preserve that and we don 't have that level of detailed information . Yeah you can cursory look at this and say , there 's some problems there but we want to see the depth and breadth of that . And that 's certainly a standard requirement in the next level . Emmings: The flip side of that , what you just said is though , if I were the developer and you gave me concept approval here with this plan in front of me and I came in , and you said well . You can 't do this because it 's going to require too much grading and it 's going to destroy the site as we know it , I 'd say well why the hell didn 't you tell me back then . You saw where I was going to put a building and you approved the concept plan anyway . We hear that kind of thing all the time . Now maybe you can tell me we won 't hear that from Opus , I don 't know but . Aanenson : But we also have regulations as far as street grades and those kind of issues . Emmings: Then why are the buildings on here? Why are they there? ** , you know you 'd think after , it 's probably a good thing I 'm getting off the Commission because after I 've been this long I ought to know what 's going on and I really don 't . I mean I 've looked at a lot of concept plans and this one really kind of baffles me . Aanenson : I guess the last time we came with the Lundgren one we got the big lecture on there was too much detail on the Lundgren one . So now we 're trying to go backwards and now the comfort level 's not there . So we 're kind of in a bind . I agree . Emmings: And I 'm the first one to say , there on Lot 1 you 're not showing me anything and that scares the ** out of me so I don 't want to approve it . Aanenson: Well they showed you the four options . Emmings : No , I know . I realize it 's contradicting . Aanenson: We have the same concern . It 's what is the appropriate level? We have the same concern . Emmings: But I guess to restate my objection to this concept plan , overall is this . This concept plan shows me how these people are thinking about developing this property in a general way . And I don 't like it . And I think it betrays the principles that they 've used to such good advantage in Minnetonka , and if they can 't do at least as good out Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 64 here as they did in Minnetonka , then I 'm not interested . That 's where I stand . Conrad: But then specifically why is it you don 't like it? What is it that you don 't like about this? Emmings: Because they haven 't , the principles that we saw on the plan , on the Minnetonka plan showed nice curvy roads . Showed pockets of protected natural area that were left in trees and this one is buildings from one to the other except down in one corner . It 's very , you 've got trees along the street , so what . This doesn 't look anything like or doesn 't have anything like the feel of the Minnetonka project . So I can 't tell you specifically but I can tell you conceptually why I don't — like it and that 's what we 're doing . The specifics , trey don 't . On the one hand we 're being told not to look at the specifics but still it tells us how they 're thinking about this property and I don 't like it . — Conrad: You would break it up? Emmings: I don 't know . I 'm not a planner . I know that this doesn 't look like the Opus Center in Minnetonka . Ledvina: I have a problem with the way this is laid out because when my — idea of a concept plan is something that 's feasible and I can 't tell if this is feasible . Then I also look at a goal of a PUD is to be sensitive to the natural features of the parcel , and I can 't say that and if it 's not feasible and doesn 't meet one of the basic goals , or I don 't know if it meets one of the basic goals , I 'm not even at square one yet . Emmings: But I think maybe this ought to get moved on . Maybe it 's time for the City Council to take a whack at this , whether we 're interested oY not . I think we 've beaten this to death and I don 't think they could come back with another plan that wouldn 't get the same batch of comments — that they 've already gotten . Personally , so I think we ought to move it on to the City Council . Either with an approval or no•. . And because maybe we wind up getting some direction back from City Council too that _ way . Conrad: Well we 're still waiting . As I see the repor.. , we 're waiting for this Highway 5 Task Force stuff to happen . Batzli : I don 't see that at all . Conrad: Don 't you? Batzli : No . I don 't think the Task Force is going to . Conrad : Well we 're waiting for the Task Force to say here 's what some uses can be and here 's how we buffer the Arboretum and we 're waiting for Park and Rec to tell us some stuff . — Emmings: The Task Force is going to make recommendations but won't have any authority . That 's . . .here and the City Council . ,,,. Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 65 Conrad: Right , but aren 't we waiting for some of that? Emmings: Well you 're going to have to wait 6 months for that you know . I think . I don 't think it 's fair to them to just let the thing sit here . I think it ought to go up to City Council . Who knows , they may love it . Ahrens: This is the same conversation we had when we looked at this thing before . Conrad: See I wasn 't here the first time . This is brand new . Batzli : This is identical . Ahrens: This is ridiculous to have to go through the same discussion over and over again at 11 :30 at night especially . I mean it 's . . . Erhart : I 'm going to make a motion . Emmings : Do it . Batzli : Okay , well let me before . Conrad: . . .basically there 's a lot of controversy to the whole thing . Matt , you don 't like it . Steve , you don 't like it . Brian , I 'm not sure "- where you 're at . Batzli : I like the eastern side , I could live with provided they contour . The western side I don 't really like . Erhart: What you 're approving is a concept plan . Does that mean that the streets can 't move? Batzli : They can move . Erhart : Does it mean that the lot lines are locked in today? Aanenson: No . Erhart: You 're not committing to anything by approving a concept plan so I don 't know what we 're arguing about . We 're approving that we want a PUD . That we want this all planned as a whole . That 's it . Emmings: That I 'll vote for . Ahrens: We 're just approving this should be a PUD? Aanenson: And giving them some general directions on the types of uses and give them an idea of where to go . Ahrens: That there should be a road in there and some buildings? -' Erhart : No , we 're not even approving the buildings . Ahrens : Simple . Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 66 Erhart : It has been simple . That 's why we can 't get the consensus here because we 're not being asked to give any . Other than we want this developed as a whole concept . Batzli : Well, but there 's a certain degree of when we do give them conceptual approval of , I think there is a certain amount of general layout that we 're telling them that we 're approving . Erhart : I think we did it in the Minutes . .- Batzli : Okay . Well , my only comments because Ladd cut me off a little earlier . I agree that the Task Force should have input but I don 't want to wait for them . And also , I think we should delete the shopping center and on number 11 , I still don 't know what it is we 're doing but I 'll wait for Steve to make that motion . Emmings: Why don 't you make the motion and then I 'll amend it . I reall) haven 't gotten prepared here much . Erhart : You 're always prepared . Emmings: I didn 't think about it . Ahrens: Is anybody besides me interested in keeping that area west of TF 41 . . .? Emmings: You 're outvoted . Conrad: I really , that brings up a real important issue . What are we _ doing to the west side of TH 41? Are we close? Batzli : We 're screwing it up . Conrad: Are we close or are we , do they need some guidance? And Joan , you have some guidance . Say , keep it A-2 . I don 't pe•-sonally believe that that 's legal or that we could stand behind that so I 'm not _ supporting that . But I 'm serious about what should we be telling the applicant . Batzli : Steve said buffer yards . I said open space , and get rid of the — supporting commercial . I didn 't hear any suggestions -From that end of the table . Conrad: So we buffer the buffer . So to protect the Arboretum we 're going to put 100 feet in between . Erhart: Of more Arboretum . Conrad: I really have a , that just loses me on what we 're doing or how we 're trying to do that . Do you want a giant berm? Batzli : No . We don 't block the view . We just , we don't put it right on the edge . We don 't build up to the edge . Planning Commission Meeting _ December 2 , 1992 - Page 67 — Emmings : Remember the old King Kong movie , that big wall they had? Well , that 's an idea . — Peter Olin: I think , what I suggested was that buffer . . . I think a commercial with a lot of controls on it , or I mean industrial , with a lot of control could be a fairly good buffer . As long as it doesn 't come right up to the border . But commercial development is not a buffer . I — think those are the kind of considerations that should be given to that site . It doesn 't necessarily have to be parkland . That would be great but . . . Conrad: But Peter , the multi family on Lot 219 , that 's pretty much away from . Peter Olin : See what you 're doing is creating a whole group of people living near us then who then start taking over the Arboretum as their land . Single family , just a few people , we can deal with that but when — you start getting crowds of people , and again we have no idea what . . . Erhart : The Arboretum is fenced isn 't it? Peter Olin : Well we do have a fence along the one side there . . . Batzli : Okay , well we 've stalled while you 've drafted your motion Steve . Emmings : Well no I didn 't . I was talking to Joan . I 'd try this if you gave me a couple minutes . I don 't really know if I want to vote for the — motion . Erhart : Well let me try here . Michele Foster : Mr . Chairman? . . .when you look at , everyone seems to talk about how intense the property is being developed and we were just doing some quick calculations and also some comments were made about how this is not consistent with what we 've done in Minnetonka . The best that we can do , and the reason that the buildings are on there is one of the things that we needed to address in the plan process is intensity of — development . So we have . . .some buildings down there to try and figure out how much development can this site support . So the building coverage that we are looking at is approximately in the neighborhood of 22% to 25% _ building coverage . That is very consistent with the Opus II development . In most communities building coverage is going to be anywhere on industrial property , 30% to 35% . I think if you approve this plan as it was , and nobody 's asking you to approve the exactly building and parking — because it 's not going to get built that way anyway . We all know that . That you would be approving a development with about that kind of . . .and that 's very consistent with the kind of business parks we have developed in . . . That 's what we would take away as the direction of the Planning Commission . That that kind of intensity is acceptable . Now maybe it 's not but I don 't think that , I mean I think that that is a very reasonable use of the property in the sense that it 's . . . Part of the problem is looking at this in such a small scale , it tends to . . .the naked eye what is really going to happen to that property . If direction needs to be given on grading , then give us direction on grading . With respect to Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 68 what happened in Opus II for those natural features . The difference is , other than with respect to the topography , a lot of natural features in Opus II like ponds and woods , are spread out throughout the whole property . Unfortunately , they aren 't spread out all over this property . There aren 't ponds and stands of woods all over this property . If there were and if there are some that we are respecting , we will respect those — But it 's a different piece of property and where there are significant natural features , we are respecting those and that 's what we are looking for approval for what we understand the direction of the Planning _ Commission to be . I think there are some very basic perameters here tha'. I would contend are very consistent with the quality of development that we have done in other communities that we would take away the direction from the Planning Commission if we were allowed to proceed . We aren 't — going to take away that we can have exactly that building with that parking layout . We understand we need to do more detail . . .more detail water retention studies . There 's a lot more work to be done . We 're just— at the sketch plan process and all we 've been able to accomplish . Conrad : Steve in your motion , are you going to address the uses on the west side of TH 41 as well as buffer? Have you thought about that? Erhart : I was going to put those in my motion . Emmings: What is this , lobbying? Conrad : Yeah . I want to make sure you do that . I think the applicant _ asked that we tell them . Emmings: There are some of these things that I feel strongly about and I feel like I can address them . There are some I don 't know where to go — and that one doesn 't . Erhart : Have you got a motion? Emmings : Yeah . So I think