Loading...
2001 08 13 Todd Gerhardt, Acting City Manager August 7, 2001. Page 2 authorize staff to execute a budget amendment not to exceed $50,000 to finance the project. The funding source being Park and Trail Acquisition and Development dollars. C: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director Brace DeJong, Finance Director Teresa Burgess, City Engineer/Public Works Director Bug 06 O1 11: 1Sa p.~ ";.. -0 ,--- , ~/'~ "% ", '- { '- --. .... .. \ \ '~ I " / i : ..~"-, '~ ', '. ! \ -. i ; ~ ~ ! I . d .~,~ L_ ~ .... , . , , i , ~ ~~ . t . "~~;1~ ~ ~ ~ ..... ~.. ': : -.,~.. ~ x ' : ~t ." ~ ' ,-' ! : I C'%-=,, j,  ~ ~1~~ ./ ," /~' ~l:~"-~'-- I'l,f ~-.,/ ." ' ," ~ I / ~ i i ~ :" - ..... '" I:~ ~-' / ,' ; ': ~ ~ ( ! - , "', --' ' - -.--'"' / / ~ ~t ~i~ '~ . .,/ ~ ; . " ~ --"~ " ~ /~ .'~5 '- ". · I ~- ...' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e." · ~ .. .. -.. . . '"~ . · ~ ~ / ./ / x.N' · '- ~ ' i / /' ,. "'" .... /'"'" ;5 " ,: ... '~..' [ ~ -... . · ~..~_ .... ---- . . .~- i : · -- . I ; , · · t '~. .. , : { '.. . I - .: . . 0 ' . " ~ . ~ :. -, -. .~' - t ._ _ ..., ~,'~ .' · , . . . . . - - ' ~ "-... - .~.. ...... . -.. ,/ ~ ., -. ........ - . -._ ---... .. ~ - . .. -... ' ~ ' . · ....... . . · ., ~ -...... /; ....... ' ':"~' 0 ,. ,, .. ' " ' '"--, .. '"q'7 " , ;'-~ ~. -.. ,. '-- . ...... .. ' '" '" ; ' 7 .... .....;.~ . "~-~i ..-..--"" r. t '~ .~ / .. ~ .. .......// ,, .... . </ ..... I .. '~ / [ ,." ....... Il I i: :~ Iillilh I1 Fox Chase Troll Conn~on Chanhassen Fox Chase Trail 08/08/2001 Concept Cost Estimate Holaington Koegler Group Inc. 6' Bituminous Walk Descrl 4' and 5' Bituminous Walk Timber Stairs with Class 5 Tread Handrail Turf Restoration Silt Fence 15% To~I Unit Price Totals 000.00 $2,000 20.00 $6,800 16.00 $4,240 27,000.00 $27 200.00 $1,400 500.00 $500 1.80 $945 $40,885 $6,133 $47,018 Page 1 City Council Meeting- July 9, 2001 adds to the urgency to do something now. We are aware that there has been a meeting today of Chanhas.sen and Carver County officials to discuss specifically Lakeview Apa_,xmeats. We would appreciate any updates regarding your findings and actions taken. We want to actively participate with you in any way necessary to solve this diffi~t situation. As I said in my letter to you, our homeowners look to the board for answers to this pwblem, and the North Bay Board is looking to all of you for assistance in answering them. We appreciate your help in this situation. Acting Mayor Labatt: Thank you. Anybody else? Barbara Kreisler: Hi. I'm Barbara Kreisler and I'm here regarding the Fox Chase, the easement. I believe most of you have probably received an e-mail that my husband had sent you this morning. We've been working up until a month ago, two years with the city. We've been working about two years with the city, city attorney, our attorney, Todd Hoffman, and the Hedlund's to work on an agreement because the initial path, proposed negatively affected our property. It would take out much of our front yard and most of the side yard, and coming to the ~g a month ago we were here for the final vacation of it and the easement on the I-Iedlund's properS. The main one onto the additional, the other lots. Once the neighbors found out about the meeting coming up, they hadn't had much notice. It was a ms_n_~ of a few days that they had found out about the meeting coming up. They were very upset. Came down to our property, which we opened up to an open house and plotted out the path to show them, and I think most of the residents felt the path was where they had been walking for about 12 years, and that's not. That's private property. The path is all our landscape, our lawn. A good majority of the front and sideyard. But when they came to us they said is there anyway we can come to an agreement and my husband, we ended up agreeing to, if we can do it on the lot line and make it very narrow, we wouldn't mind and we could even widen it further down on, toward the lake and then onto the Hedltmd's ~. So we ended up giving in on our agreement with the Hedlund's to compromise with the neighborhood and we came asking if the city could compromise too. If they could compromise by making the path only 42 inches, my husband ended up saying 48 inches. We have a very small front lot and it really would impact our property value. And I felt like when we left we lost both. It was now going to be, definitely go to the lake and they were still talking 5 feet. The neighbors had been notified the last time and this time we weren't involved bec__ause we were out of town and if I hadn't had somebody call me last night, we wouldn't have been here. My husband's out of town. We have had no input. We're the one with the property owners involved, as well as the I-Iedlund's and yet there's been no input from anybody since the last meeting. There were going to be feasibility studies. I saw one day when Todd Hoffman and Matt, a city engineer, out at the property and it was my impression that he didn't think it was going to happen. It's a serious grade issue. It's going to be a liability problem and we kind of, you know it just appeared like the city, it may not happen and there was a private surveyor out about 2 weeks ago. And then comes the plan about the stairs. Nobody talked to my husband and L The Hedlund's. Any of the neighbors involved. The neighbors found out by getting this letter on Saturday, which was 2 days ago. We have concerns about the bikes and the strollers and I had Todd Hoffman had left a message today. We didn't connect, saying that the residents can continue on straight into Mohawk as they've done in the past. Well if that's the case, why are we spending $57,000, plus' additional funds, because there's some other issues I need to discuss, to make the path go to the lake if the people on the bike and strollers still have to go straight through. And we have a light pole in our front yard, and we have utility boxes. Where are they going to go? What's that going to cost? I mean already my yard, we have an acre but it's very tiny in the front. We've got a third of it gone with easement and where's that light pole going to go? Where are the utility boxes going to go? Nobody's discussed that with us. There's also apparently a possibility ora need for additional land at the back of the lot where it takes the L onto our, Hedlund's property to the lake. We haven't been, like my husband had said, come talk to us about it if that's needed. Nobody's talked to us and we have a letter in our mailbox and not everybody in the neighborhood got the letter so City Council Meeting - ~luly 9, 2001 there were a lot of them that weren't informed about this meeting tonight. So I'm asking that this maybe be tabled so we can have meetings with the city, the planners, whoever did the feasibility studies, Hedlund's, and Mike Wegler' s involved too, and have input from all of us. This was all done without any input, any conversation with us. My husband's been waiting for calls to let us know what's happening and we find out through a neighbor on Sunday when we got home. Thank you. Mike Wegler: Mike Wegler, I live at 6630 Mohawk Drive. I received this map Friday afternoon from Todd Hoffman. I'm kind of concerned about the way it was drawn. There's no cut or fills. There's no stakes out on the site. Councilman Ayotte: There's no what? Mike Wegler: There's no cut and fills on this map. There's none out on the site. There's no staking. There's nothing there. Anybody could have drawn this up. I think we need to go out there and rne~ it out. See if it's going to work. I was hoping that it would be no steps. I know it's going to be a steep grade. Todd's got some figures of 25% there. Without doing surveys and getting it measured out right, I don't think that's possible. I think it's going to be a lot less. But like I said, there's nothing out there to tell us that. That's all. I kind of shot it out with an eye level and stepping it off. I come up with different figures so. I think it should be, a little more research done. Ann Miller: Good evening. My name is Ann Miller. I live at 6561 Fox Path in the Fox Chase division and I thank the homeowners for letting me know about this too. I found this in my mailbox this afternoon. I've talked to the city and Mr. Hoffman numerous times about Fox Chase and for those, even though I look old, I've lived here in '92 from Kansas and I live in a house that was imported from Sweden and it's quite notorious. Anyway, for those of you who don't know it, Lotus Lake used to be called Long Lake and the Derrick Land Company are the developers of our 50 houses I believe that axe there now. An Environmental Assessment was done. It was called Sunrise Beach. That north part of Lotus Lake at one time and I have a copy here. Also in last week's newspaper, I have one of notes from the City Council meeting I think it was. I saw the developer has purchased land and there would be, I think 6 or 9 lots developed along the shores of Lotus Lake. And I know in doing some research on my own property, the soils around where we live are pretty fragile. The ground water comes within a foot of the surface at any time of the year. It's not necessarily due to seasons. There are many ground water springs that feed both Christmas and Lotus Lake. And as far as the environment issues go here, should the watershed districts be involved? I know many engineering studies have been done on individual lots where I live also. At home I have a file that is this large considering all the hydrology. I did a lot of research on it because of water problems on my own lot and I really don't see, and there's also a covenant of condition, restriction easement for Fox Chase that was given to me by my realtor when we purchased our property. Also there's an inventory and evaluation of soil and water. Councilman Ayotte: Could you go to your previous statement? I didn't catch ail that. Ann Miller: Yeah. We have a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements for Fox Chase that was developed by the Derrick Land Company. It was signed in 1983 and it's good for 30 years. It has 25 different sections and I guess none of these, if you would read some of these, have been followed to the letter and therefore I don't see why this particular path should be followed to the letter either. I think you should listen to the owners of these lots. I think we can make the lot, or the path shorter and why can't it go straight to the road? I don't see why it should go down that hill and make it an issue for the lake. It just doesn't make sense to spend all that money to do that when we could actually have a nice little path that goes straight to that road and then, roads are public so why not just City Council Meeting-July 9, 2001 leave it that way. I don't understand why you have to go all the way down to the lake and make the crazy path, even though it's stated somewhere on some legal docttmenC Because I have lots of other legal documents here and those haven't been followed either. And you know as time marches on, if you, Derrick Land Company, where are those people? I have their numbers and phone numbers and addresses at home and they don't want to talk about it anymore. So I think you need to listen to the people who are here at the time and I think together the city and the homeowners in the area, the people who live in the area can solve it but I think you should have given us more time, just as the homeowners of these two sites mentioned. Thank you. Acting Mayor Labatt: Thanks. Anybody else? Charles Nagel: My name is Charles Nagel. I live at 6340 Fox Path. I haven't bee~ involved in the past because I was hoping common sense would prevail but I'm not so sure that it is. I guess as a user of the path, bike riding, strollers, wagons and that sort of thing, I just have to say that a path or trail with steps is just totally unacceptable. No one's going to be able to use it. Most of the people that I've observed, you know the kids that use the path need to be able to negotiate it safely and I think we're kind of forgetting the reason we have a trail and that's so youngsters can get from Fox Path down to the lake. And a steep series of steps I think isn't going to work. I think that by using the original proposal, I agree with the homeowners that are involved, that with a minimal amount of grading you won't need to, and I can't vouch for that because I'm not a land surveyor but I think a path going straight down to Mohawk can be built. It could be used without steps so I'd just like to, I think going back and re-visiting these things is the only way to go. Acting Mayor Labatt: Thank you. Anybody else? APPROVE PLANS & SPEC/FICATIONS AND AUTHQRIZi~ SQLICITATION OF BIDS~ FOX CHASE TRAIL CONNECTOR. Public Present: Name Address Barbara Kreisler Mike Wegler Greg & Barb I-Iedlund Chuck Nagel Ann K. Miller 764 Lake Point 6630 Mohawk Drive 748 l. ake Point 6340 Fox Path 6561 Fox Path Todd Hoffman: Thank you, what do I call him? Todd Gerhardt: Acting Mayor. Todd Hoffman: Acting Mayor Labatt and council members. Well the Fox Chase frail connector is the topic of the evening so it would be my pleasure to go through the series of events that have taken place since last time we met on May 29~ and June 11~. Acting Mayor Labatt: Okay. City Council Meeting - July 9, 2001 Todd Hoffman: I have more copies of this available for those who are sitting out there in the audience. There's some changes to the trail map. This came in late last week on Thursday. Napa Drive is not shown on the plan...so this is where the trail terminates and then it would come back on street and back in this location. So that's the change in the terminus of the trail. A couple of things we're noting in here. There's been some question about the grade, and without a field survey we can't document that but nevertheless, the hill to the lake is about twice as steep or a little bit better than twice as steep as the hill from the cul-de-sac to the back of the lot here. It does drop off from the back of the lots onto Mohawk even farther so that would increase this grade if that trail connection was the one that was built at that location. First of all I'd like to back up. There's obviously a lot of history. A dozen years, 13 years. I think this is about the second or third go around that I've given this trail on behalf of the neighborhood and the residents up there to get it through so everyone can have a, what I would call an improved trail segment in their neighborhood. It's unimproved currently. It's being used but there are people in the neighborhood who do not know it's available as a public easement and ! think that's a detriment to those individuals who would look at that as inbetween two people homes and would not use it as a trail connector so I think it's our responsibility as a city to improve that connector as was discussed back when this neighborhood was originally developed. On May 29th there was a series of events which changed the direction of the current proposal. That evening it was staff's recornmendation that we simply take the trail straight down between the lots to Mohawk and make the shortcut. Do the switch in the easements, and when I talked about the switch that would take, under that proposal you would remove the easement from the Kreisler's. Put it over onto the Hedlund's and for that exchange then the Hedlund's have this taken away from their lot. So they would accept an easement here and reduce this, or take this one away at that location. The neighbors you heard from that night said quite clearly that they did not want to see that happen. The trail was originally, the original intentions were to take it down to Carver Beach, down to the park and utilize that shoreline in that park area as a part of this experience. This trail experience. So the council and the people in the audience that evening were in agreement to that and the direction that evening was really about, let's see this on paper. Let's see a plan. What will it look like? Council gave staff direction to have a plan drawn up with a 5 foot trail in this location, going from Lake Point cul-de-sac down to the lake using the original easement. So these easements are unchanged from the original dedication. You have a 15 foot easement here. 15 foot trail easement here and a l0 foot easement here. Councilman Ayotte: Do that again Todd. Todd Hoffman: 15 feet. There's 15 feet, which is a narrow easement to begin with, and then 10 feet from here down to the lake, which is much narrower yet. You know I can stretch arms, you've got 4 feet more and you're trying to put a trail as wide as my arms in that 10 feet. It's not very big. And so when we talk about grading to change grade, or to change to lessen the slope, if you only have 10 feet that you're trying to grade into, you can't change the grade for the deal. You can't change thc steepness of that slope. In order to do that, to any great extent, you take off the top of thc hill. To fill it at the bottom you need a much wider area to do that so you can change the steepness or the grade of the hill to a minor degree but not to a great degree in that location. So this is the plan that we have drawn up. I called the consulting engineer first off and we went and visited the site. That individual wanted nothing to do with building a trail on a 20 or 25 degree slope hillside. We have two other locations in the city where you would see a trail similar to that. I would never intend to build one in the first place and I wouldn't want to do it again. There's a couple locations. There's one in Curry Farms, if you're familiar with that at all. Where it comes down from the top and into Curry Farms Park. And the second is out of, is the cul-de-sac in Chanhassen Hills that the trail goes to Lake Susan Hills Park. So those are two areas where these trails were built on a very steep grade. We receive a lot of calls about the safety. Why would the city build something like that? To compound this even worst at this location, if you were to make a 6 foot or City Council Meeting- Suly 9, 2001 an 8 foot asphalt trail down that, and then you'd have to take a 90 degree turn at the bottom and make a right hand turn to navigate that location. This one is not that much better, although it's about half as steep so you're still, you're making a 90 degree mm here which is not ideal and we talked about that at the last council meeting. That's one of the reasons of taking the alternate route, which just simply talw, s you straight through was attractive because you have to make these 90 degree bends. The city, to have accept this easement in the first place, it wasn't thought out at the time. We're here. We have to live with it and so we're doing the best that we can. So we drew the plan. The council wanted the neighborhood to be involved, or at least to be aware that the, what the plan said. Or what it depicted so we mailed that out last week and the stairway I think is the best solution. R's safer than taking a trail down that hillside and people who want to bike can either walk their bike down along side the stairway or they can take the Mohawk exit, which a majority of the ml_ffic takes today so. I'm comfom~le with the plan. I think you're hearing a cry to talk it over and talk it over and I think we've done that a great deal up to this point and it's my or staff's recommendation that we move forward. Approve the plan and take bids on the project. Acting Mayor Labatt: Questions? Councilman Ayotte: Yeah, I do. Acting Mayor Labatt: This isn't a public hearing tonight so, questions from the council. Councilman Ayotte: How much have we spent with the consultant and, I don't want you to go over the last 13 years but what do you think has been the cost of arguing back and forth this situation? Todd Hoffrnan: In the past couple years? It's in the thousand of dollars with stafftime. Councilman Ayotte: $2.000? $10,0007 Todd Hoffman: $5,000 probably, or better. Councilman Ayotte: And I think the cost that you have, the...cost for this is 50 plus thousand. Todd Hoffman: $57,000. We have the breakdown in there. The majority of it is in that recycled stairway. And then the $20,000 for the bituminous. Councilman Ayotte: Ls the cost driver the stairs? Todd Hoffman: It doubles. Yeah, it nearly doubles the cost of the project. Councilman Ayotte: And now if it was my kid going down on a bike, he would take the stairs. Of course he's the one that also got a concussion just a few weeks ago. Yeah, I am a little bit'concerned about kids taking that mute as probably something that we should at least recogniv~. The light post. M_rs. Kreisler did not mention her light post, but can we affect the position of the light post to the area that does not have the house? Would that be an amenable arrangement? We have to reposifion the light post, right? Todd Hoffman: Well we talked about it. The light posts are in the street easement. You could move them over to get the trail as close to the lot line as possible. You could not move the light post and utility box and still build this trail within the 15 foot easement It's just a matter of how close you want to get that trail to the lot line right there at the end of the cul-de-sac. City Council Meeting - July 9, 2001 Councilman Ayotte: Yeah I know Mrs. Kreisler had mentioned, and I don't know if any other residents have an issue with that. Barbara Kreisler: ...utility boxes... Councilman Ayotte: How do we know, in the distribution that you made the community you blanketed it with a letter stating what the intent of the city was. Todd Hoffman: The same council received this evening. The same item you received this evening was mailed. Councilman Ayotte: It was the same thing, Todd Hoffman: Yes. Councilman Ayotte: Okay. Mrs. Kreisler had mentioned that there were some number that didn't get the letter and some got it on a Friday and some got it today. Do you have a sense or maybe some percentage of folks that did not know about it? Whether they.did or not, I don't know if it is an issue but. Todd Hoffman: It was mailed on Thursday, the same day we received the drawing from the consultant. It's mailed to a larger area. I don't know if it covered the entire northern most part of Fox Chase but it certainly is a more expansive mailing than we traditionally would do, or we would need to do. Councilman Ayotte: That was the question. So you did more than you typically do? Okay. Audience: I live next door to the Hedlund's and I didn't receive a letter. Audience: ...at the post office either. Mine was just'a flyer in my box. Audience: And I did not either. Councilman Ayotte: I didn't understand everything that the lady was addressing with respect to a covenant. Does that have an impact one.way or the other? That covenant that was signed in 1983 with, that dies in 2003. Do you know about that covenant? Todd Hoffman: I'm aware of the covenants. I think all she was trying to make a point of is that not everything in the covenant was followed so why we would want to follow this trail easement, and I don't know if that' s relevant. Councilman Ayotte: It's like when I commit a sin, should he commit a sin type of a thing. Todd Hoffman: Two wrongs don't make a right. Councilman Ayotte: With the bid process, what is the time line? If we were to approve tonight, you would solicit bids and the turn time would be? Todd Hoffman: 45 days. Well 30 to 45 days to get it out on the street so it's going to be a fall construction. 