Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
05-4-94 Agenda and Packet
FILE AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, MAY 4, 1994, 7:30 P.M. CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE 5:30 P.M. Worksession with City Attorney. CALL TO ORDER NEW BUSINESS 1. Consider approving a new Tax Increment Financing District which is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan located on the Press and DataSery property. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Arnold and Ann Weimerskirch for a Preliminary Plat of 25.95 acres into 9 single family lots with variances on property zoned RSF; Conditional Use Permit for a Recreational Beachlot; Wetland Alteration Permit for construction and mitigation of a wetland; and vacation of right-of-way located on Minnewashta Avenue. The property is located south of Sandpiper Lane and West of Piper Ridge Lane, Neumann Subdivision. 3. Lutheran Church of the Living Christ for a Site Plan Review for a 7,560 square foot addition to the Lutheran Church of the Living Christ on property zoned OI, Office Industrial and located on Lot 2, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park, 820 Lake Drive. OLD BUSINESS 4. Preliminary plat to replat Lot 1, Block 1, and Outlot B, Park One 2nd Addition into Lots 1, 2, and 3, Park One Third Addition, a Site Plan Review for a 54,720 square foot warehouse expansion for the Press and a 10,315 square foot Kindercare facility and a Conditional Use Permit for a Licensed Day Care Center in an IOP, Industrial Office Park, located at the northwest quadrant of Dell Road and State Highway 5. 5. Item Deleted ** APPROVAL OF MINUTES CITY COUNCIL UPDATE ONGOING ITEMS OPEN DISCUSSION ADJOURNMENT NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 11:00 p.m. as outlined in official by-laws. We will make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda If, however, this does not appear to be possible, the Chair person will notify those present and offer rescheduling options. Items thus pulled from consideration will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting. The following item was published in the Chanhassen Villager and subsequently deleted from this agenda 5. Conceptual Planned Unit Development to rezone 82.6 acres of property zoned A2 Agricultural Estate to PUD including 19.3 acres for office/warehouse, 52.9 acres for multi-family, 3.4 acres for ponding area, and 7 acres for road right-of-way located south of Highway 5, west of Audubon and east of Galpin Boulevard, Chanhassen _ Corporate Centre, Highway 5 Partnership, Ryan Companies, Heritage Development, Boisclair Corporation and RLK Associates. CITY OF 11011‘ CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Todd Gerhardt, Assistant City Manager DATE: April 28, 1994 SUBJ: Consider Approval of Creating a New Tax Increment Financing Plan/District The City Council, at their April 11, 1994 meeting, authorized staff to hold a public hearing for May 23, 1994, to consider establishing a new economic development/tax increment financing district on the Banta Corporation (The Press facility) and DataSery properties (see Attachment #1). As you may already be aware, The Press is in the process of expanding their facility by adding approximately 50,000 square feet to the east side of their current building. Staff has also met with the DataSery representatives and they are also prepared to develop their property within the next two years. The benefits for the city in creating this new district are as follows: 1. Provide employment opportunities within the city. 2. Improve the tax base of the city and the general economy of the city and state. 3. Implement relevant portions of Chanhassen's Highway 5 corridor plan (landscaping, entry monuments, etc.). 4. Completion of the city's portion of Dell Road south of Highway 5. 5. Assist with the planning and reconstruction of State Highway 101 (trail system, reconstruction of the road, etc.). The funds necessary to accomplish these tasks are almost nonexistent and the only alternative method to accomplish these goals is by creating a new tax increment financing district. Planning Commission Role Under Minnesota Statute, the planning commission must review the proposed tax increment financing plan and find it consistent with the city's overall plans for development for this area (Attachment #2). Each of the proposed projects as described above are included as part of the city's comprehensive plan or as highlighted in the proposed Highway 5 corridor plan. Planning Commission April 28, 1994 Page 2 Attached are the support documents from the comprehensive plan and Highway 5 corridor plan and that call for the proposed public improvements (Attachment #3). Recommendation If the Planning Commission should find the program for Development District No. 3 and the plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 3-1 consistent with the plans for development for the city of Chanhassen; the commission should then approve Resolution No. 94-2 and direct staff to hold the public hearing on the program and plan as required by state statutes on May 23, 1994. Attachments 1. Location map. 2. TIF Plan. 3. Support documents. 4. Resolution No. 94-2. PIEDMONT Gig CAO( CAS TLE CAIaA!% A 1 1�/ it ` ertf- * C 'R/STMAS //; HENNEPIN COUNTY CT CURT- ` - [ 111111 ��JJ 1 _LAKE /�_ r%'1�I CHHI/P SHASTA CIRCLE -A: CPCLE P� fill .Ci 11 . [.=Tz.z. ____.!,-;.7 V. Q �•ff, yollorwri.,........ :: : W0'',/ `©!r` �,m 11• � rII►c c,.• r VA - 1'' , ,„4461 41��All ..! I �����0pt 4ohill7rrs %IW '.� �.... TrLt COURToner II gat �� �\��1ti )- 4.10,11&16"449171161.710411;0911 . I . iferiAVAI XI” .::. hillk t .firp"may; �►I��4 / tab V•�i ,• :. .sol �`I/I ► � \ � .��I. ` �0♦ . Prima w' S. • I, �, 1144 .»T.,L . 4.•: ,. CHANHASSEN DEVELOPMENT i—Trit.-.. ittir be�� I CARVER�) � ►�'• j c"41 4i ��`'�0 ir� `i` / ARKH N �• �� : j, il�dr .." DISTRICT #3 ��� ` IP 11 _II lir JN & `' /ri �i 'E og T.I.F. DISTRICT : 3-1 E e'�� ,vi.. ' • VIOLET 4/4„ ``` . , ROAD AV` - NORTH;.,1 y ...- LOTUS ix gli�_.• Chanhassen, MN ca='-R R' 71 -T. /ill la .\, LAKE ,;1 411 Ls 'u47�: ..a ••- PARK A� r :: , %IX Ail:itimm tat...,--7---.... .-..'"Fr, Mii ' r', fV%v11 1` LOTUS ` ` � .. LEGEND ` '111/ . • � �' .�ti � . � IM Es Development hi ,.0. o=- 110_ t `rria1• . District ate ' <-7/ '"EI Oa- 1■■■■■■■■■■■■■s T.I.F. District mnn n� ;. lj is- w,= r AGAt0 N -:7 '-' t,'"VOI *iv' tlitteditilipolA lair/ "l m--**-irS.tAiiink -: I a p WON! I I 1 I I+S.1 I I f 4 "lila 4 1)1 ' I" '44:.et"' ..".1 :� I�l�°� �I����� � ! ��%� L A K E .Silit-:' :1 wuIIIAR[ ' LAI{ y.1,4 u M `� i trA�jSIACII ,4 mgr:.. rt'�; f biilla • Ilia HIM �% bi _ _ �� pNa,1 gni 1.111r.114; - cr+cLl 4attr1.g j11111:i161.•1 0g1s&i6p,47iArr1ii4iI-t iMns5i4:k167Ce I Ifw«aHp3 1,i3ift1Evyi4a�l..g—ft:i4Q. �� \ - - "1 @.ito4 4 ,41 •,e� . ii », - -iw's.&-riE IIII' MMIlIo.I..IIr/!:._-; !k1s 0,i,A7v,--iPO-p-..0• e• vas 'rangirtinuris ..►i!icy AcR ® Ilk 1115 ��a ter'm►.s■►: ssrnmj a ��II'►i�lty�+�� �1dI?i' Jr! • ►r�RsT # ��..--!DKST. - — i�,1-''� � -1 1 1 1 1,1 1 1 1 1' i I 411161 1 1.....m71111111111111111114111.- 11-Loipli............_ �.402 uhluTin� , H2a a ir* - 2 t itk,t: ,, ESTATES • 647.EMEM- . HIGKWA ` ; : 1 - i ' �►s'1' �. :1!m • ,e4 DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT PROGRAM, DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 3 and TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN, TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 3-1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA May 23, 1994 This document drafted by: HOLMES & GRAVEN, CHARTERED 470 Pillsbury Center Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 R®69060 -+ CH130-34 114(1/61 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page - SECTION I. DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 3 Subsection A. Definitions 1 Subsection B. Statutory Authority 2 Subsection C. Statement of Public Purpose 2 Subsection D. Statement of Objectives 2 Subsection E. Environmental Controls 3 Subsection F. Open Space to be Created 3 Subsection G. Public Facilities to be Constructed 3 Subsection H. Proposed Reuse of Property 3 Subsection I. Development District Financing 3 Subsection J. Relocation 3 Subsection K. Administration of Development District 3 Subsection L. Legal Description and Map of Development District . 4 SECTION II. TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 3-1 Subsection A. Statutory Authority 5 Subsection B . Statement of Objectives 5 - Subsection C. Statement of Public Purpose 5 Subsection D. Development District Program 6 Subsection E. Description of TIF District 6 Subsection F. Development District Contracts 6 - Subsection G. Classification of TIF District 6 Subsection H. Modification of TIF Plan 6 Subsection I. Use of Tax Increment 6 Subsection J. Excess Tax Increment 6 Subsection K. Limitation on Increment 7 Subsection L. Limitation on Administrative Expenses 7 Subsection M. Limitation on Boundary Changes 77 Subsection N. Relocation Subsection O. Parcels to be Acquired within TIF District 7 Subsection P. TIF Account 88 Subsection Q. Estimate of Costs 8 Subsection R. Estimate of Bonded Indebtedness 8 Subsection S. Original TIF Capacity and Tax Increment 9 Subsection T. Duration of the TIF District 9 - Subsection U. Estimate of Captured Tax Capacity Subsection V. Estimated of Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdiction . 10 Subsection W. Annual Reports - P 69060 CE130-34 (1) SECTION I. DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 3 A. Definitions For the purposes of the Development Program for Development District No. 3 and the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 3-1, the following terms shall have the meanings specified below, unless the context otherwise requires: "Administrative expenses" means all expenditures of the City other than amounts paid for the purchase of land or amounts paid to contractors or others providing materials and services, including architectural and engineering services, directly connected with the physical development of real property in the District, relocation benefits paid to or services provided for persons residing or businesses located in the District, or amounts used to pay interest on, fund a reserve for, or sell at a discount bonds issued pursuant to section 469.178 of the TIF Act. Administrative expenses includes amounts paid for services provided by bond counsel, fiscal consultants and planning or economic development consultants. "City" means the City of Chanhassen, a municipal corporation under the laws of the state of Minnesota; "City Council" or "Council" means the Chanhassen City Council; "City Development District Act" or "Act" means Minnesota Statutes, sections 469.124 through 469.134, as amended; "Comprehensive Plan" means the City's objectives, policies, standards and programs to guide public and private land use, development, redevelopment and preservation for all lands and water within the City; "County" means Hennepin County, Minnesota; "Development District" or "District" means Development District No. 3 in which Tax Increment Financing District No. 3-1 will be located; "Development District Program" or "Program" means the Program for Development District No. 3 which will be adopted by the City Council on May 23, 1994; "Project" means Development District No. 3; "State" means the State of Minnesota; "Tax Increment Bonds" means any general obligation or revenue tax increment bonds issued by the City to finance the public costs associated with Development District No. 3 as stated in the Program and in the Plan for TIF District No. 3-1 or any obligations issued to refund the Tax Increment Bonds; "Tax Increment Financing Act" or "TIF Act" means Minnesota Statutes, sections 469.174 through 469.179, as amended; and "Tax Increment Financing District" or "TIF District" means Tax Increment Financing District No. 3-1, which is being created and established within Development District No. 3 pursuant to the TIF Act; and RHB69060 CH130-34 1 "Tax Increment Financing Plan" or "Plan" means the Plan for TIF District No. 3-1, which will be adopted by the City Council on May 23, 1994. B. Statutory Authority The City has determined that it is necessary, desirable and in the public interest to establish Development District No. 3, pursuant to the provisions of the Act. The City has also determined that the funding of the necessary activities and improvements in Development District No. 3 shall be accomplished in part or in whole through tax increment financing in accordance with the TIF Act. C. Statement of Public Purpose It is found that there is a need for improvements in the infrastructure in the area of the City hereby established as Development District No. 3 to increase employment opportunities, improve the tax base and improve the general economy of the City and the State. The purpose of Development District No. 3 is to foster development of an area of the City to achieve its full potential. In order to accomplish this purpose, the City intends to invest in specified highway improvements. D. Statement of Objectives The City seeks to achieve the following objectives through the Development District Program: 1 . promote and secure the prompt development of property in Development District No. 3 in a manner consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and with minimal adverse impact on the environment, which property is currently less productive because of the lack of proper utilization and lack of investment, thus promoting and securing the development of other land in the City; 2. promote and secure additional employment opportunities within Development District No. 3 and the City for residents of the City and the surrounding area, thereby improving living standards and preventing unemployment and the loss of skilled labor and other human resources in the City; 3. secure the increase of property subject to taxation by the City, _ County, school district and other taxing jurisdictions in order to better enable such entities to pay for public improvements and governmental services and programs required to be provided by them; 4. secure the construction and provide moneys for the payment of the cost of those public roadway and other improvements in Development District No. 3 which are necessary for the orderly and beneficial development of the Development District; 5. promote the concentration of appropriate industrial uses and related development within Development District No. 3 in order to maintain the area in a manner compatible with its highest and best use; and 6. encourage development within the District which is aesthetically pleasing and which creates a positive visual image of the City. RHB69060 CH130-34 2 E. Environmental Controls It is anticipated that no development within the Development District will present major environmental concerns. All City actions, public improvements and private development will be carried out in compliance with applicable environmental standards. F. Open Space to be Created Any open space within the Development District will be created in accordance with the development controls of the City and will be adequate for the needs of the residents of the City. G. Public Facilities to be Constructed Public facilities constructed within the Development District will be financially feasible and compatible with the City's long range development plans. Public improvements to be constructed within Development District No. 3 will include improvement of Dell Road, and improvement of portions of T.H. 101 and T.H. 5. All improvements are located within Hennepin county. H. Proposed Reuse of Property The City may acquire property within Development District No. 3 for a public improvement project to widen Dell Road south of Lake Drive East and in regard to the T.H. 101 and T .H. 5 projects. Property within the Development District will be reused in accordance with the City's ordinances and comprehensive Plan as well as with this Program and the Plan for TIF District No. 3-1 . I. Development District Financing Within Development District No. 3, the City will establish TIF District No. 3-1 to finance the cost of development activities. Project costs for TIF District No. 3-1 will be met through pledged increment. J. Relocation Although no relocation is anticipated in connection with any project within Development District No. 3, the City accepts its responsibility for providing for relocation pursuant to section 469.133 of the Act. If relocation is necessary, provisions will be made in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, sections 117.50 through 117.56, inclusive. K. Administration of Development District Maintenance and operation of the public improvements is the responsibility of the Administrator of Development District No. 3. Each year the Administrator will submit to the City Council the maintenance and operation budget for the following year. The Administrator will administer the Development District pursuant to the provisions of section 469.131 of the Act; provided, however, that such powers may only be exercised at the direction of the City Council. No action taken by the Administrator shall be effective without authorization by the City Council. The City has not and does not anticipate the need to create an advisory board to advise the City Council on the planning, construction or implementation of the activities and improvements outlined in the Development Program. RBB69060 CH130-34 3 L. Legal Description and Map of Development District A map of the boundaries of Development District No. 3 is attached hereto as Exhibit B. RHB69060 CH130-34 4 SECTION II. TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 3-1 . A. Statutory Authority. Pursuant to section 469.175, subd 4 of the TIF Act, the City is authorized to establish tax increment financing districts to facilitate and provide financing for the development objectives articulated in the Development District Program. At the time of the adoption of the Program for Development District No. 3, the City also intends to establish TIF District No. 3-1 pursuant to the TIF Act. B . Statement of Objectives. The City seeks to achieve the following objectives through the establishment of TIF District No. 3-1; 1 . provide employment opportunities within the City; 2. improve the tax base of the City and the general economy of the City and State; 3. encourage development in areas of the City which have not been utilized to their full potential; 4. provide funding for certain public roadway improvements which are essential for full development of the Project; and 5. implement relevant portions of the Comprehensive Plan. The City's specific objective in establishing TIF District No. 3-1 is to provide for a road improvement project in the vicinity of an expanding industrial/warehouse area and to assist the developer of a proposed 40,000 square feet industrial expansion with certain on-site improvements. The City wishes to improve three roadways which serve the District and which currently limit growth. These include Dell Road, which will be widened from two (2) lanes to four (4) lanes south of Lake Drive East and which provides immediate access to the industrial sites. Other planned roadway improvements involve T.H. 101 and T.H. 5, which provide remote access to TIF District No. 3-1. All roadway improvements are located entirely within Hennepin County. C. State of Public Purpose. In adopting the Plan for TIF District No. 3-1, the City will make the following findings: 1 . Anticipated development would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and, therefore, the use of TIF is deemed necessary; 2. The TIF Plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for development of the Project by private enterprise; and 3. The TIF Plan conforms to general plans for development of the City as a whole. 4. The area included within TIF District No. 3-1 qualifies as an economic development TIF district within the meaning of the TIF Act. The conclusions to be reached by the City Council regarding the above will be based upon the recommendations of city staff and the planning commission as RHB69060 CH130-34 5 well as the familiarity of members of the City Council with the properties involved and the likelihood that those properties will develop within the reasonably foreseeable future solely through private efforts. D. Development District Program. At the time of the establishing of TIF District No. 3-1, the City also intends to adopt a Program for Development District No. 3. The plan for development of the City outlined in the Program will continue to provide the basis of the City's efforts to develop portions of the community which have not and remain unlikely to be developed solely through private efforts. This Plan for TIF District No. 3-1 is consistent with the Program for Development District No. 3. E. Description of TIF District. The property identification numbers of the four parcels within TIF District No. 3-1 are included as Exhibit A. A map of the boundaries of TIF District No. 3-1 is attached hereto as Exhibit B. F. Development District Contracts. The City has not yet entered into a development contract with regard to the development of any property within TIF District No. 3-1. Contracts regarding property with TIF District No. 3-1 will be entered into in accordance with section 469.176, subd 5 of the TIF Act. G. Classification of TIF District. TIF District No. 3-1 qualifies as an economic development TIF district, pursuant to section 469.174, subd. 11 of the TIF Act. H. Modification of TIF Plan. The Plan for TIF District No. 3-1 may be modified by the City, provided that any enlargement of the geographic area of the TIF District, increase in amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred, including a determination to capitalize interest on the debt if that determination was not a part of the original Plan, or to increase or decrease the amount of interest on the debt to be capitalized, increase in the portion of the captured tax capacity to be retained by the City, increase in total estimated tax increment expenditures or designation of additional property to be acquired by the City shall be approved upon the notice and after such discussion, public hearing and findings as required for approval of the original Plan. Use of Tax Increment. Pursuant to section 469.176, subd 4 of the TIF Act, all revenues derived from TIF District No. 3-1 shall be used in accordance with the TIF Plan. The revenues shall be used to finance or otherwise pay the capital and administrative costs of development activities within the Project as identified in the Program and Plan. J. Excess Tax Increment. Pursuant to section 469.176, subd 2 of the TIF Act, in any year in which the increment exceeds the amount necessary to pay the costs authorized by the TIF Plan, the City shall use the excess amount to do any of the following, in the order determined by the City: 1. prepay the outstanding bonds or other obligations; 2. discharge the pledge of tax increment therefor; 3. pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of bonds or other obligations; or R1 69060 CH130-34 6 4. return the excess amount to the Hennepin County auditor who shall distribute the excess amount to the City, the County and school district in direct proportion to their respective tax capacity rates. The City may also choose to modify the TIF Plan in order to provide for other public improvements within the Project. K. Limitation of Increment. 1 . No increment shall be paid to the City from TIF District No. 3-1 after three years from the date of certification of the original tax capacity of the property in the TIF district by the county auditor unless within the three year period (a) bonds have been issued pursuant to section 469.178 of the TIF Act, or (b) the City has acquired property within TIF District No. 3-1, or (c) the City has constructed or caused to be constructed public improvements within TIF District No. 3-1 . 2. If, after four years from the date of certification of the original tax capacity of TIF District No. 3-1, no demolition, rehabilitation, or renovation of property or other site preparation, including qualified improvement of a street or right-of-way adjacent to a parcel but not installation of underground utility service, including sewer or water systems, have been commenced on a parcel located within TIF District No. 3-1 by the City, or by the owner of the parcel in accordance with the TIF Plan, no additional increment may be taken from that parcel, and the original tax capacity of that parcel shall be excluded from the original tax capacity of the TIF District. If one of these activities subsequently commences, the City shall so certify to the county auditor, and the tax capacity of the property as most recently certified by the commissioner of revenue may be added to the TIF District. 3. No tax increment shall in any event be paid to the City from TIF District No. 3-1 after nine years from the date of receipt by the City of the first increment or 11 years from the date of approval of the Plan, whichever occurs first. L. Limitation on Administrative Expenses. Pursuant to section 469.176, subd 3 of the TIF Act, administrative expenses are limited to 10 percent of the total tax increment expenditures budgeted or actually incurred, whichever is less. Each time the City increases the budget of TIF District No. 3-1, the amount of increment allocated to administrative costs may be increased as long as the total of administrative expenditures does not exceed 10 percent of the total budget of the TIF District. M. Limitation on Boundary Changes. The geographic area of TIF District No. 3-1 may be reduced, but cannot be enlarged after five years following the date of certification of the original tax capacity by the Hennepin county auditor. N. Relocation. Although no relocation is anticipated, the City accepts as binding its obligations under state law regarding relocation benefits and, if necessary, will administer relocation services for families, individuals and businesses displaced by public action. O. Parcels to Be Acquired Within the TIF District. It is not anticipated that the City will acquire any property within TIF District No. 3-1, except such RHB69060 CR130-34 7 easements or other interests in property as may be necessary to complete the improvements of Dell Road, T.H. 101 and T.H. 5 anticipated by this Plan. P. TIF Account. The tax increment received with respect to the TIF District No. 3-1 shall be segregated by the City in a special account on its official books and records. Q. Estimate of Project Costs. The following costs are authorized for expenditures within TIF District No. 3-1 : Roadway Improvements Dell Road $ 200,000 T.H. 101 2,000,000 T.H. 5 660,000 Subtotal $ 2,860,000 Special Assessment Reduction Program 615,000 Administrative Expenses 220,000 TOTAL $ 3,695,000 All of the costs authorized by this Plan will be for improvements located entirely within Hennepin county. R. Estimate of Bonded Indebtedness. The City may choose to sell bonds in an amount not to exceed $3,080,000 to finance the public costs authorized by the Plan for TIF District No. 3-1. The City may sell general obligation bonds to finance construction of Dell Road, T.H. 101 and T.H. 5. The City may also enter into a "pay-as-you-go" revenue obligation with the developers of industrial facilities to reduce their special assessment obligations. S. Original Tax Capacity and Tax Increment. Pursuant to section 469.177, subd. 1 of the TIF Act, the original tax capacity for TIF District No. 3-1 is $464,348. Each year the Hennepin county auditor will measure the increase or decrease in the total tax capacity of property in the TIF district. Any year in which the tax capacity of TIF District No. 3-1 exceeds $464,348, an increment will be payable to the City. Any year in which the tax capacity is below $464,348, no value will be captured and no increment will be payable to the City. Each year after the certification of the original tax capacity, the county auditor will increase or decrease the original tax capacity of property within TIF District No. 3-1 as a result of: 1 . change in the tax exempt status of the property; 2. reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the TIF District; or 3. reduction of valuation by means of a court-ordered abatement, stipulation agreement, voluntary abatement made by the assessor or auditor or by order of the Minnesota commissioner of revenue. _ RH3369060 CH130-36 8 In addition, the auditor will adjust the original tax capacity of the property within TIF District No. 3-1 in compliance with the requirements of section 469.177, subd. 1(f) of the TIF Act. T. Duration of the TIF District. In accordance with section 469.176, subd 1 of the TIF Act, the City wishes to retain its right to receive TIF payments until nine years from the date of the receipt of the first increment, or 11 years from the date of approval of the Plan, whichever first occurs. U. Estimate of Captured Tax Capacity. Pursuant to sections 469.175, subd. 1 and 469.177, subd. 2 of the TIF Act, the estimated net captured tax capacity of TIF District No. 3-1 , will be $410,000 after January 2, 1995, for taxes payable in 1996. The captured tax capacity was estimated in the following manner: Tax Capacity on January 2, 1995 $ 874,348 Original Tax Capacity -464,348 Captured Tax Capacity 410,000 Pursuant to section 469.177, subd. 2 of the TIF Act, it is found and declared that all of the captured tax capacity generated by TIF District No. 3-1 is necessary to finance or otherwise make permissible expenditures authorized by section 469.176, subd. 4 of the TIF Act. V. Estimated of Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdiction. In is anticipated that $540,330 in increment will be captured annually within TIF District No. 3-1. This increment amount is based on the value of the development on January 2, 1995, for taxes payable in 1996. For the purposes of estimating increment during the life of TIF District No. 3-1, no inflation has been assumed in the value of the new development. The composite tax capacity rate for the affected property is currently 131 .788 percent. Applying the percentage of the total tax capacity rate attributable to each taxing jurisdiction to the annual increment of $540,330 reveals the annual "loss" of tax dollars by each jurisdiction if the projects would have occurred without TIF. Although the City believes the actual impact on other taxing jurisdictions is zero because development would not have occurred within the reasonably foreseeable future without public intervention, the assumed amount of tax dollars foregone by each jurisdiction is listed below: Percent of Tax Increment Attributable to Various Taxing Jurisdictions Tax sis of Total Capacity Tax Est. Tax Taxing Jurisdiction Rate Capacity Loss ($) City of Chanhassen 25.536 19.4 104,824 Hennepin County 37.441 28.4 153,454 Eden Prairie School District 62.635 47.5 256,657 Other 6.176 4.7 25,395 TOTAL 131 .788 100.0 540,330 RHB69060 CH130-34 9 W. Annual Reports. Pursuant to section 469.175, subd 6 of the TIF Act, the City must file an annual financial report regarding TIF District No. 3-1. The report shall be filed by July 1 of each year with the school board, the county board and the state auditor. The report to be filed by the City shall include the following information: 1 . the original tax capacity of TIF District No. 3-1 ; 2. the captured tax capacity of TIF District No. 3-1, including the amount of any captured tax capacity shared with other taxing districts; 3. the outstanding principal amount of bonds issued or other loans incurred to finance project costs in TIF District No. 3-1; 4. for the reporting period and for the duration of TIF District No. 3-1 , the amount budgeted under the TIF Plan and the actual amount expended for the following categories: (a) acquisition of land and buildings through condemnation or purchase; (b) site improvement or preparation costs; (c) installation of public utilities or other public improvements; _ (d) administrative costs, including the allocated cost of the City; 5. for properties sold to developers, the total cost of the property to the City and the price paid by the developer; and 6. the amount of tax exempt obligations, other than those reported under clause (3) , which were issued on behalf of private entities for facilities located in TIF District No. 3-1 . In addition, the City must report annually by March 1 to the Minnesota commissioner of revenue the following amounts for the entire municipality: (1) the total principal amount of nondefeased tax increment financing bonds that are outstanding at the end of the previous calendar year; and (2) the total annual amount of principal and interest payment that are due for the current calendar year on (i) general obligation tax increment financing bonds, and (ii) other tax increment financing bonds. The City must annually report to the commissioner of revenue the following amounts for TIF District No. 3-1: (1) the type of district, whether economic development, redevelopment, housing, soils condition, mined underground space, or hazardous substance site; (2) the date on which the district is required to be decertified; (3) the captured net tax capacity of the district, by property class as specified by the commissioner of revenue, for taxes payable in the current calendar year; RHB69060 CH130-36 10 (4) the tax increment revenues for taxes payable in the current calendar year; (5) whether the tax increment financing plan or other governing document permits increment revenues to be expended (i) to pay bonds, the proceeds of which were or may be expended on activities located outside of the district, (ii) for deposit into a common fund from which money may be expended on activities located outside of the district, or (iii) to otherwise finance activities located outside of the tax increment financing district; and (6) any additional information that the commissioner of revenue may require. 88869060 CH130-34 11 EXHIBIT A Parcels Included within TIF District No. 3-1. -- 07-116-22-21-0002 07-116-22-34-0008 07-116-22-34-0009 07-116-22-33-0027 R®69060 CE130-34 12 -I (2/91) 11 State Trunk Hiahwav 212 - Construction of T.N. 212 along a new alignment has been under consideration since the early 1950 ' s . Cities along the corridor have recently cooperated in providing funding to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the project and are beginning official mapping proceedings to secure I right-of-way within the corridor. Plans call for T.H. 212 to be built as a four lane freeway facility. As presently conceived, the route will be constructed through Chanhassen from T.H. 5 to T. H. 41 during the late 1990' s . The project is presently partially funded. , / Dell Road/West 184th Avenue - Dell Road in Eden Prairie parallels I %,'' T .H. 101 and is classified by the City of Eden Prairie as a collector roadway north to T.H. 5minor Townlinearterial Roadsouth the I T .H . 5. It will provide a connection from north to Pioneer Trail on the south and will be phased in conjunction with area development. Depending upon its design and access to the State Trunk Highway hanenvisioned si onby the City of EdenDed lRoad could l greater or lesser traffic role Prairie. The Dell Road/T.H. 5 intersection will be signalized as I part of the T.H. 5 improvement project. Lake Drive - Lake Drive is a planned awecollector e int 1986treet f from located south of T . H. 5 . Lake Drive Eastwas mpro T . H . 101 to Dakota Avenue . WeStstocall CSAHfor l7the n i9giextension ThisfLake route Drive east to Dell Road and will serve as an important collector for Chanhassen ' s eastern industrial area . ` I1,0% T . H . 101 - Planning efforts since 1980 have consistently identified the need for improvements to T. H. 101 . Planned improvements north of T.H . 5 consist primarily of reconstruction and realignment of the route e t toyateleffectuatenorth bett rof etraffic fl own of T T .H . 101 and West 78th St South of T.H . 5, major improvements are planned . The 1980 Comprehensive Plan and the 2005 Land Use and Transportation Study called for the total realignment of T.H. 101 between T.H. 5 and Lyman Boulevard. In reviewing the T.H. 101 corridor, the City recognized that since the realignment will involve total reconstruction, a unique opportunity exists to create T.H. 101 as an attractive approach to the community. The planned interchange of T . H . 212 and T. H. 101 will provide downtown Chanhassen and the 23 //fl7(k*1i l .2 . I Ili ; iI : I ► —.i .II1 I It II II , 11_4-- P I p =, tori t _ �"� Ift ' 4.l _ a... , NV p ! ea��,-?' 7 i.-:-: - ____ )e � I _ s P ,Ipi . aii... 1 ' _ ' i'.a,.: L• ate_, 14.E - I _ milial I I mil ,.-me _ — `I Imo_ Q , I •f — ii _— mar.-- i t3k' - let.--„:40:T.:7- -az ` .,___,.. ._,,,---e- �� .__. - - •s3y�'' . _-_-=_., ,-.: .,,,,,_ - • Alf/74aftlig — 1 L.: NZ& ' i at rAgni--1 - I II I ! i I t i 1 I cry — i ' lil1� � 4 1 I r i r -.1 Recommended System –- --- nin _- i+ ir Functional --_ ° _ Classification — I I� rat dr Num Principal Arterial _...--._-›.. 4,;, . _-___ II i - -L - • • • Minor Arterial - Class I -- r }"'.: ir, ■--- Minor Arterial - Class II --� ', = �,�r,-_--- l _ _ Collector - Class II _ • .�. __..__.. P0+. 400wir -Imor.• P - - . 7:-.- . wig: - \ i . ..':••I • / r 4 lir . .......• I . lie - . _ -A I . - if IlilT1IIII , i : : 1 • 1 : ! III , I — _ 0 EllMN aab swan ma. .— • • 26 a 8l - e 1,1 II i . . „ . .„ . , , I = c, ..., cv = ro _,. • I , 1 1 ;...._, _ ,71 _ rft ... ,- '' . , 0 CD rD CD Us rt. CD O O II I m = a `� ,of. an • '- N D o f CD Iarum v - 4 /F� 1 _oo, o � � v�+ .,-► eo+ • Q J f 3 ' - c rr n 1 3 m ; ' cn a cn a .+ ▪ 10 I 111 1 f _ • • - • CD o A _ .r o+ rD a 0 �A II ;r �i_ < _i i • i t - - m .� 0. N O e+ 7r (� III y . i; I • Q i - - r� i._ - O r► C• c4..c ? Q . ; — f .--- - . _1 ji- .---, I = iik s lip; c n e-e r. 7 — 111 -_----1- -..---;. .,_ ,_,__,__,. , •i: .., . i1 Iifl o cm ' I r - 1 _. 741 • i ..# 1 I sky; 4-. - , 1 .:,-,:, . -- I 7r r±t:I - — r CIJ Ill ...1. . . i 1i -1-II 1a �' ' 'r ... .w ` CT -s CD � ( I II I I II � 1 11, � 1� CT ? _ O —to _ u • v i O O c 3 Ill 4)1...,....:. . frN O O M r* K tTrym ncty Ra r+ r* ro Ka Q4 r•• m 0 — m000 ,Comm 7' rtnrl7' OC� ac Some a o o r* m 9 a r m a a a O rm b 7'rrm 4' 11 r•aa m011 = 0 1.....,...„..,1.....,...„.., • 010 ,„ rg m n r r 0 0 m M m rt a m r rr• rg 7 r• a 7 M • rt. 9 m'0 r- '< a a 0 r9 o pit 9 rm r• n rrr• • 7.0 0 010121 A m O m r • r- LO ip co P." ar 7rta 0 as ra 0 doer Cr) N1,-, m �" 00 91- 00 art o a7 O o N rm �''n r•rrr- • O rr • re 1•• aG.rrO 71 0 C C ° p » 11 gd a ° CD 0' '< m m CD TJ 0 m Ma �ar '0f C m 7 'O ,. CD LW o — n• ° 0 a Im C oH 0-" mmX _O • . 1-1700 c 7• roQikm AMa ° Olpn CC 0 "► G a 7 M '0 m 7' m 1- 0 O r•r�'•n � R9 S C c 0 A hq� m M 00 °`C ° 7 . 07 4" n r; O O W 13 . 0 rt ill ayvm r► "mro om � o PIP10 1-i o orrto mr•a ma7r, arOj� s a � �4 73 ? — via m cc m 0 r � ,-O m5 , ! , m ,„ . o• � 7 a' O m • M 7 • 0 < A ° a n 0 r n • 9 n + ftr•n a = 0 a. ....• =1-r • n • D. . c < 7 r* 7 1-r 0 a m 0 •'O O t0 — M' m0 aa ,d •• 1-)p as 'o ••. • O • • sg ►1 m� F, iP 0 con m� 7 p m H S 0 0 6 111 0 , - c n C. 0 's7 7 . 0 s•�m m a 1-r► a m m°. 0 ° : 1111 SZ e vor 1 / 1 q1Li 6+41 �I El 1 1 ; 1 t., . iti r cc• Di Du o 0 1 ,==....!....:: _.. ,.. ,_„2„.„ .,,..1....__ \ .. , 0 11 in, *�s -4.. e.,..,,, it ' 2.i. a, > 1.... < < CD cD I NY • .I'` 1' 1/ = MI -1 7 c 3 o 1 ,:fir ,. : ` = 01 13 p< co 0 IIII . . , . ca a1` 1 fra`s'� ``� =__ n a La ri r . . - 3 o - el \ 1 I -1 .-11\1 j A r* fD I— s, . • A i `�.a "� rte•► O H < or i DEM mom' M CO x 1 0 ^� � ; coa • \ v ° 1 X .1. 1 I N 0 rt I «�a •1" • N ' 111\ ,,,, ft C ta . '• ` % 0100 `r (A r* 7S' i ■fie n) o 0 rt Xi t II I I I O to N > O S < O 't7 CD MPK • 'Cbo Axl aA oA ' 9wA ►*7 Ama1' K K H 7 a t r�+. coo o i� �•� 7 0 = y 7 K 0.0 a M O CD rt P1 ma. )., rrmaul OKm7 H ma 70. A W 5 El r•Z rr '- 7•r+ K H K O r► rPHH 00.rG t � 0 CD F� AH KaH P1 Z < maSro KR.amaH O r-H G h O O C ..G) w m 043 ,_, H 0 ,-'7r •t 'V . co O '0y 0CZ MAa » 7 Am QA Amm '0 H ca a r R to CC 0.rt et co rt f.., i' A m K,0 H O N CO a. 0 wPS '3m mm ,-- H w 0000 .10 0 I.•"1 O CD H A 'V K r+ O K H 0 pi " Z 0 T II oO ar.V M 0a. mma0aO arfF..m,O .. —i C pp � vZ • me �� � �a � ' aaz omm � °m < n '< mr z p, H a s w A rt �` p vs 10 L1 0 7 A k0 OG a•r r* pq a m p pr w -( — U` N PJ o � P150 y� 0Piam 0 ... 00' mama m `° A rf II c z � KgM oaAm ma � K �° 0 -Ow K �� ADI a .2 p0.= ° HcoOg . M L pm4. < 0 w kt ? N y � ag rt o � w). o m �a•�mam 0 O p �• y m� vZ+p mO.GF, r~ra .4403PI 04r ? m A s r* 0 p Cl b mo < m g'rr A are m m o " : � H� A wgaox� 0 II fp. m 7% A �oats u'u�►me 0 0 •t K,M 7 Cu cc C 7 0. �rr �amn• 0.0m.0. 0 c � p •Y 1 a •1° n mop, Wmo9a 1... „ E = 1... w r+ M. tm e ° a m ; •m. 0. Dm 0 a r 7 rtw0 oa fr m X° r0 • DO 4m m 0 rp-p f, Ra e: m mx gcm° • r7K a m7'iARA MMa a.CO x0a 00 'rw` �° 0= a 443 7 0 mO • • WmPI 01 r''� 0pr 0ri ►`i '� CA 13 0, < m r* a mHG aC o o O m'0 a� '1 7 11 0 O o m ROS8 0, m ° m °I:, n p ° 0 r*K a.a6br. 0 v in m A a K R R� a �m m n H•� 7 `D "0 o 13 _ c ° <• Ola NCA rn7 am mmmor.+ O cDa r H ana a •Hos 7a , a:(11 o m o rr rt a a. o m o m M rr r 0 ✓ �-• m m w 0 Hr0 a s HO a 0 -1 -< II O ow a0 0 KZ m a uaa m 1 II HP-. • a �0 001.-. 0.0 t rrtna m J J _., f., .._.., ___-- - . - ,---- '''• „ • -.... , .1 ....,,_ —'I .4" I H 5 CORRIDOR LANDSCAPE MASSING CONCEPT ma PEDINTMAN wall'THROUGH SLOT ClIANHASSEN,MINNESOTA 11.Y 14.1903 DISTRICT NY % 1 (1) CUING 0,171 SPAM '. , INT TO TIM TRAIL SdiannwhIlVEMA aVIICIVIL MC VOL -'----------""'-'---.•••-......-.-......................—..-._.______,--.--...-- . ' I 1 )...., V." at iV6141. „I ,..._.= i , , 4„,,,,,,.....3 •67._. Al......„... ...,,..._...._-• ,.....,- 7 ".„..4„. ......,......:,...,......:..il ii.......- :........Am„......„‹.7(t- ..ta i 7 / ,, ...... • , t— --.....—... 400), , ', . P.. . r pF.- , .-----, ii.: - • '? „ r .-&•„„, • 4---:--' maim 0, ' 7 • , - -. Om ••• •••. . - 11 . 4, . to. .t.:•40,. ....• 0 is 40 i .. =AIN LANTERN GRIM* ,..,,,4• *e 1 II .. 40,3 . II witl'e,t,"0: "Lvdti .warmer. 4W Z. laimr""7"7" •,, r-‘. ..a. ..1•.....r. . • • MUM , , i 41 1 .........4. .. : ...! MUM \\ !I Vilp r , m . z •OOSW • ' i• •• . ' i s, t-. .4 -7-7 4 -..-- 71: .__ .. kftrAr-7;t!. I • • . Ir.'t• . i ... %.,. -,:- :- 1 . err• , •—r-,... .-4-.7.-.....7-7,„ ... .•.; i s„..,.., ---i il I 1-.•4t"---"--•"•••• 1 i 1 1#=2._.I VII ,...--- 1 1 7 1 , N ,c„...1.„7,.....1.2 ,• .... .eV 0-66 e..- o'big1,6'a e,,: VIIP 1 • ter1=r i —44114 I I. ' 1 1 1.777,. Aim. t _ --;------_ -.•.-.........r...,--.......LA -.........-.:_.-....•......;.......-.1-...-....=-•-•*- •. WOK - :,_....•_IgirWPS-111!"; LT'W%7-------7- I . _..igi .";;";;' t _ IL,z(i il , -. \s• . --;-- iOrnii ,..Y.I.;,-T .01•*. . ...z••e"‘-• ...•,;••;••;.:••.,•• .. ;... -., ,.. iiracarAs4wasoi. . • :...,....--..... `...2-=---- --, ,,... ,,,,ei , il Pr— h .in 4111110"-•:, '.'"• 1 ii. f -....— :1•41.77-••<; .01 . :40.! ch.— vW 09 0 ' do ••.-; .r. ...,,,.., . ... _ ;9.• am o-0 ='‘II-11 ingar,..,, 090 , . 0 . 4 — • ,.0 . .. • .2;it. :;1.... .....„_.-.. — • -._,•••-n.......--''''A. \.2 ni_.0 P.. . 2:412:5' 441..41‘ ‘di.. 77. 1. 1 e,, • 0 0 0 a e,0.ots. ..-Nur,---\ „..T.::-..,1,_, ,,„ .„).-„„.. ....eko,„*- ,..'4144-.,,........ -1 It 1 sp.a10,,w• . PROPOICD moriumerr mom 1 .0 volt . ceisii‘s ct ilitt.,:lt.,i,....„_,Is -,„1, z_..12,04E: 1 Iviii,cmu..twassserreser - I . ' / • . , ii I I \ 1__, - -------- —‘i---)47.. •fr '•-••• ' il '\\ ' ) NIVILtid2"1:Vii--..v... ; I VTR=MOONY MIA= ••••• •— • imam POMO APO - GRAIN AND WILDFLOWINS sirvenor4=RS WI==I IAt I.APRIOCAIS=CATMINT W1 €V OPT naroareT REQUIRES YMINILITY MOM Puorniscs O/PRA= • GRAN=11COGIL,AND OMR KAT==RATION. --. NWT I. • ---- FIGURE 6.1 — CITY OF CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION Date Resolution No. Motion By Seconded By RESOLUTION DECLARING THE PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 3 AND THE PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 3-1 CONSISTENT WITH THE PLANS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF CHANHASSEN AS A WHOLE WHEREAS, the city council of the city of Chanhassen (the "City") has authorized preparation of a program (the "Program") for Development District No. 3 (the "Project") and a plan (the "Plan") for Tax Increment Financing District No. 3-1 ("TIF District No. 3-1") ; and WHEREAS, the Program and the Plan are contained in a document entitled "Development District Program, Development District No. 3 and Tax Increment Financing Plan, Tax Increment Financing District No. 3-1, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota", dated May 23, 1994, which is on file at the city hall; and WHEREAS, the planning commission has reviewed the Program and the Plan and has compared them to the plans for development of Chanhassen as a whole. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED By the Planning Commission of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota as follows: 1. The Program and the Plan are hereby found to be consistent with the City's plans for development of the community as a whole. 2. The City is urged to hold the public hearing on the Program and Plan required by law and to adopt same as soon as possible. Passed this day of , 1994, by the Planning Commission of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota. Chairperson ATTEST: Secretary RHH69221 #iiigl&ti CS 13 0-3 d CITY 0 F PC DATE: May 4, 1994 Y S S CC DATE: May 23, 1994 CASE #: 94-3 SUB, 94-2 CUP V STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat of 25.95 acres into 9 single family lots with variances on property zoned RSF; Conditional Use Permit for a Recreational Beachlot; - F- Wetland Alteration Permit for construction and mitigation of a wetland; and z vacation of right-of-way located on Minnewashta Avenue, Neumann Subdivision. - V LOCATION: South of Highway 7, South of Sandpiper Lane, West of Piper Ridge Lane, along the northeast shoreline of Lake Minnewashta. - a. Q. Q APPLICANT: Mrs. Henry Neumann Schoell & Madson, Inc. 2841 Sandpiper Trail Suite 1, 10580 Wayzata Blvd. Excelsior, MN 55331 Minnetonka, MN 55305 PRESENT ZONLNG: RSF, Single Family Residential District ACREAGE: 23.95 Acres Gross 23.42 Acres Net DENSITY: 0.38 Units per acre (Gross) 1.38 Units per acre (Net Upland) ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - RSF, Single Family S - RSF/RD, Lake Minnewashta E - RSF, Single Family `-- W - RSF/RD, Lake Minnewashta WATER AND SEWER: Available to the property w PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The northeast portion of the property is characterized by gentle _ 1"' rolling slopes, a small Inland Shallow Fresh Marsh Wetland and sparsely wooded areas. There are (f) also two existing homes upon this portion of the parcel. The south and western portions of the development area contain portions of severe slopes and may be recognized as "Bluff Impact Zones" by the DNR along the Lake Minnewashta shoreline. At the bottom of these slopes are natural wooded wetlands lying adjacent to the shoreline of the lake. LUUu LAE, rLHlr: L.OW vdnsliy icesluenuai AAThCSs"T 1"(MESH ST PTA 8 l - S. 8+ 8 R 1 _ 11 1M 1 ei ,. __ illi I __...� _ _ -a.• •0 I I A. igkow- 1.10 .40- "'° , mir ligil !rpt+:. ���` �'It D7:7 R`, i �Y� /�/���'a�•.•'".,' ���,y! .1 _�'�� un 4,400—.air,,,.....v...........,40 -.nal(LI a.2" a '11 )1141.7,:4 »e■ Mil111011" f oc ,,- Oink A -111ili 111 Iii11111111v a7. .y C• ��� /�.4*. : SUBJECT err ,_ ., p =..Tarr •■ • IL III sf•• ,- # Ar,.. rail e• —' – r I / LAW N. l� 1 LMEII 1 / IMO 1-- . ..... i ' LAKE -'gN�F/1/\ 7 �. r yrgii poo $'o: •JN.6[�/ MINNE {, — J JffiG/ON/IL 7000-$ 1111111T'\' __ '/� - - P4M4; 1 L' -_ - ' t . -.,...-._ itairir, . . P i I I .•IMP 141-,A a mila) ,, A 1 7290- i'4°°- - ,:ii. a. AC I . . ., ,.,-.. if -w A. -. =� _ mss► 7500 Q-,�� I = 5:1 arA!i�, \ Si 11 �. 7.00 ,i•Aii` ` ‘‘• •M1 MI kg amIP .--! OCT .14 ll I 464, 7.00 Ji / ' r/ 1 .5/ X0000 MOO— % . I 0 1 � ■fmime. 7Mfft�_ __ _�1■,0 � r�L9r ince. ... ., . J • 4 6141-71111111 . 0400 I, . i • I e� / r = • y Neumann Subdivision May 4, 1994 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is proposing to develop a 9 lot single family subdivision. This subdivision is a replat of Lots 19-27 in the Minnewashta Park Addition, which was platted and recorded on November 14, 1887. The proposed development also includes a request to vacate and abandon the unimproved right-of-way from this original plat known as "Minnewashta Avenue." Two of the proposed 9 lots will contain the existing homes presently located upon Lots 1 and 3, Block 2 owned by Mrs. Neumann and Ann & Arnold Weimerskirch (daughter and son-in-law of Mrs. Neumann). The proposed access to the development will occur from the proposed 400' cul-de-sac which aligns as an extension of Tanagers Lane to the north. Access to Lot 1, Block 1 along the easterly edge of the property will be the only lot which will gain its access from Piper Ridge Lane. In general, the overall density and large lot single family use of the land is found to be a quality approach to land development in an area that may be classified as "sensitive" from an environmental perspective. Staff is recommending that this plat be tabled until revisions can be made. These revisions include the relocation of the storm water ponds, lot revisions around the wetlands and a more detailed tree survey. The plat revisions should eliminate the requested variances. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for a recreational beachlot. The beachlot does meet the standards to allow 3 docks with 3 boats. Staff is recommending that there be one dock with nine slips to lessen the impacts to the wetland. The applicant is also requesting a wetland alteration permit. The Water Resources Coordinator and Assistant City Engineer are recommending that the wetland alteration permit be modified to lessen the amount of alteration. Another engineering issue is the location of the storm water ponds. Staff is requesting that they be relocated. These recommended changes will effect the layout of the plat. In addition, staff noticed trees that were not included in the survey. BACKGROUND The subject property was a portion of the Minnewashta Park Addition platted in the late 1800's. The portion of the original plat has remained on the books since this time and was never developed according to the plat of record, except with regard to the homes built upon the two lots in the development which presently access Sandpiper Lane via a private drive. Minnewashta Avenue is a platted, undeveloped right-of-way which circumscribes the perimeter of the Lake Minnewashta wetlands area. This roadway was never built from a practical engineering perspective as well as from a strong ecological rationale. To staff's knowledge, there have been no other formal development proposals for this property. Neumann Subdivision May 4, 1994 Page 3 SUBDIVISION DESIGN The subdivision is laid out so that there is minimal street improvements planned, large lot features, preservation of wetland areas, etc. There are, however, a number of design considerations which have raised substantial concern in terms of the overall design for this project including lot configuration and engineering design issues. There are a number of subdivision design standard variances which have been identified as a part of this application. Staff believes that the majority of these design variances can be eliminated through the changes in the plat design and lot configuration. The variances identified in this proposal include, but are not limited to the following: 1. Street ROW width at 50' vs. the 60' required. 2. Cul-de-sac ROW width at 50' vs. 60' required. 3. Lot 5, Block 2 20' lot neck vs. 30' required. 4. Lot 5, Block 2 flag lot pad location with 0' foot front set back vs. 30' required. 5. Lot 1, Block 1 30' set back to wetland buffer strip vs. 40' required. 6. Lot 1 Block 2 existing house front set back 17' vs. 30' required. (Staff supports platting variance due to existing conditions and ability to minimize impact upon wetland across street). 7. Lot 4, Block 2 flag lot pad location with 0' foot front set back vs. 30' required. SUBDIVISION COMPLIANCE TABLE - RSF DISTRICT Lot Lot Lot Home Shoreland Area Width Depth Setback Setback Ordinance 15,000 90' 125' 30' front/rear n/a 10' side Block 1 Lot 1 71,250 345' 290' Lot 2 24,040 140' 255' Lot 3 31,965 90' 240' Neumann Subdivision May 4, 1994 Page 4 Block 2 Lot 1 18,570 126 145 17'front Ordinance 20,000 90' 125' 30' front/rear 75' 10' side flag flag 100' 30' front/rear (Measured at 100' lot width) 20' side Block 1 (con't) Lot 4* 267,500 120' 175'+- 85'+- Block 2 Lot 2* 95,750 121' 400'+- 300'+- Lot 3* 108,000 130' 380'+- 295'+- Lot 4* 84,600 30'neck 380'+- 300'+- _ 100' Lot 5* 84,650 20'neck 305'+- 215'+- 100' * Lot area based upon Lake Shoreline - Must subtract waterward portion of lot below OHW Elevation +- Approximate lot depth and Shoreline setback based upon interpolated OHW Elevation & min. rear yard setback FLNDINGS Preliminary Plat - Section 18-39 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential Single Family District and the RD Shoreland Zoning District for Lake Neumann Subdivision May 4, 1994 Page 5 Minnewashta. The variances requested can be alleviated with revisions to the plat. 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable land use plan element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. 3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; Finding: The proposed site may be suitable for development provided the design issues as identified in this report, can be effectively addressed and resolved to the satisfaction of the city. A more detailed tree survey needs to be provided. 4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure, provided the design for required storm water improvements, and streets can be effectively addressed and resolved to the satisfaction of the City. The location of storm water ponds needs to be changed. The wetland alteration permit needs to be revised. 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding: The proposed subdivision is not anticipated to cause environmental or structural damage provided the proper re-design of the project can be achieved by the applicant. 6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record. Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements and vacate and abandon an inappropriate unimproved right-of-way. As a part of this application, a paper street will be vacated. Neumann Subdivision May 4, 1994 Page 6 7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. b. Lack of adequate roads. c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. Finding: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban infrastructure and provided the proper storm water drainage system design can be achieved by the applicant. SHORELAND REQUIREMENTS The entire development falls with the Shoreland Zoning District of Lake Minnewashta, which is entitled a Recreational Development Lake. All lots meet the minimum 20,000 sq. ft. lot size requirement where adjacent to the lakeshore, except for Lot 2, Block 2 which has an upland lot area of 19,990 sq. ft, as indicated in the preliminary plat lot tabulation data. The upland area of the lot is the standard imposed by the DNR relative to meeting the minimum lot size area requirements in the Shoreland District. According to the DNR, the upland portion of the lot begins at the OHW (ordinary high water elevation) which is 944.5' (NGVD, 1929) for Lake Minnewashta (please reference the letter from Joe Richter of the DNR dated April 18, 1994). For Lot 2, and all other proposed lots with lake frontage, the OHW level occurs out into the wetland areas. Therefore, all lots are found to be in compliance with the minimum shoreland lot area requirements. These same provisions hold true for the recreational beachlot which will have a total lot area in excess of 70,000 sq. ft., but below the _ 233,805 sq. ft. gross area which follows the shoreline as identified on the preliminary plat. Based upon these requirements as established by the DNR, staff recommends that the applicant resubmit the lot area calculations based upon a property line which follows the OHW Elevation of 945' (NGVD, 1929). LANDSCAPING/TREE PRESERVATION The development site presently contains a very substantial quantity of mature and young trees of varying size, species, quality and locations. The tree information submitted by the applicant presently does not meet the City's Code requirements with respect to tree preservation. This includes, but is not limited to: supplying information about all trees with a caliper of six (6") inches or more vs. the minimum twelve (12") inch size as identified by the applicant; supplying information about all trees on the site, specifically including the high quality stand of Oak and other trees not identified upon the proposed Lot 2, Block 2 (Staff would be open to supporting an alternative set back consideration for this lot provided the applicant can produce an effective tree preservation plan for the significant trees located upon Neumann Subdivision May 4, 1994 Page 7 this lot); and that the applicant further demonstrate the ability to maximize tree preservation relative to the proposed building pad locations and limits of site grading as identified upon the preliminary plat. The Planning Commission may also wish to direct the applicant to perform a "Tree Canopy Coverage" analysis to more fully assess the existing tree inventory upon the site and to more fully assess the proposed impacts upon this inventory relative to anticipated development tree removal. The applicant will also need to supply, as may be required, a tree replacement plan with particular consideration given to any vegetation which is removed, whether planned or not, between the house pad locations and the shoreland/wetland areas for all riparian lots. WATER RESOURCES Lake Minnewashta is a Department of Natural Resources (DNR) protected water (10-9P). Therefore, development around the lake will have to meet the DNR's shoreland ordinance requirements. The lake is designated as a recreational lake and this requires a minimum structure set back of 75 feet. Alteration of vegetation and topography shall be regulated to prevent erosion into the lake, fix nutrients, and preserve shoreland aesthetics and wildlife. Limited clearing of trees and shrubs and cutting, pruning, and trimming of trees is allowed to provide a view of the water from the principal dwelling site and to accommodate the placement of stairways and landing, picnic areas, access paths, beach and watercraft access areas, and permitted water oriented accessory structures or facilities. If an area is to be filled for a beach, a DNR permit may be necessary depending on the size of the beach and the amount of material placed. WETLANDS The following is a discussion of the two wetlands associated with the proposed project: A wetland designated by the City as natural surrounds the proposed project on the west and south side and lies adjacent to Lake Minnewashta. The wetland is identified in the City's Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) as A4-6(2). The wetland is superficially characterized in the SWMP as a wooded swamp (Circular 39; Types 7) or as a seasonally flooded palustrine forested wetland (Cowardin PFO1C). The value and function of this wetland as identified in the City's Wetland Ordinance highly discourages alteration to this wetland. A wetland designated by the City as agricultural/urban is located in the northeast corner of the proposed project (Lot 1, Block 1). The wetland is identified in the SWMP as A4-6(1). The wetland is superficially characterized in the SWMP as a combination of inland shallow and deep fresh marsh and wooded swamp (Circular 39; Types 3/4/7) or as a seasonally flooded palustrine emergent/forested wetland (Cowardin PEM/FO1C). The value and function Neumann Subdivision May 4, 1994 Page 8 of this wetland as identified in the City's Wetland Ordinance may allow some alteration to the wetland under the use of the Wetland Conservation Act's (WCA) sequencing criteria. City Wetland Ordinance - Permit Requirements The City will require a wetland alteration permit for any impacts to associated wetlands. In general the ordinance follows the guidelines of the WCA with the additional requirement of a buffer strip and a structure setback from the buffer strip. The structure setback and buffer strip widths are as follows: Wetland Buffer Strip Buffer Strip % Native Structure Setback Type Minimum Vegetation in from Outer Edge of Average Width Buffer Strip Buffer Strip Natural 10 - 30 ft 20 ft Required 40 ft • Ag/Urban 0-30 ft 10 ft Optional 40 ft WCA The WCA permanent rules have been effective since January 1, 1994 and the City of Chanhassen is the Local Governing Unit (LGU) administering the WCA permit process. A replacement plan is necessary for any impacts to the wetland at a minimum size wetland replacement ratio of 2:1. The notification process is a minimum of 60 days after the replacement plan has been submitted to the LGU. Replacement plan forms are available at City Hall. The LGU may not consider or approve a wetland replacement plan unless the it finds that the applicant has demonstrated that the activity impacting a wetland complies with the principles associated with sequencing (WCA rule 8420.0520). If this is considered a minor project by the LGU, however, where the functions and values lost due to the proposed drain or fill are less than that of the proposed replacement, an elaborate search for practicable alternatives will not be required. Clean Water Act Section 404 The discharge of dredged or fill material into any wetland or water area requires authorization, under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act from the Corps of Engineers. The Corps has issued a nationwide Section 404 permit for up to a half acre of fill in isolated wetlands without notification to the Corps and between a half acre and three acres in such basins with predischarge notification [(see 33 CFR 330.5 (a)(26)(ii)]. For impacts to areas between a half acre and three acres, the Corps requires that the applicant demonstrate that the Neumann Subdivision May 4, 1994 Page 9 impact cannot be avoided or minimized before considering compensatory mitigation. The wetland for the proposed project can be considered isolated if the impact to the wetland is less than 10,000 square feet. Staff believes impact to the wetland can be avoided by adjusting the lot lines to the south which may eliminate one lot. GRADING & DRAINAGE The preliminary plans propose grading for the street, storm pond and around the wetland on Lot 1, Block 1. The wetland is proposed to be partially filled to achieve the necessary setback dimensions for building pads on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1. Staff believes that this is a waste of a valuable natural resource and, accordingly, the lots should be pushed further to the south to avoid alteration of the wetland. In addition, the mitigation measures will push the wetland and water table closer to existing Sandpiper Lane which may jeopardize the road's structural integrity. Staff strongly recommends that the wetland be left in its natural state with the exception of filling for the proposed interior street. A storm water pond is proposed at the end of the recreational beachlot. Staff believes this is an inappropriate place for a storm water pond. It is approximately 400 feet off the street and will result in tree loss, not to mention the difficulty from a maintenance and accessibility standpoint. We believe it is much more feasible to develop a water quality treatment pond adjacent to the wetland and therefore the wetland can be recharged by the area runoff. This is another reason why Lots 1 and 2 should be shifted south to provide room for a water quality treatment pond for the stormwater to discharge into prior to discharging into the wetlands located on Lot 1. The wetland located on Lot 1 currently drains underneath the existing driveway on Lot 1, Block 2 along Minnewashta Avenue to Lake Minnewashta via an open ditch. The City already holds the necessary easements for the extension of the storm sewer as well as the maintaining the neighborhood drainage pattern. Staff also believes that this will save a significant number of trees on the recreational beach lot which was otherwise proposed for the stormwater pond. The City's ordinance requires the lowest floor elevation in the homes adjacent to wetland areas be 2 feet above the wetlands ordinary high water level. This would at a minimum require that on Lot 2 the lowest floor level be at 963 which will require additional fill be placed on Lots 2 and 3 to provide the adequate grade separation. The grading plan should be revised to show the appropriate grading on these lots to achieve buildable pad elevations. The majority of lots contain significant stands of trees. The grading plan does not indicate the grading limits on the lots. It is suspected that the lots will be custom-graded when the individual homes area constructed. It is recommended that individual grading and drainage plans be required for the treed lots for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to building permit issuance. Neumann Subdivision May 4, 1994 Page 10 The SWMP has established an assessment rate for water quality systems. The cash dedication will be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using the market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. Since the applicant is proposing to construct the water quality basin, these fees will be waived. The SWMP has established an assessment rate for different land uses based on an average, city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes all proposed SWMP culverts and open channels and stormwater ponding areas for temporary runoff storage. The applicant still will be required to pay the appropriate stormwater trunk fees associated with this project. Currently, the single-family/low-density rate is proposed at a rate of $1,980 per acre. Using the applicants lot tabulation sheet, this equates to 6.54 acres at $1,980 or $12,949. This fee would be required at the time of final plat recording. If the fees have not been adopted yet by the City Council then a letter of credit or cash dedication could be escrowed until the Surface Water Management Plan has been formally adopted by the City and the fees adjusted accordingly based on the approved fee schedule and assessment methodology. The plans do propose collecting stormwater runoff through a series of catch basins which carry the storm runoff to a stormwater pond. Again, the stormwater pond is not in an acceptable location and will have to be located on Lot 2 adjacent to the wetland or some other location acceptable to the City. Stormwater calculations for ponding and piping shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. Stormwater ponds shall meet Walker standards. The storm sewers shall be designed for a 10-year storm event. Erosion control measures are shown around the wetland area as well as the stormwater retention pond. The erosion control plan may be modified subject to the final grading and drainage plan. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval. The City has adopted a Best Management Practice Handbook which the applicant can purchase from the City at a cost of $25 to assist with the design process. The applicant is also proposing a retaining wall to be built in front of Lot 1 and part of Lot 2, Block 2. The retaining wall should be built outside of the City's road right-of-way and maintained by the property owner. Neumann Subdivision May 4, 1994 Page 11 UTILITIES The site is located within the City's Urban Service Area. Sanitary sewer and water service is available from Sandpiper Lane. The applicant is proposing on extending the sewer and water lines into the site. The utility installation shall be in accordance with the City's latest edition of the Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and conditions of final platting. There are two existing homes on the parcel. According to the City's records, one home is connected to city sewer and the other one is not. Both homes will be required to be connected to city sewer within 30 days after the sanitary sewer line becomes operational. The homes may utilize the existing wells on the site until they have failed at which time the properties must be connected to city water. STREETS The preliminary plat proposes a 50-foot right-of-way along with a 50-foot radius on the cul- de-sac. The City's ordinance requires that a 60-foot wide right-of-way with a 60-foot radius on the cul-de-sac for residential urban development. The applicant is requesting the reduced right-of-way to minimize the impact to the wetland on Lot 1. However, additional right-of- way will not require additional filling of the wetland. The filling occurs with construction of the street and utility installation. However, staff feels due to the close proximity of the existing house on Lot 1, Block 2 along with the existing right-of-way in the neighborhood, the street right-of-way may remain at 50 feet, however, the cul-de-sac radius must be increased to 60-feet to provide adequate turning movements for fire vehicles as well as snow storage and utility installations. The 60-foot radius on the cul-de-sac encroaches closer to the house pad on Lot 4, Block 1. A way to alleviate this would be to grant a variance on the house setback or an easier way would be to reduce the overall cul-de-sac length by 10 feet. The street is proposed to be constructed in accordance with the City's urban street standard which is 31 feet wide back to back. Street grades range from 0.5% to 2.7% which is also within the City's guidelines. Street construction plans shall be required with the utility plans to be submitted to the City for formal review and approval. The street appears to be a continuation of Tanagers Lane south of Sandpiper Lane therefore it may be prudent to require the street be named Tanagers Lane or Tanagers Court to maintain a consistency in street names and addresses. As a result of platting the two homes may be required to change their addresses to correspond to the plat's street name and City's address grid. Neumann Subdivision May 4, 1994 Page 12 RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT The development proposal includes a conditional use permit request for a private recreational beachlot. The beachlot area contains a total of 233,805 gross sq. ft. with a total net upland area of 45,165 sq. ft. excluding wetland area. The lot area calculation will need to be recalculated as previously identified. The private beachlot would include a boardwalk which will extend 190' across the wetlands and into the lake area where a common dock would be located with 9 boat slips. Staff strongly supports the combined approach to providing a common lake access via a single boardwalk through the lake wetlands area. This proposal as presented complies with the requirements prescribed by the city's beachlot requirements and the standards as set forth by the DNR. The location selected for dock access is also the most practical from a positioning point as being the shortest path through this important ecological area. RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT CUP COMPLIANCE TABLE Association Compliance P.C. Item Request Standard With Standard Recommended Association Neumann Sub. Lake Minnewashta RD Number 9 80% / Yes of Homes 1000' rule Size, Sq. Ft. 233,805* 30,000 s.f. Yes 1st Dock 20,000 s.f. each add'! dock up to 3 max. * Size to be reduced based upon area to be recalculated relative to OHW Elevation Shoreline 1,200 l.f** 200 1.f. per dock Yes ** Shoreline distance to be reduced based upon calculation relative to OHW Elevation Motor Vehicle Access No Prohibited Yes Neumann Subdivision May 4, 1994 Page 13 _ Off-Street Pkg. No Prohibited Yes Boat Launch No Prohibited Yes Buildings No Permitted n/a _ Seasonal Dock 1 3 Permitted Yes Dock Length (190' Bdwk.) 50' or 4' Depth Depth (90' dock, plus whichever is Unknown? cross bars) greater _ Dock Width 4 ft. 4 ft. Yes Cross Bar 20 ft. 25 ft. Yes Length Dock Set Back 500 10 ft. Yes Canoe Racks None 1.5 racks n/a — 1 Rack Slip per lot (9) Sail Boats None 3 n/a Moored Boats at Dock 9 9 Yes Swimming Beach None Permitted n/a — Marker Buoys None Permitted n/a Swimming Raft None Permitted n/a Beachlot — Buffering Yes Required Yes Urban 80%/ 100% / 80% / Yes 1000' Rule 500' 1000' Port-a-Potties None Permitted n/a Neumann Subdivision May 4, 1994 Page 14 Section 20-232, General Issuance Standards 1. Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or city. Finding: The dock will be a boardwalk reducing the impacts to the wetland. A combined dock with 9 slips will also lessen the impact. 2. Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter. Finding: The beachlot is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance. 3. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. Findin : The applicant needs to provide details about the trail to the dock as well as specifications about the dock. 4. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. Finding: There are several beachlot associations on Lake Minnewashta. This subdivision is just to the east of Minnewashta Manor Homeowners Association. 5. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. Finding: There will be a trail off of a public street to access the beachlot. The members of the subdivision should form an association. 6. Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Finding: The beachlot should provide members of the association a recreational amenity. Neumann Subdivision May 4, 1994 Page 15 7. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash. Finding: The subdivision needs to form an association to keep the beachlot maintained. 8. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. Finding: Members of the association all live within close proximity. Boats will be launched at the regional park. 9. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. Finding: The development of this site will not result in the loss of any features. 10. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area. Finding: The beachlot should be properly maintained to remain compatible with the surrounding uses. 11. Will not depreciate surrounding property values. Finding: The beachlot should be an asset to the neighbors by providing recreational opportunity as well as protected open space. 12. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article. Finding: The request meets the beachlot ordinance standards. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission table the applicant's request so that the plat can be revised to address the following issues: 1. Relocation of the storm water pond. 2. More detailed tree survey. Neumann Subdivision May 4, 1994 Page 16 3. Elimination of the variance requests through redesign of the lots. Wetland avoidance can also be achieved through lot redesign. 4. A 60' radius needs to be provided at the end of the cul-de-sac. 5. A sketch plan needs to be provided for the beachlot including trail and dock specifications. ATTACHMENTS 1. Memo from Dave Hempel and Diane Desotelle dated April 27, 1994. 2. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated April 22, 1994. 3. Letter from Schoell and Madson dated March 29, 1994 and April 20, 1994. 4. Wetland delineation dated March 25, 1994. 5. Letter from DNR dated April 18, 1994. 6. Hearing notice dated April 26, 1993. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Andrew Mack, Planner II FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer �? Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator - DATE: April 27, 1994 SUBJ: Review of Preliminary Plat for Neumann Addition Project No. 94-11 Upon review of the preliminary plat prepared by Schoell & Madson, Inc. dated March 29, 1994, we offer the following comments and recommendations: WATER RESOURCES Lake Minnewashta is a Department of Natural Resources (DNR) protected water (10-9P). Therefore, development around the lake will have to meet the DNR's shoreland ordinance requirements. The lake is designated as a recreational lake and this requires a minimum structure set back of 75 feet. Alteration of vegetation and topography shall be regulated to prevent erosion into the lake, fix nutrients, and preserve shoreland aesthetics and wildlife. Limited clearing of trees and shrubs and cutting, pruning, and trimming of trees is allowed to provide a view of the water from the principal dwelling site and to accommodate the placement of stairways and landing, picnic areas, access paths, beach and watercraft access areas, and permitted water oriented accessory structures or facilities. If an area is to be filled for a beach, a DNR permit may be necessary depending on the size of the beach and the amount of material placed. WETLANDS The following is a discussion of the two wetlands associated with the proposed project: A wetland designated by the City as natural surrounds the proposed project on the west and south side and lies adjacent to Lake Minnewashta. The wetland is identified in the City's Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) as A4-6(2). The wetland is superficially characterized in the SWMP as a wooded swamp (Circular 39; Types 7) or as a seasonally flooded palustrine forested Andrew Mack April 27, 1994 Page 2 wetland (Cowardin PFOIC). The value and function of this wetland as identified in the City's Wetland Ordinance highly discourages alteration to this wetland. A wetland designated by the City as agricultural/urban is located in the northeast corner of the proposed project (Lot 1, Block 1). The wetland is identified in the SWMP as A4-6(1). The wetland is superficially characterized in the SWMP as a combination of inland shallow and deep fresh marsh and wooded swamp (Circular 39; Types 3/4/7) or as a seasonally flooded palustrine emergent/forested wetland (Cowardin PEM/FO1C). The value and function of this wetland as — identified in the City's Wetland Ordinance may allow some alteration to the wetland under the use of the Wetland Conservation Act's (WCA) sequencing criteria. PERMIT REQUIREMENTS City Wetland Ordinance The City will require a wetland alteration permit for any impacts to associated wetlands. In general the ordinance follows the guidelines of the WCA with the additional requirement of a buffer strip and a structure setback from the buffer strip. The structure setback and buffer strip widths are as follows: Wetland Buffer Strip Buffer Strip %Native Structure Setback from Type Minimum Average Vegetation in Outer Edge of Buffer Width Buffer Strip Strip Natural 10 - 30 ft 20 ft Required 40 ft Ag/Urban 0-30 ft 10 ft Optional 40 ft WCA The WCA permanent rules have been effective since January 1, 1994 and the City of Chanhassen _ is the Local Governing Unit (LGU) administering the WCA permit process. A replacement plan is necessary for any impacts to the wetland at a minimum size wetland replacement ratio of 2:1. The notification process is a minimum of 60 days after the replacement plan has been submitted to the LGU. Replacement plan forms are available at City Hall. The LGU may not consider or approve a wetland replacement plan unless the it finds that the applicant has demonstrated that the activity impacting a wetland complies with the principles associated with sequencing (WCA rule 8420.0520). If this is considered a minor project by the LGU, however, where the functions and values lost due to the proposed drain or fill are less than Andrew Mack April 27, 1994 Page 3 that of the proposed replacement, an elaborate search for practicable alternatives will not be required. Clean Water Act Section 404 The discharge of dredged or fill material into any wetland or water area requires authorization, under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act from the Corps of Engineers. The Corps has issued a nationwide Section 404 permit for up to a half acre of fill in isolated wetlands without notification to the Corps and between a half acre and three acres in such basins with predischarge notification ((see 33 CFR 330.5 (a)(26)(ii)). For impacts to areas between a half acre and three acres, the Corps requires that the applicant demonstrate that the impact cannot be avoided or minimized before considering compensatory mitigation. The wetland for the proposed project can be considered isolated if the impact to the wetland is less than 10,000 square feet. Staff believes impact to the wetland can be avoided by adjusting the lot lines to the south which may eliminate one lot. GRADING & DRALNAGE The preliminary plans propose grading for the street, storm pond and around the wetland on Lot 1, Block 1. The wetland is proposed to be partially filled to achieve the necessary setback dimensions for building pads on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1. Staff believes that this is a waste of a valuable natural resource and, accordingly, the lots should be pushed further to the south to avoid alteration of the wetland. In addition, the mitigation measures will push the wetland and water table closer to existing Sandpiper Lane which may jeopardize the road's structural integrity. Staff strongly recommends that the wetland be left in its natural state with the exception of filling for the proposed interior street. A storm water pond is proposed at the end of the recreational beachlot. Staff believes this is an inappropriate place for a storm water pond. It is approximately 400 feet off the street and will result in tree loss, not to mention the difficulty from a maintenance and accessibility standpoint. We believe it is much more feasible to develop a water quality treatment pond adjacent to the wetland and therefore the wetland can be recharged by the area runoff. This is another reason why Lots 1 and 2 should be shifted south to provide room for a water quality treatment pond for the stormwater to discharge into prior to discharging into the wetlands located on Lot 1. The wetland located on Lot 1 currently drains underneath the existing driveway on Lot 1, Block 2 along Minnewashta Avenue to Lake Minnewashta via an open ditch. The City already holds the necessary easements for the extension of the storm sewer as well as the maintaining the neighborhood drainage pattern. Staff also believes that this will save a significant number of trees on the recreational beach lot which was otherwise proposed for the stormwater pond. Andrew Mack April 27, 1994 Page 4 The City's ordinance requires the lowest floor elevation in the homes adjacent to wetland areas be 2 feet above the wetlands ordinary high water level. This would at a minimum require that on Lot 2 the lowest floor level be at 963 which will require additional fill be placed on Lots 2 and 3 to provide the adequate grade separation. The grading plan should be revised to show the appropriate grading on these lots to achieve buildable pad elevations. The majority of lots contain significant stands of trees. The grading plan does not indicate the grading limits on the lots. It is suspected that the lots will be custom-graded when the individual homes area constructed. It is recommended that individual grading and drainage plans be required for the treed lots for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to building permit issuance. The SWMP has established an assessment rate for water quality systems. The cash dedication will be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using the market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. Since the applicant is proposing to construct the water quality basin, these fees will be waived. The SWMP has established an assessment rate for different land uses based on an average, city- wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes all proposed SWMP _ culverts and open channels and stormwater ponding areas for temporary runoff storage. The applicant still will be required to pay the appropriate stormwater trunk fees associated with this project. Currently, the single-family/low-density rate is proposed at a rate of $1,980 per acre. _ Using the applicants lot tabulation sheet, this equates to 6.54 acres at $1,980 or $12,949. This fee would be required at the time of final plat recording. If the fees have not been adopted yet by the City Council then a letter of credit or cash dedication could be escrowed until the Surface Water Management Plan has been formally adopted by the City and the fees adjusted accordingly based on the approved fee schedule and assessment methodology. The plans do propose collecting stormwater runoff through a series of catch basins which carry the storm runoff to a stormwater pond. Again, the stormwater pond is not in an acceptable location and will have to be located on Lot 2 adjacent to the wetland or some other location acceptable to the City. Stormwater calculations for ponding and piping shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. Stormwater ponds shall meet Walker standards. The storm sewers shall be designed for a 10-year storm event. Erosion control measures are shown around the wetland area as well as the stormwater retention pond. The erosion control plan may be modified subject to the final grading and drainage plan. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the Andrew Mack April 27, 1994 Page 5 City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval. The City has adopted a Best Management Practice Handbook which the applicant can purchase from the City at a cost of$25 to assist with the design process. The applicant is also proposing a retaining wall to be built in front of Lot 1 and part of Lot 2, Block 2. The retaining wall should be built outside of the City's road right-of-way and maintained by the property owner. UTILITIES The site is located within the City's Urban Service Area. Sanitary sewer and water service is available from Sandpiper Lane. The applicant is proposing on extending the sewer and water lines into the site. The utility installation shall be in accordance with the City's latest edition of the Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and conditions of final platting. There are two existing homes on the parcel. According to the City's records, one home is connected to city sewer and the other one is not. Both homes will be required to be connected to city sewer within 30 days after the sanitary sewer line becomes operational. The homes may utilize the existing wells on the site until they have failed at which time the properties must be connected to city water. — STREETS The preliminary plat proposes a 50-foot right-of-way along with a 50-foot radius on the cul-de- sac. The City's ordinance requires that a 60-foot wide right-of-way with a 60-foot radius on the cul-de-sac for residential urban development. The applicant is requesting the reduced right-of- way to minimize the impact to the wetland on Lot 1. However, additional right-of-way will not require additional filling of the wetland. The filling occurs with construction of the street and utility installation. However, staff feels due to the close proximity of the existing house on Lot 1, Block 2 along with the existing right-of-way in the neighborhood, the street right-of-way may remain at 50 feet, however, the cul-de-sac radius must be increased to 60-feet to provide adequate turning movements for fire vehicles as well as snow storage and utility installations. The 60-foot radius on the cul-de-sac encroaches closer to the house pad on Lot 4, Block 1. A way to alleviate this would be to grant a variance on the house setback or an easier way would be to reduce the overall cul-de-sac length by 10 feet. The street is proposed to be constructed in accordance with the City's urban street standard which is 31 feet wide back to back. Street grades range from 0.5% to 2.7% which is also within the Andrew Mack April 27, 1994 Page 6 City's guidelines. Street construction plans shall be required with the utility plans to be submitted to the City for formal review and approval. The street appears to be a continuation of Tanagers Lane south of Sandpiper Lane therefore it may be prudent to require the street be named Tanagers Lane or Tanagers Court to maintain a consistency in street names and addresses. As a result of platting the two homes may be required to change their addresses to correspond to the plat's street name and City's address grid. RECONLMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 shall be pushed further to the south to avoid unnecessary alteration to the wetlands on Lot 1, Block 1. 2. The storm water pond proposed on the recreational beachlot shall be relocated adjacent to the wetlands on Lot 1, Block 1 or some other location acceptable to the City. 3. Lowest floor elevations of the homes adjacent to the wetland areas shall be two feet above the wetland's ordinary high water level. 4. The grading plan shall be revised to show the appropriate site grading to achieve buildable house pad elevations adjacent to the wetlands. Individual grading and drainage plans will be required for all treed lots. The plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to building permit issuance. 5. The applicant shall pay the appropriate storm water quality and quantity fees or provide storm water management improvements in accordance to the City's Surface Water Management Plan. If the storm water fees have not been formally adopted by the time final plat is to be recorded, then a letter of credit or cash dedication will be escrowed with the City until the SWMP plan has been formally adopted by the City and the fees adjusted accordingly based on the approved fee schedule and assessment methodology. 6. Storm water calculations for ponding and piping shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. All storm water ponds shall meet Walker standards. The storm sewer shall be designed for a 10-year storm event. 7. The erosion control plan may be modified subject to the final grading and drainage plan. Erosion control measures shall be employed in accordance to the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 8. All retaining walls shall be built outside the City's right-of-way and maintained by the property owner. Andrew Mack April 27, 1994 Page 7 9. All utility and street installation for public improvements shall be in accordance with the City's latest edition of standard specifications and detail plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval in conjunction with final plat approval. 10. The applicant shall be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and conditions of final platting. 11. Both existing homes will be required to be connected to City sewer within 30 days after the line becomes operational. The existing homes may utilize the wells on the site until they fail at which time the properties must be connected to City water. Existing septic systems shall be abandoned per City or State codes. 12. As a result of platting the two existing homes may be required to change the addresses to correspond to the final plat and the City's address grid system. The new street name shall be subject to apprval by the City's Public Safety Department. 13. The applicant shall receive and comply with all pertinent agency permits, i.e. Watershed District, DNR, MWCC, MPCA, Minnesota Dept. of Health, etc. 14. The cul-de-sac radius shall be 60 feet. jms/ktm c: Charles Folch, City Engineer g:leng'viav e\pclneum ann.ppr CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director jj FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official ("1 ) DATE: April 22 , 1994 SUBJECT: 94-3 SUB, 94-2 CUP, 94-2 WAP, & 94-2 VAC (Neumann Subdivision) I was asked to review the proposed subdivision stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN, RECEIVED, MAR 28, 1994 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT. " for the above referenced project. Analysis: Inspection Division's only comment at this time concerns the street name. The proposed street name must be submitted to the Public Safety Department for review. The purpose of this requirement is to avoid redundant or similarly named streets. Staff would like to suggest that "Tanagers Court" would be the most appropriate name for the proposed street . The new street will appear to be an extension of Tanagers Lane and the similar name will provide for quick recognition of it 's location. It will also provide for a termination point for Sandpiper Lane. Staff does not think it appropriate to include the suggested name as a condition, but would like the developer to be aware of the recommendation. Recommendation: The following condition should be included with the conditions of approval. 1 . Submit street name to Public Safety Department for review prior to final plat approval. g:\cafety\oak\memos\plan\neuma:.n.kal SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS SOIL TESTING • ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 10580 WAYZATA BOULEVARD • SUITE 1 • MINNETONKA, MN 55305-1525 _ (612) 546.7601 • FAX (612) 546.9065 March 29, 1994 Ms. Kathryn Aanenson, Planning Director City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Subject: Neumann Property Subdivision Dear Ms. Aanenson: Transmitted herewith are the preliminary plans for the subdivision of the Neumann property located at Sandpiper Lane on Lake Minnewashta. This consists of nine lots plus a recreational beach lot which is intended for a common dock for nine boats. Existing homes would be retained on two of the lots. These homes are occupied by Mrs. Henry Neumann, the property owner and applicant, and by Mr. & Mrs. Arnold Wermerskirch, her daughter and son-in-law. The property consists of nine lots and adjacent street right of way of "Minnewashta Park, Carver Co., Minn." plat. Some vacation of platted right of way is required. The site is a peninsula on Lake Minnewashta. There is significant tree cover on the site. There is a wide band of wetlands along the lakeshore. Another isolated wetland exists on the south side of Sandpiper Lane. These wetlands are described in the enclosed wetland report. The initial site grading and tree removal would be limited to grading of the proposed cul-de-sac street and stormwater pond. Grading and tree removal on the individual lots would be done at the time of house construction. Some alteration of the 6,500 square feet of wetland by Sandpiper Lane is proposed to allow the proposed street construction and to provide the required setback and buffer from two proposed homes. Wetland mitigation of double the altered area is provided. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION • EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. Ms. Kathryn Aanenson 2 March 29, 1994 Eight of the lots receive access from the proposed cul-de-sac. The other lot would access from Piper Ridge Lane. The two lots on the end of the cul-de-sac are flag lots and require variances for width at the front setback. Lot 2, block 2 requires a four foot variance from the 125 foot width requirement at the front setback. This lot is confined by the two existing homes. A 50-foot wide right of way is proposed on the street to minimize the wetland alteration which also requires a variance. A recreational beach lot is proposed on the tip of the peninsula. This would be owned and maintained by a homeowners' association. A common dock for nine boats is proposed. The recreational beach lot has 1200 feet of shoreline measured at the lake shore and 600 feet when measured at the edge of the upland area. The total area is 233,800 square feet of which 45,165 is upland. The lot has sufficient shoreline and gross area to meet the ordinance requirements for the 9-boat dock. Please advise us if you have any questions or require additional information. Very truly yours, SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. 7,-r24/4-t_624.1 412riE Kenneth Adolf KEA/cj enc. cc: Arnold Wermerskirch — — SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS SOIL TESTING • ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 105B0 WAYZATA BOULEVARD • SUITE I • MINNETONKA. MN 55305-1525 (612] 546.7601 • FAX (6123 546.9065 April 20, 1994 Ms. Kathryn Aanenson, Planning Director City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Subject: Neumann Property Subdivision Dear Ms. Aanenson: Transmitted herewith are revised preliminary plans for the subdivision of the Neumann property. The revisions from the previously submitted plans consist of the following: 1. Location of additional trees on lot 1 and the recreational beach lot in areas initially thought to be beyond the construction zone. 2. Relocation of the stormwater pond to a location requiring less tree removal. 3. Extension of the storm sewer to the wetland along Sandpiper Lane. An additional variance which was not noted in our March 29, 1994 transmittal letter is for the existing house on lot 1 block 2. Meeting the front yard set back on this lot would require shifting the right of way into the wetland. The location of the proposed street, as shown, also aligns the proposed street with Tangers Lane. Please call me if you have any questions or require additional information. Very truly yours, SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. 7144441,4e/- Kenneth Adolf KEA/cj enc. cc: Arnold Wermerskirch AFFIRMATIVE ACTION • EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Preliminary Wetland Classification, Identification and Delineation for Mrs. Henry Neumann Chanhassen, MN prepared by SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. March 25, 1994 Wetland Classification, Identification and Delineation for the Neumann site located at Chanhassen, MN Summary Based upon the information provided to Schoell and Madson, Inc., we have identified two wetland basins on the property. The wetlands were field delineated on January 24, 1994. Review of U.S. Fish and Wildlife National Wetland Inventory maps indicated the presence of two wetland basins at this location. Based on review of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Protected Waters maps the two wetland basins. Wetland one is located in the northeastern corner of the property. Wetland two is located along the west and south boundaries is designated as protected water number 10-9P. The two wetlands are also identified on the City's official wetland map. Project Location and Site Description The site is located approximately 1/4th mile south of the intersection of Minnewashta Bay Road and Minnesota Highway 7 in Chanhassen, MN. The site is approximately 9.2 acres. The southern portions of site have remained relatively undisturbed for a number of years. The property consists of gently rolling to steep hills, currently most of the upland areas are wooded or occupied by two residences and bounded by Lake Minnewashta on the west and south. Characteristics of the Wetland Basins Basin 1 This wetland basin is approximately 0.8 acres in size. It is classified as a Type 3 (Inland Shallow Fresh Marsh) as defined in Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (FWS/OBS Publication 79/31; Cowardin et al) and Wetlands of the United States (USFWS Circular 39; Shaw and Fredine 1971). Based on the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineation of Jurisdictional Wetlands (Interagency Task Force on Wetland Delineation, 1989) and the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (1987) the basin is classified as a PEMC wetland (Palustrine Emergent Seasonally Flooded). The wetland basin is located in the northeastern portions of the property. This wetland is also identified on the City of Channhassen's official wetland map as A4-6(1). The City of Chanhassen has designated this wetland as an Ag/Urban Wetland. Observed wetland vegetation within the wetland boundary consisted of a number of common wetland indicator species including: Broad-leaved cattail (Typha latifolia)(obligate wetland), Reed Canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) (facultative wetland), Bulrush (Scirpus spp.) (obligate wetland), Sedges (Carex spp.)(obligate wetland) Redosier Dogwood (Cornus stolonifera) (facultative wetland) and Willow (salix spp.) (facultative wetland). Wetland boundary areas contained the following species: Kentucky Blue Grass (Poa pretenses) (facultative -), Smooth Brome (Bromus inermis) (upland),Box Elder (Acer negundo)(facultative wetland), Willow (Salix spp.) (facultative wetland) and Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) (facultative wetland). According to the 1968 USDA Soil Survey of Carver County, soils in wetland basin 1 are identified as Hayden loam which contains inclusions that are classified as hydric soils. The 1968 survey description of Hayden soils states the following; "The Hayden series consists of deep well drained soils that formed in friable, limy clay loam or loam glacial till. Permeability is moderate and moisture storage capacity is moderately high". Hydrologic conditions were not determined due to frozen soil conditions. Once soils have thawed hydrologic conditions will be determined. Basin 2 The wetland is adjacent to Lake Minnewashta. It is classified as a Type 7 (Wooded Swamp), and as a PFO1C (Palustrine Forested Broad-leaved Deciduous Seasonally Flooded) basin. Further inside the boundaries there is a transition to Broad leaved cattails (Typha latifolia) and other similar emergent vegetation (PEMF). Because this wetland is associated with Lake Minnewashta the size of the wetland was not determined. This wetland is also identified on the City of Channhassen's official wetland map as A4-6(2) and N1-6(3). The City of Chanhassen has designated this wetland as a Natural Wetland. According to the 1968 soil survey soils are classified as Marsh and Glencoe. Both are listed as hydric soils. Due to frozen soil conditions no soil samples were taken. Vegetation included Cottonwood (Populus deltoides)(facultative +), Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) (facultative wetland), American Elm (Ulmus americana) (facultative wetland -), Willow (Salix spp.) (facultative wetland), Redosier Dogwood (Cornus stolonifera) (facultative wetland) and Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea) (facultative wetland +). 2 Wetlands were preliminarily delineated according to the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (Interagency Task Force on Wetland Delineation 1989) as required by the 1991 Wetland Conservation Act. After the soil is free of frost soil samples will be taken to complete the definition of wetland boundaries. Because the 1989 manual has a more conservative hydrologic requirement than the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, delineated boundaries should be consistent with or more conservative (drier) than those arrived at using the 1987 manual. The site is located within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Management District boundaries in the City of Chanhassen, MN. Mitigation will be necessary for any impacted portions of wetland. Replacement of the filled or drained portions of wetlands is required. When this occurs replacement will need to be of the same wetland type and within the same watershed and preferably on the same site. With the passage of the Wetland Conservation Act, wetlands on this site now come under the jurisdiction of the Board of Water and Soil Resources. The local unit of government (LGU) is responsible for administering the provisions of this legislation. In this case, the City of Chanhassen will be the LGU. We have reviewed the various exemptions contained in the Act and find that, no exemptions apply. The project must be certified by the LGU as having complied with the provisions of the Act that apply during the exemption period. Any wetland impacts must be replaced or restored at a 2:1 acreage ratio in the same watershed as the impact occurs. The act also mandates that restoration or creation of replacement of wetlands only be considered after an applicant has demonstrated that the impacts can not be avoided, further minimized, corrected or eliminated over time. This requirement is essentially the same as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit process. During the final design process efforts should be taken, whenever possible, to avoid and minimize wetland impacts. By utilizing this approach wetland replacement costs will be kept to a minimum and any additional permitting will be more easily facilitated. 3 Site Map 4 / \ / l i s, J 1 - I Ii c .fl U / ••/ // I • I 7 .. /./..) ,, , , , /-07 , • . , $4) , x ,\ ._ ' ' /// �"big • 1 1 i - - 0.- - .0...- _ if/ 1 I li 1 I .-, ‘w'''millooR 11, _:_i: It - ._. 1 1 ._. 1 fiti,)\,. .‘,1ikw Milli irzviiizv 1( t_..1- irrrrar � N R. 7;7. . . .. \I ii i U , , tIC• W _1 F ..,,I) r (A,' � ,1_ u j 61:.:7,). 11!Ct • I �� PAF. 7 II \ \ j \ 5 , •r • 1 \ Y Soil Survey Map 5 )Vl ;-1,,' ----- -,..---.. .i. 1"-JAN-••.,....t -4.•-.:• --,. '0": ,--mi. , . .z4:-14 • 'A‘e .. ,„---/...,_4. -. .. ,e;:... ,,,, ,‘. .. .0, .... . - ..•i_1, .....N. , os". ... T•P'.' .--- al3,,,..;.":!' Ai.9,1f*:-. r:..;?1-''.. A . PS - - . ..-F,. .70,1, 0V; „,_• • .,-t:7,1.--• , Hest 0.-.... , N.. %.---...-171-7-15:4-.'''' l)'. ... . br • • ,,:lt, il"7:*:-J;';:.-,,-illi".._I :-''v. .2f41:1:.1 -.": • -zi 7 • •4A--r-- 15vIr e.• ,- •.4• - • ••.----;.;.. \-7'-''...1.:--x-r- ..ry-xf- *-,.. ; t''-' Orl fLsik-, --- ' .-L • ' al.- 4. . ,....-.,:. ,-,,- ,.-.,, . .... .;. ' ".-k..'.•\ ::-... ,.....0,: .1. .3sA--':.:;+, •- - at , '.."4- •"`".L.t ;MIS -- - •- 4,,„1„..." .. .... tir -• •I A :---' •..w. ,4-11-. . Pro ject . .,.... , ._,„... , ... _ , . laB t 6:`Q... - o• • _ . . • _. .24 , s.., - •• 1 ''.. 1-Zvi --- ,4 . I.11111 c;,... :.... • . . Y.i.744 st.: 41;1 , ...--:.i•%. . '• tttf '.-e!,s:0-rdr1: . Locatin • , .,.. .., _ a wn a . ''' IC TO,- ''''' •..z.-.. 1....7' !"11,; a : . - ,. • .. .1 .. _ 0, 1 p . , o.."1•:-:,...ii••:::=..1.... ,,,. to4 . - . • .• •. ''-'4 . . ....$''-"o*. .o • ' - ----' - - • I, ,*•••• • -.b..17..; .-4.- • ... • --• - -• : - ' 4... -1;. ---4„„,......• - :Ge ,..., . ,•.ti _... .. ....l& -.7. 11141;500., --- .... • - 4. ... li.• .: a'- . • ., ,-1,t, !.....--21, -_-, -...-.-.-.. .-; . : •• ,. - - -- '..:sis. • ',4' /7 )?-..i.4t, •-'*-:t r 6 i Ze .0. .-. 1'a.---i --'.)5,01‘,.. •••.-..„, ,.. . • ..-- . .-.::::--,k1;7-i...--:_;..-r...:::-1,-..._X'.. ..'114•:•.---.-- -.---•-•.--- :.•-•,•.: -.AD .:-di. •-. --: -if-Ve" ;.--.6 ....:-;"1::--,?.....49 %or" 11/4 '1 '. 7-41a,...,V1-1,31:1- I ,,...-.;_:„..:-,..-,7....f..:4-4,;.:•.,... .4.•,-- ---- --. J..--_: --;•:"..--" F.-,7.0e,id-. .v., - z.,-, .; ..-., ..;•,,,*;•...4,,:if; „ey. ).; 4._,P-i. goim-iwo A -.-4471•-•.....-4.1:1;:tr-t.f,..k..1-•-";:tt..:.-,..."7-VC%:;•:..-• • •.-"; • -.•...-:.--.-..-.• . - - • . ••....- • • -' :.-....."...'..- • - I:---..;7:aiei-f"-:•-••---rts. ,":...7..,"7:•.*.--• ,.--:- :-. '''...-. - I. ; ....- ,..t-.. ' ....4. • ••-.....:- - _,_•• - eCtiell :•-•C.,;;,j 0 ,..._ : st• ..=746.!;7,:14.2.11"*,---....--,' -7 7`-t...---;:-_, -,--. ---.;at • ..""0 c- '`‘.-t .--"F4.• . ....;.:1-*.Z'7_,--'' " '17114" Ihri . 1.41. 9.-..:4•17-1. , - !'...:'-7 ..-..'Li., -4- -:7-t--4---.---- -21 ". """---.---4.-1-IL.,=.1.0 -:-.---.P" . :.1.:'". ---,.. "ebSb17. .....-• 71: * ----... - ck, - •-!-.----.13/4v'.."- •. ' v - - .-::*--4::, - ^, ., -':rifipr 4000a.-- .. -... iti...;-•r7A •441 • : -- X :•- -.a_' - ------. -2..!' .....--. ..... --- -:-- .:., --._.- .. 7- f •-. 4,4501 apiwit. •..,..,, ---;:-... •- ot.-,--- :' -II--.--2 -.4:•-%. . -; - - --_,-.1,,,XL.,....r: -...;,_ -"Q --.00. • ----; - ._-,-- Pr- ... .,-.. . ,....-,,,,,•--.- - . ___,..,........_....„..:,_... .x- -• . _.. .• _-- ... :- , .•„.-....-- ... . ........ _ , ,;*•\••• Xt • Q - - 7:-.;;•-_` 1. .riX2r77.4,4P.;41•1-f.',..t:* 4:101r* ,. ------- • .3. ;01 ;,4 .i., •.• - 51 2,..v.:..... .wk.?".... •-•,..7.0._ _a ‘,.-. oa. • • • - • -.72•-"• ..: ..:-•• •7 4 -4-• t 46 ,,,f ...:-.-- 1,- ub•-ii...le • _a.c. . .- 4) . _4'7 f. - h •' :i..;,.r.'-tV"..c=r-:7",-... "..//' -,..4. 3 '' ''''-----f-'' , .:,:*, .-._,I- --. ;', SP . IF e -.L.-Afee-%.-00-.. i - Ztie.--- _ . • -2- -- ,.. h 70( reci. . • .--- ..#1"kt.. ..X.14-e...''A••11"...-'.-... "''.--.:ilki_le.g.i'7 lie. me%".r -41te A--t- . : - . . ge.._- ,,.. ......r _,,i_. ritc, _.45......-4 .), ......1. 9.1"114.:1-'----,Jm'.1.4.1::'. .. ;1-',. .--...2-':51z2,74.44....._1‘tria - in... "; ....,14- •Li.D-A Atree.. :'11--.::., riANt,:' illir-jril...'-ha.:..tli"-se•KAThar.-1611ir''t''..L. ;...14116-4': •'iiri'Fi 72‘11'. - 011... ..-- ..„....:....:•-•er:--...,,.):::...ti:--7,...:::-,-:67.40:?•...-.).- ,c..!, 40.s . ,,....: 0!. 0. -- ----1...°•..,.--4........---..=:-..his..•.7_,- ......_A ,. lg. .4.,:a.".7......._:V.,;.....- -s-..x.0.4.....4:1.11.15.. iitp,„4.-td. ..,...A_ . ...- •-a-4, . P „ .- 'iv.. --..,411~...- ..-- ,- -- 1 /....0.1,r r•.---a,4, 1't....0. i. • --- .. 4, „.... -.:-.. ---_,;?,---7.4 .1. ..,•,.. ,.. 1 iz -.•s& "'"•- •*-1,* ----.....".-!-',"-'•.":74-...-.." '''''' ..• - 'CW.....411 Affset.".. , 04 - •4-.. - r ..: IN 1;3••.1, • - ../ - •'.,.;-S ' - f: •S.' 11%.s . ..... ' ....•G•_-,. .„4-............. .... • 4; _vas- :,-__., . ,.. __,. cr. Al ...-: vci -• 1 ._ ... -- • Noic .... \„. .:7', . i I.,• . :. i co • ID -- Ge` -ir,)•••• ••4;b-''' .." • ,-- ' i.. -... ' '-e-' -4c#V4ii - - - - -•.:" " ''' -'''7 • •1NT-- ''.' 1-..--4- ., op :: -6 :If . •-,HaB" ;It., :-.• - -_4./.7 0, -c . .1...1. . _,.L. _,......„. .1._• ,,,.... _ ........ ._ „........i, . ..... . ... ,i__;:,,... .....4,..4,..„....,.......„_..,..,.....,..„„rt,.. .„,..4„......_,.. •.... 1 4,....1.f.... re)01..4. , , .•, _ ........„.... _•IF , ,4%.. ..... . ..... . .... .......,• .., •44444%.,...,, .g :.,...t.a.......1.•;44,-por,. --p.-.:.e...r.--:: ....r....-.• .7. • - - t r•vi'.•. -7,14.-::••• -_,.V-..;0.:.;;:r-z:-*-4,- , - .-a ---, Z.:,-NI;itif.-rizlio;...t.t4v?,;:::,-(c ...,,,____...• .1,- . , r.r-': -1,71 44.!61_,1.- • ..:11 A.° ..e- - -,.. , • . '4", fik Tomi... ,-'11.7.t.10:57L:k 4.T.rts•--;litek=7:1---15.74*-..- ::-„,..lash... - ..siif 0. ; ----lie Ka- - _ - ''-.4"..:4i • -1P-21-4111.- -::.,17..-•4.1 HaE2 - . _ p 1.ar• s ri-'' fiea..5.,,'":Zibr,.. ..• ;S'Iti?':. --f,•::.i.-i-,..•.›.:.,„ ;it_ 4 0 .:A• • ......s.-4 .,i..... x-,;,,,... 4 ,_, H aa__„i , .. 1.. • ?...... Sf-if • -4&-1-,..iti , •....•..-a.... - • • -;-f-'4-.-..-v4t-g..--- ---.764;trIllr-qg: ti.;5?--..---. itell; *kern- DVAP • • ;i:: ....e:,I,Li..;:v...73-',-.:::::,-'r.t.:. ,4.--. ,s-,..,e_-..1-..... 1.3, - -sr, t _X- -• - 4' ••. 4,0' AP101 e‘' )... --'-.!...":1.:".r - : N4 ......_......:''''in::.'...A4:4',011"4'7:,*17•:, . . -4-..e4i.7":4.4.-:4-,•••• :,..„*-....al,"• - ' •'17 '"" ollb;4-.• oussiv At . ri ' • V i Sr-0 :71.'"f.i7:";;;:"-°--.At"pdvr.-.....:3.44-:-; / •;?...-'..' ,.-.p.':-N..; •4-..-..-":4-,;,:i.-•%. .. , .,; '-ii e. .PI-.--• :1.L"'"' b' •i HeD'# • - 4%4 kaptjt.:•?.•;Z,-;,....,..;;.,,...÷",-.1.7.1....- •. -g.••. ..,6..iv.-.....,. , -,,:!----1.1..:. ' ......:-.1 .:.•:- t ::::. ..-:‘-'..;;;;,• ••'.::-..i•reip...:/r.e..:...T.I-.-.-..............,9:4,..,4 4.-...,,...u. ../...P.d,4, -., ,,,. .4-,-;;.3r- - ;-...: . .1' ..-•N: H aE 2 .' 4Pt.:...1:.•;•.n..:.- ''''.11%.4.--,'!.'.?1•Ii.:44-41.,:tat•IN•11.4 Ire•. !=:.%-7-.4it.'‘-`-• --t--47..•'!--TA:.-...- - 114 yfit.'4. . ' • y . Lf . • ..?--••-'•-:• --‘1"-•-•‘. .T...40%.`---- --4.ta..-7.4- -..4 I.--_•.7 -1-.:...te..-Zz-• --_ ._•-. " ' t • lb„,-Z-e-,' •v ,Fil - '• --•-'''"-"-" 4. •••••••. -• .&HcD3 7• . -- / ....W.'. .-g' v•:•-•-•! •• "''•."!..- •.•-7N-NIZC'-'---.-" ""!.. • 'no:. .2 / - ._ lima Ge 44 i * _ --.... . ..---.:.e. . • - Nor :. ...-:::• _ ----7,-: .1- -7"7,•A...T.%_-!-.,-7--___-'7±--'_--__ ..7114P-f, .4.•:-..,-- .,,;i:, -c.,1; .. •;.t "' .....-- - -" '---'AI : --.."1 - • -------'---. ' -• ...• 1&&41x- • 41'fr..9 sr 4-0.F.,:v 4. 1.' • - :•2•1'A' - ,..., ;'' ,1 -....ibii..iier-4.7.:4re:021"t-•-" -27:: 77,: -,..,L.,....,......:_7-i4,:l'14. ,.. ;7, . :,..- -'...,..._,71:::L..;---- ',:' ::;476744%:2;.." -.-•:0.5.i.--: acED23- . ; . --•-•-^- - --atru 4•.-. ..k. • -`f"' ..-- . 1C3.-1-.Z-•%-........._' --,-- lii•uiri•j.v•aW-....--- 1.::..7•' 04.'Vt..-- 4.1!.. b ,,, . -,,... . - ...„:" •?,... -41.. a.....:7,.... r • '...y, 240fri...Azv 7"• -.*•,..• .."11t.:1•.‘ •-•'- '''''.-'' ••••-1:ftf; *se •=4....- •TWV":-...•-,•-.•_...-......-....- _ en..., ,,,i ,....., • . •-•- ?Olt , ... .•.- - • ..N„ ,.- .-wdr4 'Ig, NI -••••.-3-..-- -Ai -•-- ...,r - • -•• 104 irti . is- . ... - 1•41•44. -,••.:',. •-s• rdla.'ieVer n"...14.11..0 .1.%;_riz•::-.4,1 44-% . - ' !PT' ,t,''. 'ft'`i %4AKPig.:- ___ ..* ...”:4 -.0...r . • .• t'ill'5•';': ;is. NV' 3E2 3r1.21 ;X . f D ° 44.-`'"'"':••--. . .. ,0%-•,...c,og--.....wm. .V....1*.z....)-....-41.4 : e...-,.._.4 it.:4,40.:' .17 ‘ • • .•,?.•.• • - ..• - - • - :110-71"---":- - •'-'.4.- latf3. - ".41e;- 7-•;•::' 1,1ct. "%ft,:....4 +, iiti ttIII:j.11L-7-147PPottgz • • .•..• - .. -tk---i.;.......t. -4,sz,:....4-..-.--- -•iit;31F J.• • 101111 , - - If -c....71Lik ‘-slic.:4•,:i e "....•7.f; ''''Ilk=AI -- • - A..:;, . '4.1.-..... *K4.1f:r--di*ri*.s IC--... -Ha 1.--- - . aE2 t. m.,. , .:, •.:-- : 1 i ••- . "-I...4 1....F.z!...2 , , -.......• -.- .±.•,44'-.1.tAM _ - A:3, . 2: . I ''k • . 7‘..Z. A4.17';*!../.... -/.1"41r. ..." 4 do.a :.? r_-.1 -if 11.1>;•r.. :Z.' Cb- 'Z'... '..•*-'''14:'4/PV.11111:" --4:1'P HaD24-ZZ..,rf -,:i Q. ,...-..„:,.v.. 11":' 7i: f7v. I --iY--46.. --' I at:' • ' " • "4115:::::j.,.. ,.._ ": i. .,,ir,; e,..__•-, ,3440iiirg:rt... . .42 1,: •=.1--4"'"----d'-,•••ii...--•••s"-- - A.v?? usr,_ '40-;-,40$ •. ....92.---A.:Tifpfloi - l'A-' -' '. -..:r,,. 2•-• •• = _,,, ...i. ja i .1, k.-..,,_,,,,...--,...4,4" aEirt_- .--.. . t..-toc-•. a' . • ..r--I? , .4...:::, -Kota-.•..1 ; t .1' . I ... .,. ...... ,_.... II - • 11.1.11;04. e ,.,3, I g•• -:•-c:- ' .......,0 la •I ' ": . 5Ve-=4:448" • . ',Alit .. "it . -'7..-.-.L. :!' t .):,4: -7 it.,-.21. --., 0. -lk, .. •4: 1_.. .I.. i Ai.• . .....)11-. •-..s --%-'-. t9 r ieFilktk " ,......- •Att. 4.. .-- 7 06,-:: 0150 .:s_7. 14,-:. .kt-• • --• '1.--'•- -. tr.1 .•-• tiV--•-4.-.---,- -=._ '1., -. • 7-14,, ... 1111: 10 _ • . ...IA*. 11 HaC2if-leer:Olitif.. 4:c..1. a ._._ aB - _ ..„.,- _•1,-.1::.1.!.. - ---.a................_. gs 4,......0--.2..2 •tv 1- e Ns,-...1 oton .4.41".-...411-140`..r.- .___ 4,.1.r.r•S•.i.,••C' ..).'•-44,. .. --•'-..- re., Az ..L.1..;:.4--,-......„,-- ._. -_ ... y __ __ --, __ hi - •..r'-.-' ;,....._----7,.....- -.._. __ --"I- _ = ' l'S 8 (Joins sheet 27) Hc03 a C2 • . DNR Protected Waters Map SHOREwOOD R 23 M� .f.•\'- �� Eti 2T- 7 ry rt° Inn w �h a:: t 'nne • t Mt 't t e? - o • N t 1 .• Project Location P • .� • _� ,�- • y 4=1/ % : .. I Q. . 3 =dam �- Red �' M/nnewashti. 1... 7P rrison tIN / t , I ka. Inn i - •• .411111, Lk• csa� I • ® LIOP Sc j. 1 roily II �� • 21�1J� • ' '<=>.... 1• • waw •• , • • yfig .. r IP .:„,, ,jlp.p 0.....# :..,, I ,P 4 •rie.---- i,.tIpliasIDAAi Mess .. 1011•YINIII• , i E i.......woo . CHANHASE •k - - - - - „ - :::-:::::1.17 -7 :1 -t t:IewwI'.11 u. I 4 .e. f0•• is mass t se El • ,' t45w t �1�W :.:.. Z.�lu! � 1101J. I � J\ ty.Q 5C.1 111011416..: :i I t�- TO IA ret Ao1 :.+.:—.t' II. • I t0� 1 • 1 i 'i vi�•I•Y• I. 1 ,'—:[i~ ._ 'IU��., . .,Awts. ... ( • • it 1 :•:7i:•;;:•;:;•:<v:is a —,S - J .. - 0- - - =b_•- -*- .� • I. • ' •...":44.:-.:#•••::-` �r t_e N 1: : ' I `w •�, \ • '� • 2 : :: \ �' II JiN . ;; •,-.• , - 5ilitur. 411)11L • , „ , .• 1 A .. .. I • I CHASKA se I '99 EIS Z11MJ 1 Y7 ......:.. 1-------1 --1 -I Hi ..r.:,.- 25 " # o�Bo 9 •kale '• bnathaf�►.S. I .- - 2192141W 1. I- 7 1:*::•:::. \ • :::: / 31 I I 33 '• :::• Iiir I ...:::::i i::: . C r e efl 15 ._• •ill �' I ,.:�';`' ,�, �ntt .✓ .4!%:•:•:•:•:•'it... I' F/e 14,0( . . 22 01 1 • h 3::;,;: •♦ - -I:::: 1 22514• ' • National Wetland Inventory Map . •::,... P . . . ., ;I i ...m \ \e . '.14 -1 \ •L' di' _ .. •. / •. \ E roNK A -- •_ , , p it ,c:P __s. _'"-1,a • • • 0 -,,\ ...... : ),. . : • / 4- • vii - ... re, • 4001111tif 1- 111° - - •\..\-, . ... • - • ih,„ I 41) \ - r• \\ - - x 0 / ..... • - ,.....7.0 • , .... - ,- 7 _ 0-1.,, • • 4111110910141611 .N, .......Atkitia lige ‘...._:_z. .• \ . . Cr !It ,. . ---:. , L•ei,-... k\ \\ -. L.:. c•f: • •41.1 7.5, 041801 . • k j• ; •• ), • • PF• C - • • .:.••••-•------• ( I . 7.(4014* ;4, 4,d•G __i__.• "=h_ , nt- V 8 r-Ati,\I! 7: .,--.. k...- _ .. • ...•p•• • • 0 . ‘..11 ( Mir. • ..ii, • i .7....• ....,,, 2...,...), / . •° . ..__-' . • \it ..................--..•'"-- ...,' • - MF• I ,• •• • , • .--- ....----.:•-•- '- •- • . •• ..,„ _ ------- • • •• --• --,:ee , .4.-1 ,i t -..- ----741 •----. ....--- - - .. .....--• \0 •ii,,,, I - . .‘l•• • .......-•-) . -Z,'" .... . / B a ii"...2.......5..,.., .....-------.---- ------"e ••• ' F ,v41 -1 •••• „.... ,....----- ---- - 4, OF ..... '..........do........" 4/S°'...;b1/1 - 4 -'.74rr •-.-:71ig paw-fon . . ! :;a\ ' . - 1 -11 .i...LA . 1.1. Ilisir-, 41,4 ,ii, : : •. .1.\\,: . .....4....td,........0 . ...,41, . , . ............,...ecue,_........__• --/ 7 14 1 I . _../ •. 11•1 ,. • ....:::'!"................ - . \ .",---"N ‘ PI, arr ______ -- •_:ihipt mirk, . -- ,zet-.......4 7. .. 6 . eiletilifk't•-•.7",6. • 4. • - I ...••••• • `• ... . •:-. 7•01 fr" 1 0 VIlggligl— krax-.,:,x_=_4,,,4, „ ,.,,•st . PFO C .._-....- PMC 44 a ',.. • • \. 41 • . :.2--iii:i ap, j ,i irki, .- . .! ,..!:•.. ,,(„..' , ,, :„_. oa .. •-• IP; ., \ , fr--.z—,__,17-... ___ .1"-• !!.41, • r , .. , . ,..,....,. •, •,i, 1 p_,- 1 sk,4,• • • $ •IIP ' ) 4.-......... ----:::: :.: ,, , ...• __4_,... . :,,...... ...,,,.---. ',wily , 1• • - -', ,1 1 - li -.- 4.: ..r , ' li--- - •. -.IL . .• _ PEMC.,--v.• • • ..- \ ; ',.• • • ••,•.,`P'__:--. ; 4 / tio4-I • ,)t' si, 4400 •••...!4 . : , a ' --‘...\ -.4 • rf 1 .... . .0 -,,. . ..1., --„, A _.it.:N.,,,lif 4%11..../.• !II.. ..' a i ..}TI•414_ 9.9 ,. „J .' ( „ . ..1 r- . -:- j: '\•) 7. •-Wig .0 .. f i.. 6F 1 '''',16,...4.. • 1 il „ . • • •• ti: %- r 4., i,e4- ‘ < .. I. 7' : • s _,•• i .-. -!.'1.1° - .. -482 •1 ....1 .111 !• 1 1 4 0 6 -..raill•Or--c• ” r ,,,1 1 ....-1 / / • r/-- 8 d ' P .ti - IM • . Pu r, -A--o / li 1 Puew iN• '•i . -4114t1Th.44 lit'l a-17: /1' at --•-_, . . . .c. .7,. ....e:Fq •4. 0 i_ *: - • . l• 7. ' • • •41pr .... Ale, • 1 • — #1)-( *, • . a 4 • i 1 • .,•••-114.1rItletp4isiv;?.. 4 , . i . i , . -_,1•66 ail \',/\ ' ," lib ., 1 If • ''''... . . ......,.../A.., ,Lip,,,ir,,,,.ilk 1,is. ( i 9 .•. • .1/ • ..--..! . " b - .(414711.:rie .. ' I . a - kel: 1.7 1 7 lib. '' '• . ..".rib4. 1_, rufsc,,,.....-• 1 (,•\ I. .. • ,. • ••• ,. .. A •-v. rr7.4.- • • ; • •; I 1 i I V"' ' . 1 ' /.. ? / -4• p ',vet ii. '' -- ir'\ wick .,, • II• S %. e RE- 0 a • , . .. ,.. . • _,„ ,.• ., . .0. .... • ; , ., . 1 . • 1/e;fil s.1"II A) • k I pENic. ___2:-_=-7,_\ ,---) u \ • C7X--- 1 d< 0 piA ' " d. . . ‘1114d_4 •; .". . ,,,dif, ) ((,--,„. 1 /A _ _-f--•_ gl 40./,,::: j ‘ f ;44 r I z WI:tell. •) •• :it. .A . •;"....:-• „...9 w.r, 16. •..•• .0, . . ' a-.. .., - NI ....,it . -„ 6 46 •„," Aa- _ ,) ''-- -- . • . • II t L ......, 4. ," */* - 74 ti •N J ,...-J Jo • ." . --..\ e .6..-=roe.; - ---; ,..- , ...,,,,_ _.....,.. 4.,!• 41,•.; '''. \ 011.....S._ ,....._,_ AP •... . , . , •,. '12 ...• CO..: l': ' Of 1 .....:: .:. e‘‘ • 1 s• ii•• - - -IZ Li,en- - . 1 k% '• %.'%, .; ' tag el ,,„7 I _,.._ - -.r. , ..-, ) iii6.d. ,.. 1._ ......;ii; .. • - i ..1.0---"r Al. .t •4,11 . ,e1 4,/fijoS l'•1 '1 i If:.• I V-.. .. lc - - i•S, 4 1 11- •• .,....s.ra•ii-Taq.... -.:r":41111111P-7.":1' I. '- ''' CA- II'1.(•.iiiiiri, "jhlkliiiii 41711121111.-V-1 ;. .•4:11-.1.1131 .....T.:.•ktte-,- -•4/121, •1.•._ 1 . - I • t 1... •...... • • ' \ i• • ---• • ‘,.:-I;V•p., \.,.... • p,-. , .0, 'II' "• 1 •.7 . • .,, A , .. -,........ .it •ii 1, i ----1' °IC ••\PEW ;'• %•-". i- ".-1 • - 111d." 1:, ' •Ng 'i -‘.--' • h. . 1 . V, ..., t• ....k 1 I T f )1 rp .,,I6 ,, . ..• • • //..% ,;,..... ;to•)/ •‘ •;;..),).. -../. ...''1.<1. 1"0 -.,i;••• •irt ..Th.. .. rtr pEil,AF 1, %./^ r•-,..-. 16. - ' - P M (..\!. - - .-Mc . '.... ti s..I .: :::._. t , • .....s . _ ' •' i li -co• .t././'-/ '/21, A fA : : x.7 . ' v 1• :to- -ivi4)i 411111. ''•- • . ' • k 1•0.';" '...-- ''•".'- tb! ..v.il''..•i •,,t 1• ...../. - lir' ' . )i. t . 0 , ,,,,.. . ..•,L. ,._ -------..... ‘,... z •', L .. At .0.- - . , p --•,../ • i ,to v•,., • fo__ __47-All i .....:..--..‘•;::, ft . Oki EMFi ' T.-. . •...,- „_ 'Pi- i. cf. •-• • . - ; ( .• . i • ---:... - - / • .. ---,... , _ • - •• •C ' ,=6,,,,,,,,,,. * ,.-7,e, . • -..0 i , 0,4.. , , ,• ...„....,...: .• • pi ti, . , e!".',,-• ....... • , : (C. 411111111113 .‘ ' - Iviv-.1-1\ '1' 71111 7 • "") . • - ,--• - -- 1 I i N. • . . .. t., ,f / . i',. ..• , . . diffill , "'": .-:./1 PEM F •((r. 4 1,- . k.'.' I ,q` 6, ''sb; . fi - . •. ' 0 ;i• 11-, L„.,;( . r • '•• 7,1 ey i ;..•:: .-. 5 / 1 0 0 ( P . “. '.. MF( , - ‘ wrI4 - b ; STATE OF DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES PHONE No. METRO WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106 FILErvo 772-7910 April 18 , 1994 _ r Ms. Kathryn Aanenson, Planning Director City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: NEUMANN SUBDIVISION, PROJECT 94-3 SUB, 94-2 CUP, LAKE MINNEWASHTA (10-9P) , CITY OF CHANHASSEN, CARVER COUNTY Dear Ms. Aanenson: We have reviewed the site plans (received April 1, 1994) for the above-referenced project (Section 4 , T116N, R24W) and have the = following comments to offer: 1 . Public Water Lake Minnewashta (10-9P) is on the proposed site. Any activity below the ordinary high water (OHW) elevation - which alters the course, current or cross-section of Public Waters/Wetlands is under the jurisdiction of the DNR and may require a DNR permit. The OHW for Lake Minnewashta is 944 . 50' (NGVD, 1929) , and the activities which may require a DNR permit are grading, the placing of the dock and the placing of the stormwater outfalls. 2 . It appears that the developer is aware of the requirements of the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991. We encourage the developer to continue working with the City of Chanhassen in preserving wetlands on this site. 3 . It appears that most of the stormwater is routed through settling basins, which is good. We would object to having the stormwater routed directly to Lake Minnewashta. 4 . There should be some type of easement, covenant or deed = restriction for the properties adjacent to the wetland areas. This would help to ensure that property owners are aware that the DNR, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and the City of Chanhassen have jurisdiction over the areas and that the wetlands cannot be altered without appropriate permits. 5 . The 100-year flood elevation of Lake Minnewashta on the FIRM Map (July 2 , 1979) is 945' (NGVD, 1929) . All the work that is done for this project must comply with applicable floodplain regulations of both the city and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Ms. Kathryn Aanenson April 18 , 1994 Page 2 6 . Lake Minnewashta has a shoreland classification of recreational development. The shoreland district extends 1000' from the OHW. The development must be consistent with city's shoreland management regulations. In particular you should note: a. The project area contains bluffs (i.e. , slopes that average 30 percent or greater over a horizontal distance of 50' and rise 25' above the (OHW) top of the bank) and steep slopes (i.e. , slopes that are greater than 18 percent) . The bluffs overlooking Lake Minnewashta should not be disturbed and all structures should be setback at least 30' from the top of the bluff. Topographic alterations should be minimized on the steep slopes. b. The vegetation and topography should be retained in a natural state in the shore and bluff impact zones. The minimum shore impact zone is the area within 37 . 5' of the OHW. The bluff impact zone is an area within 20' of the top of the bluff. c. Less than 25% of the area of each lot should be covered with impervious surface. d. The structures in the development should be screened from view from Lake Minnewashta using topography, existing vegetation, color, and other means approved by the city. e. The applicant appears to have lot lines extending far beyond the OHW of 944 . 50' (NGVD, 1929) of Lake Minnewashta. The statewide standards for the management of shoreland areas state that only the land above the OHW should be used to calculate the lot area. 7 . Lake Minnewashta should be labelled as such in future plans or plats and the OHW should be noted. 8 . You should be aware that your project may be subject to federal and local wetland regulations. The Department may provide additional comments on your project through our review of applications submitted under these other regulatory programs. 9 . The following comments are general and apply to all proposed developments: a. Appropriate erosion control measures should be taken during the construction period. The Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Planning Handbook (Board of Water & Soil Resources and Association Ms. Kathryn Aanenson April 18, 1994 Page 3 of Metropolitan Soil and Water Conservation Districts) guidelines, or their equivalent, should be followed. b. If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10, 000 gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year, the contractor will need to obtain a DNR appropriations permit. You are advised that it typically takes approximately 60 days to process the permit application. c. If construction activities disturb more than five acres of land, the contractor must apply for a stormwater permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Scott Thompson @ 296-7203) . - d. The comments in this letter address DNR - Division of Waters jurisdictional matters and concerns. These comments should not be construed as DNR support or lack thereof for a particular project. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me at 772-7910 should you have any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, '`Joe Richter Hydrologist c: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Ellen Sones U. S. Corps of Engineers, Joe Yanta Chanhassen Shoreland File WTA NOTICE OF PUBLIC I K 1 1 1 Q$ ! C4 i i f I if « Y �� F r « r HEARINGS _ - ..i r,,iTTF.. " I �"'�`� li %ter ,� PARK AND RECREATION ._=f- 0, �� ►; i ► �� PI COMMISSION �./= k. /- 4`,„?I r r' • i Tuesday, APRIL 26, 1994 at 7:30 p.m. 4ga r,) c o • E AND PLANNING COMMISSION - o MEETING 7 O it, Wednesday, MAY 4, 1994 'r J II u at 7:30 p.m. �1� I ” City Hall Council Chambers N r �` 690 Coulter Drive ZONAL Project: Neumann Subdivision -`\ ,` II �Developer: Arnold and Ann �� Weimerskirch Well -_,e4 ` ,� 0 Location: South of Sandpiper Lane and west of Piper Ridge Lane Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicant is proposing a Preliminary Plat of 25.95 acres into 9 single family lots with variances on property zoned RSF Conditional Use Permit for a Recreational Beachlot; Wetland Alteration Permit for construction and mitigation of wetland; and vacation of right-of-way located on Minnewashta Avenue. The property is located south of Sandpiper Lane and West of Piper Ridge Lane, Neumann Subdivision. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Commission Chair w: 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 Commissions will then make recommendation to the City Council. Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall durir 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 Andrew (Planning) at 937-1900, ext. 117 or Todd (Park and Rec) at 937-1900, ext. 121. If you choose ' submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff w provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on April 21, 1994. _ David Jameson Harlan Ninow Stephen T. Hughes 2731 Sandpiper Lane 2740 Sandpiper Lane 2741 Sandpiper Lane Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Douglas Roper Robert Bauer Ron Stevens 2751 Sandpiper Lane 2700 Sandpiper Trail 2720 Sandpiper Trail Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Richard Newman Frank Scott Frank Young _ 2721 Sandpiper Trail 2730 Sandpiper Trail 2750 Sandpiper Trail Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Ray Hinderaker Howard Schmidt Thomas Schoenecker 2800 Sandpiper Trail 2810 Sandpiper Trail 2820 Sandpiper Trail _ Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 — A. Dean Harris Tom Harer Thomas Fisher 6331 Minnewashta Woods Dr. 6347 Minnewashta Woods Dr. 6349 Minnewashta Woods Dr. Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Paul Prenevost Robert Alford Ralph Hegman, Jr. 6351 Minnewashta Woods Dr. 6355 Minnewashta Woods Dr. 6361 Minnewashta Woods Dr. Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Harold Golden T. Fitzsimmons Matthew L. Ledvina 6350 Minnewashta Woods Dr. 2701 Piper Ridge Lane 2711 Piper Ridge Lane Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Henry Bechthold Darrell R. Johnson Kevin Pettis 2722 Piper Ridge Lane 2731 Piper Ridge Lane 2742 Piper Ridge Lane — Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Mark Gray Dean E. Erickson Jeff Bornmann 2751 Piper Ridge Lane 2762 Piper Ridge Lane 2771 Piper Ridge Lane Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 _ C. Rosenberger HI Donald C. Grant Michael L. Faulk 2772 Piper Ridge Lane 2782 Piper Ridge Lane 2791 Piper Ridge Lane Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Randy Herman Arther Kimber Gary Olsen 2792 Piper Ridge Lane 2820 Tanagers Lane 2821 Tanagers Lane Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Todd Pedersen Per R. Jacobson Michael Arone 2837 Tanagers Lane 2840 Tanagers Lane 2841 Tanagers Lane Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Herbert J. Pfeffer Christopher Holden James Senst 2850 Tanagers Lane 2851 Tanagers Lane 2820 Washta Bay Road Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Gene Fury Ivan Mielke Kristen Orlip 2821 Washta Bay Road 2830 Washta Bay Road 2831 Washta Bay Road Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Leslie Michel Jeanine Hubbard Donald B. Anderson 2840 Washta Bay Road 2841 Washta Bay Road 2851 Washta Bay Road Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Harry Niemela Wayne Holzer 2901 Washta Bay Road 2911 Washta Bay Road Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 GENE FURY IVAN MIELKE KRISTEN ORTLIP 2821 WASHTA BAY ROAD 2830 WASHTA BAY ROAD 2831 WASHTA BAY ROAD Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 LESLIE MICHEL JEANNINE HUBBARD HAZEL ANDERSON 2840 WASHTA BAY ROAD 2841 WASHTA BAY ROAD 2851 WASHTA BAY ROAD Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 • HARRY NIEMELA JOHN SCHUMACHER WAYNE HOLZER 2901 WASHTA BAY ROAD 428 SO MISSISSIPPI RIVER 2911 WASHTA BAY ROAD Excelsior, MN 55331 ST PAUL, MN 55105 Excelsior, MN 55331 GLADYS FERM NORMAN CASPERSON WILLIAM J KILBY 2920 WASHTA BAY ROAD 2921 WASHTA BAY ROAD 2930 WASHTA BAY ROAD Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 ALAN TOLLEFSON WILLIAM KILBY GLENN COPPERSMITH 2931 WASHTA BAY ROAD 2930 WASHTA BAY ROAD 2941 WASHTA BAY ROAD Excelsior, MN 55331 • EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 GEORGE HOCK KELLY SHEEHAN DONALD CRENSHAW 2950 WASHTA BAY ROAD 2951 WASHTA BAY ROAD 2961 WASHTA BAY ROAD Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 FRANK SCOTT DAVID JAMESON HARLAN NINOW 2730 SANDPIPER TRAIL 2731 SANDPIPER TRAIL 2740 SANDPIPER TRAIL Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 STEPHEN HUGHES DOUG ROPER 2741 SANDPIPER TRAIL 2750 SANDPIPER TRAIL 2751 SANDPIPER TRAIL Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 R HINDERAKER HOWARD SCHMIDT TOM SHOENECKER 2800 SANDPIPER TRAIL 2810 SANDPIPER TRAIL 2820 SANDPIPER TRAIL Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 A M WEIMERSKIRCH HENRY NEUMANN WILLIAM NAEGELE 2831 SANDPIPER TRAIL 2841 SANDPIPER TRAIL 4300 BAKER ROAD Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 MINNETONKA, MN 55343 RALPH HEGMAN BARBARA WINTHEISER FLORENCE BISCHOFF 6361 MINNEWASHTA WOODS DR 3321 SHORE DR 3331 SHORE DR Excelsior, MN 55531 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 WILLIAM MCDANIEL DONALD CARSIK F DENTON WHITE 3341 SHORE DR 3342 SHORE DR 3351 SHORE DR Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 HENRY ARNESON ANN OLSEN RUTH AHLCRONA 3401 SHORE DR COLDWEL NKERS BEST 3420 SHORE DR Excelsior, MN 55331 1760 IGHWAY 7 Excelsior, MN 55331 NETONKA, MN 55345 D POSTHUMUS TUSSEY JODE PROPERTIES DAVE ANDERSON 3421 SHORE DR 21020 RADISSON ROAD 3441 SHORE DR Excelsior, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 MORRIS MULLIN FRANCIS FABER RICHARD WING 3451 SHORE DR 3471 SHORE DR 3481 SHORE DR Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 PER JACOBSON HERB PFEFFER JIM SENST 2840 TANAGERS LANE 2850 TANAGERS LANE 2820 WASHTA BAY ROAD Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 LOUIS GUTHMUELLER JOY MCDONALD JAMES HOFER 7095 RED CEDAR COVE 7096 RED CEDAR COVE 7098 RED CEDAR COVE Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 TIMOTHY FISHER RICHARD SCHLENER T.J. SCHWABA 7099 RED CEDAR COVE MINNCAST 3603 RED CEDAR POINT DR Excelsior, MN 55331 200 NE SO COMMERCE CIR. Excelsior, MN 55331 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 • DOUG ANDERSON PAUL W LARSON LUMIR PROSHEK 3607 RED CEDAR POINT DR 3609 RED CEDAR POINT DR 3613 RED CEDAR PT. Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 MARK BROECKERT EMIL SOUBA STEVE KEUSEMAN 3616 RED CEDAR POINT 14025 VALE COURT 3622 RED CEDAR POINT DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55331 EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 Excelsior, MN 55331 ERIC BAUER BIRUTA M. DUNDURS LINDA JOHNSON 3624 RED CEDAR POINT DR 3627 RED CEDAR POINT DR 3629 RED CEDAR POINT DR Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 TOM PARADISE RICHARD COMER ROBERT OSBORNE 3755 RED CEDAR POINT DR 3800 RED CEDAR POINT DR 3815 RED CEDAR POINT DR Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 BERNARD LEACH EDWARD ALLERMAN JAMES GULSTRAND 3820 RED CEDAR POINT DR 3821 RED CEDAR POINT DR 3831 RED CEDAR POINT DR Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 KENNETH SMITH HORACE LEACH KEVIN CLARK 3837 RED CEDAR POINT DR 3840 RED CEDAR POINT DR 3841 RED CEDAR POINT DR Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 GARY COBB LOUIS ZAKARIASEN JAMES CONNOR 3859 RED CEDAR POINT DR 3861 RED CEDAR POINT DR 3901 RED CEDAR POINT DR Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 ROBERT BAUER RONALD STEVENS RICHARD NEWMAN 2700 SANDPIPER TRAIL 2720 SANDPIPER TRAIL 2721 SANDPIPER TRAIL Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 KIRK EDWARDS TIM JENZER DAVID B. FREE 3911 MAPLE SHORES DR 3920 MAPLE SHORES DR 3921 MAPLE SHORES DR Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 THOMAS GIESEN KEN DURR KEN DURR 3930 MAPLE SHORES DR 4830 WESTGATE ROAD 4830 WESTGATE ROAD Excelsior, MN 55331 MINNETONKA, MN 55345 MINNETONKA, MN 55345 MR DANA JOHNSON TIMOTHY COLLERAN KENNETH LUND 50 PLEASANT LANE W 6560 MINNEWASHTA PKWY 395 HWY. 7 TONKA BAY, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 CHARLES F. ANDING THOMAS ALLENBURG DALE MENTEN 6601 MINNEWASHTA PKWY 6621 MINNEWASHTA PKWY 6630 MINNEWASHTA PKWY Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 ZOE BROS JAMES AND JEAN WAY LEE ANDERSON 6631 MINNEWASHTA PKWY 6641 MINNEWASHTA PKWY 6651 MINNEWASHTA PKWY Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 JAMES LARKIN ROBERT M. JOSEPHS HARVEY L SOBEL 6671 MINNEWASHTA PKWY 6701 MINNEWASHTA PKWY 1331 HILLSIDE DR Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 RENO, NV 89503 THOMAS MCRAITH DEL SCHOTT PATRICIA A BIXLER 7028 RED CEDAR COVE 7034 RED CEDAR COVE 7038 RED CEDAR COVE Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 AURETHA J SMITH GARY NELSON RALPH KARCZEWSKI REKORP FINANCIAL 7048 RED CEDAR COVE 7054 RED CEDAR COVE PO BOX 343 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 SHAKOPEE, MN 55379 WARREN RIETZ DAVID C. PRILLAMAN BERNARD GAYTKO 7058 RED CEDAR COVE 7064 RED CEDAR COVE 7068 RED CEDAR COVE Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 ROBERT E BOYER JOHN MANEY DONALD W BITTERMANN 7074 RED CEDAR COVE 7078 RED CEDAR COVE 7085 RED CEDAR COVE Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 DONNA HOELKE JOSEPH W MITLYNG SCOTT GAUER 3621 IRONWOOD 3800 LONE CEDAR LANE 3820 LONE CEDAR LANE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 CHASKA, MN 55318 CHASKA, MN 55318 _ JOSEPH STASNEY ARNOLD HED STEPHEN VONBEVERN 3840 LONE CEDAR LANE 3860 LONE CEDAR LANE PO BOX 874 CHASKA, MN 55318 CHASKA, MN 55318 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ARNOLD HED GARY MECUS JAMES LIPE - 3860 LONE CEDAR LANE 3861 LONE CEDAR LANE 3880 LONE CEDAR LANE CHASKA, MN 55318 CHASKA, MN 55318 CHASKA, MN 55318 DANIEL HUDSON MICHAEL A JUREWICZ GORDON FREEBURG 3881 LONE CEDAR LANE 3890 LONE CEDAR LANE 3891 LONE CEDAR LANE - CHASKA, MN 55318 CHASKA, MN 55318 Chaska, MN 55318 DAN PETERJOHN JOEL ANDERSON JOHN FERM 3892 LONE CEDAR LANE 3894 LONE CEDAR LANE 3895 LONE CEDAR LANE CHASKA, MN 55318 CHASKA, MN 55318 CHASKA, MN 55318 - JEROME S AHLMAN DAVID TESTER TERRANCE JOHNSON 3896 LONE CEDAR LANE 3897 LONE CEDAR LANE 3898 LONE CEDAR LANE CHASKA, MN 55318 CHASKA, MN 55318 CHASKA, MN 55318 JOHN MERZ RAYMOND BERRY GERALD KELLY - 3900 LONE CEDAR LANE 3830 MAPLE SHORES DR 3841 MAPLE SHORES DRIVE CHASKA, MN 55318 Excelsior, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 GERALD E BARBER EAGLE FOOD CENTERS INC SCOTT HOWARD 2201 STREET ANDREWS CIRCLE PO BOX 6700 3861 MAPLE SHORES DR - BETTENDORF, IA 52722 ROCK ISLAND, IL 61204 Excelsior, MN 55331 GERALD E BARBER SUSAN L JASIN BRADLEY D. STRAKA 2201 STREET ANDREWS CIRCLE 425 CHAN VIEW #312 3881 MAPLE SHORES DR BETTENDORF, IA 52722 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Excelsior, MN 55331 - BARBARA SCOULER LANCE PARROW/MARY KRASKY DENNIS W SHAFER 3890 MAPLE SHORES DR 38000 CAMDEN STREET #106 3901 MAPLE SHORES DR Excelsior, MN 55331 FREMONT, CA 94536 Excelsior, MN 55331 HARLAN WATERHOUSE C L JOHNSON CHRISTOPHER BAKER 6321 GREENBRIAR 6331 GREENBRIAR 6340 GREENBRIAR Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 OLIVE G SCHMIERER STEVE EMMINGS ANNALEE HANSON 6341 GREENBRIAR 6350 GREENBRIAR 6400 GREENBRIAR Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 EDWARD MONSER DAVID PETERJOHN EDWARD V. OATHOUT 3920 HAWTHORNE CIRCLE 3921 HAWTHORNE CIRCLE 3940 HAWTHORNE CIRCLE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 REMAX RESULTS SAMUEL POTTS JAMES J MOORE JULIE SAHLEN/SUITE 206 3628 HICKORY 3630 HICKORY 277 COON RAPIDS BLVD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 COON RAPIDS, MN 55433 ED PETERSON GREG BOHRER ALFRED SMITH 2219 ARTHUR STREET NE 3706 HICKORY 3714 HICKORY MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55418 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 TIMOTHY RAIDT MARVIN YORK TIMOTHY NELSON 3715 HICKORY 3716 HICKORY 3724 HICKORY EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 LOUIS PARSONS SUSAN MORGAN KEVIN GUTZKE 3732 HICKORY 3734 HICKORY 3735 HICKORY EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 K & W PROPERTIES ROY LEACH MICHAEL 0 TIMM P.O. BOX 275 3738 HICKORY 3733 HICKORY ROAD CHASKA, MN 55318 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 JOSEPH BOYER THEODORE BIGOS KENNETH C DURR 3630 VIRGINIA AVENUE 3221 HIGHWAY 7 4830 WESTGATE ROAD WAYZATA, MN 55391 Excelsior, MN 55331 MINNETONKA, MN 55345 RICHARD ZWEIG ROBERT W HEBEISEN THOMAS WRIGHT 3601 IRONWOOD 3607 IRONWOOD 3611 IRONWOOD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR.,MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 ANTON GUENTHER KENNETH HOGAN JEFF STEINKE 6221 DOGWOOD 6231 DOGWOOD 6240 DOGWOOD - EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 CHARLES E ELY TOM ADCOX WILLIS MACKLIN 6241 DOGWOOD 6250 DOGWOOD 6251 DOGWOOD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 TOM HUNTINGTON ALLEN CLAPP 6300 DOGWOOD 6301 DOGWOOD 6310 DOGWOOD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 MARK LEITNER MELVIN OESTREICH MICHAEL SAUL AND CARLSON - 6311 DOGWOOD 6320 DOGWOOD 6321 DOGWOOD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 FRANK MITCHELL ALLEN LEIDING ROGER SPENCER 6330 DOGWOOD 6331 DOGWOOD 6340 DOGWOOD - EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 - MURIEL DRESSLER MICHAEL SCHACHTERLE JOE KASPER 6341 DOGWOOD 6350 DOGWOOD 411 CIMARRON CIRCLE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 - ROGER W. OAS ANN OLSON MARTIN JONES 7301 DOGWOOD COLDWELL BANKER 7321 DOGWOOD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 17601 HIGHWAY 7 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 MINNETONKA, MN 55345 JANET M QUIST ETAL RICHARD LUNDELL JOHN T FOLEY - 7331 DOGWOOD 7341 DOGWOOD 80 SO INDIAN ROCKS ROAD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 BELLEAIR BLUFFS, FL 33540 PETER BRANDT TOM RUHLAND MARVIN ONKEN 7570 DOGWOOD ROAD 6211 GREENBRIAR 6221 GREENBRIAR - Excelsior, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 • JAMES THOMPSON . MCINERNY PATRICIA 951 PENAMINT COURT 6301 GREENBRIAR 6311 GREENBRIAR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 EHABEES ANDING HELEN M ANDING CHESTER LOBITZ 3631 SO CEDAR 1708 EAST 57TH STREET 3637 SO CEDAR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55417 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 NICHOLAS F HAWLEY ANDREW L JENSEN 3705 SO CEDAR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 DAVID HEMPEL BLAKE HORTON CLIFF PEDERSEN 3707 SO CEDAR 3711 SO CEDAR 3713 SO CEDAR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 RICHARD ANDING KEVIN EIDE TIM SCHWEIZER 3715 SO CEDAR 3719 SO CEDAR BOX 115 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 NORWOOD, MN 55368 WILLIAM HAUGH RAFAEL FERNANDEZ DANIEL HERBST 3727 SO CEDAR 7620 CRIMSON BAY ROAD 7640 CRIMSON BAY ROAD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 CHASKA, MN 55318 CHASKA, MN 55318 JAMES REYNOLDS PATRICK BAUER ROBERT J ROY 7660 CRIMSON BAY ROAD 7404 FRONTER TRAIL 3110 DARTMOUTH DR CHASKA, MN 55318 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 DONALD SUEKER JOSEPH FIEDLER TED I BIGOS 3111 DARTMOUTH DR 3121 DARTMOUTH DR 3221 HIGHWAY 7 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 JAMES GINTHER THOMAS MERZ STEVE MARTIN 3131 DARTMOUTH DR 3201 DARTMOUTH DR 3211 DARTMOUTH DR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 JOHN WEBER ARVID OAS MARY J. MOORE 3220 DARTMOUTH DR 3230 DARTMOUTH DR 3231 DARTMOUTH DR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 WARREN HANSON SCOTT HANSON KURT WEIMER 3241 DARTMOUTH DR 6201 DOGWOOD 6211 DOGWOOD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 JOHN BELL ARTHUR HALL WILLIAM BERNHJELM 9371 KIOWA TRAIL 9376 KIOWA TRAIL 9380 KIOWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MARK MOKSNES ROBERT L. EICKHOLT JOYCE E. KING 9381 KIOWA TRAIL 9390 KIOWA TRAIL 9391 KIOWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 PRINCE R NELSON TERRY MARTIN LAKEVIEW HILLS 7801 AUDUBON ROAD 9411 KIOWA TRAIL 8800 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 RANDI BOYER BEN SWENSON NORMAN GRANT JR 9005 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9015 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9021 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 - DELBERT SMITH RAY LEWIS ROBERT H. PETERSON 9051 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9071 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9101 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 NORBERT LICKTEIG JACK HUNGELMANN JOHN GOULETT , 9111 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9117 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9119 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 RICHARD OLIN JIM HENDRICKSON ALAN DIRKS 9125 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9131 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9203 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 TIM BESSER CURTIS KRIER GREG HASTINGS 9209 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9211 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9217 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DENNIS BAKER EUNICE KOTTKE GEORGE DEWITT 9219 LAKE RILEY BLVD PO BOX 606 3127 SE 4TH STREET CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MONTVERDE, FL 32756 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55414 RON YTZEN FREDERICK POTTHOFF ALAN DIRKS 9227 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9231 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9203 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 PAUL ZAKARIASEN JEFF P NELSON DALE KUTTER 600 WEST 94TH STREET 300 DEERFOOT TRAIL 301 DEERFOOT TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ROBERT D REBERTUS GEORGE WALLIN CHRISTOPHER MCGRATH 320 DEERFOOT TRAIL 321 DEERFOOT TRAIL 331 DEERFOOT TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 KYLE D TIDSTROM STEVEN SEKELY DAN AND JEAN CHRISTENSEN 340 DEERFOOT TRAIL 341 DEERFOOT TRAIL 360 DEERFOOT TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 SCOTT WIRTH KEVIN SHARKEY RICHARD MADORE 361 DEERFOOT TRAIL 380 DEERFOOT TRAIL 381 DEERFOOT TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 PAUL TERRY BARRY TRENT . 400 DEERFOOT TRAIL 7204 KIOWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 PETER PEMRICK ELDON L. BERKLAND RANDY DUSOSKI 9251 KIOWA TRAIL 9261 KIOWA TRAIL 9270 KIOWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 BARRY BERSHOW JAMIE HEILICHER CRAIG HALVERSON 9271 KIOWA TRAIL 9280 KIOWA TRAIL 9283 KIOWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN . 55317 CRAIG HALVERSON SIDNEY A MOSMAN FREDERICK AMRHEIN 9283 KIOWA TRAIL 7311 IZAAK WALTON ROAD 9350 KIOWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 BLOOMINGTON, MN 55438 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 RICHARD A MOSMAN ETAL PETER C. LILLIE JAMES E SLOSS 541 FAIRFIELD 9355 KIOWA TRAIL 9360 KIOWA TRAIL ST PAUL, MN 55112 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 RICHARD BLUMENSTEIN DENNIS LEFLER RAYMOND BRANDT 9361 KIOWA TRAIL 9366 KIOWA TRAIL 9370 KIOWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JOHN ARDOYNO PAUL OLSON SUNNYSLOPE HOMEOWNERS 9235 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9239 LAKE RILEY BLVD DICK NELSON - CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 360 DEERFOOT TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 - JOY A. TANNER LUCILLE REMUS JAMES F. JESSUP 9243 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9245 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9247 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 C I TY 0 F PC DATE: May 4, 1994 C IIANIIASSEN CC DATE: May 23, 1994 CASE #: 94-2 Site Plan : 14 . STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Site Plan Review for a 7,560 square foot addition to the Lutheran Church of the Living Christ LOCATION: Lot 2, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park - 820 Lake Drive Q U APPLICANT: Mr. Bob Haak Mr. Don Wagner LL Lutheran Church of The Living Christ Architects Professional Assc. a, 820 Lake Drive 6365 Carlson Drive Q Chanhassen, MN 55317 Eden Prairie, MN 55346 PRESENT ZONING: OI - Office and Institutional District ACREAGE: 5.832 Acres DENSITY: n/a ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N -BG / Vacant & Shopping Center Retail S - IOP / Industrial Office Manufacturing — Q E - IOP / Parks & Open Space W - IOP / Office Warehouse — QWATER AND SEWER: Existing upon site W PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The property is bordered by Lake Drive, Highway 5 and the — W. Twin Cities Western Railroad. There is no access available to Highway 5 from the site. The (f) northern portion of the lot is encumbered by electric transmission wires. The site is presently occupied by a church which is located at the top elevation on the site. The western portion of the lot contains open space with severe slopes, mature and young trees. _ 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Public / Semi-Public .1o •ec iG E ", N tY $ 0 "N 174g_ $ § ? g s F NOM Iltrit ri I I g= - � • '.