that to the extent that I missed something like that , you can amend my motion . I guess what I 'm going to do is , _ after expressing my great displeasure with this plan and everything else I 'm going to make a motion to recommend conceptual approval . Now , to Gateway West Business Park PUD #92-6 as shown on the site plan dated September 8 , 1992 . Aanenson: It should say , excuse me , November 4th . Emmings : Of course , I knew that . Dated November 4 , 1992 subject to the following conditions . We ' ll take the first condition will state that there 's a great discomfort with the plan that 's been presented to us but based on the remarks that were just made by Michele Foster , in that — they 're not asking for anything that the plan shows specifically and their willingness to work with the City to protect the topography and natural features of this property , I think we can go forward with this as— a PUD . That 's going to be a condition and that incorporates all of her comments and their willingness to work on this with us . The second one will combine the old 1 and 10 and just say that the Highway 5 Task Force is continuing to work out appropriate land uses adjaceit to the Arboretur Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 69 and all along Highway 5 and at the intersection of TH 5 and TH 41 . Opus should continue to be part of that process and take their recommendation seriously . The conditions that are in here that were numbered 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 and 7 will stay as they are but the numbers will have to be changed . Number 8 , it says delete the shopping center . I want it understood . That should say , delete the shopping center or any other retail option for Lot 1 . The old 9 can stay as it is but would have to be renumbered . Number 11 , I guess what we should say there is that the City Council and the Highway 5 Task Force , as well as the Planning Commission , are looking at the design of the Highway 5 from TH 41 intersection area and I think Opus should be part of that process and again take into consideration and take seriously any recommendations that are made and try to work them into their plan . With regard to development west of TH 41 , any use on Lot 20 will have to be very non-intrusive . Very non-intensive and they should design a buffer yard at least on the north and west and probably also on the south side of it to keep any activity on that lot and any lots to the east as separate as possible from the residential and Arboretum uses that are around it . With regard specifically to grading . It 's the intention of the Planning Commission , or it 's the intention of the City to protect the natural topography of the site . That 's my motion . Erhart : Okay , I ' ll second it . Batzli : Discussion . Erhart : Yeah , I 'd like to add another , one more . The last one that you had . 11 . Okay , one more that Lot 19 , while it 's shown as office , it appears that Lot 19 , we 're expecting Lot 19 to be the highest quality building on that , and in particular as shown on here that it 's an office only . Not office warehouse . Emmings : Are you talking about 19? Batzli : 19 is multi family . Erhart : Oh okay . I thought I read it was office . Batzli : It was on the old plan . If you looked at the box in the staff report , it was still listed as what it was originally . Erhart : Okay . Are we satisfied that we 're not going to have a warehouse there because that 's what I was driving to . That 's a real unique spot and that 's the one that has the most exposure to the Arboretum . Emmings: Yeah , because the land really goes down there . You can see straight across from there . Erhart : So we 're clear that we 're not going to get a warehouse there? Ahrens : No . Emmings: I guess unless you added it , you 'd better add it . Erhart : Well that 's what I was trying to get to . I thought that was an Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 70 office and now it 's an apartment so , if you 're interested , I 'll throw out an amendment to clarify that that has to be the highest quality , either multi family or office but that warehouse is not acceptable on that lot . Emmings: Yeah , I 'd second that . Batzli : Any other discussion? Resident: I 'm confused whether you 're referring to Lot 19 or Lot 20? Erhart: On Lot 19 . The one on TH 41 there . Resident: You 're comfortable with multi family there? -' Emmings: Not 20 . Batzli : Well his motion was that it either has to be multi family or office . Erhart: Well let 's talk about it a second. Why wouldn't we want it multi family? Now you 're going to get garages . Oh well , that could be incorporated in the building . Emmings: I think it 's a tough site to do anything . Erhart: I could certainly envision a very nice quality office building _ there . Emmings: I think you 're more interested that it not be , what I was understanding you to say , I thought you were more interested that there — not be a bunch of trucks going in there and it not be warehouse . Erhart: Overhead doors , I mean from any direction . Mrs . Dungey: I have to say that as a resident at 105 West 82nd Street , just south of Lot 20 , the noise from Highway 41 that has evolved over the last 10 years because of all the development in Chaska , has become quite bothersome . I can 't imagine that anyone would want to live that close t< TH 41 , especially with all the other industrial and office stuff that 's being proposed . Emmings: But you know , that 's right where they build all those apartment buildings . You drive up and down the freeway and what do you see on each- side of you? Apartment buildings . And it 's hard to imagine who lives ii there and why but they rent them . Maybe to some extent , we don 't have a lot of multi family here and maybe this kind of development will require that we have some too . So it might not be totally out of the question . Erhart : Well , we 'll leave it as it is and let the Council tackle that one . We don 't want warehouses there . Batzli : Is there any other discussion? Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 71 Emmings moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend conceptual approval to Gateway West Business Park PUD #92-6 as shown on site plans dated November 4 , 1992 , subject to the following conditions: 1 . There 's a great discomfort with the plan that 's been presented , but based on the remarks made by Michele Foster , in that they 're not asking for anything that the plan shows specifically and their willingness to work with the City to protect the topography and natural features of this property , the Planning Commission will consider this as a PUD. 2 . The Highway 5 Task Force is continuing to work out appropriate land uses adjacent to the Arboretum and all along Highway 5 and at the intersection of TH 5 and TH 41 . Opus should continue to be part of that process and take their recommendation seriously . 