10 City Council Meeting - July 9, 2001 Councilman Ayotte: What would be the adverse affect of tabling a decision until the next council meeting to give the resident more oppommity to take a look at it? And I will say too, as a matter of record, I do agree with the stairs at this point as I see it. I don't think there's an option. I don't like the fact that it jacks the price up but I don't know if we have another option with what I've seen at this point. And the second question, have we conducted a survey in that area? And if we haven't, will we conduct a survey? Todd Hoffman: We conducted preliminary surveys to allow us to get to this schedule of a drawing. If we want to invest more money, I talked to the surveyor today who is ready to go and conduct the full survey with elevations and so we can prepare a more conclusive drawings for the City Council. $1,500 bucks. Councilman Ayotte: Okay. That's all the questions I've got. Acting Mayor Labatt: Craig. Councilman Peterson: Todd, are bicycles and the like going down that trail now that you're aware of? Todd Hoffman: Sure. Sure. But they're going. Audience: It's woods. Todd Hoffman: They're going down Mohawk. Barbara Kreisler: Yeah, they're not going down the hill. Todd Hoffman: No, they're going this way... They're not going this way unless a mountain biker randomly goes that way. Councilman Peterson: Okay. Yeah, I think where I'm at is, I guess I'll alter, then with my question just offer my just general comments. You know I'm leery to approve something that, you know we've been sitting on this for quite some time trying to solicit feedback and support from the people who live around that. For us to decide tonight sounds a little bit premature because I think the goal is, we want to get people involved and happy with that decision. I don't know if we're there yet. My 6oncern is we build steps in there that it will defeat the use of bicycles going down there and baby carriages, etc, etc. Strollers you know won't be able to use it as readily as otherwise but, so I guess I'm just saying, should we ask the question. Is it appropriate to put a trail there based upon what we now have as more information? I guess that's a basic question that I've got. Should we spend $50,000 on a trail that may or may not be used that much? So there you go. Acting Mayor Labatt: Gary. Councilman Boyle: Well I don't have all the history nor did I hear this but everything I hear tonight says that the majority of the people that live near that trail definitely do not want it. They had a very short time frame. Quite a few of the people did not get the notice by the postal service. I don't know who might have put it in your mailbox. I question if it's really a benefit at this stage, and only because my lack of historic knowledge I would venture to table it until we have more information. 11 City Council Meeting - July 9, 2001 Acting Mayor Labatt: Okay. Councilman Ayotte: Can I make one additional? Acting Mayor Labatt: Sure. Councilman Ayotte: I think if we do table it, it would not necessarily be to get more information with possibly the option of exercising a survey to see if something other than the stairs could be put in. I don't think they can. But consider that and the next time it comes to council in two weeks would be the way I would formulate a motion, that if we don't act on it at that point, it's killed forever. Because we're experiencing indirect costs. We keep on playing the same record and record over and over again so we look at it. The community has an opportunity to cut on it. We take Councilman Peterson's assessment in terms of whether or not grade can be affected in another fashion, and then we move for sure. Or kill it. I don't want it to come up to the stands again. Acting Mayor Labatt: Todd, if you were to go with just the trail from Lake Point to Mohawk and take out that other L, what's your cost estimate on that? Todd Hoffman: Well it'd be reduced significantly. Go down by the stairs $27,000 and the asphalt costs would go down significantly so you're closer to $15,000 or $20,000. Probably less than that. Councilman Boyle: Todd, in past meetings have there been quite a few people in support of this trail from the area? Todd Hoffman: Well sure. Generally the folks that supported out there but the supporters are, well at the last council meeting you received all the letters from people who supported it and those who, generally everybody supports it. Some of the ones that are closer to it and affected by it will have a closer proximity to it want to make sure... Audience: We want our access but it doesn't have to be that particular way. Acting Mayor Labatt: I guess I'm kind of going to jump on Craig's shoulders on this one and look at, based upon the cost at this point, maybe we just put the trail from Lake Point to Mohawk is what I'm looking at. But I mean I'm okay with tabling it Bob for 2 weeks and getting your questions answered. Councilman Ayotte: But then 2 weeks we make a decision, that's it. So anybody wanting input better get to it in that period of time. Barbara Kreisler: Will I have input...with the neighborhood involved? Councilman Ayotte: Well I think Mr. Hoffman, who has really enjoyed this particular project, should probably be the one put on the dime. Barbara Kreisler: Can I clarify the residents that want the path did not know that the path they're walking on is not the proposed path. It's all...and when they saw how it impacted us, they didn't care as long as they had an access, but they don't want it to take up my yard. 12 City Council Meeting- July 9, 2001 Councilman Ayotte: There's a window of opportunity hem for the community to get something and there's a window of opportunity for the council to save some money. And this poor guy I'm surprised still has a full head of hair so. Audience: Even when they had the referendum for the trail a long time ago... Acting Mayor Labatt: Okay, can I have a motion? Councilman Ayotm: Fd like to make a motion to table this particular topic for a 2 week period with the understanding that staff take one more crack at interfacing with the community to gain ~. Councilman Boyle: I would second that, Acting Mayor Labatt: Any discussion? Todd Hoffman: Discussion. I'm not sure at the level that we want to get this thing publicized and a meeting held with the neighborhood that I can get it back here in 2 weeks so maybe we just ought to table it for a month. Councilman Ayotte: I think the community at large has a responsibility to gain the interest of those people. If the folks here have that interest, I think we should employ their assistance to get the community to meet with you. I think you should use them. Acting Mayor Labatt: What's your schedule like in the next 2 weeks? Todd Hoffman: I'll be on vacation next week. Councilman Ayotte: Oh that's it. Todd Hoffman: But we're going to need a month to get the survey completed, the drawings done, a meeting with the neighborhood and hopefiflly build a consensus so. Acting Mayor Labatt: So what are you thinking Todd? Todd Hoffman: Just a month from now. Councilman Ayotte: At what cost? You're talking about $1,500 for the survey. Any more beyond that? Your staff time. Todd Hoffman: Additional drawings. Audience: I don't understand why you need to do that. Acting Mayor Labatt: Let's not get into this, okay. Thanks. Todd Hoffman: So we're at the first meeting in August. Acting Mayor Labatt: Would that be enough time for you Todd? 13 City Council Meeting- July 9, 2001 Todd Hoffman: Sum. Acting Mayor Labatt: Bob, is that okay with you? Councilman Ayotte: Yeah, but that's it then. We've got to get this thing off the dime. Acting Mayor Labatt: Okay, so do you want to amend your motion then? Councilman Ayotte: To the first week in August. Acting Mayor Labatt: Do you amend your second, is that okay with you? Councilman Boyle: That's fine. Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Boyle seconded to table the plans and specifications and authorization to solicit bids for the Fox Chase Trail Connector until the first meeting in August. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0. CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO CITY CQDE AFFECTING PRIVATE STREETS AND FLAG LOT.S~ INCLUDING AMENDING DEFINITIONS FOR C. ONSISTENf~t'. Sharmin A1-Jaff: Acting Mayor Labatt, members of the City Council. Just a brief background on this issue. Approximately a year ago, during a subdivision application, issues were raised regarding ambiguity in definitions within the city code such as public and private streets, driveways, roadways. Also, issues were raised regarding the use of flag lots and private streets. The Planning Commission requested changes to the city code that would regulate the use and application of private, streets and flag lots to give the city additional controls when considering subdivisions containing flag lots as well as private streets. In summary, the amendment that staff is proposing include defmitions. We have modified them throughout the city code to be consistent. The other issue which was the flag lots and private streets would be allowed within the agricultural estate district, rural residential, residential single family and R-4, which is 4 units per acre, to be served via a private street only it would require a variance. Anything with a higher density would be part of an overall application such as a planned unit development or a subdivision. It's a fairly simple, yet technical, amendment. Staff is recommending approval as highlighted in the attachment. Thank you.. Acting Mayor Labatt: Thank you. Any questions for staff from council? Councilman Ayotte: Yeah I got one. Just one. Acting Mayor Labatt: Go ahead. Councilman Ayotte: Okay. First off, I got this from Ms. Lloyd. I went through it a few times. Largely because I didn't get it the first time and I had to study it a little bit. But after I went through everything that the staff presented, the only question I have for staff to add clarification to these points is on the definition of shoulder under page 2. When we talked about roadway means that a portion of right-of-way improved design ordinarily used by vehicle traffic including the shoulder. So the only definition that I didn't catch. Acting Mayor Labatt: Which one? 14 flTYOF PO B~147 ~, Minnesota 55317 952.93Z1900 952.93Z5739 'ngbatring Dept~tnt Fcc 95293Z9152 lluilding Depgtm~ 952.934.2524 ~l, Site July 12, 2001 Dear Resident: On Monday, July 9, the Chanhassen City Council tabled action on the trail connection between Fox Chase and Carver Beach. Re. dents who spoke to the City Council that evening were not satisfied with the city's plan for a variety of reasons. The Council instructed staff to host a neighborhood meeting to resolve these issues and form a consensus on the plan. The neighborhood meeting will be held on Monday, July 30, at 7:00 p~n. If you have an interest in this issue, please meet on-site in the Lake Point cul-de-sac. The primary issues being debated are: 1. The preferred route for the trail. 2. The width of the trail and its exact location within the easements. 3. The construction material. 4. The inclusion of a stairway to negotiate the 20% plus grade down to the lake (in the event that the longer mute is selected). The conclusions of this meeting will be presented to the City Council at their August 13t~ meeting (7:00 pa-n.). The City Council's motion on July 9th included a provision that this issue be resolved on the night of August 13'~, or the project be scrapped indefinitely. The boundaries of the trail easements on Lots 19 & 20, Fox Chase will be staked in the coming days. The Lotus Trail public right-of-way along Lotus Lake will also be identified and field staked. Please feel free to review these ~ prior to the meeting on July 30th. A copy of the trail plan as currently proposed by the City is enclosed. Call anytime if you have questions or input. You may also e-mail comments to thoffrnan@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. I look forward to seeing you on the 30~. Sincerely, Todd Hoffman Park & Recreation Director C: Mayor & City Council Park & Recreation Commission Todd Gerhardt, Acting City Manager Lil Leatham, Hoisington Koegler Group Chanhassen Villager Chanhassen Fox Chase Trail 7/3/01 Concept Cost Estimate Holslngton Koegler Group Inc. Description Qty. Unit Unit Price Totals Grading 1 LS 2,000.00 $2,000 · 6' Bituminous Walk 340 LF 20.00 $6,800 5' Bituminous Walk' ;~83 LF 16.00 $4,208 Recycled Timber Stairs with Class 5 tread 1 L8 27,000.00 $27,000 Handrail 7 EA 200.00 $1,400 , Turf restoration 1 LS 500.00 $500 Silt Fence 300 LF 1.80 $540 $40,448 ., 15% Contingency $6,067 Total $46,615 Page 1 F & CAROLYN M NYMAN FOX PATH ;HANHASSEN, MN 55317 DAVID L & MARILYN J CALLAWAY 6320 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JOHN L & CHRISTINE M KLINKNER 6361 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 J & JEANNE L KRAKER PLEASANT VIEW RD IHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHARLES W & MAFUORIE K NAGEL 6340 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 FRANCIS N CRISMAN & UNDA M WOOD 8360 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ~HARLES A & PAULETTE M WALL FOX PATH MN 55317 KEITH R & BARBARA C THOMAS 6380 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 STEVEN J & CONSTANCE M CERMAK 6400 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 S MORIN & M SREPEL FOX PATH MN 55317 MICHAEL R KROLL 6410 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHRISTOPHER S PELLETIER & JAMIE L GRIVICH 6420 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 F & SERPIL N LUDWIG I FOX PATH ~HANHASSEN, MN .5.5317 GEORGE B & HELEN K ASSIE 6430 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 GEORGE T & PAULA J SOUKUP 6441 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 )ENNIS M & ANN E SULLIVAN FOX PATH ~HANHASSEN, MN 55317 THOMAS R & ANDREA L NARR 6431 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN, MN ..-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-~17 DAVID B SANFORD & MARIANNE M MCCORD ~..~O FOX PATH CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 UN 8, CHEN FOX CT :HANHASSEN, MN 5.5317 THOMAS M & SUSAN J HUBERTY 6450 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 KAYLA A HANUS 82O FOX CT CHANHASSEN, MN 5.5317 P & KIMBERLY A LATI'U FOX CT ',HANHASSEN, MN 55317 MICHAEL & DEBRA HAYDOCK 646O FOX PATH CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 KEITH M & MARY BETH HOFFMAN 6470 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 "R C WAGENAAR FOX CT :HANHASSEN, MN 5.5317 JOHN P & DEBRA L BREEDLOVE 860 FOX CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHARLES R & JUDY L PETERSON 7O8 LAKE PT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 L & REBECCA MCMILLEN FOX CT :HANHASSEN, MN 55317 JON ALAN KLOSTERMAN & MARGARET CODY KLOSTERMAN 6471 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DENNIS Z]-IU & ZUO ZHI 716 LAKE PT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 TERRY A & LORE3TA I BAUGHMAN 6571 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MICHAEL A & JANET A STANZAK 724 LAKE PT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 WILLIAM P JR & ANN K MILLER 6561 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JAMES P & NANCY FORD HOOPES 6511 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 GREGG A & DIANE M ELLIOTT 6551 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 TERRY D & DEBRA L VOGT 7;32 LAKE PT CHANHASSEN, MN 55;317 JOHN A & IRENE B OBERSTAR 796 LAKE PT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JAMES D HUDSON & CAROLYN SUERTH 6541 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN, MN 55;317 ROBERT J DORAN 788 LAKE PT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHARLES & REBECCA C CHUVA 6521 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JEFFREY J PORRI~-F & C LYNN FOX PORRI3-r 6510 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MARILYN R POSTON TRUSTEE OF M POSTON TRUST 78O LAKE PT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 PETER MICHAEL JACOBSON 6560 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 E T KELLY, TRUSTEE OF TRUST C/O STIRTZ BERNARDS BOYDEN 7200 METRO BLVD FINANCIAL PLAZA EDINA, MN 55439 RICHARD R & NANCY J MARTINO 6550 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN, MN 55;317 PETER ELLENZ & CAROLYN E PARE 6540 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 NED & ANNE C TABAT 772 LAKE PT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 BARBARA L HEDLUND 748 LAKE PT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 THOMAS S & SHERYL A EBENREITER 6530 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JERROLD A & BARBARA KREISLER 764 LAKE PT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 BARBARA L HEDLUND 748 LAKE PT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 IRTIS P & BRENDA K BJORLIN LONE EAGLE DR HANHASSEN, MN 55317 CURTIS P & BRENDA K BJORLIN 824 LONE EAGLE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 KEVlN C & SHELBY A MANION 825 LONE EAGLE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 SHERI L BISHOP PONDEROSA DR :HANHASSEN, MN 5.5317 ROBERT A & SHERI L BISHOP 825 PONDEROSA DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ROBERT A & SHERI L BISHOP 825 PONDEROSA DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 A & SHERI L BISHOP PONDEROSA DR ;HANHASSEN, MN 55317 LEE J & DEBORAH R PILLA'I-ZK! 830 PONDEROSA DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MICHAEL L HOFT & NOREEN C RACHOR 832 WOODHILL DR CHANHASSEN, MN .55317 A KLAYSMAT & .RIGID M MCCARTHY WOODHILL DR :HANHASSEN, MN 55317 THOMAS L & JUDITH L RAYMOND 834 CREE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 5.5317 MICHAEL J SHOBERG & KIMBERLY DAWN SHOBERG 834 LONE EAGLE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 IICHAEL J SHOBERG 34 LONE EAGLE RD ~HANHASSEN, MN 55317 JAMES W TALUS 8350 RED ROCK RD EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 ROBERT A WlEST 840 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ;RANKLIN D ERNST & rlCTORIA WALKOVIAK CREE DR :HANHASSEN, MN 5.5317 ANGELA M PRUISNER 841 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DONALD LEE ENNENGA 843 WOODHILL RD CHANHASSEN, MN 5.5317 OYCE ANN HOLLOWAY PONDEROSA DR :HANHASSEN, MN 55317 JEFFREY R & TAMI L BRAIEDY 850 WESTERN DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 LAURIE WRIGHT KVAM 855 LONE EAGLE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 D & JUUE D MATTSON DRAKE CT :HANHASSEN, MN 55317 ',HARLES J & SUSAN E ZECCO 195 CARVER BEACH RD :HANI-IASSEN, MN 55317 GARY J & JACQUELINE A HOFFMAN 860 HIAWATHA DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHARLES J & SUSAN E ZECCO 895 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 UNELL BRECHT SANTELLA 881 WESTERN DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 SARA R SKJERVOLD 900 HIAWATHA DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 R SKJERVOLD '00 HIAWATHA DR :HANHASSEN, MN 55317 GAYLE J ODE'I-I'E 9OO WESTERN DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JOSEPH M & LORI L HARRINGTON 901 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 STEVEN & GLORIA RAY 920 WESTERN DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 KEITH J & JULIE L PETERSON 921 HIAWATHA DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MATHIAS & JUDITH JACOBS 921 WESTERN DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 GREGORY & BARBARA J PEPPERSACK 940 WESTERN DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DENNIS W SCHILLING & NANCY J HALL 941 WESTERN DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 WALFORD SCHWAB 950 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DONALD W & CAROL M ZALUSKY 960 WESTERN DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ROBERT B NELSEN & DORIS ANN PUTNAM NELSEN 970 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 KERMIT & ADELINE M AUSTAD 980 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 WILLARD & NORMA S SHOBERG 980 WESTERN DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 THOMAS JR & HILDA REDWING 990 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 PAULA MALM-AUSTIN 990 WESTERN DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ERNST & LOIS HERRMANN 991 WESTERN DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 IRUCE JOHN SCHURMANN BOX 514 PRAIRIE, MN 55354 CLARENCE & FLORENCE KEEFER PO BOX 192 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 BRUCE JOHN SC~URMANN PO BOX 514 LESTER PRAIRIE, MN 55354 WILLIAM S & MARIA PEDEN PO BOX 114 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 RALPH H & SUSAN S SWANSON 1000 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 A & MARLENE M OF TRUST 000 WES'rERN DR :HANHASSEN, MN 5.5317 E & ANN M BOUCHER 020 WESTERN DR :HANHASSEN, MN 55317 WALLACE & M CHRISTENSEN 1001 WESTERN DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JAMES P & KATHRYN L JACOBY & MICHAEL L & BRENDA J TERZlCH 1038 AVERY CREEK DR WOODSTOCK, GA 30188 LARRY E SCHROERS 1020 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 PAUL A & SHERYI..L A KREUTER 1090 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 B & MADELYN L PAINE 092 SHENENDOAH ClR MN 5.5317 THOMAS K & ANNE H MCGINN 1121 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ANITA BENSON 125 3RD ST N #2 MARSHALL, MN 56258 [ICHARD E ROSSING MARGARET D ROSSING 30 CYGNET PL LAKE, MN 55356 MARGARET D ROSSING 130 CYGNET PL LONG LAKE, MN 55356 HENRY C & IRENE A DIMLER 15372 LESLEY LN EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55348 H GEMMILL 9065 AZURE RD MN 55391 JAMES H GEMMILL 19065 AZURE RD WAYZATA, MN 55391 DONALD B ANDERSON 2851 WASHTA BAY RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 BEACH PROPERTIES ADRIAN JOHNSON 2ND ST MN 55331 CARVER BEACH PROPERTIES C/O ADRIAN JOHNSON 332 2ND ST EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 CARVER BEACH PROPERTIES C/O ADRIAN JOHNSON 332 2ND ST EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 B Mr=77ENGA MF77FNGA LN :ROSSLAKE, MN 56442 RANDY SCHLUETER 58O FOX HILL DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MARTHA JOAN NORMAN 5801 CO RD 101 MINNETONKA, MN 55345 RAIG & MARY E RHATIC~N BROKEN ARROW DR HANHASSEN, MN 5.5317 CRAIG & MARY E RHAT1GAN 599 BROKEN ARROW DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 FRANK L & ANDREA L PATTERSON 600 BROKEN ARROW DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 FRANK L & ANDREA L PA'I-rERSON 600 BROKEN ARROW DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 RICKI LEE HALE & DEEANN WALLENTINE-HALE 600 FOX HILL DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 KIRK N FRIEDLINE 620 FOX HILL DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DANIEL & BARBARA SIEGEL 621 BROKEN ARROW DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 PHILIP M HANSON 621 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JAMES V & MARY L FRERICH 651 BROKEN ARROW DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JAMES V & MARY L FRERICH 651 BROKEN ARROW DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JAMES V & MARY L FRERICH 651 BROKEN ARROW DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JEFFREY L KLEINER 655 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MICHAEL C & MARIE SCHROEDER 