•. . •.. .c L..( 1 ., I I cs �ri��` ih */ �MTT .. - it „ chts.rws NENNERNI —"up, oteVr =q g It-1-22-11111111:gaol. ' . :7N ' ISill-1111.1..,.,„4,k; "AT 'alWr * Wittig t .r /r: c i. in* "a) .1 a 4r .. w • mu r.--,.-4,..,..* ..t �,. -_.�- ,I14 • r-,,,.45.,-_,./'moll) ..,-.,..„,„„„v_ _ i,��--. •'• AN F/ r ..g.,,,_ /IRK • _,���' f •,r,-tFL Y ` az..--w•� � ��� f ��� ��, L. •KVTEN. N/LL �- -- r•!,.,.0Y1=1�,�� .g:,.��i `s ;� ,y.,/e v.I��.:J ri • /MAI' ` - 7• +Q ..4.1... . . M) �1/Iv 1 , . AIL . : • 'If 1.. III 1',I I I tom •, •,•� IC •A'" � - !�'L\i/�`�a , • �i 1\.,��'`� vac, �,•i� ' 1111 . �.- ,�tt�lr- ': �.Tj is V �°.° •`��?�` I -MI - \ � �l)�a, a:=5(3i: s 1:!� :.r��� • ,. r, ♦”" F� _ _ �.t [ J _ r 1.:417. i ,�i7„ /u n �q"�7.....,_,....,-,1..--.''-----_,,L► \ 'i` '-ItOAI$OM �. IA w��■ _�` � „ e., LAKE �� ��''11 a WCY Ei! �'7� ,i G ,rr ' L OTO_ i as caii %crtt3” 1' •r. "• I 1 lir - - :-,�: ill ��A (. --' - ,Vii ;:; «�'� �i.«• .• 11� . ,.) it' • �' 0 MEADOW LAKE ANN i GREEN PARK Tr '5 P/ W41 id 1 -60 211p �Nj�o�,i.,�►%�. R iciii4;;" ■uu•ij `i) Nur Far _____,_ . • ,gam not '11.1 ANN • e�}.ri l'�tl ` �tlJ /•' S PARA' . .. .T y w. J i / 1k,�� 1�ctrnt BJECT PROPERTY ..:� .. :1 -----,:-mt.- _ �., -'_"".�"'w:i i1-' •o Mil DE ' 477:r. '.------------ RIM emir- S ii,„! •..... 1 , '--. ' .ikkIIP161/0.tAil" a 711111. ___.,:„.........____....._,-- .L.L.A.. .11111.1443 rTirTfLatitti_r...AdP--!-i-=spi---------Tgimr....:------*Ilt-1-1-k'--11,,,44."1--"--.. ...., 4111' 4111 Y - .4"drAi. ----L- ''.. . ,Airc- V414. - �� 4I ...a('= • �.. • 1..„71. 40.1111141 Iiillh .,- . 6—:: t it . i��!,� ►L'�' -�. LACE St/SAN �1 Z .,t,re.,0.41._„_,,,la, tr.& 61.7�7 / Ian► o [�J•N74 ���• f • irJ •.•• ..� �, ? r� /. ma�Pr. �;- .11; -"I 11 r'� 'il ���t �• 9700-11111111*„, PARK aill �1— 41 41 �. •....„.„...1�w ♦ �.�1mium f TM �1 I :,..„....1....\ ,- 4....; vit,—. 1 --.,,—.,.0.-4, 0 ,:t.*X '7.'2 sl _ir '800— Jam.! i_. (44 -.{::-../..;-'---, ^mss Lutheran Church Site Plan Review May 4, 1994 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The Lutheran Church of the Living Christ has submitted an application for an amended site plan to accommodate a 7,560 sq. ft. expansion of the gros :ioor area of the two levels in the Church. The church presently has 17,200 sq. ft. of gross rioor area and the proposed expansion will bring the new total to 24,760 or an approximate 44% expansion of the total building square footage. Planned improvements will include a narthex space on the main level along with administrative offices, meeting rooms and rest rooms. The expansion on the main level will not increase the total number of seats in the worship sanctuary. Expansion to the lower level will include eight additional classrooms. The proposed expansion is on the north side of the building and faces Hwy. 5. The expansion will be 150 feet from the property line of Hwy. 5. The parking lot which exists abuts a portion of the Hwy. 5 right-of- way. Staff is recommending that a berm with landscaping be placed on the Hwy. 5 right-of- way and the applicant is working with MNDOT for approvals. Site improvements will include an increased number of handicapped parking stalls and a dumpster enclosure. The site improvements will also eliminate a gravel drive area along the southeast portion of the building and replace it with a paved access to the building and trash enclosure. The church has proposed to add berming along the Highway 5 frontage in MnDOT right-of - way (ROW) so as to be sensitive to the Highway 5 corridor's image. They have also proposed extensive landscaping around the foundation of the proposed building expansion and new dumpster enclosure improvements. BACKGROUND In 1975, the Lutheran Church of the Living Christ building was approved by the city as site plan review case 75-2. Subsequent to the original site plan approval, a subdivision of Outlot A was approved in 1991 and sold by the church to the HRA. The church retained an access easement across the outlot to assure continued access to the site. The property is zoned OI, Office and Institutional District. A church is a permitted use in this district. GENERAL SITE PLAN There are very minimal site plan changes proposed as a part of the building expansion proposal. The principal changes are as follows: 1. Revised building footprint to accommodate the 7,560 sq. ft. building addition. Lutheran Church Site Plan Review May 4, 1994 Page 3 2. Removal of an existing gravel roadway accessing a rear entrance along the southeast corner of the building. 3. The addition of a trash dumpster enclosure with decorative block to match the new building color. 4. The addition of a bituminous truck drive and walkway to the trash enclosure from the building and parking lot area. 5. A revised drop off circulation lane, landscaped parking lot island, and sidewalk areas at the front church entrance. 6. The addition of new handicapped parking areas to meet the ADA requirements. 7. The addition of two additional striped parking stalls at both ends of the center single loaded parking aisle at the front entry. 8. The addition of proof of parking to satisfy the increased number of parking spaces required by the Zoning Ordinance for the new classrooms. Staff has taken the position that existing substandard site conditions, such as parking lot stall and drive aisle dimensions, setbacks, lighting, curbing, etc., are legal non-conforming and are representative of the approved plans for the site. In this regard, there is no net increase proposed in the number of parking stalls being provided should the city elect to approve the applicant's request for proof of parking. Accordingly, there would be no physical increase in the actual size of the parking lot area. If this rationale is followed, similar to the position taken by the City's Engineering Department for not requiring parking lot curbing and drainage utility improvements without substantial changes to the site plan; then the same position may be taken in terms of not holding the applicant responsible for bringing the entire site plan design into compliance with today's current standards. It should also be pointed out that the church appears to be making a good faith effort to enhance the overall appearance of the development by incorporating an enhanced appearance to the building materials, design and image, a substantially enhanced landscaping appearance for the building setting, and improved screening of the exposed parking surface to Highway 5. Additional landscaping, however, is still being requested by staff. The applicant has requested proof of parking approval for 8 spaces as identified on the site — plan. According to section 20-1124 (1) e. ..."the City may allow reductions in the number of parking spaces actually constructed as long as the applicant provides a proof of future parking ...for all minimum required parking spaces...and may require...additional spaces whenever a — need arises." The church has stated that the current parking arrangement is fully capable of handling on-site parking needs now and in the future with the proposed improvements. Staff Lutheran Church Site Plan Review May 4, 1994 Page 4 is comfortable with maintaining this approach to meeting the parking requirements for this use. It is recommended, though, that a staff review be conducted of this parking arrangement annually for the next 2-3 years to monitor parking needs and to require the additional spaces be constructed should the need arise. The only concerns with the proposed site plan changes exist with the revised drop off lane and the new handicapped parking area to meet ADA requirements. After analyzing the turning radii of the drop-off circulation lane, it would appear that a full sized school bus will not be able to fully negotiate this turning movement when the parking area is full along the approach lane. In order to better accommodate this situation, it is suggested that a revised turning layout be considered as recommended by the City Engineer. The Fire Marshal has also expressed a concern relative to proper identification and marking of fire lanes (please reference the attached letter from the Fire Marshal dated April 14, 1994). It is recommended that the proper designation and sign identification for fire lanes be added to the site plan. A second concern exists in terms of the handicapped access being provided from the parking stalls to the building (please reference the attached letter from the Building Official dated April 21, 1994). Although it would appear feasible that the required access can be provided, it is recommended that the site plan be revised to accommodate these provisions as required by the Minnesota State Building Code. The proposed church expansion will incorporate an exposed aggregate pre-cast decorative concrete panels. The new panel color will be a very subtle natural buff tone. The church has proposed to integrate this new color scheme into the existing materials by repainting the entire building to match the natural color tones associated with the new materials. It is also anticipated that the painting of the existing break off block materials will substantially serve to "tone down" the overall effect of the yellow appearance associated with the current design. The proposed building materials are in compliance with the present ordinance requirements. The proposed building materials are also found to be consistent with the intent of the Highway 5 Corridor Study and Draft Design Standards Ordinance. LANDSCAPING The applicant has proposed additional landscaping around the new building foundation and the outside perimeter of the dumpster enclosure. The foundation plantings consist of a variety of species including: Junipers, Yews, Spirea, Barberry, Hosta, European Cranberry's and Burning Bush. The dumpster enclosure plantings consist of Techny Arborvitae. New trees will consist of Spruce, Amur Maple, Summit Ash, and Snow Crab Trees. Staff is recommending additional landscaping along the proposed berm of Hwy. 5 as well as the southern property along both sides of the driveway to the church. The landscaping shall consist of a mix of 5 conifers and 5 deciduous trees to be selected from the city's landscaping _ list. The plantings shall also be subject to review and approval of NSP and MnDOT. Lutheran Church Site Plan Review May 4, 1994 Page 5 The elevation of the church is approximately at grade with Hwy. 5 at the main entrance. Staff believes that landscaping of the berm will be an important consideration for the improvements proposed in the MnDOT ROW. If approval from MNDOT and NSP cannot be gained, staff would recommend intensive landscaping for the islands in front of the main entrance and outside of the easement area. UTILITIES The church is currently connects to city sewer and water from Lake Drive. The building expansion will be serviced from the existing building. GRADING/DRAINAGE Grading will be minimal with this building expansion. The plans indicate additional berming between the parking lot and Trunk Highway 5. It appears this berming will be performed within MnDOT's right-of-way. The appropriate permits from MnDOT will be necessary prior to any construction within MnDOT's right-of-way. The site currently sheet drains across the parking lot. The site has been functioning well over the past years with this drainage scenario. Since the site is not increasing the impervious surface significantly, staff believes that the current drainage pattern is appropriate and no further modification such as storm sewers or curb and gutter are necessary. Erosion control measures (Type I silt fence) is proposed on the down slope from the grading activity from building and trash enclosure areas. Site restoration is proposed in accordance with the MPCA's Best Management Handbook. PARKLNG LOT The existing parking lot does not have concrete curb and gutter. The service drive from Lake Drive does have a bituminous curb which was installed a few years ago. The plans are proposing slight restriping of the parking lot to achieve the desired parking lot reconfiguration. Staff is concerned with the parking stalls' length. They vary from 16 to 20 feet in length. In the field they measure ranging from 16' to 17'. The industry's standards are a minimum of 18 feet. This is especially important from a lawn maintenance perspective without continuous parking lot curbing. Staff believes the drive aisles could be modified to achieve some of the additional stall length. The drive aisles should be a minimum of 22 feet wide. A copy of the parking lot configuration with recommended changes is attached. The revised island located in front of the proposed addition restricts school bus turning movements. The standard school bus will not be able to maneuver the turn without stopping Lutheran Church Site Plan Review May 4, 1994 Page 6 and jockeying back and forth. This area should be redesigned to accommodate proper bus turning movements. ACCESS _ Access to the property is gained from Lake Drive over a driveway easement which exists upon an Outlot purchased from the Church by the HRA back in 1990. No changes in access are planned as a part of this proposal. LIGHTING/SIGNAGE There are currently five parking lot lighting poles which exist in the parking lot area. No changes to the existing parking lot lighting are proposed as a part of the church addition. Building lighting improvements in connection with the expansion have not been identified upon the elevations. It is recommended that any building lighting improvements made be in conformance with the City's Lighting Standards. There are presently two church identification signs for the property. The first is considered an off-premise directional sign which is located at the entrance to the property on the city's outlot. No changes are proposed to this sign. The second is located along the Highway 5 frontage. No changes are proposed to this sign as a part of the initial proposal. The possible introduction of screening berms to the north in the Highway 5 ROW may, however, cause a substantial obstruction for this sign. Some further thought may need to be given to its current design and location upon the site. FINDINGS In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the developments compliance with the following: Section 20-110 Standards for Site Plan Review (1) Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted; Finding: Although this is an existing use with an expansion, the revision to the landscaping plan, the building materials, dumpster screening all meet the city's development guidelines. (2) Consistency with this division; Lutheran Church Site Plan Review May 4, 1994 Page 7 Finding: The proposed building meets setbacks. Parking lot landscaping needs to be added. Additional landscaping on the site (highway right-of-way and either side of the entrance drive) needs to be added. The location of the parking lot to MNDOT ROW (Hwy. 5) is legal non-conforming. (3) Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing or developing areas; Finding: The existing trees shall remain. The expansion will have a minimal effect on grade or natural features. (4) Creation of a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development; Finding: The site is highly visible from Hwy. 5 and the addition of landscaping and type of building material should soften the view from the highway and the proximity of the parking lot. (5) Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: a. An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community; Finding: The church is an existing use on the property. The expansion will not increase the impervious surface. b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping; Finding: The amount of open space shall remain the same. Additional landscaping is being provided. c. Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and Finding: The site is surrounded by other industrial use. The church proposes decorative precate panels. The color will be a natural buff tone. They plan to Lutheran Church Site Plan Review May 4, 1994 Page 8 paint the rest of the church to match this color. This will make the church compatible with surrounding uses. d. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. Finding: The site does have a nonconforming parking stall length. The Engineering Department has reviewed the parking stall layout and is recommending that they be restriped to be a minimum drive isle of 22'. The bus turning movement is also substandard. (6) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. Finding: The addition to the church should not adversely affect the neighboring land uses. = Finding: Based upon the findings and recommendations as identified in this report, the project with the proposed recommendations is deemed to be consistent with the site plan development standards as required by the Zoning Ordinance. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review #94-2 for a 7,560 square foot addition to the Lutheran Church of the Living Christ Church subject to the plan dated April 5, 1994 and subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall obtain and comply with MnDOT's permit for constructing the berms and landscaping within MnDOT's right-of-way. In the event that no landscaping is approved by MnDOT or NSP in the ROW or Power Easement, then the applicant shall submit a revised landscaping plan for final review and approval by City Staff. Lutheran Church Site Plan Review May 4, 1994 Page 9 - 2. Storm sewers and curb and gutter are not necessary with this phase of expansion. However, future expansions may require the site be brought up to city ordinance with curbs, gutters, and storm sewers. 3. The parking lot stall design should be modified to provide a minimum of 22-foot wide drive aisles and 81/2-foot by 18-foot long parking stalls. This can be accomplished by restriping. 4. The applicant shall redesign the drive island drop off area to accommodate proper bus turning movements. 5. Additional landscaping along the proposed berm of Hwy. 5 as well as the southeastern portion of the property along both sides of the driveway to the church. The landscaping along the driveway shall consist of a mix of 5 conifers and 5 deciduous trees as selected from the city's landscaping list. A landscaped berm be placed in the MnDOT ROW. If approval from MNDOT and NSP cannot be gained, it is recommended that intensive landscaping for the islands in front of the main entrance and outside the utility easement area be designed and submitted for approval by City staff. 6. A staff review be conducted of this parking arrangement annually for the next 2-3 years to monitor parking needs and to require the additional spaces be constructed should the need arise. 7. All conditions as stated in the Building Official's memo dated April 14, 1994. 8. All conditions as stated in the Fire Marshal's memo dated April 21, 1994. 9. Any building lighting improvements shall made be in conformance with the City's Lighting Standards and shall be subject to final review and approval by city staff. ATTACHMENTS 1. Memo from Dave Hempel dated April 26, 1994. 2. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated April 21, 1994. 3. Memo from Mark Littfin dated April 14, 1994. 4. Letter from Don Wagner dated April 4, 1994. 5. Hearing notice. 6. Site plan dated March 28, 1994. CITY OF 104CHANHASSEN — 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Andrew Mack, Planner II FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer DATE: April 26, 1994 SUBJ: Site Plan Review for Lutheran Church of the Living Christ - LUR 94-7 Upon review of the preliminary site plan dated April 2, 1994, prepared by Architects Professional Association, I offer the following comments and recommendations: UTILITIES The church is currently connects to city sewer and water from Lake Drive. The building expansion will be serviced from the existing building. GRADING/DRAINAGE Grading will be minimal with this building expansion. The plans indicate additional berming between the parking lot and Trunk Highway 5. It appears this berming will be performed within MnDOT's right-of-way. The appropriate permits from MnDOT will be necessary prior to any construction within MnDOT's right-of-way. The site currently sheet drains across the parking lot. The site has been functioning well over the past years with this drainage scenario. Since the site is not increasing the impervious surface significantly, staff believes that the current drainage pattern is appropriate and no further '- modification such as storm sewers or curb and gutter are necessary. Erosion control measures (Type I silt fence) is proposed on the down slope from the grading activity from building and trash enclosure. Site restoration is proposed in accordance with the MPCA's Best Management Handbook. Andrew Mack April 26, 1994 Page 2 — PARKING LOT — The existing parking lot does not have concrete curb and gutter. The service drive from Lake Drive does have a bituminous curb which was installed a few years ago. The plans are proposing to restrip the parking lot to achieve the proposed parking lot configuration. Staff is concerned with the parking stalls' length. They vary from 16 to 20 feet in length. The industries standards are a minimum of 18 feet. The drive aisles could be modified to achieve some of the additional — stall length. The drive aisles should be a minimum of 22 feet wide. I have attached a copy of the parking lot configuration with recommended changes. The revised island located in front of the proposed addition restricts school bus turning movements. The standard school bus will not be able to maneuver the turn without stopping and jockeying back and forth. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The applicant shall obtain and comply with MnDOT's permit for constructing the berms — within MnDOT's right-of-way. 2. Storm sewers and curb and gutter are not necessary with this phase of expansion. _ However, future expansions may require the site be brought up to city ordinance with curbs, gutters, and storm sewers. 3. The parking lot stall design should be modified to provide a minimum of 22-foot wide drive aisles and 81/2-foot by 18-foot long parking stalls. jms Attachments — c: Charles Folch, City Engineer g:leng\dave\memos\church.spr A-I SCALE 0 cii., p&,4 v, _., ______ _ ....., ...„ 2 _____, ______ _ . : ‘5 %"........... 0 411e,t4t_ pk -142vir' _., . ..._, • iv) % _._ . ......3/4„. ___ ___ / ...„.... • ,LIGHT POLE _ 5 sp 1 -- �11 PA STL 7 It" 1 / / .1 / / . **--............. _ \ 3' / / / / / / : 21 • POLE 7/ _ \ SNE MG - L fi . . :ti / / 17 1'1 _ \ / el?' -.., _ 4 Niiir#,. .1Bis --,''t- _ ' x• o _ ., 8 ,iI � r ' e, l 77 i ' 7\xA,40 , ?(& >" 1 ° zo V • • EXIST. LIGHT PO 1EW HG. PARKING AREA . TO MEET ADA REQUINT5 RESTRIFE AS SHOWN BITUMINOUS TRUCK DRIVE TO MEET MNDOT SPEC. i tQd-au int A-MQ CITY QF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Andrew Mack, Planner II C. FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official f`\- DATE: April 21, 1994 SUBJECT: 94-2 SPR (Lutheran Church of the Living Christ addition) I have been asked to comment on the above referenced application for a site plan review at 820 Lake Drive. Background: Architects and designers are currently in the unenviable positions of having two separate standards which must be applied for handicap accessibility - The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the handicap provisions of the Minnesota State Building Code (MSBC) . The City is responsible for MSBC enforcement, whereas the ADA is enforced through the legal system. Conflicts between the code and the act are _ few, but differences abound. Analysis: The site approach from the handicap stalls located in the southeastern section of the parking lot does not appear to comply with the MSBC. The maximum permitted rise for a site approach may not exceed one vertical _ to 20 horizontal (1990 MSBC 1340 . 0300 Subp.2) . It is not clear from the submitted plans if the handicapped entrance is at the main lobby or corridor of the building. It may be that, since the building has dual uses, two entrances will need to comply with the requirements for a handicap entrance. It does not appear that a site approach is provided to the new entrance from the handicap stalls at the northwestern section of the parking lot . Recommendation: Staff recommends the following condition be added to the conditions of approval : 1 . Adjust and/or add site approaches to comply with the currently applicable Minnesota State Building Code accessibility requirements (1990 MSBC 1340 . 0300) . 9:\safety\sak\memos\plan\1c-luthn.aml CITY OF 11‘1 CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Andrew Mack, Planner II FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: April 14, 1994 SUBJ: Site Plan Review, 7,560 Sq. Ft. Addition Lutheran Church of the Living Christ Planning Case #94-2 I have reviewed the site plan and have made the following requirements: 1. Marking of fire lanes with appropriate signage and yellow curbing must be shown on building site plan. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for designated fire lanes. Policy #06-1991 enclosed. 2. Plans should indicate premise identification per Chanhassen Fire Department. Policy #29-1992 enclosed. 3. Submit utility plan for fire hydrant location approval. CITY OF .r , .„fF'}�� :, ./..4 -:-, cHANHAissEN r, l , �s �' �l.,r3f • t'� '' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN MINNESOTA��-` 55317 ,, (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY PREMISES IDENTIFICATION General Numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Said numbers shall contrast with their background. Size and location of numbers shall be approved by one of the following — Public Safety Director, Building Official, Building Inspector, Fire Marshal. Requirements are for new construction and existing buildings where no address numbers are posted. g Other Requirement -General A 1. Numbers shall be a contrasting color fromthe background (- 2. Numbers shall not be In script r 3. If a structure Is not visible from the stet,addltlona--numbers are required at the driveway entrance. Size and location must be approved. '2' 4. Numbers on mall box at driveway entrance may be a minimum of 4". However, requirement *3 must still be met 5. Administrative authority may require additional numbers If deemed necessary. Residential RequIrernerrts(2 or less dwetring unto 1. Minimum height shall be 5 114". 2. Building permits will not be finaled unless numbers are posted and approved by the Building Department Commercial Requirements ... 1. Minimum height shall'be 12". 2. Strip Malls t,. a. Mufti tenant building will have minimum height requirements of 6'. b. Address numbers shall be on the main entrance and on all back doors. 3. If address numbers are located on a dir ctory entry sign, additional numbers will be required on the buildings main entrance. Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention _-ik Policy #29-1992 41. - Date: 06/15/92 Revised: Approved — Public Safty Director Page 1 of 1 tor Ni PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER s CITY 4 F o ----' CHANHASSEN , ,. „ _. , ..,,,,,, „ ,..„..s„., itlifirif, 4 Nolb,"01.., 1 * f - 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY REQUIREMENTS FOR FIRE LANE SIGNAGE 1. Signs to be a minimum of 12" x 18" . NO 2 . Red on white is preferred. PARKING FIRE 3 . 3M or equal engineer ' s grade LANE reflective sheeting on aluminum - is preferred. 4 . Wording shall be: NO PARKING FIRE LANE 5 . Signs shall be posted at each end of the fire lane and at least at 7 ' 0" 75 foot intervals along the fire lane. 6•. All signs shall be double sided facing the direction of travel. 7 . Post shall be set back a minimum of 12" but not more than 36" from the curb. 8 . A fire lane shall be required in (NOT TO GRADE front of fire dept. connections SCALE) extending 5 feet on each side and along all areas designated by the Fire Chief. ANY DEVIATION FROM THE ABOVE PROCEDURES SHALL BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING, WITH A SITE PLAN, FOR APPROVAL BY THE FIRE CHIEF. IT IS THE INTENTION OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO ENSURE CONTINUITY THROUGHOUT THE CITY BY PROVIDING THESE PROCEDURES FOR MARKING OF FIRE LANES. - Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention 2 Policy #06-1991 Date: 1/15/91 Revised: Approved - Public Safety Director Page 1 of 1 t41,1 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ARCHITECTS PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION -- 6365 Carlson Drive. Eden Prairie. Minnesota 55346 612.934.8898 April 4, 1994 _ TO: Members of the Planning Commission City of Chanhassen SUBJ: Lutheran Church of the Living Christ _ 820 Lake Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota Dear Members: The Congregation of the Lutheran Church of the Living Christ wishes to expand their present facility by approximately 3870 square feet on each of the two existing levels. This expansion will improve — circulation patterns for better access throughout the building. An increase in area will also provide for the opportunity to (1.) conform with the latest requirements for fire protection, life safety and physical accessibility, (2.) enhance the delivery of Christian education and (3.) create a more _ meaningful worship experience. The following is a more detailed discussion concerning these goals. 1. Fire Protection, Life Safety and Accessibility A combination fire sprinkler and alarm system requested by the City Fire Marshall will he installed to assure adequate protection for the building and its occupants. The direct access to the outside on both levels will be maintained. This project will also provide the opportunity to conform with the Federal A.D.A. guidelines for accessibility. This will include the installation of an elevator and new restrooms on the upper level. Revisions to the parking lot will include a van loading zone for each level. — 2. Christian Education Expansion of the lower level will provide for a learning resource center and eight additional classrooms. This will allow for a larger staff of teachers, smaller learning groups and more specialized instruction according to age and interests. The architectural site plan identifies a _ location for proof of parking to meet the additional staffing needs according to the City's parking formula for this type of facility. 3. The Worship Experience The sanctuary, located on the main level of the present facility, is adequate and will not require additional space. The expansion of this level however will include a narthex space with support — areas which allows for an informal fellowship of members, guests and visitors. This occurs after each service and provides the opportunity to welcome new residents of the community. When completed the facility would consist of 12,470 square feet on each of two levels. This provides for a Building Area Ratio of 4.873% and a Floor Area Ratio of 9.847%. The exterior wall construction will consist of textured pre-cast concrete panels. _ April 4, 1994 (continued) In order to accomodate the proposed Highway 5 Corridor Ordinance, excess dirt from the excavation would be available to create landscape earth forms along the Highway 5 property frontage. Since space is limited on the Church property the congregation will be contacting the State Department of Transportation to suggest a co-ordinated effort in creating these forms within the 80 foot wide right of way area. Your support in this matter would be greatly appreciated. Very truly yours, ARCHITECTS PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION ‘...171.4c`4""Q)' {Q Donovan D. Wagner I i r -� i 13 r ii I IIi I � � 1 0 CL i i 1 i N . INS I o — v. r ; a c � rajaI -1 e C C C C C I r' r' f+, � R RI RI "f� R v. 1f' w. _ nI yC '.:... K: ^-. v lift.. �•i� �I� K . .L lam. 1 N �, N O Ir. N N v N Cr. L 1 L C v-. `I c cr', v' �' y m e 'r, O O O v. 'O a> u I I v, p p Q •• < -':7I L'� N L a Y K =� C CI C — C .^:r Z!• L C C is 2!; a� v i"'.i �I d C C.,O i O c Ci O O O E ii 1— QIr"'L RIs C, Z ii L L IC. 0, 7 'vi co 76is t is CO I CN ;� a SRI � a IA —� co CJ i; F' 4 '�I� �! 3 41 4 ci w "'I�i"' v a IQ'c, .ri i `'�.. 8 8'8 NI J O. i i Co ^' + g �� I i 1-7 L. W . I I E i v1 _I E L i T. _ U yi c O: C. I— . I Y =; P �I � ISI U L I C.. V' •iJl Y N N Y ,,,� O C ! `I .Y I d� I �I I �: Q. o .01 �; _ -.1t-, i I r r il I1WI �� ISI ,._� ia O '.; —� of Ise I •I I— c cl U c -1c I � c.c I-p moi .. �I G '� 1 RI —.1 IN' RI �1 L C' — II 71 C,�' ICI ^ 9; .7.1 I �'2!T1 v: 01 UI V - C OI ciJ Nl�j ..! v I3' �Iv. ' v% LI L1 L I`r� _ _ !n L `cl �` EA a ISI `1 of �' 0,° X I vv�i L I.8; a. , it in it U C >I Z I �r R I ti Ca Z r x1�:, a''.�I � I 11::1 �� � `33;3 < 3 oIE'§ o R g CICZI to ✓ I � I loio ! ....• cc 0 iW .ce ce•et Oa C+ NN: .oc'oc v . v-.J = 1;-'17,i., ',Iv. v i �. ,� I� � 1�S�I CO fV1�'ff I/liN I I �InI�l—! N � CV N I% :4 Lai.. — iY' .y n Cil- )^ j�1 I___"--- i J C W 4113 aco_ C Et- 0 3 I 17. < -0- 0 < < 7.7 .c N V — -Yx ._ 'O o_ a 0 N 0C 2 C O C .y i ✓O— m N 10 < O CO T e) y ,— N I >CD < — r r :' N N N C) a) a)YYY ` > la x Y D . Y Y x Tr (5 0 0 (5 0 0 0 N Qp U U 'O 0 0 U U C3) J00 _� 00 I = Qo m0 < 000 0 0) cmm < cmm < _c �a ' <_ 0_ cm < t`cm �cmmm corn y ✓ - ;13 - - - _ y .— r O y r — 0 ••i aa, 0 0 Cl) 0 Q• a C') 'Mt — N N ✓ •— N (f) O r CO 8 0 0 5 CI O O O I— 'r O O l4 0 = O Y O O O t t J J 0 . J J 0 O U y O 0 t J 0 d J U_ J J J 1— J C C C O C co) C Y . Y coCli c co i m 0 co 0 2 I.- U 0 2 m a — W MaIYgOSSY lY Sl} — _ AID WI 3L A COE rielll AN ono,.•-no-....—srrv._ •IMMO i imp:n m Ni ri '7 : -.14. . I 1 it I r--__ •____-,- _, ., 1.! git . I . - 1 II ;i il i! li /I il 4i. to " I (2 id -T— >BA g..\11 111.... . , , , / , . i . , - ! .1.1.01,,„et - , , II . .1 ! .....„,....w.L, - , .//. / ,.. i..._•, __ __ __.. , 1, • i ii iii ' ii!. i` I bilis ,,fes IPrel •• ��` i< ili » iti j / ` ,�?►.',,4. , X dip; 4, . ..,.... I. PA 1 hil / .Ii. //r .-- ? , 4,/ • m il I // / / // \....'7.Z. 1 il:eif ./ / I/ 471 . 'Ailtjtillil. lir / 2 . g .6._-• / /4- I Ii li g 111 #1 1 • ittit/ / *0 1 "if" / im•-qp,''.01: i I/ • / "11,':,m10;-:•`/ ' - 'AO \-" 1 I ' // r/ 44-,-4s- !, 11111 II' d o 11 I I A 'ill tt{ai ... j I / • 1.%"• r ' 'ii i ii z / h_ 49 I I 1 1 _ ..,. lif. I I I I I Ii 1! •/ § - I I I ; ' i iii tff :• Fi s i EI3 ! I! 11; I ;I = 1st ,. o ; td Iia ' I I _i-1- o1• I � ° i1 I 1. 7iii\ • r ga g it I € i - E - �� a - Ili .Aiiiiliiiiiii Wu , tulp _ol ;i 51 i 1 Hi '. IIII.áII i I,I ; 11 \ . / 1 . • O' 14.;, ,! i \ - i \� ID e ,1; ! !XI= t O Q :\ t 1,—.. .,--, ❑' p + :r/. /\ U r / __. n '' i = / / • J 1 1 I WM M WM-9MR,oww —.�••_ —..�—..,sem �Dg mma f rivice t —• MIMS PRDI 1 Assoc TUI 1 t } ., — Zg I j i-! i_ izr,-t- . .0 ' 114k4;;-, •-•.: -* t , t A am. >A ` /• *I A1 / H - h\ • fi • I 1 k‘Z‘ii i Wink < !°�=i . s • 4 .._ . :. 1 1 I , ..--# "Alit' ';;•aditit ._ "n” * -4 t11-14- 'IC -- Il " . .4 OA:t4:14 --- --§--a=-Ti. \•)*k_ • 1 k .itt) MI-4--r114-10 .dMIIII-_----1 ‘-'\`‘-'4,•-\I ammi".&(. – • '- ilff.i...-r- i 1 1 R O t Z H b A ..-K.- tt, IF 'y� Ii i I l' 11 . NI:44k .' .-iitlit'Imm•mel ', - - 1 I ! 41;iiii?iti. Inn • ,J . t.....t • .t. .. i. : .. . .:., . .,_1.. . „ 5.ct . )t.,i , it . s, :..,..,, t _.. _ . ..1, A ., _.11,. . .. . .1 _.r..,,,,,,,, -..:Tii,g. .i? :: I 40'411.,41* :\ :' : . ..• • ' IDaf....a? . : : K AI '705-..t. 'lir-. sr•- � � �� �` Z1 ,., . . ..:':::',..,, 1/4i. .... ?, 1 . g • - t. . .. . . ;44,,.._ 4-,,t.:,:•:, , : . ; . 1 • ...,, ,.. 1 . , , r , ,. \----- - i' ll 1 ;:n • A 1 i 1 • T, , ' — f �} ' I} _r,-, _. e y.. Y^ , 1 .4 Pi 6 7O � 2 - - �l r'ki ..I/4 \ A \ • ® _ ;r — • 31 • /71/_ ._ 1: ;i :11 .4 • -_ — ( 3 g 7TH � 1 \ .-F�n — � ' • ,. A ,� • qC / - aA 4�a ,§ \ V // w — • v • GT .57 g -- ��o��ren..o��r��_a�/�tt/��p�orl.ali. lima F. ins q •—� .•-____ ,D pp�Q�yy��� ���ry��yy� _ CE =Mid Cal df TIE ins IAIYJI �y�'�' ARCHITECTS f IWfESSI NAL ASSIXT TION wr.�+. '.—--.ww err•..r rw ..ra ter•w.. w w.w.� ____ 0 0 1) r CHURCHUDOMO WER ODEI.9iG — iii _ R C1 at< CJJJUI1_-'C 1W2[^—*OTA O I N k �� 11.11 !ig G A Ap I Ir•—•- - .r e.-7 I • s ;- Ijc fru::rrr:rr.-r_d l-d i.___---'--_-- :K\ ' t J _ — —._ Ye I FF co .1. . . . , _ .. .._ . . .._ _ . . . 40" . • v . . , . ,...„ . ., , A . L_ ot ', , ./ ii- ��Iill, IIUi . • Noe amm am. g; - 1� " o2 lure?.cora of 11YE C 1 = y ARCHITECTS PROFESSIONAL ASSOCAT1ON`. a�Op M.u.11 WM.e.uw...a r wn N n.•.•. ..u...w�...a�»....... w....... $ o MI CHURCH ADDmoN LREYDDEUNG _rt r - — - - CaC84 cra_vx .� _ , . Iotx --- — ------ - -- ---- _ — : \ 1 1 11 -� z Ii iii i-ii, ii .; Fi IP re s, += p : r-ri Tilltiw !Y_ { r.r tp`S., ! S #t�Cjf t' .,`_" - ,1 i!I I IWO =ii }Sr a •iili ii I rtj ��}I .,!i: .'. . " • iiifaiii - #t 1` ., Lit 1F1 'dtil }.E 2= I t/1\' NJ , 1:i ii; 1 tii tl tt Fri t ;f: •ii i,`'/ / I I € ili WI. i'4 Si / / /� / �/% ill i; ! 1! , ii = i III ugh #ilt ii / - �liiF` tl��#t E � j / / iii' �� tl £ S Y9 39'C � 424 79/ IOW £ /t\ .,� / / / // �/i�� M1 ii+i�( l�,`�leq! / s• / / // Z / / /-�/ , i€. fitI:} lF.": // ,, / / / / /...V _ 'Hi, +tF.{i.= - /\ d /./. .___:\, /tt( /� / i (E ii# €'itis ttfi. .-, t , / 7 / / rzy/ •, 'i , e\s‘ ,/ z\ / ... ,'Q / C ! iii' isilld / I �, l { _ '` ,2<, .., , lift tit t • - i // fr// _>- / \.. -fro ;_,4! - : \ ) ) -_ -{ /5 € //////,.( !\ / \ 0. .. % 1 •• * i / Ital. .„It \ ,•1 w �\ L p / j/jam • } {i\ •, / ::f �'•� i�itltll!.,� 1:: ' , , .i ; , i . , . 1 1 ..., ,zillr,_, / . ‘ i e.: ..L.,,,,--• ,4.! 1,/ i / \ ij 0' I`` ttlillitil��� e y !is \ 1) • t• c / I II 'i s € IyK., �f/tL ' ' diary a�� •• b o / -_••I ' • - � � V ••' •�b Iiiiiat '/ -/�1• jai. i• •,.",•• 61 1 q' ti a / jilt t I O ) i 't €'// \ I '. ‘ \ , l” I / : . Iif1i=1- I° }t Fi t m �� ` / it iiiiri ' i 1 i i. =.I i•, \. ' <I ifiii}t i itlt ii} i // ./ F.A a �€ �= e 1SI '•• #`ilii€t•i !i1jji litii£=lett[ i• tt#}iia / 3 1 I . \ � t ,� . _\ \._ /c2. -// = F Uflhtjti'JIjII!flJ i,_ --- I„ , , } tJ\ (\ \ ��� \�. ," 11al i 1 _�I I \ \ \ \ ! / b , } Fkl,t t€i• 1 t V /off I I i .. \ \ 1 // \ `I// I, I '!�!t pflf I 1. \ / .._ !,/ / N' ;' # t , \ \ i \-- //i/I / , 111111111 li .1 it \*). '• �� I f / `I lniilli ilia ti(:;i=e +Ir If li /3 i\ �� ▪ t \\\”`� /`• ` /� i;;l€ [liilJlii it in "a ' ` 1 ilii=t.,r.�{rl: it I 11;11s Or r\ l ( ! \ 1Millirti'Flu < _�,•�\ \• S , itI it i P r!•=i= ( r 'lilt, il ' liim ;1 X— \a �ll i Illt� c Zc 1- f �N.. , •� ~, \�� � s 'qtr ,r 'i !1jjilIj1iffl( � 'ifI\� lili1It .it I o : 4 •` '1 ....: ; .... 0 ea taO tr) 0 ,c, tO ic) -4 -4 co 0 •••1 -.I CP 0 0 0 0 U4. 0 tt 0 U. 1 t .1211:.1\ ii 1 ... I _— t q , . t ..... c t 1111111:1 ii ri 0 x m cn = w Z cn in --- cn En 1 ri -I -I 5 5 z z m s > t Co ii Z g i—il "i VI 1 1 _ F. . :i • R .1.1 Fi 11 1 ti -ii 1E ' WI ULU- 4m. • I L:::•E i if:Pe . I 11 111111 1;11: 111! ill=1 1 .E:' /1 - . I 1 4/ :,- ;F 11 11 1. I! r p 11 n --- it] i :1 '22. — I>M 't Z 0 . r ou, it •-IE, :1 I L5 fl t ir?,:s i It I F:4- i I i i Ifsr, I I! •1 Ili I _ .---.: - is LAKE ANN iw �,eort1 'J W6_'� v�J 11 *!o���u NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ��r a I ANN ,y. rA K • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PROPERTY 9 - Wednesday, MAY 4, 1994 _ 1111 at 7:30 P.M. ot.City Hall Council Chambers ift. � 690 Coulter Drive r1 pm ____„,-,-- - Project: Addition to the Lutheran 0°00v.Nr:- ,*110 = Church of the Living Christjr. 1111 �- _ ii i Develo er: Lutheran Church of the ,��4!Ia, �� �t "ns•yar P Living Christ ,-e.-,4 7.t...,�,.wo,„ '_' + — 7 �` '' Of'•' ' = :-. . LA • Location: 820 Lake Drive - ,,_ ��'�t�40 d -A= •a,.*0; -.I NM 40, ::� r r:illPy►i 1.. sir G Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in — your area. The Lutheran Church of the Living Christ is reqesting a Site Plan Review for a 7,560 square foot addition to the Lutheran Church of the Living Christ on property zoned OI, Office Industrial and located on Lot 2, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park, 820 Lake — Drive. 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 Andrew at 937-1900, ext. 117. 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 April 21, — 1994. 04' Rosemount, Inc. Roberts Automatic Products Mn Dept. of Transportation 2001 Technology Drive 880 Lake Drive 1500 West County Road B2 -Elden Prairie, MN 55344 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Roseville, MN 55113 —f C & W Railroad Company Dayton Hudson Corporation Market Square Assoc. Ltd. 723 11th Street East Property Tax Dept. 200 Hwy. 13 West 3lencoe, MN 55356 777 Nicollet Mall Burnsville, MN 55337 Minneapolis, MN 55402 _Nest One Properties Beddor Enterprises/ 17001 Stodola Road E. J. Carlson Minnetonka, MN 55345 6950 Galpin Road Excelsior, MN 55331 CITY OF 10-1444r1 CHANHASSEN 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 • II DATE: April 26, 1994 SUBJ: Preliminary plat to replat Lot 1, Block 1, and Outlot B, Park One 2nd Addition into Lots 1, 2, and 3, Park One Third Addition, a Site Plan for a 54,720 square foot warehouse expansion for the Press and a 10,315 square foot Kinder Care facility and a Conditional Use Permit for a Licensed Day Care Center in an IOP, Industrial Office Park, located at the northwest quadrant of Dell Road and State Highway 5, Marcus Corporation On April 20, 1994, the Planning Commission reviewed the following application for the second time: 1) Site Plan Review for a 54,760 square foot expansion of The Press Building, and construction of a Kinder Care Day Care Center, 10,315 Square Feet 2) Preliminary Plat to Replat Lot 1, Block 1, and Outlot B, Park One 2nd Addition into Lots 1, 2, and 3, Park One Third Addition. 3) Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Day Care Center in an IOP District The first time this application appeared before the Planning Commission was on April 6, 1994. The Planning Commission had some concerns regarding the application and voted to table action until these concerns have been addressed by the applicant. The applicant submitted revised plans reflecting changes requested by the Planning Commission. The following section addresses all the issues that were raised at the April 6, 1994 Planning Commission meeting: ISSUE: The Press plans reflected 314 parking spaces. Under the Zoning Ordinance requirements, only 245 spaces are needed. The Planning Commission directed the applicant to reduce the number of parking stalls. FINDING: The applicant wanted to provide the additional parking to accommodate the new employees that will be employed in the new addition. There will be a total of 327 employees working in three shifts. The first shift will have 200 employees, the second will have 98 employees, and the third shift 30 employees. Between Planning Commission April 26, 1994 Page 2 the first and second shift, there is an overlap of 298 employees present at the building while the change of shift is taking place. This could potentially require 298 parking spaces. The original plans reflected 314 parking spaces. The applicant eliminated 16 parking spaces to achieve the 298 spaces. ISSUE: The Zoning Ordinance permits up to 70% hard surface coverage. The applicant stated at the April 6, 1994, Planning Commission meeting that the hard surface coverage for the Press will be 77%. This number includes the proposed addition and new parking. The Planning Commission wanted to see this number reduced to meet ordinance requirements. FINDING: The existing hard surface coverage for the Press property is 79%. The applicant is improving the situation by reducing the coverage to 76.8%. The zoning ordinance states that a nonconforming use or structure may be expanded provided that the nonconformity may not be increased. The applicant is not increasing the nonconformity and is in compliance with the ordinance. ISSUE: The Press addition elevations lacked in architectural detailing. The Planning Commission directed the applicant to incorporate some elements from the existing Press building, such as windows and landscaping. FINDING: The applicant has revised the landscaping plan to show a variety of trees and a 4 foot high berm to break the massing of the wall. Staff is recommending some architectural detailing be added to break the long spans of the walls. ISSUE: The link between The Press and Kinder Care will encourage The Press employees to use the Kinder Care parking lot as a short cut to get to Dell Road. FINDING: The applicant suggested that this issue can be addressed by The Press management by asking all employees not to use the Kinder Care parking lot as a short cut. Staff is recommending the applicant use speed bumps or landscaping islands that would require cars to slow down and maneuver around those islands prior to entering the Kinder Care parking area. The applicant has stated that if the short cut through the Kinder Care becomes a problem, they would be willing to provide speed bumps or a landscaped island. ISSUE: The Planning Commission requested the definition of EIFS (Exterior Insulation Finished System) or stucco over insulation. Also requested was samples of the materials proposed to be used on the buildings. FINDING: The applicant has supplied staff with photographs showing some existing Kinder Care buildings. These photos reflect two types of brick on the facade of the Planning Commission April 26, 1994 Page 3 building. It also reflects a high quality material. The applicant stated that the proposed Kinder Care building will be similar to that shown in the photograph. The photographs also show a black chain link fence. Staff is recommending a similar material be used on this site. ISSUE: The Planning Commission requested sign plans be submitted for review. FINDING: The applicant has submitted a sign plan. One free standing sign is proposed on the southeast corner of the site. This sign is proposed to be 5 feet in height, and have an area of 27 square feet. The sign is elevated on two poles. Staff is recommending the two metal poles be replaced with brick to match the proposed building. The applicant is also showing one wall mounted sign. The area of the sign is 12 square feet which is below the maximum requirements of the sign ordinance. ISSUE: Setback issues were raised by staff and compliance with the requirements of the Highway 5 corridor study. FINDING: At the time of writing the staff report dated April 6, 1994, staff assumed that the entire Highway 5 corridor would have to meet the new setbacks required by the study. This setback is 70 feet minimum and 150 feet maximum for any structure to be located adjacent to Highway 5. Staff later discovered that only the underlying district standards apply to this site. Therefore, the Kinder Care building does not have to be moved any closer to the south. ISSUE: The Planning Commission requested pedestrian access between The Press and Kinder Care . FINDING: The applicant has provided a sidewalk to link the two sites. ISSUE: The plans showed wood being used as the material to screen the trash enclosure for the Kinder Care building. FINDING: The applicant has revised the plan and changed the trash enclosure from wood to brick to match materials on the proposed building. At the April 20, 1994 meeting, additional issues were raised which included the following: • Landscaping along the southeast corner of the Kinder Care site: This corner is an entry way into Chanhassen. The Highway 5 Corridor study recommended the city consider some type of gateway treatment at Dell Road and Highway 5. A formal gateway Planning Commission April 26, 1994 Page 4 treatment has not been developed for this area. The preliminary thought is for the possibility of clustering trees. • The side walk that links the Press with the Kinder Care site is not wheelchair accessible. The Planning Commission recommended that this sidewalk be adjusted to provide this accessibility. • Architectural detailing has not been shown on the Press addition. Such should be shown on the plans. The detailing should complement the existing Press architecture. • The Planning Commission questioned the number of parking spaces at the Kinder Care site. The building can accommodate 200 children. The ordinance requires 1 space per 6 children, which will result in 33 spaces required. The applicant is providing 45 spaces, which exceeds the ordinance requirements by 12 spaces. The Planning Commission wanted the number of spaces reduced to increase the green space area on the Kinder Care site, specifically along Highway 5. The site has 59% hard surface coverage which is below the 70% required by ordinance. • The Planning Commission wanted to see the parking lot for the Kinder Care site shifted to the north to move it further from Hwy 5. There are high voltage electric lines along the south edge of the site. The applicant stated that there are federal regulations prohibiting day care buildings and playground areas from being located close to power lines. • The Planning Commission recommended the hard surface coverage of the Press site be adjusted to meet the required 70% by adding proposed Lot 3 to the area of the Press site. Based on the forgoing, the Planning Commission recommended tabling the Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan approval for the Kinder Care facility and recommended approval of the Press expansion with the following conditions: I. SITE PLAN REVIEW Mancino moved, Harberts seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to approve the Site Plan Review for a 54,760 square foot expansion of the Press building as shown on the site plan received April 13, 1994, subject to the following conditions. 1. That the applicant must revise plans to include trash screening of The Press site and show the type of materials used to screen the trash enclosures on The Press site. Plans must be submitted for staff review prior to City Council meeting. Planning Commission April 26, 1994 Page 5 2. Deleted. 3. The applicant shall provide a meandering berm with landscaping along the south portion of the site, between the parking lot and Highway 5. The height of the berm shall be between 3 and 4 feet. The applicant shall also 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. There shall be added landscaping to the perimeter of the Press expansion of coniferous trees as suggested by Nancy Mancino. 4. The applicant shall enter into a site plan development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping. 5. Meet all conditions outlined in the Fire Marshal memo dated March 10, 1994. 6. The Press addition shall contain some architectural detailing (with relief) to break up the long wall masses 7. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted. 8. The grading/utility plan shall be revised to incorporate storm sewers in the parking lot's drive aisles for the Press. Detailed drainage calculations for a 10 year storm event shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. 9. The applicant shall apply and comply with the necessary permits from the appropriate agencies (MPCA, Watershed District, and City Building Department). 10. Silt fence shall be placed along the northern property line where the parking lot for the Press is being relocated. 11. Deleted. 12. Deleted. 13. The main thoroughfare (drive aisle) located on the Press site north of the main parking lot area should be a minimum width of 26 feet with turning radiuses at 77th Street West of 30 feet and two way traffic. In addition, the main thoroughfare (drive aisle) shall be posted with no parking signs. Planning Commission April 26, 1994 Page 6 14. The driveway access point shall be constructed in accordance to the City's typical industrial driveway apron detail. 15. The applicant shall provide the City with a security deposit (letter of credit or cash escrow) in the amount of $5,000.00 to guarantee boulevard restoration. All boulevards disturbed as a result of the site improvements shall be restored with sod. 16. Conditions of the Building Official's memo dated March 25, 1994. 17. The parking configuration of the Press shall be incorporated into the final design approval given to Kinder Care taking into account such things as sidewalks for pedestrian traffic and traffic circulation between the Press and Kinder Care . 18. No rooftop equipment shall be visible from Highway 5, Dell Road or 77th Street. 19. The impervious surface of the Press shall be a conforming permit at 70%. The Planning Commission also recommended approval of the subdivision request with the condition that the applicant replats the parcels shown as proposed Lots 2 and 3 into Outlot A in addition to staff's recommendation. The Planning Commission acted as follow: Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of preliminary plat for Subdivision #94-2 for Park One 3rd Addition into Lot 1, Block 1 and Outlot A (Lots 2 and 3, Block 1), with the following conditions: 1. Park and trail dedication fees to be collected per city ordinance. 2. Provide the following easements: a. A standard 5 foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated along the common lot line between Lot 1 and Outlot A, Block 1. b. Delete. c. A 15 foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated on the final plat along the west property line of Outlot A to facilitate the extension of the sewer service. 3. Enter into a site plan development agreement acceptable to the city. Planning Commission April 26, 1994 Page 7 4. A driveway or cross access easement for use of the access off 77th Street West. The easement shall be dedicated in favor of Lots 1, Block 1 and Outlot A. 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. Erosion control measures (silt fence - Type I) shall be shown on the grading plan. Silt fence shall be placed along the north property line where the parking lot for the Press is being relocated. The applicant requested that the City Council consider the Kinder Care application even though it was tabled by the Planning Commission. On April 25, 1994, the City Council had a discussion on this item. They agreed unanimously that this application should go back to the Planning Commission for a recommendation. They also requested the Press and Kinder Care applications be treated as one. The Planning Commission has 60 days to render a recommendation to the City Council by June 1, 1994. Planning Commissioner Mancino requested a copy of the federal regulations prohibiting day care facilities to be located within a specific distance of high power electric lines. Staff contacted loan officers as well as the City Attorney in search of the regulations, however, we have been unsuccessful in locating these regulations. The plans have not changed since they last appeared before the Planning Commission. The applicant is still requesting approval of the Kinder Care site plan, conditional use permit and subdivision request as submitted. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review #94-1 as shown on the site plan received April 13, 1994, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must revise plans to include trash screening for The Press site and show the type of materials used to screen the trash enclosure on The Press site. Plans must be submitted for staff review prior to City Council meeting. 2. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site. The monument sign on the Kinder Care site shall utilize brick as a base for the sign rather than metal poles. Planning Commission April 26, 1994 Page 8 3. The applicant shall provide a meandering berm with landscaping along the south portion of the site, between the parking area and Hwy. 5. The height of the berm shall be between 3 to 4 feet. The applicant shall also 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. 4. The applicant shall enter into a site plan development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping. 5. Meet all conditions outlined in the Fire Marshal's memo dated March 10, 1994. 6. The Press addition shall contain some architectural detailing with relief to break the long wall masses. 7. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted. 8. The grading/utility plan shall be revised to incorporate storm sewers in the parking lot's drive aisles for The Press. Detailed drainage calculations for a 10-year storm event _ should be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. 9. The applicant shall apply and comply with the necessary permits from the appropriate agencies (MPCA, watershed district, and City Building Department). 10. Silt fence shall also be placed along the north property line where the parking lot for The Press is being relocated. 11. A rock construction entrance shall also be placed at the driveway entrance to the Kinder Care site off of Dell Road. 12. The applicant shall utilize the existing water service from Dell Road. Open cutting of Dell Road will be prohibited. 13. The main thoroughfare (drive aisle) located on The Press site north of the main parking lot area should be a minimum width of 26 feet with turning radiuses at 77th Street West of 30 feet. In addition, the main thoroughfare (drive aisle) shall be posted with no parking signs. 14. Both driveway access points shall be constructed in accordance to the City's typical industrial driveway apron detail. Planning Commission April 26, 1994 Page 9 15. The applicant shall be responsible for all boulevard restoration including the sidewalk along Dell Road. The applicant shall provide the City with a security deposit (letter of credit or cash escrow) in the amount of $5,000 to guarantee boulevard restoration. All boulevards disturbed as a result of the site improvements shall be restored with sod. 16. Conditions of the Building Official's memo dated March 25, 1994. 17. An island or a speed bump shall be placed between the Press and Kinder Care site to slow down and discourage traffic from cutting through the Kinder Care site. 18. No roof top equipment shall be visible from Highway 5, Dell Road, or 77th Street West. 19. Brick shall be used on the Kinder Care facade to resemble the building shown in the submitted photographs. 20. The parking configuration of the Press shall be incorporated into the final design approval given to Kinder Care taking into account such things as sidewalks for pedestrian traffic and traffic circulation between the Press and Kinder Care . 21. No rooftop equipment shall be visible from Highway 5, Dell Road or 77th Street. 22. The impervious surface of the Press shall be a conforming permit at 70%. II. PRELIMINARY PLAT "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #94-2 for Park One 3rd Addition as shown on the plat received April 13, 1994, with the following conditions: 1. Park and trail dedication fees to be collected per city ordinance. 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 and 3, Block 1. b. A 15-foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated on the final plat along the west property line of Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 to facilitate the extension of the sewer service. 3. Enter into a site plan development agreement acceptable to the city. Planning Commission April 26, 1994 Page 10 4. A driveway or cross-access easement for use of the access off of 77th Street West. The easement 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. Erosion control measures (silt fence - Type I) shall be shown on the grading plan. Silt fence shall be placed along the north property line where the parking lot for The Press is being relocated." III. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit#94-1 subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with conditions of site plan and plat approval. 2. Obtain all applicable state, county, and city licenses." Attachments 1. Letter from the applicant dated April 21, 1994. 2. Letter from City Attorney dated April 21, 1994. 3. Planning Commission minutes dated April 20, 1994. 4. Staff report dated April 6, 1994. 5. Planning Commission minutes dated April 6, 1994. 6. Photocopies of photographs showing an existing Kinder Care facility. 7. Revised plans received April 13, 1994. - [RIK 922 Mainstreet Hopkins, Mn. 55343 (612)933-0972 ASSOCIATES LTD. fax: (612)933-1153 6 April 21, 1994 Manager's Comments: As can be seen below, the applicant is requesting City Council review even though the Planning Commission tabled the Kindercare part of the project. Given Kathryn R. Aanenson this unusual procedural request, I have Director of Planning asked the City Attorney for an opinion (see City of Chanhassen attached) . 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 DWA (4-21-94) Chanhassen_ MN 55317 RE: The Press/Kindercare Project Dear Ms. Aanenson. The applicant is hereby requesting that the City Council consider in conjunction with the Press expansion (passed onto it with a positive recommendation from the planning commission) an appeal of the kindercare element of the project (which has been tabled twice by the planning commission). The projects are inseparable through their interrelationships both physically and economically. Additionally, if the kindercare cannot proceed at this time, it delays the kindercare project over a year which could also jeopardize the Press expansion. The applicant and the planning commission have reached an impasse in that the remaining issues of the planning commission, relating to kindercare. are not solvable. Given the dramatic need for additional daycare at this time in Chanhassen,we implore the Council to consider our appeal so as to fulfill part of that need this year. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your assistance. Yours truly. RLK Associates, Ltd. John Dietrich cc: John Pinmore, Kindercare • • .Civil Engineering •Transportation .Infrastructure Redevelopment .Landscape Architecture •Construction Management CAMPBELL , KNUTSON , SCOTT & FUCHS , P . A Apr 21 , 94 16 : 10 No . 012 P . 01 CAMPBELL, KN UTSON, SCOTT & FUC:HS, P.A. Atnn <tt I.aw on.i,I < (61114 i2.Si\ i; t.ni,t„n, Fax (612)452 5550 11),.11,,1,\1. ft 011 l.utR'It.W.,1,11,n ),Ili,ut 11 ki ,t' )i li•.iI.th A 1.un_rr A h1rL.,R1.1 h.0 c11 I'LX`IIIt'r — April 21, 1994 BY FAX TRANSMISSION Mr. Don Ashworth Chanhassen City Hall 690 Coulter Drive, Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RE: The Press/Kindercare Project Dear Don: You asked me if the City Council could take action on conditional use permits for The PressiKindercare Project. The Planning Commission tabled action on the Kindercare part of the project and recommended approval of The Press part of the project. Section 20-231 of the City Code provides that the procedure for adopting amendments to the zoning ordinance apply to the issuance of conditional use permits. Section 20-44 of the City Code provides: Following conclusion of the public hearing held by the Planning Commission, the Commission shall report its findings and recommendations on the proposed amendment to this chapter, including the zoning map to the Council. If no report of recommendation is transmitted by the Planning Commission within sixty (60)days following referral of the amendment to the Commission, the Council may take action on the amendment without awaiting such recommendation. The City Council therefore cannot take a conditional use permit application away from the Planning Commission before the Planning Commission acts on it, unless the Planning Commission has held the application for at least sixty (60) days. At first blush therefore the City Council would be ignoring the City Code provision if it acts on Kindercare. The troubling aspect is that the Planning Commission divided a project in two. No such piecemeal approach is authorized by the City Code, An argument could be made that since there is no authority to piecemeal a project since part of it has been sent on to the City Council the Council can act on all of it. My conclusion, however, is that the Planning Suite 317 • Foptul;ale Office(:enter • 1380 Corporate (:enter Curve • Eagan, KIN 55121 CHML hLL , KNU1SUN , SLUT 1 6 FULH , F' .H Hpr 21 ,94 1b : 11 No .U12 F .U2 Mr. Don Ashworth April 21, 1994 Page 2 Commission has rightly or wrongly not taken action on Kindercare and the Council would violate City Code Section 20-44 if it acts at this time. ( _ Vcr L 1 yours, AMPBEL KNUTSON, SCOTT S, P.A. j.ger N. Knutson RNK:srn CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 20, 1994 Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Diane Harberts, Matt Ledvina, Joe Scott, Nancy Mancino, Jeff Farmakes, and Ron Nutting MEMBERS ABSENT: Ladd Conrad STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner L Bob Generous, Planner II; and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT LOT 1, BLOCK 1 AND OUTLOT B, PARK ONE 2ND ADDITION INTO LOTS 1, 2 AND 3, PARK ONE THIRD ADDITION, A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 54,720 SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSE EXPANSION FOR THE PRESS AND A 10,315 SQUARE FOOT KLNDERCARE FACILITY AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A LICENSED DAY CARE CENTER IN AN IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF DELL ROAD AND STATE HIGHWAY 5. Public Present: Name Address Douglas A. Chestnut 1 Gardner Lane, Dellwood, MN 55110 John Finnemore 800 Roosevelt Rd #13410, Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Mark Senn 7160 Willow View Curve John Dietrich RLK Associates, 922 Mainstreet Sharmin Al-Jaff presented part of the staff report on this item. Mancino: Is that true with, as I remember. Well first of all, I'd love to get a copy of it because I don't have it. And I obviously went back and referred to the draft that I have. Aanenson: Right. We have the codified one that you recommended up to the City Council... Mancino: But it is also the major gateway on the east side into our city and it is also an area where the University said there should be plantings. Gateway plantings in this area on Dell Road and this was also in the draft on Figure 6-1. They have encircled that corner and said, create significant landscape element to obtain eastern gateway district. So have we done that? 1 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Is that part of this development and has there been some thinking and some creativity on how that will become part of a gateway? That corner? Al-Jaff: They have provided a berm. They have provided a mixture of plantings along the corner so it would be all of this area. There is quite a bit that you can't do with that corner, mainly because there are utility boxes all along that corner. Mancino: And you have to be able to access utility boxes but it also says to me, even more importantly, that it needs to be designed well and it also needs to be designed with the opposite corner because here again you have your gateway entrance. So I would like to see an overall plan on those two corners on how the gateway entrance to our city is going to be. I mean look what we're doing for Opus II. We've asked them to wait until we've got the Highway 5, the western gateway figured out and we want to see a charette on what will happen there. And I'd like to see one on the eastern side too before we go ahead and approve developments. I mean again this is the whole gateway to our city. Scott: I was thinking about the great work that has been done with the city of Eden Prairie. Because I know the little wooded corner that we have which is kitty corner from the one that you're talking about. They initially were planning a strip mall in there and by working and making them perhaps more sensitive to what our plans are, for that being a gateway to our city, I don't know whether, I'm sure there was some negotiating that was involved that I'm not privy to but they found it acceptable to leave as is. To do something else. Aanenson: Actually the fact of the matter is, Rottlund was in the market area. They had demand and they bought the property out. I mean I don't think there was something that they felt geez...I think they always intended to save those trees and we looked at that too. Is the value. On the south side certainly we looked at, there's a wetland that we recommended enhancing...on the south side. On the north side, yes. I think we talked about the landscaping berms...as far as the gateway treatment. We specifically talked about the Bill Morrish one that's proposed near the bridge where the Apple Red-E-Mix is. It's a larger statement...more natural and native landscaping there. Mancino: But I would also like to see what Morrish says about this eastern one too and see it as a whole as we enter, and I don't think we've done that and I'd like to take the time and do it and decide what should go there. So anyway. Sharmin Al-Jaff continued her staff report at this point. Scott: Thank you Sharmin. Any questions or comments for staff? Dave, do you have any comments? 2 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Hempel: I guess engineering's concern, I guess is still with that access circulation through the daycare, or it appears that the applicants are willing to try a measure here to try and manage it from a management position through the Press and I guess while something can be done in the future, if needed be, that there's that understanding out there that's...parking lot circulation. Mancino: Have we done that before? Hempel: We did with the Bank Americana down here on Market Boulevard. They requested a full access to Market Boulevard to the northerly, just south of the railroad tracks there and that seems to be working very well. Harberts: Would you consider that the same scope and size though Dave? Hempel: It's not the same to that degree, no. But it did have the potential with the drive thru bank and so forth... Harberts: Well with regards to your comment though, from what I read in the report though, is that shift change. When they have that 298 people all at once or something showing up. You know some are going, some are coming. Perhaps in the morning again. Are you comfortable from that angle that the access issues that you have can be resolved like that given this configuration? I guess my second question is. I read in here that they said that if it doesn't work, we'll come back. What doesn't work? What's that point? And what happens then? I mean the cement is laid. The asphalt is laid. And I don't know what the answer is. Hempel: That's a very valid point. It's tough to go back and change something that's already in concrete out there. Harberts: Would they be willing to redesign it to tear up the asphalt and lay it down if that's what's determined to make it work? I don't know. I'm not familiar with this type of. Mancino: But that's a measurement. You need, what is it that doesn't work and how do we determine that and actually have a measurement to measure against. Harberts: And does the city, well yeah. With the access point the city would care but internally, would the city have any jurisdiction or really care if someone got hit. Hopefully that won't happen but it certainly is a liability for the company, not for the city. But, and these are just questions. 3 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Hempel: That's correct. Those right-of-way, yield to the right I guess is the common rules of the road type of deal. It's similar to the Market Square across the street. It's a private parking lot. It's not public right-of-way so it's really not our jurisdiction. We try and provide recommendations to promote safe orderly traffic flow through these sites. I think the interest would be on the applicant to change it if they do have a problem as well. Harberts: With the sidewalk, I like the sidewalk there. Is the sidewalk, will that be a different material throughout the whole thing? You know I see this shaded thing. Or are they just, or are we just doing it to show us? Is there going to be like a difference in the materials used so it defines what that sidewalk is? Are we just going to paint lines down or. Hempel: I believe it's just going to be a painted crosswalk type of scenario across the parking lot. Harberts: Where the sidewalk crosses those, oh I don't know what those islands are. Are there trees in there? So are these people expected to walk through the trees? Walk around the trees? Or have to walk off of the cemented thing to get around there? Hempel: Maybe the applicant could address these questions a little more thoroughly. Scott: Sure. Why don't we, we'll...discussion and leave some for the applicant to come up and give your name and your address please. John Dietrich: John Dietrich, RLK Associates. Thanks for the opportunity to address the commission. I'd like to thank the staff for working with us to...brought up at the last Planning Commission meeting. Also with me tonight is John Finnemore of Kindercare. He has samples of the Kindercare building that he would like to also present and talk in more detail of the Kindercare program. I'd like to just go over some changes that were made to the site plan and submittal that Sharmin had brought up. First off I'd like to address the issue of the site plan and the changes that were made specifically were to remove parking along the north side of the parking lot. We removed 11 stalls so that we would have a landscaped area of approximately 27 feet from the curb up to the proposed addition. And also within this area we're proposing a 4 foot berm to help take the scale of the building height down. Secondly we have added the sidewalk between the Kindercare and the Press Incorporated. The sidewalk islands specifically are 17 feet in width. There's a 5 foot sidewalk through the center of the island with dropped pedestrian curbs at both ends. And on one side is a 6 foot planting area that would have trees and on the other side of the sidewalk is a 6 foot planting area that would have just shrubs in it. So we've balanced trees along on the south side. Shrubs on the north side. And then we would anticipate striping of the crosswalk to make sure to run between the drive aisles. In terms of the landscaping, we have added additional 4 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 landscape and plant materials to the corner. Conifer trees in front of the warehouse expansion and the trees and ornamental shrubs, deciduous and conifer along the east edge of, excuse me. The west edge of the new parking lot area. We did take the comments, they identified last time to try and match the existing plant materials that is existing at the Press and try to incorporate that in and throughout the entire parking lot. In addition we've taken the existing ash trees that are currently out in the site and we're proposing that they be transplanted up into this area anywhere from about 3 to 4 inch caliper ash trees. So we're looking to reuse those same plant materials that are out there along the east side of the parking lot and transplant into the rear of the site. So in all toll we are transplanting about 11 trees. 