3 . A future roadway alignment should be explored through the parcel east of the proposed development to see if the proposed roadway is compatible with adjacent topography . 4 . The applicant should be aware of the City 's water quality standard and 100 year flood volume storage requirements in accordance with the City 's subdivision code . 5. The applicant should coordinate with the City 's engineering consultant , Bonestroo , for location of the water tower site . 6. Completion of an Environmental Impact Statement . The applicant shall reimburse the City for the cost of a traffic study for the project . 7 . The applicant shall secure a Wetland Alteration Permit . 8 . Dedication of parkland as requested by the Park and Recreation Commission . 9 . Delete shopping center , or any other retail option from Lot 1 . 10 . Work to incorporate two exemptions ( Wrase and Paulson properties ) to the site . 11 . City Council and the Highway 5 Task Force , as well as the Planning Commission, are looking at the design of the Highway 5 from TH 41 intersection area and Opus should be part of that process and again take into consideration and take seriously any recommendations that are made and try to work them into their plan . 12 . With regard to development west of TH 41 , any use on Lot 20 will have to be very non-intrusive . Very non-intensive and they should design a buffer yard at least on the north and west and probably also on the south side of it to keep any activity on that lot and any lots to the east as separate as possible from the residential and Arboretum uses that are around it . Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 72 13 . With regard specifically to grading . It 's the intention of the Planning Commission , or it 's the intention of the City to protect the natural topography of the site . 14 . Lot 19 is expected to have the highest quality building, either office or multi family , and not warehouse . All voted in favor except Ahrens and Batzli and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2 . Batzli : Your reasons Joan . Ahrens: I think that we should look at the option of A-2 . . . Batzli : And I think I would rather have seen it , some of our concerns addressed here . I understand the applicant wanting to go to Council and I don 't know if we 've given them enough direction but I 'm not truly comfortable that , although like I said , I like it on paper but I don 't know if it fits on the land and that 's what scares me about approving it _ So if they can demonstrate it , I 've yet to be convinced . When does this go to Council? Aanenson: Next Council meeting is the 14th . I 'm not sure that you can make that . That meeting . Otherwise it will be January 11th . Just a matter of whether or not we get the Minutes back in time . That 's usually a pretty quick turn around . — Batzli : Thank you very much for coming in . MODIFICATION NO . 12 TO THE REDEVELOPMENT TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN . Batzli : Okay Todd , do you have a report? Give me 30 seconds . — Gerhardt : If you just want to approve the resolution , that 's fine too . I mean basically we 're making a modification for the three conditions that I 've outlined in our report . We have to modify the plan for the purchase of , or land write down for the Target development . And 2 , acquisition of Taco and Apple Valley . 3 , to spend funds for the conference center , recreational center . Batzli : So this conference center is going ahead? That 's really what I wanted to know about . Gerhardt : I ' ll update you on that . Right now , next Thursday at the HRA we ' ll be interviewing for architects . Leonard Parker , Hamel Green , the _ Alliance Group , and BWBR . Batzli : Okay , this is not a public hearing as I understand it . Is there any discussion? Ladd . — Conrad: No . I think it was well said . Planning Commission Meeting December 2 , 1992 - Page 73 — Emmings: I 'll move the Planning Commission approve the attached Resolution finding Modification No . 12 to the Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing Plan for Chanhassen Redevelopment Project consistent with the plans for development of the City of Chanhassen . Ledvina : Second . Was this evaluated by the HRA formally? Gerhardt : No . It will go next Thursday to them . . . Emmings moved , Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission recommend _ approval of the attached Resolution finding Modification No . 12 to the Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing Plan for Chanhassen Redevelopment Project consistent with the plans for development of the City of Chanhassen . All voted in favor and the motion carried . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli so noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated November 18 , 1992 as presented . Emmings moved , Erhart seconed to adjourn the meeting . All voted in favor and the motion carried . The meeting was adjourned at 11 : 55 p .m . Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CITYOF 11 AN BASSEN 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: December 24, 1992 SUBJ: Report from Director At the City Council meeting of December 14, 1992, the following actions were taken: 1. The City Council gave final reading and approval of the new city ordinance regulating protection and mitigation of impacts on wetlands. Staff continues to believe that this law is the best and most effective in the state and reasonably meets the no-net-loss goal guidelines. As we have indicated in the past, there are still portions of our ordinance that are deviant with the state law and proposed rules. On behalf of the city, I continue to participate in discussions that will hopefully reshape the rules or ultimately result in revised statutory language to address these deficiencies in the state program. I recently testified before an administrative law judge on behalf of the city and the Urban Wetlands Management Coalition. The coalition is a group in which the city participates and which I helped to organize. The group represents a variety of communities, watershed districts, developers, and land owners, all of whom support and agree with the goal of no-net-loss but are at significant odds with the legislation on how this is to be achieved. I was also one of the catalysts behind testimony given at the same hearing on behalf of the Legislative Committee of the Minnesota Chapter of the American Planning Association of which of I am Vice-President. I will keep you posted as to progress and/or problems as they develop. 