6600 LOTUS TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ERIC J MEESTER 6610 MOHAWK DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ERIC J MEESTER 6610 MOHAWK DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 GLEN C GRENIER C/O WILLIAM BENSON 6630 LOTUS TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MICHAEL J & PAULA WEGLER 6630 MOHAWK DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MICHAEL JAMES WEGLER 6630 MOHAWK DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JOAN L WRIGHT 6640 LOTUS TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 VERMONT H ISAACSON 6640 MOHAWK DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MARTHA NYGREN 6650 LOTUS TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 SUSAN E JOHNSON 6650 MOHAWK DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ROYAL & DORIS MARTIN TRUSTEES OF TRUST 6650 PAWNEE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 KEITH J & PATRICIA F GUNDERSON 6661 MOHAWK DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DARIN W & ALLISON R GACHNE 6670 DEERWOOD DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 RAMONA W BECKMAN 6670 HOPI RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DAVID G HOLUB 6670 MOHAWK DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 LAURI WALD 6679 HOPI RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 EVELYN A PRESTEMON 6680 DEERWOOD DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHRIS J & CYNTHIA K ANDERSON 6680 LOTUS TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHRIS J & CYNTHIA K ANDERSON 6680 LOTUS TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DONALD & SIGFRID SENNES 6680 MOHAWK DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DONALD & SIGFRID SENNES 6680 MOHAWK DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 llCOLEITE RANDALL KASTNER NEZ PERCE DR :HANHASSEN, MN 5.5317 ERNIE C & VIOLA E KEEFER 6681 NEZ PERCE DR CHANHASSEN, MN .5.5317 ERNIE C & VIOLA E KEEFER 6881 NEZ PERCE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 & JESSICA POWERS BLVD ;HANHASSEN, MN 55317 CRAIG A & KIMBERLY ANDERSON 6683 HOPI RD CHANI-IASSEN, MN 5.5317 LAYNE A BECKMAN & MEUSSA R CONDON 6686 HOPI RD CHANHASSEN, MN 5.5317 J UNGER DEERWOOD DR MN 55317 DANIEL J & KAREN A WOITALLA 6889 NEZ PERCE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MARY KAY HOGUE 6690 NEZ PERCE DR PO BOX 337 CHANHASSEN, MN 5.5317 OTFERDAHL DEERWOOD DR ',HANHASSEN, MN 55317 JENNIE A HAYS 6891 POWERS BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 RANDY M & MTA M CANTIN 6894 NEZ PERCE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 HARLEY WOLFE & ;HARON BETH HANSON HOPI RD :HANHASSEN, MN 55317 HERMINE R LUSTIG TRUSTEES OF TRUST 6699 MOHAWK DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 BRUCE ROBERT JOHANSSON 6701 MOHAWK DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 C & SHARON L ASH BROKEN ARROW DR :HANHASSEN, MN 5.5317 CRAIG S & MONICA C KIFFMEYER 6710 HOPI RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DANIEL T RUTLEDGE 6711 HOPI RD CHANHASSEN, MN .55317 HEYDT DEGLER I MOHAWK DR :HANHASSEN, MN 55317 PETER A & JAIME M KORDONOWY 6711 NF_.Z PERCE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MICHAEL A WOITALLA 6712 HOPI RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 LAINE C O'I-r'ERDAHL NEZ PERCE DR HANHASSEN, MN 55317 ELAINE C O'I-I'ERDAHL 6715 NEZ PERCE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 FRANK UEBLE C/O ALBERT OTTERDAHL 6715 NEZ PERCE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 HRISTOPHER & CARLY SALL HOPI RD HANHASSEN, MN 55317 LAWRENCE & PAULA VELTKAMP 6724 LOTUS TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ANDREW A BORASH 6725 NEZ PERCE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 L FROSTAD LOTUS TRL N, MN 55317 STANLEY R CRONISTER & JOANNE MUGGLI.-CRONISTER 6730 LOTUS TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 KENNETH JEROME LUCAS & ANTOINETI'E M LUCAS 6735 NEZ PERCE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 LARRY L & MARY E BARRE'I-I' 6741 HOPI RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 STEVEN K OIEN 6780 LOTUS TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 STEVEN K & BONNIE JO OIEN 6780 LOTUS TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 STEVEN K OIEN 6780 LOTUS TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ANDREW G & NICOLE M SIEMENS 6780 YUMA DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 TROY D STO'I-I'LER & JESSICA R TSCHIDA 6800 RINGO DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 KURT P & SHELLY LANGHEINRICH 8800 YUMA DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DOUGLAS H & CORAZON KALLEVlG 683O YUMA DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ROBERT JOHN MOORE 6839 YUMA DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MICHAEL O'KELLY 685 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ROBERT C MACFARLANE 6850 YUMA DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JEAN E LOPEZ 6859 YUMA DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 BRIAN J TIMM 6880 LOTUS TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 WlNIFRED FYNBO BECKMAN 6865 NEZ PERCE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 BRUCE & CHARLENE BURRINGTON 6869 YUMA DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 BRUCE & CHARLENE BURRINGTON 6869 YUMA DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MICHAEL J & ELIZABETH M KOHANE 6870 YUMA DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 KURTIS J & MARY E ANDERSON 6870 LOTUS TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 SUSAN D ALBEE 6871 NEZ PERCE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 KIMBERLEY ROSE MURPHY- WARNER & JOHN G WARNER 6870 NEZ PERCE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JOHN D JR & LISA LENSEGRAV ETAL 6880 LOTUS TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JAMES JOHN & ELIZABETH L KNOP 6880 NEZ PERCE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JAMES JOHN & ELIZABETH L KNOP 6880 NEZ PERCE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MARK A & JULIE C QUINER 6889 YUMA DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JASON A & CINDY E BOLDENOW 6890 LOTUS TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JASON A & CINDY E BOLDENOW 6890 LOTUS TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MARK W & VALERIE NELSON 6890 NAVAJO DR CHANHASSEN, MN 5.5317 JANICE H TAYLOR 6890 NEZ PERCE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 THERESA A BIGAOUE'I-rE 6890 YUMA DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ROBERT PACIEZNIK 6891 NAVAJO DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 L MAT,SON-GALVIN & EFFREY D GALVIN NAVAJO DR MN 55317 DONALD D PETERSON 6896 NAVAJO DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 FEMX & MARGARET THOMPSON 6899 YUMA DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 OF CHANHASSEN SCO'I-i' BOTCHER CITY CENTER DR PO BOX 147 MN 5E,317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O SCO'I-r BOTCHER 690 CITY CENTER DR PO BOX 147 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O SCO'i-I' BOTCHER 690 CITY CENTER DR PO BOX 147 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 OF CHANHASSEN SCOTT BOTCHER CITY CENTER DR PO BOX 147 MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O SCO'I-r BOTCHER 690 CITY CENTER DR PO BOX 147 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O SCOTT BOTCHER 690 CITY CENTER DR PO BOX 147 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 OF CHANHASSEN SCOTT BOTCHER CITY CENTER DR PO BOX 147 MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O SCOTT BOTCHER 690 CITY CENTER DR PO BOX 147 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O SCOTT BOTCHER 690 CITY CENTER DR PO BOX 147 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 OF CHANHASSEN SCOTI' BOTCHER CITY CENTER DR PO BOX 147 MN 5.5317 PATRICK T & DEBRA JO MCRAITH 6900 LOTUS TRL CHANHASSEN, MN ~17 CHARLES R L WORSFOLD 6900 YUMA DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 IEFFREY T STERN YUMA DR MN 55317 JOSEPH T & JANICE S MORTON 6911 YUMA DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JOSEPH T & JANICE S MORTON 6911 YUMA DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 G III & BARBARA C BETZ LOTUS TRL MN 55317 JERRE J & MARY ANN JOHNSON 6941 NEZ PERCE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 5.5317 JAMES R JR & ELLEN J CRANSTON 695 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JANE CRANSTON CARVER BEACH RD :HANHASSEN, MN 55317 G & KATHERINE M NEZ PERCE DR MN 5.5317 ELLEN JANE CRANSTON 695 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN, MN .55317 DOUGLAS D & AMY D SUMNER 699 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHRISTOPHER A KLEIN & BARBARA J SECK 6961 NEZ PERCE RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 .. RICHARD J WELLS 700 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 L SODERQUIST CARVER BEACH RD iHANHASSEN, MN 55317 NATHAN M & AMY E FOX 710 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 WESLEY WALTER WESTERMANN 710 PONDEROSA DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CURTIS C & JUDITH N QUINER 725 PONDEROSA DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 HARLAN KOEHNEN 7263 PONTIAC ClR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 HARLAN KOEHNEN 7263 PONTIAC CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 PAUL R & CATHERINE M DOLS 730 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JANICE MARIE HAZELTON 740 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RICHARD E ROSSING 741 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DAVID W WORKMAN 745 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 GILBERT W & SHERRY L SIEVERS 746 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GERALYN J HAYDEN 749 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 BLAISE A & KAY K WATSON 750 QUIVER DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ROBERT S & KIRSTEN P ROJINA 751 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT S & KIRSTEN P ROJINA 751 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ROBERT S & KIRSTEN P ROJINA 751 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MICHAEL F & BARBARA A COYLE 757 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GREGORY J CARLSON & KATHLEEN M NYGAARD 760 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JAY D HOPIA & ROBIN L MOSCHOGIANIS 76O CREE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 KLEVE L & LORILEE ANDERSON 760 PONDEROSA DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEPHEN KENNEDY & NANCY THURS 761 PONDEROSA DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JEFFREY A KING 767 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MARTIN P & AMY E JENSEN 770 CREE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RICHARD J SPARTZ & KELLY lAMES 777 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MAURICE O & VICKIE L HEVEY 780 WOODHILL DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 KEITH M VOLK 790 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MELVIN G HERRMANN 795 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DONALD M WHITE & KAREN P GLENN 800 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JERROLD L PETERSON & SARA A GEISER-PETERSON 800 WOODHILL DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MARK A VANGUILDER 805 PONDEROSA DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DWIGHT E & ALICE M IMKER 610 PONDEROSA DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CURTIS PAUL BJORLIN 824 LONE EAGLE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CURTIS PAUL BJORLIN 824 LONE EAGLE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Todd Gerhardt August 8, 2001 Page 2 Staff anticipates, based on conversations with MnDOT, that the safety improvements would be completed under MnDOT's Cooperative Agreement program. TMs program requires the City to cost share in the project. The City does not have estimates for either the cost share of the safety improvements or the tumback project. A mill and overlay project would extend the life of the existing roadway approximately 10-15 years, however, it is not a permanent solution considering the poor subgrade of the existing road. The road will eventually require a full depth reconstruction. At the time of reconstruction, it is anticipated that the road will be widened to 3-4 lanes. MnDOT has continued to express its desire to turn this roadway over to Hennepin and Carver Counties following the reconstruction. The next available turnback funding for Trunk Highway 101 is 2008. The funding that had been dedicated for Trunk Highway 101 was reallocated to Dakota, Ramsey, and Washington Counties. MnDOT has stated they would support use of federal funds for an 8' trail constructed in conjunction with a tumback project. A trail less than 8' in width would not qualify for federal funds. If a trail is built, federal funds may also be available for retaining walls and landscaping to mitigate impacts of the road improvements. The Comprehensive Plans for Hennepin County, Eden Prairie, Carver County, and Chanhassen all classify the road as an "A" Minor Arterial. The following information is from the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan: o The projected year 2020 daily volumes are at the upper limit or exceed the recommended guidelines for volumes carried by a collector. o The roadway connects principal and other minor arterial routes thereby providing an important mobility function for the region. The City of Chanhassen has historically limited direct access to Trunk Highway 101 and will continue to do so. (City of Eden Prairie has not had a similar policy since many of the homes were in place before acc, ess became an issue.) Other "A" Minor Arterials in the City of Chanhassen are Trunk Highway 5, Tnmk Highway 41, Highways 169/212, Trunk Highway 17 (Powers Boulevard), Trunk Highway 19 (Galpin Boulevard), Trunk Highway 17 (Audubon Road), and Trunk Highway 18 (Lyman Boulevard). Attachments: 1. Option lA Resolution c: Robert Brown, MnDOT Cyrus Knutson, MnDOT Gene Diem, City of Eden Prairie Roger Gustufson, Carver County Jim Grube, Hennepin County Representative Tom Workman ~.~public~97-12~lttr rec grant, doe C1TY OFTEN CARVER AND HIr~NNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA DATE: May 8~ 2000 RESOLUTION NO: 2000-35 MOTION BY: Senn , SECONDED BY: , Engel A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONCKI~ PLAN FOR ~ RECON~UCrION OF HIGHWAY 101 FROM WE~ 78TM STREET TO P~ANT V~W ROAD WI~-REAS, Hennepin County has completed a turn-back agreement with M. rRDT for Trunk Highway 101 ('q'H 101"); and WI~REAS, Carver County is negotiating with MnDOT to compl~ an agreement for mm-back of TH 101; and WHEREAS, Carver County, Hennepin County, the City of C'nanl~tsen, and the City of Eden Prairie have been engaged in a process to develop conceptual design alternatives for improving TH 101; and WKE~AS, the City of Chanhassen has conducted six neighlx)dmod meetings and a public hearing to solicit input on the design of TH 101. NOW, Tt~REFORE, BE IT RESOLVED bythe City Council of the City of Chanhassen, M. innesota: The City approves the following concept for the reconstruction of TH 101 from West 78"' Street to Pleasant View Road: · A two lane road within the existing rigid-of-way · Replacement of the roadway base and sub-base · Removing peaks and valley~ · Resudacing the road · Installing curb and gutter · Constructing storm sewer and ponding · Constructing on the back of the curb line a minimum impact 8 foot wide trail extending from 78u~ Street to Pleasant View Road · Constructing a northbound turn lane at Fox Hollow · Signalizing the intersection of Pleasant View Road and Valley View Road 2. That construction proceed expeditiously. That the entire process maintain rigorous attention to corrtm~mi_~ion and a schedule of public meetings to keep area residents fully informed of progress and decisions. Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 8u~ day of May, 2000. Scott A. Botcher, City Manager 'Nancy K. Mancino, Mayor . ,yss. NO Mancino Jansen Engel Labatt AsSeNT Non~ .,<-:-?.¢- 7. :;': '-'-= -: '"; :~: .-7 -~."-.-:;'-' :- ....-: ~ :..-;_ · - . - :: - .-.~. -....-: - . ~....-..._ - . ...~ DayCo Concrete July 17, 2001 Page 2 The City's discretion in approving or denying a site plan is limited to whether or not the proposed project complies with Zoning Ordinance requirements. If it meets these standards, thc City must then approve the site plan. This is a quasi-judicial decision. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Section 20-106 through 20-122, Site Plan Review Section 20-231 through 20-237, Conditional Use Permits Section 20-1551 through 20-1564, Bluff Creek Overlay District Chanhassen Business Park Development Standards PROPOSAL SUMMARY DayC. o Concrete Company, Inc. (the developer) is requesting a conditional use permit to develop within the Bluff Creek Overlay District and to operate a contractor's yard on their ~ at 1850 lake Drive West and site plan review for a 25,139 square foot office warehouse building. The proposed building represents the first phase of a two-phase development for the headquar~s site for DayCo Concrete Company, Inc. The second building will be located to the south of the proposed first phase building. The lot is located completely within the secondary zone of the Bluff Creek Overlay District. The secondary zone mc~s the buffer zone that contains habitat areas that are valuable to the delicate balance of the Bluff Creek ecosystem. The primary zone boundary is shown on the zoning map on the west side of the propemy line. However, staff believes that the primary zone boundary is actually located on the site. Upon inspection of the DayCo Headquarters site on Lot 2, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center 3rd Addition, 1850 lake Drive West, staff believes that the primary zone boundary shown on the zoning map is incorrect. After reviewing the site with the Water Resoumes Coordinator and Environmental Resources Specialist, we are recommending that the primary zone boundary be shown at the 920 contour line. This line would include the edge of the trees and the top of the slope area directly effecting Bluff Creek. The required setback from the primary zone boundary is 40 feet. If this line were accepted, it would alter the permitted location of the building on the property as well as moving the parking lot, pushing them further to the east or require that the city grant a variance from the 40 foot setback from the primary zone. The proposed building is shown approximately 21 feet from the 920 contour. The retaining wall, as shown' in the original submittal, is located within the primary zone. Staff met with the developer on July 11, 2001, to determine if some type of alternate could be achieved. At a minimum, staff believes that the retaining wall should be removed from within the primary zone. Additionally, the plan should be modified to move the building farther from the primary zone. The developer has agreed to revise the site plan. However, a variance for the building setback would still be required. DayCo Concrete July 17, 2001 Page 3 In order to move the retaining wall out of the primary zone, it appears to be necessary to move the retaining wall approximately 10 feet to the east. Staff has requested that the developer show the primary zone boundary on the grading plan. The proposed retaining wall on the western side of the building is approximately 62 feet from the property line. The developer has agreed to reduce the .width of the drive aisle on both ends of the building from 30 feet to 26 feet as permitted by code. ' This change permits the retaining wall to be moved outside the primary zone boundary and the building to be moved four feet east resulting in a 25 foot setback from the primary zone boundary. Staff believes that this setback is an acceptable compromise while still preserving and adhering to the intent of the Bluff Creek Overlay District. As part of the original approval of the Chanhassen Business Center, the city performed an environmental review of the project. At that time, the city acquired Ouflot A, Chanhassen Business Center to preserve the majority of the Bluff Creek corridor. Ouflot A is approximately 14.3 acres. A storm water retention pond was proposed.on a portion of Outlot A. The balance of the parcel is used to protect Bluff Creek, associated flood plain and the only significant stand of trees found on the site. The building is over 100 feet from the property line. The site sits approximately eight feet below the railroad elevation to the north. The area northwest and west of the site is heavily wooded and within the Bluff Creek primary zone. The proposed development shall remain well l~ack from the primary zone. To the east is the Control Products building with primary building material of rock and smooth faced bl.ock and a finished floor elevation of 925.0, which is approximately ~wo feet higher than the DayCo building at 922.8. Across the cul-de-sac to the southeast is the Post Office Annex. The Post Office Annex building has a finished floor elevation of 928.55, which is approximately six feet above the finished floor elevation for the DayCo building. The Post Office Annex primary building material is cut face block. Directly to the south is the Dover building with a finished floor elevation of 927.0, which is approximately four feet above the finished floor elevation for the DayCo building. The Dover building is an office building with primary building materials of rock face block. However, due-to its proximity to the residential area to the south, a pitched roof with asphalt shingles was incorporated to give it a more residential feel. The Dover Building, like the DayCo building, is only the first phase of a two phase development of the parcel. The overall Chanhassen Business Center Planned Unit Development rises Significantly as one moves from the west to the east. The center point of the cul-de-sac at the west end of Lake Drive West is at an elevation of 923.19. The high point of Lake Drive West is just west of the intersection with Audubon Road at an elevation of 948.81. The development in the northeast comer of the project on Commerce Drive is terraced above the lower portion of the development. The elevations of Commerce Drive are 938.09 and 942.83 at the center of the westerly and easterly cul-de-sacs, respectively. DayCo Concrete July 17, 2001 Page 4 Staff believes the proposed development of the site is consistent with the intent and requirements of the PUD and will be a welcome addition to the business park. Staff recommends applDVal of the conditional use permit with a variance to permit alteration within Bluff Creek buffer area (the first 20 feet of the primmy zone setback), a 15 foot variance from the 40 foot primary zone setback, and the site plan based on the findings outlined in the report and subject to the conditions of approval. ARCtHTECTURAL REVIEW The proposed building is 'W" shaped with the top of the "r' in the east with a dimension of 140 feet by 60 feet and the bottom of the 'T' oriented east-west with a dimension of 160 feet by 80 feet. The office area is located in the southeast comer of the building. The main entrance is oriented toward Lake Drive West in