3 to 4 inch caliper and then about another 2 dozen trees, about half deciduous and half conifer. Scott: John? What would be the age? I see you have, there's a certain canopy indicated by each of those trees. Just pick, let's say we'll pick the ones that are on the. John Dietrich: We'll pick one here. Scott: Yeah, what's the age of that tree? John Dietrich: I would say the age of that tree is about a 10 year tree. So that we try to show our plans not at maturity but not right when they go in. Depending on...The other issue is the architecture and the building mass of the Press that is proposed, with the warehouse and the storage facility. We are proposing to utilize vertically scored concrete panels that would match the vertically scored concrete panels above the east side of the facade of the Press and also build into that facade some type of detailing. Perhaps it's horizontally scored concrete that would match the front of the Press building so that we would have a change of detail within that facade. That it's proposed that it would all be of the same material but we could utilize detailing to help break up the scale and tie it into the existing building. It's proposed that we would utilize the same lights that are on the facade. The same downspouts and the same metal cap as currently is running along the edge of that Press building. We are looking to, we do not have an architect on board yet but we would anticipate they will be able to show in detail. We would like to put that to our staff so that they would have the approvals to get that detailing. One sample of how that detailing could be broken up. The McGlynn building on Audubon Road. If you look at their screened walls. They have horizontal bands and then vertical bands on that concrete. It's a matter of building a form so that the material that the score patterns are detailed in that...panel. Mancino: And John, that's on the same plane? So you would have your vertical and your horizontal on the same plane? There would be no relief coming out where the horizontal? 5 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 John Dietrich: I would say there will be the opportunity for relief of a couple inches. Mancino: Okay. Okay. Right now where you have it on the front of the building. You have the vertical and then you have the horizontal that comes out about 4 feet. John Dietrich: Yes, that is a canopy. Mancino: Okay. So you're not suggesting a full canopy? John Dietrich: No. We are not suggesting. The canopy is there to provide shade for the windows and also as a cover for the walkway coming into the... Mancino: Okay. = John Dietrich: We did provide one elevation. If you were out on Highway 5 looking north from the westbound land. We anticipate this is what you would see. The existing, the conifer trees here are existing. This is an existing ash tree and with the bituminous trail. The existing berm that is out there, that we would then continue to the east and...around the Kindercare facility. The existing building is here and then this is the proposed addition with the deciduous trees and running back. The proposed addition of the warehouse is back in along here and actually begins to die into the berm that is out there along Highway 5. This was taken at approximately a 2.5 height if you were sitting in a car, this is the elevation that you would see looking north into that parking lot. Scott: That's your 10 year? John Dietrich: Those are approximately 10 year tree heads on the proposed tree stand. Harberts: I have a question with regard to the site plan. I don't know if you're the individual. I'm looking at this one. I don't know if you've got a thing there. I just need some. John Dietrich: I have two copies. I have a landscape plan and then I have the full scale. Al-Jaff: I can use the overhead. Harberts: This location right here. You've got 1, 2. Mancino: Visitor parking. 6 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Harberts: Where would...someone that perhaps is on crutches or in a wheelchair, how would they access the sidewalk? Are you expecting them to...traffic or is there a sidewalk there? Where's the access? John Dietrich: At this point the...would be stepping into the line of traffic. I imagine we will put in a sidewalk when necessary... Harberts: Does that meet the ADA requirements the way it's shown...? I just, it's just a little difficult. I recently had the experience where I was in a wheelchair for 7 days and with crutches and it really is an eye opener and I would, my further comments later on would probably indicate some interest in blocking the access there. John Dietrich: I'm sure the applicant would be willing to put in a sidewalk from this corner up to here to facilitate the handicapped accessibility...into the site instead of going into the right-of-way. Harberts: So that would probably involve curb cuts on the bottom end as well. John Dietrich: Yes. We anticipate this would be one long curb cut. Probably bollarded with posts with a sign so that you can move right through that drop person scenario. It's fairly flat there so the grade's not any problem. Harberts: Thanks. Scott: Any other questions or comments for the applicant? Mancino: Probably will later. Farmakes: I had one question. The amount of parking spots there, adjacent to the Kindercare. Is that based on the square footage of the building? Al-Jaff: No, it's actually based on, our ordinance states for every 6 kids you have to 1 space and that's what was provided. The Fire Marshal will go into the building and put a limit on number of individuals that could occupy the building. And I must say that it will be way, it would be a number that is below what the ordinance would allow them based upon the parking stalls that they are providing. Farmakes: So if we look at those and we multiply those times 6, that's the amount of, actually kids inside. 7 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Mancino: How many kids? Farmakes: ...my question is, is the rationale for 6, is that a recommendation that is. Al-Jaff: That's a city ordinance. Farmakes: I understand that. Do you recall when we got 6, as to the rationale that they used for that? Is that a professional recommendation or is that? Aanenson: Yeah, that's a pretty standard parking ratio. But they exceed that. Farmakes: For a daycare? Aanenson: Right. Mancino: I have another parking question. With the addition of the warehouse and the press room, are you adding more employees or staying about the same as you are now? John Dietrich: My understanding is it's more of a warehouse and storage facility. Limited expansion in production. Limited in terms of employees that will be employed there. Mancino: So when I went to the parking lot today at 2:00 and there were 78 empty parking spaces, and it didn't include visitor parking and it didn't include handicapped parking. I look at that and I say, you've got a lot of extra parking. Because there were 78 empty ones there at 2:00 this afternoon. Now is that during the, I would assume that's during your big shift where you have 200 employees there. The day shift, which would be approximately 7:00 to 3:00, correct? John Dietrich: Correct but then, the reason for having the overflow is so when the 3:00 shift comes in and the 2:00, or the evening shift comes in and the day shift is there, that there is enough parking for those two to overlap. Mancino: Sure. But how much overlap parking will you have? I mean how did you determine how much overlap parking to have? John Dietrich: It was based on basically the total number of employees and trying to anticipate allowing all. Mancino: So you're allowing 100% overlap? 8 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 John Dietrich: At this point, yes. And I would like to maybe ask Mr. Senn if employee projection is scheduled to stay the same or expand with the... Mark Senn: The easiest way to answer that question is that all of the employees anticipated in the expansion have already been hired and are there. Okay. If you look at actual employee counts, right now there's basically 252, let's call them warehouse manufacturing employees and there are 75 office employees. Okay. Of the 252 warehouse manufacturing employees, 124 are first shift, 98 are second shift and 30 are third shift. Okay. The office employees are all first shift. So basically the parking is not on a 100% fill basis but I mean it does provide quite a bit of overlap because it basically is necessary because those shifts probably actually are going to overlap by as much to an hour because it's not just a, you know everything doesn't just shut down and a whole new group come in type of thing. There's a phase period over an hour that phases in and phases out because with the complications of the press and the press operations, it's not that they just kind of shut the press down, leave and you know if there's not another person. Mancino: I've had that happen on a job. They just stop. Okay. So that's why you're saying 100%. That's why you want the 100%. Mark Senn: Nancy, one of the reasons you know, like you see all the trucks out in the parking lot now. Mancino: Yeah, yeah. Mark Senn: Those trucks out in the parking lot right now are basically mostly what's going to be going inside the new expansion. They've been basically forced to utilize those trucks to basically accommodate the necessary. Mancino: Storage of paper, etc. Mark Senn: Storage of paper and stuff. Some of it is light sensitive and a whole bunch of other things but you know essentially the press is going, I think this is essentially public information. I mean they're a public company. I mean in the last several years the Press has gone from like a $25 million company to a $75 million company and with this expansion, they do anticipate going to about $100 million. But I mean again, it's not a labor intensive expansion. It's an efficiency expansion. Mancino: Okay. Well I was just concerned when I saw so many empty stalls at 2:00 in the afternoon and then I looked across the street at Versatil or Versatil and there must have been 9 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 50 or more than that. There must have been 100 empty parking spaces there too at 2:00 in the afternoon and I was thinking, why isn't there some cross use of all this parking that's available in that area. Mark Senn: I don't know what Versatil's situation is but with our's right now, you probably came an hour too early. If you would have come an hour later, you would have started to catch the phases. Basically because the phase starts at about 3:00 and runs until 4:00. Scott: Any other comments or do you have any other comments you'd like to make? John Dietrich: No. I believe that's... Scott: Okay, great. Since we were talking specifically about the Press, are there any, would the applicant with the Kindercare portion. John Finnemore: I've got an exterior color...I'd like to show you. Scott: Okay, good. John Finnemore: My name is John Finnemore. I'm the Division Construction Manager for Kindercare. What this color board shows is two different brick samples. The upper half would be the lighter brick and the lower half, the lower row of block, would be the darker brick. We will, we'll also use those same two colors in the trash enclosure and on the monument sign base. Our standard sign base typically is a brick base. The picture just really is, by the sign how many they're showing off the sign itself and not the base. The shingles, it's called the weather wood look. This is the wood facia and soffit color. It's called Cape Cod gray. The windows are a bronze and it's a smoked glass. Or the window frames are bronze and the windows themselves are smoked glass. And that's basically the exterior colors. There is these columns are also, that is made of a stucco material and that's an off white. That I didn't have a sample of. As far as your question about the parking. The 6 spots per child, that's a pretty common planning requirement. There's a lot of variations but 1 stall per 6 children is a pretty standard number throughout many parts of the country. In our experience we find that's even a bit shy of what we would like so we exceed that by like I think 12 spots on that particular site. Scott: Questions or comments? Harberts: The buildings look nice. Great pictures, thank you. Scott: Good. Thank you very much. There is a public hearing on the schedule for this 10 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 particular item and just a show of hands. Are there any people here who would like to speak about this particular, actually we have 3 items but in summary. The Press addition and the building of the Kindercare facility. Is there anyone here that would like to speak about that? We need to open the public hearing anyway so I may have a motion please. Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Scott: Would anyone like to speak about this particular issue? Let the record show that no one wishes to speak. Oh, yes sir. Richard Wing: I'd just like Nancy and the commission, and particularly staff, to follow up on your question as to the stand-by status of Opus out on the west entry versus this east entry. The Council has discussed a moratorium and we're frustrated that we weren't able to get the moratorium on for Abra and Goodyear because they were already proposed but I think there was an understanding. Staff was clearly directed that there shouldn't be any more proposals or directions until we had this corridor study and to go further on this. I would like to know if this meets the architectural standards as proposed by the committee and Bill Morrish. If it's land uses are met. Setbacks are met. Landscaping. I think there's a lot of questions and I don't want to get into the same problem we had last time saying we can't do anything about it because it's been proposed and it's too late for the moratorium. I think Council's made it clear that before is done on Highway 5 we get some standards in place in this PUD overlay and it confuses me that staff has time to develop this proposal and bring it forward but yet we're not completed on the Highway 5 corridor study. So it seems like once again the cart's ahead of the horse. I'm a little frustrated here. It's been real hard to sit back and listen. I guess Nancy's questions specifically on those issues, ought to be addressed here. I'd like to know where we're going with this first before we look at this proposal. Scott: Okay. Would anyone else like to speak at the public hearing? Okay. Seeing no more interest, may I have a motion to close the public hearing. Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Scott: Public hearing is closed. Comments from commissioners. Matt. Ledvina: Well, I guess the standards for Highway 5, as I understand, that the staff has indicated that overall the applicant has met the requirements of the Highway 5 zoning overlays. Isn't that correct? 11 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Al-Jaff: Correct. Ledvina: Okay. The issue as it relates to the gateway, the monument, whatever. The landscaping or whatever that treatment we want to have on that corner, I think that's a significant issue.I don't know exactly what would be done there or what the specific plans are. Aanenson: Can I just bring you up to date on that? Ledvina: Sure, if you would. Aanenson: We certainly realize that's a significant issue. Let me just comment on Councilman Wing's concerns. The staff has responded to the Highway 5 corridor study. The Planning Commission's reviewed it. It's in the Council's arena. There's not much more we can do at this point. We require, everybody that comes in is given a copy of the overlay zoning. Even though it's not an ordinance. So legally we can't bind them but we certainly encourage everyone to follow it. So far we've had good cooperation. As far as the gateway treatments. We did have HGA looking at that. We spent 3 to 4 months with them trying to visualize, trying to get them to capture a vision for us that we could do. We identified the monuments or the gateway that we wanted. One of their proposals came back saving the - Apple Valley Red-E-Mix as an icon so we obviously were having some problems getting some visualization. Just in the last month we turned it back over to Hoisington to give us some visualization. We are working on this issue. Specifically on this site, what we looked at, that was talked about yes, as a gateway treatment on this site and how it relates to the trees. Maybe the trees should be our gateway. Maybe it's not an architectural feature. We've gone all over the map on this. We still haven't come up with a definitive what should that gateway treatment be. That's a whole other issue that, certainly that's maybe something that we can incorporate into this. At best on this site, as Sharmin has indicated, there is a substantial deterrent to this gateway treatment and the fact that you've got utilities and utility boxes there. I think at best what we could do at this point is, we are still, as I said, working on the gateway treatment itself. To date. That is something that we are ongoing with. At best what we could do at this point is to ask the applicant to take escrow for this plan and... ask them to leave an easement so if we get something in place, that we can go back in. We don't know what that's going to be. Mancino: But I think it's only fair to the applicant that we have some sort of a time line to know when that's going to be. Whether it's 3 or 4 months. Aanenson: ...that we know that the outlots next to Target are coming forward and we've got the same issue there. We've always indicated that that's another on Powers Boulevard. If you look in the document, there are specific ones identified as far as gateway treatments. And the access off of Powers, or off of Highway 5 and other gateways. We know that 12 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 they're coming in and again, we want to have a gateway treatment in place so when that particular project comes in we will have something in place. Unfortunately we're having a hard time getting a handle on what should that be. But I think at this site we were trying to tie into the trees at Eden Prairie site so I think at best we can ask them to hold off an easement area but still take escrow so we have something in place if we can't finalize them. If we get landscaping to make sure we have something in there to screen the parking. Ledvina: Well my question is then, given the layout that we're talking about. Obviously something, even north of the parking lot there, is there enough room to do something substantial? I see, well let's see. What's the scale? About 100 feet or so. Aanenson: When we looked in the Highway 5 document, really what we talked about is the cluster it kind of representative of this plan with the clustering of trees. This kind of has that affect. It has a berm with trees. Maybe it needs, they make a statement with sugar maples. Maybe it's something, I don't know. Mancino: But it should be dealt with on a professional level. I don't think here is the time to figure that out. We should have a landscape architect do that. Aanenson: ...right. Ledvina: So in order to keep that door open, what would you recommend? Aanenson: That we take some sort of an easement but we still can take this plan. In fact maybe put a date on there that says we try to get something resolved and then we take in escrow for landscaping what we normally do for the site plans. So we still have a back-up plans. You get this landscaping plan where you want it if you can't come up with a gateway treatment. If we find out the gateway treatment doesn't work on there. We haven't done a design on this specific site. That's a fall back position. We've got an approved landscape plan that you're comfortable with with this site. This was just a concept that we said a gateway treatment should be considered here. Maybe when we do the design because of the power lines, we find out. Mancino: Well no, I think we'll have one. Al-Jaff: I would point out though that a traffic signal transformer, and those are difficult to move. Am I correct Dave? Hempel: That's correct. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Aanenson: We'd have to go behind that. Mancino: But also a landscape architect can take some time and design around that perimeter. I mean that, you know those boxes instead of just putting trees there. They may come up with a whole other design that uses the boxes in the design and that's what I'd like, you know to wait and see. Ledvina: Sure. Mancino: And make sure that the applicant has to follow that design. That landscape design, whatever it is, and how much of an area it is on that corner. I mean I don't know how big it will be. I can't say it's going to be 100 feet by 100. Ledvina: Okay. Well, I certainly would want to keep the door open as it relates to some special work that the city might want done at that location. As it relates to the circulation, I also have a hard time with an undefined criteria for intervention as it relates to the potential traffic, pedestrian problems there. So I don't know how we can fix that. If you could suggest some language there. That's the end of my comments. Scott: Jeff. Farmakes: I don't understand how you figure impervious surface over the playgrounds. Can you explain that to me? In the photographs I see cement, poured cement in the playground areas. How's that figured in? Al-Jaff: We took the calculations that the applicant has provided. John, did you include the playground in the impervious surface coverage or not? John Dietrich: In the hard surface coverage on the playground, we included 2 to 3 as soft upon that hard surface. Farmakes: So the photograph that you provided us up here is, the reading area off the photograph is green space or is? John Dietrich: Not completely, no. John Finnemore: Impervious is sand. Sand and gravel. Farmakes: I'm trying to come up with how that factors in, I mean from a square footage. Did a layout for you. I don't see one here but all I see is squares saying totlot, playground, 14 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 playground. And I'm assuming that the ones that are named playground and playground, those are green surfaces? John Finnemore: The playground areas are, there's roughly, including the building sidewalks, probably somewhere between 10,000 and 12,000 square feet of concrete and then the remainder of it would be grass areas. Farmakes: So is that square footage factored in when we're looking at impervious surface? Do we consider that impervious surface? John Dietrich: To be perfectly honest we considered impervious surface would be 4% of that building. Only about 6,000 square feet. John's indicating it's 10,000 to 12,000 square feet. We have about 4,000 to 5,000 square feet more of impervious surface on that site. So that would probably push that site up from the 54% to probably around 62%... Al-Jaff: They can go up to 70% so they are below what ordinance requires. Farmakes: That was my question. I don't understand in relationship to what we're doing on Highway 5, why we go from and center to place a parking lot always towards the highway. Even in this factor where the access to these parking areas are down a service road. Or Dell Road. It seems like we're putting our best foot forward or what we're capable of doing and stick forward a parking lot next to the highway. It's just the whole direction of these proposals, at least for the free standing building. It seems to me almost it should be the other way around. And again, allows the building to shield the parking area and I know that there's a train of thought that says gee, they've got to see the parking from the road. I don't know if I follow that. I don't think that you can see the parking lot also from TH 5 behind the building. I just think it'd be more pleasant, offer more opportunity to see landscaping. I'm sure that the applicant can come up with some good reasons why that shouldn't be. From an aesthetic standpoint it would be nice to see that. I can understand the proposed expansion of the existing building being figured as to how it fits in in the existing building. So that's a different problem to deal with. I'm a bit hesitant to say that that expansion shouldn't match what the existing building is on the exterior. That they should be held to some other type of building where you get a wing that looks nothing at all like the existing structure. I don't think that's the purpose of what we were trying to do with the Highway 5 improvements. It seemed to me that what we were trying to do or what we were trying to hold Opus to is that there would be some visual relief on the entry area off the highway. And again, I just count up all these parking spots. Even though they're bermed, again it's not bermed all the way around the road. To the north and south, east and west. Going to the signage that the applicant was talking about. On the photograph there it is a pylon sign there. On the sample. I would like to specify that it be a matching architectural structure to the base 15 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 of that sign. Currently it's up on poles. The applicant mentioned that that's what was their to do that. That the sign company went ahead and did it as this. I'd like to make sure that we specify that. Aanenson: It's in one of the conditions. Farmakes: Okay. I would. Mancino: Which number is it? Al-Jaff: 2, Site Plan Review. Farmakes: I would also like to see some landscaping around that sign. It seems to be, there seems to be a row of trees or a row of bushes showing and then the sign seems to jut out from it on the end. Trying to create some relief with that. As to Councilman Wing's comments on the building. To a certain extent this does incorporate some of the issues as to the roof line relief. Probably not. Mancino: What do you mean by that? Farmakes: Well, I'm talking about the free standing building. Mancino: The Kindercare? Farmakes: The Kindercare. It does have some relief going on and this building is very similar to the office building proposed up here by Market Square. And it's an attempt I think to do some of the things that we talked about with the rooflines and so on. They're quite linear and they're quite long. There is some relief on the side with how the buildings are configured to the two wings going out. Mancino: Do you think that's a good gateway though? Farmakes: No I don't. Do I think it's a good use next to a printing company like that? Probably. The issue of gateway I think again is two approaches. Either the city buys up all the property and builds what it wants, or that it tries to incorporate use within, working with the applicants who are going to be building these buildings, to work in what is reasonable to be required that we get an end result of what we're looking for. And I think a lot of that would be, not necessarily sticking the parking lots all up and down TH 5. Again, the applicant probably has some reasons that they would elect to put the road up there. It probably makes sense with the existing parking lot as it stands. With the adjacent building. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 So there are rationales for that. Whether or not they outweigh the interest of the city, I think that that's an important...I would prefer I guess to see sort of the situation turned around but. Sort of twisted around in the opposite direction but. Mancino: Yeah, I understand that. Farmakes: The feasibility of that in relationship to the traffic patterns and so on, I'm not going to make that judgment call on the basis of my vote. I would also like to see more trees shielding that building. The Kindercare building from the south. If they go with the existing parking lot, you sort of have that one little island out there. We have an additional 12 spaces that they said than what was necessary? I'm still a little confused on the issue of the 6 per child. Al-Jaff: It still depends on the number of kids that they will be allowed to have in the building. For instance, if they have. Farmakes: And you base that on square footage? Al-Jaff: Exactly. If they have 60 children, not based on square footage. It's based on the number of children. If they have 60 children attending this daycare, they have to have 10 spaces. Mancino: But the number of children is based on the square footage. Farmakes: Don't we have a fire code or something that says this much square footage, this many children? Al-Jaff: Yes. Do you know the maximum number? John Finnemore: 35 square feet per child. Of totally usable space for children, exclusive of bathrooms and kitchens and... Al-Jaff: So what's the number of children you know. John Finnemore: 200 maximum. Al-Jaff: 200 so. John Finnemore: It's 33. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Mancino: Why do we have 45? Al-Jaff: So they can have a maximum of 200 children. 33 parking spaces and they have 45 provided. So they have 12 more than what is permitted by State licensing requirements. Mancino: So does that mean they have to delete 12 spaces? = Al-Jaff: No, they don't have to. Our ordinance basically says, you have to have a minimum of but it doesn't give you a maximum as long as. Farmakes: So there's 12 additional spaces. Al-Jaff: Correct. And they don't exceed the hard surface coverage so. Mancino: Yeah but we could still get more open space, green space if you don't have the 12 spaces. Farmakes: I think the issue that the parking lot does run to the south and we should look at eliminating some of those parking spots and replacing them with some, an additional tree. Aanenson: The gateway? Farmakes: Well there's very little maneuverable room here. There just isn't a lot as to what to do. I think it's maybe debatable that there isn't additional parking available across the street. Not that we would place that on another business but these parking spaces in terms of Kindercare. They are temporary? Temporary parking? What's the average duration of the parking. John Finnemore: There's going to be staff parking and temporary parking. Farmakes: So if somebody comes to pick up their child, what's the normal turn around of that sequence? John Finnemore: Transportation texts use about 6 minutes. That's probably a little light. I'd say it's more like 10 to 15. It's typically closer to 6 in the morning and closer to 10 to 15 at night. You know parents have to find out what their kid did during the day and have a little, the ability to spend some more time there. But in the morning of course everybody's in a hurry to get to work so that's a quicker turn around time there. And with 200 children we would have approximately 27 or 28 employees. That is at maximum time frame. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Mancino: So 33 would be, yeah. Farmakes: That's the extent of my comments. Scott: Okay, Nancy. Mancino: I'm going to start with the staff report and start with issue number 2 on page 2 which is the zoning ordinance permits up to 70% hard surface coverage and I would like staff, from a legal point of view, to tell me why the present Press is non-conforming structure. Correct? Aanenson: No. It's the impervious surface. Mancino: It's the impervious surface amount. Aanenson: That is non-conforming. It's not anything to do with the structure or anything. It's the impervious surface. Mancino: Okay, the impervious surface is non-conforming right now. It is 79% and it should only be 70%. Al-Jaff: Correct. Mancino: Okay. So now they're going to take that parcel and they want to expand it and add a, add what we see. And they're going to do down in impervious surface to 76.8% but it still doesn't meet the 70%. Yet they have more land there. They have Lot 3. So why can't we make the impervious surface area conforming at this point? Because if they're going in and changing and modifying their entire building, their entire structure and isn't this the opportune time to say, now let's have the impervious surface be conforming? And actually when I read in the code book, the city code book. Division for non-conforming uses, it says purpose. The purpose of this division is to number 3, to encourage the elimination of non- conforming uses, lots and structures. So why aren't we doing that here? Aanenson: Again, the opinion from the City Attorney on that specific issue and the fact of the matter is, if the expansion meets all the setback requirements...so what you're looking at is just the impervious surface. Okay? So they are lessening that. And what the ordinance section 20-72 says, you can't expand unless you're going to lessen or eliminate the non- conforming. So the City Attorney's opinion, because they are lessening the non-conformity, that's okay. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Mancino: So you can never change a non-conformity to a conformity as long as they're lessening? What a, I mean when you have land here that would be available to make it conforming. Isn't it a higher priority to make things conforming? I mean is it really a higher priority for our city to make it less conforming? Aanenson: If you...impervious surface issue. I understand what, normally when you have a building setback or something like that, because it's the impervious surface. Mancino: But that's, the green space is important to us. You know it's a value. Aanenson: I'm not arguing with you philosophically but I'm just saying legally. I understand what you're saying. Mancino: Is that something we need to change that's in our ordinance? I mean again, there's land right here. We could do it and it just seems, why wouldn't we? So whether we can legally or not, I would go on public record saying, I would like this to conform to the 70% impervious surface because we have the land to do it. To take it from a non-conforming impervious surface to a conforming. Can we make that as a recommendation? Aanenson: You can always recommend it...take it up to the City Council and give Roger a second hit at it. Mancino: Okay. Next, the issue. The next one on page 2 about the revised landscaping plan. This is on sheet 4, out of 8. Was this done by a landscape architect? John Dietrich: Yes it was. Mancino: It was? Okay. I would like to see some added landscaping on the east side of that 180 foot span that you saw as a press room expansion. In the first 50 feet on this landscape plan you have 3, let's see. You have 3 Colorado Green Spruces at 8 feet, which will be about a 5 foot span. So you're covering up to begin with in that 50 foot span, you've got 3 trees. It will be 15 feet so there's going to be 35 feet of open wall there and one of the things that we're trying to do is to get some nice plant massings against that entire wall. So I would like to see many more trees put on that eastern side. And I would like them to be primarily coniferous with varying heights. Maybe 8. Some 8's and 7's and some 6's. I would also like to see some added landscaping in the square area. Let's see, how do I do it. In front of on the south side of the press room expansion and on the east side. This area in here. I would also like to see 3 more coniferous trees added. Then I would also like to see some more internal landscaping in the Kindercare parking lot. And if we do eliminate 12 of the 20 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 parking spaces, I think that that will help. Other thinking. I kind of agree with Jeff about turning the parking lot for the Kindercare on the southern side of the building and pulling the playground. I know that Early Beginnings has that on Highway 5. They have the playground in the front and the parking towards the rear. I think that that would add greatly to the gateway affect of that corner. So I would like to see the parking lot flip flop on the Kindercare. And I would also like to see islands between Kindercare parking and the Press parking so that you cannot go through one. You cannot use them interchangeably. One's a parking lot for Kindercare and one's a parking lot for the Press. At some point in the future I mean the Kindercare may not be there. It may be something else, 10 or 20 years down the road so I would like to see the differentiated parking lots. I would also think, and I think Diane brought this up before, that the people from the Press who take their children to daycare at Kindercare, have some sort of designated or reserve parking lots next to Kindercare on their side of the parking lot. Those are my comments. Scott: Okay, thank you. Ron. Nutting: I think we've got a much improved structure just with the landscaping additions to the south and east facing walls. I don't have a problem with Nancy's comments in terms of adding some additional to the east wall there but I like the looks of the project and I think it's going to break things up nicely... I would like to see either we tighten up the recommendation on the difference between parking lots in terms of the speed bumps. Whether it be islands or we just put in the islands or the speed bump just to make sure that that isn't left open to interpretation or definition of what the problem is down the road. As far as the gateway. I guess if there's some reasonable way via easement to leave open the possibility. Whether it's in the form of landscaping with trees or signage. I'm not sure we're at a point right here in terms of holding up the project for the ultimate definition. What that should be but leaving some window. I mean the decision may be that that's not, you know other than some trees, there is no other gateway there. I don't know. I guess I don't have the background through the study and...I think those are my basic comments. Scott: Okay. Diane. Harberts: I would certainly recommend that that sidewalk be added in the handicap accessible designated spaces to include this suggestion by John about that one long curb cut. I would certainly support flip flopping the parking. Reducing the parking by 12 spaces and flip flopping it around the other way. I'm not real, I guess I like the designated pedestrian walkway. I'm not real thrilled and I'm somewhat ignorant with regard to, when you have these islands to receive topsoil, sod and irrigation. And I would just come in and stripe the asphalt to indicate a pathway. I don't know how that really constitutes a sidewalk versus just a pathway. I'm certainly not versed into understanding that but I think the comments that I 21 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 was trying to project at the last commission meeting was to have an identified pathway or sidewalk that would make it easy. That would certainly be free of obstructions, including snow, sod, irrigation, things like that. I would certainly support the designated parking with regard to people that use Kindercare and parking in that parking lot, I think that would help just with the overall circulation. I think that's about it. Scott: Okay, thank you. Just from keeping a tally here. It appears that the Press expansion probably has, I mean would I be correct in saying that we wouldn't have any cause not to move the Press expansion on? Well, from what I understand we can send one on and table the other. Or I'm not saying that that's what we would do. Farmakes: There are connection points between the two. The parking lots go, they're traveled through. Scott: Well it sounds like we've got, I believe that there should be no direct connection. I think it's, what we're seeing here is that the majority of the commission would prefer not to have any ingress or egress inbetween the two lots. Mancino: So therefore you can separate them. Scott: Just from looking at where the issues lie, it appears as if the Press expansion has been pretty well taken care of relative to the suggestions on landscaping and so forth. It looks as if there's some major. We talk about flip flopping parking lots. I mean I take the Highway 5 task force recommendations very seriously and I think that that's something that should be strongly considered. It seems like there's some major...with the Kindercare facility and my thought perhaps is that we want to entertain moving the Press expansion ahead and tabling the Kindercare. Mancino: And seeing the flip flop, etc? Scott: Yeah. But I wanted to throw that out and kind of get your thoughts. Because we need to do this as a consensus so. First of all, how many of us want to disconnect those parking lots? Mancino: I can do that, yeah. Farmakes: I'm open to that. Scott: That's my concern too. When I see, if in the future. If this. If that. And then since our vision, we have to be looking at this 10-20-30 years down the road. I think we'll end up 22 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 saving ourselves a lot of grief by not having these two connected. Nutting: Joe, do we have the ability to hear any thoughts from the developer as to, just some of what we're talking about? I know the public hearing is closed. Scott: We've closed the public hearing. Nutting: We're suddenly going, this is the second meeting and suddenly we say, now let's put the parking lot on the other side. As opposed to having addressed that the first time. I guess I just, before I make any decisions I'd like to at least hear some feedback to what they're hearing. Scott: Sure. Harberts: Is there anything that's prohibiting us at this point, outside of the developer's concern though, with regard to how these projects line up and whatever? Aanenson: I just had one question for Dave. What we're doing now is saying that's a right turn in and right turn out so when you come out you have to go. How long is that island on Dell Road so if you want to come back out and get on Highway 5, before you came out through the Press parking lot and come around...do you have any concern with that Dave? Hempel: It's probably going to function very similar, with or without the curb cut from getting access to Kindercare. I could see a lot U turns being done... Aanenson: That's what I'm saying. It's the egress I'm worried about. Hempel: Right. The egress and you're restricted to a right out only anyway so that isn't going to change. Mancino: So it won't make any difference if it's on the south or north side? Okay. Hempel: No, it's just going to keep the short cut more on the Press site. Harberts: It would what the short cut? Hempel: It would delete that or eliminate that through the Press. Aanenson: But the people coming out of Kindercare though, have to go all the way back up and do a U turn. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Hempel: That's correct. All the way up to, what is it, Dakota and take the frontage road back, West 78th Street east and back to the Press. Harberts: And that would be the p.m. or is that a.m. too? I suppose whatever you travel. Hempel: If you're going to the Press, you would either do a U turn on Highway 5 to go back north to Dell Road... Mancino: Did I miss something? I think I did. Scott: What you're saying here is that if somebody is, if someone is coming in. They're going west on Highway 5 and make a right turn at Dell Road, can they make a left from Dell Road into Kindercare? Yes? = Mancino: Sure. John Dietrich: No. Scott: No. So they have to go down, why's that? Hempel: There's parking median islands... Mancino: Oh, it goes to the whole street. The entire. So that's regardless of wherever it is. Wherever the parking lot is. Scott: Is this something that, is there enough stacking to avoid. I mean is this something that a cut could be made in that median? I'm not doing a traffic study here. I'm just thinking, if we're talking about making that change so that's the only way you can get in. If it's right-in and right-out. Ledvina: ...or I mean no left turn. Hempel: I'm not sure...there's enough room to provide two lanes which you need for a left turn lane. Scott: Okay. I got you. So it's the right turn on Dell Road. A U turn down by West 77th. Farmakes: You're going to have that. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Harberts: Regardless. Farmakes: Regardless. The primary access has to be off TH 5 anyway so if you turn left...Eden Prairie. Hempel: If you're a Press employee and you drop your child off at Kindercare and leaving Kindercare, you even have to go back out onto Highway 5. Scott: But if we have reserve parking for Kindercare, for Press employees at Kindercare, they'll be coming in the back way. Walking and doing that too so. Nutting: Will an employee want to park closer to Kindercare or will they want to park closer to the door? Harberts: Kindercare. You're going to pick your kid up. You're going to get off work. Walk to Kindercare. Pick it up and then get in the car. That's what you're trying to do. Nutting: Will they park closer to the door in the winter time and then drive around? Harberts: Well what you're trying to do is to eliminate that type of scenario because then that cuts down circulation within the parking lot which then cuts down the possibility of any safety issues. So you know, that's what you're trying to achieve here. Is to have them pull in once, park and away they go. Farmakes: Irregardless, they're going to have to take a right to come out... Scott: And this could end up being an office building down the road and there'd be no reason to have these lots connected anyway so. Okay. Anyway. My comments are, I mean it seems like the Press expansion is satisfactory in it's existing form to be moved along. I think there's still some major concerns with the, major questions with the Kindercare. So those are the extent of my comments. I'll be asking the difficult question for a motion. Nutting: Do we have the ability to? Scott: You can, yeah. Sure, go ahead. John Finnemore: Yeah, I'd like to address 3 of those comments. Number one on the parking stall requirements. As a company we have a standard ourself that we use roughly 1 stall for 4 children so 200 divided by 4 is 50. So we're slightly below that. Keep in mind, with 45 25 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 parking spots out there, in the p.m. when we're at capacity we'll have roughly 28 to 30 employees in those parking spots. So say there's 30 employees. That only leaves 15 then for the parents to come into which is, I mean it would work but we decrease that to 33 and all of a sudden you've got 2 or 3 parking spots open not used by employees. So there's not a surplus of parking out there. In fact we would typically be looking for 50-55 parking spots on a normal layout. We're building the same facility in Woodbury and we have what, 55 there. 55 spots there. As far as flipping the, putting the parking lot in back and the playground in front. Two things that would prohibit us from doing that. One is the speed of the traffic out on Route 5 and that's what, 55 mph there. I mean that's what the sign says. There's no police so I was doing 65 on my way here because I was a little late. A runaway car in a situation like that could right into a playground. If the playground was in the front of the building. We've got, we do have set-ups where the only place left to put the playground was along a busy road and we put up guardrails and so forth but at 65 mph you really can't put an adequate barricade that's even remotely attractive to keep a car out. That's one issue. A second issue are those overhead power lines there. Those are transmission lines. They've got, somewhere probably 345 kilobolts going through those. There's a big concern these days, mostly with children but just with people in general with what they call electromagnetic fields, EMF. And there's federal standards on what they = measure the EMF and what's called, the unit is called a milogaust and you, I have a gaust meter and what we found is we need to be set back roughly 100 and some feet. Wherever we're set back from the front of our building is where we're down to a point where that reading is 2.0 lower so we can have a parking lot out there but we can't have a playground or building in an area that has readings that high. There's studies either way. I mean if you go to a power company they'll tell you that EMF is not a problem. But yet there are studies on the other end that say that it can promote cancer and other things. Mancino: Is this a state regulation? John Finnemore: No. It's a federal guideline. It's nothing in the books yet but it's something that will be someday. Other countries have. Sweden has laws on that. France has laws and they're all being analyzed. There's major research in this right now. Numerous power companies. Everybody's doing research on this issue and the rule of thumb has been this 2.0 milogaust. That's what we've been going by. We've been using 2.0 and we're setting back everything we can from a reading at that point or lower. And we do get that reading when we go to the front of the building so if we were to put the playground in the front of the building, we would then exceed that reading. And we can't take that risk and if actual laws aren't passed that say you can't be in an area that's 2.0 or greater, we can't take the risk and the liability of having to close the center. The third issue is the cross over traffic between the Press and our facility. We would put it in our agreement with the Press that, we don't want the cut through traffic anymore than the commission does or staff does so if it 26 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 becomes a problem from our point of view, we're going to address that with the Press and something will have to be done. Then additionally, in the development agreement between Kindercare and the Press and then the City of Chanhassen, we can put something in there that says, if staff or the commission or whoever determines that it becomes a problem, we can change the configuration then. Mancino: What's your reason for not eliminating it right now so it doesn't become a problem? John Finnemore: Well the access to our facility. We've got a right-in, right-out on Dell Road. In order to get in, you have to come in and do that U turn which I can't imagine that U turn's legal to get into. I mean the majority of the traffic in and out of our center is going to be from Highway 5. And whether you're going east or west bound, you'd have to do a U turn around that insurmountable median out there. Mancino: But what does that have to do with having an ingress into the Press' parking lot? John Finnemore: Well because it...internal drive. If you're coming in this way, you can come around here and get in where your only other choice would be to do an illegal U turn to get in here. That allows... Mancino: But that's exactly what we don't want. Okay, never mind. John Finnemore: But then how do we get into our facility, basically. We've got an insurmountable median from this point to this point. Mancino: So you actually want to use the Press' parking lot as an entry into Kindercare's parking lot? I mean that is your intent? John Finnemore: Correct. There's no other way to...because the people aren't going to be coming from back here. They're going to be coming from Highway 5. Nutting: Do you have any problem putting a speed bump there? John Finnemore: No. We don't have a problem with that. Farmakes: This currently where that intersection is, would that be considered an illegal U turn? Scott: I don't think so because I remember when they were ripping up TH 101, I had to go 27 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 back there every day to get to where my office building was and I usually. Farmakes: U turns are permitted unless otherwise posted. Scott: Yeah, I don't think it's illegal. John Finnemore: It's not posted. Scott: So it's not illegal. Hempel: It's certainly not a desired..., especially at the level or during peak hours...see if there was maybe some alternative to placing a median cut in for a left turn lane into the site only but not out of it. That may be a possibility. Farmakes: If there was a cut in, would it be preferable on either end of the building? North or south? Hempel: Further away from the intersection would be preferred. Scott: For stacking. Harberts: Dave, with regard to one of the points brought up was regarding the speed of traffic. As I recall, we've got a lighted intersection there and we've got a lighted intersection down towards Chanhassen. Wouldn't that greatly reduce the speeds and I'm also looking at that time of morning. I know when my buses run on the road, to achieve 55 mph with those amount of stop lights even coming east or going west, I don't know how often and I don't know if you can answer that. How often that you would be at a speed of 55 mph at that particular point on Highway 5 given the amount of traffic and the number of traffic lights. Hempel: Those kind of conditions vary daily. Whether drivers habits and so forth. I guess that's a pretty tough question. Harberts: It's almost a traffic...question. Mancino: But Diane we've got the same thing at our new elementary school. I mean the new elementary school's on Highway 5. 55 and they have the playgrounds towards the front. Towards Highway 5. I mean obviously they're set back and there's going to be a chainlink fence around it but the same kind of conditions happen there. I mean they're. Harberts: I think to a greater extent there's an opportunity for those, for that speed to be 28 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 attained at that point rather than at this point. Mancino: Well there will be a light there though. I mean eventually when the school opens, there will be a light. So it's kind of the same. It's the same sort of situation. John Finnemore: But that's really the secondary concern compared to the EMF issue. We can't jeopardize our liability of having a playground with readings over 2.0. We couldn't as a company put a playground out in front of that building. Harberts: Push the building back. Farmakes: On the lot lines, just one quick question. The lot line that we're dealing with there. The property owners for those two lots. The lot to the north. I didn't ask this question. How is the property being plotted? Is that one piece of land or two? Al-Jaff: Currently it is one lot and one outlot. They are dividing it into three. Aanenson: No. They're reconfiguring. They planning to well. Mancino: Total of three. Aanenson: One outlot so they're replatting them so you'll have one for the Kindercare and one still an outlot. Farmakes: If the city looks at the potential issues for north or south parking lot, would the city look at an issue when they're looking at gateway or the issue of gateway comes up, is there the possibility of moving that back and the city acquiring the buffer. Mancino: For that front lot. Farmakes: That front lot or part of that front lot currently where the city has the most substantial area for landscaping. Some of the environmental issues that were brought up. The distance from the power lines and so on to the front of the building. Are we talking 50 feet? Are we talking, you know the issues of, I'd like to see a serious response to the issue that if we did flip it around. We haven't voted yet but I'd like to see a serious response to how that could be done and address those issues. Aanenson: All I can say about the power line issue is the next project's got the same issue. Why they want to move the power lines because they have a problem getting FHA financing 29 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 so there is a legitimate issue with the power lines. As far as flipping it...requiring that. Again, we're falling into an area and I know the Council is a little upset about the fact that we haven't adopted it but it's not in place right now. As far as how much acreage we want for the Highway 5. The gateway requirements. As far as does the city have the ability to purchase that? Farmakes: I don't know but certainly the city is, Highway 5 is going to be developed by the time we get this thing approved. If we don't start, as you said in the beginning here, if we don't start applying these issues rather than just nodding our shoulders and saying, well I guess there's nothing we can do about it. Aanenson: All I can tell you is I think that's something that if you're interested in, that you make that proposal to the City Council. Farmakes: Well the issues that we've heard here so far and the issue of whether or not it's north or south. We've heard 26 employees. 28 employees. In fact there's up to 30 employees now. I've heard ratios of 4 children per parking lot. I've heard 6 children per parking lot. Aanenson: City ordinance is 1 per 6. Farmakes: Okay, so but I understand that but the applicant came up and when we're talking about the issues of the parking lot or issues of a buffer, we're looking for some room to maneuver there and there seems to be very little. So it's sort of either fish or cut bait on this thing. Either we're going to line up parking lots all along the highway or we're not. And if we're not, what are we going to do about it? There has to be some room to maneuver. If we're talking one parking spot, I don't think that's going to make the grade so. Al-Jaff: There's also a 30 foot buffer that could be used for green space between the property line abutting Highway 5 and the parking for the Kindercare. That could be used for landscaping and buffering. John Finnemore: We would like to make...This is a plant full area. There has to be certain species underneath the power lines that NSP, if that's the power company, would agree to in terms of height. Once you're outside of that corridor underneath the power poles, we do have a 30 foot area and we also have additional green space in our front yard. We would be more than willing to work with the commission and staff as to finding what that entry element would be, if in fact this is a selected intersection. But in terms of green space, we have this 30 foot easement. Building setback area that is clearly defined and we would be more than happy to hold off the landscape plans in that area. Landscaping is, in terms of construction, 30 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 the last element to go in. So I would say there would be an opportunity to work with how this area really would be defined in terms of visual, in terms of the elements that this landscaping, the structural berming, so that we could work with the entry elements and incorporate them so that there would be that grand entry... Mancino: Sharmin is there any, I don't know how anybody's going to answer this. But will the power lines ever go under ground? No? Why? John Finnemore: That doesn't change the EMF either. Aanenson: They're too high voltage. The cost is. Mancino: So they bum the soil? I mean I don't know. John Finnemore: That doesn't effect the EMF. You have to encase them in about 6 foot leaded walls in order to. Mancino: No problem. John Finnemore: And you think your power bills are high now. Mancino: Just wondering. Just wondering. You know you've got to just dig a ditch so I just thought I'd ask. Scott: Is anyone prepared to make a motion? Farmakes: I'd like just one quick comment. Staff, I'd like to get a response. I think that the issue the applicant made in regards to health issues and the city doesn't have anything on ordinance on that. I would think that you would review the quality of their information. I would think that that would be pertinent. Aanenson: Right. Well that's what I was saying. You've got the same issue on the next application. The reason why they wanted the power line moved because they cannot secure FHA financing because of the location over the houses. So there are some federal regulations out there related to... Nutting: There may be lots of regulations that people just don't know. There's studies on both sides of the issue and I think until there's something definitive, especially when a lender...approve things like that. That doesn't give you the answer as to. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Farmakes: No, but it may tell us that maybe that building should go to the north lot. Maybe it shouldn't be there. Mancino: And just move back. Farmakes: There's a blank lot up above. Maybe that's the place for that particular. Scott: And the access would be much less complicated too. Farmakes: One owners owns the entire space. That's the only area to maneuver anyway in this thing apparently. Is that north lot. And it looks to be somewhat bigger. Scott: I'll call for a motion again and whenever you're ready. Mancino: I'll move, with a lot of help. I'll move that we approve, let's see. What am I going to approve? Scott: We have three things here. Mancino: Well I'll do one of them. I'll move that we approve the Site Plan Review for a 54,760 square foot expansion of the Press building. With, as shown on the site plan received April 13, 1994 subject to the following conditions. 1. That the applicant must revise plans to include trash screening of the Press site and show the type of materials used to screen the trash enclosures on the Press site. Plans must be submitted for staff review prior to City Council meeting. Number 3. I should ask Sharmin. Does number 3 refer to the Press also? Al-Jaff: Correct. Mancino: Okay. And I'm assuming number 2 is just Kindercare right? Al-Jaff: That's correct. Mancino: Okay. So number 3, the applicant shall provide a meandering berm with landscaping along the south portion of the site, between the parking lot and Highway 5. The height of the berm shall be between 3 and 4 feet. The applicant shall also 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. I would like to add to that. That added landscaping, that there be added landscaping to the perimeter of the Press expansion per my request in coniferous trees. Number 4. The applicant shall enter into a site plan development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial 32 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 securities as required for landscaping. Number 5. Meet all conditions outlined in the Fire Marshal memo dated March 10, 1994. Number 6. The Press addition shall contain some architectural detailing to break the long wall masses, and I would say architectural detailing with relief. Does staff understand what I mean there? The horizontal with some relief there. Number 7. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted. Number 8. The grading/utility plan shall be revised to incorporate storm sewers in the parking lot's drive aisles for the Press. Detailed drainage calculations for a 10 year storm event shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. Number 9. The applicant shall apply and comply with the necessary permits from the appropriate agencies. Number 10. Silt fence shall be placed along the northern property line where the parking lot for the Press is being relocated. Number 12. Does that pertain to the Press? Al-Jaff: No. It would be for Kindercare only. Mancino: Okay. So omit that. Number 13. The main thoroughfare (drive aisle) located on the Press site north of the main parking lot area should be a minimum width of 26 feet with turning radiuses at 77th Street West of 30 feet. In addition, the main thoroughfare (drive aisle) shall be posted with no parking signs. And I also want to make sure that it's a two way traffic street. Number 14. The driveway access point shall be constructed in accordance to the City's typical industrial driveway apron detail. Number 15. The applicant shall provide the City with a security deposit (letter of credit or cash escrow) in the amount of $5,000.00 to guarantee boulevard restoration. All boulevards disturbed as a result of the site improvements shall be restored with sod. 16. Conditions of the Building Official's memo dated March 25, 1994. Number 17. Harberts: Nancy, could I offer a suggestion on 17? Mancino: You bet. Harberts: That the parking configuration for the Press will somehow be in concert with what the approval is given for Kindercare so that they correlate or coordinate or whatever they need to do. Mancino: That it be self contained? Harberts: Well, at this point I just wanted to leave it open in terms of the parking. I don't have any problem in saying that it's being self contained but I'm looking more at that sidewalk and if we need that designated parking. If that's something we find is important. That's why I'm saying that the parking configuration for the Press will be, I don't know. 33 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Mancino: Relate to. Harberts: Or somehow coordinate with. With whatever's approved then for the Kindercare so we have that flexibility to influence the Press given what is finally approved then for the Kindercare. That's what I would suggest. Mancino: Okay. That's it. 18. No rooftop equipment shall be visible from Highway 5, Dell Road, or 77th Street West. Oh I wanted to put a recommendation in about, that I would like to see the impervious surface of the Press be a conforming permit and be at 70%. And Diane, do you want to add anything about the sidewalk being there? I mean does that need to be in the recommendation? Harberts: Well that's what I want 17 to reflect. Is that we do have that flexibility to go back and influence things that may need to be included in the Press parking lot because of what comes out of the Kindercare. So that's what the intent there is to let us have that flexibility - to go back and have influence over that. And I'll second that motion. And I just want to clarify. Then does that mean Nancy that we're tabling the second part of that regarding construction of the Kindercare Daycare Center? Mancino: Yeah, that's going to be my second. The next motion. I think that's how you do it. Harberts: Yeah, okay. Scott: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the Site Plan Review for the Press warehouse expansion. Is there any discussion? Mancino moved, Harberts seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to approve the Site Plan Review for a 54,760 square foot expansion of the Press building as shown on the site plan received April 13, 1994, subject to the following conditions. 1. That the applicant must revise plans to include trash screening of the Press site and show the type of materials used to screen the trash enclosures on the Press site. Plans must be submitted for staff review prior to City Council meeting. 2. Deleted. 3. The applicant shall provide a meandering berm with landscaping along the south - portion of the site, between the parking lot and Highway 5. The height of the berm shall be between 3 and 4 feet. The applicant shall also provide staff with a detailed 34 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 cost estimate of landscaping to be used in calculating the required financial guarantees. These guarantees must be posted prior to building permit issuance. There shall be added landscaping to the perimeter of the Press expansion of coniferous trees as suggested by Nancy Mancino. 4. The applicant shall enter into a site plan development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping. 5. Meet all conditions outlined in the Fire Marshal memo dated March 10, 1994. 6. The Press addition shall contain some architectural detailing (with relief) to break up the long wall masses 7. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted. 8. The grading/utility plan shall be revised to incorporate storm sewers in the parking lot's drive aisles for the Press. Detailed drainage calculations for a 10 year storm event shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. 9. The applicant shall apply and comply with the necessary permits from the appropriate agencies (MPCA, Watershed District, and City Building Department). 10. Silt fence shall be placed along the northern property line where the parking lot for the Press is being relocated. 11. Deleted. 12. Deleted. 13. The main thoroughfare (drive aisle) located on the Press site north of the main parking lot area should be a minimum width of 26 feet with turning radiuses at 77th Street West of 30 feet and two way traffic. In addition, the main thoroughfare (drive aisle) shall be posted with no parking signs. 14. The driveway access point shall be constructed in accordance to the City's typical industrial driveway apron detail. 15. The applicant shall provide the City with a security deposit (letter of credit or cash 35 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 escrow) in the amount of $5,000.00 to guarantee boulevard restoration. All boulevards disturbed as a result of the site improvements shall be restored with sod. — 16. Conditions of the Building Official's memo dated March 25, 1994. 17. The parking configuration of the Press shall be incorporated into the final design approval given to Kindercare taking into account such things as sidewalks for pedestrian traffic and traffic circulation between the Press and Kindercare. 18. No rooftop equipment shall be visible from Highway 5, Dell Road or 77th Street. 19. The impervious surface of the Press shall be a conforming permit at 70%. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Scott: Is there another motion? Harberts: I move to table Kindercare Daycare Center. Construction of. Scott: And is there some direction to the developer? _ Harberts: I think based on the discussions, from what my notes are and if anyone's able to assist here. I think one of the primary areas was regards to flip flopping the parking and the playground. I think Jeff brought up a good point though about, if there's a concern with the electromagnetic fields or whatever, do we push it down? Is that a better place for it? I think there's some access questions. Traffic questions that relate to that. Signage. I think with regards to number 2. And I think there was comments with regards to putting around some additional landscaping there. I think there was also some discussion about cutting the parking down 12 spaces. Again, it might be an influencing factor then about flip flopping it as to the number of parking stalls. Mancino: Gateway. Harberts: The gateway certainly is a big factor in that. And I think that's really what prompted the flip flopping is I think Jeff commented well is that, do we shrug our shoulders or do we in a sense start putting some pen to the paper here in terms of what we feel is important. And I would certainly be interested to see, to start holding. Going forward with these values I think that have been communicated and addressed very thoroughly by the Highway 5 corridor group. And here's an opportunity to either leave it go or start walking the talk. 36 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Scott: Okay. It's been moved and seconded in summary to table the site plan review for the Kindercare facility. Is there any discussion? Harberts: Who seconded that one? Scott: Ah, she made the motion, you seconded it. Mancino: No. She made the motion. Second. Scott: Excuse me. Now it's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Harberts moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission table action on the Site Plan Review for Kindercare Daycare Center. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mancino: I assume that eliminates 2 and 3. Scott: Yeah, I'd say by virtue of. Question. Do we have to approve the replat? Al-Jaff: Yes you do. Scott: So that the Press can. Al-Jaff: Can go forward. Scott: Okay. May I have a motion please? Mancino: I'll move that we replat. I move that we approve the preliminary plat to replat Lot 1, Block 1. Do I have to do, do I do the whole thing? I want to approve the Press. Al-Jaff: Lot 1 expansion but you don't want 2 and 3. Mancino: Not yet because I mean, you know. That may change. Scott: Okay. So basically what we need to do is replat Lot 1, Block 1. Al-Jaff: Well we can process that administratively. Mancino: Okay. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Aanenson: This is...to the outlot. Scott: Okay, so basically we are going to end up with a preliminary plat to replat Lot 1, Block 1 into Lot 1 and Outlot A and B? Is that? Al-Jaff: That would require a plat. Aanenson: Just one outlot. Mancino: Just to one outlot, yeah. Scott: Okay, Outlot A. Okay. Mancino: That's what I said. Scott: Was it? Okay, is there a second please? Ledvina: I'll second that. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we approve the plat as stated. Is there any discussion? Harberts: What are we approving? Mancino: Yeah, there's some discussion here. Jeff, why don't you. Jeff has some discussion. Farmakes: If we look at that, both outlots there. Mancino: They're really 3. What they want. This is really. Farmakes: So if you're looking at considering the northeast corner of that Lot 3, 2 and 1 for the Press. If by approving that are we defining the lines where the borders are? Between 2 and 3. Scott: Or should we just have Lot 1 and Outlot A and Outlot A comprises the, this is very surveyor's talk here. Farmakes: 2 and 3. 38 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Scott: Everything to the east of the eastern... Mancino: Well wait. And if we approve it, can we still have 70% impervious surface because don't they have to add more onto that? Farmakes: But how are we tying ourselves into the development of the existing lot to the north with the current Kindercare? Mancino: But we're leaving those open. Farmakes: Those are left open? - Scott: Yeah. Farmakes: So we're not tying ourselves into access to those lots? Ledvina: No. Mancino: Access to them? Farmakes: Well for instance, this goes here and then you've got it going there. Aanenson: The existing lot line is, you're moving it to the east is all you're doing. For the Press. The rest of it you're still leaving outlot. That's how it is right now. Scott: So it's Lot 1, as specified with Outlot A. Is that what we want to say? What's the right way to say it? Al-Jaff: Another way of saying it is, Lot 1 and combine Lots 2 and 3 into Outlot A. That's another. Mancino: Thank you. And Jeff's question. Al-Jaff: Or proposed lots. Mancino: But Jeff's question is, is that there won't be any problem having done this if we go back and let's say Kindercare goes to the northern side, can we still use the access from the Press' driveway into Kindercare? Aanenson: Sure. 39 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Mancino: Okay. Does that answer it for you? Aanenson: You've got to remember again, all you're doing is moving a property line for the Press further to the east. And leaving the rest as an outlot... Hempel: You're approving the common drive is going to serve eventually whatever's over there. Scott: And we also need a motion to table the conditional use permit for a licensed daycare. Ledvina: Did we agree to vote on... Scott: Yes. _ Harberts: I just have a clarification. Kate, Sharmin. On our previous motion did you get included the sidewalk? Aanenson: On 17? Scott: Well we can't really, that's a yes or no. If it's one way or the other, it doesn't matter. Harberts: Yes we can. We can do anything we want. Mancino: But yeah, I asked you that. It's in 17. Harberts: No I'm asking the sidewalk, handicapped accessible. If that was included in those comments? That was the intent. With the parking configuration then. Al-Jaff: I was going to include parking for the Press be in concert with Kindercare and then to meet all conditions of ADA requirements? Harberts: No. No, I don't want it to meet ADA because those are more. That the parking configuration though included the fact about that sidewalk being added rather than having wheelchairs and people having to go out into the line of traffic. And I didn't know if we needed to amend this one because we're still on this one. Scott: Well we're discussing, I think we understand. Harberts: But we got the intent. 40 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Scott: We understand what our motion is. Basically that we're going to end up going from Lot 1, Block 1 into Lot 1 and combining Lots 2 and 3 into Outlot A. Mancino: Second. Scott: That was discussion. Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of preliminary plat for Subdivision #94-2 for Park One 3rd Addition into Lot 1, Block 1 and Outlot A (Lots 2 and 3, Block 1), with the following conditions: 1. Park and trail dedication fees to be collected per city ordinance. 2. Provide the following easements: a. A standard 5 foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated along the common lot line between Lot 1 and Outlot A, Block 1. b. Delete. c. A 15 foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated on the final plat along the west property line of Outlot A to facilitate the extension of the sewer service. 3. Enter into a site plan development agreement acceptable to the city. 4. A driveway or cross access easement for use of the access off 77th Street West. The easement shall be dedicated in favor of Lots 1, Block 1 and Outlot A. 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. Erosion control measures (silt fence - Type I) shall be shown on the grading plan. Silt fence shall be placed along the north property line where the parking lot for the Press is being relocated. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 41 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Scott: Okay, can I have a new motion with regard to the Kindercare Site Plan for the Kindercare facility? Mancino: I move that we table conditional use permit to allow a daycare center in an IOP district. Scott: Just a question for Kate. Do we have to make a motion to table the site plan for the Kindercare facility? Follow up with another motion to table the conditional use permit? Because we have, these are all specific items within the public hearing and I think we have to... Aanenson: You can't do one without the other. Scott: Then we need to address the site plan, specifically for the Kindercare facility. Can I have a motion please? Harberts: I'll move it to table. Mancino: Second. Scott: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to table the site plan review for the Kindercare facility. Harberts moved, Mancino seconded to table the Site Plan Review for a Kindercare Daycare facility. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Scott: May I have another motion with regard to the conditional use permit? Mancino: I move that we table the conditional use permit to allow a daycare center in an IOP district. Harberts: Second. Mancino moved, Harberts seconded that the Planning Commission table action on the Conditional Use Permit #94-1 for the Kindercare Daycare facility. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Scott: We'll take the Kindercare facility and the conditional use permit, well as soon as they can bring it back to us. We want to move it on if we can. We'll take a 5 minute break and then the next public hearing is regarding the Ryan/Heritage/Boisclair development. 42 i . ., .... t i x - i w • • - S s i § R g • 'R.: .^• .... MAO CM�G•�7MG � of POI EPA CCVIITY ~mom,.••- a.. . ..�. MI •• ,.............,==,_---- 11• lit *Ali! -— - 4-- . 1.•,-. r . ...., _..ar.k\:..X.1 •,, S - RPMI_...a-IM:-, r.:.. I re7.,•,:, • ... (,-,-1,' A 1 !I . :• 7 ..14111. "seallriii ......... el.r.• it A'` ` - ► '� It. '!lam"_—__ --"* •- 46", ;l �- ;:•z:- '• 14ar 7,„ kr -�ilD -. � • ''' • �� • - ' -...,:......;-i_ *\ • 7-3-7,. _ ,,cAIPyF}I . � Aka. Et\- 11.: .._ F4'µ. I P1 �"/ ' - i -1 s1/4:::‘: �, RD _ -—7 � T L/R'[ [CSC r �� • ^�� .i�.�. r " -� / _ .�y`. -' i�- k .;� . -11:e tCIL rr-..•:'-..- _ • .-Y i ' - -1'-may' SORES rfr �L. �"7 Y 'fit Sp: Ty11aiAPlE LANE / ,,,..-.4 E---- „I.e.:44.•-- (....i-' "r` • \ i A K E ';A: OD w -bU - � ---- � �_ _��-� � j. _; .kms 4 •.:: •_ �I.E R4 - - s ~ _ -i R 12,.. — •1 ! i:_ of .771 . 1 7 Ai '...., '/ 'AO,,,,,,' -1401C 19,1r461.1 41• Mrd t-r_r.s'<'': :::•' res , r - ,,,,:o,. ... ; _. `f., 4. NI 16/1/ ' BD I . .....-A "L Mi:• :______---— .,--.^." , .__ 'SP "----- 10P 17- 00' . . : i :; 1,.' mi t — V.t iillik47 &,01; R>r ���/// V::: y�"`f t rr,�� ono►A1�iii LAKE"CAASL/SAN ;f X -. - , , wE & VI L AK( , 111 II -� P.C. DATE: 4-6-94 C I TY O F C.C. DATE: 4-25-94 ij; L CASE: 94-1 Site Plan C HAN H A S S E 94-1 CUP, 94-2 SUB ! BY: Al-Jaff STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL:1) Site Plan Review for a 54,760 square foot expansion of The Press Building, and construction of a Kindercare Day Care Center, 10,315 Square Feet 11' 2) Preliminary Plat to Replat Lot 1, Block 1, and Outlot B, Park One 2nd z Addition into Lots 1; 2, and 3, Park One Third Addition. Q 3) Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Day Care Center in an IOP District (.� LOCATION: North of Hwy. 5, West of Dell Road, East of 187th Avenue West, and South of 77th Street West. Q. APPLICANT : Marcus Corporation The Press, Inc. Q. 10001 Wayzata Blvd., Ste. 100 18780 West 78th Street Q Minnetonka, MN 55305 Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: Industrial Office Park Acticin b9 City Administrator ACREAGE: 13.64 acres ✓ Dui14- Frok.s + ADJACENT ZONING i,!odiAz 3 AND LAND USE: N - 77th Street West/IOP ry 3-.3- y54. S - Highway 5/IOP Date So:mitred to Commission E - Dell Road/Eden Prairie �,- — b- y W - 187th Avenue West/IOP Date Su!-r tted to count' QSEWER AND WATER: Services are available to the site. F-,.. _ Q SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The site contains the Press Building along the westerly w portion. The easterly half is undeveloped and vegetated primarily with brush. The property is bordered by Hwy. 5 - F- on the south and Dell Road on the east. 2000 LAND USE: Office/Industrial The Press/Kinder Care April 6, 1994 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is proposing to construct a day care facility and expand the warehouse and press room of the Press building. The site is bordered by 77th Street West along the north, Hwy. 5 to the south, 187th Avenue West to the west, and Dell Road to the east. The lot area of the Press site is 518,000 square feet and the Kindercare Day Care Facility site is 76,372 square feet. Both sites are located in an Industrial Office Park District. The site is visible directly from Highway 5 and has full access from 77th Street West and 187th Avenue West. Access to and from the Kindercare site via Dell Road is restricted to right-in/right-out only. In an accompanying subdivision request, the site is being replatted into three lots, one of which will expand the existing Press site to accommodate the proposed expansion, the second lot will contain the Kindercare building, and the third lot will be reserved for future development. Staff is not aware of any pending developments for the third lot. The subdivision request is a relatively straightforward action. Conditions proposed for review would result in dedication of all required easements. The site plan is reasonably well developed. The Press expansion will utilize scored concrete panels, an identical material to that used on the existing building. Staff has requested that the applicant provide elevations showing the facade after incorporating the proposed expansion. The Kindercare building is proposed to utilize face brick wainscoting on all four sides accented by columns, ceramic tile, a canopy, and has a pitched roof. One of the advantages resulting from the expansion of the Press building will be the relocation of the loading dock area. Currently, the loading docks are visible from Highway 5. The expansion will relocate the docks to the rear of the building, and will face 77th Street West. Parking for vehicles is located on the east and west side of the Press building, and south of the Kindercare building. Vehicles will be screened by berms and landscaping materials from Highway 5. The site landscaping is generally of high quality due to the attention that was paid to this issue by the applicant. A variety of trees and bushes will be used. We are recommending that a meandering berm of 3 to 4 feet in height be located along the southerly edge of the site, between the parking lot and Highway 5. Staff regards the project as a reasonable use of the land. The overall design is sensitive to the Highway 5 corridor's image. Based upon the foregoing, staff is recommending approval of the site plan, without variances, conditional use permit and subdivision requests for this proposal. The Press/Kinder Care April 6, 1994 Page 3 BACKGROUND On June 19, 1978, the City Council approved a Planned Industrial Development Plan#78-5 PUD, which included a subdivision that resulted in dividing 701,656 square feet into Lot 1, Block 1, Park One (444,734 square feet), and Outlot B (256,922 square feet). Lot 1 became the site for the Press Building which was approved as a permitted use in the Planned Industrial Development Plan concurrently with the subdivision. Outlot B was reserved for future development and is being proposed for subdivision into two lots with this application. GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE The existing Press building is situated parallel to and north of Hwy. 5. The site is bordered by 77th Street West along the north, Hwy. 5 to the south, 187th Avenue West to the west, and Dell Road to the east. Access to the Press building is gained off of 77th Street West and 187th Avenue West. The proposed expansion of 54,760 square feet will be located to the east of the existing building. Kindercare is proposed to be located to the east of the Press building and will have an area of 10,315 square feet. Parking will be located to the south and between the two buildings. Direct views of the existing loading docks and parking area are currently visible from Hwy. 5. The proposed addition will relocate the loading docks to the north of the building and provide complete screening from Hwy. 5. Staff is recommending that a meandering berm with landscaping, 3 to 4 feet in height, be installed between the parking lot and Hwy. 5 to provide additional screening. The Press building, including the proposed addition, is located 30 feet from the north, 100 feet from the east, 120 from the south, and 65 feet from the west property line. The Kindercare building is located 70 feet from the north, 40 feet from the east, 190 feet from the south, and 50 feet from the west property line. Materials used on the Press addition will be identical to the existing building's scored concrete panels. The applicant has been informed that elevations of the building, with the addition incorporated into them, must be submitted for review and evaluation. The Kindercare building will consist of face brick wainscoting on all four sides. The entry will have a canopy with columns and ceramic tile detailing. The building's architecture is tastefully designed and meets the standards of the site plan ordinance requirements. The site plan for the Kindercare site shows the trash enclosure located southwest of the day care building. The location of the trash enclosure for the Press site has not been shown. Plans must be revised to show the location and submitted for review and approval. The trash enclosure shall utilize materials similar to materials used on the main building. Any roof top equipment should be screened from Highway 5. The Press/Kinder Care April 6, 1994 Page 4 The Planning Commission has reviewed the Highway Corridor Overlay design standards. Although they have not officially been adopted, staff has reviewed these standards to see how this project meets the intent of the proposed ordinance. The purpose of the overlay district is to promote high-quality architectural and site design through improvement development standards with the corridor. The design standards should create a unified, harmonious and high quality visual environment. The plan and design of the proposed development meets the intent of the overlay district with the following features: • The Press addition will utilize material identical to those used on the existing building. The same is true for the color and height of the addition. The Kindercare building will also be one story and the architectural style is unique to the industrial park but will fit in. The addition to the Press will be compatible with the existing building. The Kindercare building will provide a variation in style through the use of columns and the pitched roof element. Because the request is only for an addition to The Press, there is no room to provide a pitched element. Also, a pitched roof would be out of character for the existing style of the building. The Kindercare building is providing a pitched roof as well as a pitched canopy. The Kindercare building must be moved 40 feet to the south to meet the maximum setback of 150 feet. Both buildings are utilizing exterior materials that are durable and of high quality. The colors of the Press building addition will be identical to the existing building. The applicant must show the colors proposed to be used on the Kindercare building. • The new Press addition will move loading docks to the rear of the building, screening it from views from Hwy. 5. The trash enclosure has not been shown on the Press site and such shall be shown on the final plans. • The site is level and minimum grading will take place with the exception of areas along Hwy. 5 where staff is requiring a berm. The site is devoid of vegetation with the exception of underbrush. The landscaping plan provides a variety of plant materials that are massed where possible particularly along Hwy. 5. The berm and landscaping materials will be a continuation of the existing berm on the Press site. The plant materials are repetitious in some locations and variable in others. Proposed plant materials are indigenous to Minnesota. A curb is required along the parameters of the green space area. The applicant is providing a wide green space area between Hwy. 5 right-of-way and the Kindercare site. All planting areas are adequate in size to allow trees to grow. • The light poles are incorporated within the planters/islands. Staff is requiring a sign plan which should include lighting method. The Press/Kinder Care April 6, 1994 Page 5 PARKING/INTERIOR CIRCULATION The City's parking ordinance for day care centers requires a design capacity of one stall for each — six children. The applicant is providing 45 parking spaces. The total number of children enrolled at the day care may not exceed 270. The parking ordinance for warehouses requires one space for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area up to 10,000 square feet and 1 additional space for each additional 2,000 square feet. The total spaces required for the addition is 32 spaces. The ordinance also requires processing facilities to provide 1 parking space for each employee on the major shift. The Press employs a total of 245 employees. These employees work in 3 shifts. Assuming all employees were present at the same time, a total of 245 spaces would be required. The total spaces required including the addition is 277 spaces. The applicant is providing 314 spaces which far exceed the ordinance requirements. The submitted site plans does not indicate any handicapped parking spaces. The Minnesota State Building Code (MSBC) requires that such spaces be provide at the rate of one handicapped space per every 50 spaces in the lot(s). This calculated out to 7 spaces for the Press and 1 space for the Kindercare. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) has specific requirements for van spaces which currently are not part of the MSBC. These requirements are not enforced by the Inspections Division, but should be incorporated into the site plan. Site approaches are regulated by the MSBC, and are not detailed on the site plan. Curb cuts, width, texture and slope are details that must be included on the site plans. Landscaping is proposed along the south side, adjacent to Highway 5 as well as throughout the parking area. This will provide screening of cars parked in the lot. Staff is recommending a meandering landscaped berm, 3 to 4 feet in height, be installed between the parking lots and Hwy. 5 to provide additional screening. ACCESS/PARKING LOT CIRCULATION Dell Road is a four-lane divided collector street. Access to and from the Kindercare site via Dell Road is restricted to a right-in/right-out only due to the existing center median. The parking lot configuration appears to circulate well with the secondary access from The Press. However, the disadvantage is the new parking lot and access on to Dell Road will make it very convenient for traffic from The Press to short circuit through the Kindercare site to get to Dell Road and on to Trunk Highway 5. The proposed warehouse expansion at The Press will involve relocating the existing drive aisles and parking lots. The proposed drive aisle will be constructed to 24-feet wide. The site currently has a number of semi-trailers parked adjacent to the drive aisles. With the anticipated truck traffic movement, staff believes the main thoroughfare (drive aisle) should be a minimum The Press/Kinder Care April 6, 1994 Page 6 of 26-feet wide with turning radiuses on to 77th Street West of 30 feet. In addition, the drive aisles lying north of the main parking lot should be posted for no parking on both sides. Both driveway access points (77th Street West and Dell Road) should be constructed in accordance to the City's typical industrial driveway apron detail (see Attachment No. 1). The 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk exists along the west side of Dell Road adjacent the site. The applicant shall be responsible for replacing any sidewalk damage during construction of the site improvements. The applicant should post security escrow (letter of credit or cash escrow) in the amount of $5,000 to guarantee boulevard restoration. LANDSCAPING The landscaping plan is very well conceived. The applicant is providing a variety of plantings throughout the parking lot and especially along the perimeters of the sites. The plant materials include ornamental conifer, deciduous trees, and shrubs. The Kindercare site will be the first site an individual will encounter as they enter Chanhassen. Plantings, as well as the design and material used on the Kindercare building, have been done tastefully. Staff is recommending one modification to the landscaping plan. The incorporation of a meandering berm with landscaping between Hwy. 5 and the parking lot area for both sites. The parking area for the Kindercare site _ is setback 75 feet from the property line, which is in compliance with the Hwy. 5 corridor study requirements. LIGHTING Lighting locations have been illustrated on the plans. Only shielded fixtures are allowed and the applicant shall demonstrate that there is no more than 1/2 foot candles of light at the property line as required by ordinance. Detailed lighting plan should be submitted when building permits are requested. SIGNAGE The applicant has not submitted a signage plan. One ground low profile business sign is permitted per street frontage with a maximum of 2 such signs per lot. The area of the sign may not exceed 80 square feet and a height of 8 feet. Also, one wall mounted sign shall be permitted per street frontage. The total display area shall not exceed 15% of the total area of the building wall upon which the signs are mounted. No sign may exceed 80 square feet. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the sign on site. One stop sign must be posted on the driveway at the exit point of both sites. A sign plan acceptable to staff should be provided prior to requesting a building permit. The Press/Kinder Care April 6, 1994 Page 7 GRADING AND DRAINAGE In addition to the site drainage for the Kindercare site, it appears a large portion of the east parking lot for The Press is also proposed to be redone to accommodate future expansions. The overall grading plan appears acceptable, however, additional storm sewers will be necessary to convey stormwater runoff from the parking lot relocation on The Press site. The grading/utility plan should be revised incorporating the existing or proposed storm sewer system. Detailed drainage calculations for both sites (Kindercare/Press) should be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. The drainage calculations shall be a 10-year storm event. Based on the grading plan, it appears site grading will exceed five acres in size thus requiring _ permits from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and watershed district. The site will be served with storm sewers that were installed in 77th Street West and Dell Road. These storm drainage systems convey storm runoff to a regional stormwater pond located north of the site. Therefore, no additional on-site ponding will be required as a result of this development. The development will be responsible for the applicable Surface Water Management Utility fee in accordance with city ordinance. PUBLIC UTILTITLS The Kindercare site is proposed to be served from a watermain located in Dell Road. The plans propose open cutting in Dell Road to tap the watermain. According to the City's records, an 8- - inch waterline has been stubbed into the site just north of the proposed connection. Staff recommends that the existing water service be utilized and the open cutting of Dell Road prohibited. Sanitary sewer service is extended to the site from 77th Street West. The plans propose to extend a 6-inch service to the Kindercare site along the west property lines of Lots 2 and 3, Block 1. The appropriate drainage and utility easement should be dedicated on the final plat along the service line. Since both the sanitary and water services lines will be private (not maintained by the City), the applicable permits and inspections should be coordinated by the applicant through the City Building Department. MISCELLANEOUS The plans propose installation of irrigation systems. The applicant should be aware the appropriate permits and inspections will be necessary for the installation of the irrigation system through the City's Building Department. All boulevard areas disturbed as a result of site improvements should be restored with sod. The Press/Kinder Care April 6, 1994 Page 8 — EROSION CONTROL The plans are proposing silt fence along the east side of the Kindercare lot to protect Dell Road. Staff also believes it would be appropriate to install silt fence along the north property line of The Press to protect 77th Street West. — A rock construction entrance is proposed at the north driveway access to The Press. Staff believes the construction activity on the Kindercare site will also necessitate a rock construction — entrance at the proposed entrance off of Dell Road. Staff recommends that a rock construction entrance be provided at the Dell Road driveway access as well. COMPLIANCE TABLE - IOP DISTRICT Ordinance The Press Kindercare Building Height 2 stories 1 story 1 story Building Setback N-30' E-30' N-30' E-NA N-NA E--50' _ S-30' W-30' S-120' W-75' S-190' W-NA' Parking stalls 245/ 45 stalls 314 stalls 45 stalls* _ Parking Setback N-25' E-25' N-25' E-NA' N-NA' E-30' S-25' W-25' S-35' W-30' S-75' W-NA' _ Hard surface 70% Not Provided Not Provided Coverage — Lot Area 1 acre 11.89 acres 1.75 acres * The City's parking ordinance for day care centers requires a design capacity of one stall for each six children. The applicant is providing 45 parking spaces. The total number of children enrolled at the day care may not exceed 270. — PARK AND TRAIL DEDICATION FEES — The City is requiring that park and trails fees be submitted in lieu of park land. Fees are to be paid in accordance to city ordinance. — The Press/Kinder Care April 6, 1994 Page 9 SUBDIVISION The subdivision proposal is a relatively simple request that will serve to enlarge The Press site to accommodate the addition and divide an outlot into 2 lots. The total site area is approximately 15 acres. The existing easterly line of Lot 1 (The Press site) is being shifted 115 feet to the east to accommodate the proposed expansion and maintain the required setback. Lot 1 will have an area of 518,000 square feet. Lot 2 is not being developed at the present time. It is proposed to have an area of 62,000 square feet. Lot 3 is proposed to contain the Kindercare building and will have an area of 76,372 square feet. The subdivision request is a relatively straightforward action. Conditions proposed for review would result in dedication of all required easements. The following easements are either illustrated on the plat or should be acquired: 1. Standard drainage and utility easements around the perimeters of all lots. 2. Dedication of public right-of-way. 3. A 15-foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated on the final plat along the west property line of Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 to facilitate the extension of the sewer service. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Day care centers are permitted in the IOP District as a conditional use. The following constitutes our review of this proposal against conditional use permit standards. GENERAL ISSUANCE STANDARDS 1. Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or city. FINDING - The site is zoned IOP. The proposed use will not create any significant or unexpected impacts from this use. It will provide a convenient location for employees of the office industrial park to drop off their children. 2. Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter. FINDING - The proposed use would be consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan. The use is also in compliance with the Hwy. 5 Corridor Plan although it has not yet been incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. Both sites _ meet the requirements of the design standards as discussed in the site plan/architecture section. The Press/Kinder Care April 6, 1994 Page 10 3. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. FINDING - The site is located adjacent to a major highway and a collector road. It is in the industrial district and as such, a day care center is fully consistent with this site. Architectural standards required by the Highway 5 corridor study and are being adhered to. 4. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. FINDING - There will be no measurable impacts to the existing or planned neighboring uses. This use will have traffic patterns that should combine trips with existing businesses. 5. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. FINDING - Full city services are available to this site. Roads serving the site are fully capable of handling the access needs of this proposal. 6. Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. FINDING - There are no projected needs for public facilities and services that staff is aware of. However, we do believe that there is always a need for a day care center within any Office Industrial Park. The day care use is a good auxiliary use for the industrial park. 7. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare,odors, rodents, or trash. FINDING - This site will not create adverse impacts to persons, property or the general welfare of the area. Hours of operation, orientation of the building, and lighting standards will comply with city ordinances. The Press/Kinder Care April 6, 1994 Page 11 8. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. FINDING - The site is visible from a major highway and is accessible from that highway by a signalized intersection and a collector street designed to commercial standards. There will be no direct traffic impacts to any area residential neighborhood. 9. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. FINDING - The development of this site will not result in the loss of any features. 10. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area. FINDING - The site plan is well designed to provide adequate landscaping and buffering from adjoining properties. The building is to be built of brick accented by columns, ceramic tile, and a canopy. Consistent with Highway 5 overlay district. 11. Will not depreciate surrounding property values. FINDING - The site is being used for a day care type of operation which is consistent with its designation. It will not depreciate surrounding property values. On the contrary, it will add a convenient location for employees working in the surrounding area to drop off their children. 12. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article. FINDING - The following is our review of conditions of approval and appropriate findings: a. The site shall have loading and drop off points designed to avoid interfering with traffic and pedestrian movements FINDING - The building is surrounded by a sidewalk to allow pedestrian movement. _ b. Outdoor play areas shall be located and designed in a manner which mitigates visual and noise impacts on adjoining residential areas. FINDING - There are no adjoining residential areas. The Press/Kinder Care April 6, 1994 Page 12 c. Each center shall obtain all applicable state, county, and city licenses. FINDING - Staff will insure compliance with this condition prior to issuing a Certificate of Occupancy. Based upon the foregoing findings, staff is recommending that the conditional use permit be approved with appropriate conditions. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: I. SITE PLAN REVIEW "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review #94-1 as shown on the site plan received March 8, 1994, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must revise plans to include trash screening for The Press site and show the type of materials used to screen the trash enclosure on both the Press and Kindercare sites. Plans must be submitted for staff review prior to City Council meeting. 2. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site. Provide _ a detailed sign plan for review and approval. 3. The applicant shall provide a meandering berm with landscaping along the south portion of the site, between the parking area and Hwy. 5. The height of the berm shall be between 3 to 4 feet. The applicant shall also 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. 4. The applicant shall enter into a site plan development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping. 5. Meet all conditions outlined in the Fire Marshal memo dated March 10, 1994. 6. The applicant shall provide elevations of The Press building for review and approval. 7. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted. The Press/Kinder Care April 6, 1994 Page 13 8. The grading/utility plan shall be revised to incorporate storm sewers in the parking lot's drive aisles for The Press. Detailed drainage calculations for a 10-year storm event should be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. 9. The applicant shall apply and comply with the necessary permits from the appropriate agencies (MPCA, watershed district, and City Building Department). 10. Silt fence shall also be placed along the north property line where the parking lot for The Press is being relocated. 11. A rock construction entrance shall also be placed at the driveway entrance to the Kindercare site off of Dell Road. 12. The applicant shall utilize the existing water service from Dell Road. Open cutting of Dell Road will be prohibited. 13. The main thoroughfare (drive aisle) located on The Press site north of the main parking lot area should be a minimum width of 26 feet with turning radiuses at 77th Street West of 30 feet. In addition, the main thoroughfare (drive aisle) shall be posted with no parking signs. 14. Both driveway access points shall be constructed in accordance to the City's typical industrial driveway apron detail. 15. The applicant shall be responsible for all boulevard restoration including the sidewalk along Dell Road. The applicant shall provide the City with a security deposit (letter of credit or cash escrow) in the amount of $5,000 to guarantee boulevard restoration. All boulevards disturbed as a result of the site improvements shall be restored with sod. 16. Conditions of the Building Official's memo dated March 25, 1994." II. SUBDIVISION "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #94-2 for Park One 3rd Addition as shown on plat received March 8, 1994, with the following conditions: 1. Park and trail dedication fees to be collected per city ordinance. 2. Provide the following easements: The Press/Kinder Care April 6, 1994 Page 14 a. A standard 5-foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated along the common lot line between Lots 1, and 2 and 3, Block 1. b. Dedication of public right-of-way. c. A 15-foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated on the final plat along the west property line of Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 to facilitate the extension of the sewer service. 3. Enter into a site plan development agreement acceptable to the city. 4. A driveway or cross-access easement for use of the access of off 77th Street West. The easement 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. Erosion control measures (silt fence - Type I) shall be shown on the grading plan. Silt fence shall be placed along the north property line where the parking lot for The Press is being relocated." III. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit#94-1 subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with conditions of site plan and plat approval. 2. Obtain all applicable state, county, and city licenses." ATTACHMENTS 1. Memo from Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer, dated March 25, 1994. 2. Memo from Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal, dated March 10, 1994. 3. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated March 25, 1994. 4. Project Narrative Document dated March 7, 1994. 5. Plans received March 8, 1994. CITY OF CHANHASSEN — i 690 COULTER DRIVE• P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer ,(y)// DATE: March 25, 1994 SUBJ: Review of Preliminary and Final Plat - Park One 3rd Addition and Site Plan _ Review for Kindercare Land Use Review File No. 94-7 Upon review of the site plans dated March 7, 1994, prepared by RLK Associates, Ltd. and the preliminary plat prepared by Eagan, Field and Nowak, Inc., I offer the following comments and recommendations: GRADING AND DRAINAGE In addition to the site drainage for the Kindercare site, it appears a large portion of the east parking lot for The Press is also proposed to be redone to accommodate future expansions. The overall grading plan appears acceptable; however, additional storm sewers will be necessary to convey storm water runoff from the parking lot relocation on The Press site. The grading/utility plan should be revised incorporating the existing or proposed storm sewer system. Detailed drainage calculations for both sites (Kindercare/Press) should be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. The drainage calculations shall be for a 10-year storm event. Based on the grading plan, it appears site grading will exceed five acres in size thus requiring permits from the MPCA (NPDES) and watershed district. The site will be served from storm sewers that were installed in 77th Street West and Dell Road. These storm drainage systems convey storm runoff to a regional storm water pond located north of the site. Therefore, no on- site ponding will be required as a result of this development. The development will be _ responsible for the applicable Surface Water Management Utility fee in accordance with city ordinance. Sharmin Al-Jaff March 25, 1994 Page 2 EROSION CONTROL — The plans are proposing silt fence along the east side of the Kindercare lot to protect Dell Road. Staff also believes it would be appropriate to install silt fence along the north property line of — The Press adjacent the grading work to protect 77th Street West. A rock construction entrance is proposed at the north driveway access to The Press. Staff — believes the construction activity on the Kindercare site will also necessitate a rock construction entrance at the proposed entrance off of Dell Road. Staff recommends that a rock construction entrance be provided at the Dell Road driveway access as well. — UTILITIES The Kindercare site is proposed to be served from a watermain located in Dell Road. The plans propose open cutting in Dell Road to tap the watermain. According to the City's records, an fl- inch water line has been stubbed into the site just north of the proposed connection. Staff — recommends that the existing water service be utilized and open cutting of Dell Road prohibited. Sanitary sewer service is proposed to be extended to the site from 77th Street West. The plans propose to extend a 6-inch service to the Kindercare site along the west property lines of Lots 2 and 3, Block 1. The appropriate drainage and utility easement should be dedicated on the final _ plat along the service line. Since both the sanitary and water services lines will be private (not maintained by the City), the applicable permits and inspections should be coordinated by the applicant through the City Building Department. _ ACCESS/PARKING LOT CIRCULATION Dell Road is a four-lane divided collector street. Access to and from the Kindercare site via Dell Road is restricted to a right-in right-out only due to the existing center median. The parking lot configuration appears to circulate well with the secondary access from The Press. However, the — disadvantage is the new parking lot and access onto Dell Road will make it very convenient for traffic from The Press to short circuit through the Kindercare site to get to Dell Road and onto Trunk Highway 5. — The proposed warehouse expansion at The Press will involve relocating the existing drive aisles and parking lots. The proposed drive aisle will be constructed to 24-feet wide. The site currently — has a number of semi-trailers parked adjacent to the drive aisles. With the anticipated truck traffic movement, staff believes the main thoroughfare (drive aisle) should be a minimum of 26- feet wide with turning radiuses onto 77th Street West of 30 feet. In addition, the drive aisles —" lying north of the main parking lot should be posted for no parking on both sides. Both driveway Sharmin Al-Jaff March 25, 1994 Page 3 access points (77th Street West and Dell Road) should be constructed in accordance to the City's typical industrial driveway apron detail (see Attachment No. 1). A 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk exists along the west side of Dell Road adjacent the site. The applicant shall be responsible for replacing any sidewalk damaged during construction of the site improvements. The applicant should post a security escrow (letter of credit or cash escrow) in the amount of $5,000 to guarantee boulevard restoration. MISCELLANEOUS The plans propose installation of irrigation systems. The applicant should be aware the appropriate permits and inspections will be necessary for the installation of the irrigation system through the City's Building Department. All boulevard areas disturbed as a result of site improvements should be restored with sod. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The grading/utility plan shall be revised to incorporate storm sewers in the parking lots and drive aisles for The Press. Detailed drainage calculations for both sites (The Press and Kindercare) for a 10-year storm event should be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. 2. The applicant shall apply and comply with the necessary permits from the appropriate agencies (MPCA, watershed district, and City Building Department). 3. Silt fence shall also be placed along the north property line of The Press adjacent the grading activities to protect 77th Street West. 4. A rock construction entrance shall also be placed at the driveway entrance to the Kindercare site off of Dell Road. 5. The applicant shall utilize the existing water service from Dell Road. Open cutting of Dell Road will be prohibited. 6. A 15-foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated on the final plat along the west property line of Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 to facilitate the extension of the sanitary sewer service to the Kindercare site. _ 7. The main thoroughfare (drive aisle) located on The Press site north of the main parking lot area should be a minimum width of 26 feet with turning radiuses at 77th Street West Sharmin Al-Jaff March 25, 1994 Page 4 — of 30 feet. In addition, the main thoroughfare (drive aisle) shall be posted with no — parking signs. 8. Both driveway access points shall be constructed in accordance to the City's typical — industrial driveway apron detail. 9. The applicant shall be responsible for all boulevard restoration including the sidewalk — along Dell Road. The applicant shall provide the City with a security deposit (letter of credit or cash escrow) in the amount of $5,000 to guarantee boulevard restoration. All boulevards disturbed as a result of the site improvements shall be restored with sod. — jms Attachments: 1. Driveway apron detail. c: Charles Folch, City Engineer — g:eng\dave\pc\parkone3.(pr W Z I' O I-• Z to �z IDr } Wo I 4 J r I Q I Or 11111 W I 4 rj �,� I F- O 1111Ill a o. Cr u W Z Lj 3 - W a I nc • . p�Q t m 0 co W P --� W D ii-) .. ...i I W J �W z Q p 13 F- U a. m J I c0 cD Z I 'Ai (p CO (.01111 J= m I °- fir— L 1- till g 6 g :i 0 , 61- 1-t- .> ,. . . • Q HAW '� jW • ti I— u z WW O 1-- a �cn 00 B� LL o' �U� 4 D Q a — H U i •, CITY OF INDUSTRIAL CHANHASSEN DRIVEWAY DATE 2-91 _ PLATE NO. 5207 : -- 7-:/r/le/6"e1<-- / CITY OF CHANIIASSEN690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: March 10, 1994 SUBJ: The Press Expansion and New Kindercare Facility Planning Case 94-2 SUB, 94-1 CUP, 94-1 SPR I have reviewed the plans and have the following requirements: 1. Submit utility plans showing existing and proposed fire hydrant locations. A determination will then be made if additional hydrants will be needed. 2. In the new north parking lot, labeled "One Way", maintain a 20 foot wide driving lane between parking stalls. This will satisfy the 20 foot wide fire apparatus access road width. 3. Provide turning radius of fire apparatus access roads to Chanhassen Fire Marshal and Chanhassen City Engineer for approval. 4. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. Olt°11' 690 COULTER DRIVE •(612)P.O. BOX937-1900 147FA•CITYX CHANHASSENOF(612) 937-5739, MINNESOTA 55317 • MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I FROM: Steve A. Kirchman. Building Official a• DATE: March 25, 1994 SUBJ: 94-2 SUB, 94-1 CUP & 94-1 SPR (Press expansion & Kindercare) I have been asked for comments on the above referenced Planning Department application. Background: The existing facility was built in phases beginning in 1978 and continuing until 1992. Analysis: Because the building was built over a period of time and many portions were constructed before the Inspections Division performed plan reviews, the City does not have accurate records of the existing structure. In order to perform an accurate plan review of the proposed addition the occupancy classification(s), occupant load and construction type of both the existing building and the proposed addition must be determined. These determinations will allow occupant loads to be assigned , exiting requirements to be evaluated and construction requirements determined. Accurately dimensioned plans indicating the use of all spaces are needed to insure accuracy. The submitted site plans does not indicate any handicapped parking spaces. The Minnesota State Building Code (MSBC) requires that such spaces be provide at the rate of one handicapped space per every 50 spaces in the lot(s). This calculated out to 7 spaces for the Press and 1 space for the Kindercare. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) has specific requirements for van spaces which are not now part of the MSBC. These requirements are not enforced by the Inspections Division, but should be incorporated into the site plan. Site approaches are regulated by the MSBC, and are not detailed on the site plan. Curb cuts, width, texture and slope are details that must be included on the site plans. Sharmin Al-Jaff March 25, 1994 Page 2 UBC Appendix Chapter 38 as amended by the MSBC was adopted by the City in 1987. Consequently, the proposed addition to The Press as well as the Kindercare will be required to be fire sprinklered. Recommendations: 1. Submit a 1/8" = 1"-0" scale plan of the entire existing building indicating dimensions and use of all spaces on all floors. 2. Revise site plans to show site approach details and handicap parking stalls in compliance with MSBC Chapter 1340. g:\safety\sak\memos\plan\presssj 1 NARRATIVE DOCUMENT - Kindercare The Press SITE PLAN APPROVAL SUBNIISSION March 7, 1994 — Prepared For: CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA Developer: MARCUS CORPORATION Prepared By: RLK Associates, Ltd. — 922 Mainstreet Hopkins, MN 55343 — (612) 933-0972 March 7, 1994 Site Plan Approval Submission The Press - Warehouse Expansion Kindercare Inc. - Daycare Facility Dell Road and State Highway 5 Chanhassen, Minnesota By: Marcus Corporation 10001 Wayzata Blvd. Minnetonka, MN 55343 REQUESTS City review for site plan approval and replatting of a 15± acre parcel at the northwest quadrant of Dell Road and State Highway 5, which will provide the following: • Warehouse expansion of 54,720 sq. ft. for the Press. - Rearrangement of East parking lot and entrance out of W. 77th Street. - The addition of 16 parking stalls. • Kindercare day care facility on a 1.75± acre parcel. • 1.5 acre outlot for future development. • Site plan, preliminary and final plat approval. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Press Inc., an office/warehouse facility has occupied the existing 15 acre parcel for the last 13 years. In order to accommodate an expansion of 54,720 sq. ft. the existing parking lot and plat have to he amended. A replatting of the property into three developable parcels will occur with this application. A coauthorized site plan has been developed by the Press and Kindercare, a nationally known company providing quality day care and children support services. The proposed development will provide a new access from West 77th Street to be utilized by the Press, Kindercare and a future outlot north of Kindercare. The rearranged parking for the Press will enable landscape islands and a landscaped entry boulevard to be installed. The proposed expansion of the Press will enclose the loading dock area, and will architecturally match the existing exterior of scored concrete parcels. Kindercare proposes to develop the corner lot at Dell Road and State Highway 5 according to the attached site plan which identifies a 10,315 sq. ft. building, a 45 stall parking lot, children's play area and impressive landscaping. In addition a right in/right out access is proposed on Dell Road. This access will allow vehicles to access State Highway 5 at an improved signalized intersection. March 7, 1994 Page 2 _ THE PRESS - WAREHOUSE EXPANSION Descriptive Narrative Attached with this narrative are six plan sheets which identify the project location, proposed site plan, grading/utility systems, platting, landscape plan and building elevation. The attached plan sheets are: Sheet 1 Title Sheet/Site Plan Sheet 2 Existing Conditions Sheet 3 Grading/Utility Plan Sheet 4 Landscape Plan Sheet 5 Preliminary/Final Plat — Sheet 6 Kindercare Building Elevations EXISTING CONDITIONS The site is currently occupied by the Press, a 186,000 sq. ft. office, warehouse, manufacturing facility, and a series of parking lots which provide space for 298 vehicles. The intersection of Dell Road and State Highway 5 has recently been improved to provide a signalized intersection complete with turn lanes and a center median on Dell Road. An 8' wide bituminous bicycle/pedestrian trail running parallel within the north right-of-way of State Highway 5 will he maintained in its current alignment. The existing landscaping on the south side of this parcel will he preserved and added to in order to be consistent with the City landscape code and Highway 5 Corridor Study Objectives. The sidewalk on the west side of Dell Road will also be maintained and repaired if any utility construction disrupts it. LEGAL DESCRIPTION That part of Lot 1, Block 1, and Outlot B, Second Addition lying west of Dell Road and North of State Highway 5. SITE DESCRIPTION The proposed development is consistent with the comprehensive plan which calls for quality office/industrial development within this area of Chanhassen. Expansion of existing facilities is to he encouraged wherever possible and a pooling of resources is being utilized in order to coordinate the access, utility/drainage facilities and landscaping for the warehouse expansion and Kindercare development. A day care facility centrally located among the existing office/warehouse buildings will be a welcome land use for the number of employees currently employed within a 1/2 mile radius of this site which is in the eastern portion of Chanhassen. The proposed site plan will greatly enhance the northwest corner of Dell Road and State Highway 5, acting as an eastern entry to the City of Chanhassen. March 7, 1994 Page 3 THE PRESS - WAREHOUSE EXPANSION Descriptive Narrative DESCRIPTION OF THE PLAN SHEETS Site Plan As illustrated, the Press property will be rearranged to allow for the Kindercare parcel and one — additional parcel to be developed at a future date. The joint entry from West 77th Street will provide a separation for passenger cars and truck traffic. The landscape entry islands will direct traffic in a logical and aesthetic manner while increasing the number of parking stalls to be consistent with the Zoning Code for the proposed 54,720 sq. ft. warehouse addition. Based on the current division between office and warehouse functions, it is estimated the current parking lot exceeds City parking code requirements by approximately 40 stalls. The proposed — landscape parking islands will enhance the image of the existing parking lot and provide locations for overstory trees and light fixtures which will be relocated from the current parking lot. Drainage and Utility Plan The parking lot for the Press will be expanded and surface drained from the south to West 77th. The proposed drainage pattern is consistent with how the site drains today. Once the surface water is collected in the West 77th storm sewer system, it is directed to the existing stormwater pond one block away on the north side of the Ver-Sa-Til building. The proposed drainage system is consistent with the City's stormwater management plan. The Kindercare parking lot will be surface drained to a storm sewer at the northeast corner of the lot and directed to the storm sewer system within Dell Road. The Dell Road storm sewer system also drains directly to the stormwater pond north of Ver-Sa-Til. Water service for Kindercare will be taken from an existing watermain located within Dell Road. At this time it is proposed that a new service be added which will necessitate an open cut with Dell Road. If an available water service is known, the plan will be changed to,utilize the existing stop box. Sanitary sewer service will be directed to the North and tie into an existing 6" wye within W. 77th Street. It is anticipated the future development of the lot north of Kindercare will also utilize this sanitary sewer line. — Landscape Plan The landscape plan provides for a very generous planting plan on the perimeter of the site adjacent to State Highway 5 and Dell Road. The parking island landscape plan was developed to coordinate the site lighting and overstory trees within the parking islands. The plant material — selected provides for a variety of ornamental conifer and deciduous trees and shrubs to create colorful and enhanced landscape plan on a year round basis. The planting adjacent to Highway 5 has received special treatment in order to be compatible with the Highway 5 Corridor plan — and function as a entry statement to the City of Chanhassen. March 7, 1994 Page 4 _ THE PRESS - WAREHOUSE EXPANSION Descriptive Narrative Lighting Plan All proposed site lighting will either be relocated existing fixtures from the Press parking lot or similar poles and fixtures with a downcast shoe box fixture to conceal all visible light sources. The maximum height of all poles will be 25 feet. BUILDING ELEVATION Kindercare corporate headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia provided the architectural drawing elevations to be submitted in this package. The facade will consist of face brick wainscoting on all four sides and EIFS panel systems above the wainscoting. The entry will have a canopy with columns and ceramic tile detailing. The proposed Press expansion will match the existing architectural style of scored concrete panels. The expansion will be warehouse space only and will not require windows or office treatments. KA bm' s o� a � -< p N. yy m AzoO m y 44 IMVg= CD0% VVj W ..I.: T ` vo—or, � i • - ((A�pp�zzV M - C i� "iiii, O O +1 tLrnA�y -~1 Z§ O x ym rPn -i4 ' z 111 m �. C :;114 Z Y A V ON m V N (� r~+ r-° NX7ao.rl ii 1 1 Z3 �izi �Z{ .��P - - -< C. mN •=1 :31 . 538 71 T. �N ZS C7SN rrpA rtfyr N y VI N 7r. tel 0Z Vt • 1 = y` • W z r V v W w: ..T.';L.. .l • ffi • OOAM N -4 -1O0� m V 1109• ZQ` T1-1ON � 11CA ii ii qF+ 0G' VY ai` AZO V a SOMSO4% b Am _:.. VtQQ PC .ZV h 1.4 MINn,0+ r � t O S�rore b Z 4 t DD� p �taFN+co b A04 N�v 17 LUx1 c V 7 mm j1 yAO wITI �j 7 p K 3 77�� DD QC22 p--VVppII -N MniH Z o Q2 Q Q 9• ,-R1 A Mvµ+ r m.. o~. x x 0 0~+ m' d1q.1g - 703.1 N m �roo IPS RSN WN pN i4 Vm� N [ 2oi s�- r� � SMr W 1 rr x V+ w D X. rr 41 F Q CHT _ � E / ov V�4} aNs> o Zz�c O �i-1 0 m tl N In W toN 0a , QO O .� !•'.o ~rl 0 ii r a� A S cm • 3i 11rirm 0 7J 0 � z 97 ro p a `' 17131. m t1 n i tin 4 aamroiH 2" vv►- N � v or- a s zN � NH AN ItiNso i,-, n 47a►+Y A ~rmm~m Q ?c7K V C t . m R1 S 1 ;d m ZZ 2 33 m( r rnN ��OfS25m0 N ZE N \ y•Z - D EW mp XN A O'tt' • o - y - O V1 - m QO L'I1 O A O Z . g 4112 0, le 7 11-31G • - 7400 laO L ,..._ R 1 2 s 0 ____. to NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGo0 co — o PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING •�_ \ I �� - .: 1 Wednesday, April 6, 1994 ' >, 4, I 7:30 P.M. I ..�, 1 PAR ' / o City Hall Council Chambers a — 690 Coulter Drive 11111 I; ••2 _ •�} - C Project: The Press Expansion and :TN ST Kindercare Facility - — Developer: Marcus Corporation till Hi1w r _ Location: Northwest quadrant of Dell ��—` HANHASS N :4 . f Road and State Highway 5. �� : ,.NEEST.4TES lop — Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. Marcus Corporation is proposing preliminary and fmal plat to replat Lot 1, Block 1, and Outlot B, Park One 2nd Addition into Lots 1, 2, and 3, Park One Third — Addition, a Site Plan Review for a 54,720 square foot warehouse expansion for the Press and a 10,315 square foot Kindercare facility and a Conditional Use Permit for a Licensed Day Care Center in an IOP, Industrial Office Park, located at the northwest quadrant of Dell Road — and State Highway 5. 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, ext. 120. 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. has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on March 24, 911 — Notice of this public hearing g 1994. �., — -41 _} The Press, Inc. D. J. Bogema Frank Beddor, Jr. 18780 West 78th Street 18400 77th Street West 649 5th Ave. S. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Naples, FL 33940 Rottlund Company Randall & Julia Foote Fredric & Lori Silvers 5201 River Road East 7603 Kimberly Lane 7619 Kimberly Lane Fridley, MN 55421 Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Tandem Properties Waytek, Inc. DataServ, Inc. 2765 Casco Point Road 7660 Quattro Drive Attn: Legal Department Wayzata, MN 55391 Box 690 19011 Lake Drive East Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Lee & Deborah Belka 7611 Kimberly Lane Eden Prairie, MN 55346 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED CONCEPT PUD CITY OF CHANHASSEN NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, April 20, 1994, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 690 Coulter Drive. The purpose of this hearing is to review a Conceptual Planned Unit Development to rezone 82.6 acres of property zoned A2 Agricultural Estate to PUD including 19.3 acres for office/warehouse, 52.9 acres for multi-family, 3.4 acres for ponding area, and 7 acres for road right-of-way located south of Highway 5, west of Audubon and east of Galpin Boulevard, Chanhassen Corporate Centre, Highway 5 Partnership, Ryan Companies, Heritage Development, Boisclair Corporation and RLK Associates. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Robert Generous, Planner H Phone: 937-1900, ext. 141 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on April 7, 1994) CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 6, 1994 — Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Joe Scott, Nancy Mancino, Matt Ledvina, Ron Nutting, Ladd Conrad and Diane Harberts MEMBERS ABSENT: Jeff Farmakes STAFF PRESENT: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT LOT 1, BLOCK 1 AND OUTLOT B, PARK ONE _ 2ND ADDITION INTO LOTS 1, 2 AND 3, PARK ONE THIRD ADDITION, A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR 54,720 SQUARE FEET WAREHOUSE EXPANSION FOR THE PRESS AND A 10,315 SQUARE FOOT KINDERCARE FACILITY AND A _ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A LICENSED DAY CARE CENTER IN AN IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF DELL ROAD AND STATE HIGHWAY 5. Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Any questions? Mancino: Yeah, I just have one more. I didn't see any in the packet of elevations for the — proposed warehouse addition and the proposed Press proofing room. Press room addition. I haven't seen what it's going to look like. How it matches up to the existing building or anything. Oh, did I miss them? — Al-Jaff: I apologize. I thought I gave them to everyone. Mancino: Okay, thank you. That was quick. Scott: Are there any questions on the new elevations? Take a few minutes and go through them. Mancino: Excuse me. Is this correct from what you drew Sharmin? This east elevation. This is going to be on the outside of that wall, not on the inside? Al-Jaff: These are the existing elevations. It's the second page that shows that. 1 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 Mancino: Thank you. So that will be covered up and then the north. Okay, thanks. Scott: Any other questions for staff? Harberts: What are they doing with the open space? Al-Jaff: We don't know at this point. Harberts: Any indications at all? What can they do with it? Is it big enough to build on? Al-Jaff: Yes. Scott: Okay, any other questions or comments for staff? We'd like to hear from the applicant or their representatives. Please step to the microphone and identify yourselves... We can take a few moments to set up the tripod so we can get it on the camera. John Dietrich: Good evening. John Dietrich from RLK Associates. We are the real estate architect and civil engineers working with the Marcus Corporation and the Press...to develop this site for the application that is in front of you. The application that is there, we are excited about and we are willing to work with commission members and staff and City Council in order to see this Kindercare and Press development proceed. With me tonight, representing Kindercare is John Pinmore so if there are specific questions in regard to Kindercare, Mr. Pinmore will be able to address those. And I will be able to address the _ questions in regards to the site plan and engineering plans. A couple of the comments that were raised I would like to respond to. In terms of the issue of the Press expansion. The intent of the expansion is primarily for warehouse purposes and storage and secondly to organize and consolidate some of the loading facilities that are out there today. Currently from Highway 5, as Sharmin indicated, are able to see the loading docks. It is proposed, with the facility that would move forward, that they would be fully enclosed. That the loading docks would be fully enclosed and face each other so that the views from Highway 5 and from Dell Road, you would not be able to see the loading dock facility. Currently there are semi's that sit out here. That is how some of the facility and storage capacity is taken up to date. With this new expansion it will all be fully enclosed as well as the service of the docks both on the east and west wings of that addition. The facade of the Press will be comparable to what is out there today in terms of this square concrete panels so that it will match the existing facade that is along that eastern side today. The proposal is to have a joint access drive from West 77th Street. That would be built into the developer's agreement so that it would be a joint driveway would be, the proposal is 24 feet. We will expand that to — 26 feet to meet city code and that would service with the Kindercare, the Press and the outlot that is remaining to date. This 1.5 acre outlot is proposed to remain under the ownership of 2 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 the Press at this time. There are no proposals pending or thought of for this site. It is the Press Incorporated's intention to hold onto that site for future considerations. You know if they continue to expand or need more parking. They are in the process of holding it. For the time being it is totally proposed to stay in basically a natural state of grass condition as it is today. With the Kindercare facility, we would have a right-in/right-out off of Dell Road and circulation that would allow the parents to park and drop off. Drop and take their children into the facility. Typically we would anticipate the drop off period would be over a 2 hour time frame and there would be approximately 100 children during that time frame. We would anticipate the Press being the major client of this Kindercare facility and there would be opportunities for some of the parking that is on the Kindercare lot to be contracted to the Press employees. Because if they run multiple shifts, we would anticipate a fair amount of usage from the Press for the Kindercare. We would, the parking stalls that are out there would accommodate up to approximately 245 children. We anticipate a maximum amount of children in the Kindercare facility would be approximately 200 so there are multiple parking spaces that are available for contract use or for developing into drop off areas or sidewalk. The licensing of the daycare facility is done by a State review process and that would be a process that all daycare facilities need to go through. The signage plan has not been submitted. We would be fully intended to comply with the ordinance of the square footage of the maximum of 80 square feet and also of the height of an 8 foot high sign...that's within the ordinance requirements. Kindercare is a national chain so they have a logo and basically the total sign plan that they would put. We fully intend to work with the landscaping and berming so that the berm that is currently out there along Highway 5 would be extended and pulled into this area so that the entire parking area should be screened from view while you were getting into your car at an elevation on Highway 5. So that we would continue that and then also by adding parking lot islands and irrigation, anticipate that this area will have quite a bit more green than is currently out there in a much more maintainable condition. I believe those are the issues that I heard. We'd be happy to respond to any additional questions with regard to the site plan. Harberts: I have a question. You chatted about the parking with regard to contract. Contracting. I don't understand that. Could you just kind of elaborate what you meant by contracting out parking? John Dietrich: With the Press next to this facility they are going to be completely independent in terms of ownership. We would anticipate that there would be an opportunity for an employee to park and drop off their children and then walk over to the Press facility so there's going to have to be a...agreement between the two landowners. We would also anticipate that the Press would be able to control the employee usage for potential cut through of that lot through to Dell Road being that management would have the say over how the employees would exit the site and it would be stipulated that...would have to be either to the 3 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 west or to the north to West 77th Street. Harberts: Is there a fence that will go around the playground area? Around the daycare area. John Dietrich: Yes, I believe there is. Ledvina: I had a question regarding the parking. Staff has indicated that your proposal identifies 314 stalls and the requirement based on the staff's calculations as far as the needs are concerned indicates 245 parking slots. Why the extra stalls? John Dietrich: We took the amount of stalls that are out there today and looked at the warehouse expansion and calculated that in terms of the new square footage and we added that square footage to the existing number of stalls that are out there today. So in terms of parking requirements, it may be over built today if we wanted to be consistent with the ordinance for the expansion of the 55,000 square feet for the Press. So we added that expansion to the existing parking total. Ledvina: The expansion that's being proposed? John Dietrich: Yes. Ledvina: Okay. _. Mancino: But didn't staff take that into account? So that's already taken into account for what's required, which is the 277. John Dietrich: Yes. Yes. Mancino: So you went over and beyond what was required even for the expansion? John Dietrich: Yes. Harberts: So are you asking, is the ordinance minimum or maximum? Mancino: It still doesn't make sense, yeah. Harberts: Is the ordinance minimum or maximum? Al-Jaff: Minimum. They want to exceed that number if they can. If they meet hard surface coverage, which has not been provided. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 Mancino: That was my next question. What is the hard surface coverage for, now for that, for the Press and for Kindercare? John Dietrich: For the Press and Kindercare. The hard surface coverage for the Kindercare is approximate 57%. And the hard surface coverage for the Press at this time is - approximately 77%. Mancino: So it's over what they can do? Al-Jaff: 70% is the maximum hard surface coverage. Mancino: And they're at 77? Al-Jaff: So they need to reduce it. Mancino: And they could reduce it by 7% by eliminating some extra parking spaces? I mean that's one way. That's one option. John Dietrich: Yes, if we are over the code, we could do that, yes. Al-Jaff: Another option is by enlarging the site. Moving the property line and currently Lot 3 is open so if they want to take a few square feet and just move the line, they would make up that 7%. Mancino: Okay. I have a couple questions for the elevations. On the south elevation that I'm looking at here, where does it show me what the new additions look like? This one doesn't have a south? John Dietrich: We did not show the south or the west elevation on the proposed because the additions are going on the west. Excuse me. Are going on the east and on the north. If I was to draw in where it would be on the existing, it would be approximately in this range. But it would be set. Mancino: Is it going to have the same sort of detailing that this front has or is it just going to be the vertical? John Dietrich: It's going to be the vertical square concrete, similar to the existing east elevation. Mancino: Will there be any windows or any sort of anything facing south? 5 - Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 — John Dietrich: There is warehouse, storage... Mancino: What's the wall, what's the length of the wall of the Press room addition facing — south? Is that a 20 foot length of wall or is that? John Dietrich: The length of wall. Mancino: No, east of it for the addition. Yeah. John Dietrich: This piece here? Mancino: How big is that? — John Dietrich: I would say approximately 60 feet. Mancino: 60 feet? John Dietrich: In length. In terms of height, it would match the existing. Mancino: And there is no windows? There's no nothing? There's no landscaping for that — 60 feet? John Dietrich: ...for the landscaping. Mancino: Okay. And if that's 60 feet, then how big is the warehouse that faces south? — John Dietrich: Let me grab...It's approximately 65 feet, not 60. It's approximately 130 feet. Mancino: We have in our Highway 5 guidelines something about you know big expanses of flat wall. Or I shouldn't say flat wall but a wall and doing something with those expanses. Making them... John Dietrich: ...landscaping to those facades. They are to help break up those individual... Mancino: Okay. So you would come back to us with a new landscaping plan that would show what you would do? — John Dietrich: Yes. 6 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 Mancino: Okay. John Dietrich: Or if you would wish, we could put in a condition that they would have to have staff approval or staff to concur with the landscape plans prior to... Mancino: Are there other requirements on the, in the Highway 5 about,just not landscaping but doing something architecturally to those big expanses? Do you know? Al-Jaff: ...architecturally elements or landscaping is what it will be. Mancino: It's or? It's not and/or? We'll have to, we'll look that up? Okay. — Scott: Any other questions for the applicant? Ledvina: Mr. Chairman. On my proposed conditions, on the north elevation there's a, I think I see a loading dock area and I don't know, is this correct or how is this, why is this set _ up this way? John Dietrich: Okay. North elevation on the right hand side. Ledvina: Right. What am I looking at there? John Dietrich: This one over on this side of the building. Ledvina: Alright. Harberts: Mr. Chairman. On that same side, according to the site plan that I see here, we have parking, 24, 11 and 8. Are those anticipated for employees or who's anticipated to be — parking on that side? John Dietrich: Parking over on the west side of the building? — Harberts: Yeah, right. John Dietrich: Typically it's all employee. Harberts: And their access is from what point? Is it off of 77th? John Dietrich: It will probably where it comes in on the southwest corner. 