2. Preliminary plat approval to subdivide 3.9 acres into 4 lots, Gateway First Addition, for Brad Johnson was approved on the consent agenda. 3. Authorization to contribute $500 of Surface Water Management Program Funds to the Urban Wetland Management Coalition was approved on the consent agenda. 4. Utility bill appeal, Statewide Auto Salvage, Laverne Vassar. Mr. Vassar had appeared before the City Council to pass contesting fees being charged to his property relative to t I PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Planning Commission December 24, 1992 Page 2 the city's Surface Water Management Program. He claimed to get nc benefit from the program and wanted the fee to be eliminated. The Council asked that this be researched by staff. Engineering and Planning Department Staff demonstrated that the fees being charged are consistent with what other similar properties in the city are paying. We indicated that there should be no expectation on the part of an individual property owner that they would receive direct benefit in the amount of or exceeding that which they contribute. Rather this program was designed to improve water quality for the entire community and that we all benefit equally. The City Council accepted the staff position and told Mr. Vassar that there would be no reduction in his Surface Water Utility fee. 5. Approve agreement with the City of Shorewood to provide utility service for a residential subdivision north of Koehnen Circle, Jeff Williams. In 1987, the City Council agreed to provide sewer and water service to a 3 lot subdivision in Shorewooc located north of Koehnen Circle. Due to local topographic conditions and the placement of utility lines, — it was not possible to serve this parcel at this time or in the foreseeable future from Shorewood. The proposal would have subdivided off 3 single family residential lots which would have accessed Koehnen Circle via a private drive. The p:-operty was never developed and has since been sold to an individual who wishes to develop 5 lots on a public street, gaining access and utilities from Chanhassen as originally requested. Staff looked into a variety of options with this, including annexation, and L.ltimately decided to recommend approval of an agreement between the two communities. The agreement provides for Shorewood's plowing of Koehnen Circle, utility service and billing to be provided directly from Chanhassen with lots in Shorewood to be assessed Surface Water Utility fees and related matters such as the need to construct surface water improvements as necessary to respond to additional demands due to this development. The lots each exceed normal Chanhassen standards and are consistent with Shorewood standards. The Council agreed with the staff proposal and approved the agreement. 6. Oak Ponds/Oak Hill located north of West 78th Street, between Kerber Boulevard and Powers Boulevard, Lotus Realty. The Planning Commission is quite familiar with this proposal having reviewed it on at least 3 occasions. Plans were further refined by the developer in several meetings with the residents since last reviewed by the Planning Commission. The residents continued to make appeals to the City Council relative to the perceived lack of sufficient separation between the homes and the project. The arguments made by the residents were really no different than that which you heard before. The developer walked into the meeting willing to accept the loss of 4 additional units that were in close proximity to the single family homes. Ultimately,the City Council approved the project deleting an additional 4 units from the project. Thus, there will be a total of 104 rental units and 105 owner occupied townhomes on the site. The project was approved with these revisions. CITY OF -$ ‘ ClIANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 �f (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director DATE: December 8, 1992 SUBJ: Request to Provide Surface Water Utility Funding to the Urban Wetland Management Coalition As the Council is aware, I have been representing both the City and the Minnesota League of Cities on the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BOWSR) Rules Committee which was charged with helping to draft the rules designed to implement the State's new "no-net-loss" wetland protection program. I have tried to keep the Council, Planning Commission and SWMP Task Force informed as to the progress or lack of progress in this area. Throughout, Chanhassen's position has been one of strong support for the no-net-loss goal and we are widely acknowledged as having the most comprehensive and effective program in the State. Unfortunately, the law that was approved by the State is seriously flawed. It was the result of two bills being rammed together at midnight, neither of which had significant input from local government. It treats urban property owners unfairly, significantly complicates the permit review procedure costing a great deal of time and money, is technically complex and often just plain wrong. One of my major concerns is that as currently drafted, the bill and enforcement rules seriously undermine a community's ability to responsibly plan for its own future. Local decisions on the value and function of wetlands and on the nature of a development design itself can be taken out of the local arena with decisions being made by bureaucrats in St. Paul. We are then obligated to carry out their decisions even if we disagree and may have exposure for financial damages suffered by a property owner in the process. Others and I have tried to have the rules rewritten but frankly the deck was stacked by the makeup of the committee and rule development process that favored the state agencies, agricultural organizations, and environmental groups. All the while, local governments like ours are already enforcing a no-net-loss policy. We are already meeting the goal without all the problems that will result when the law and rules are implemented. At the same time, I have spoken before several groups to encourage them to organize effective input aimed at getting the rules and statute rewritten. I's t41, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Don Ashworth December 8, 1992 Page 2 One of the efforts we have been involved with is a unique public/private partnership calling itself the Urban Wetland Management Coalition. There is a long and growing list of members including the cities of Eagan, Eden Prairie,Minnetonka, Woodbury, Plymouth, and Coon Rapids. In addition, there are at least three watershed districts, many developers including a number active in our community, as well as individual businesses and groups. The group has been in existence for only a few weeks and membership is growing rapidly. We are organizing to present a united front for the upcoming hearings on the rules (to be held on December 17) and later to obtain changes to the statute. We have all agreed to ask our respective councils, boards, etc. to support the group by supplying funds to pay for legal representation. Since there are so many members joining the group, the financial burden on any one member :is small. I raised this issue at the recent SWMP meeting and was authorized to request up to $1,000 of SWMP funds to support these efforts. At this time, I am recommending that we send $500 to the group. Staff also expects to be active in representing the City and the Coalition at the state hearing and in later legislative meetings so we are also participating with an "in-kind" contribution of staff time. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council authorize $500 of funding to support the efforts of the Urban Wetland Management Coalition. Funds are to be provided out of the SWMP program. pc: Urban Wetland Management Coalition Planning Commission Surface Water Management Task Force L itKIN LINDA H. FISHER — _0014-MAN Attorney at Law ` LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd. LINDGREN 1500 Norwest Financial Center Anoffic 5"t I AN 7900 Xerxes Avenue South Bloomington, Minnesota 55431 (612) 835-3800 MEMORANDUM TO: Attendees at November 19, 1992 Wetland Rulemaking Organizational Meeting and Other Interested Parties FROM: Linda Fisher - Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. DATE: November 24, 1992 RE: *Urban Wetland Management Coalition Mission Statement and Wetland Rulemaking Update As many of you know, public and private sector representatives met in our office on November 19, 1992 to discuss the formation of a wetland rulemaking coalition. There was considerable interest in the concept. A working group was formed to prepare a coalition mission statement and working principles, identify and prioritize issues, establish a rulemaking strategy and critical path, and assign work tasks for a December 17, 1992 public hearing. The working group met on November 23. It formulated the enclosed mission statement and principles for your review. The next meeting of the working group is scheduled for 8:00 a.m. on Thursday, December 3, 1992 at Larkin, Hoffman offices, 1500 Norwest Financial Center, 7900 Xerxes Avenue South, Bloomington, Minnesota. Anyone who is interested is encouraged to attend. On December 3, we plan to prioritize identified rulemaking issues, establish broad themes, and work on the nuts and bolts of the rulemaking effort, such as a critical path and alternatives to the proposed rules. The working group believes that a broad-based mix of public and private members is essential to the rulemaking effort. It distinguishes the group from other individual or single-purpose organizations that may have participated in the past. Accordingly, please advise me of your interest and that of other potential contributing members. We will report to you after the December 3 working group meeting. Thanks for your support! • "' The working group's first shot at the name of the public-private sector wetland rulemaking coalition. We're open, however, to other suggestions. E 'd 1= '0N '.L5/ZE:9I 25 ,VZ 'II (311.1) N.Lc1E NVEIS k KOEE URBAN WETLAND MANAGEMENT COALITION MISSION STATEMENT AND WORKING PRINCIPLES • Mission Statement It is the mission of the Urban Wetland Management Coalition to represent the inrerests of local governmental units and urban property owners, developers and businesses in meaningfully, reasonably, and economically pursuing no net loss of wetlands. Working Principles • Minimize duplicative wetland regulatory processes. • Maximize the ability of local governmental units to carry out long-1:erm land use and water resource planning. • Ensure that the regulatory burden and cost borne by permit applicants and local governmental units bears some relation to the magnitude of anticipated impacts. • Ensure that wetland rules are consistent with the authority provided in the Wetland Conservation Act. • Ensure that the technical aspects of the wetland rules are based on >ound scientific principles. • Ensure that all regulated parties are treated equally and fairly under the rules. r 'c i _. .' 'C 1 'IS,Zr:91 Z6n 't1 (if. ) NIXIE hldi ::0.: N1 V NO1' NAME: David Jessup NUMBER: 731-5791 NAME: Barry Johnson NUMBER: 731-5791 NAME: Ron Peterson NUMBER: 921-326B NAME: Mark Parranto NUMBER: 454-8943 NAME: Jeff Oliver NUMBER: 469-3815 NAME: Don Rye NUMBER: 924-2663 NAME: Rick Sathre NUMBER: 476-0104 NAME: Terry M. Forbord NUMBER: 473-7401 NAME: Rick Brasch NUMBER: 681-4612 NAME: Charles Pfeffer NUMBER: 425-2324 NA' : JoAnn Olsen NUMBER: 937-5739 - NAME: Ann Perry NUMBER: 939-8244 NAME: Chuck Dillerud NUMBER; 550-5060 NAME: NUMBER: NAME: NUMBER: NAME: NUMBER: NAME: NUMBER: NAME: NUMBER: NAME: NUMBER: NAME: NUMBER: NAME: NUMBER: NAME: NUMBER: NAME: NUMBER: IS/ 16:91 E5 NIXIE KY;LiOii RO_ JAMES r LARK,N LAIZ K IN. HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN. LTD. rAuL• 1LUMACTT RDOCR,L NO ALAN L KILDOW JACK/GALT ATTORNEYS AT LAW IULTNLEENM NEWMAN O RC r.NCTr LINDGREN MICHAEL B LEBARON OEAALD H PR.COE.L GREGORY C KORSTAD ALLAN t.N./LLIDAN OART A VAN CLOVE' JAMES C ERCASON SAN EL L.BCWLES LOw*RC.1 DRI3COLL ISOO NORWEST FINANCIAL CENTER 1000 N VLA•NOVICN OENC M rVLLCR TIMOTNTJ.M.CNANUS JON.,0 RuLLNCN ?ICO XER.LCS AVENVC SOUTH TIMOTNT.1 KEANE ADOLRT[ OD.LC DONNA L •OBACA i MA•vE• SLOOMINQTON.MINNESOTA 55431 MICHAEL W SCNL(T YICI,ACL A ■OOCRTODM CNA i CCR�.EArJ C ETEEN TELEPHONE 18121DELL 635. 600 LSA A DRAT JON.R OCATTIL CAN,A NLNNCKE LINDA N.riSu[N FAX(Dill..O-33 3 N ON K ■CCANSIODGC tNAISID►NEA J NAAN,9TMAL N ICPTHOMAS P CTOLTAIAN WILLIAM C GNirrITN •N JON Q'4N E 0. JENEL N AN JOHJ STCrr(NNAO[N .ION 11 0.ENL SWI ERLLWIRI MDANIEL w VOIS THOMAS J.rLTMN MARIERAA.RU111RI,1K JAMES 1 OIJINN JOHN R HILL TODD I.INCCMAN JAMES R MARTIN 1C *CCP THOMAS J.ILTMOUR J CNORDMC Y KAY V/[ MICHACLJ •YITN SM[RAILL I OMAN rNCDCRICI L NAUSEA 1'1 O(RALOL SECA MANY[ VON J OHN O LVNDOV19T D MARTIN DATLO NOLAN CILIOCRTC• — TMOMAIB NUM►HRCT.JR N ICNACL T MCNIM J ONN A CCTTEA' Or COJMiCL 5(ATAICC A ROTMWEIL(R WCNDC.L N.ANDCR:ON JOSCIN O,TI5 •IGNARSA MDNOIT[ ALIO ADM.TTCD IN In COMA N MULTIPLE MZSSAGE COVZR SHEET DATE: November 24 , 1992 PAGES : 44 (INCLUDING COVER SHEET) - FROM: LINDA FISHER FILE NO: 19, 596-OC) TO THE FOLLOWING: NAME: Michael Black NUMBER: 476-8532 NATE: Kelly J. Bopray NUMBER: 476-8532 NAME : Pat Groeper NUMBER: 932-4528 NAME: Joel G. Schilling NUMBER: 490-2150 NAME: Cliff Aichinger NUMBER: 779-0832 NAME: Jay Liberacki NUMBER: 739-9124 NAME: Deb Garross NUMBER: 447-4245 NAME: Byron Wallace NUMBER: 861-9749 NAME: Brian Wellman NUMBER: 942-8075 NAME: Jean Johnson NUMBER: 937-7411 NAME: Carl Jullie NUMBER: 937-7411 NAME: John Heald NUMBER: 890-381_5 NAME: Pamela Backer NUMBER: 646-2660 NAME: Lon Aune NUMBER: 431-8884 NAME: Clarkson Lindley NUMBER: 475-3686 '- I 'd ,.::' .._" 'O:� ,'U1 'ZS/1�•91 26 Ye 'll (EI) UCH NM1?iOU NIITII ) OP' LARKIN LINDA H. FISHER HOFFMAN Attorney at Law DALY & LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd. LINDGREN 1500 Norwest Financial Center Attorneys at Law 7900 Xerxes Avenue South Bloomington, Minnesota 55431 (612) 835-3800 BOARD OF WATER AND SOIL RESOURCES WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT RULEMAKING: SAMPLE OF ISSUES 1. Complexity of wetland regulatory process in Minnesota. Multiple agencies reviewing single proposal. Different standards, different staffs, different procedures. • DNR • Watershed District • Army Corps of Engineers • EPA • U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service • MPCA • Local Government • Board of Water and Soil Resources • Soil and Water Conservation District 2. Costly, time-consuming procedural hurdles • Within ten days of receipt of replacement plan application, copy of the application and invitation to submit comments mailed to any member of the public who requests a copy, soil and water conservation district, watershed district, county board, mayors of cities within the watershed, and commissioners of agriculture and natural resources. LGU publishes notice of application in general circulation newspaper. BWSR publishes notice in EQB Monitor. • LGUs have up to 60 days to make a decision. Decision is not effective until 30 days after a copy of the decision has been mailed to the EQB Monitor and to the same list specified for notice of publication. • The applicant, #nyerson who requests notice of the decision or 100 residents of the county in wTich a majority of the wetland is located may appeal the LGU decision to BWSR within 30 days. • BWSR has 60 days to decide the appeal. 3. Differential treatment of agricultural land use and residential or commercial land - use. • Exemptions • Wetland replacement ratio 4. Make-up and scope of authority of technical evaluation panel. 5. Mandatory wetland functions and values matrix analysis. Micro-managed approach. Questionable scientific basis. • Generally favors in-kind, on-site replacement, regardless of facts and circumstances. • Favors creation of isolated wetlands that cannot be properly managed. - Disincentive to produce higher quality wetland replacement. 6. Most storm water ponds do not qualify as wetland replacement. • Questionable scientific basis. • Contrary to city and watershed district water quality plans End policies. • Property .owner "pays" twice - wetland replacement and on-site detention pond. Disincentive to voluntary compliance with comprehensive drainage plans. 7. Overly restrictive (100 square foot peryear per landowner plus cumulative — impact), no-loss wetland determination. No practical applicability to "real life" development. • Compare to proposed regional conditions to Nationwide Permit 26 - 1/2 to 3 acres. 8. Minimal mitigation banking opportunities. Only restored (not created) wetlands are eligible for deposit in wetland bank. 9. Onerous sequencing/alternatives analysis. Lacks Corps concept of "practicability" in light of overall public purpose. 10. Does not include Corps public interest factors. 11. Does not include special area management plans or other opportunities for comprehensive analysis of critical development areas. 12. All wetlands are created equal. No prioritizing or classification of wetland resources 13. Indirect impacts of wetland regulation. • Urban sprawl • Increased housing costs • More property tax and special assessment appeals • Loss of property tax base 14. Constitutional issues CL , CC /Yc ( /Pee -1 Lal( (.1,0-116 • olip.__ CITY QF ,,. . . , , ,.., __, CHANHASSEN s'-, tk. ., 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: State Patrol Carver County Sheriff 's Department FROM: Scott Harr, Public Safety Director y DATE: December 9 , 1992 l SUBJ: Traffic Enforcement Request The City Planner has brought to my attention a complaint that at Moon Valley Aggregate, semis are blocking the road with one semi, while others pull out. This is apparently taking place early in the morning. Any assistance will be appreciated. - cc: Paul Krauss, Planning Director is 4IP4. . PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER c r (314, 3490 Lexington Avenue North St. Paul,MN 55126 League of Minnesota Cities (612)490-560C December 2, 1992 _ To: Managers or Clerks From: Joel Jamnik, Legislative Counsel Subj: Wetland Conservation Act and Rules Enclosed for your information is a somewhat daunting packet of information regarding the permanent rules proposed for administering the Wetlands Conservation Act of 1991. The materials are intended to provide you with sufficient background information to allow your participation in the rule adoption hearings which will be held throughout the state in December. If your city has been a designated local government unit (LGU) under the interim program these materials will somewhat duplicate materials you should already have received from the Board of Water and Soil Resources. The materials we are sending include: • Notice of Hearings for the proposed rules • A summary of the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991 • A summary of the Wetland Conservation Act Proposed Rule • A copy of the Proposed Permanent Rules Relating to Wetland Conservation • The Statement of Need and Reasonableness for the Proposed Rules • A listing of the LGUs Formally Accepting or Declining Responsibility for the Interim Program (dated November 11, 1992) We realize that the amount of materials sent will likely exceed anyone's ability to read but it is likely that each piece will have value as a reference material for particular questions involving the rule. History The Wetland Conservation Act was signed in June 1991 after a two year period of legislative deliberation. The central feature of the Act was adoption of a "no net loss" principle for all wetlands in the state, regardless of size or location. This principle, however, was lessened with the adoption of twenty-four exemptions and broadened by requiring a etlands which are drained or filled to be replaced at a ratio of 2:1 if the wetland is in a non-agricultural area. 1 - The Act provided for an interim wetlands program which is to be effective from January 1, 1992 until July 1, 1993, when the permanent rules are scheduled to take effect. The legislature, and the state agencies charged with formulating a permanent program, established an involved process aimed at involving all affected parties in the process. The Governor appointed nine people to a Wetland Heritage Advisory Council (WHAC) which the Act established to make recommendations to the state Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR), which