the southeast comer of the building. The proposed building is a one story with a second story mezzanine level over the offices (height to top of block (highest point) - approximately 28 feet 8 inches). The primary building material is 12 inch rock face block. The primary material color is a parchment colored block (sandy-white) with accent bands of saddle colored block (brownish-tan). The building entrance, which is angled to the southeast comer of the building, will be highlighted through the use of a ~ high custom colored block (grayish-brown) with the accent bands and full height windows. On either flank of the entrance are projecting towers. The overhead doors, which are located on the north and south elevations of the building, are a shell ivory color which will blend in well with the parchment colored block. A future second phase of development of this lot is located in the southern part of the property. This future building will provide a cougymxt area for the overhead doom. Futura development of the site requires a separate site plan review. - (Windows or doors cover over 50 percent of the elevation visible to the public - 50 txacent required, the proposed building would comply with the requirements of the draft design standards being reviewed by the city. The building is highly articulated with inteteafing arehitecUnal details including stairway and storage towers.) Staff is concerned with the noah half of the eastern elevation of the building. While the developer has continued the banding on the building, there is little articulation in this area. One option would be to incorporate overhe~ windows, similar to the north elevation, in the storage area. A second option would be to in~ column elements projected out from the building in this area. A third option would be to incorporate patterns with the rock face block number 2 or 3 to help articulate this area. A fourth option would be to add columnar type trees, e.g., arborvitae, columnar maples, etc. The developer, in their revised plans, has incorporated additional landscaping in this arem However, the proposed ornamental will provide a sufficient vertical Uv. atment to address the concern of staff. A taller, slimmer tree species would be more appropriate. DayCo Concrete July 17, 2001 Page 5 BACKGROUND On January 13, 1992, the City Council approved the preliminary plat for the Chanhassen Business Center. The PUD was mended on February 8, 1993 to allow for a church as a permitted use and the final plat for phase I of the project was approved. On April 24, 1995, the Chanhassen Business Center 2~ Addition, subdividing Outlot C into 7 lots, was approved by the City. The Chanhassen Business Center is an industrial/office park on 93.7 acres. The original plat consisted of 12 lots and 2 outlots. The ultimate development for this proposal was to have a total of 700,000 square feet of building area with a mix of 20% office, 25% industrial, and 55% warehouse. On September 25, 1995, the City Council reviewed the replat of Outlot A into Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center 3ra Addition. DayCo Concrete Company, Inc. is to be built on Lot 2, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center 3ra Addition. This lot is the last undeveloped lot within Chanhassen Business Center. The development design standards state'that the maximum intensity of development on this lot is 26 percent building coverage and 67 percent impervious surface. This permits maximum building square footage of 71,448 square feet and a maximum impervious surface of 184,117 square feet. The first phase of development includes a building square footage of 25,139 and site coverage of 93,700. Development within Chanhassen Business Center: Development Office Manufacturing Warehouse Church PUD Requirements 120~700 150~875 326~425 5~500 1-1-1 Church (1) 5,500 1-2-1 N W S 17,500 4-1-2 Power System 7,433 20,317 7-1-2 Paulstarr 7,287 18,017 2-1-2 Highland 1,802 7,359 1-1-3 Control Products 10,000 ! 6,750 8,250 1-1-2 T I S II 7,749 20,999 10,000 5-1-2 Chuck's 2,560 14,144 4-1-3 U.S.P.O. 5,300 15,200 24,400 6-1-2 Boedecker 8,750 26,250 2-1-4 Quantum _ 10,000 5,000 1-1-4 Matthews 10,006 28,554 2-1-3 DayCo 5~688 19~451 DayCo Concrete July 17, 2001 Page 6 3-1-3 Dover 19,490 3-1-2 Power System 9,582 Total Remaining 11,349 113,126 241,031 0.0 Building Area Total Used Building 109,321 37,749 85,394 5,500 Area GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITKCTURE This property is zoned PUD light industrial/office park_ The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive proposal. The development must comply with the Development Design Standards for Chanhassen Business Center. The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural standards and site design. The proposed uses of light industrial and office' are consistent with the parameters established as part of the PUD. The proposed development meets or ex--.ds the minimum setbacks established as part of the PUD. The building square footage, building coverage, and impervious surface are below the maximum requirements for this specific lot. The building is in compliance with the requirements for the Chanhassen Business Center. PUD COMPLIANCE TABL~ DayCo (Phase I) Building Height 2 stories 1 sWry and mezzanine Building Setback N-30' E- 10' W- 10' S-25' N-200' E-77' W-104' S-232' Parking stalls 41 62 stalls, shows 14 proof of parking Parking Setback N-30' E-10' W-10' S-15' N-128' E-10' W-74'-S-36' Hard surface 67% 34% Coverage Lot Area 1 acre Variances Required- none 6.3 acres DayCo Concrete July 17,2001 Page 7 Parking Standards: Office - 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet; Warehouse - 1 space per 1,000 for first 10,000 square feet, then 1 space per 2,000 square feet; Manufacturing - 1 parking space for' each employee on the major shift and 1 space for each motor vehicle when customarily kept on the premises. Staff has estimated the required parking at 41 spaces. The applicant has provided 62 spaces. Additionally, the applicant has shown 14 proof of parking spaces. LANDSCAPING The minimum requirements for landscaping include 5,483 sq. ft. of landscaped area around the parking lot, 22 trees for the parking lot, and buffer yard plantings along the north, east and west property lines. The applicant's proposed as compared to the requirements for landscape area and parking lot trees is shown in the following table. Vehicular use landscape area Trees/parking lot North prop. Line- buffer yard C East prop. line - buffer yard B West prop. Line - buffer yard C Required 5,483 sq. ft. 22 overstory 11 islands/peninsulas 8 overstory 20 understory 20 shrubs 8 overstory trees 17 understory trees 25 shrubs 5 overstory 14 understory 14 shrubs Proposed >5,483 sq. ft. 23 ove.rstory 9 islands/peninsulas 8 overstory 16 understory 20 shrubs 11 overstory 16 understory 25 shrubs 6 overstory 12 understory 15 shrubs Proposed landscaping does not meet minimum ordinance requirements. Staff has the following recommendations: Increase understory plantings along the north property line by 4 trees and increase the number of understory plantings along the west property line by 1 tree. In both the east and west buffer areas, the applicant is over by one tree for overstory plantings and under by one tree for understory plantings. Staff finds this acceptable. The applicant should submit a revised landscape plan to the city for approval. If these landscape peninsulas are less than 10 feet in width, then aeration tubing shall be installed. All new landscaped areas shall have irrigation system installed pursuant to city ordinance. DayCo Concrete July 17, 2001 Page 8 LIGHTING/SIGNAGE All light fixtures shall be shieldexL Area lighting shall have a 90 degree cut-off angle. Lighting shall be shielded from direct off-site view. All site lighting shall comply with Section 20-913 of the zoning ordinance. The developer has not shown any signage as part of the plan submittal. Wall signage may be located on either the east or south elevation. The developer is advised that wall signage is permitted on only one building elevation. The size of the signage shall comply with city ordinance requirements for IOP district properties. The developer may also install a monument sign at the entrance to the site a minimum of 12.5 feet from the ~ line. A separate sign permit application is required for the installation of signage. No wetlands exist on-site. BLUFF CREEK NATURAL RF~OURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN This site is within the secondary corridor of the Bluff Creek Overlay District and abuts the primary corridor. The boundaries of the primary and secondary corridors must be shown on the grading plan. All structures must be set back 40 feet from the primary corridor and no grading or other disturbance may occur within the first 20 feet of the setback_ The primary zone boundary is shown on the zoning map on the west side of the ~ line. The applicant has agreed to revise the plan to move the retaining wall out of the primary zone and to shift the building to the east. However, a variance from the 40 foot setback is still required. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLANT (SWMP) The applicant must provide storm water calculations to demonstrate that the existing pond has adequate capacity to accommodate storm water from this site. In addition, the applicant should explore the possibility of tying into the existing 48-inch storm sewer that runs along the eastern grope~ line in order to minimize the number of pipes draining into the storm water pond. PARKS AND OPEN SPACE As part of the overall development for Chanhassen Business Center, the developer built a trail system in lieu of trail fees. However, the development still owes park fees in the mount of $3,000.00 per acre. Park fees shall be paid at thc time of building permit approval. DayCo Concrete July 17, 2001 Page 9 GRADING/DRAINAGE/EROSION CONTROL The proposed drainage plan is consistent with the approved drainage plan for the development. Storm water from the building and adjacent parking area is proposed to be conveyed via storm sewer to the existing pond in the northeast comer of the site. Additional storm sewer is planned for the future building addition. Staff is recommending that the applicant revise the storm sewer to utilize the existing storm manhole and inlet apron to the pond. This would eliminate the need to install another inlet apron along the eastern side of the site. In addition, storm sewer sizing calculations for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event must be submitted. Proposed erosion control consists of silt fence along all sides of the site. The silt fence adjacent to the existing pond and wetland along the north and west sides of the site must be Type 3. A 50- foot long rock construction entrance is shown off of Lake Drive West. This should be revised to be 75 feet in length as per City detail plate #5301. In order to minimize tree loss, tree protection fencing will need to be installed to protect .the remaining trees during construction. Staff is also recommending that straw bale inlet filters be added around the two existing catch basins in Lake Drive West. This will help prevent sediment from construction-related activities from entering the storm sewer and adjacent pond. A retaining wall is proposed on the west side of the building. The northerly most 35 feet of the wall protrudes into the public drainage and _utility easement. The wall must be moved or redesigned such that it no longer encroaches into the public easement. UTILITIES Municipal sewer and water is available to the property from Lake Drive West. The applicant is proposing to extend sanitary sewer and water from existing service stubs along the south side of the site. Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the City's Building Department. The location and number of fire hydrants must be reviewed and approved by the City's Fire Marshal. .STREETS The lot has one drive entrance at the southeast comer of the site off of Lake Drive West. The proposed drive aisle widths and turning radiuses appear large enough to accommodate the expected truck traffic to this site. Staff is recommending that a 6-foot wide concrete sidewalk be added along the westerly side of the entrance drive. This sidewalk will connect to the existing sidewalk along Lake Drive West. Also, the curb along the south and west sides of the drive aisle must be concrete as per City Code. DayCo Concrete July 17, 2001 Page 10 When approving a CONDITIONAL USE PER_MIT, the City must determine the compatibility of a proposed development with existing and tnoposed uses. The general issuance standards of the conditional use Section 20-232 include the following 12 items: lm Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. Finding: The proposed use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. 2. Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapmr. Finding: The proposed use is consistent with the objectives of the city's com!n'ehensive plan and this chapter. 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 proposed use is designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in a~ce with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. 4. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. Finding: The proposed use is not hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. m 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: The proposed use is served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage suucun~, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools. . Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. DayCo Concrete July 17, 2001 Page 11 w 1 9, 10. 11. 12. Finding: The proposed use will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 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 proposed use does 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. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. Finding: The proposed use has vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. Finding: The proposed use does not result in the destmction,.loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area. Finding: The proposed use is aesthetically compatible with the area. The proposed redevelopment of the site should enhance the appearance of this comer. Will not depreciate surrounding property values. Finding: The proposed use will not depreciate surrounding property values. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article. Finding: The proposed use meets standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article. The development complies with the Chanhassen Business Center standards, the site plan requirements, and the conditional use standards. DayCo Concrete July !7, 2001 Page 12 VARIANCE Findings: The City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: The literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable pro~ within 500 feet of it. A reasonable use of the property is office industrial use. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. The proposed variance is the minimum necessm'y to develop the site as originally contemplated as part of the Chanhassen Business Center development and preserve the primary corridor. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without depatling downward from them meet these criteria. b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other ~ within the same zoning classification. The subdivision was done prior to the adoption of the current standards and many existing subdivisions within the corridor do not comply with code requirements. Cl The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. The use of the parcel for an office/industrial use is reasonable. d, The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a serf-created hardship. The lot was platted prior to the Bluff Creek Overlay ordinance, so the hardship is not seff-cream~ The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public weffare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. This area had been approved for development as part of the ovenfll plan for Chanhassen Business Center. The site had been wugh graded up to the area now being proposed for preservation. The proposed variation will not impair an _ad~uate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety'or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. In evaluating a SITE PLAN and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance with the following: DayCo Concrete July 17, 2001 Page 13 (1) Consistency with the elements and objectives of the ci~s development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted; (2) Consistency with this division; (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 (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; (5) Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: al 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; b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping; 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 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. (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. DayCo Concrete July 17, 2001 Page 14 Finding: Subject to the revisions contained in the staff report, the proposed site plan is consistent with all plans and specifications and development design standards for the Chanhassen Business Center and city ordinance. PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE The Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 17, 2001, to review the proposed development. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the conditional use permit to develop within the Bluff Creek Overlay district with a variance to permit alteration within the first 20 feet of the 40 foot setback and a 15 foot variance from the 40 foot building setback; and a conditional use permit for a contractor's yard on Lot 2, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center 2"a Addition subject to the conditions of the staff report. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the site plan for the Dayco Corporate Headquarters first phase subject to the conditions of the staff report with modifications to conditions 5, 8, 18, and 23 as follows: . A revised landscape plan that mee~ minimum requirements be submitted to the city prior to building permit approval. The applicant shall work with staff to increase plantings along the south property line. Transferring from the east and north is acceptable. 8. The developer shall work with staff to provide additional articulation to the north half of the eastern building elevation. Tall arborvitae or evergreen landscaping is an acceptable solution. 18. Add a 6-foot wide sidewalk along the west side of thc drive entrance from thc cul-de-sac. Bituminous is acceptable until phase H is completed. The applicant shah escrow funds to install a 6 foot sidewalk along the west side of the driveway entrance from the od- de-sac to be built within two years. LJ. Temporary bituminous curb is acceptable for two years. The applicant shall escrow funds to in~tali curb and gutter around the entire parking and drive area for the site within two years from the building permit approval RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motions: DayCo Concrete July 17, 2001 Page 15 A. "I'he City Council approves Conditional Use Permtt g2001-2 to permit develop within the Bluff Creek Overlay District with variances for alteration within the buffer area and a 15 foot variance from the 40 foot primary zone setback, and to permit a contractor's yard on Lot 2, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center 3~ Addition based on the findings of fact and subject to the following conditions: 1. The developer shall enter into a site plan agreement for the property. 2. No outside storage of material or equipment shall be permitted. 3. The boundaries of the Bluff Creek Overlay District primary and secondary corridors shall be shown on the grading plan. 4. The retaining wall must be located outside the Bluff Creek Overlay district primary zone. B. '~I'he City Council approves Site Plan Review g2001-5, plans prepared by Lampert Architects, dated May 4, 2001, based on the findings of fact and subject to the following conditions: A separate sign permit application is required for the installation of signage. Wall signage is' permitted on only one elevation. 2. The retaining wall shall be located outside the. Bluff Creek Overlay District Primary Zone. t A minimum 25 foot building setback shall be maintained from the Bluff Creek Overlay District Primary Zone. e The applicant shall increase understory plantings along the north property line by 4 trees for a total of 20 and increase the number of understory plantings along the west property line by 1 tree for a total of 13 trees. So A revised landscape plan that meets minimum requirements be submitted to the city prior to building permit approval. The applicant shall work with staff to increase plantings along the south property line. Transferring from the east and north is acceptable. e If these landscape peninsulas are less than 10 feet in width, then aeration tubing shall be installed. 7. All new landscaped areas shall have an irrigation system installed. DayCo Concrete July 17, 2001 Page 16 8. The developer shall work with staff to provide additional articulation to the north half of the eastern building elevation. Tall arborvitae or evergreen landscaping is an acceptable solution. . The applicant shall provide storm water calculations to demonstrate that the existing pond has adequate capacity to accommodate storm water from this site. 10. The developer shall revise the storm sewer design to tie into the existing storm manhole and pond inlet of the existing 48-inch storm sewer that rum along the eastern property line in order to minimize the number of pipes draining into the storm water pond. 11. Park fees in the amount of $18,926.00 shall be paid at the time of building permit approval. 12. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 13. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer sizing calculations for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event prior to building permit approval. 14. Silt fence adjacent to the existing pond and wetland on the north and west sides of the site must be Type 3 heavy-duty. 15. Specify what kind of material is being used at the north and south parts of the proposed building. 16. On the grading plan, add City Detail Plate Nos. 5215 and 5302.. Also, show the benchmark used for the site survey. 17. Revise the rock construction entrance to be 75 feet in length as per City detail plate g5301. 18. Add a 6-foot wide sidewalk along the west side of the drive entrance from the cul-de-sac. Bituminous is accep~le until phase II is completed. The applicant shall escrow funds to install a 6 foot sidewalk along the west side of the driveway entrance from the cul-de-sac to be built within two years. 19. Show the most current version of City Detail Plate Nos. 1004 and 5207 on the utility plan. 20. Remove the northerly 35 feet of the proposed retaining wall from the public drainage and utility easement. 