7 — Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 Scott: Any other questions or comments of the applicant? Harberts: I'd like to chat with the gentleman from Kindercare. John Pinmore: I'd like to expand a bit on the drop off and pick up. My name is John Pinmore with Kindercare as a Division Construction Manager and...I wanted to expand. You've got to keep in mind with a child care center, we're taking children from 6 weeks in age to 12 years and in this particular center a majority, the greater majority of those children will be between 6 weeks and probably 3 or 4 years. Because of the age of the children, we can't allow parents to drive up and drop off their child. They have to park. Bring the kid into the center. Sign him in. There has to be an exchange of being in charge of that child for the day. It's not like a grade school where the parents drive up and you know wave good-bye to their son or daughter and they go into the school. So the kid is not allowed to just go into a drop off lane type of function. Really it doesn't work in a child care center because the parent has to go in. You can't just drive it you know. Leave them off. You know the first person in the front, if they stand in longer than the person behind, then you've got a traffic jam in the drop off lane so we find that just a regular parking lot works best for the way we handle our drop off's and pretty much that's how all child cares have to handle their drop offs because of the age of the children. And the fact that the Kindercare has to take charge of those children at some point in the signing in and signing out... Harberts: What about with regard to the access? In terms of if the majority, if the major clients or client that you are anticipating is from the Press, the printing or whatever. John Pinmore: I don't think it will be the major. I mean we are anticipating...but I do not believe that will be the greater part of the center. We have a division in Kindercare called Kindercare Work and we actually build centers for a particular client and they guarantee spaces or do something and we didn't have any type of relationship here with the Press. Of course we would take their children, but we'd take them like anybody else's child. Harberts: Do you own or operate any Kindercare's within Eden Prairie, Chaska or Chanhassen currently? John Pinmore: We have two in Eden Prairie. One is on TH 5 right now. There will be...few years and then it will be going away. Audience: What is that Valley View? Harberts: Valley View and Prairie Center Drive?... 8 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 John Pinmore: We have one in Minnetonka on TH 101 and Excelsior. Harberts: When you have field trips, when you have field trips outside your location, do you provide your own form of transportation? John Pinmore: Yes, we have vans, correct. We also use those vans to pick up the after school children from their schools and then we have designated parking spots in the front row of the building that will be striped van. They're the front spot... Harberts: I'm done. Scott: Any other questions or comments of the applicant? Thank you sir. Harberts: Is there anyone from the operations? John Pinmore: No, not here tonight but I can answer numerous of your questions but not all of them. Did you have a specific one? Harberts: Well I'm just wondering, with regards to the employees. Are there residents within like a 5 mile radius of the employment side? Is it more of a metro draw in terms of residents? John Pinmore: It is but they are more localized. Our employees. My office is in the Chicago area where we have about 75 centers and you'll find the employees typically live around their center. They don't come from too far of distances. They typically work in the area. Harberts: Okay, thanks. John Pinmore: But I mean we haven't really patrolled that other than the fact that they need to be there at a certain time and so if they live an hour away, that may become difficult for them. Harberts: Thank you. — Scott: Anything else? This is a public hearing and can I have a motion. Pardon me? Find out if anybody else from the applicants or their representatives would like to speak? John Dietrich: In terms of the facade of the building facing south, with the 65 foot step and also approximately 100 foot step. The building was designed so that that step would be in 9 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 there so we do not have one massive block. We wanted to step that a little bit and tuck the parking in. There will also be a berm coming up from the parking lot approximately 4 foot up against the facade in this area so that we have an opportunity to have some green going up from the parking lot itself up to the building. So the building will be off the main, similar to a retainir.` wall to help bring the scale of that building height down. And finally in terms of visual, v.e will have the berm along Highway 5 screening the parking lot with the overstory trees to help break up the facade along the proposed expansion. Mancino: The berm being, is a 3 or 4 foot berm and it is also what's on the berm? I mean you won't get much opacity really because it's going to be overstory trees that are deciduous trees so during the winter you're still going to have that direct line sight view into that corner of the building and you're going to see 120 feet of you know just a wall and that's my concern. And it has been addressed in the Highway 5 study on page, I think it's page 58 where we're asking for those buildings on Highway 5 not to and actually there's a line drawing of it not to be this plain and straight wall. That we have some variations. We don't get into monotony along Highway 5 because it's a very important area for us. John Dietrich: Absolutely... Mancino: And the Press is a wonderful, as far as I'm concerned, wonderfally landscaped in the front. Wonderful architectural in the front. I enjoy it very much going by it. It's very pleasing aesthetically. I don't even, I never realized that there were docks on the east side because I'm drawn to the focal point which is the front of that building because it's so well done. So I want it to stay that way and not to have just this addition which is a block wall to warehousing on Highway 5 because I think what it has right now is great. And I would not like to see the addition didn't live up to what the original building is. John Dietrich: The building itself is complimentary to the existing building in terms of the score of the concrete panels and stepping with it. It does not have the office space with the windows that are currently there from the south side. Mancino: Which I think some architectural addition does need to be put on those bigger spaces to keep them in the same quality as it's being the original building. John Dietrich: In terms of the distance, the 65 feet, and 130 feet and the scale of the building is compatible with, you know in terms of the stepping of that side. Not one long facade of 200 feet. Scott: Would anybody else from the applicant like to speak? Okay. Can we have a motion to open the public hearing please. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 Harberts moved, Mancino seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the public hearing was opened. Scott: First of all, is there anyone here from the general public who would like to speak about this issue? Seeing none, can I have a motion to close the public hearing? Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the public hearing was closed. Ledvina: I guess one of the things that I'm concerned about relates to the number of parking spaces and the hard surface coverage. Many times we'll have applicants that will come in without parking and this is kind of a flip of that but I think in this instance we want to try to avoid the look of large parking areas. I think that if there were going to be, if the applicant chooses to eliminate some of the parking, which I feel that that should be done, I think it should be done along the south part of the site. And I don't know exactly what the existing conditions there are now. Do they plan on expanding the parking in that direction, or no? Al-Jaff: They're expanding it to the east only. Ledvina: Okay. Well I think that we need to be aware of oversized parking lots and certainly the hard surface issue needs to be addressed. And I would be strongly in favor of reducing that to the 245 stalls that were identified in the staff report. That's the extent of my comments. Scott: Good. Ladd. Conrad: 70% impervious surface is absolute. What they do with it doesn't matter to me. I think there should be some concern aesthetically for the addition but I'm comfortable that it can be done with plantings, landscaping. I would like to see that condition up to the City Council. That's all. Scott: Okay, Ron. Nutting: I came in late so I didn't hear all the, I knew you were going to talk about the traffic here. I also, the 70% issue I agree with. I guess I don't fully understand the expansion of the lot. I understand the expanded, they can leave the parking as is by reducing the ratio that way. But that would still leave the look of the wide open parking space out front so maybe if there's a way to cut it back without expanding that, that's an option. And I guess I would agree with Ladd's comments or Nancy's comment in terms of looking at the 11 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 south facing wall to make sure that we do get something that enhances the appearance. I'm not, I don't believe in putting windows on warehouse space and we don't need windows or anything to break it up but if there is a way we can landscape, that makes sense. So that's all - I have. Scott: Okay. Nancy. Mancino: I have three comments and that is impervious surface. I also agree with everyone about 70%. I would like to see it back because I'd like to see some enhancement of the - proposed classroom expansion and proposed warehouse expansion. Whether that be architecturally or whether that be landscaping, I've got to see it. You know there was no elevations or very detailed to show us what it's really going to look like and I'd like to see what it will really look like. It does, it is on Highway 5 and it is important to us. We've done a whole corridor study for Highway 5 for a year and a half. We care about whether those will look like. The original and their added on space so I would like to see it in detail. What it will look like. Certainly I'm concerned about parking. I'm concerned about the cut through for the people from the Press who park in that back parking lot being able to cut through the Kindercare lots. I just think of small kids when they get out of their car when they're 4 or 5. I mean they race to the front door before their parents can even stop them. And so I see it as a big public safety issue. That there can be cars coming through that parking lot when they're being dropped off or picked up and that's a concern for me. So I do not, I would not like to see the parking lots being used together. I think that there should be a fence or whatever. Plantings between the two parking lots. And I also think that part of the recommendation should include no rooftop equipment. That it cannot be viewed from 77th Street, Dell Road or Highway 5. And lastly, getting to the Kindercare building, ...constructed of face brick on the bottom part of the building and then it has EIFS. What is? John Dietrich: It's stucco. It's insulated stucco. EIFS stands for Exterior Insulation Finished System. Basically it's stucco on top of insulation. Where stucco, just straight stucco there's no R value to it. So it's like an, our color will be off white stucco. Mancino: Well we have requested I think on any new building that's coming in, samples so I would like to see samples and colors. You know colors and samples of the facing brick and the stucco and the shingles, etc because we have been asking for that on all of our site plans. Not only samples but what also helps us, if you have another building in Minnetonka or in another suburb that is existing, for us to see a picture. An 8 x 10 glossy, whatever. That's very helpful and we can, you know visuals work a thousand words. So I would like to see samples and also a photograph of it. Those are my comments. Scott: Just a question of the Goodyear/Abra building that's being built across the street. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 That's almost completely brick isn't it? Al-Jaff: Correct. There is some concrete block. Scott: Okay. And this particular structure is roughly 25% or. Was something other than brick originally proposed for those buildings across the street? I didn't follow that particular. Al-Jaff: You mean for the Abra? Scott: Yeah. Al-Jaff: To begin with they were in brick but one of the conditions of approval was that brick be used on them... Scott: And the conditions were placed because, is that IOP across the street or were those? Al-Jaff: No, it was Highway Business and under the conditional use permit... Scott: Okay. Because I'm thinking we're kind of inconsistent where we've got an auto related use across the street that's completely brick and we have, whatever you call this and it's not. So I'm thinking from a standard standpoint, I guess my condition would be that we would have the exterior of this structure be consistent with the Abra across the street and I can't site you chapter and verse in what they have but I've been watching it being built for the last couple of weeks and so forth. Can I have a motion please? Harberts: I'd like to make a comment Joe. I wanted to just re-emphasize my comments with regard to public safety. From my perspective, from my professional experience I think this is wonderful in terms of having a Kindercare. In relationship to this type of industry, I think it's excellent. My only concern is that we're missing a small element and that's to make this element really work. And what I mean from that is from my earlier comments with regard to public safety. With regard to pedestrian access. Why treat an element in which you pull in, drop your kid off, go around and pull into another parking lot. Why not create that type of element, since we have that opportunity where maybe it enhances or makes it an advantage. You know perhaps what I would suggest is that lane of parking that's adjacent to the Kindercare, perhaps that could be designated in terms of a perk for people that do work here and do use daycare, that only daycare users, employees get to park there. It's kind of a perk. And why not put in then like a more pedestrian element such as a sidewalk or something to keep that public safety issue down. I'll just make a comment with regard to public transit in the area. With reverse commute, I've been working with Sharmin and Chanhassen does pull in employees on a metro wide area. Reverse commute we started a year ago with a 25 13 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 passenger bus. We're up to an articulated bus at 65 passengers in terms of reverse commute. It's only going to get larger. I guess I'm looking for that type of opportunity where we can help the employers have that type of advantage because it does help them with regard to employees. I would just go on record with my comments to the City Council and to the applicant that perhaps, and I will extend the services of Southwest Metro Transit, to sit down and perhaps help you identify where those type of advantages may be able to come into this site element. I think this is an excellent idea. I hope we see more of this but I just think we're missing some of the fine tuning in terms of the elements and I would certainly encourage that perhaps staff, from the city, staff from Southwest Metro Transit, can sit down. If it requires a little bit of redesigning, why not take that opportunity now because based on my experience, based on where the public policy is going on a regional level from the metro area, it's only going to pay off as a positive investment now later on in the future. Scott: Do you want to see this reworked? Mancino: That's what I was going to ask. Wouldn't you want to see it reworked and see it again? Harberts: Well from my professional experience I would say yes. But I would want the, I would really encourage that the applicant want to take that initiative to do it. I don't want government, public policy to be a hinderance but I want it to be viewed as a very positive and like I said, from what my experience is, as well as with where the region is going in terms of public policy and transit, 1 think if you take that little extra time to maybe take another look at how transit and how this type of pedestrian element can be blended to make it more advantageous, it's going to pay off long term for the business. Mancino: So we have some issues that we want to see. Scott: Yeah, reading from my notes here we see traffic circulation. We see impervious surface. We see two major things relating to the Highway 5 and related ordinances which appearance of the warehouse addition. We have setback concerns on the Kindercare facility. Are those major to the point where we want to see it reworked again? Yes? Okay. Can I have a motion please? Mancino: Okay. I will move that the Planning Commission not approve the site plan review #94-1 as shown on site plan received. Conrad: Do you want to table it? Mancino: Oh, okay. I move that we table it and see it again. With all the recommendations 14 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 that we made. And does staff have all those recommendations? Thank you. Scott: Is there a second to the motion? Conrad: Second. — Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we table. Is there any discussion? Mancino moved, Conrad seconded to table the Site Plan Review #94-1 for expansion to the Press and a Kindercare facility. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. — Scott: When do you think we'll be able to get this back on our schedule so we can see it? I don't know how we're looking for the next meeting but. — Al-Jaff: If they submit everything by Friday. Scott: I just want to make sure that when we table something, that we at least give them the opportunity to come back as quickly as they're able to. But if it looks like we can, well I guess it's up to them. We'll make a spot on our meeting in 2 weeks if they have the pieces — in place. Okay. 15 — u., ..i :.p.....„ :.....*.i.:4;414-:a." . , 1 . ,‘1, .,.. I,:11,..s. - Ad.,..., • „ii ....., .. ,i, -..17 .-ty,... .-.. . X..;,.,,,.•,--- , .1M1 1 i i- .1::.-1.t. : .- tif...tt-,'"'-;•,,•• . -f4"i' ....:. i st. "-. -•'11 - '. ' '.;..'..f.4=•`' ,,.„,*".,3S-•-." 1 1 1.i. .i:5-- .4:: iir.";.•. - -Jr a , u - ., - .1 -/-i,49..f. -•- e. -,.4 - ,:..• .-- ,....=..- itti•.4.,“;.•,.%,..",-:;:,,_•:,..,: :• 7 i i . ,''fi-- -4- . :.,-.1:,;: -.T..... .. -,1-••_?11'4 . ,„ -,....04-kk.oe• ...t. • .- 11..._ ".:..,.....-.-‘ • • Sli:1 f ?;ie. ,...-.4.f......a., ..,. '•-,-,-* . --, ' • -,t.-, ir- - .- ..t,i- --- ... ' 3 ' • .!' -f- -. • •- ...F -: re- • '!i.,..1 :.:.:,;••g;:,'".-AA '`. :•%•'A• i 2-•..-'.'.. .r.. ' -1... -. • ' - •y-: ;4:4 --'•, ,.„' :y. . ,• .-f , • i. y-•_, - 4. . - I • -,,"...... - .*'.. ..i.-•'.',' .4.•• 4'''.•. 4,4 ,:.' 41:.: . •; i ,,l'''-i',. - I' ! !, 'I; • • ...2-- 1:''"''. 4F7I-i• :i". 7.••_ `X-.• IV: . - :-• !-;:. i':...-.•••,,., „.--_,-, .-z----. ,.,.;,Y . • ••. , . • . *,-.:.:,...::;*11.i :.f.:Pi 2:-:.... . :.ttnI- t- . '-- . 114 • , ' -1.• '" 1 ' * . ". -. 4 , . . ..11.:',': ,1 'W .•:s'..,....t.:r .. . -.^.., .... . . .. . .. •-,,- ..3:', •'-' ,t.:-:1.1,-.,,';..:.:477-..g T.', ti'fit:• • •• it it,.. 0 4 1- 40.?:-, w'gff.'-' _.T ..- . i'..3...!-, • -,:•L''''. ;•••'r.,!;`&443',...:''''.....-*..'7.0.44111.-;.7 * '. .0111.113de 'NNW • . ., "!, _ ?,.t . .0 ' '5.44*4- ..:. -r.:':%,s,t, ...it. ,. •-•';',..”'-'•:-.f:--. , . f:, •NOM " It: - ' ' ' ...1. -4 '---''.rr mos i .'- '' • --A_ . •--;41 ' . .. !•'.'..4..**.t,.;.-:.."41,..i44-,1',.:t4.7.1-.:,.te., ...;;;. )77.44,:"..r•.;' 7 1.,::::('if.-i moss I +-le- i • r. .--. .--• diNsmi . .41...--, .• • -•_, •_tt„pt--...31.-"t • - • $: - .-f• -a'_:;_ -e.. . •• =_ •''' ' .t*. - • : s . -. . ..:•444...,..!".:• ..` ..•.- ' 4 t 41 - . ,•• •,...- . . ,0') .,....., -'1 hy -._ •, " •••:::;--•'" ...*/ '''bffi',•,- ,.",`.4.------:•_." ‘-. _ .,..5..- . . . ?:-‘- r A . , .. . t:. • ._ ..;44 .- ; -'' - '.;* • 4. , . ,,.. . . . - .. . .4e.1'444-_.-t•-•..--"•.7 •• .. ..--„1„..rt•••--- Is.^`,-„, :it. I! :,..-.7f-......,,..•:;.--.„*.t., -;::::1/4.1.-......,:..A.-.is,44.,,:, .,.,, ....,.. .., ...„...„*.v.,5,- -.- --,...:. _ -it • , - • . ., • .. ,..:t •1„/,.-4.,: 1- --. - • _. .. ?t......,...„ . - ,,,-_, ,..•••,...-, ,• ,., -• _Li a ; ,..)Vs, ..• - .: • *.. - •' eee:A. c 6, • e•- -';'.:•.-.X.- -- • • .... . ' •.- .. 4 ••-: '•..1•"5%.••.-,.;.:.-••••-."e:it••tr'''.t•• '.--. •-.'a. .r. ' •z.,'':'-.•''',1,1:•;•••••.. -fatri"-••"-'' '. •••••" - ' • .. .,• . '. 9: .:..• : "'. . ''''Jlet•t-!.: '''--•.-.,'.>".,_''4...s.1,1n.- "••••• •..,•a '•---. .: (-4, -I,•-'.,.e ,• •"Are:a••e•e• :".4;•,...1*,"....1--,---4. --WA,. '-''''''.1.1 i' 4_,•-•c:. __•.,„•., slit . ...-_ ,,, ,...: :.,.- ; - .' '',4--:. ••-'47,-- ---- -. -'Jr •"I' '''" --. •" ' - 4. '- ' ..' -;•• ... e - . . _lipr....,. ..../A ak.. -- • ' • , ___ :a )1. t ec t w ...•.k;..3.4.L.:4•MA.1'%':F 4:4251'. "•-•'-V':$21 4 ' . . pir ._.,.. _ 4 : - - •' k-ti•' - -' ", ' -• _ •:,..... ,.•r; ...., :...'--- "•.-.--`4--.., ,-'....-•-••••-...,,, .T.*;-,. .. ,.. . 'It xi t41,,... ..„ --..-.. 4c,;,-.. -.-. -:-.--4.-=.-:;i7;.,::'-'..,.41-..0.4-=,----- ' ... •' if . - 1 , :.. • .-4 i_,L.;41k,:.,_., ,:-.c,t;.....-...v.:.:2,,,, .,, :....:.•,. ---,-.:',..-- •,..1,..--a-...-,. -, .. ..L -e' 4- I .._. _ ..,--. ,.... .:.4 ..•ii;i.tt.•.;.,-,.Ai- -K.., ..,‘:::-. is - ----2- - , ,. -7 - . r,-. r, .:,..-_---.1.. ....-.c. -4.--.,;-4?.1,-,'"- • •-••••• . Y.• ..... -- .- -ktil;c •- lit) - •'64ig" A , . - .. - - . ., . , -,.:-.. - r . , . '-' •`-..2-.-!•-:-..1`f-4_ - ."-'...'-''.'--''.;-.''Z-"-•;,-.,.;--.1":,- -. .tre.? - . • ' -- -........ .„:.A.„--1* -, . -- -- tt, . - :- . ,r,--r,.:c..t, -, . .$.•-.t. ..*....,-f, , ,,...=-- ' _ ,_.. : •f .r. 1; 2 • :14f b.* . , . Z,.'..e..ai....;::??-7-•i_4•••,'I....-.",..:R.: ';7.;..." 4,,,,If•o•-.,.•.iiist.1*.. /...-f.t--45--vir.,...t,;x. 4,',.-.. •:-.-7 _:.;,--,.--.',.-....,.-6•.- -f;.::..4,_ : -. .-' ,- .$0-- '" ,."•. . . • , - ..,.... ..--.-: ,_ ____,:,-, *);••• ..c.- .1 .,,,f--, ..: ..,..;FA. -..'. . - • - .f..,-...5.:.. -• 7_,- ... .•. .':. .r..... .•1 . -.47:4A4,- ., - . _ ...... . .e •P• , •:Z-....-7 - :' I* •th:::ek -If-(df - . - - -- . ;"1' ',..' =: . ---.---.-,•_ •t.., 0. i?,• s.M . :.;i: tdif v. • I. • . • .t '',:r-Ai•,_,•#.'7". . " - ' - "4:-- - -.•? ',.•::./' A > . ,- .,t.- ,-- • if- t` • I. • • "• • .1 C,• ; ..i•A -.-3:-Z--- PICI --INIV^SC- ,t:. ••• . -44_.I- •jfr ill :46fr_. .-, • - • , =' • . . . • - -.73 0 • ' "''''" 4„. ....,2 ..,7, . , .... _ .... .....- ; • • . -P. ,2.. •••......•.,..,... --; (3,) 4`-,A.-r 1 • 7 :1* :.- . -a . _ "Pr-4 .0".1t, • _.,. .. • - . . it• ... -•. ,,_.....,. ••',• ' '--' i4.--.et •,,•_. .• . I •-' 74.1'1:g 0...V 4 ' CI) '---'4... •-• 1 41: '•-•.: ;• ..4"Igo-•.`•4.-e•ir i ail- • 1' I.'• .1 ' Ar:-•7 --.,;. .:- " - , 0 - -r.• A....-.--. -- . 4! •41.-';:c"A 4' - -t - ' - = PtI/ ti..i• .• !--1 *L.,.. '45-- -k-- ...' .......1.4:::.....4.-.v.I:f"----:..."...i...i :..'_...1r....:1-;4:::v....."'";",......41..:."1..,..:-:...e.:..1,...x.:-:1:1,..1.1::-.44:-...:i..::.1t.....,'...1. -..• , • - - -. '-' ' ' - .-",- 111 • •-- '' . -le ....•.. _..., ......, ' •'- -.Pr-4.a";•'.4, ..4 ... ...-71, ...-4.,-..., ,- 0 4., V, ,- .1 '1-1 4 • - --'' .... 3 • er-. „Ilk 4--. "-''- . .. ._ . ••• • . • A-•. _ s I . . • -... • .,.. -. . , _, _ ..,_. . ... •.: ,•_• • - -.-i. it, • . - -- ..,0.., 5.-.., ---- i...,'• w.„41.,.. ti -pR '"-".- *iii. v• • mic.4-.1111 • i ''''`'ieit. I ar - :•_, , ••. .•'. ...%" .,‘,..v.." ,i-p. .- .er, - • - -... 4 - ...he... :- ?• , . ..-• ...- • - - • • , -. •P• ' • ---1,..41'21--"iiiti- -.2 : ' - o• - • - aus.,....2 i4k,./ . " -_,‘„3:47;-,1.-,-.•-4,,K• •• - ,„:"...„...• „Ir. - , . , . . _ _. - , ,,,, . . - -,....._.. • •-= . .. aronoi I. .7„- - `, .. . 01 ILI. • .6,1 =- - - '4*-10,:-'4;44',;,/( -_ . . .1.,, , .-i.';it-....,'• -A-4.4-;,-,,,,k1-17. • 4:.-• .' I, •-...1 ...t. ifr V' - _ tiaf .. ; • ;-1,--,-- .. _ . , .-• - . .1- . •--. - ... . .., .. . It ..-Vr. •5:!... ,.....,....,.. III.. . . r ',........,,-1;,..11..e.---..-Af*;:',-.:-.r:-•- ... ••.. • - _ ... . 11111111.111111Pira• , 1.•, IIIb,MM.. 1. t _ • ,..........„ • . .....„v.._. • ,. , , .4i,,400„*.i,ri.:7.:,,,-. I.1-ri,:e ilitt;ve:: . . ., ...._.,-. .- W.I. .7. ..:• ..T.ii,.. - 1-4Stf ff.-• .5'7'4-:• - (. - -• •-- ..., I .. . Nr. 4.4-- ,-._ .. 4.-:.z„ ,-, - ...- .....,--- I..e •.! ' . -- te WAWA Wi-lerall. -' ,., .......•.1.-mr NV INIX.01% 1 fii: ,70,.-t T.-:ir "---. . -k r-,-.3%.'...??..3..A : 31 MIN 44 t _ . . • - : -. . let . .- .. - -- P;-•• ....6"I '--r--. .1..:-.4.4:*;•V3r1- -k*, • ;- ;- -%."-:;• -:.i..-. MIME .a.W41t. .1- H IL JIM AI= MON A'. -.. .b 1111111=frart. e ...„,•- •-:..albuisphr, e - , *I; .7. ... .. 4:/tar Al. •.: t•_ ,.• A. • ' -,.." • ,,1„.`'..: •'-',.-7,-.4:( ' a I: .ifj--re4"-:,. . ;.--, 4-.....- -.4. :.:,. -- -:.--- .. ---,-.T- -- :•,--.-. .i- ..r--.. ..x-- &o. • ..s, .:_,,,sorrourriar. r I 4.V1 WilICATLIVI- , . _ -7,,41 :,, - . .. _ .. - _ P 1 ;, - I-. • r: , - ..., __,......-.13: i . • ,:ti.,--f i-A..1 - ' - • •, 4.•• • _ i I : . • i- • t*,, i.4, i i : at:;1•;,t ' —f • 41,'.. - J1 . iii : 4. i' s'v ; ::I r• ...... P'.. , . — ..', • 1 IL • -•# , 4:1....'1",::,4:,...." 11 1 I: . .'' . -. . . . ,.. .• t ‘ • - . . i t • 'P'• 4 . , •4., • Ve - I /1 . . / - •IP ;Ai.. #1- I ,:• • I _ • ..i .. .. , . . . r .• ' 7‘.4, L ! ... er.,... ... 14 , .::, ,: sti, r•• 1 1 - 1,,, _ if _ 7 — it I II 14 i . ' . V ...- -- - • - J - 11 i.---.„...I.... . — -_ . , : • •^,...`f t•' - ' • ' 1 — 1 IMO S _ ;1 1 • CIO— .1, ' . • '/ ':-' '11 2411..1,... 4 • ,it —.. .. ; ),_ 11 i . . • ;:. •-..'••-.- .'41fi,..i --; II • ' . . ,c- , ' 2 .•;- I_ - 1% — -- t •t h I ' .'' • - ,•. —.) ._ II• at 1. , ,........ 4. :::"•.-.. .- , • 7.14,0 I NM r 1 '; • - ' . • r sr- . ..** '':••••''07/. — I _. , ' • ' • e '4'114 ' ' • :_•• - i• -'e . -I f• •• 4 ,.. It .. irti., ' ---•: .- 141 Ell . . i il. V • ...:,...„-,... • - _41.4,,,- 1 .i t - • tit / 4 2 ,.. t ••e - - • 0 - --. - 1 . - -.."4:'•- 1(• . , ( ( ft, SI , ItILFZI ',;::.1,,. •••::..1.....i...... ‘ .4.. • l' 't: :-....; -44.- . , .., i ,. ,..... I..._,......-. I ., - il -,:. NE. ..... • 4c.. . — I • ' :. 4 R - ,..7 r.r..4.." WM' . If _, ,, - ••1 , •.• •..1 _ ; !_..-,, g.. - ' • ; .... c.•._ •-t•----- ..• • ,- -, , - ' . : • ... • '.. , -t- -..--1.• ...._ I . • , i . . •1 .1 1 i, i . 11 , ,:. !-4--t.-`. -. Ti - r .... '• - '2.14. -- II '''• • I AM _ . -..• ‘0$'•. 1 . tl • ' - /..41 1.•..;. ..NIF • e ---‘ I ill t : • ' • NI' ?...oi , F •*got -.i: - Via"II. ' f z, ; •"-* 4' - ''- . .. . • - g...f. - I • 11 .IJ • 1. 11 / ( :"..•..-, -% - - - _ • „k V :.; • ‘1....;. • 1, I‘ ,..:Fi...:". P.2:7-...• •.-'•....- „ 41.4 • 4: ' 5-': ...' • •;•'•.17. lie ... ' .• ••• ; • -.•-1,e- 'No I, - •-. 3.5. ,44 ''• .4...-3,7- • Li - ..,•'''s . ,..f • _,.• : .„:",...e .... , ':4' Ile" .% -.Y. 4 4 ;. • • . : 1.4, /' it 7-: - -. -;.4 •' IC.' if - .. •r, ! I ... • r .-.S.. 4.2.. S C ..1.-"•, ...1.1.7 e - 1 . ,‘,-- 7*" .4.,-,A4L7-:• 4 _t. . 1.•• i . • I A , •#4 Or 4-4. . . .. - 110 • •'..• •'. ' ••IF.." 4 F• • .14 it -4(... 4Z'•'Zjit F ci.1- ' A:v..*i „, 'et?! 4__'. •er '.. Ilir , 4; ::Ir.:.,..4.;. 4 .,,,,.... •----. a . ;,,,. - .1 tA „." • t: - ••-- • ,..,'Cltir'1r-*Ir 4‘ ..7.•I• 4:••'.-. ....j,_P .• -7. :Ile-, ' 111' 11. . •iir I "L. -*„ .1 • --....7 ....e.it :tic 1044.... • „••r„..„._ -' kri •- •- .11'.. : .-: ' 1.' ,-. .fi- O..- '1'I -- v -- - ..f _. I'. ..i. t_ I , .-1.1.4.,-,..e• _7;7 -..a... .••••.1111,It 'Nip--1 /MI ..1r41-4'. . _If- -" • 41-..-----4 . ,/ I 4•1-*•.. • ••'•%.- .,-• V ' ' ',:). . 1••ilf"..' -• •••••.. ‘. •-• .."` 1 t aifit •••• ..:: •• dirrdi .. r. ..• • ' ..... - •,.." '• .- i ginit „ .• . • 14. & ••• N, 2.-1 •• . •-tal _,Ar- ....; . •,.... ......, .P. - -. F. ii - • li ' ire.- •.- 4 in k Lii•" let,' - •. A ;.... '4. •4. • , .„...,. .;., t. . r_ #'''' .91.,';-.......-'4. 'j 6 I" I. f ... - .0-y. , IV "-' MO 111 -CA;•:-.. :IV. .b. . ..O.Z- Ir.. - -1, .1... . . , i Iiir.......-:-.NI :0. , iii:afiT51141. . 1E e 40, 4.4`...."... ..... I ibiZ.%,?eN7;••• - 4 is' - --0•146: ---a--- • . .., V.Vir-r 1 - , .47; -1. -.1 :.•f.- • • g, -4,• ht , ., _,..S. I . • L• it l' -..* ' '47-42`). -1.4; ' -• 4 - .11. .1,,;* .., .......-7 ;,.. ,4.,‘ , , " .4- ..) a. '..4r :41. 11,..„, , _ „. die .. . ,N. zi.:•,, ,,4 ,. • 4. i, • ..e ,7 . /Wilk p V'XI JS: . ; ie'Z'..0.4. 4:s. .,t ..* ...-a-ora - , 15- , . ... -- .- - • -:-.- -le•.,-..Ai • ' .% , • - 1 r4.., a..1.1,, 4.,1 ... . f .,, illf1hr . ' l . --- .".." I,4.r •._-1E .....it V , , .. - •, -:?,-„Itp, .. •._ 1....: • :1;•:‘ •• 4 . +V IL...1.'-;•4 --01.4... ,s- • - - .- --P. - r.-- I- - A - 1 ••- ' s-. • ... i: , .-- ,:t3' ±4 - :cur ...c (I,,:e., • Ar. ')• . • - •.' Ale.: -P-, - .. 1 4.1`4. • . . ,- .t:!..7. .", 1 • • • s ,...• _...: %fr • $ - ,c. Z•••:•:. •."410. ' • t..% -,, ----4,1-_,- ....4r,-. _ _ . !tog •._ •• • . . •,.. .„,..• . ., .. _ _ •-_,.:".1- 11r.- .., - ..- -• _e- Iv---..r- ..- , tx, . .....-• I P •4 `• . .5. i ; . •._ .' ,3yr LI'.-i Ilit'Al ) V , - .;.;11;*-74•' sig' -cl.S.,... -...' • 1 :- ne 4.-.-1 • -"C _a_oihs__ ...‘•?J'P - f - . i - -• - •.i's A • t: 6 g-' y likrW .-0.„ .•.„ ..„.'.. : -• "r•-• .6. "7. - 4...V.I1E• ...!4‘.. 1 -, . . • • .g .,41,.:: - F. 4:4•107NitV74--104/74tri 4.4 44. W -2 1 • 7.,...47#- - a Fe .k. *O. ledi• • • �'�' 111 t:`.• • s • ;�• a IR' t 4: I il '''C fir j III • •"t. - • I t r + a ',.. • i Zi 1 •.i.:l j'�II • ,+,. i. t j:i h-�.••��•���. f'`' iy.I� VIII • }•' i;•, 4 L Z e • 4 I III Or ,MIt.1 I, ki II - I l ir• t. ,.fi •� + VI11 777 ?;� t 1 III „. pm. i ..._. ,,,. . 11 1311 ,. • ii 1 1 \ e - - -: ...-• -11---• ti ,r,, } f/ F 13311 .� •; '• M: /�` P4• a l 11 II � L, �',� �a • .r -�!i!1 11 r � 1. } i- • 1..: J 11 ' .41. 111'( 1 . '• • /. li i. • a►',' 1'(tt1: . r i 1 1 :.♦� : tit tom. . ..r-t'. •t Zil i S1J+ r..fltl! ;�'�� s •., .:; ='..s,,: ,:,.:'-:.i 0. sy r R' I 11. III •F % "1(�/{ P. ' '`•;„--','..- -: .',..., -•`„(- . . ,i,;-9e:.1'. . i.. 1 r.- . r Es. ,1 .; •,.„ yx� ' ... i� i.. .}.:-....,..'...,... •. _ ._._, , ., ,.......„ . . . ...;,..............,....•_ ..........„ . ...„,„..t. .,. .-... — - . _ ., i ii . _ ,b.‘,,,„ ..,...,...:.Awl.. G16'T ryY '� ; �i "^ ' ►• , x ,II ) it, • •At.-A:". /ff -,t"^2 — � . . ,,,• 1.i = I o`n 4 _ \ • hi:44, om . art ' al •� r..eti.•r Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 but I do feel responsible that we are serving at the direction of the City Council so if they think otherwise, I'd like to know about it and we can all consider our actions then. But I agree. I think that I should, and everyone else here should, when they vote on something, there should be a time consideration involved. Obviously from a practical standpoint that's an important thing to develop there and the issue of looking at interest rates going up, as they are now and the City has a targeted service time that they turn something around and get it before our commission. But Chanhassen's been here for 3 billion years. What goes up now along that highway is going to be up there for 50 to 100 years. And it would seem to me that when we're talking about, I've got to be on next week or Charlie came here and said you know, 14 days. I've got to have it or I'm losing millions of dollars. Well, those are the realities of development. Mancino: And we came in on Saturday and met that request. _ Farmakes: But there are times when we're not going to be able to do that. Does that mean well, we'll go ahead and vote for it even though we don't support it. Scott: And you have to make the judgment call based upon what you know about the person who's making the statement about the time table. You know there's a character call too which is a gray area. Farmakes: Well and if there's a finite amount of time that we can deal with these issues and do them responsibly and quality wise, then maybe that has to be set back. Scott: Is there anything else that we need to be? Would anyone like to make a motion to adjourn? Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:50 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 82 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Aanenson: I concur completely and...we feel we should have the option too... Scott: Well they're just a rubber stamp for the Planning Commission anyway. Aanenson: And then the last item...just to talk about specific questions we have about the process. There's no hidden agenda with that at all. I just thought it'd be a good opportunity to give a little... Mancino: Yeah, I think that will be great but I would still like to soon, because I don't think we've come to a conclusion here about conceptual approval. I would still like to, as a commission, sit down. Not only look at it from the logiticis standpoint but from what's good for our community and what we should be doing as leaders in our community and decide how we want to look at conceptual plans and decide that as a commission and be pro-active and do it now. In fact I'd like to set up a work session to do that. I'll come early on a Wednesday. I'll come any other night and spend 2-2 1/2 hours but I would like somebody to facilitate it and have an agenda and a good facilitator. You know a third person. Maybe somebody not even in the city. A professional. Maybe Barry Warner. I mean I'm just giving up names here but somebody kind of outside to give us a look at it also and help us get to a consensus. That and I would also like to make sure on landscape plans, if we're going to see them, I want to see real stuff. I mean if it's going to, if somebody's going to do a landscape plan and show it in front of us, then I can't, and then they say well this isn't really the final one. I say well then why did we see it? Because if, you know is everything else about the site plan real or not? You know the landscape plan should be too and it should be done by a professional and we should be looking at something that somebody spent some time on. That somebody's designed well and it should be done with the rest of the development. And I don't look at the rest of the development and say boy, is that building, is that real? Is that the real size building? Is it really 64,530 square feet? I mean everything that we see I want it to be, come to us quality and done. Somebody's thought about it. I don't want to see just an engineer put a tree here, here and there and then call it a landscape plan. Scott: And then if we need to recommend changes to the existing ordinance, we do. Because we have to have the people on the receiving end of the process have to know, just like we had talked a little bit about, here's the checklist. These are the 17...city staff has to have by such and such a date if you want to get on the Planning Commission agenda. And if they can make it, great. If they can't, let them go 2 more weeks. Farmakes: Mr. Chairman, there also, since we serve at the direction of City Council. Perhaps City Council would like to let us know how they would prefer us to address this issue since they are seeing everything that we're voting on. I agree with what you've said 81 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Scott: 18 foot on the east side? Aanenson: No. Mancino: On the front. Now is the Byerly's on the east side, the same size as the Byerly's on the south side? It's huge. It's not proportional to the east side wall really. That City Council. Aanenson: The City Council approved the amendment to the wetland ordinance for compliance in the Wetland Conservation Act. They approved a fee increase for wetland alteration permits. They tabled action regarding the buffer monumentation...They tabled action on the Heritage concept plan...City Council tabled the amendment to require computer aided graphics. They got into a lot of discussion when would be appropriate to ask for that. Who should ask for it and what we're doing is putting an issue paper together. What we've done is, we've always felt, and I know there's concern about that and I attached those, what the requirements are...we also felt that that would be something. Now maybe if we feel like we didn't need it but it gets to you and you're saying Kate, there's no way we can determine this and then you tell the developer we're going to table it until we get it. That's the purpose of that. Council was concerned that maybe that...maybe they should be the ones to authorize...so what we're doing is putting an issues paper together. Trying to put a list together of vendors. Possible other options. One was getting a site elevation proposed or building elevation. What we're trying to do is see how the proposed development sights with the surrounding property. I mean that's... In subdivisions...maybe you don't need them but sometimes there's subdivision applications that it's appropriate. You want to see what's the amount of grading and what's the views from the surrounding properties. That it's not... and we've got some significant, even on this property...and what are the impacts. So anyway, that will go back to Council with some issues that they've asked us to look at. But hopefully we'll...find an appropriate tool that will help us in addressing some of these...because granted, it is hard. It's hard for us to visualize it based on building elevations or just for perspectives. Scott: I think it'd really help too is if we can see something that says okay, this is a $5,000.00 computer whatever and this is the $300.00 thing that Mark was talking about. Just _ so we know that if you use terminology, this is what it entails because our intention is to assist us in making the best recommendations without causing any undue expense. Aanenson: And we sometimes need it ourselves to give you a recommendation. Scott: Yeah but we need to have the opportunity to require that should we need it, if you haven't. 80 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Farmakes: Even if it's conceptual, I still believe that it should incorporate some of the criteria that we use for giving out a PUD. And meet the Highway 5 issue and I didn't see any of that. So it might have been there under a rug somewhere but you know, I didn't see that. Scott: That was kind of open discussion on new business. But how about. Aanenson: But we will meet a little early next time too. Probably have dinner and talk. If you've got questions for Roger...he'll probably talk for a little bit of time and then he'll be available for any questions you might have. Scott: Old business please. Aanenson: Let me tell you what happened at City Council. Scott: Why don't I do the approval of Minutes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated April 6, 1994 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE. Aanenson: Wendy's and the retail office were both approved by City Council...They did request, specifically Councilman Wing, that they do additional landscaping...around the side that faces Highway 5. A variance was given to the Byerly's sign. On the monument, you had recommended taking out the 24 hours and giving them a monument. They gave up on that monument. They will have a monument identifying the retail center and one pylon sign but that additional monument, and the 24 hours. Farmakes: What about the east wall? What's the situation with that? Aanenson It's going to say Byerly's period. No Open 24 Hours. No subsequent monument signs. Mancino: Is it as big? - Aanenson: Excuse me. It's a pylon sign. 79 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 seriously so yeah, I mean it would drive me crazy if I had been sitting on a piece of property for 3 or 4 years and it comes in front of the Planning Commission when perhaps someone might have intimated that it's going to go forward. I don't care what sort of deals were made. I don't care what sort of promises were made. The talk has got to be walked and the buck stops here. But then it also starts here. Someone gives us a quality piece, we rave about it and we send it on so darn fast it makes your head spin. So anyway, my personal comments but I would say that a majority of what I've said is also agreed upon by the other members of the commission. Aanenson: Can I get clarification on what the motion was? You want us to meet with them... Mancino: Or what you feel would be the best. I mean also from a staff position. As far as, again. I mean when I look at the topography, etc, maybe medium density, multi-family would be the best. You know maybe industrial would. I couldn't tell from that at all. A lot of it has to do with how the topography, we are trying to and it very explicitedly says in here, that we are trying to keep the natural topography and to minimize grading. So how can I tell? Aanenson: ...staff go back and match topography. Now I always felt that, you know the industrial with the performance...standards would be more palatable. I think the neighbors feel that...indicated that maybe high density may be more palatable than the industrial so. But, on the other hand, if you can make the high density work, maybe you buffer it, maybe you cluster it. Maybe that works too. I don't know. I agree. There's...high density but. Farmakes: But in general, when you look at a PUD when it comes in and this is typically what I've used as criteria when we look at this, and I looked at say for instance the industrial section that was basically quartered and halved. Square quartered and there were 4 buildings in there with a 50 foot strip of lawn around it. I don't see where giving a PUD, what the city's gaining from any of that. You know granted, it's a conceptual. Aanenson: Okay, first we're talking about the use. Then we've got to go back and the next step...now you've got to have these setbacks. Now you've got to have this landscaping. Now you've got to have this type of architecture. That comes with the next step. Mancino: But the land use and the topography go hand in hand. Farmakes: And if you're looking for the possibilities for the property. Aanenson: ...development standards and land use too. 78 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 more time, fine. What I'm talking about is the depth of that information. Farmakes: But see, that's the quality of my decision then. If I don't feel that I can make the decision based on the information that's been provided to me, I'm going to table it or vote against it. I'm supposed to be representing the community here and in my opinion the stuff I've seen and I've voted against, or voted to table here, has been medium to poor quality. That's been adjacent to TH 5 and I've spent the last couple of years working with a group of people to try and change that and. Aanenson: I'm not disagreeing with...tabling. Mancino: Well then maybe at the staff level, do we need higher quality there when it gets to you guys? Aanenson: That's what I'm saying. Mancino: Then that's what we need to do. Aanenson: That was...the application thing. That was at our last meeting and that's something else we can ask him about. If the information isn't there at the application stage, - then we just don't put it on the agenda and that's something else we need to talk about too. Because that goes back to now all of a sudden we're requiring final landscaping plans, which we've never done on subdivisions before. And some of those sort of issues. Scott: With this particular, the thing that, and I chatted with you a little bit about. When I take a look at this and you guys have a lot of expertise and I go through here and I read this and I hear, you know barracks and hide this and this, that and the other thing. A whole bunch of conditions and I just go yeah, this really has a lot of problems. And then I see, but all this starts out with, the Planning Commission shall recommend conceptual approval, and I'm going now wait a minute. Here's this thing that's totally shredded by staff, and rightfully so, and then it's the recommendation to move it on. And I know that you guys have more work than you can handle and less people than you need but personally I'm not going to be put into a position where I'm going to let something that is substandard based upon city staff, and I don't care to see a landscaping plan but the thing is, when I read a really nicely, well put together boiler plate from a developer that talks about environmental sensitivity, blah, blah, blah, blah and then you see somebody gets out with the stamp and goes...they're not walking the talk and it's like yeah. The development agreement is the ultimate definition of what's really going to happen and everything that's come before that doesn't mean squat. But anything that we send as a Planning Commission to the City Council we own. Has got our thumb print on it. We don't want to waste their time with it. And we take this job very 77 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Aanenson: ...if it's palatable, it works. Right. So it helps to bring in site renderings. It helps to bring a lot of those other things. I agree. But to go and do a complete grading plan and then come back and say, well now we've decided it all be industrial. I mean that's, it's a fine balancing line. Ledvina: Well just to respond to that. You don't have to have a complete grading plan. You can go on 10 foot contours and do something like that in a very rough sketch type of way. Farmakes: And it doesn't need to be an environmental review like that. I mean is this a significant stand of trees, or if there's a significant investment on the part of the city adjacent to the property, certainly indicating where that is...doesn't hurt anyone. Aanenson: No. I'm not arguing that either. I'm not arguing tabling it because you want more information. That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is, you need to give them direction on their type of land uses. Scott: We did. Aanenson: And all the items that have been coming before the Planning Commission, for some reason, they're all getting tabled. Somehow we're doing too much design work here or we're not doing something ahead of time. I don't know, we need to. This is part of the reason why I'm having Roger come next week, and specifically just talk about, I wrote down some things...would be talking about. Mancino: But Kate. Aanenson: One obviously is the concept. One is the Highway 5 overlay zone and the moratorium issue. How does that work? What is the responsibility for updating the... Oh, settling applications. That was a question that you asked me Joe. When one person comes in and you've got two specific projects, one developer. Can you separate those that want to go forward and hold one back, just like we did tonight with Kindercare...There is a time factor. You've got so much time to pass them...and I just want to make sure that we're not crossing the boundaries here. I think there's some questions that you can ask him...this is just an opportunity for you to ask specific questions about some of that stuff too. Farmakes: But why. Somehow I'm sitting here and I'm getting the feeling that I'm sort of being asked to approve something because there's a time issue involved. Aanenson: No, I don't have any problem with tabling. What I'm talking about, if you need 76 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Council because there will be maybe 10 or 15 items that are extremely straight forward and that makes a lot of sense. And then the capability exists to pull items off where there's questions. The comment here, and I thought maybe a better example could be used but I saw using this for items that do not necessarily warrant discussions, such as TIF district modifications. Aanenson: ...pretty much everything that comes, I don't think we really have...so I think what we're asking is that you allow those... Scott: Yeah, and do it early because those...just like the Council. Mancino: Can we stop for a second and...concept plan one minute? Nutting: Yeah, I'd like to talk about it a little bit more than one minute. Mancino: Okay, here is from the Highway 5 task force guide. Land use. Policy. Conceptual development plans will be prepared for critical sites within the corridor. These will be adopted with the corridor plans to serve as guides for preparing and reviewing development proposals in the future. Conceptual development plans will be utilized to refine allowable uses, provide input into access, grading, building materials and orientation and insure that other plan elements such as environmental protection and pedestrian access are incorporated. Aanenson: What I'm saying is, in the charette process, we can't flush out all the environmental stuff because that's a big question...part of the EA document is to weed them out in 3 to 4 months. So I guess what we're saying is that, what we're looking for at this point is what is the appropriate land use. First you've got to decide what it is. Then you decide how it's going to walk and talk. Okay. So what we're trying to...is it appropriate to have industrial? Is it appropriate to have high density? Mancino: But. Aanenson: But I understand, you've got to have some... Mancino: You can't do one without the other sometimes. Aanenson: Well right. Mancino: You've got to see how they fit. 75 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 number of months. Actually more generally for 3 to 4 years. We're happy to continue working with the staff on it and working with you on the conditions that were part of the staff report tonight, which we've indicated on several occasions we don't have a problem with. In fact we're happy to continue working on those conditions and we're prepared to do that for the next 5, 6, 7 months as we go through more detailed parts of this plan. And as a moment to digress here, to distinguish between what would be a concept plan and as we get into more detail preliminary plat plans, let me say what works very well and what helps the development process, the development team specifically, is if we can reach consensus on specific land uses. Specific access points and specific transportation routes. That then allows us to go on and provide the additional detail that you're looking for. We have no problems providing that detail. In fact we're happy to do that. We're happy to do that as part of the preliminary plat process as required as part of your code and we're happy to come back again and again, as part of the code requires to do that during the preliminary plat process. Your code doesn't require that here. And so we're happy to provide you with the landscaping plan and if it doesn't meet your standards, we're happy to revise it. We're happy to provide you with the grading plan. If it doesn't meet your standards, we're happy to change that and we're happy to delineate the environmentally sensitive areas, as Mr. Dobbs mentioned, we're working with the staff on the Bluff Creek charette and we've been doing it for a couple months. We're going to continue doing that and we're happy to do that. All we want to point out tonight is, that we need to reach some type of consensus on the land uses and on the access points and on the densities, as required as part of your code. Those items that you — want us to go into further detail later on again is required as part of your code, we're happy to do that. OPEN DISCUSSION: DISCUSS POSSIBILITY OF CREATING A "CONSENT AGENDA" FOR ITEMS SUCH AS TIF DISTRICTS. Aanenson: The open discussion item that you had. Todd's requesting, I think he'll be before you...I don't know if you really want to call it a Consent Agenda. I think you may want to have some discussion...but I think what he's asking is that normally our public hearings go first and then he's requesting that he has an opportunity at such time... Scott: That's fine. Aanenson: I believe he's scheduled one for the next meeting. Scott: Yeah, from a consent agenda, I can see it. It works extremely well at the City 74 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Scott: Let's leave it open. I mean that's a decision and it's probably something that's going to be based, at least according to what I've read, has all to do with whether the city pays for the relocation of the power line. Mancino: Okay, so that staff works with the developer on Site B and give options of office industrial or medium densities. Aanenson: You want us to do that? Mancino: Yep. Is everybody okay with that change? That the staff will work with the developer on Site B to look at either medium multi-family density or office industrial. Scott: Sure. Any additional discussion? Mancino moved, Scott seconded that the Planning Commission table conceptual PUD #92-1 to rezone 82.6 acres of property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate to PUD including 19.3 acres of Office/Industrial, 52.9 acres for multi-family; 3.4 acres for stormwater ponding and 7.0 acres for road right-of-way subject to the issues outlined by the Planning Commission to be addressed by the applicant. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Scott: The public hearing number 2 has been tabled, and the reason for that is the, there's about 24-25 conditions that need to be reworked. If you'd like to make a comment or two, you're certainly welcome to. Steve Schwanke: Thank you Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission. My only comment is that your ordinance requires specific things. ...going above and beyond that. Scott: There's 24 of them in the staff report. Steve Schwanke: Absolutely and we're happy to meet most of those conditions. Scott: Then we'd like to see it come back. Steve Schwanke: May I speak? Scott: Go ahead. This is not a public hearing but go ahead. Steve Schwanke: Thank you. Again, we've been working with the staff on this project for a 73 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Mancino: Aye, but I do have a thing about discussion. Scott: Okay, then let's open. Okay. Mancino: Can we open it for discussion for a minute. I'm getting back to land use, because I see that on 17 it says, the multi-family apartment building should be separated into three or more structures to reduce the mass of the proposed building and to lessen the visual impact of the building from Highway 5. I got the impression from the commissioners up here that they wanted to see, I think Jeff wanted to see industrial office on B. I got from Ron and I guess Jeff and Matt, or Joe and Matt that you wanted to see maybe medium density on B? Ledvina: That's acceptable to me. Mancino: Medium density? Is that what you wanted to see on B which was north of the access boulevard? Nutting: I can go with medium density or the industrial. I mean that's... Scott: I didn't make any specific comments on it but from a transition standpoint, I think that medium density works well for me. You're talking about the transition from the industrial to the medium, or multi-family to the school out there? Mancino: Yes. Okay. Then let's take out 17 and put in something about C and B. The land use in B being either or? Ledvina: I'm fine with that. Mancino: Be either multi-family, medium density? Scott: Because there was a comment from, I believe from Mr. Boisclair that if the power line, in effect if the city doesn't pay for the movement of the power line, the multi-family development, in his opinion, is not financially viable. So that would, in their mind, that would flip the switch where it becomes industrial. Or commercial so. Mancino: So what do we want to do about that? Scott: So is it, you're talking specifically about condition number 17 relative to the motion to table? Mancino: Yeah. 72 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Nutting: Fine, but we have the ability to give them that direction. Farmakes: But it's more complicated than that. If you look at this, they could come back and say with B, and if the density was lower and there was more green space around, I believe probably the majority of the people on here would pass it. The problem with that is, is that they may not be able to develop that property with that in mind and make a profit. And if they can't do that, then you have to look at other issues. If that's not viable, if we can't buy that, then the issues of industrial development or office development or village type single family or any of that type of things, those are other issues that are viable. But that's really up to the applicant to come back with those solutions. I can review this plan based on what it is and give my comments on it but I don't know if it's my, it's not my directive to sit up here and solve that problem for them. I think that it's been verbalized what the problems are here and I'm not sure if we should be taking the pencil out and drawing in exactly what that is. It seems to me that it is a land use issue to start out with and that's really nothing to do with the developer. Or the applicant. The issue is what we think belongs there in a general use. Now we have a master plan sitting there and we're familiar with the development that goes around it but it's, to me I don't think we should be doing that. Scott: Well we have a motion on the floor. Nutting: What is our direction to them at this point? Mancino: For land use. Is that your question? Nutting: Yeah. I'm just trying to summarize... Scott: Well the motion that's on the floor is to table the conceptual plan and then issue directions to the development team subject to the staff report and any additional comments that we've made, and that's. Has it been seconded? I'm sorry, I forgot. - Ledvina: No. Scott: Okay. Is there a second? I'll second it. It's been moved and seconded that the conceptual planned unit development be tabled. We've had discussion so I'd like to, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Steve Schwanke: Mr. Chair? Scott: Excuse me. 71 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Aanenson: I don't think that's what I said. Scott: No. I was just saying, that's where I'm coming from. Aanenson: What I'm saying is, somewhere we've got to separate concept from preliminary because they're two different processes. Farmakes: But if you're looking at concept or preliminary, if you're going to make any judgment, you based it on what you get. If you're talking about significant other issues of say for instance there's a stand of tree adjacent to the property. If we don't know what that is in relationship for instance to the school site. Although we've reviewed it, I don't see how it is in comparison to what they're proposing along that sight line. It would help if there was significant tree stands outside of their property line to see what that is in relationship when we're talking about concept. Aanenson: Right, and those are the issues that we've tried to start, you know we've identified a lot of them. Those are the ones that we need to tag along and give them with their marching orders to say these are the things that need to be further evolved as it goes through the process. Farmakes: Well in looking at the plans though, they don't delineate that. They're not telling us that. Nutting: I've asked this question once before tonight and I forget what the answer but do we have any way to have this come back more than once? Is next time the only shot we have to look at it? Mancino: No, because we're going to see Kindercare another time too. We just table it and it keeps coming back and back. Nutting: Okay. So your comment about you don't want to see the preliminary next time and _ send it onto Council. At that point I guess, what I'm trying to do. I'm trying, I'm struggling myself with conceptual. I'm new to this commission so I'm still trying to filter things through but we have to give them some direction. We have to tell them whether or not residential or office industrial space. We talked about densities. We talked about what the land uses will even be and I mean if we go and tell them that it's not residential, it may not, the same development team, the same development's not going to exist conceivably. Mancino: Yes but if they come back and they do medium density residential, it looks like this again, that isn't going to work either. 70 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 maybe just. Mancino: Then do you never bring in natural resources at the concept level when topography and that should be addressed? Aanenson: I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that, how do we keep it at a concept level without kicking into, they don't even know what this, if they're going to do all this, spend all this and then you're going to go back and say, well we don't even want to see, now we want to see all industrial. I'm just saying, maybe there could be some other, maybe the applicant... Mancino: So then you're saying, just address land use? Aanenson: Pardon me? Mancino: Then you're saying just address primarily land use issues? Aanenson: Well no, I think there's some other factors that we need to make some of this, to make...to make this palatable. There are other issues to address but I'm saying how do you bridge those so I think we're going beyond. And again this conceptual is not binding. I think you have to keep that in mind too. I think what we're asking is for you to give them marching orders. Say you know, we want to see this. Nutting: No residential. Residential. Industrial... Aanenson: It's not binding. If they come back... Scott: But why waste their time? I know what the ordinance says and I take that as, this is the stuff that you really have to take a look at. The thing is that we obviously take what we're doing here extremely seriously and it's a reflection on us as a body, irrespective of whether it's conceptual or not, what gets passed onto the City Council. And I think it's extremely important at the conceptual stage, when things are the least expensive for the developer and the city, that we give them as specific a direction as possible so that when we go to the next phase, they've collected significantly more information on what the expectations are than if we say, okay this looks pretty good but we didn't tell them about the 25 things that we think need serious work. And all of a sudden they start getting more people involved on their end and spend a lot more money and then we go, oh. Well you know these 20 things we didn't talk about and give you any direction about, well here it comes. I don't think it's fair to them and I don't think it's fair to the people who we represent. 69 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Aanenson: That's medium density, the 4 to 8. Nutting: Okay. Number of units. Aanenson: So you know, depending on...but we always use the net to figure out whether or not and that's what they were asking for. They'd rather go with the gross so... Mancino: I have a question kind of for the group, commission. I'm not comfortable just seeing this one more time. You know preliminary plat and then passing it on. I mean there's so much here that I think needs to be reworked that I would like to see it tabled conceptually and come back after taking staff's recommendations and then adding a few of our own. Scott: Anything that we send onto the Planning Commission, or the City Council, we own and I don't own this yet. It's got a lot of work. I would support your thought to table. Mancino: So I'd like to move to table the conceptual plan and I'd like to see it again and I would like to take. Make sure that they come back using staff's recommendations and I think that Bob wanted us to eliminate number 11 and he wanted us to add, incorporate elements of the Bluff Creek design charette but I don't think that's going to be on the next review. I think that's going to be on the preliminary site review. And 18 reads, again from what Bob said, that from Bluff Creek to a minimum of 100 foot building setback. 25 has to do with -- Southwest Metro Transit. That we make sure that the applicant and the city staff work with them. Other suggestions that were made, you might want to add to the recommendations. Farmakes: We talked about significant environmental features adjacent to the property. Mancino: Well I would like to see how the natural resources are going to be handled and that means placement of structures. What the grading's going to be like. Aanenson: I understand the direction you're going but this gets back to the intent of the concept plan. Really we're going into the preliminary aspect. I understand you're not comfortable with what you've seen so far but let's go back to the concept plan and what the intent is. I'm reading this straight out of the ordinance. To give you the overall gross and net density. Give you the lot sizes and width. It doesn't talk about the setting of buildings on that. It talks about general locations. The extent of the public and common open space. The general type of land uses...what the purpose is is not to incur a lot of cost. What they're trying to do is to flush out whether or not you feel, is this appropriate. I understand that there's uncomfortableness based on whether this should be medium and maybe you want to see some other versions. Maybe you want to look at some other things but I think when you start asking a lot of those specific things, then we're going out of the concept level. Or 68 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Generous: Because the scope of this project exceeds the theshhold for a mandatory EAW based on state guidelines. And those are based on your square footage and total... Aanenson: And the qualifications the city has. Ledvina: Okay. So we're tripping a mandatory? Generous: Yeah, they tripped it. They're about twice as high. Ledvina: Okay. I guess as far as the power lines, I don't really have a significant problem with the proposal to relocate them but I would like to see that, if that option is pursued, that consideration be made regarding the affect that that would have on utilization of the Bluff Creek corridor as a linear park. So I think obviously you've got the lines cross that at a diagonal affecting, well what, 400 feet of the corridor so I think that would be a significant taking. That's the extent of my comments. Mancino: But wouldn't that affect again the creek, because you'd have to have poles going up and you'd have to, you know you may be in that 100 feet on each side or etc. So it would affect the creek a little bit wouldn't it? Ledvina: Well I think the, if you look at the orientation or the layout here. It would seem possible to locate those poles outside of the 100 foot setback on each side. But I don't know that for a fact but I would see that that would be possible. But again, to have the power lines crossing the creek. I don't know visually how that would be or what other affects there might be. And I'm sure that would be part of the EAW evaluations. Scott: I'll forego my comments and ask for a motion. Nutting: Can I just ask for a clarification on number 22, Kate? The gross and net density to meet the medium density standards. What are those standards? Aanenson: What we're saying, the applicant asked that they be given the interpretation for the gross. We've always gone with net and right now to get the high density it's 8 to 16 and they're over that. If they stay within medium density is 4 to 8. We don't want to change the way we've always interpreted it...gross and net. We've always gone with the net and if you are to get them, get the interpretation of that, we'd just as soon stay with the higher density which is the 8 and 16. So that's what they're asking for is to be in that range. Nutting: What's the calculation for the 4 to 8? 67 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 don't get that. Ledvina: Right. Then the buildings would shrink, right. And while we're talking about what we're looking at, in terms of gross or net. I think we should, we really should be evaluating things on the basis of net areas. I think that's important because, especially as we're looking at the Bluff Creek corridor. If we've got 100 foot setback there, that will change things quite a bit. Okay. Jeannene Krone: I need to clarify if it is 60% or 70%? Ledvina: Well I looked on the staff report on page 3. It says in the second indented paragraph toward the bottom. The last sentence of that paragraph says maximum hard surface coverage shall not exceed 60%. So I don't know if this is, does this relate to a Highway 5 standard? Aanenson: No. What it should be is for industrial it's 70%. Generous: Well this is from the Comp Plan. If industrial goes west of the east fringe of Bluff Creek, then they use the 60%. That's what that number was from. Ledvina: Okay. So does it apply here or should it be 70%? Generous: Not for multi-family... Ledvina: Okay. Aanenson: ...50. Ledvina: So 50, okay. Mancino: But it can be anything with PUD. Aanenson: Well that's the PUD I'm giving you. It's something you can negotiate certainly. Give them higher on one end if you balance the whole site. Ledvina: Well at any rate. I think that that is a, it's certainly Parcel C thru F are reasonable applications of land use there. Other than that I would support the recommendations that were identified in the staff report, and I had a question regarding the EAW. Can you expand on that in terms of why that's being undertaken? I know that we have Bluff Creek as the central feature. Why haven't we done this in the past? 66 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Ledvina: So that relates to the gross. Okay. Because, well if we don't have, or if we've got the Bluff Creek right-of-way in that, we're going to be. Aanenson: You take out the roads...and the wetlands then after that you look at what the impervious surface is. Ledvina: No I'm asking. You're saying 60%. What is that based on? Is that based on the buildable area or is that based on the actual area of the lot? The boundaries of the lot. Aanenson: Yeah, it should be the lot area. Ledvina: Okay. So if there's a 5 acre lot and there's a 2 acre wetland, we're looking at 5 acres as the basis for impervious surface? For calculating the 60%, is that correct? Okay. So are we dealing, if we've got a 5 acre lot, there's a 2 acre wetland on it, do we calculate the impervious surface on the basis of 5 acres or 3 acres? Aanenson: 3 acres. Ledvina: 3 acres? Okay. So it's essentially the net area or the buildable area. Aanenson: Yeah, you take the wetlands and the roads out. Ledvina: Okay. I didn't mean to belabor that but. Okay. Well in that instance you know, when we look at that and we have 60% as our standard. Buildings represent roughly 30-35%. I don't know, it seems to me that those standards are, they look larger on these parcels than they normally do and I don't know, are these drawn to scale? Are the buildings drawn to scale on the lots? Okay. But they do look larger. I agree with your comment Jeff but I don't know that it's anything, exceeds anything that we've allowed in the past in that area so. Jeannene Krone: And those areas were just the building areas. Ledvina: Okay. Mancino: Not parking lot? Ledvina: Well the parking areas aren't calculated. They say how many parking stalls are available but in any event they can't exceed the 60% maximum hard surface coverage so. Aanenson: Again on a conceptual plan...ultimate density. Obviously things evolve and you know the wetlands are established and other things and if they can't make that, then they 65 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 they're going to do for natural resources. I would also, with the, when we go, if we go to single family, zero lot line. That gets us into medium density. I would like to see some open space. Amenities for those houses that are there. It looks like every sort of, you know there's very little green space, amenities for this high of a density. And basically I'd like to table it and bring it back with some of those conceptually thoughts addressed. Scott: Good, Matt. Ledvina: I'm just going to go through the alphabet here. I think we had some individuals here from Timberwood concerned about transition and I can definitely see their concerns but I also want to point out that as it relates to the multi-family that goes in B, we have somewhat of a buffer that's being provided with the proposed ponding area and then also you'll have a roadway on the other side of that. That will provide some buffer between these large lot areas. So I can certainly see your concerns there but I think there has been consideration to that buffering concern. The issue with the multi-family, we talked about the setbacks that we were concerned with from Highway 5 and I see most of this development, for the 27 1/2 acre parcel, be pretty much north to south. And essentially you have 4 buildings there that work against that right-of-way. Also, there's a significant tree stand associated with the east ridge of Bluff Creek there, which also. I mean you don't drive down and you're going to see this 5 miles away or whatever. A mile away. Because you have this kind of room created by the trees, it won't be as distinct as a visual an impact as you might think. And there's also other things we can do with staggering the setbacks of those buildings, etc. Landscaping, berming. I don't know. I don't necessarily think that that's a real important or substantial issue as it relates to going from single family to multi, or from multi-family to single family. I think you can have the same effect either way. I would agree though that the density here is too large or too high. And I think that these, there needs to be more open space and green space. I don't know whether or not that's appropriate to go to a single family because it seems that this represents a good transition from the industrial parcels, C thru F to the multi- family to the school. So I don't know. Maybe the single family. Mancino: Well zero lot lines really... Ledvina: Yeah. Well maybe the single family's are lot line type of approach as something that's a happy medium there. So I don't know exactly how to look at that. I guess I could support either type of development. Going to the C thru F portion. I had a question for staff. When we talk about 60% of hard surface coverage as a maximum, does that relate to the net area or is that the gross area? Buildable or the total area of the lot? Aanenson: It's to the gross. 