is charged with adopting the administrative rules. The WHAC in turn established a Rules Working Group which reviewed the proposed permanent rules drafted by state agency staff. The Rules Working Group was comprised of 22 interest groups, including several local government representatives. The League appointed Paul Krauss, Planning Director of Chanhassen, to represent our interests. The Working Group met eleven times for over one hundred hours to review and recommend the proposed final rules. All cities and city officials in Minnesota owe Paul and the City of Chanhassen a great deal of thanks for representing our interests during this difficult and challenging process. The WHAC in turn spent ten days reviewing the recommendation and the BWSR Board forwarded the rule to the hearing process. Following the hearings, the Administrative Law Judge will make recommendations for change, if any, to the BWSR Board which in turn will make any changes deemed necessary and then submit the rule to the 1993 legislature by March 1, 1993. The rule, if approved by the legislature, will then be sent to all LGUs by May 1, 1993 and will go into effect July 1, 1993. As you can see, this has not been a streamlined process. And like the legislative process for the Act, it has been a particularly frustrating process for city representatives and city property owners and developers because of the attention given to agricultural and environmental representatives and interests. On top of all this, it is likely that the 1993 legislature will consider substantive amendments to the Wetlands Conservation Act. Provisions in the Act which the League and other city representatives hope to address include the role of the technical review panel, the $75 limit on municipal fees for plan reviews, the disparate replacement ratios for agricultural and non-ag land, broadening the exemptions to include type one and two wetlands under two acres within urban areas (similar to exemptions 7 and 8 in the current Act for ag lands), and whether there remains any opportunity to simplify a process which is getting more complicated every time a committee meets. These issues, however, must be addressed by statutory change. I have not included a copy of Chapter 354, 1991 Session Laws, which is the Wetland Conservation Act, since many cities or their city attorneys have ready access to the session laws. If you wish to obtain a copy of the sixty-two page Act, please contact me. In reviewing the proposed rules, I suggest you rely on the summary prepared by BWSR staff and refer to the other documents as questions come to mind. I would suggest you focus on the following issues in evaluating the proposal and making comments to the administrative 2 law judge or legislature: • There are two definitions proposed for "agricultural land" which differ depending on whether the definition is being used for exemption determinations or replacement ratios. This bifurcated definition might be a good political compromise, but it makes for a complicated rule. We recommend a single definition. • The definition of public transportation project means any project conducted by a public agency. We support use of this definition rather than a more narrow definition which might be applied only to state department of transportation projects. • Following the exemption determination under exemption 23, owners arerestricted for a period of ten years from making other than agricultural use of the land. If [he LGU approves an exemption, the landowner must execute and the LGU must record a notice of the restriction if the wetland is in a city. No recordation is required in rural arras. This difference is unsupportable and should be eliminated. (See page 21 of the proposed rule) • The section of the rule for determining the LGU provides that in the metropolitan area the LGU is the city or water management organization regulating surface water related matters in the affected area but will be the city if there is no indication in the local watershed management plan. Outside the metropolitan area, the LGU will be the City or County. Most importantly, for activities in a wetland located in two jurisdictions, the LGU is the one exercising zoning authority over the project. We support the connection of the review process to local zoning which will ensure generally primary authority with cities. However, for cities which do not have the technical expertise or staff available to assume administration of the Act, we suggest that the rules allow those cities to authorize the county to exercise authority within the city. We suggest all city officials read rule section 842 0.0200 (page 22 of the draft rules) to see if it meets your city's particular needs. • The use of the technical panel is somewhat confusing under the rules, primarily because original drafts have been revised by local government representatives. We now believe that the proposed draft is workable, although we would prefer it if the section was amended to give cities more flexibility in dealing with the technical panel and its members, perhaps by deleting the requirement for obtaining public value determinations from the technical panel. Again, we suggest an individualized reading of the rule, in this case section 8420.0240 (page 26), to determine the acceptability of the provision for your city. • The wetland banking standards and criteria in the rules treat created wetlands and restored wetlands differently. This reflects the state agency and environmentalists preference for restored wetlands. However, since created wetlands often are established as part of water control structures, city developers and road project engineers would be greatly benefitted if the created wetlands also qualified for banking. In short, as presently draf:ed, a city would receive absolutely no credit for creating a ten acre wetland as part of a roai or development project and could be forced to restore another site on a two for one basis if a half acre 3 wetland drained or filled as part of the same project. This disparity in treatment seems unfair and has a disproportionately harsh impact on public transportation and development projects (pages 74-75 of the rules cover this issue). As previously stated, these are our most significant areas of concern. We encourage you to study the rules and communicate your concerns to the administrative law judge, legislators, and League staff. Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of the process to date is the apparent disregard for one of the primary legislative goals: simplification of our preservation programs. It remains to be seen whether the legislators react to the proposed rule framework with an initiative to instill simplicity and fairness into the system. 4