21. Add straw bale inlet filters around the two existing catch basins in Lake Drive West. DayCo Concrete July 17,2001 Page 17 22. Utilize the existing 8-inch sanitary stub on the south side of the site. 23. Temporary bituminous curb is acceptable for two years. The applicant shall escrow funds to install curb and gutter around the entire parking and drive area for the site within two years from the building permit approval. 24. Replace the casting on the western-most catch basin in Lake Drive West with a drive-over type grate. 25. Revise the plans to show the following: a. The existing pond along with the NWL and HWL. b. Existing street light locations in l_ake Drive West. 26. 27. The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 28. Three (3) accessible parking spaces are required for the 62 spaces provided. 29. Detailed occupancy retailed requirements will not be reviewed until complete plans are submitted. 30. 31. 32. Utility Plan: The HDPE pipe specified for the storm sewer requires an air test and must have watertight fittings. The sanitary sewer service into the building must be schedule 40 pipe. The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. The 6-inch water service coming into the building will need a post indicator valve. 1999 NFPA 13 Section 5-14.1.1.8. 33. In accordance with city policy please ensure that there is a 10-foot clear space around all fire hydrants, Siamese connection, post indicator valves, etc. on site." ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Recommendation 2. Development Review Application DayCo Concrete July 17, 2001 Page 18 3. Rextucext Site Plan 4. Reduced Building Elevation 5. Memo from Greg Hayes to Robert Generous dated 5/11/01 6. Chanhassen Business Center 7. Public He~ng Notice and Mailing List 8. Bluff Creek Primary Zone as Seen on Zoning Map. 9. Planning Commission Minutes of 7/17/01 DayCo Concrete July 17, 2001 Page 19 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN CO~, MINNF_3OTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION Application of DayCo Concrete Company, Inc. for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review On June 19, 2001, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly schedule meeting to consider the application of DayCo Concrete Company, Inc. for a conditional use permit and site plan review for the property located at 1850 Lake Drive West. The Planning' Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed use, preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD) light industrial/office park and is within the Bluff Creek Overlay District (BCO). 2. The Land Use Plan guides the property for office/industrial land uses. 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 2, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center 3~ Addition 4. Ordinance Compliance Section 20-232 (Conditional Use Permits): a. The proposed use will not be detrimental to or enhance the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. b. The proposed use is consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter. DayCo Concrete July 17, 2001 Page 20 C. d. e. g. h. j. The proposed use is 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. The proposed use will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. The proposed use 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 ad__e~uately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. The proposed use will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. The proposed use 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. The proposed use will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. The proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. The proposed use will be aesthetically compatible with the area. · The proposed use will not depreciate surrounding property values. The proposed use will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article. Section 20-110 (Site Plan): DayCo Concrete July 17, 2001 Page 21 (1) Is consistent 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; (2) Is consistent with this division; (3) Preserves 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; (4) Creates 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; (5) Creates a 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; b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping; 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 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. (6) Protects 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. Variances Section 20-58 The City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: DayCo Concrete July 17, 2001 Page 22 be C. d, e, The literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to ~le use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use m~do. by a majority of comparable ~ within 500 feet of it. A reaso~le use of the property is office industrial use. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to reco~ that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. The proposed variance is the minimum necessary to develop the site as originally contemplated as part of the Chanhassen Business Center development and preserve the primary corridor. Variances that blend with these pm-existing standards without depaxting downward from them meet these criteria. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. The subdivision was done prior to the adoption of the current standards and many existing subdivisions within the corridor do not comply with code reqtfimments. The p~ of the variation is not based upon ade. edm to in~ the value or income potential of the parcel of land. The use of the parcel for a office/in~ use is reasonable. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self~ hardship. The lot was platted prior to the Bluff Creek Overlay ordinance, so the hardship is not self-crealed. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public weffare or - injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. This area had been approved for development as part of the overall plan for Chanhassen Business Center. The site had been rough graded up to the area now being proposed for preservation. The proposed variation will not impair an od_equate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or -. impair property ~alues Within the neighborhood. 1 The planning report ~53P 2001-2 and Site Plan Review 2001-5 dated July 17, 2001, prepared by Robert Generous, et al, is incorporated herein. DayCo Concrete July 17, 2001 Page 23 RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the conditional use permit, variances and site plan for the DayCo Concrete Company, Inc. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 17th day of July, 2001. CHANHASSF_~ PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: BY: Its Chairman DayCo Concrete July 17, 2001 Page 24 Chanhassen Business Center DEVRIOPMENT STANDARDS Intent The purpose of this zone is to create a PUD light indusffial/office park. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while ~g a higher quality and more sensitive proposal. All utilities are required to be plac.~ underground. Each lot proposed for development shall proceed through site plan review based on the development standards outlined below. b. Permitted Uses The permi~ uses in this zone should be limited to light industrial, warehousing, and office as defined below. The uses shall be limited to those as defined herein. If there is a question as to whether or not a use meets the definition, the City Council shall make that interpretation. le Light Industrial. The manufacturing, compounding, processing, assembling, packaging, or testing of goods or equipment or reseatwh activities entirely within an enclosed structure, with no outside storage. There shall be negligible impact upon the surrounding environment by noise, vibration, smoke, dust or pollutants. 2. Warehousing. Means the commercial storage of merchandise and personal property. 3. Office. Professional and business office, non-retail activity. c. Setbacks In the PUD standards, there is the requirement for landscape buffering in addition to building and parking setbacks. The landscape buffer on Audubon Road is 50 feet, south of Lake Drive and 100 feet along the southern property line. The PUD zone requires a building to be setback 50 feet from the required landscape buffer and public right-of-ways. There is no minimum requirement for setbacks on interior lot lines. The following setbacks shall apply from the fight-of-way: Required (interior mad system) Provided Required (Audubon Road) 25' 120' 50' Parkinl~ 0 Provided 50' 20' d. Development Standards Tabulation Box Chanhassen Business Center Second Addition CBC PUD Lot Size - Bldg Ht. Bldg Sq. Ft. Building Coverage Impervious Acres (ft.) Surface PUD 6.3 40' 27,000 26% 67% Requirement DayCo (Phase 6.3 28' 8" 25,139 9% 34% Building Square Footage Breakdown for entire development Office 20% 120,700 sq. ft. Manufacturing 25 % 150,875 sq. ft. Warehouse 54.09% 326,425 sq. ft. Church 0.91% 5,500 sq. ft. Total 100% e~ Building Materials and Design 1 , , . . 1 603,500 sq. ft. . The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural standards and site design. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Masonry material shall be used. Color shall be introduced through colored block or panels and not painted block. Brick may be used and must be approved to assure uniformity. Block shall have a weathered face or be polished, fluted, or broken face. Concrete may be poured-in place, tilt-up or pre-cast, and shall be finished in stone, textured or coated. Metal siding will not be approved except as support material to one of the above materials or curtain wall on office components or, as trim or as HVAC screen. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary structure. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible appearing material. Wood screen fences are prohibited. All exterior process machinery, tanks, etc., are to be fully screened by compatible materials. . The use of large unadorned, prestressed concrete panels and concrete block shall be prohibited. Acceptable materials will incorporate textured surfaces, exposed aggregate and/or other patterning. All walls shall be given added architectural interest through building design or appropriate landscaping. 10. Space for recycling shall be provided in the interior of all principal smiemms for all developments in the Business Center. f. Site Landscaping and Screening . All buffer landscaping, including boulevard landscaping, included in Phase I area to be installed when the grading of the phase is completed. This may well result in landscaping being required ahead of individual site plan approvals but we believe the buffer yard and plantings, in particular, need to be established immediately. In addition, to adhere to the higher quality of development as spelled out in the PUD zone, all loading areas shall be screened. Each lot for development shall submit a separate landscaping plan as a part of the site plan review process. 0 All open spaces and non-parking lot surfaces shall be landscaped, rockscaped, or covered with plantings and/or lawn material. , Storage of material outdoors is prohibited unless it has been approved under site plan review. All approved outdoor storage must be screened with masonry fences and/or landscaping. m The master landscape plan for the CBC PUD shall be the design guide for all of the specific site landscape developments. Each lot must present a landscape plan for approval with the site plan review process. e Undulating or angular berms Y to 4' in height, south of Lake Drive along Audubon Road shall be sodded or seeded at the conclusion of Phase I grading and utility construction. The required buffer landscaping may be installed in phases, but it shall be required where it is deemed necessary to screen any proposed development. All required boulevard landscaping shall be sodded. e Loading areas shall be screened from public right-of-ways. Wing walls may be required where deemed appropriate. g. Signage All freestanding signs be limited to monument signs. The sign shall not exceed eighty (80) square feet in sign display area nor be greater than eight (8) feet in height. The sign treatment is an element of the architecture and thus should reflect with the quality of the development. The signs should be consistent in color, size, and material throughout the development. The applicant should submit a sign package for staff review. . Each property shall be allowed one monument sign located near the driveway into the private site. All signs require a separate permit. . The signage will have consistency throughout the development. A common theme will be introduced at the development's entrance monument and will be used throughout. 4. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights. h. Lighting ! Lighting for the interior of the business center should be consistent throughout the development. A decorative, shoe box fixture (high pressure sodium vapor lamps) with a square ornamental pole shall be used throughout the development area for area lighting. Lighting equipment similar to what is mounted in the public street right-of-wa~ shall be used in the private areas. . All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no mom than 1/2 foot candle at the property line. This does not apply to street lighting. g:~plan~bg~development review~layco cup 2001-2 spr 2001-$.doc Ci'I'Y OF. CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55:317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPUCANT: DavCo Concrete ADDRF_S~ 1340 Park Road Com£an~, zn~.e.~ OWNER: LDW Pz'o~erttes r.E,C ADDRESS: 1340 Park Road Chanhassen~ H3I 55317 Chanhassen, MN55317 Tm ~=PHONE (Daytime) 952-474-5246 · TELEPHONE: . 952-474-5246 · Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Pen*nE Conditional Use Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements Interim Use Permit Non-conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development* variance Wetland Alteration Permit · ! Zoning Appeal Rezoning Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign P~n Review Site Plan Review* X Sul:~divislon* Notification Sign Escrow for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost** ($50 CUP/SPR~AC/VA~AP~etes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) TOTAL FEE $ -I t~070.00 · A llst of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be Included with the application. ' r~ul]dlng materlal samples must be submitted with sl~e plan review& ~Twenty-slx full slze folded copies of the plans must be submitted, Including an 8½" X 11" reduced copy of- translmrency for each plan shest. "F. scrow will be required for other applications through the development contract - 1Nh~n multiple applications are process~, the appropriate fee shall t~ cha~ for each application. , PROJECT NAME D~uCo He~dau~rt~r.~ -- _ LOCATION r. ake Drive West, Chanhassen, MN LEGAL DESCRIPTION sect-IS Twp-116 Range-023 Chanhassen .Business Center 3rd not-O02 Block-O ., TOTAL ACREAGE .5.68 t WETLANDS PRESENT PRESENT ZONING x Industrial YES NO REQUESTED ZONING Industrial PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION O~fice/Warehouse REASON FOR THIS REQUEST To construct a new office building and warehouse for DagCo Concrete Compan~ Inc. This application must be completed In full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all Information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to (hls request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. i Mil keep myself Informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and Information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review, Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review extensions are approved by the applicant. S~ri~nh ,~.~~~ k~)~ Date  . 514101 Sig of Fee Owner , % Date , Application ReCeived on--~"/"-/"/01 Fee Paid ~ / 0'7~9. '- Receipt No. The appllcant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will bp rnalled to the applicant's address, · ,\,a //////// ~r - III I '~: li!!fll~ i :I :I Il II Ii i! ,, II II Ii I ! (00 City Center Dri~ P01~147 Mim~esota 55317 952.93Z1900 General Fax 952.937.5739 e~x 952.93Z9152 Buikling Depamnent Fax 9529M2524 Web Sit~ unvu~d, cfia~.mn.m TO: Robert Generous, Senior Planner FROM: Greg Hayes, Fire Inspector DATE: May ll, 2001 Request for a conditional use permit to operate a contracting yard and site plan review for a 25,139 square foot office/warehouse building Phase I on a 6.3 acre parcel zoned PUD Office Industrial Park, located at 1850 Lake Drive West, Lot 2, Block I, Chanhassen Business Center, 3~ Addition, Dayco Headquarters, Dayco Concrete Company. Planning Case: 2001-2 CUP and 2001-5 Site Plan. A preliminary plan review was done for the above project. The plan review was done based on the information supplied at this time. Changes or corrections may occur during the course of the project, which may circumvent.the approved plans. Please address the following comments. 1. The &inch water service coming into the building will need a post indicator valve. 1999 NFPA 13 Section 5-14.1.1.8. 2. In accordance with city policy please ensure that there is a 1 O-foot clear space around all fire hydrants, Siamese connection, post indicator valves, etc. on site. If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call at ext. 262. GH/be g:k~a f~y~gh~plmv200 i -2 Ch'v of C. Imnlmsr, nt. ,4 srou,bls commtmit~ tdth clean Inltec m,nl~ cehnnb a d, nrn,;n, d,,,,,,,n,,,,,,, d..;,,;,,,~ l,,,d,,n~.~ ,n,d I,,,,.nq4;,I t,,,d~ ,~ .,,,,. da,.. t,, lb,. ,,,,,,4 ,,,,d ~,l,~ ; Chanhassen Business Center ah Wit ~e~ s dom Hal K&S Power System Grin~ Boedecker Paulstarr DayCo Control Products Technical - Industrial Quantum - Matthews Dover Bldg. Post Office National Weather Service NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, JULY 17, 2001 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 690 CITY CENTER DRIVE PROPOSAL: Conditional Use Permit, Variances and Site Plan Review APPLICANT: Dayco Concrete Company LOCATION: 1850 Lake Drive West NOTICE: You are Invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, DayCo Concrete Company, Inc., Is requesting a conditlonel use permit with variances to develop within the Bluff Creek Overlay District and to operate a contracting yard and site plan review for a 25,139 sq. fL office/warehouse building (Phase I) on a 6.3 acre parcel zoned Planned Unit Development (office industrial park) located at 1850 Lake Drive West, Lot 2, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center 3rd Addition, DayCo Headquarters. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing Is to Inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain Input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing Is dosed and the Commission discusses the project. Quastlons and Comments: If you want to sea the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office houm, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someo, ne about this project, please contact Bob at 937-1900 ext. 141. If'you choose to submit written comments, It Is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meatlng. Staff will provide copies to the Commission.. Notice of this public hearing has been published In the Chanhassan Villager on July 5, 2001. OSMONICS INC 5951 CLEARWATER DR HOPKINS MN 55343 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O SCOTT BOTCHER .__..-~ 690 cnn, C NT -D - PO BOX 147 MN 55317 BU~.DING MANAGEMENT GROUP Lb C30 CONTROL PRODUCTS 1724 LAKE DR W CHANHA~SEN MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSF.~ C/O SCOTT BOT .CI~-.--'" 690 CITY CF_~I~R PO BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LDW PROPERTIES LLC 1340 PARK RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DOUGLAS & EU.RRN PETERSON 8369 STONE CREEK DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CATSPAWINYESTMF. NTLLC 1851WESTLAKEDR surrE250 CHANI-IASSEN MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O SCOTT BOTCI-IER~ 699_CITY ~ PO BOX 147 ~EN MN 55317 U S POSTAL SERVICE 680O W 64TH ST OVF_.RLAND P~ KS #100 66202 ROBERT C & PAMRI.A J DEDIC 8377 STONE CREEK DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DAVID L OBEE 2060 MAJESTIC WAY CHANHASSF. N MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O SCOTT BOTCHER 690 CITY C~-DR-'--~PO~BOX 147 CI-~ASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN %~NTURE LTD ATTN: DONALD FERGUSON 927 W ALTGELD ST UNIT 2 CHICAGO IL 60614 HADI ANBARGHALAMI & SOODI PESSIAN 8381 STONE CREEK DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN~....---- C/O SCOTT BOT(?.-.~ 690 CITY ~ DR PO BOX 147 CiqANI~S~ MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/OBOTCj/]/t~'SCOTT ~ 6?0 D(~~i~ PO BOX 147 (~I~NHASSEN MN 55317 GERAI.r) p CORNELL 8345 STONE CREEK DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JURGEN W & CAROL A SEEMANN 8401 STONE CR~.RK DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O SCOTT BOTCHER 690 crrY c -m --Pomex 147 CI3-ANI'{~K~ MN 55317 .. .- . --..~..::..-.~ ? .... -. . . ...7.-.{ ake D] Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 8. There shall be no fill placed below the elevation of 881.6. 9. The existing public drainage and utility easement over the wetland (to the elevation of 881:6) must be shown on the plan as legally described. 10. The retaining wail must be set back 20 feet from the primary zone (881.6 contour). 11. The proposed walkout elevation of the home must be at least two feet above the OHW of the adjacent wetland. As such, the elevation should be 883.6. 12. Include the benchmark that was used for the site survey. 13. A minimum of three trees shall be planted on site. The applicant may choose between the following trees: Sugar maple, Basswood, Red Oak and/or Bittemut Hickory. The applicant shall submit a planting list. 14. A minimum of 10 feet, averaging 10 to 20 feet vegetative buffer shall be established and Preserved abutting the 100 year floodplain. 15. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of Subdivision g97-11. 16. The septic system site shall be moved to the north as much as possible. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CQNDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH VARIANCES TO DEVELOP WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT AND TO OPERATE A CONTRACTING YARD ,AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 2~139 SQ. FT. OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING (PHASE I) ON A 6~3 ACRE PARCEL ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (OFFICE INDUSTRIAL PARK) LOCATED AT 1850 LAKE DRIVE WEST~ LOT 2~ BLOCK 1~ CHANHASSEN BUSIN'F~S CENTER 3a~ ADDITION~ DAYCO HEADQUARTER~ DAYCO CONCRETE COMPANY, INC. Public Present: Name Address Charlie Melcher, Westwood Professional Mary Makowski Mary Pat Monson D. L. Olsen, Osmonics 7599 Anagram, .Eden Prairie 4120 Lakeridge Road 8850 Audubon Road 5951 Clearwater Drive, Minnetonka Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Okay commissioners, are there any questions for staff? Rich, I'll start with you. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Slagle: One question Bob if, and I apologize if I should have seen this but, concrete company. I see the comment a yard and site plan. What's happening there? I mean I'm trying to understand what the use of this building other than strictly office personnel. Generous: Yes, it's a warehouse building. They'd have their equipment and materials stored inside and then they go out to job sites. Slagle: So equipment being trucks and trailers. Generous: Yes. Aanenson: it's not a batch plant, no. Generous: No. Slagle: Okay. But we're talking backhoes or what have you. ! mean it's. Aanenson: Or trucks to carry forms and that sort of thing. $1agle: Okay. So lots of activity. Aanenson: Yeah. This project again was, an Environmental Assessment was done on this entire project, industrial park so this fits within the parameters of the u'affic and all that that was studied for this. Slagle: Okay, when you say this business parl~ Specifically this site here or? Generous: With the Chan Business Center it was reviewed overall through an Environmental Assessment. We looked at the total square footages of the development. Office warehouse. Slagle: With DayCo included, right? Generous: Well no. With office warehouse uses. Slagle: Okay. Aanenson: Expecting certain types of trip generation. Generous: And so this well within the thresholds that were established for each of the lots. Slagle: Okay. And again, just since I've only been on for a while, those trip definitions, those are cars, trucks, trailers. Aanenson: Sure, just like the post office when they have the delivery u'ucks go in and out each day. Generally they're assigned a job. They go out for the day. Come back at night. Similar to the post office or any of the other uses with the cars that would come in for the day. Slagle: Okay. I'm just trying to draw the parallel between cars and trucks with trailers and. Fm not saying fight or wrong, Fro just trying to picture that. 13 Planning Commission Meeting- July 17, 2001 Aanenson: Yeah, no I'm just...similar to the post office where they have the step vans and the like. And the delivery trucks that come in with the mail periodic. Slagle: Okay, so we have a sensitive area that abuts literally the property and it is, according to you and to the assessments and studies, it fits fine? Aanenson: Right. Well I think we have to look in the bigger context and that is that when this project came in, as Bob indicated, this is 3 or 4 years ahead of the Bluff Creek Overlay District and when we adopted the overlay district, it cut a wide swath. We said this is the overlay district based on some topographic features have been followed. Now this has the underlying, and we've discussed this has happened before. We know there's areas where there's going to be conflict. This was already given a lot status. Slagle: I understand. Aanenson: With certain design parameters and certain expectations. Then the Bluff Creek came on top of it. So I think that the developer of this property has worked really well to modify, based on his expectation of a buildahle lot, and having the additional burden of trying to meet the, that the primary setback line so we think that based on that there's, there's going to be some, have to be some relief to make something happen on this property and it's reasonable use of the property so we think with that, it meets our criteria. And again, they worked hard to redesign it. This is 2 or 3 different designs of the project. Slagle: Good enough. Blaekowiak: Okay. Uli, questions. Sacchet: Yes I do have questions. Actually your question was very much along my key question. When I first read contractors yard, concrete company, I saw that in conflict with the concept of light industrial. Concrete's very heavy. It's very big equipment. My concerns were somewhat put at rest when I heard that it's not really a place where much else happens except the trucks go to sleep. It's basically a garage. It's basically a place where it stores. Is there going to be also construction materials there or is it just where the machines are stored? Do we have any inside, maybe we should ask that of the applicant. Generous: Yeah. It's a developer. Sacchet: Okay, of the developer: Then some more specific questions. Did we, at one point was a concern about the articulation of the eastern elevation. Generous: Pardon? Sacchet: The articulation of the architectural interest. Generous: Yes, just on the northern half of it. Sacchet: Right, has that been addressed? Generous: They're proposing the use of landscaping which is an acceptable alternative. We just want to see taller, narrower type trees. 14 Phmning C~nm~ssion Mee~g - July 1'/, 2001 Sacchet: Okay, so that's largely addressed but needs maybe a little more encouragement? The peninsula's in the parking, that's just a requirement, I think Saam you explained that with a recent project. Those peninsula's. Every so many parking stalls we need a peninsula type thing in the parking. Saam: I haven't dealt with the peninsula. Generous: I can address that. The landscaping ordinance for parking lots require that for each 6,000 square feet of vehicular use area, you have either a peninsula or an island to break up the parking lot. Sacchet: Yeah, and at this point do they comply with that? Generous: No, they had to add one. I believe on the revised plan they did but I haven't looked at that clearly. They needed to add one in the front. They would need to add one in the front drive about where the driveway splits. Sacchet: Okay. Generous: And then at the end of the parking on the east side of the building, that would do it again. Sacchet: Okay. Now we talked about this 20 foot buffer just in the previous thing we talked abouC Here we have a similar situation in that that 20 foot or no touch zone, or whatever we want to call it, doesn't totally work because that retaining wall is outside the primary zone but in some case~ probably only a few feet away from it, right? Has that been given any consideration how we would deal with that 20 foot no touch or buffer or whatever we want to call it? Haak: Primarily the consideration on this site is that when they got preliminary approval they did bring material onto the site so that 20 foot no touch zone is all fill, and right now it's weeds. So we're not, right now we don't have a lot of quality there. We do have the high quality trees. It's quite a ways down to the creek and I think from staff's perspective, we don't have anything there right now and a retaining wall would preserve the slopes and preserve the trees so we think it's a good compromise. Sacchet: So basically it has been graded already and by having no touch zone, we don't gain anything. Haak: Right, right. We get weeds. Sacchet: Yeah, well we have plenty of those. Let's see. I think that's my questions. Hang on just one second. Yeah, you raised the question about the traffic volume. If this is where all the trucks go to sleep over night, there will certainly be some traffic but it certainly would be very different tm~e situation when they are getting materials. Has that been looked at? Aanenson: Well, if you understand what they do. They're in town right now .... they're putting all the trucks in a building because that's been an issue ongoing for a long time. We're very excited about it. The way the business operates is you take your forms out to the site. They're not picking up concrete. The folks come, get dispatched for the day and they go about their business. It's not any different than the other businesses there that are getting paper delivered or having their product picked up and shipped out. It's very similar traffic volume. Maybe somebody comes in once or twice because they have a different route but it's, you get your job assignment and you're out for the day. It's very typical to some of the other businesses that are shipping products or manufacturing something. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 -. Sacchet: That's my questions, thank you. Blackowiak: Good. Deb, questions? · Kind: Yes. For clarification Bob, I just want to make sure. The only change, we got a new site plan tonight and I can't look at the whole thing very carefully. The only change is that the building has been shifted to the east. Generous: 4 feet to the east, and the drive aisle widths have been narrowed down so that was able to pull the retaining wall over out of the primary zone. Kind: Great. No other changes that I need to figure out. And then I'm assuming that the western elevation is even less articulated than any of the others and I'm assuming the reason we're not concerned about that as staff is because you can't see it. Generous: No one sees it. It's not visible. Kind: It's totally up against the green, the beautiful green woods area. Generous: Yes. Kind: C_n'eat. That's it. Blackowiak: Okay. Bruce, questions? Feik: A couple. You mentioned the parcel to the left is an outlot that has been deeded over to the city. Aanenson: Yes. Feik: Is there any long term plans for the use of that lot at this time that you know? Aanenson: No, it's actually very steep. It's a steep ravine and the intent is to leave it natural. Feik: Okay. The second question, and not to beat it to death but maybe a point of clarification for myself. In a staff recommendation, paragraph a where we mentioned to permit a contractor's yard on Lot 2, Block I. And then on point number 2 where we then go on to state there's no outside storage. What would, why are we using the terminology of contractor's yard versus office warehouse building? Because there is nothing outside? Generous: Well it's just because of the user. That's how he's classified. Feik: Okay. Aanenson: That's the problem we have right now. All the trucks are outside in his current location. Feik: Right, but for all intents and purposes it will be an office warehouse. Typically office warehouse building with no outdoor storage. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Aanenson: Right. Blackowialu And I'll just like add to that little discussion here. We've heard about bad comractor's lots and this seems to be one that we're endorsing so can you talk to us about why this is good versus why other's are bad. Kind of like walk me through that briefly. Generous: Why this is good? Well it's an existing business within the community that's trying to expand. They're bringing all their equipment, materials, anything inside a building. Enclosing it so you don't have those site problems or noise problems from having it ouixide. Rubbish doesn't build up. We think this is a responsible area for them to locate. It is hidden, if you will. It's way at the end of this Lake Drive West and to the west of it is a preserve, open space area so it's a, if you have to locate it, that's sort of where you'd like it to go. Aanenson: It's also guided industrial. ] kowiak: Okay. Aanenson: Some of the other ones we have problems with are in the A-2 districts. Blackowiak: Alright, good. I just wanted to clarify that for the record. And then my second question has to do with the landscaping and the future building area. We have a future building area in front of this T building, and then the landscaping is in front of the future building area. And I'm wondering if there's any reason we would want to have the current landscaPing~ or at least some landscaping between the proposed building and the proposed future buildings. Since We don't quite know when that's going to happen. .. Aanenson: I'll let them address that. How they tie together. Blackowiak: Okay, good. Alright, well those were my only two comments. Slagle: Madam Chair? Blackowiak: Oh go ahead. Slagle: I'd like one more question if I may from staff. Are there views from the Valley Ridge Trail North home sites that would see this "yard" or location? Because I believe the building that they refer to the Dover building is set back and is a fairly lower, it's more west and south. Blackowiak: That's kind of a landscaping question. If we want to scoot it back a little bit. Slagle: Yeah. I'm just concerned as a homeowner, if you're up there looking down and let's just say there are times where everything doesn't make it inside. You're looking out at trailers. Aanenson: You're also backing up to the tracks them too. Are you talking about from the south? Slagle: I'm talking about from the south. Down at Valley Ridge Trail North looking northward, because I believe a couple of those buildings are not that big. I mean you've got the weather station. 17 Planning Commission Meeting -/Iuly 17, 2001 Aanenson: Well the Dover building is smaller in scale as far as the height. The post office has the huge fence. And because this is set back quite a ways, the building that would be in front of it would probably be, if anything, would be more visible. Generous: Additionally in the Dover site there will be a second building built into that so there will be 3 buildings inbetween. Slagle: Okay. , . Sacchet: Can I add a question... ? Blaekowiak: Certainly, go ahead. Sacchet: There was somewhere talk of a sidewalk. Generous: Yes. Sacchet: And I wasn't quite 100% sure where. If you could just briefly point out where that would go. Generous: Go on the site from the building in front of the future building site out to, there's a trail that runs down here and then there's a sidewalk down this route. So it would link the site to that. That's one of the issues that the developer has with that. They'd like to put in something on a temporary basis. Because we're looking at making a connection through here. Here's where their sidewalk ends. We want them to continue on on the south side. However they're looking at it that they're going to tear all this up when they build again. They'd like to look at something more temporary. Striping possibly in the 30 foot driveway. Sacehet: And the purpose for that sidewalk would be to connect the new building with the walking trail. Generous: With the trail and the sidewalk. Aanenson: There's a trail, there's a sidewalk linked by the trail of the overall... Sacchet: Yeah, I'm aware of that trail. Slagle: It's a great trail. Generous: And then it goes down to Bluff Creek to the west. Sacchet: It's to give the people in this new building access to the trail. Generous: Right. We try to encourage that with all industrial developments. It's an amenity the City's worked hard at providing so we want to provide opportunities to the people there. Sacehet: So it's a consistent requirement that we, okay. Thank you. Aanenson: You know I guess in deference to them, they are going to come back with the second phase. There's an opportunity to, when that comes in, to get it but what we're saying is that we want to preserve 18 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 that as a condition that we connect it. And what they're concerned about is having to put a sidewalk in and then rip it out down the road. Slagle: When would the second addition be put in place? I mean you wouldn't want that temporary thing for 2-3 years. Aanenson: That's the question. Blackowiak: I think that's a good question for the applicant. Okay, any other questions of staff? If not, the applicant or their designee would like to make a presentation. Please step up to the microphone and state your name and address for the record please. Charlie Melcher. Good evening Planning Commission. I'm Charlie Melcher with Westwood Professional Services. And the applicant is out of town so Fll be representing the project tonight. Let's hit the first question that you had with regards to landscaping, being on the ~ line. South property line. If I could have that plan back The intent of the developer's concept for this site is two fold. Is to put a second building that would be either just office or office, more likely whatever fits their guide plan but the office showroom on the front side. And the plan is to have this building about, just under a foot higher than the proposed building that we're showing right now so it would screen the overhead doors on the south face of the building. With regards to the trees that are proposed, and I didn't see them on the landscaping plan but that is shown toward the southern property line. The intent always is when you spend money is to make it be right. It's not to throw it away and trees aren't something cheap to have a truck move so we want to do it right the first time. Our intent is to pave up to this line right here with bituminous and drain to these catch basins. In this second phase, this will be the high point. Where we stop paving now, this will be the high point and we'll have another line of catch basins to picl~ up whatever water is in here. So that's, I take that back This edge of the building will drain to these existing catch basins so we won't have to put another catch basins in here. When we pave this, we'll pave it up to the second building. That handles the savings of not putting curb along this whole side. To put concrete curb along this whole side for a year or two years or three years is absolutely ridiculous. Does the city re-pave their slreets with curb every 3 years? $o let's think how the city' thinks. As far as planting trees, if we plant within this area, we plant anywhere within this area, you're planting in an area that (a), you don't know the footprint of the building. All this back area since it's planned to be, to my knowledge, they could have doors on the back side on an office warehouse. On the front side, they would have all windows and entrance doors to whoever would lease out that space. So we'd have a parking lot in the front. There'd be a green space between the parking lot and the building and you could put shrubbery there but in the back there's no room to put any overstory, understory trees whatsoever. That's why the trees were put south of the future curb line. And I pretty much, if you go to the storm sewer plan, I pretty much located where the catch basin in the future are going to be. I need two more catch basins to finish this whole job up. We're trying to think this thing through very thoroughly and cannot do it twice. Who knows. You know with the economy the way it is, this building could get built out in the next 2 or 3 years. It's hard to say exactly what date it's going to be but the'owner has somebody that's already interested in the project but he needs to get his going before he can go and try and get this other guy interested because the other guys are not going to spend any money on designs until he gets his going. With regards to the sidewalk, the issue really comes down to what the layout would be in this area of the curb line to the turn curb and the parking if there would be either facing the building or facing this island would be between the two buildings. Which would have, that would house that sidewalk in the future. So the developer has come to the city and said, why don't we, we've got a wide drive. It's 30 feet wide. We only need to have a wide, 26 foot wide drive in there. Why don't we strip a 4 or :5 foot area in there which we could sandblast later when this future gets developed. We 19 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 wouldn't take the pavement out, we'd just sandblast it and then we'd put our curb in where it needs to be and we'd pave this, the rest of this side out the way it should be. This isn't ~t to be an access for the public. It's an access for people that work for him to get down to this park and take their 20 minute walk at lunchtime. The people that come in the morning are usually out of there by 7:30-8:00 with their trucks so it's not like they'd come and go. Each of their drivers doesn't come and go 5 times a day or 3 times a day. They typically come and go once or twice. So there isn't a whole lot of traffic coming in here in conflict with individuals walking and trucks and cars and what have you. It's really, it's a low traffic area. Those are the developer's thoughts. They do make sense. We could, besides striping it we could put a note on the plan that says, future concrete sidewalk or 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk and then it's on these plans and then the next time they come in for this other development, we're tied to that. Rich, I think I missed one of your questions. Slagle: Actually if I can just have a brief overview of DayCo. When you talk about concrete, I'm sorry for not getting this but are we talking like boulders? Are we talking concrete? Charlie Melcher: One ton trucks. Slagle: Okay. Charlie Melcher: You know that carry low, flatbed trailers that carry forms and Bobcats. Slagle: Okay. Gotch ya. Okay. Charlie Melcher: And if they come in the middle of the day and they need to pick something up, they may stop for a half hour, pick that up. Load it up outside the building and then they're on their way because really they aren't making any money outside the building. They really have to come and go. And that isn't, normally they come and go from their site and they go to another site, to another site. So they don't usually come back. Slagle: Very good. And then on the second building you mentioned a potential othe~ user or? Charlie Melcher: Absolutely, yeah. Slagle: Okay. So this site will be in addition to a showroom, could be? Charlie Melcher: This site, this other building would probably be an office showroom. Probably. And it could be broken into 4 users so you don't know with office showrooms. Slagle: Okay. I'm with you. Sacchet: Can I ask a few questions? Blackowiak: Yeah, do you have anything else to add or should we just start asking some questions of you? Chaflie Melchen Feel free to ask questions. Blackowiak: Okay. Uli, go ahead. 2O Planning Commission Meeting - Suly 17, 2001 Sacchet: You specified it could be 2-3 years for the second building. Charlie Melcher: Absolutely. Sacchet: It could be 10 years. It could be I year. It could be never. Aanenson: Right. Sacchet: Okay. In terms of no outside stora~ is that, that's not an issue? Charlie Melcher: I don't believe it's an issue. Sacchet: Okay. To put a little more interest to the north haft of the eastern elevation, staff mentioned that you're planning to do that mostly or with landscaping. I think staff's position is that it should be somewhat taller ~ or skinnier trees that go more up than in the width. Is that an issue for you? Charlie Melcher: I don't believe so. No. Sacchet: I think that's all the questions I have for you. Thanks. Blackowiak: Deb. Kind: Don't have any questions. Blackowiak: Alright. Bruce, questions? Feik: No, thank you. Blackowiak: Alright, I just have a couple questions. When you're talking about the ultimate- buildout of the tint, the future area, where do you think that that is going to be accessed for consmmfion? Do you feel that they'd come off the bituminous or do you feel that they'd come off the main cul-de-sac? C-qutrlie Melcher. If, as I see it, they would share this enmmce and on the western side of that entrance there would be an island that loops back and starts the parking and drives to the future building. Blackowialc Okay. I mean I guess specifically construction entrance. Do you feel that you'd have the construction entrance off the bituminous or would you probably just go off the concrete? Off the front. I guess I'm getting at the whole idea of the trees because you could do a curb cut easily right off the center of the future building. Charlie Melcher: I'm missing your point. I'm not sure where you're talking about. Look at my pen and tell me if I'm right. Blackowiak: Right, yeah. Could you do a curb cut right there to come off or would you be coming straight up? Charlie Melcher: I don't think we'd do a curb cut. It's totally undefined at this point? Aanenson: I don't think the city would permit that. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Charlie Melcher: I think we'd share the entrance. Blackowiak: Okay, so you're coming up, across the bituminous and going that way. Charlie Melcher: Yeah. Blackowiak: Well that's what I'm trying to figure out because as I looked at it, it was like, I was trying to figure out the easiest way to get in with heavy equipment because we're talking about. Charlie Melcher: There wouldn't be heavy equipment in the second site. I mean there'd be, there might be a little bit, vans or something that may come and deliver medical supplies or whatever is part of their. Blackowiak: I'm sorry, I'm talking about construction of the second building. Charlie Melcher: Oh, during construction of the second building. Blackowiak: Yes. Charlie Melcher: During construction of the second building they would have a rock construction entrance. Blackowiak: Right. I'm just curious where that would be. Charlie Melcher: It would be at the approved pm of the second set of plans. We haven't gotten that far. Blackowiak: Okay. That's what I'm trying to figure out where that might be because we're talking trees in front. Personally I'd like to see something a little bit between the two buildings so I'm just trying to figure out. Charlie Melcher: I would say that we wouldn't even do it. We'd probably take a rock construction entrance. Share the entrance we have and do a rock construction entrance off this pavement once you get into the site. Then we could just, everything that's along the southern property line could be left just as is until that curb gets cut in and the less disturbance, the further we get away from the cul-de-sac, the better off we are. Blackowiak: Yeah, I'm just wondering how much destruction there's going to be to the bituminous as' you come in because that's probably not going to be a real good thing for. Charlie Melcher: There's a concrete in there so we should be in good shape.- It's part of the design. Blackowiak: Okay. So you feel comfortable with. Charlie Melcher: It's required by city standards. Blackowiak: Right. Yeah, I'm just curious. Then you have the trucks coming in. I mean it's great to say you have it on the plans but to actually get the drivers to stay where you tell them to is often another story totally. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Charlie Melcher. That's u'ue. Blackowiak: Yeah. Charlie Melcher: But as long as the trees are there, they'll stay away from it. We'll have silt fence up. It will be toward the site so they won't have access to the trees on the southern pmtmrty line. Aside from that there will be a rock construction entrance that will get them to wherever. I'm not really sure. You know at some point they'll probably have access from the north to the site, and at some point. Blackowiak: Which is why you don't want to do any type of curbing there, I understand that. Charlie Melcher:. Yeah, and at some point they may have access just off the cul-de-sac until they start really doing the forming of the curbs and that sort of thing. Blackowialc Yeah. Which is kind of like the last step anyway so. Okay. And I had one more question here. Of course I'm not going to find it. I'm not seeing it fight now. I may, ifI find it I'H come back to you. Sacchet: While you're looking may I ask one more question Madam Chair? Blackowiak: Go ahead, yeah. Sacchet: In terms of that landscaping on the southern edge along the path there,' would you be open to considering increasing the amount of plantings there some? Charlie Melcher: There is discussion of putting I think 2 more trees or something on the north and 1 more on the east or something because of the shift in the landscape. It's in the report. Sacchet: What I would be targeting is to have a little more of a buffer along that path from the start. Charlie Melcher:. That would be something that staff, we could work with staff on. I mean I don't do the landscaping plans but I see what you're talking about. It's a high density on the north. Sacchet: Right now these trees on the south side are about 40 feet apart which is really generously spaced. If we start thinking of this in terms of more of a buffer to the path that goes past and potentially to some extent the neighborhood to the south, I think it would be reasonable to ask that they would be closer maybe and some additional shrubbery and things planted in there. That's basically what I'm considering here. Charlie Melcher:. We could shift some vegetation. We could work with staff on that, absolutely. Sacchet: Excellent, thank you. Blackowiak: Okay. Well Fm not finding my question right now so we're just going to move on. ffthere are no other questions of the applicants, this item is open for a public hearing. So if anybody would like to add their comments to this item, please step to the microphone and state your name and address. Okay, seeing no one, I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, you can make your comments. Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Kind: Madam Chair, I have a quick question of staff beforee we get rolling here. The southern property line that Uli was talking about, I'm assuming the reason the buffer plantings are so sparse is because the width of the yard is so large. Is that right? Generous: And the type of buffer that's required between industrial and industrial, it's not that great. Kind: Would the plantings be increased with Phase H, when the buffer yard becomes narrower? Generous: Only in depth. You would get some landscaping with the parking lot area as is required under the parking landscaping ordinance. But I don't think we get additional ones as pan of that site plan, no. Kind: Because I'm wondering when there's a new building, all of a sudden the buffer yard is much narrower and then would more plantings be required. Aanenson: They'll have to meet their own landscaping plan when that comes in, yeah. I mean we'll hold them to the same standard. They'll have to supply a landscaping plan that we review. Kind: The reason this just came up now is that I didn't realize on page 7 of the staff report that the southern property line is not addressed in the planting schedule at all. And I am wondering if that meets ordinance or not, but I'm assuming that our condition that says number 5, that a revised landscape plan that meets minimum requirements to be submitted to the city prior to building permit approval would cover the southern property line as well. Generous: Yes. Kind: Thank you. Feik: I have a quick question for staff as well. The applicant made a comment regarding the southern curb line of the parking lot. Looking at the reevised plan, has that curb line been reemoved in that plan? Charlie Melcher: It's never been there and the reason why is it never will be there because I started wrong on my statement. There are really no catch basins except for the lower dot catch basin on that future building. It's all going to drain to the existing, what will be the existing catch basin shown on the plan now. So there will never be. Feik: Okay. But your point number 23, where you rrefereence concrete curb and gutter is required around the entire parking drive area of the site. Aanenson: Right. That's an issue I believe that he's saying that they disagree with. They think that it's preemature to put that in at this time. Feik: Okay. But you're suggesting it goes in? Aanenson: It's difficult for them to hear you when you're not at the microphone. Thank you. Charlie Melcher: I think the intent is to have all sides curbed. And when Phase 1I gets built, the outside will be curbed. So we'rre going to meet pavement with pavement there. It's never going to have curb there and that' s why it' s not shown in our plan now as pan of Phase I. So it' s not an issue of cirecumventing the ordinance or the requirement. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Aanenson: Well it is. The ordinance requires it. I mean if they want to give some relief or give you a timeframe or post security, I mean it's a requirement. Feik: Well and that was one of my questions as it related to the curb and to the sidewalk. Is it possible to have a requirement in the permit that if they haven't started construction or pulled a permit for the second phase within 24 months, it's got to go in7 Aanenson: I'll let Matt address that. What he's comfortable with. Saam: Madam Chair, Planning Commissioners. I would recommend an escrow. We do that sort of thing all the time where we give a time limit. We state, give us cash. If it isn't done by then, then we have the security in place to go ahead and get it done. I mean we talked about the economy. I believe one of the commissioners said it could be 10 years. It could be never. He agreed. We don't know. We hope the building goes in in 2 years and that they don't have to rip out curb that they just put in, but we don't know. We have nothing to hold them to so, I would recommend a security. Feiic Escrow or letter of credit? Saarn: Escrow. It's easier. The cash is more readily available. Slagle: Speaking of cash, if I may ask staff. I noticed on the parks and open space, it says the development still owes park fees in the amount of $3,000 per acre. Anybody have a feel as to what that dollar amount is? Aanenson: Which condition number are you on? Slagle: It's on page 8. Very bottom. Park fees shall be paid at time of building permit approval but the way I read it, it's still dollars owing. Generous: It's about $18,000. Slagle: $18,000 today? Blackowiak: Yeah Rich if you'll look at condition 11. Yeah, I think it spelled that out. I was looking at that one too. Slagle: But I wanted to make sure that there was no other dollars in the development itself, not just this site. Blackowiak: Oh, good point. Slagle: Is there? Blackowiak: For Phase H. I mean this is for the entire site. Not just specifically Phase I versus Phase IL Generous: No, this is for the site. Once it's used, it's used. Blackowiak: Okay. Okay, well are we ready to make comments? Planning Commission Meeting- July 17, 2001 Sacchet: Sure. Blackowiak: I'll start with you Bruce. Do you have anything you'd like to add or? Feik: I would like to see a requirement in for the curb and the sidewalk. If it's not in in some minimum . period of time, that we have a mechanism to follow-up and have that put in. I think that's very important. There's no real indication of when that building may or may not go in so I think we ne.,xl to the ability to put that in there. That's my only large concern. Blackowiak: Okay. Deb? Any comments? Kind: Yes. I agree with Bruce. I think that's a good point.' I think it's an attractive building. I like the side that faces the cul-de-sac with the windows and the materials look nice. I really appreciate having the vehicles enclosed in a garage. I think that will be a nice addition to the city. Conditions that I would be interested in tinkering with a bit have to do with number 8. Adding a sentence that says that plantings would be acceptable for breaking up that wall that we have an issue with. Number 18 talks about the sidewalk. I think by bituminous would be acceptable. I don't think it has to be concrete. And then number 23, I definitely agree with Bruce that we need to put some language in there about escrowing funds and I like the 2 year time limit. And that's it. Blackowiak: Okay, Uli. Sacchet: I think it's an appropriate use for that site. At first I was a little wondering about, whether that was possibly considered that light industrial but I do believe it fits in that. I think the applicant has to be commended about how quickly they found a solution to get that retaining wall out of the primary zone. I think that was done very well. I agree with all the comments that were made so far in that I would like to see that a temporary sidewalk would be sufficient initially. And I would not want, necessarily want to insist on the full curb on that, what is it? The current sbuth edge of the impervious area since it' s obviously temporary, but I do think it would make sense to have some sort of security in place like an escrow. And I would most definitely want to see a condition to increase the plantings on the south edge along that path. I would, based on the so far the cooperation that the applicant has shown, I think it would be acceptable to put a condition in that has staff work with the applicant to increase the plantings so that it has more of a buffering function for that path and potentially the neighborhood to the south. That's my comment. Blackowiak: Thank you. Rich. Slagle: Just two comments. Obviously it fits within the area as how it is zoned. I would ask for us to just consider going forward with these types of requests is we think about the 500 feet. Because as I look at the map, we are capturing 5 residents on Stone Creel at least from what I see is the mail list, and none from the neighborhood to the south. So unless folks are watching, this will all take place and they won't know that this has been approved. If this is the complete mail list, I think it's about halfway through and most of it city were owners or interested parties so I just want to throw that out. That there could be a fair number of residents who might have had interest in this so if we can talk about that in the future. And the only other thing I want to say is on point number 2. No outside storage or material or equipment. Boy, I hope we stick with that and I hope the applicant feels the sensitivity, especially if there are homes within maybe 1,000 feet of this location. That's the only thing I want to say. Otherwise I think it's fine. 26 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Blackowiak: Okay. Before I make my comments. Kate, do you want to address the 500 feet? Are we, we are over the state requirement when we do 500 feet, is that correct? Aanenson: Yes. Blackowiak: Okay. Do you want to just talk a little bit about that briefly7 Aanenson: Well I guess in this circumstance, is more always betty? Where do you draw the line? Fm not sure as far as what's on the other side of that. Do you get the southe~ end of Pillsbury, which is on the north side. The people that are in the Valley View, Valley Ridge subdivision were concerned about the Dover building. That additional. Again, when we did the environmental assessment, all the neighbors were involved in that. The post office and when going back and putting in a retaining wall. Is there homes adjacent to that? Yes, but I believe that from the Stone Creek and the topography change, it's going to be heavily screened. Again that's why we felt with everything indoors and the look of this building. Slagle: Actually as I saw this, Stone Creek was, other than noise, was the lesser of the two concerns. I actually felt more that the southern neighborhood would be affected for those homes that look over, what I'll call the post office and Dover's. Dover's is a small building. I mn that trail and. Aanenson: Right, sure. Sure. Slagle: And there have been other situations and it's more for other ties but I think we should explore, maybe it's, if there's opportunities to expand it to 1,000 feet if the situation deems necessary. Aanenson: Sure. Well, yeah. Blackowiak: Well and like you said Kate, you know is more better? I mean it is listed in the paper, and I mean we do have mechanisms to get this information out but as long, I think as long as we're exceeding the guidelines for doing the 500 foot notification, at least. Aanenson: Right, as far as you know, it is a permitted use in the district. The variance is from the primary so what's our level of discretion? I guess we could talk about that too but. Blackowialc Alrighty. Well I just wanted you to get that in. My comments are basically, the building I think looks good. I'm glad that we could move it, shift it to the east a little bit. I think, I believe I am happy with the revised landscape. I'm not positive about the southern line, and I don't know if I will he wnight at all. The point that I was trying to make is if we're going to have a single access off of the cul- de-sac, and there is a possibility to do some landscaping or a trail that would not be disturbed. So if we've got those opportunities, I think we should possibly explore those. I'm comfortable with not having a curb and gutter right away between the two buildings sin~,'ly due to the elevations. I mean if you look at the contour lines, the catch basins seem to be, from what I can tell, the lowest points, so I am a little less concerned about having curb and gutter immediately, but I would agree with, you know whether it be a 1 year or 2 year timeframe, that if something is not happening on that southern portion, that we should probably get curb and gutter in there. And I think a concrete company is just the perfect person to put that in there so I'm not too terribly worried about the cost of that. I mean it's not unreasonable to expect that. It's part of our code and if we have a reasonable time frame in there, I think we're okay with that. And I'm not even positive about the trail. I know the nature of the business. I can understand the idea Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 that not a lot of employees might be using that, but by the same token I think one of the goals of our city is to try to get some connectivity and try to get some people to be able to access trails that we have invested in. So that's really I think an important goal for any plan that we look at. So with that, I'll ask for a motion. Feik: Actually Madam Chair, if I could. Blackowiak: Sure. Feik: Sorry. If we did allow for the, for the lack of another way, would you require some sort of erosion control on that southern edge? Either a similar sod or silt fence in lieu of that. Would we need to include that in this at this point or would that be taken care of later? Aanenson: Well there are some other options. Unfortunately we haven't discussed them all with Matt and it's really an engineering call. You could do a temporary bituminous curb. The concern is that you have everything is seeded so you're not creating a lot of sediment going into the pond and then up to that location obviously with next to the primary zone. So that's our intent. Feik: Do we need to address it tonight? Aanenson: Oh I guess what we'd like to say between now and when it goes to council, we think there's some alternatives that we can work with the developer. Again, even if it's a temporary bituminous, something that's satisfactory to engineering that there are some other options that we can present besides doing an escrow, letter of credit. We'll give a list of alternatives to the applicant and provide those when it goes to council but we want to make sure that we're not allowing sediment to run into that. And there is a grade issue so we'll look at that closely. Feik: Okay, thank you. Blackowiak: Thank you. So somebody like to make a motion please. Sacchet: Yeah Madam Chair, I'I1 make a motion. I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit g2001-2 to permit development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District with variances for alteration within the buffer area and a 15 foot variance from the 40 foot primary zone setback. Is that still accurate that 15 foot? Generous: Yes, that was revised based on. Sacchet: And to permit a contractor's yard on Lot 2, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center 3~ Addition based on the findings of fact and subject to the following conditions 1 through 4. With emphasis on no outside storage. Blackowiak: Okay. There's a motion. Is there a second? Kind: I'll second that. Blackowiak: Okay. It's been moved and seconded. 28 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Sacchet moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commi~don recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 02001-2 to permit development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District with variances for alteration within the buffer area and a 15 foot variance from the 40 foot primary zone setback, and to permit a contractor's yard on Lot 2, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center 3~d Addition based on the findings of fact and subject to the following conditions: 1. The developer shall enter into a site plan agreement for the property. 2. No outside storage of material or equipment shall be permitted. 3. The boundaries of the Bluff Creek Overlay District primary and secondary corridors shall be shown on the grading plan. 4. The retaining wall must be located outside the Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone. AH voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. Blackowlak: We need another motion. Kind: Madam Chair, I move the Planning Commission recommends, approval of Site Plan Review F2001-5, plans prepared by Lampen ArchiW. cts dated May 4, 2001, based on the findings of fact and subject to the following conditions 1 through 33. With the following changes. Number 5. Add a sentence that says, applicant shall work with staff to increase plantings along the south property line. Transferring from the east and north is acceptable. Number 8 1 would like to add a sentence that says, this is the condition about articulation on the north half. I would like to add a sentence that says, tall arborvitae or evergreen landscaping is an acceptable solution. Number 18. I would like to add, this is. sidewalk condition. I would like to add a sentence that says bituminous is acceptable until Phase H is completed. And number 23, I would like to reword altogether. I'll take a stab at this. So it says, temporary bituminous curb is acceptable for 2 years. Applicant shall escrow funds to install a concrete curb and gutter around the entire parking and drive area for the site within 2 years from the building permit approval. Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second? Feiic I'd like to have a friendly amendment. Blackowiak: You need to second first. Feilc I second. Blackowialc Okay. Alright, now you can make your amen~t. Feik: I would like to ar~nd that 18 also be subject long term to the concrete sidewaHc That if it is not built, that the sidewalk does go in. That bituminous isn't permanent. Kind: Let me think. I was proposing that that sentence stay there as 6 foot wide sidewalk along the west side of the drive entrance from the cul-de-sac. And then add a sentence, bituminous is acceptable until Phase H is completed. 29 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Feik: But if Phase II isn't completed, we need the language that you put into 23 to tie that to 18. Kind: Yeah. Do you have an idea for that language? Feik: As referenced in 23. Kind: Applicant shall escrow funds to install a 6 foot wide sidewalk along the west side of the driveway entrance from the cul-de-sac to be built within 2 years. Feik: That'd be great, thank you. Kind: From building permit approval. Blackowiak: Okay. Do you accept those amendments? Kind: Yes. Blackowiak: Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Kind moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review g2001-5, plans prepared by Lampert Architects, dated May 4, 2001, based on the findings of fact and subject to the following conditions: 1. A separate sign permit application is required for the installation of signage. Wall signage is permitted on only one elevation. 