64 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 what Morrish did on his drawings where you've got more than one tree in a line. And there's a counter balance happening to that. You have a developer who wants to maximize out that property and somewhere there's got to be a way to go with that. I would rather see that the power lines remain where it is and see that property dissected and become industrial property. That'd be my first choice. Again, the second choice would be to find a way to work out single family. I understand the rationale for moving the power line then if that's the direction. I'm not sure how the rest of you feel on that. I'm not opposed to moving that line but that would be my second choice. I feel that there's just too much confined here. It's too much of a need to create problem and when I hear issues of affordable housing, I'm still very uncomfortable discussing issues of affordable housing when I don't know what affordable housing is. I don't who's criteria we're using and I'm not against it. But again, I'd like to hear a definition or two. So far all I've heard you use is imaginative and I'd like to hear some finite. If we have goals as a city, we should have them targeted. A dollar amount, an income amount. Qualifications quantifying. We're not doing any of that. We're using it as a sort of a crutch. When we talk about it every time that we've got an apartment building going up. And we're not achieving anything with that. It's just a smoke screen. We're not talking facts and it seems to me if you have a problem, you come up with facts, target that you're going to shoot for and come up with a factual way to achieve that in our process here. That's it. Mancino: Well I ditto that...on affordable housing and I'd also like to say that I'd like to see some affordable housing that isn't multi-family. I'd like to see affordable housing single family for families with children and that are next to a creek and next to a school also. And it can be single family zero lot line. To me that works perfect between the boulevard and Highway 5 just east of the school. In that area. You could put single family zero lot lines and then go into industrial. It is, what's in B right now is too dense. How much of it Bob, I know it's in the report, did you talk with the developer about, that would be affordable housing? Wasn't it 20%? Generous: Well they had mentioned 20%... Mancino: Okay. And I would like to see 20% to 30-35%. I can also see that used in the H area, single family zero lot line also. And again, some creativity to the design here. It is, it looks like barracks and just absolutely no way. The other thing about this conceptual plan that doesn't have at all, is anything to do with, I really don't want to see another conceptual plan that doesn't address natural resources. Here we've got steep slopes. We have ravines. We have massing of trees and yet the houses or the multi-family is just plopped. I have no idea, no conceptual idea of how the natural resources are going to be addressed. I have it in writing but I certainly don't see it on any site plan. So what goes from here to there is not the same and I want to see this reflect this. Conceptually because I don't have a clue what 63 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Farmakes: Okay. So at the plan that I'm looking at here, the setback, the way they're showing the property line, the setback is correct? Or it's off? Aanenson: Where they're showing the property line. Farmakes: Where they're showing the property line and consequently the setback. Aanenson: The same. The setback line, they're not showing a setback line. They're showing buildings on the property. Farmakes: Well they've got a little dot, dot, dotted line. Generous: That would be a 50 foot setback. Farmakes: Okay. So that is incorrect then? Generous: Correct. They would have to be another 20 feet for construction. Mancino: Or you can add even more since it's a PUD. _ Farmakes: Well yeah, that's what I was getting to but I wanted to clarify that first. In talking about, I won't reiterate what I talked about earlier about this issue of finding a way to help buffer TH 5. A developer wants to maximize out the property. Fill it up with as much buildings as they can. I would rather see industrial carried over on this property, on B. Unless a way can be worked out to come up with single family housing. What I see happening here, on both north and south, there's going to be a wall of medium-high density housing and if there's any way that we can avoid that. Any way that we can come up with a way not to achieve that. Achieve what's been done in other communities. As you drive along 169 in Eden Prairie where you get just sort of you can see exactly where the setback line is. You can see exactly where the fronts of those buildings are and they're all the same. And again, there's got to be a more imaginative way to do that. Mancino: What do you think would be a good setback? Do you have a number that you're thinking of from the right-of-way back? Instead of 70, making it 100. 125. Farmakes: Well since it's a PUD, yeah. I would like to see enough so that a landscape architect can come up with something creative rather than one row of trees, which is some of what we see. In fact a lot of what we see in this plan. And I feel frustrated because I know what the objectives are that we worked on, and a lot of that, to me, to come up with something that is viable, you need enough room to come up with some massing. Similar to 62 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 developer. Whether it's, we feel the densities are appropriate and the uses are appropriate. I personally don't have my thoughts laid out yet in terms of what is appropriate or not. I'm certain to develop those after more discussion I guess. Farmakes: I don't like this proposal. There's several things that I don't like about it. Being constructive I guess I'll start out with number one. I don't like the concept of the warehousing and C, D, E and F. They look like 4 chairs brought up to the table. I realize this is conceptual but in looking at the size and square feet of these buildings and the surrounding property, again it seems as if, if you're going to put 4 cars in a warehouse or in a garage, this is what would fill them up with very little room to be enough to open the door. Getting back to my other comment. Is the right-of-way from the highway, and I keep on coming back to this. Nobody wants to talk about this because it's a conceptual issue but getting back to the issue of the right-of-way. You're saying that it is 75 plus 150? Is that what we're looking at for this development? Hempel: The total Highway 5 right-of-way that exists out there today is 150 foot wide corridor. Farmakes: And is the setback 75 feet on top of that? Aanenson: No. It's 70. Farmakes: It's 70. So it's 70 feet on top of that? Aanenson: No. No, no, no. That's what I'm saying. You're overlaying two issues. One is the 150 feet of right-of-way. What they're showing on there is the southern property limits and from that they're showing approximately a 50 foot setback. The Highway 5 zone specifies 70. They're 20 feet too close. Farmakes: Alright. But on the distance that he's talking about on the right-of-way. The setback that you're talking about is from the property line, correct? From the property line to the highway then is 170 feet? Hempel: The property line and the right-of-way line is the same line. The center of Highway 5 is approximately 75 feet north of their right-of-way line here. The north property line of this development. Their building is proposed on this plan to go 50 feet south of that right-of-way line so a total of 125 feet. Kate is saying, is the Highway 5 is then 75 feet setback from that right-of-way line. Then adding the 75 feet to the center of the highway is 145 feet. 61 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 you have very high density here and essentially have 200 neighbors, which isn't a problem but I think that it makes more sense from my standpoint to have single family homes here because I think we have a much better vision for people to coming through the Highway 5 corridor. Scott: Good, thank you sir. Yes sir. Mark Foster: Hi. My name's Mark Foster. I live at 8020 Acorn Lane, Chanhassen, Minnesota. Just a couple of comments at this late hour. Just an overall comment that I don't think this is a quality development. Just looking at it, it doesn't take you very long to see right away that something doesn't look right. You're looking at a large, high density multi- family development right next to a very large lot residential neighborhood and it just is not compatible, I don't think...I agree with my neighbor Richard Frasch. We need to have a north/south transition there. I think one thing that we should explore looking at is instead of the multi-family housing, is single family. Continuing the single family development from the south. It makes sense near a school. It's ideal. It is very valuable property for single family residential. An alternative to that is, I think the developer has expressed an interest in seeing office and industrial. Office warehouse development...and continue that instead of the multi-family. I'd much prefer that. I don't want to look out my back window and see Army barracks. I pay a lot of property taxes and this is...I've been here about 4 years in this _ development and the initial proposal, I was here for all the comprehensive planning meetings and the MUSA plannings were single family residential. I still think that makes sense. But if not, I would prefer office warehouse. Scott: Okay, thank you. Would anybody else like to speak or ask questions? Okay, seeing none. May I have a motion to close the public hearing? Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Nutting: Well we're talking conception. Scott: The camera is zooming in on you as we speak. Nutting: I'm looking at the staff recommendations and I also listened to Jeff's earlier — comments and I think you know that we have to, the Highway 5 corridor recommendations has to be applied in this process. Whether that means residential's appropriate versus commercial on that specific lot where the 300 unit multi-family is proposed, I don't fully have a thought process to that yet. If I understand the conceptual process though, I don't' have a problem with moving forward but as to necessary conditions and directions of the 60 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 opportunity to bring into this development a service, a community service that will benefit both from an overall development as well as have a very long and very positive impact for the community and this project. So I would just strongly recommend that the commission consider adding condition number 25 and incorporate public transit into development and Southwest Metro Transit would be very happy to sit down with city staff and the applicant to see the best way to integrate transit into this entire development. Scott: Do have kind of a more specific idea? Diane Harberts: I do. Scott: That can be had. Diane Harberts: It's got to be a general application. Scott: Yeah just a general. Park and ride or reverse commute? Diane Harberts: No. Some of the applications that I look at, since this is being considered for affordable housing, these are typically priority areas where public transit needs to be a component. With industrial and warehouse, which is being proposed, is a priority project in terms of success rate as well for reverse commute. With regard to the density and where this is located in the corridor both on the south side and on the north side, it's going to generate a lot of people that would find public transit very conducive so there may be an opportunity to for instance put a major transfer station, park and ride location or just even having access off of this frontage road that he has proposed for bus stops. When you're looking at that many people, these are very high priority areas and public transit has worked well in other applications of this nature. Scott: Good, thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Planning Commission? Yes sir. Richard Frasch: Hi. My name is Richard Frasch and I live at 8000 Acorn Lane which is...right about here. And I realize that there is an east/west kind of...but I'd also like to point out that I think there should be a more south transition. I'm talking about that Stone Creek to our neighborhood in through here and one of the concerns that I have, we have an opportunity to do something different than say Eden Prairie did and not have a bunch of barracks or apartment buildings and actually have some nice single family homes. I think it'd be nice right here. It is a nice rolling topography and it would tie in nicely with the school. Tie in nicely with our neighborhood and I think would be a much better impression from the highway. People coming through Chanhassen. And that's a concern that I have. And when 59 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 standard... We prefer gross. For us it gets to be a little more complicated if we just know what we're, what ball we're trying to hit. We're trying to get the gross density or we're trying to get the net density and if we had one criteria to work with, it'd be much easier for us to work with. Again, we prefer gross density and any questions regarding that we'd be happy to answer those. So your consideration of that would be appreciated. Scott: Okay, thank you. Any other comments? Harberts: I have one before you go into the public hearing. Mr. Chair, I'd like to request permission to excuse myself. My agency is in exploratory discussions with one of the firms represented on the development team and until I have an opportunity to discuss with staff what limitations may occur, or that we need to be aware of because of the exploratory discussions that are going on right now, I think it may be best that I excuse myself from any further discussion here as a Planning Commissioner. Scott: Thank you commissioner. Harberts: Is that a yes? Scott: Yes. Good. Any other, this is a public hearing and I'd like to have a motion if I • could to open the public hearing. Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. _ Scott: This is the point in time where members from the public can address the, members of the public can address the Planning Commission. Please identify yourself. Mancino: You just had something to say and you wanted to get out there. Scott: Please identify yourself ma'am. Diane Harberts: I'm Diane Harberts. I'm the Administrator for Southwest Metro Transit and I welcome the opportunity to provide some initial comments on this conceptual plan that's being proposed. My recommendation from Southwest Metro Transit is to request that the commission consider adding condition 25 and I would suggest that that would include that the applicant and city staff work with Southwest Metro Transit to look at the application of transit to this project. You can really request that when you look at the land use with multi- family with high density. You can do an industrial component. These are each very high priorities in terms of the application of transit. And I think we have an exceptional 58 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 our own site amenity. We've got our own pond. And according to initial impressions from Bonestroo Associates, that would enhance the absorption factors of the overall drainage system there as well. We know it's not in concert with the initial desire of the staff's report. Again, we offer this as an idea for a suggestion for study. We think it can be a...feature as it buffers the inner part as well and...there's two buildings. We're also studying three as well... The most significant issue for us of course is the power line relocation...it's absolutely impossible to find a residential property with a power line, as you...feature to that site, acknowledge that they...on it's most prominent bluff and as most developers do, they use what's most prominently featured. I'm being facetious now, we might want to consider Power Line Villas, so to speak had we retained it, assuming it can be financed. And my intent there is only in a facetious manner. We know that we can't build it that way. It's just that we cannot accept that condition. It just...even though there's no proven case of electrical magnetic transmissions that they would experience but it is a major concern for finance lenders. And the proposed...as well as the features of the office warehouse site. The eastern border of the Bluff Creek area would run right down the middle and we would discreetly locate that power line between our building, which would be about 45 feet tall. A 3 story apartment building, and the...office warehouse is about 30 feet. So we would tend to hide it by that relocation effort instead of making it the most prominent feature of our site. Scott: Have you had any discussions with the utility, with NSP to determine whether or not the layout for the power line as proposed is something that they would recommend or they would do? Bob Boisclair: We've had preliminary discussions with them and they'd be supportive of relocation if there was concurrence at the city level here. Scott: Okay. Bob Boisclair: And we do have concurrence with our east property side owner and he'll support the, assure me that the new easement, proposed easement...I guess at this point I've pretty well concluded my initial comments here and will... Scott: Okay, good. Any questions or comments? Thank you sir. Is there anybody from the development team that would like to speak? Steve Schwanke: Mr. Chair, members of the Commission. This does conclude the formal part of our presentation. I would like to ask consideration for one last amendment to the conditions tonight. I overlooked this when I was initially up here. Condition number 22 relating to the density. The condition reads, the applicant needs to reduce the gross and net densities. And we would request that the Planning Commission use one of those as a 57 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 John Dobbs: I understand Mr. Chair and in doing single family further down, I'm aware of what happens with single family detached housing. I believe that unlike, that perhaps this does provide a more unique alternative because...those units and if you have the opportunity, _ places you can go look at them, between $70,000.00 and $90,000.00 depending on whether it's an end unit or middle unit of the individual. And I can honestly give you a place that you can go look at comparable, one sided walkout type units and those are $100,000.00 to $125,000.00 depending on the view. I think that that does make a nice addition to Chanhassen...the terms of maybe affordable housing isn't correct but it is definitely, living in a $75,000.00 house myself... Scott: Any other comments? If you have additional comments, please continue. Okay. Great. Thanks John. Bob Boisclair: Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, my name is Bob Boisclair with Boisclair Corporation. I'm also in a joint venture in the property with the land group represented tonight by Liv Horneland...We can answer and respond to any questions after my short presentation. First of all I accept the challenge to bring forward a project that meets your vision of excellence in this particular...multi-family density in 27 1/2 acres of... We agree that the, our proposals...comprehensive study and the Highway 5 corridor and also with the school being residential next to the school. I think that's very compatible. Bluff Creek linear park that's proposed that's going to abut both our east and west boundaries. We think that our proposed multi-family is very user friendly with respect to use of the park and accomplishes the use of that particular park as opposed to the alternative being office warehouse where you're facing a blank brick walls or whatever...activity in the park. The density, as indicated, is 300 units on 27 1/2 acres. We allocated certain acres for the townhouses. We do so by suggesting 20 acres is allocated to the townhouses...8 units per acre which conforms to your low end medium density. And as far as the apartments are concerned...density of about 18 1/2 on 7 1/2 acres. We think, I'm not sure but we believe that your delightful building that you built about 2 years ago just north of the Chanhassen Dinner Theatre is about the same density. I'm not sure but I think that's correct just walking their site. So you get the feel of comparability for density with respect to this proposal. We do propose some affordable housing with respect to both for sale and also rental. And in deference to any suggestions of staff, we're also looking at breaking up the building. Initially we proposed one large single building and we already have a design that shows two. We have a preliminary sketch to share with you...Our primary location, we suggest a private entry there that's roughly 300 feet away from the one that's proposed south of us at the Heritage development and our development would be...but again it's not an issue of major concern. We would accommodate the desire that proves to be the most acceptable from studies. We have an interest to have our own water retention for our surface drainage...plans to centralize that in a location here. We'd like to do our own site. That does two things. One, it provides 56 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 John Dobbs: Well it's right on the border and I guess I'm not as familiar with FHA regulations as...but $100,000.00-$120,000.00 units are... Farmakes: Can you answer me the definition that you gave affordable housing as. Is that your definition? The government's definition? Or municipal, state and federal? ...well we've had the word thrown around. Aanenson: It's a metropolitan consideration. Mancino: Is that $70,000.00 to $90,000.00? Is that affordable housing? Aanenson: I think it would pass... Farmakes: Are you using the medium house in the 95 central communities or what? John Dobbs: I guess I'd. Farmakes: What is affordable housing? Is it defined as a dollar amount in the metropolitan area? Aanenson: Yeah, that's how, yes. There's a formula for that, correct and it's based on the whole metro area because affordable housing in Chanhassen is... Farmakes: So do we have any miracle amount for that? Dollar? Aanenson: I don't know off hand but yes there are. Mancino: That would be good to know. Scott: Well that's a good point because we're using the PUD process. The holy grail we are, one of the holy grail that we seek and probably the only one that's not environmentally related is affordable housing and I won't get into that discussion right now. But if you are utilizing the PUD process and dangling affordable housing as a trade-off for some other things, which is wonderful, we have to know precisely what that definition is and then we in our mind, as people who represent the public's interest, to be able to say, to make that decision. Whether it's appropriate or not. So I just wanted to restate that. It's very serious but as I said before, we had one developer who's come in here and they call a $175,000.00 home affordable. So please take that very seriously and it will make things possibly smoother for you. 55 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 would be, as we proceed further along down this road, we'll try to work with that as we came back for specific applications. Let's see. That we should investigate the use of single loaded units as a varying number of units per structure on Parcel H. We had done that on a small parcel that exists right here and I'm not opposed to look...but the intent was to try to create a buffer between McGlynn's being industrial to a higher and medium density residential to a single, very less dense multi-family type unit then to single family and then to large lots... In terms of the price structure, the higher density would be $70,000.00 to $90,000.00 roughly and this would be $100,000.00 to $120,000.00 units so that gives you an idea of what... affordable housing, at least from our perspective. Mancino: Excuse me John. Can you tell me what single loaded units are? John Dobbs: I'm sorry. It basically is all the access is from the front and the back yard has no driveway in it. You walk out...We're aware that the EAW needs to be addressed. I'm also aware of the fact that the Bluff Creek charette is under process. In fact I'm part of that process so, and we have every intention of trying to incorporate that. I've walked the site a couple times to try to figure out what I would think. What I personally would think a creek corridor system should be like so I can bring some things to this conversation. I guess I'd just like to go back and basically say, that what I'm trying to, what I'd like to...point of view is just in general terms say that the land use is something that you are concurrent with and that the densities are, they are either close to what you're concerned with...the idea of having details done at this point, again specifically into architectural types, grading types, planting design, that's not the consideration. Do you have any questions? Scott: Well there was a comment in the staff report about the power line and the impact that that would have on, what is it FHA financing for the multi-family proposed up above. Is there going to be any impact on the multi-family south based upon the existing alignment or the proposed alignment of that power line from a financial standpoint? John Dobbs: I do not believe so. For us, the power line is here and the access road is next to that. Then the entire pod, if you look at your drawing so to speak, is off to the far side of that. We're far enough away and we're also talking about a different kind of unit that's a little bit higher in price depending on where FHA is at that time. Scott: You'd probably go conventional? John Dobbs: I'm sorry. Scott: You're probably be financed conventionally? 54 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 you on a specific project. So with that I'll take questions or if you'd like to hear from others of us? Mancino: How long do you see this whole project taking? The entire 86 acres? Kent Carlson: Well I can only speak really to the component that we're addressing and that's about the 20 acres of the industrial piece on the east side. The far east side. It's our hope to have infrastructure in place by late 1995. I think that's probably the earliest we could get access to the property to commence development. That's all really market driven. We've had, quite honestly, marketing teams working in this area for over 3 years and we haven't had much activity to date. We're seeing a turn around in the market and there's continued interest in the marketplace so I think we'll see some activity generated but I would not expect to be fully built up probably for 4 or 5 years. Ledvina: Have you evaluated the Highway 5 corridor study overlay requirements? And do you have any comments as to how that might affect your designs? Kent Carlson: Our design standards? Ledvina: Yes. For this property. For your piece of property there. Kent Carlson: No, I haven't looked at it to see how it's going to impact... Scott: Any other comments for the applicant? Okay. John Dobbs: Good evening. My name is John Dobbs...and as was mentioned before, I'm the principal developer of the multi-family site indicated here. I'm also the developer of single family that is...having been before you with the single family, we recognize that the wetlands having to stay...individual units and design to a very detailed level at this point so that is not the intent here with us but I would like to address a couple issues from the staff. One of them is number 16. Buildings should be stepped to reduce the need for grading and follow the existing site contours. The particular buildings that we've shown is able to be split, I don't want to say lengthwise but down the spine so it can be stepped down to follow the grade contours. Number 18. Minimum 100 foot building setback with the first 50 feet as a buffer strip. I was very much aware of that and even though I'm aware that the drawings on there, we overlap that buffer strip. That was not the intent and that was not our conceptual design so obviously I'm at a loss to...That we can vary building orientation to break up what is referred to as the barrack. Bob and I had a conversation and talked briefly about this and Jeannene with RLK and I have begun to have conversations about how we can do that. Creating diversity visual as well as trying to create individual neighborhoods. And our intent 53 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 property here, as I've indicated, still belongs to the development team and yet we're in the midst of conversations with the city to provide storm water ponding for the school site there. So there's a number of reasons for the planned unit development process...the city also the development team. With that I'd like to introduce the development team and as I've indicated Mr. Chair, they've got some specific comments relative to their projects. They're happy to answer any questions. If you'd like to at the end of the presentation or if you'd like to wait and take comments from the public and then answer questions at that time. As was indicated, Mr. Kent Carlson with Ryan Construction is the principal developer of the office warehouse project. Mr. Robert Boisclair of Boisclair Corporation is the principal developer of the multi-family here immediately south of Trunk Highway 5. Mr. John Dobbs of Heritage Development is the principal developer of multi-family south of the east/west collector road. Of course you may remember Mr. Dobbs was again also here with Heritage as, he was also the principal developer of the single family PUD down in this area here. So with that, I'd like to have Mr. Carlson come up and say a few words about his specific development. Kent Carlson: Thanks Steve. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Kent Carlson. I'm with Ryan Companies. As Steve indicated we are here tonight to talk just conceptually a little bit about the 19-20 acre parcel that we plan on developing, which is adjacent to the McGlynn's property. Conceptually we've been working with the city for 3+ years in the development of this area. As you may know, we also have the Chanhassen Business Center which is located on Audubon. We went through the PUD process a number of years ago so we're familiar with the process and have successfully completed that in other areas. Worked closely with the staff to come up with this plan. The components of this plan I think fit kind of well with what the guide plan does originally in 1991. It was done with the direction of the previous planning director, Paul Krauss. His vision of how this area would be developed and we're very pleased to be here...It's taken a number of years to put it all together. The area that we're talking about, what we're envisioning is a high quality project, office warehouse and office development center if you will where your R & D centers would be. We've shown a proposed road to access Highway 5. At this point that's just a proposed road. We're not sure how the lots are going to be designed at that access point. It will be put in at a later date and we intend to probably dividing the properties into 3 or 4 different sites and build it on, not a speculative basis but on a basis with anchor tenants or single tenant users of the facility. We think that this area is _ going to compliment the existing Chanhassen industrial base and provide some excellent opportunities for employment for the residents of Chanhassen and also enhance your tax base as well so. The other thing that you should be aware of again, we're just talking conceptually this evening and a little bit about what we're trying to do. Each of the plans is going to come before you again for specific site plan review and go to City Council again for their review as well so we'll be working closely with the staff before making any presentations to 52 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 development team. We are in the midst of conversations right now with the city because this ponding site is planned to be used for storm water runoff from the school site, and of course you know the development plans for the school site are moving along and we need to conclude those conversations regarding the ponding areas and some things that we've done on the school site. This is an item that we've been in conversation on for probably the last 3 or 4 months. Going to the east we're showing again still office commercial land use. Again, I believe that that's a very appropriate transition moving from the school to the multi-family to the office commercial and of course in this area here is planned office commercial...and we can literally see from this spot here the loading dock areas of McGlynn's so we built an office commercial which was most appropriate there. Moving south. Again, this is a multi- family land use. Again serving as a very appropriate transition to office industrial over in this area here. Of course the single family in this area here which serves as a very fine transition to the Timberwood area to the west. So that's some of the thoughts that have gone into putting together the general land use plan. Some of the things that have also gone on, with respect to this over the last probably 4 to 5 months. We've been working with Barton- Aschman, the city's consultant regarding this project and the alignment of this road. The staff report talked about making sure that the grades...all the land uses here as well as with the road. It's a very appropriate suggestion and are ready to do that. Have to do it. The last, like I said, the last few months it's actually been just working with the consultants in aligning that road and making sure that it both compliments the existing school site here as well as the land uses that are being planned in this area here. I just want to take a couple of moments and touch on the whole issue of why the PUD. I think Mr. Chair, you raised a very good point. You know what is in it for the city? Why does it work for the developers and we think this site here works very well to plan it as a planned unit development so a number of reasons being, as has been indicated, this entire area here and a number of amenities. Bluff Creek probably being the most widely known. It's also a rolling topography in the area. Some very mature vegetation in clumps throughout the area here, down through this area here and we believe that the planned unit development process is probably the most appropriate way to include those amenities. Use them as items that will not only enhance the property but make them much better development for not only the developers and the city. Also, the planned unit development process also allows us to comprehensively plan the infrastructure of this area here. Without the planned unit development process, without the development team that's here before you this evening, it would not be possible for us to comprehensively put in and align this road, have a special assessment process set up and have complete concurrence on that special assessment process. You have here tonight a development team that may not be entirely 100% supportive of the special assessments. There's still some questions regarding those and there's a development team here tonight who's supporting the extension of that roadway all the way across. Versus on the north side of Trunk Highway 5 where there's some problems with the extension of the frontage road. You also are able to comprehensively plan your storm water system in this area here. This 51 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Jeannene Krone: My name is Jeannene Krone. I work with RLK Associates. I'm here to answer any of your site plan questions. I'll leave it to Steve Schwanke to finish his presentation. Steve Schwanke: Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission. Again my name is Steve Schwanke with RLK Associates representing the development team this evening. I have just a few comments to make regarding the overall site development and then each of the members of the development team are going to be making a brief presentation. Mr. Chair, we'll defer to you at that point. If you'd like to have each member of the development team, while they're here, answer questions from the commission, they would be prepared to do that. Or if you'd like to take comments at that time, whatever is most appropriate for what the Planning Commission has done, we'd be ready to do that. I'm here, just like I say, a couple of introductory comments and if you could turn that around Jeannene. This is a Chanhassen Corporate Centre project. It's a project that this group has been working on for some time. For those of you who have been with the Planning Commission for some time, you've probably seen it a couple of times in many different forms and shapes. And actually it has gone through a rather...evolution process. Again, as Bob is indicating, this is the approximate site that we are considering this evening that show in the colored areas here. At one time the site went all the way over, including the school property going south which is now here under a separate PUD agreement as part of a single family component and included, as you can tell, a much larger area. We started working with this property nearly 3 years ago and at that time it was almost exclusively a commercial industrial site, and of course hence the name of it, Chanhassen Corporate Centre. That's almost going to the other end of the extreme. Again in our understanding with what the city is considering and interested in through the Trunk Highway 5 process, and through a number of conversations that we had with the staff specifically related to land uses and what the Planning Commission and City Council may be interested in seeing. So let me just take a moment here to go through some of the thoughts that we developed and some of the things that actually gave us the land uses that we proposed here. We are now showing, as Bob indicated, a multi-family land use in this area here. As recently as 4 or 5 months ago, this was being shown as a commercial and industrial piece butting up against what is now the proposed school site. There was great consideration given that. An office commercial development next to a school site. The principle problem with that...however has been eluded to, is there are power lines that dissect this property. It's very difficult to get financing for a multi-family project. In fact it was actually killing the multi-family potential at that point and of course that's why we were showing the office commercial. Then the idea of course of moving the power lines, which has now made the multi-family land use a possibility. Now that again came through a number of months of work with Paul Krauss, of course while he was, when he was here. And of course the existing planning staff. So we're currently showing a multi-family use here. This is...in the blue area is a rather large ponding site. This is an area that is currently owned by the 50 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 — Farmakes: I thought that was from the right-of-way. Mancino: It should be. It's 70 feet from the, not the center line of the highway but where the right-of-way ends, you need to be another 70 feet. Jeannene Krone: That's what I'm saying. Mancino: Okay, thanks. Farmakes: So if I take 70 and I add it to 150. Hempel: 75. Farmakes: To 75? Mancino: 125 from the center of the highway. _ Hempel: Right now the trunk highway 5... Farmakes: Can you tell me how that. Hempel: Half of that is 75. Plus your 70 foot setback gives you 145 from the center. _ Farmakes: 175. I'm on the other side of the highway. Mancino: Well this is about right. Farmakes: No. Go to the buildings up here. — Aanenson: The setback is measured from the southern property line. I guess I'm confused why you're measuring from the center line. — Nutting: These are all issues which we can, these are what will come out from our direction...for the conceptual plan. ?: Why don't we use, since you're here. Scott: Just let the applicants, please identify yourselves and then make your presentations and then we'll ask some specific questions. 49 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Mancino: So it's important that we discuss setbacks on this. Farmakes: And to have a drawing that's out of scale in relationship to that is not. = Aanenson: It's not to scale... Jeannene Krone: The drawing is not out of scale...northern right-of-way. Steve Schwanke: Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission. I'd like to take a moment to introduce ourselves. My name is Steve Schwanke. This is Jeannene Krone. We're with RLK Associates and we're representing the development team for this. As Ms. Krone mentioned, the drawing is not out of scale. It may not show precisely the area that you're considering. A couple of things that we want to mention very quickly. There are some problems with the drawing. We fully acknowledge that, as the staff has indicated in the staff report. There's not a detailed grading plan. There hasn't been a lot of consideration given to design. Those are the kind of issues that we haven't specifically attempted to address here and what we're attempting to address are, are the land uses okay? Can we reach a consensus on that? Are the densities appropriate and can we reach a consensus on that? Are the access points appropriate and can we reach a consensus on that? And the other items that are being brought up, we certainly appreciate, we certainly support and we'll certainly work with the staff and this body and the City Council overall in reaching a consensus on — those issues. Unfortunately, as part of these drawings here, we haven't given a lot of consideration to those issues and so we appreciate the issues that are being raised and in the coming months we'll be happy to work with you on these. Farmakes: Can I ask you? What is the setback on the northern edge of the property from the property line? Jeannene Krone: We've shown 50 feet but we now know it's 70 feet. Farmakes: And the right-of-way is 150 feet? So are we looking at buildings 200 feet from the center of the highway or are we looking at buildings, are these edge of buildings on the edge of the right-of-way? Jeannene Krone: When the building setback is 70 feet. Mancino: That's 70 feet from the edge of the right-of-way. Jeannene Krone: Our's shows 50 so it'd be 20 feet further that way. Which is what the Highway 5 corridor study is indicating. 48 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Farmakes: The right-of-way is 100 feet off of the highway? Refresh my memory. Hempel: I think it's 150. Farmakes: 150? So then the scale on this is not correct then. The drawings that we're - looking at. The 150 would be almost 2 inches off of...to the highway. It's not 2 inches. Is the applicant here? Steve Schwanke: Yeah. Farmakes: Are these drawings done to scale in relationship to the highway? Jeannene Krone: They're to scale. All it shows is one side of the right-of-way. Farmakes: I'm looking where it states on, let's see. 4 out of 5, looking at Highway 5. If the right-of-way shown on Highway 5 is 150 feet, that looks a little out of whack to me. Is this calculating the distance or eye-balling it?...so directly, it's shown as half as less or. Aanenson: We didn't...the setbacks. What we're looking at, what we're trying to get your ideas as far as the density and how they lay out and how the grading and the location of power lines and all that stuff. Farmakes: I guess, the reason I bring that up is this is, it seems to me once again we've got a line of buildings right next to the highway. It would be an issue again, I think I made this point on the Highway 5 committee and I made it again before we voted on it. It's my opinion that what we're going to get, up and down that highway, is just like the development. Within 50 feet of the lot line. Whether it's industrial or whether it's medium or high density housing. You're going to see people trying to maximize their property in relationship to that highway. Put their buildings and parking lots just as close as they can get them, which seem to me to be the opposite of what the intent was of 2 years of work on that committee. What reality or what we can do against that in the face of actual development, I'm not sure. We've talked about, I was arguing about the issue of Alternative 2 and it seems to me the only way that the city is going to deal with getting some relief and not having buildings to the edge of the property lines is to acquire some of that property. Aanenson: But it's a PUD. You can give it whatever setbacks you want to give it. Farmakes: I understand that but I'm making that point for the rest of the members on the commission. 47 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Aanenson: The power lines right now run along the back side of Timberwood. Farmakes: So they basically dissect the... Aanenson: What they're doing is going to relocate it. Farmakes: Okay. Now once that goes to the south and gets towards the proposed road. Aanenson: It will tie back into the existing Timberwood... Farmakes: So it snakes to the left and then heads across the street? Aanenson: Yes. Farmakes: Okay. If we were considering any other types of development for that property... would that necessitate also moving the power lines? Aanenson: No. Originally that's where the road was going to go and that power line would fall basically where that road alignment's going to go. Industrial I don't think would...because it's going residential, my understanding is they... Farmakes: The green space that you were discussing earlier in regards to the configuration. It looked it came from the southwest up to the northeast. Generous: ...put in these view corridors or common areas. Farmakes: I'm wondering again what, if any thought was given to the issue of the Highway 5? It's sort of the same discussion we had with the last applicant. Aanenson: Certainly they're aware of the standards. Farmakes: Well as I can see, the buildings are within 50 feet of the property line. Is that correct? The buildings on the north end. Aanenson: This is conceptual. I'm not sure it's to scale. Farmakes: I just scaled it with a pen here. Generous: I didn't look at that. I just said, yeah. They want to move buildings up here but we'd make them comply when they got more detailed. 46 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 to Galpin gives medium density so that will also be on the other side of the street. So we want to make sure that we don't get kind of a tunnel effect here of high density and high apartments maybe that, we didn't. Aanenson: Well there's an interesting relationship with the school. I think that's something you need to examine. And maybe with the multi-family...What we're saying is this plan doesn't really articulate that. What we would like to see happen, we talked about, originally the road with this access to the site, with the fixed location...Highway 5 corridor. The applicants are saying, since they're not going with industrial, it probably makes more sense to put the road over to the other side where it serves the industrial, as they show on their site plan and it provides, that would be the access into the industrial park. So you're not bringing all that traffic through residential and maybe that's the merit...What they're doing right now in conceptual is running some ideas at you...give them some direction and come back. So they move the road over...this is our industrial component over here. We're going to let the - traffic come through this area and not impact the rest of that. So maybe that makes some sense. The concern we have with that, and this goes back to the design charette, they also show moving the power lines. The power lines...and they've indicated that in order to get - financing they would move the power lines across the tree corridor and that's something... Farmakes: Those power lines are pretty substantial too aren't they? _ Aanenson: Correct. Scott: Is that a continuation of the same line we were talking about along Highway 5 and then it cuts across? I think it is. Okay. _ Harberts: Bob, is the office warehouse, that whole industrial office area. I don't know if I've got the terminology correct here. Is that spec buildings or will they have owners or tenants or something that will come in, build them to specifications. Aanenson: What... - Harberts: And my last question initially here is, what's the opportunity of getting a right-in, right-out on Highway 5? - Aanenson: That's also going to be...they have to work at relocating that...And we feel, even for the buses coming into the school, they may want to use that looping system also. Farmakes: Can you tell me, the power line issue again. It's a little difficult to see the, as I recall the property, the power lines sort of dissect the property. - 45 - Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Generous: Besides the obvious one, specific treatments of the Bluff Creek corridor. There's a potential for the affordable housing component. Initial discussions with the developer were that they would provide...unit for moderate income. Scott: What is, define moderate income? Generous: I think they used 60% of the median income but I'll let the developer. Scott: Yeah, they can tell us about it because. Generous: Tell you specifically. Scott: Yeah, we've heard affordable housing used to define $175,000.00 house. So we'll be talking about this. So basically what we maybe need to focus in on is that what perhaps we're getting is affordable housing, yet to be defined later this evening. Generous: Correct. Scott: Okay. Generous: As well as the protection of the tree corridor...consideration for that specifically. Scott: Okay, comments? Aanenson: ...let you be aware that we are working, we do have a tentative charette date set to try and flush out some issues on it. And that is one of the conditions and the applicant's aware of that...but if we go back to the Comp Plan, on this site plan, originally it was all guided for single family component. What we said is, for a portion of it up in the first segment...and the school site went in and the comp plan said, this area could then be industrial. And looking at it, in conversations with the former planning director, maybe it seemed palatable that instead of industrial that maybe a high density would be more palatable than industrial. Maybe, maybe not. We did give a performance base. Maybe industrial is more palatable to the neighborhood. Maybe the high quality of multi-family...What we're saying at this point, we think there's some merits to some of their ideas but they need to be further articulated and again this goes back to the conceptual. What we're trying to do at this point is say you need to go back and refine... Mancino: Well and I would like to add to that contextually is that I think you also have to look on the north side of Highway 5 between the Lake Ann Park and Galpin. Because on that side of Highway 5 we have, starting at Lake Ann, high density also. Going all the way 44 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 PUBLIC HEARING: CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO REZONE 82.6 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD INCLUDING 19.3 ACRES FOR OFFICE/WAREHOUSE, 52.9 ACRES FOR MULTI-FAMILY, 3.4 ACRES FOR PONDING AREA, AND 7 ACRES FOR ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5, WEST OF AUDUBON AND EAST OF GALPIN BOULEVARD, CHANHASSEN CORPORATE CENTRE, HIGHWAY 5 PARTNERSHIP, RYAN COMPANIES, HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT, BOISCLAIR CORPORATION AND RLK ASSOCIATES. Public Present: Name Address Mark Foster 8020 Acorn Lane Karen Olson 8020 Acorn Lane Robert Boisclair, Boisclair Corp. 3005 Ottawa Avenue Nicholas A. Palaia, Palaia Architects 11420 Salem Avenue, Young America Liv Homeland 8804 Knollwood Dr. Dennis Dirlam 15241 Creekside Court, Eden Prairie Kent Carlson Suite 700, 900 2nd Avenue So, Mpls Steve Schwanke 922 Mainstreet, Hopkins John Dobbs 645 5th Avenue, Newport Jeannene Krone 922 Mainstreet, Hopkins Richard Frasch 8000 Acorn Lane Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Just a question. The intent, I think this is for edification of perhaps some of the residents. The intent of a PUD is something where we will do some different things with densities, and so forth, in order to get something from the developer. Preservation of natural features, obviously Bluff Creek. Based upon the conditions that, based on the staff report, what are we getting here? 43 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Scott: Okay, can I have a new motion with regard to the Kindercare Site Plan for the Kindercare facility? Mancino: I move that we table conditional use permit to allow a daycare center in an IOP district. Scott: Just a question for Kate. Do we have to make a motion to table the site plan for the Kindercare facility? Follow up with another motion to table the conditional use permit? Because we have, these are all specific items within the public hearing and I think we have to... Aanenson: You can't do one without the other. Scott: Then we need to address the site plan, specifically for the Kindercare facility. Can I have a motion please? Harberts: I'll move it to table. Mancino: Second. Scott: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to table the site plan review for the Kindercare facility. Harberts moved, Mancino seconded to table the Site Plan Review for a Kindercare Daycare facility. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Scott: May I have another motion with regard to the conditional use permit? Mancino: I move that we table the conditional use permit to allow a daycare center in an IOP district. Harberts: Second. Mancino moved, Harberts seconded that the Planning Commission table action on the Conditional Use Permit #94-1 for the Kindercare Daycare facility. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Scott: We'll take the Kindercare facility and the conditional use permit, well as soon as they can bring it back to us. We want to move it on if we can. We'll take a 5 minute break and then the next public hearing is regarding the Ryan/HeritageBoisclair development. 42 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 - Scott: We understand what our motion is. Basically that we're going to end up going from Lot 1, Block 1 into Lot 1 and combining Lots 2 and 3 into Outlot A. Mancino: Second. Scott: That was discussion. Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of preliminary plat for Subdivision #94-2 for Park One 3rd Addition into Lot 1, Block 1 and Outlot A (Lots 2 and 3, Block 1), with the following conditions: 1. Park and trail dedication fees to be collected per city ordinance. - 2. Provide the following easements: a. A standard 5 foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated along the common lot line between Lot 1 and Outlot A, Block 1. b. Delete. c. A 15 foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated on the final plat along the west property line of Outlot A to facilitate the extension of the sewer service. 3. Enter into a site plan development agreement acceptable to the city. 4. A driveway or cross access easement for use of the access off 77th Street West. The easement shall be dedicated in favor of Lots 1, Block 1 and Outlot A. 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. Erosion control measures (silt fence - Type I) shall be shown on the grading plan. Silt - fence shall be placed along the north property line where the parking lot for the Press is being relocated. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 41 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Mancino: Okay. Does that answer it for you? Aanenson: You've got to remember again, all you're doing is moving a property line for the Press further to the east. And leaving the rest as an outlot... Hempel: You're approving the common drive is going to serve eventually whatever's over there. Scott: And we also need a motion to table the conditional use permit for a licensed daycare. Ledvina: Did we agree to vote on... Scott: Yes. Harberts: I just have a clarification. Kate, Sharmin. On our previous motion did you get included the sidewalk? Aanenson: On 17? Scott: Well we can't really, that's a yes or no. If it's one way or the other, it doesn't matter. Harberts: Yes we can. We can do anything we want. Mancino: But yeah, I asked you that. It's in 17. Harberts: No I'm asking the sidewalk, handicapped accessible. If that was included in those comments? That was the intent. With the parking configuration then. Al-Jaff: I was going to include parking for the Press be in concert with Kindercare and then to meet all conditions of ADA requirements? Harberts: No. No, I don't want it to meet ADA because those are more. That the parking configuration though included the fact about that sidewalk being added rather than having wheelchairs and people having to go out into the line of traffic. And I didn't know if we needed to amend this one because we're still on this one. Scott: Well we're discussing, I think we understand. Harberts: But we got the intent. 40 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Scott: Everything to the east of the eastern... Mancino: Well wait. And if we approve it, can we still have 70% impervious surface because don't they have to add more onto that? Farmakes: But how are we tying ourselves into the development of the existing lot to the north with the current Kindercare? Mancino: But we're leaving those open. Farmakes: Those are left open? Scott: Yeah. Farmakes: So we're not tying ourselves into access to those lots? Ledvina: No. Mancino: Access to them? Farmakes: Well for instance, this goes here and then you've got it going there. Aanenson: The existing lot line is, you're moving it to the east is all you're doing. For the Press. The rest of it you're still leaving outlot. That's how it is right now. Scott: So it's Lot 1, as specified with Outlot A. Is that what we want to say? What's the right way to say it? Al-Jaff: Another way of saying it is, Lot 1 and combine Lots 2 and 3 into Outlot A. That's another. Mancino: Thank you. And Jeff's question. Al-Jaff: Or proposed lots. Mancino: But Jeff's question is, is that there won't be any problem having done this if we go back and let's say Kindercare goes to the northern side, can we still use the access from the Press' driveway into Kindercare? Aanenson: Sure. 39 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Aanenson: This is...to the outlot. Scott: Okay, so basically we are going to end up with a preliminary plat to replat Lot 1, Block 1 into Lot 1 and Outlot A and B? Is that? Al-Jaff: That would require a plat. Aanenson: Just one outlot. _ Mancino: Just to one outlot, yeah. Scott: Okay, Outlot A. Okay. Mancino: That's what I said. Scott: Was it? Okay, is there a second please? Ledvina: I'll second that. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we approve the plat as stated. Is there any discussion? Harberts: What are we approving? Mancino: Yeah, there's some discussion here. Jeff, why don't you. Jeff has some discussion. Farmakes: If we look at that, both outlots there. Mancino: They're really 3. What they want. This is really. Farmakes: So if you're looking at considering the northeast corner of that Lot 3, 2 and 1 for the Press. If by approving that are we defining the lines where the borders are? Between 2 and 3. Scott: Or should we just have Lot 1 and Outlot A and Outlot A comprises the, this is very surveyor's talk here. Farmakes: 2 and 3. 38 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Scott: Okay. It's been moved and seconded in summary to table the site plan review for the Kindercare facility. Is there any discussion? Harberts: Who seconded that one? Scott: Ah, she made the motion, you seconded it. Mancino: No. She made the motion. Second. _ Scott: Excuse me. Now it's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Harberts moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission table action on the Site Plan Review for Kindercare Daycare Center. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. — Mancino: I assume that eliminates 2 and 3. Scott: Yeah, I'd say by virtue of. Question. Do we have to approve the replat? Al-Jaff: Yes you do. — Scott: So that the Press can. Al-Jaff: Can go forward. Scott: Okay. May I have a motion please? — Mancino: I'll move that we replat. I move that we approve the preliminary plat to replat Lot 1, Block 1. Do I have to do, do I do the whole thing? I want to approve the Press. — Al-Jaff: Lot 1 expansion but you don't want 2 and 3. Mancino: Not yet because I mean, you know. That may change. Scott: Okay. So basically what we need to do is replat Lot 1, Block 1. Al-Jaff: Well we can process that administratively. _ Mancino: Okay. 37 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 20, 1994 Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Diane Harberts, Matt Ledvina, Joe Scott, Nancy Mancino, Jeff Farmakes, and Ron Nutting MEMBERS ABSENT: Ladd Conrad STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I; Bob Generous, Planner II; and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT LOT 1, BLOCK 1 AND OUTLOT B, PARK ONE 2ND ADDITION INTO LOTS 1, 2 AND 3, PARK ONE THIRD ADDITION, A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 54,720 SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSE EXPANSION FOR THE PRESS AND A 10,315 SQUARE FOOT KLNDERCARE FACILITY AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A LICENSED DAY CARE CENTER IN AN IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF DELL ROAD AND STATE HIGHWAY 5. Public Present: Name Address Douglas A. Chestnut 1 Gardner Lane, Dellwood, MN 55110 John Finnemore 800 Roosevelt Rd #13410, Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Mark Senn 7160 Willow View Curve John Dietrich RLK Associates, 922 Mainstreet Sharmin Al-Jaff presented part of the staff report on this item. Mancino: Is that true with, as I remember. Well first of all, I'd love to get a copy of it because I don't have it. And I obviously went back and referred to the draft that I have. Aanenson: Right. We have the codified one that you recommended up to the City Council... Mancino: But it is also the major gateway on the east side into our city and it is also an area where the University said there should be plantings. Gateway plantings in this area on Dell Road and this was also in the draft on Figure 6-1. They have encircled that corner and said, create significant landscape element to obtain eastern gateway district. So have we done that? 1 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Is that part of this development and has there been some thinking and some creativity on how that will become part of a gateway? That corner? Al-Jaff: They have provided a berm. They have provided a mixture of plantings along the corner so it would be all of this area. There is quite a bit that you can't do with that corner, mainly because there are utility boxes all along that corner. Mancino: And you have to be able to access utility boxes but it also says to me, even more importantly, that it needs to be designed well and it also needs to be designed with the opposite corner because here again you have your gateway entrance. So I would like to see an overall plan on those two corners on how the gateway entrance to our city is going to be. I mean look what we're doing for Opus H. We've asked them to wait until we've got the Highway 5, the western gateway figured out and we want to see a charette on what will happen there. And I'd like to see one on the eastern side too before we go ahead and _ approve developments. I mean again this is the whole gateway to our city. Scott: I was thinking about the great work that has been done with the city of Eden Prairie. Because I know the little wooded corner that we have which is kitty corner from the one that you're talking about. They initially were planning a strip mall in there and by working and making them perhaps more sensitive to what our plans are, for that being a gateway to our city, I don't know whether, I'm sure there was some negotiating that was involved that I'm not privy to but they found it acceptable to leave as is. To do something else. Aanenson: Actually the fact of the matter is, Rottlund was in the market area. They had demand and they bought the property out. I mean I don't think there was something that they felt geez...l think they always intended to save those trees and we looked at that too. Is the value. On the south side certainly we looked at, there's a wetland that we recommended enhancing...on the south side. On the north side, yes. I think we talked about the landscaping berms...as far as the gateway treatment. We specifically talked about the Bill Morrish one that's proposed near the bridge where the Apple Red-E-Mix is. It's a larger statement...more natural and native landscaping there. Mancino: But I would also like to see what Morrish says about this eastern one too and see it as a whole as we enter, and I don't think we've done that and I'd like to take the time and do it and decide what should go there. So anyway. Sharmin Al-Jaff continued her staff report at this point. Scott: Thank you Sharmin. Any questions or comments for staff? Dave, do you have any comments? 2 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 _ Hempel: I guess engineering's concern, I guess is still with that access circulation through the daycare, or it appears that the applicants are willing to try a measure here to try and manage it from a management position through the Press and I guess while something can be done in the future, if needed be, that there's that understanding out there that's...parking lot circulation. Mancino: Have we done that before? Hempel: We did with the Bank Americana down here on Market Boulevard. They requested a full access to Market Boulevard to the northerly, just south of the railroad tracks there and that seems to be working very well. Harberts: Would you consider that the same scope and size though Dave? Hempel: It's not the same to that degree, no. But it did have the potential with the drive thru bank and so forth... Harberts: Well with regards to your comment though, from what I read in the report though, is that shift change. When they have that 298 people all at once or something showing up. You know some are going, some are coming. Perhaps in the morning again. Are you comfortable from that angle that the access issues that you have can be resolved like that given this configuration? I guess my second question is. I read in here that they said that if it doesn't work, we'll come back. What doesn't work? What's that point? And what happens then? I mean the cement is laid. The asphalt is laid. And I don't know what the answer is. Hempel: That's a very valid point. It's tough to go back and change something that's already in concrete out there. Harberts: Would they be willing to redesign it to tear up the asphalt and lay it down if that's what's determined to make it work? I don't know. I'm not familiar with this type of. Mancino: But that's a measurement. You need, what is it that doesn't work and how do we determine that and actually have a measurement to measure against. Harberts: And does the city, well yeah. With the access point the city would care but internally, would the city have any jurisdiction or really care if someone got hit. Hopefully that won't happen but it certainly is a liability for the company, not for the city. But, and these are just questions. 3 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Hempel: That's correct. Those right-of-way, yield to the right I guess is the common rules of the road type of deal. It's similar to the Market Square across the street. It's a private parking lot. It's not public right-of-way so it's really not our jurisdiction. We try and provide recommendations to promote safe orderly traffic flow through these sites. I think the interest would be on the applicant to change it if they do have a problem as well. Harberts: With the sidewalk, I like the sidewalk there. Is the sidewalk, will that be a different material throughout the whole thing? You know I see this shaded thing. Or are they just, or are we just doing it to show us? Is there going to be like a difference in the materials used so it defines what that sidewalk is? Are we just going to paint lines down or. Hempel: I believe it's just going to be a painted crosswalk type of scenario across the parking lot. Harberts: Where the sidewalk crosses those, oh I don't know what those islands are. Are there trees in there? So are these people expected to walk through the trees? Walk around the trees? Or have to walk off of the cemented thing to get around there? Hempel: Maybe the applicant could address these questions a little more thoroughly. Scott: Sure. Why don't we, we'll...discussion and leave some for the applicant to come up and give your name and your address please. John Dietrich: John Dietrich, RLK Associates. Thanks for the opportunity to address the commission. I'd like to thank the staff for working with us to...brought up at the last Planning Commission meeting. Also with me tonight is John Finnemore of Kindercare. He has samples of the Kindercare building that he would like to also present and talk in more detail of the Kindercare program. I'd like to just go over some changes that were made to the site plan and submittal that Shamzin had brought up. First off I'd like to address the issue of the site plan and the changes that were made specifically were to remove parking along the north side of the parking lot. We removed 11 stalls so that we would have a landscaped area of approximately 27 feet from the curb up to the proposed addition. And also within this area we're proposing a 4 foot berm to help take the scale of the building height down. Secondly we have added the sidewalk between the Kindercare and the Press Incorporated. The sidewalk islands specifically are 17 feet in width. There's a 5 foot sidewalk through the center of the island with dropped pedestrian curbs at both ends. And on one side is a 6 foot planting area that would have trees and on the other side of the sidewalk is a 6 foot planting area that would have just shrubs in it. So we've balanced trees along on the south side. Shrubs on the north side. And then we would anticipate striping of the crosswalk to make sure to run between the drive aisles. In terms of the landscaping, we have added additional 4 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 landscape and plant materials to the corner. Conifer trees in front of the warehouse expansion and the trees and ornamental shrubs, deciduous and conifer along the east edge of, excuse me. The west edge of the new parking lot area. We did take the comments, they identified last time to try and match the existing plant materials that is existing at the Press and try to incorporate that in and throughout the entire parking lot. In addition we've taken the existing ash trees that are currently out in the site and we're proposing that they be transplanted up into this area anywhere from about 3 to 4 inch caliper ash trees. So we're looking to reuse those same plant materials that are out there along the east side of the parking lot and transplant into the rear of the site. So in all toll we are transplanting about 11 trees. 3 to 4 inch caliper and then about another 2 dozen trees, about half deciduous and half conifer. Scott: John? What would be the age? I see you have, there's a certain canopy indicated by each of those trees. Just pick, let's say we'll pick the ones that are on the. John Dietrich: We'll pick one here. Scott: Yeah, what's the age of that tree? John Dietrich: I would say the age of that tree is about a 10 year tree. So that we try to show our plans not at maturity but not right when they go in. Depending on...The other issue is the architecture and the building mass of the Press that is proposed, with the warehouse and the storage facility. We are proposing to utilize vertically scored concrete panels that would match the vertically scored concrete panels above the east side of the facade of the Press and also build into that facade some type of detailing. Perhaps it's horizontally scored concrete that would match the front of the Press building so that we would have a change of detail within that facade. That it's proposed that it would all be of the same material but we could utilize detailing to help break up the scale and tie it into the existing building. It's proposed that we would utilize the same lights that are on the facade. The same downspouts and the same metal cap as currently is running along the edge of that Press building. We are looking to, we do not have an architect on board yet but we would anticipate they will be able to show in detail. We would like to put that to our staff so that they would have the _ approvals to get that detailing. One sample of how that detailing could be broken up. The McGlynn building on Audubon Road. If you look at their screened walls. They have horizontal bands and then vertical bands on that concrete. It's a matter of building a form so that the material that the score patterns are detailed in that...panel. Mancino: And John, that's on the same plane? So you would have your vertical and your horizontal on the same plane? There would be no relief coming out where the horizontal? 5 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 John Dietrich: I would say there will be the opportunity for relief of a couple inches. Mancino: Okay. Okay. Right now where you have it on the front of the building. You have the vertical and then you have the horizontal that comes out about 4 feet. John Dietrich: Yes, that is a canopy. Mancino: Okay. So you're not suggesting a full canopy? John Dietrich: No. We are not suggesting. The canopy is there to provide shade for the windows and also as a cover for the walkway coming into the... Mancino: Okay. John Dietrich: We did provide one elevation. If you were out on Highway 5 looking north from the westbound land. We anticipate this is what you would see. The existing, the conifer trees here are existing. This is an existing ash tree and with the bituminous trail. The existing berm that is out there, that we would then continue to the east and...around the Kindercare facility. The existing building is here and then this is the proposed addition with the deciduous trees and running back. The proposed addition of the warehouse is back in along here and actually begins to die into the berm that is out there along Highway 5. This was taken at approximately a 2.5 height if you were sitting in a car, this is the elevation that you would see looking north into that parking lot. Scott: That's your 10 year? John Dietrich: Those are approximately 10 year tree heads on the proposed tree stand. Harberts: I have a question with regard to the site plan. I don't know if you're the individual. I'm looking at this one. I don't know if you've got a thing there. I just need some. John Dietrich: I have two copies. I have a landscape plan and then I have the full scale. Al-Jaff: I can use the overhead. Harberts: This location right here. You've got 1, 2. Mancino: Visitor parking. 6 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Harberts: Where would...someone that perhaps is on crutches or in a wheelchair, how would they access the sidewalk? Are you expecting them to...traffic or is there a sidewalk there? Where's the access? John Dietrich: At this point the...would be stepping into the line of traffic. I imagine we will put in a sidewalk when necessary... Harberts: Does that meet the ADA requirements the way it's shown...? I just, it's just a little difficult. I recently had the experience where I was in a wheelchair for 7 days and with crutches and it really is an eye opener and I would, my further comments later on would probably indicate some interest in blocking the access there. John Dietrich: I'm sure the applicant would be willing to put in a sidewalk from this corner up to here to facilitate the handicapped accessibility...into the site instead of going into the right-of-way. Harberts: So that would probably involve curb cuts on the bottom end as well. John Dietrich: Yes. We anticipate this would be one long curb cut. Probably bollarded with posts with a sign so that you can move right through that drop person scenario. It's fairly flat there so the grade's not any problem. Harberts: Thanks. Scott: Any other questions or comments for the applicant? Mancino: Probably will later. Farmakes: I had one question. The amount of parking spots there, adjacent to the Kindercare. Is that based on the square footage of the building? Al-Jaff: No, it's actually based on, our ordinance states for every 6 kids you have to 1 space and that's what was provided. The Fire Marshal will go into the building and put a limit on number of individuals that could occupy the building. And I must say that it will be way, it _ would be a number that is below what the ordinance would allow them based upon the parking stalls that they are providing. Farmakes: So if we look at those and we multiply those times 6, that's the amount of, actually kids inside. 7 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Mancino: How many kids? Farmakes: ...my question is, is the rationale for 6, is that a recommendation that is. Al-Jaff: That's a city ordinance. - Farmakes: I understand that. Do you recall when we got 6, as to the rationale that they used for that? Is that a professional recommendation or is that? Aanenson: Yeah, that's a pretty standard parking ratio. But they exceed that. Farmakes: For a daycare? Aanenson: Right. Mancino: I have another parking question. With the addition of the warehouse and the press room, are you adding more employees or staying about the same as you are now? - John Dietrich: My understanding is it's more of a warehouse and storage facility. Limited expansion in production. Limited in terms of employees that will be employed there. Mancino: So when I went to the parking lot today at 2:00 and there were 78 empty parking spaces, and it didn't include visitor parking and it didn't include handicapped parking. I look at that and I say, you've got a lot of extra parking. Because there were 78 empty ones there at 2:00 this afternoon. Now is that during the, I would assume that's during your big shift where you have 200 employees there. The day shift, which would be approximately 7:00 to 3:00, correct? John Dietrich: Correct but then, the reason for having the overflow is so when the 3:00 shift comes in and the 2:00, or the evening shift comes in and the day shift is there, that there is enough parking for those two to overlap. Mancino: Sure. But how much overlap parking will you have? I mean how did you determine how much overlap parking to have? John Dietrich: It was based on basically the total number of employees and trying to anticipate allowing all. - Mancino: So you're allowing 100% overlap? 8 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 John Dietrich: At this point, yes. And I would like to maybe ask Mr. Senn if employee projection is scheduled to stay the same or expand with the... Mark Senn: The easiest way to answer that question is that all of the employees anticipated in the expansion have already been hired and are there. Okay. If you look at actual employee counts, right now there's basically 252, let's call them warehouse manufacturing employees and there are 75 office employees. Okay. Of the 252 warehouse manufacturing employees, 124 are first shift, 98 are second shift and 30 are third shift. Okay. The office employees are all first shift. So basically the parking is not on a 100% fill basis but I mean it does provide quite a bit of overlap because it basically is necessary because those shifts probably actually are going to overlap by as much to an hour because it's not just a, you know everything doesn't just shut down and a whole new group come in type of thing. There's a phase period over an hour that phases in and phases out because with the complications of the press and the press operations, it's not that they just kind of shut the — press down, leave and you know if there's not another person. Mancino: I've had that happen on a job. They just stop. Okay. So that's why you're saying 100%. That's why you want the 100%. Mark Senn: Nancy, one of the reasons you know, like you see all the trucks out in the parking lot now. Mancino: Yeah, yeah. Mark Senn: Those trucks out in the parking lot right now are basically mostly what's going to be going inside the new expansion. They've been basically forced to utilize those trucks to basically accommodate the necessary. Mancino: Storage of paper, etc. Mark Senn: Storage of paper and stuff. Some of it is light sensitive and a whole bunch of other things but you know essentially the press is going, I think this is essentially public information. I mean they're a public company. I mean in the last several years the Press has gone from like a $25 million company to a $75 million company and with this expansion, they do anticipate going to about $100 million. But I mean again, it's not a labor intensive expansion. It's an efficiency expansion. Mancino: Okay. Well I was just concerned when I saw so many empty stalls at 2:00 in the afternoon and then I looked across the street at Versatil or Versatil and there must have been 9 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 50 or more than that. There must have been 100 empty parking spaces there too at 2:00 in the afternoon and I was thinking, why isn't there some cross use of all this parking that's available in that area. Mark Senn: I don't know what Versatil's situation is but with our's right now, you probably came an hour too early. If you would have come an hour later, you would have started to catch the phases. Basically because the phase starts at about 3:00 and runs until 4:00. Scott: Any other comments or do you have any other comments you'd like to make? John Dietrich: No. I believe that's... Scott: Okay, great. Since we were talking specifically about the Press, are there any, would the applicant with the Kindercare portion. John Finnemore: I've got an exterior color...I'd like to show you. Scott: Okay, good. John Finnemore: My name is John Finnemore. I'm the Division Construction Manager for Kindercare. What this color board shows is two different brick samples. The upper half would be the lighter brick and the lower half, the lower row of block, would be the darker brick. We will, we'll also use those same two colors in the trash enclosure and on the - monument sign base. Our standard sign base typically is a brick base. The picture just really is, by the sign how many they're showing off the sign itself and not the base. The shingles, it's called the weather wood look. This is the wood facia and soffit color. It's called Cape Cod gray. The windows are a bronze and it's a smoked glass. Or the window frames are bronze and the windows themselves are smoked glass. And that's basically the exterior colors. There is these columns are also, that is made of a stucco material and that's an off white. That I didn't have a sample of. As far as your question about the parking. The 6 spots per child, that's a pretty common planning requirement. There's a lot of variations but 1 stall per 6 children is a pretty standard number throughout many parts of the country. In our experience we find that's even a bit shy of what we would like so we exceed that by like I think 12 spots on that particular site. Scott: Questions or comments? Harberts: The buildings look nice. Great pictures, thank you. Scott: Good. Thank you very much. There is a public hearing on the schedule for this 10 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 particular item and just a show of hands. Are there any people here who would like to speak about this particular, actually we have 3 items but in summary. The Press addition and the building of the Kindercare facility. Is there anyone here that would like to speak about that? We need to open the public hearing anyway so I may have a motion please. Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Scott: Would anyone like to speak about this particular issue? Let the record show that no one wishes to speak. Oh, yes sir. Richard Wing: I'd just like Nancy and the commission, and particularly staff, to follow up on your question as to the stand-by status of Opus out on the west entry versus this east entry. The Council has discussed a moratorium and we're frustrated that we weren't able to get the moratorium on for Abra and Goodyear because they were already proposed but I think there was an understanding. Staff was clearly directed that there shouldn't be any more proposals or directions until we had this corridor study and to go further on this. I would like _ to know if this meets the architectural standards as proposed by the committee and Bill Morrish. If it's land uses are met. Setbacks are met. Landscaping. I think there's a lot of questions and I don't want to get into the same problem we had last time saying we can't do anything about it because it's been proposed and it's too late for the moratorium. I think Council's made it clear that before is done on Highway 5 we get some standards in place in this PUD overlay and it confuses me that staff has time to develop this proposal and bring it forward but yet we're not completed on the Highway 5 corridor study. So it seems like once again the cart's ahead of the horse. I'm a little frustrated here. It's been real hard to sit back and listen. I guess Nancy's questions specifically on those issues, ought to be addressed here. I'd like to know where we're going with this first before we look at this proposal. Scott: Okay. Would anyone else like to speak at the public hearing? Okay. Seeing no more interest, may I have a motion to close the public hearing. Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Scott: Public hearing is closed. Comments from commissioners. Matt. Ledvina: Well, I guess the standards for Highway 5, as I understand, that the staff has indicated that overall the applicant has met the requirements of the Highway 5 zoning overlays. Isn't that correct? 11 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Al-Jaff: Correct. Ledvina: Okay. The issue as it relates to the gateway, the monument, whatever. The landscaping or whatever that treatment we want to have on that corner, I think that's a significant issue.I don't know exactly what would be done there or what the specific plans are. Aanenson: Can I just bring you up to date on that? Ledvina: Sure, if you would. Aanenson: We certainly realize that's a significant issue. Let me just comment on Councilman Wing's concerns. The staff has responded to the Highway 5 corridor study. The Planning Commission's reviewed it. It's in the Council's arena. There's not much more we can do at this point. We require, everybody that comes in is given a copy of the overlay zoning. Even though it's not an ordinance. So legally we can't bind them but we certainly encourage everyone to follow it. So far we've had good cooperation. As far as the gateway treatments. We did have HGA looking at that. We spent 3 to 4 months with them trying to visualize, trying to get them to capture a vision for us that we could do. We identified the monuments or the gateway that we wanted. One of their proposals came back saving the Apple Valley Red-E-Mix as an icon so we obviously were having some problems getting some visualization. Just in the last month we turned it back over to Hoisington to give us some visualization. We are working on this issue. Specifically on this site, what we looked at, that was talked about yes, as a gateway treatment on this site and how it relates to the trees. Maybe the trees should be our gateway. Maybe it's not an architectural feature. We've gone all over the map on this. We still haven't come up with a definitive what should that gateway treatment be. That's a whole other issue that, certainly that's maybe something that we can incorporate into this. At best on this site, as Sharmin has indicated, there is a - substantial deterrent to this gateway treatment and the fact that you've got utilities and utility boxes there. I think at best what we could do at this point is, we are still, as I said, working on the gateway treatment itself. To date. That is something that we are ongoing with. At best what we could do at this point is to ask the applicant to take escrow for this plan and... ask them to leave an easement so if we get something in place, that we can go back in. We don't know what that's going to be. Mancino: But I think it's only fair to the applicant that we have some sort of a time line to know when that's going to be. Whether it's 3 or 4 months. Aanenson: ...that we know that the outlots next to Target are coming forward and we've got the same issue there. We've always indicated that that's another on Powers Boulevard. If you look in the document, there are specific ones identified as far as gateway treatments. And the access off of Powers, or off of Highway 5 and other gateways. We know that 12 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 they're coming in and again, we want to have a gateway treatment in place so when that particular project comes in we will have something in place. Unfortunately we're having a hard time getting a handle on what should that be. But I think at this site we were trying to tie into the trees at Eden Prairie site so I think at best we can ask them to hold off an easement area but still take escrow so we have something in place if we can't finalize them. If we get landscaping to make sure we have something in there to screen the parking. Ledvina: Well my question is then, given the layout that we're talking about. Obviously _ something, even north of the parking lot there, is there enough room to do something substantial? I see, well let's see. What's the scale? About 100 feet or so. Aanenson: When we looked in the Highway 5 document, really what we talked about is the cluster it kind of representative of this plan with the clustering of trees. This kind of has that affect. It has a berm with trees. Maybe it needs, they make a statement with sugar maples. Maybe it's something, I don't know. Mancino: But it should be dealt with on a professional level. I don't think here is the time to figure that out. We should have a landscape architect do that. Aanenson: ...right. Ledvina: So in order to keep that door open, what would you recommend? Aanenson: That we take some sort of an easement but we still can take this plan. In fact maybe put a date on there that says we try to get something resolved and then we take in escrow for landscaping what we normally do for the site plans. So we still have a back-up plans. You get this landscaping plan where you want it if you can't come up with a gateway treatment. If we find out the gateway treatment doesn't work on there. We haven't done a design on this specific site. That's a fall back position. We've got an approved landscape plan that you're comfortable with with this site. This was just a concept that we said a gateway treatment should be considered here. Maybe when we do the design because of the power lines, we find out. Mancino: Well no, I think we'll have one. Al-Jaff: I would point out though that a traffic signal transformer, and those are difficult to move. Am I correct Dave? Hempel: That's correct. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Aanenson: We'd have to go behind that. Mancino: But also a landscape architect can take some time and design around that perimeter. I mean that, you know those boxes instead of just putting trees there. They may come up with a whole other design that uses the boxes in the design and that's what I'd like, you know to wait and see. Ledvina: Sure. Mancino: And make sure that the applicant has to follow that design. That landscape design, whatever it is, and how much of an area it is on that corner. I mean I don't know how big it will be. I can't say it's going to be 100 feet by 100. Ledvina: Okay. Well, I certainly would want to keep the door open as it relates to some special work that the city might want done at that location. As it relates to the circulation, I also have a hard time with an undefined criteria for intervention as it relates to the potential traffic, pedestrian problems there. So I don't know how we can fix that. If you could suggest some language there. That's the end of my comments. Scott: Jeff. Farmakes: I don't understand how you figure impervious surface over the playgrounds. Can you explain that to me? In the photographs I see cement, poured cement in the playground areas. How's that figured in? Al-Jaff: We took the calculations that the applicant has provided. John, did you include the playground in the impervious surface coverage or not? John Dietrich: In the hard surface coverage on the playground, we included 2 to 3 as soft upon that hard surface. Farmakes: So the photograph that you provided us up here is, the reading area off the photograph is green space or is? John Dietrich: Not completely, no. John Finnemore: Impervious is sand. Sand and gravel. Farmakes: I'm trying to come up with how that factors in, I mean from a square footage. Did a layout for you. I don't see one here but all I see is squares saying totlot, playground, 14 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 playground. And I'm assuming that the ones that are named playground and playground, those are green surfaces? John Finnemore: The playground areas are, there's roughly, including the building sidewalks, probably somewhere between 10,000 and 12,000 square feet of concrete and then the remainder of it would be grass areas. Farmakes: So is that square footage factored in when we're looking at impervious surface? Do we consider that impervious surface? John Dietrich: To be perfectly honest we considered impervious surface would be 4% of that building. Only about 6,000 square feet. John's indicating it's 10,000 to 12,000 square feet. We have about 4,000 to 5,000 square feet more of impervious surface on that site. So that would probably push that site up from the 54% to probably around 62%... Al-Jaff: They can go up to 70% so they are below what ordinance requires. Farmakes: That was my question. I don't understand in relationship to what we're doing on Highway 5, why we go from and center to place a parking lot always towards the highway. Even in this factor where the access to these parking areas are down a service road. Or Dell Road. It seems like we're putting our best foot forward or what we're capable of doing and stick forward a parking lot next to the highway. It's just the whole direction of these proposals, at least for the free standing building. It seems to me almost it should be the other way around. And again, allows the building to shield the parking area and I know that there's a train of thought that says gee, they've got to see the parking from the road. I don't know if I follow that. I don't think that you can see the parking lot also from TH 5 behind the building. I just think it'd be more pleasant, offer more opportunity to see landscaping. I'm sure that the applicant can come up with some good reasons why that shouldn't be. From an aesthetic standpoint it would be nice to see that. I can understand the proposed — expansion of the existing building being figured as to how it fits in in the existing building. So that's a different problem to deal with. I'm a bit hesitant to say that that expansion shouldn't match what the existing building is on the exterior. That they should be held to some other type of building where you get a wing that looks nothing at all like the existing structure. I don't think that's the purpose of what we were trying to do with the Highway 5 improvements. It seemed to me that what we were trying to do or what we were trying to hold Opus to is that there would be some visual relief on the entry area off the highway. And again, I just count up all these parking spots. Even though they're bermed, again it's not bermed all the way around the road. To the north and south, east and west. Going to the signage that the applicant was talking about. On the photograph there it is a pylon sign there. On the sample. I would like to specify that it be a matching architectural structure to the base 15 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 of that sign. Currently it's up on poles. The applicant mentioned that that's what was their to do that. That the sign company went ahead and did it as this. I'd like to make sure that we specify that. Aanenson: It's in one of the conditions. Farmakes: Okay. I would. Mancino: Which number is it? Al-Jaff: 2, Site Plan Review. Farmakes: I would also like to see some landscaping around that sign. It seems to be, there seems to be a row of trees or a row of bushes showing and then the sign seems to jut out from it on the end. Trying to create some relief with that. As to Councilman Wing's comments on the building. To a certain extent this does incorporate some of the issues as to the roof line relief. Probably not. Mancino: What do you mean by that? Farmakes: Well, I'm talking about the free standing building. Mancino: The Kindercare? Farmakes: The Kindercare. It does have some relief going on and this building is very similar to the office building proposed up here by Market Square. And it's an attempt I think to do some of the things that we talked about with the rooflines and so on. They're quite linear and they're quite long. There is some relief on the side with how the buildings are configured to the two wings going out. Mancino: Do you think that's a good gateway though? Farmakes: No I don't. Do I think it's a good use next to a printing company like that? Probably. The issue of gateway I think again is two approaches. Either the city buys up all the property and builds what it wants, or that it tries to incorporate use within, working with the applicants who are going to be building these buildings, to work in what is reasonable to be required that we get an end result of what we're looking for. And I think a lot of that would be, not necessarily sticking the parking lots all up and down TH 5. Again, the applicant probably has some reasons that they would elect to put the road up there. It probably makes sense with the existing parking lot as it stands. With the adjacent building. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 So there are rationales for that. Whether or not they outweigh the interest of the city, I think that that's an important...I would prefer I guess to see sort of the situation turned around but. Sort of twisted around in the opposite direction but. Mancino: Yeah, I understand that. Farmakes: The feasibility of that in relationship to the traffic patterns and so on, I'm not going to make that judgment call on the basis of my vote. I would also like to see more trees shielding that building. The Kindercare building from the south. If they go with the existing parking lot, you sort of have that one little island out there. We have an additional 12 spaces that they said than what was necessary? I'm still a little confused on the issue of the 6 per child. Al-Jaff: It still depends on the number of kids that they will be allowed to have in the building. For instance, if they have. Farmakes: And you base that on square footage? Al-Jaff: Exactly. If they have 60 children, not based on square footage. It's based on the number of children. If they have 60 children attending this daycare, they have to have 10 spaces. Mancino: But the number of children is based on the square footage. Farmakes: Don't we have a fire code or something that says this much square footage, this many children? Al-Jaff: Yes. Do you know the maximum number? John Finnemore: 35 square feet per child. Of totally usable space for children, exclusive of bathrooms and kitchens and... Al-Jaff: So what's the number of children you know. John Finnemore: 200 maximum. Al-Jaff: 200 so. John Finnemore: It's 33. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Mancino: Why do we have 45? Al-Jaff: So they can have a maximum of 200 children. 33 parking spaces and they have 45 provided. So they have 12 more than what is permitted by State licensing requirements. Mancino: So does that mean they have to delete 12 spaces? Al-Jaff: No, they don't have to. Our ordinance basically says, you have to have a minimum of but it doesn't give you a maximum as long as. Farmakes: So there's 12 additional spaces. Al-Jaff: Correct. And they don't exceed the hard surface coverage so. Mancino: Yeah but we could still get more open space, green space if you don't have the 12 spaces. Farmakes: I think the issue that the parking lot does run to the south and we should look at eliminating some of those parking spots and replacing them with some, an additional tree. Aanenson: The gateway? Farmakes: Well there's very little maneuverable room here. There just isn't a lot as to what to do. I think it's maybe debatable that there isn't additional parking available across the street. Not that we would place that on another business but these parking spaces in terms of Kindercare. They are temporary? Temporary parking? What's the average duration of the parking. John Finnemore: There's going to be staff parking and temporary parking. Farmakes: So if somebody comes to pick up their child, what's the normal turn around of that sequence? John Finnemore: Transportation texts use about 6 minutes. That's probably a little light. I'd say it's more like 10 to 15. It's typically closer to 6 in the morning and closer to 10 to 15 at night. You know parents have to find out what their kid did during the day and have a little, the ability to spend some more time there. But in the morning of course everybody's in a hurry to get to work so that's a quicker turn around time there. And with 200 children we would have approximately 27 or 28 employees. That is at maximum time frame. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Mancino: So 33 would be, yeah. Farmakes: That's the extent of my comments. Scott: Okay, Nancy. Mancino: I'm going to start with the staff report and start with issue number 2 on page 2 _ which is the zoning ordinance permits up to 70% hard surface coverage and I would like staff, from a legal point of view, to tell me why the present Press is non-conforming structure. Correct? Aanenson: No. It's the impervious surface. Mancino: It's the impervious surface amount. Aanenson: That is non-conforming. It's not anything to do with the structure or anything. It's the impervious surface. Mancino: Okay, the impervious surface is non-conforming right now. It is 79% and it should only be 70%. Al-Jaff: Correct. Mancino: Okay. So now they're going to take that parcel and they want to expand it and add a, add what we see. And they're going to do down in impervious surface to 76.8% but it still doesn't meet the 70%. Yet they have more land there. They have Lot 3. So why can't we make the impervious surface area conforming at this point? Because if they're going in and changing and modifying their entire building, their entire structure and isn't this the opportune time to say, now let's have the impervious surface be conforming? And actually when I read in the code book, the city code book. Division for non-conforming uses, it says purpose. The purpose of this division is to number 3, to encourage the elimination of non- ce conforming uses, lots and structures. So why aren't we doing that here? _ Aanenson: Again, the opinion from the City Attorney on that specific issue and the fact of the matter is, if the expansion meets all the setback requirements...so what you're looking at is just the impervious surface. Okay? So they are lessening that. And what the ordinance section 20-72 says, you can't expand unless you're going to lessen or eliminate the non- conforming. So the City Attorney's opinion, because they are lessening the non-conformity, that's okay. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 — Mancino: So you can never change a non-conformity to a conformity as long as they're lessening? What a, I mean when you have land here that would be available to make it conforming. Isn't it a higher priority to make things conforming? I mean is it really a higher priority for our city to make it less conforming? Aanenson: If you...impervious surface issue. I understand what, normally when you have a building setback or something like that, because it's the impervious surface. Mancino: But that's, the green space is important to us. You know it's a value. Aanenson: I'm not arguing with you philosophically but I'm just saying legally. I understand what you're saying. Mancino: Is that something we need to change that's in our ordinance? I mean again, there's land right here. We could do it and it just seems, why wouldn't we? So whether we can legally or not, I would go on public record saying, I would like this to conform to the 70% impervious surface because we have the land to do it. To take it from a non-conforming impervious surface to a conforming. Can we make that as a recommendation? Aanenson: You can always recommend it...take it up to the City Council and give Roger a second hit at it. Mancino: Okay. Next, the issue. The next one on page 2 about the revised landscaping plan. This is on sheet 4, out of 8. Was this done by a landscape architect? John Dietrich: Yes it was. Mancino: It was? Okay. I would like to see some added landscaping on the east side of that 180 foot span that you saw as a press room expansion. In the first 50 feet on this landscape plan you have 3, let's see. You have 3 Colorado Green Spruces at 8 feet, which will be about a 5 foot span. So you're covering up to begin with in that 50 foot span, you've got 3 trees. It will be 15 feet so there's going to be 35 feet of open wall there and one of the things that we're trying to do is to get some nice plant massings against that entire wall. So I would like to see many more trees put on that eastern side. And I would like them to be primarily coniferous with varying heights. Maybe 8. Some 8's and 7's and some 6's. I would also like to see some added landscaping in the square area. Let's see, how do I do it. In front of on the south side of the press room expansion and on the east side. This area in here. I would also like to see 3 more coniferous trees added. Then I would also like to see some more internal landscaping in the Kindercare parking lot. And if we do eliminate 12 of the 20 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 parking spaces, I think that that will help. Other thinking. I kind of agree with Jeff about turning the parking lot for the Kindercare on the southern side of the building and pulling the playground. I know that Early Beginnings has that on Highway 5. They have the playground _ in the front and the parking towards the rear. I think that that would add greatly to the gateway affect of that corner. So I would like to see the parking lot flip flop on the Kindercare. And I would also like to see islands between Kindercare parking and the Press _ parking so that you cannot go through one. You cannot use them interchangeably. One's a parking lot for Kindercare and one's a parking lot for the Press. At some point in the future I mean the Kindercare may not be there. It may be something else, 10 or 20 years down the road so I would like to see the differentiated parking lots. I would also think, and I think Diane brought this up before, that the people from the Press who take their children to daycare at Kindercare, have some sort of designated or reserve parking lots next to Kindercare on their side of the parking lot. Those are my comments. Scott: Okay, thank you. Ron. Nutting: I think we've got a much improved structure just with the landscaping additions to the south and east facing walls. I don't have a problem with Nancy's comments in terms of adding some additional to the east wall there but I like the looks of the project and I think it's going to break things up nicely... I would like to see either we tighten up the recommendation on the difference between parking lots in terms of the speed bumps. Whether it be islands or we just put in the islands or the speed bump just to make sure that that isn't left open to interpretation or definition of what the problem is down the road. As far as the gateway. I guess if there's some reasonable way via easement to leave open the possibility. Whether it's in the form of landscaping with trees or signage. I'm not sure we're at a point right here in terms of holding up the project for the ultimate definition. What that should be but leaving some window. I mean the decision may be that that's not, you know other than some trees, there is no other gateway there. I don't know. I guess I don't have the background through the study and...I think those are my basic comments. Scott: Okay. Diane. Harberts: I would certainly recommend that that sidewalk be added in the handicap accessible designated spaces to include this suggestion by John about that one long curb cut. I would certainly support flip flopping the parking. Reducing the parking by 12 spaces and flip flopping it around the other way. I'm not real, I guess I like the designated pedestrian walkway. I'm not real thrilled and I'm somewhat ignorant with regard to, when you have these islands to receive topsoil, sod and irrigation. And I would just come in and stripe the asphalt to indicate a pathway. I don't know how that really constitutes a sidewalk versus just a pathway. I'm certainly not versed into understanding that but I think the comments that I 21 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 was trying to project at the last commission meeting was to have an identified pathway or sidewalk that would make it easy. That would certainly be free of obstructions, including snow, sod, irrigation, things like that. I would certainly support the designated parking with regard to people that use Kindercare and parking in that parking lot, I think that would help just with the overall circulation. I think that's about it. Scott: Okay, thank you. Just from keeping a tally here. It appears that the Press expansion probably has, I mean would I be correct in saying that we wouldn't have any cause not to move the Press expansion on? Well, from what I understand we can send one on and table the other. Or I'm not saying that that's what we would do. Farmakes: There are connection points between the two. The parking lots go, they're traveled through. Scott: Well it sounds like we've got, I believe that there should be no direct connection. I think it's, what we're seeing here is that the majority of the commission would prefer not to have any ingress or egress inbetween the two lots. Mancino: So therefore you can separate them. Scott: Just from looking at where the issues lie, it appears as if the Press expansion has been pretty well taken care of relative to the suggestions on landscaping and so forth. It looks as if there's some major. We talk about flip flopping parking lots. I mean I take the Highway 5 task force recommendations very seriously and I think that that's something that should be strongly considered. It seems like there's some major...with the Kindercare facility and my thought perhaps is that we want to entertain moving the Press expansion ahead and tabling the Kindercare. Mancino: And seeing the flip flop, etc? Scott: Yeah. But I wanted to throw that out and kind of get your thoughts. Because we need to do this as a consensus so. First of all, how many of us want to disconnect those parking lots? Mancino: I can do that, yeah. Farmakes: I'm open to that. Scott: That's my concern too. When I see, if in the future. If this. If that. And then since our vision, we have to be looking at this 10-20-30 years down the road. I think we'll end up 22 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 saving ourselves a lot of grief by not having these two connected. Nutting: Joe, do we have the ability to hear any thoughts from the developer as to, just some of what we're talking about? I know the public hearing is closed. Scott: We've closed the public hearing. Nutting: We're suddenly going, this is the second meeting and suddenly we say, now let's put the parking lot on the other side. As opposed to having addressed that the first time. I guess I just, before I make any decisions I'd like to at least hear some feedback to what they're hearing. Scott: Sure. Harberts: Is there anything that's prohibiting us at this point, outside of the developer's concern though, with regard to how these projects line up and whatever? Aanenson: I just had one question for Dave. What we're doing now is saying that's a right turn in and right turn out so when you come out you have to go. How long is that island on Dell Road so if you want to come back out and get on Highway 5, before you came out through the Press parking lot and come around...do you have any concern with that Dave? Hempel: It's probably going to function very similar, with or without the curb cut from getting access to Kindercare. I could see a lot U turns being done... Aanenson: That's what I'm saying. It's the egress I'm worried about. Hempel: Right. The egress and you're restricted to a right out only anyway so that isn't going to change. Mancino: So it won't make any difference if it's on the south or north side? Okay. Hempel: No, it's just going to keep the short cut more on the Press site. Harberts: It would what the short cut? Hempel: It would delete that or eliminate that through the Press. Aanenson: But the people coming out of Kindercare though, have to go all the way back up and do a U turn. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 — Hempel: That's correct. All the way up to, what is it, Dakota and take the frontage road back, West 78th Street east and back to the Press. Harberts: And that would be the p.m. or is that a.m. too? I suppose whatever you travel. Hempel: If you're going to the Press, you would either do a U turn on Highway 5 to go back north to Dell Road... _ Mancino: Did I miss something? I think I did. Scott: What you're saying here is that if somebody is, if someone is coming in. They're going west on Highway 5 and make a right turn at Dell Road, can they make a left from Dell Road into Kindercare? Yes? _ Mancino: Sure. John Dietrich: No. Scott: No. So they have to go down, why's that? — Hempel: There's parking median islands... Mancino: Oh, it goes to the whole street. The entire. So that's regardless of wherever it is. Wherever the parking lot is. Scott: Is this something that, is there enough stacking to avoid. I mean is this something that a cut could be made in that median? I'm not doing a traffic study here. I'm just thinking, if we're talking about making that change so that's the only way you can get in. If — it's right-in and right-out. Ledvina: ...or I mean no left turn. — Hempel: I'm not sure...there's enough room to provide two lanes which you need for a left turn lane. Scott: Okay. I got you. So it's the right turn on Dell Road. A U turn down by West 77th. _ Farmakes: You're going to have that. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Harberts: Regardless. Farmakes: Regardless. The primary access has to be off TH 5 anyway so if you turn left...Eden Prairie. Hempel: If you're a Press employee and you drop your child off at Kindercare and leaving Kindercare, you even have to go back out onto Highway 5. Scott: But if we have reserve parking for Kindercare, for Press employees at Kindercare, they'll be coming in the back way. Walking and doing that too so. Nutting: Will an employee want to park closer to Kindercare or will they want to park closer to the door? Harberts: Kindercare. You're going to pick your kid up. You're going to get off work. Walk to Kindercare. Pick it up and then get in the car. That's what you're trying to do. Nutting: Will they park closer to the door in the winter time and then drive around? _ Harberts: Well what you're trying to do is to eliminate that type of scenario because then that cuts down circulation within the parking lot which then cuts down the possibility of any safety issues. So you know, that's what you're trying to achieve here. Is to have them pull in once, park and away they go. Farmakes: Irregardless, they're going to have to take a right to come out... Scott: And this could end up being an office building down the road and there'd be no reason to have these lots connected anyway so. Okay. Anyway. My comments are, I mean it seems like the Press expansion is satisfactory in it's existing form to be moved along. I think there's still some major concerns with the, major questions with the Kindercare. So those are the extent of my comments. I'll be asking the difficult question for a motion. Nutting: Do we have the ability to? Scott: You can, yeah. Sure, go ahead. John Finnemore: Yeah, I'd like to address 3 of those comments. Number one on the parking stall requirements. As a company we have a standard ourself that we use roughly 1 stall for 4 children so 200 divided by 4 is 50. So we're slightly below that. Keep in mind, with 45 25 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 parking spots out there, in the p.m. when we're at capacity we'll have roughly 28 to 30 employees in those parking spots. So say there's 30 employees. That only leaves 15 then for the parents to come into which is, I mean it would work but we decrease that to 33 and all of a sudden you've got 2 or 3 parking spots open not used by employees. So there's not a surplus of parking out there. In fact we would typically be looking for 50-55 parking spots on a normal layout. We're building the same facility in Woodbury and we have what, 55 there. 55 spots there. As far as flipping the, putting the parking lot in back and the playground in front. Two things that would prohibit us from doing that. One is the speed of the traffic out on Route 5 and that's what, 55 mph there. I mean that's what the sign says. - There's no police so I was doing 65 on my way here because I was a little late. A runaway car in a situation like that could right into a playground. If the playground was in the front of the building. We've got, we do have set-ups where the only place left to put the playground was along a busy road and we put up guardrails and so forth but at 65 mph you really can't put an adequate barricade that's even remotely attractive to keep a car out. That's one issue. A second issue are those overhead power lines there. Those are transmission lines. They've got, somewhere probably 345 kilobolts going through those. There's a big concern these days, mostly with children but just with people in general with what they call electromagnetic fields, EMF. And there's federal standards on what they measure the EMF and what's called, the unit is called a milogaust and you, I have a gaust meter and what we found is we need to be set back roughly 100 and some feet. Wherever we're set back from the front of our building is where we're down to a point where that reading is 2.0 lower so we can have a parking lot out there but we can't have a playground or building in an area that has readings that high. There's studies either way. I mean if you go to a power company they'll tell you that EMF is not a problem. But yet there are studies on the other end that say that it can promote cancer and other things. Mancino: Is this a state regulation? John Finnemore: No. It's a federal guideline. It's nothing in the books yet but it's something that will be someday. Other countries have. Sweden has laws on that. France has laws and they're all being analyzed. There's major research in this right now. Numerous power companies. Everybody's doing research on this issue and the rule of thumb has been this 2.0 milogaust. That's what we've been going by. We've been using 2.0 and we're setting back everything we can from a reading at that point or lower. And we do get that reading when we go to the front of the building so if we were to put the playground in the front of the building, we would then exceed that reading. And we can't take that risk and if actual laws aren't passed that say you can't be in an area that's 2.0 or greater, we can't take the risk and the liability of having to close the center. The third issue is the cross over traffic between the Press and our facility. We would put it in our agreement with the Press that, we don't want the cut through traffic anymore than the commission does or staff does so if it 26 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 becomes a problem from our point of view, we're going to address that with the Press and something will have to be done. Then additionally, in the development agreement between Kindercare and the Press and then the City of Chanhassen, we can put something in there that says, if staff or the commission or whoever determines that it becomes a problem, we can change the configuration then. Mancino: What's your reason for not eliminating it right now so it doesn't become a problem? John Finnemore: Well the access to our facility. We've got a right-in, right-out on Dell Road. In order to get in, you have to come in and do that U turn which I can't imagine that U turn's legal to get into. I mean the majority of the traffic in and out of our center is going to be from Highway 5. And whether you're going east or west bound, you'd have to do a U turn around that insurmountable median out there. Mancino: But what does that have to do with having an ingress into the Press' parking lot? John Finnemore: Well because it...internal drive. If you're coming in this way, you can come around here and get in where your only other choice would be to do an illegal U turn to get in here. That allows... Mancino: But that's exactly what we don't want. Okay, never mind. John Finnemore: But then how do we get into our facility, basically. We've got an insurmountable median from this point to this point. Mancino: So you actually want to use the Press' parking lot as an entry into Kindercare's parking lot? I mean that is your intent? John Finnemore: Correct. There's no other way to...because the people aren't going to be coming from back here. They're going to be coming from Highway 5. Nutting: Do you have any problem putting a speed bump there? John Finnemore: No. We don't have a problem with that. Farmakes: This currently where that intersection is, would that be considered an illegal U turn? Scott: I don't think so because I remember when they were ripping up TH 101, I had to go 27 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 — back there every day to get to where my office building was and I usually. Farmakes: U turns are permitted unless otherwise posted. — Scott: Yeah, I don't think it's illegal. John Finnemore: It's not posted. Scott: So it's not illegal. Hempel: It's certainly not a desired..., especially at the level or during peak hours...see if there was maybe some alternative to placing a median cut in for a left turn lane into the site — only but not out of it. That may be a possibility. Farmakes: If there was a cut in, would it be preferable on either end of the building? North or south? Hempel: Further away from the intersection would be preferred. Scott: For stacking. Harberts: Dave, with regard to one of the points brought up was regarding the speed of traffic. As I recall, we've got a lighted intersection there and we've got a lighted intersection down towards Chanhassen. Wouldn't that greatly reduce the speeds and I'm also looking at that time of morning. I know when my buses run on the road, to achieve 55 mph with those amount of stop lights even coming east or going west, I don't know how often and I don't know if you can answer that. How often that you would be at a speed of 55 mph at that particular point on Highway 5 given the amount of traffic and the number of traffic lights. Hempel: Those kind of conditions vary daily. Whether drivers habits and so forth. I guess that's a pretty tough question. Harberts: It's almost a traffic...question. Mancino: But Diane we've got the same thing at our new elementary school. I mean the new elementary school's on Highway 5. 55 and they have the playgrounds towards the front. Towards Highway 5. I mean obviously they're set back and there's going to be a chainlink fence around it but the same kind of conditions happen there. I mean they're. Harberts: I think to a greater extent there's an opportunity for those, for that speed to be 28 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 attained at that point rather than at this point. Mancino: Well there will be a light there though. I mean eventually when the school opens, there will be a light. So it's kind of the same. It's the same sort of situation. John Finnemore: But that's really the secondary concern compared to the EMF issue. We can't jeopardize our liability of having a playground with readings over 2.0. We couldn't as a company put a playground out in front of that building. Harberts: Push the building back. Farmakes: On the lot lines, just one quick question. The lot line that we're dealing with there. The property owners for those two lots. The lot to the north. I didn't ask this question. How is the property being plotted? Is that one piece of land or two? Al-Jaff: Currently it is one lot and one outlot. They are dividing it into three. Aanenson: No. They're reconfiguring. They planning to well. Mancino: Total of three. Aanenson: One outlot so they're replatting them so you'll have one for the Kindercare and one still an outlot. Farmakes: If the city looks at the potential issues for north or south parking lot, would the city look at an issue when they're looking at gateway or the issue of gateway comes up, is there the possibility of moving that back and the city acquiring the buffer. Mancino: For that front lot. Farmakes: That front lot or part of that front lot currently where the city has the most substantial area for landscaping. Some of the environmental issues that were brought up. The distance from the power lines and so on to the front of the building. Are we talking 50 _ feet? Are we talking, you know the issues of, I'd like to see a serious response to the issue that if we did flip it around. We haven't voted yet but I'd like to see a serious response to how that could be done and address those issues. Aanenson: All I can say about the power line issue is the next project's got the same issue. Why they want to move the power lines because they have a problem getting FHA financing 29 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 so there is a legitimate issue with the power lines. As far as flipping it...requiring that. Again, we're falling into an area and I know the Council is a little upset about the fact that we haven't adopted it but it's not in place right now. As far as how much acreage we want for the Highway 5. The gateway requirements. As far as does the city have the ability to purchase that'? Farmakes: I don't know but certainly the city is, Highway 5 is going to be developed by the time we get this thing approved. If we don't start, as you said in the beginning here, if we don't start applying these issues rather than just nodding our shoulders and saying, well I guess there's nothing we can do about it. Aanenson: All I can tell you is I think that's something that if you're interested in, that you — make that proposal to the City Council. Farmakes: Well the issues that we've heard here so far and the issue of whether or not it's north or south. We've heard 26 employees. 28 employees. In fact there's up to 30 employees now. I've heard ratios of 4 children per parking lot. I've heard 6 children per parking lot. Aanenson: City ordinance is 1 per 6. Farmakes: Okay, so but I understand that but the applicant came up and when we're talking about the issues of the parking lot or issues of a buffer, we're looking for some room to maneuver there and there seems to be very little. So it's sort of either fish or cut bait on this thing. Either we're going to line up parking lots all along the highway or we're not. And if we're not, what are we going to do about it? There has to be some room to maneuver. If we're talking one parking spot, I don't think that's going to make the grade so. Al-Jaff: There's also a 30 foot buffer that could be used for green space between the property line abutting Highway 5 and the parking for the Kindercare. That could be used for landscaping and buffering. John Finnemore: We would like to make...This is a plant full area. There has to be certain species underneath the power lines that NSP, if that's the power company, would agree to in terms of height. Once you're outside of that corridor underneath the power poles, we do have a 30 foot area and we also have additional green space in our front yard. We would be more than willing to work with the commission and staff as to finding what that entry element would be, if in fact this is a selected intersection. But in terms of green space, we have this 30 foot easement. Building setback area that is clearly defined and we would be more than happy to hold off the landscape plans in that area. Landscaping is, in terms of construction, 30 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 the last element to go in. So I would say there would be an opportunity to work with how this area really would be defined in terms of visual, in terms of the elements that this landscaping, the structural berming, so that we could work with the entry elements and incorporate them so that there would be that grand entry... Mancino: Sharmin is there any, I don't know how anybody's going to answer this. But will the power lines ever go under ground? No? Why? John Finnemore: That doesn't change the EMF either. Aanenson: They're too high voltage. The cost is. Mancino: So they burn the soil? I mean I don't know. John Finnemore: That doesn't effect the EMF. You have to encase them in about 6 foot leaded walls in order to. Mancino: No problem. John Finnemore: And you think your power bills are high now. Mancino: Just wondering. Just wondering. You know you've got to just dig a ditch so I just thought I'd ask. Scott: Is anyone prepared to make a motion? Farmakes: I'd like just one quick comment. Staff, I'd like to get a response. I think that the issue the applicant made in regards to health issues and the city doesn't have anything on ordinance on that. I would think that you would review the quality of their information. I would think that that would be pertinent. Aanenson: Right. Well that's what I was saying. You've got the same issue on the next application. The reason why they wanted the power line moved because they cannot secure FHA financing because of the location over the houses. So there are some federal regulations out there related to... Nutting: There may be lots of regulations that people just don't know. There's studies on both sides of the issue and I think until there's something definitive, especially when a lender...approve things like that. That doesn't give you the answer as to. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Farmakes: No, but it may tell us that maybe that building should go to the north lot. Maybe it shouldn't be there. Mancino: And just move back. Farmakes: There's a blank lot up above. Maybe that's the place for that particular. Scott: And the access would be much less complicated too. Farmakes: One owners owns the entire space. That's the only area to maneuver anyway in this thing apparently. Is that north lot. And it looks to be somewhat bigger. Scott: I'll call for a motion again and whenever you're ready. Mancino: I'll move, with a lot of help. I'll move that we approve, let's see. What am I going to approve? Scott: We have three things here. Mancino: Well I'll do one of them. I'll move that we approve the Site Plan Review for a 54,760 square foot expansion of the Press building. With, as shown on the site plan received April 13, 1994 subject to the following conditions. 1. That the applicant must revise plans to include trash screening of the Press site and show the type of materials used to screen the trash enclosures on the Press site. Plans must be submitted for staff review prior to City Council meeting. Number 3. I should ask Sharmin. Does number 3 refer to the Press also? Al-Jaff: Correct. Mancino: Okay. And I'm assuming number 2 is just Kindercare right? Al-Jaff: That's correct. Mancino: Okay. So number 3, the applicant shall provide a meandering berm with landscaping along the south portion of the site, between the parking lot and Highway 5. The height of the berm shall be between 3 and 4 feet. The applicant shall also 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. I would like to add to that. That added landscaping, that there be added landscaping to the perimeter of the Press expansion per my request in coniferous trees. Number 4. The applicant shall enter into a site plan development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial 32 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 securities as required for landscaping. Number 5. Meet all conditions outlined in the Fire Marshal memo dated March 10, 1994. Number 6. The Press addition shall contain some architectural detailing to break the long wall masses, and I would say architectural detailing with relief. Does staff understand what I mean there? The horizontal with some relief there. Number 7. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted. Number 8. The grading/utility plan shall be revised to incorporate storm sewers in the parking lot's drive aisles for the Press. Detailed drainage calculations for a 10 year storm event shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. Number 9. The applicant shall apply and comply with the necessary permits from the appropriate agencies. Number 10. Silt fence shall be placed along the northern property line where the parking lot for the Press is being relocated. Number 12. Does that pertain to the Press? Al-Jaff: No. It would be for Kindercare only. Mancino: Okay. So omit that. Number 13. The main thoroughfare (drive aisle) located on the Press site north of the main parking lot area should be a minimum width of 26 feet with turning radiuses at 77th Street West of 30 feet. In addition, the main thoroughfare (drive — aisle) shall be posted with no parking signs. And I also want to make sure that it's a two way traffic street. Number 14. The driveway access point shall be constructed in accordance to the City's typical industrial driveway apron detail. Number 15. The applicant shall provide the City with a security deposit (letter of credit or cash escrow) in the amount of $5,000.00 to guarantee boulevard restoration. All boulevards disturbed as a result of the site improvements shall be restored with sod. 16. Conditions of the Building Official's memo dated March 25, 1994. Number 17. Harberts: Nancy, could I offer a suggestion on 17? Mancino: You bet. Harberts: That the parking configuration for the Press will somehow be in concert with what the approval is given for Kindercare so that they correlate or coordinate or whatever they need to do. Mancino: That it be self contained? Harberts: Well, at this point I just wanted to leave it open in terms of the parking. I don't have any problem in saying that it's being self contained but I'm looking more at that sidewalk and if we need that designated parking. If that's something we find is important. That's why I'm saying that the parking configuration for the Press will be, I don't know. 33 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Mancino: Relate to. Harberts: Or somehow coordinate with. With whatever's approved then for the Kindercare so we have that flexibility to influence the Press given what is finally approved then for the Kindercare. That's what I would suggest. Mancino: Okay. That's it. 18. No rooftop equipment shall be visible from Highway 5, Dell Road, or 77th Street West. Oh I wanted to put a recommendation in about, that I would like to see the impervious surface of the Press be a conforming permit and be at 70%. And Diane, do you want to add anything about the sidewalk being there? I mean does that need to be in the recommendation? Harberts: Well that's what I want 17 to reflect. Is that we do have that flexibility to go back and influence things that may need to be included in the Press parking lot because of what comes out of the Kindercare. So that's what the intent there is to let us have that flexibility to go back and have influence over that. And I'll second that motion. And I just want to clarify. Then does that mean Nancy that we're tabling the second part of that regarding construction of the Kindercare Daycare Center? Mancino: Yeah, that's going to be my second. The next motion. I think that's how you do it. Harberts: Yeah, okay. Scott: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the Site Plan Review for the Press warehouse expansion. Is there any discussion? Mancino moved, Harberts seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to approve the Site Plan Review for a 54,760 square foot expansion of the Press building as shown on the site plan received April 13, 1994, subject to the following conditions. 1. That the applicant must revise plans to include trash screening of the Press site and show the type of materials used to screen the trash enclosures on the Press site. Plans must be submitted for staff review prior to City Council meeting. 2. Deleted. 3. The applicant shall provide a meandering berm with landscaping along the south portion of the site, between the parking lot and Highway 5. The height of the berm shall be between 3 and 4 feet. The applicant shall also provide staff with a detailed 34 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 cost estimate of landscaping to be used in calculating the required financial guarantees. These guarantees must be posted prior to building permit issuance. There shall be added landscaping to the perimeter of the Press expansion of coniferous trees as suggested by Nancy Mancino. 4. The applicant shall enter into a site plan development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping. 5. Meet all conditions outlined in the Fire Marshal memo dated March 10, 1994. 6. The Press addition shall contain some architectural detailing (with relief) to break up the long wall masses 7. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted. 8. The grading/utility plan shall be revised to incorporate storm sewers in the parking lot's drive aisles for the Press. Detailed drainage calculations for a 10 year storm event shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. — 9. The applicant shall apply and comply with the necessary permits from the appropriate agencies (MPCA, Watershed District, and City Building Department). 10. Silt fence shall be placed along the northern property line where the parking lot for the Press is being relocated. 11. Deleted. 12. Deleted. 13. The main thoroughfare (drive aisle) located on the Press site north of the main parking lot area should be a minimum width of 26 feet with turning radiuses at 77th Street West of 30 feet and two way traffic. In addition, the main thoroughfare (drive aisle) shall be posted with no parking signs. 14. The driveway access point shall be constructed in accordance to the City's typical industrial driveway apron detail. 15. The applicant shall provide the City with a security deposit (letter of credit or cash 35 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 escrow) in the amount of $5,000.00 to guarantee boulevard restoration. All boulevards disturbed as a result of the site improvements shall be restored with sod. 16. Conditions of the Building Official's memo dated March 25, 1994. 17. The parking configuration of the Press shall be incorporated into the final design approval given to Kindercare taking into account such things as sidewalks for pedestrian traffic and traffic circulation between the Press and Kindercare. 18. No rooftop equipment shall be visible from Highway 5, Dell Road or 77th Street. 19. The impervious surface of the Press shall be a conforming permit at 70%. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Scott: Is there another motion? Harberts: I move to table Kindercare Daycare Center. Construction of. Scott: And is there some direction to the developer? Harberts: I think based on the discussions, from what my notes are and if anyone's able to assist here. I think one of the primary areas was regards to flip flopping the parking and the playground. I think Jeff brought up a good point though about, if there's a concern with the electromagnetic fields or whatever, do we push it down? Is that a better place for it? I think there's some access questions. Traffic questions that relate to that. Signage. I think with regards to number 2. And I think there was comments with regards to putting around some additional landscaping there. I think there was also some discussion about cutting the parking down 12 spaces. Again, it might be an influencing factor then about flip flopping it as to the number of parking stalls. Mancino: Gateway. Harberts: The gateway certainly is a big factor in that. And I think that's really what prompted the flip flopping is I think Jeff commented well is that, do we shrug our shoulders or do we in a sense start putting some pen to the paper here in terms of what we feel is important. And I would certainly be interested to see, to start holding. Going forward with these values I think that have been communicated and addressed very thoroughly by the Highway 5 corridor group. And here's an opportunity to either leave it go or start walking the talk. 36 CITY OF t‘jCHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director DATE: April 28, 1994 SUBJ: Report from the Director At the April 25, 1994 meeting, the City Council took the following actions: 1. Stone Creek 4th Addition, Hans Hagen Homes, was given final plat approval. _ 2. Approval was given for a design charette for the Bluff Creek Corridor. The Planning Commission should select a representative for the study. The charette will be held on May 26 from approximately 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. 3. The first reading of the code amendment for site elevation, photo composite and model was approved by the City Council. The amendment will allow for staff or the Planning Commission to request these items. Appeals from applicants will go the to City Council. 4. The Council approved the 2nd reading on the Wetland Ordinance which brings the City Code into compliance with the State Wetland Conservation Act. 5. The Council approved the wetland buffer monumentation and associated fees. 6. Marcus Development had requested that the Council consider the Kinder Care conditional use permit and site plan even though the Planning Commission tabled action on this item. The Council recommended this item back to the Planning Commission. 7. The Council approved the 1st reading of the code amendment for the Landscaping and Tree Preservation Ordinance. Planning Commission April 28, 1994 Page 2 At the last Planning Commission meeting, there was a lot of discussion of the procedure for review and the level of detail for a general concept review for a PUD. I have discussed this issue with the Planning Director of Minnetonka where this ordinance was derived from. It appears where we have the most problems with is how much detail is needed to determine whether or not the zoning should be changed to PUD. Staff is unable to give applicants, based on the ordinance, a definite list of items that should be submitted on an application for PUD and applicants do not want to spend tens of thousands of dollars to determine whether or not the City will accept the concept. On the other hand, the Planning Commission wants enough detail to determine if the concept is acceptable. I would like to suggest the following process for a concept PUD. 1. An applicant informs the city of their intent to propose a Concept PUD on a site. 2. The applicant is scheduled for a public hearing before the Planning Commission. No staff report will be prepared, instead just a general plan with a narrative will be proposed for the meeting. 3.. The Commission will hold a public hearing to gain input on the proposal. Then the Commission and city staff, along with the applicant, will work to define the issues for a the development proposal. The Commission will direct the applicant to provide any information they feel they need to review the project. 4. The applicant will then be scheduled for the next appropriate Planning Commission with the concept further defined for the planning commission review. The Commission will then forward their recommendation for the concept to the City — Council. By ordinance, the Planing Commission has 60 days to make their findings known to the City Council. I would like your input on this proposed procedure. Hopefully by having the applicant appear before the Planning Commission and before staff spends a lot of time on the review most of the issues can be addressed up front making better use of everyone's input and time. Administrative Approvals 1 The Building Official has approved a new facade for the space that connects the Frontier Building to the Dinner Theater. The facade will match the approved site plan for the hotel expansion.