2. The retaining wall shall be located outside the Bluff Creek Overlay District Primary Zone. 3. A minimum 25 foot building setback shall be maintained from the Bluff Creek Overlay District Primary Zone. 4. The applicant shall increase understory plantings along the north property line by 4 trees for a total of 20 and increase the number of understory plantings along the west property line by 1 tree for a total of ! 3 trees. 5. A revised landscape plan that meets minimum requirements be submitted to the city prior to building permit approval. The applicant shall work with staff to increase plantings along the south property line. Transferring from the east and north is acceptable. 6. If these landscape peninsulas are less than 10 feet in width, then aeration tubing shall be installed. 7. All new landscaped areas shall have an irrigation system installed. 8. The developer shall work with staff to provide additional articulation to the north half of the eastern building elevation. Tall arborvitae or evergreen landscaping Is an acceptable solution. 3O Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 1 10. Il. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 4e The applicant shall provide storm water calculations to demonsm~te that the existing pond has adequate capacity to accommodate storm water from this site. The developer shall revise the storm sewer design to tie into the existing storm manhole and pond inlet of the existing 48 inch storm sewer that runs along the eastern ~ line in order to minimize the number of pipes draining into the storm water pond. Park fees in the amount of $18,926 shall be paid at the time of building permit approval. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City En~. Thc applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer sizing calculations for a 10 year, 24 hour storm event prior to building permit approval. Silt fence adjacent to the existing pond and wetland on the north and west sides of the site must be Type 3 heavy-duty. Specify what kind of material is being used at the north and south parts of the proposed building. On the grading plan, add City Detail Plate Nos. 5215 and 5302. Also, show the benchmark used for the site survey. Revise the rock construction entrance to be 75 feet in length as per city detail plate g5301. Add a 6 foot wide sidewalk along the west side of the drive entrance from the cul-de-sac. Bituminous is acceptable unffi Phase H is completed. Applicant shah escrow funds to install a 6 foot wide sidewalk along the west side of the driveway entrance from the cul-de- sac to be built within 2 years. Show the most current version of City Detail Plate Nos. 1004 and 5207 on the utility plan. Remove the northerly 35 feet of the proposed retaining wall from the public drainage and utility easement. Add straw bale inlet filters around the two existing catch basins in Lake Drive West. Utilize the existing 8 inch sanitary stub on the south side of the site. Temporary bituminous curb is acceptable for 2 years. Applicant shall escrow funds to install a concrete curb and gutter around the entire parking and drive area for the site within 2 years from the building permit approval. Replace the casting on the western most catch basin in Lake Drive West with a drive over type Revise the plans to show the following: a. The existing pond along with the NWL and ~ 31 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 b. Existing street light locations in Lake Drive West. 26. The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. 27. The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 28. Three (3) accessible parking spaces are required for the 62 spaces provided. 29. Detailed occupancy retailed requirements will not be reviewed until complete plans are submitted. 30. Utility Plan: The HDPE pipe specified for the storm sewer requires an air test and must have watertight fittings. The sanitary sewer service into the building must be schedule 40 pipe. 3 I. The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. 32. The 6 inch water service coming into the building will need a post indicator valve. 1999 NFPA 13 Section 5-14.1.1.8. 33. In accordance with city policy please ensure that there is a 10 foot clear space around all fire hydrants, Siamese connection, post indicator valves, etc. on site. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO CITY CODE: ESTABLISH AN ORDINANCE CREATING SETBACKS FOR FENS~ AND ESTABLISH AN ORDINANCE CREATING SETBACKS FOR CREEKS. Lori Haak presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Thank you. Commissioners, do you have any questions of staff?. Uli, you're smiling. Go ahead. Sacchet: Ah yes, I have a few questions. Well first of all I want to thank staff for responding so promptly to our request to look at this issue. I really appreciate that. So basically to sum up what you just presented Loft, nobody is impacted to end up with lots that are a goal to build on? There is still plenty of buildable space left. That's basically what you just said, right? Haak: Yes. We looked at all of the parcels we could find, and this is kind of a better map I guess. Of the actual parcels. The other issue that arises in this area is that there's just a lot of wetland out there and if you've ever driven past the site on 212 or gone on the Hennepin County Regional .Corridor, you can see that very easily. And so the constraints that are faced by these property owners are greater than, are 32 Villages on the Ponds PUD Amendment August 13, 2001 Page 2 additional environmental investigation; and Indirect Source Permit Review for the Villages.on the Ponds project. ANALYSIS The proposed amendment is in response to a proposal for a restaurant with a drive though window. This begs the question whether a drive through window should be incorporated within the Villages on the Ponds which is a policy decision that must be resolved by city council. In developing the design standards for the Villages on the Ponds Planned Unit Development, the city and developer spent a significant amount of time reviewing the potential uses within the development. While restaurants were seen as a benefit to the development, the inclusion of drive though service windows were not (restaurant- no drive through). Additionally, the City and developer have specifically stated that stand-alone fast food restaurants were not permitted, but had to be integral to a larger building. Currently, there is one stand alone restaurant, Houlihan's, and two integral restaurants, Quizno's and Starbucks. Drive through window can be found on many different uses. Typically, there are associated with fast food windows. Drive through are also found on banks~ drug stores, photo mats, and dry cleaners. While drive through are a convenience, the character that was established for this development was intended to be unique through the promotion of pedestrian orientation. This is accomplished through the use of on street parking and of parking facilities to the side and rear of uses, wider sidewalks, required public realm improvements such as benches, pedestrian scale street lighting and street landscaping, and required separated pedestrian access through and between all parking areas. The creation of automotive convenience through the introduction of the drive up window is counter to the pedestrian experience envisioned for Villages on the Ponds. '~l'he typical village commercial or village center district permits a mixture of residential, commercial and civic uses. Commercial uses, however, are restricted to those that seem to fit the size, scale, and intensity of the village setting.''~ Most village districts specifically exclude fast food or drive-in restaurants and drive-in bank windows as an incompatible use within the village setting.2 ~ "Rcinvenfing thc Village", Suzanne Sutro, Planning Advisory Service Report Number 430, p. 5. 2 Ibid, p. 8. Villages on the Ponds PUD Amendment August 13, 2001 Page 3 Staff has prepared a comparison of traffic generation based on a hypothetical 4,768 square foot building with different restaurant types. As can be seen, the faster the anticipated turnover for the use, the greater the trip generation level. Use High Prototype/Hybrid Fast Food Quality Tumovor with drive-through Restaurant Sq. Ft. 4,768 4,768 4,768 4,788 Avg. Dally Rate 130.34 161.74 496.12 89.95 Estimate 621 771.2 2,366 429 AM Peak Rate 14.62 NA 54.81 5.57 Estimate 70 261 27 PM Peak Rate 19.38 25.42 46.28 9.02 Estimate 92 121 221 43 Sat. Trip Rate 158.37 204.28 722.00 94.36 Estimate 755 974 3,442 450 Sat. Peak Hr. Rate 20.00 21.81 58.91 10.82 Estimate 95 1 04 281 52 Sun. Trip Rate 131.84 NA 542.72 72.16- Estimate 629 2,588 344 Sun. Peak Hr Rate 18.46 NA 72.74 8.38 Estimate 88 347 40 Trip generation rotes am based on 1,000 sq. ff. of gross floor area. As part of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet, EAW, for Villages on the Ponds, the developer incorporated 15,800 square feet of high turnover sit down restaurant use as separate uses. To date, 7,743 square feet of high turn over sit down restaurant has been constructed within Villages on the Ponds. A typical fast food restaurant with a drive through window will have 2.4, at the PM peak, to 4.55, for Saturday trips, times the trip generation rates of a high turnover, sit down restaurant. Based on this data, it is staff's opinion that the inclusion of such uses would have serious repercussions to the overall traffic volumes within the development, potentially requiting that some other, more desirable use, be reduc.~ or downsized in order to maintain the EAW trip threshold. If the city were to approve the use of a drive through window within Villages on the Ponds, we' should establish specific criteria for their use, such as, limiting a drive through to Lot 1, Block 1, Villages on the Ponds 2~ Addition; requiring that the drive through provide sufficient stacking to assure that traffic is not backed into the parking lot drive aisles; require that the loud speakers used for ordering be shielded so that noise is not heard off-site, and requiring that the drive through be screened from off-site views. Additionally, the city should clarify that a drive Villages on the Ponds PUD Amendment August 13,2001 Page 4 through or drive in windows of any kind, including service windows for a drug store, photo mat, coffee shop, dry cleaner, bank, etc., even if an integral part of a larger building, would be prohibited throughout the project. PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE The Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 17, 2001 to review the proposed amendment to the Planned Unit Development Standards permitting a drive though window. The Planning Commission voted four (4) for and one (1) against a motion recommending denial of the amendment. .RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motions: "The City Council denies the amendment to the Planned Unit Development Standards permitting a drive-through window, based upon the following findings: a) b) The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be in_consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. The proposed use is not compatible with the present and future land uses of the c) d) e) The proposed use does not conform to all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance and design parameters for Villages on the Ponds. The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is p~'oposed. The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity. Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property." ATTACHMENTS 1. Villages on the Ponds Development Design Standards 2. Villages on the Ponds Development Schematic 3. Planning Commission Minutes of July 17, 2001 VILLAGES ON THE PONDS CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS a. Intent The purpose of this zone is to create a mixed use PUD consisting of commewial, institutional, office, and residential uses. The use of the 'PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive proposal. All utilities are required to be placed underground. Each lot proposed for development shall proceed through site plan review based on the development standards outlined below. b. Permitted Uses The permitted uses in this zone should be limited to uses as defined below or similar uses to those as listed in the Standard Industrial Classification- If ther~ is a question as to the whether or not a use meets the definition, the Planning Director shall make that interpretation. No single retail user shall exceed 20,000 square feet on a single level of a building. A maximum of .thirty- three (33) percent of the square footage of the retail users within the developmeilt may be of a "big box" category. The intent of this requirement is to provide a variety of users, including small retail shops, service providers, coffee shops, cabarets, etc.; for residents of the Villages as well as the community as a whole, rather than typical suburban type large, individual users dominating the development and detracting from the "village" character. Retail users should be those that support and compliment the residential development located within the development~ providing goods and services which enhance residents of the village and the community. Office. Professional and business office, non-retail activity except for showroom type display area for products stored or manufiwtured on-site provided that no more than 20 percent of the floor ~ is used for such display and sales. bank/credit union finance, insurance and real estate health services - except nursing homes and hospilals engineering, accounting, research management and related services legal services Personal Services. Establishments primarily engaged in providing services involving the care of a person or his or her personal goods or apparel. dry cleaning beauty or barbershop shoe repair photographic studio tax return preparation laundromat health club optical goods computer services day care center copying mail stores Institutional. Establishments that are public/semi-public in nature. church library education services day care art gallery dance studio cultural facility Commercial/Retail. Establishments engaged in commercial operations including retail sales and services and hospitality industries. Apparel and Accessory Stores shoe stores electronic and music store and musical instruments restaurant - no drive through restaurant -fast food only if integrated in~o a building no freestanding fast food and no drive through drug stor~/pharmacy book/stationary jewelry store hobby/toy game gift novelty and souvenir sewing, ne.~llework and piece good florist camera and photographic supply art and art supplies, gallery sporting goods video rental food stores including bakery and confectionery hardware store computer store hotel/motel entertainment liquor store pets and pet home furnishings Residential. Residential units shall be provided as upper level units above the commercial/office uses within the village core and as stand alone units. A minimm~ of 50 pewent of the residential units shall be ~ units. Of the rental units, the city has adopted a goal of 35 patent of the units meeting the Metwlx)litan Council's affontable crita/a. For the ownership housing, the city has adopted the goal of 50 percent of the units meeting the Metropolitan Council's affordable criteda. Prohibited Uses: auto related including auto sales, auto repair, gas stations e. Setback~ In the PUD standards, there is the requirement for landscape buffering in addition to building and parking setbacks. The following setbacks shall apply: Buildin[~ Parkin~ Great Plains Blvd.: Buffer yard & Setback C, 0' 0' Market Blvd.: Buffer yard & Setback [ c I C, $0' 20' Hwy. 5: Buffer yard & Setback B, $0' 20' Interior Side Lot Line: Buffer yard & setback NA, 0' 0' East Perimeter Side Lot Line (adjacent to D, 50' 50' residential): Buffer yard & setback B, 50 20 West Perimeter Side Lot Line (adjacent to industrial): Buffer yard & setback Buffer yards are as specified in the City of Chanhassen Landscaping and Tree Removal Ordinance, Article XXV. No fences shall be permitted betw~ the required landscape buffer and arterial and collector roads. d. Development Site Coverage and Building Height u The PUD standard for hard surface coverage is 70% for the overall development. Individual lots may exceed this threshold, but in no case shall the average exceed 70 percent/ 5. More than one (1) principal structure may be placed on one (1) platted lot. The maximum building height shall be Sector I - three stories (with residential loft)/50 ff. (retail and office buildings without residences above shall be limited to two stories/30 feet), Sector H - three stories/40 ft., Sec~r III - three stories/40 ft., exclusive of steeples and bell towers, and Sector IV - four stories/50 feet e The maximum building footprint for any one building shall be limited to 20,000 square feet without a street level break in the continuity of the building, e.g., pedestrian passageways, except for the church and residential only buildings. 5. The following table shall govern the amount of building area for the different uses: Commercial/ Office/Service Institutional Dwelling TOTAL sq. ft. Retail (sq. ft.) (sq. ft3 (sq. ft3 Units Sector I 114,500 70,500 (~ . 0 154 185,000 Sector II 60,000 * 14,000 0 0 74,000 Sector Ill 0 0 100,000 0 100,000 Sector IV 0 32,000 (~ 0 112 ~ 32,000 TOTAL 174,500 116,500 100,000 266 391,000 (~ As an alternative, the office/service could be increase by 13,000 square feet in Sector I if the 32,000 square foot office building is deleted in Sector IV and replaced with 56 additional dwelling units. * Includes 47,200 square foot, 106 unit motel. Building square footages may be realloeated between sectors subject to approval by the Planning Director. Building square footages may be reallocated between uses subject to approval of the Planning Director. However, the reallocation of building square footages between uses shah only be permitted to a less intensive use, i.e. from commercial to office or institutional, or from office to institutional. In no instance shah more than 27,000 square feet of addition institutional building square footage be realloeated without an amendment to the PUD. e. Building Materials and Design (Staff will be working with the developer to provide pictures to further articulate the design standards and definitions.) le The PUD requ/res that the development demonsUate a higher quality of architectural standards and site design. The intent is to create a pedestrian friendly, village character consistent with the European heritage of the upper midwest and the atmosphere within this development, yet with the amenities and technological tools of modem times. The village elevations shown on the PUD drawings are to be used only as a general guideline and the reflection of the overall village image including the north- midwestern archi~ vocabulary, village like human scale and flavor, and variety in design and facade treatment. 1 All materiah shall be of high quality and durable. Major exterior surfaces of all walls shall be face brick, stone, glass, _stucco, archi~y treated concrete, cast in place panels, decorative block, cedar siding, ~inyt siding in resi~ with support m~t_eri_'AIs, 'or approved equivalent as detemained by thc city. Color shall be inlxoduced through colored block or panels and not painted block or brick. Bright, long, continuous bands are prohibited. Bright or brilliant colors and sharply contrasting colors may be used only for accent purposes and shall not exceed 10 pemem of a wall area. Block shall have a wemthered face or be polished, fluted, or broken face. Exposed cement C'cinder'~ blocks shall be prohibited. 4~ Metal siding, gray concrete, curtain wails and similar materials will not be approved except · as support material to one of the above mata/als, or as trim or as I-IVAC screen, and may not exceed more than 25 percent of a wall area. 5. All msory structures shall be designed to be com,rmtible with the primary . All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible appearing material.- Wood screen fences are prohibited. All exterior process machine, tanks, etc., are to be fully screened by compatible materials. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building. e The buildings shall have varied and interesting detailing. The use of large unadorned, concrete panels and concrete block, or a solid wall unrelieved by ar~hi~ detailin~ such as change in materials, change in color, fenestrations, or other significant visual relief provided in a manner or at intervals in keeping with the size, mass, and scale of .the wall and its views from public ways shall be prohibited. Acceptable materials will incorporate textured surfaces, exposed aggregate and/or other pattern/fig. All walls shall be given added architectural interest through building design or appropriate landscaping. . Space for recycling shall be provided in the interior of all principal or accessory structures. o There shall not be underdeveloped bac~ides of buildings. All elevations sh~ receive nearly equal treatment and visual qualities. 10. The materials and colors used for each building shall be selected in context with the adjacent building and provide for a harmo~ous integration with them. Extreme variations between buildings on the same street in terms of overall appearance, bulk and height, setbacks and colors shall be prohibited. 11. Slope roof elements shall be incorporated in all structures: Sector I - minimum 70 percent of roof area shall be sloped, Sector H - minimum of 70 percent of the roof area shall be sloped, Sector ~ - minimum of 30 percent of the roof area shall be sloped, and Sector IV - minimum of 70 percent of the roof area shall be sloped. An exception to this requirement are roof areas designed for human use such as decks, garden areas, patios, etc., which will not be counted towards fiat roof area. 12. The following design elements should be incorporated into individual structures: Building Accents Towers, silos, arches, columns, bosses, tiling, cloisters, colonnades, buttresses, loggias, marquees, minarets, portals, reveals, quoins, clerestories, pilasters. Roof Types Barrow, dome, gable, hip, fiat. Roof Accents Cupolas, cornices, belfries, turrets, pinnacles, look-outs, gargoyles, parapets, lanterns. Accent elements such as towers, turrets, spires, etc., shall be excluded from the sector building height limitation. Window _Types Bay, single paned, multi-paned, angular, square, rectangular, half-round, round, italianate. Window Accents Plant boxes, shutters, balconies, decks, grates, canopies, awnings, recesses, embrasures, arches, lunettes. 13. Street level windows shall be provided for a minimum of 50 percent of the ground level wall area. L Site le o o 6. o Landscaping and Screening All buffer landscaping, including boul~ landscaping, included in Phase I shall be installed when the grading of the phase is completed. This may well result in landscaping being required ahead of individual site plan approvals, but we believe the buffer yard and boulevard plantings, in particular, need to be establ/shed immediately. In addition, to adhere to the higher quality of development as spelled out in the PUD zone, all loading areas shall be screened. Each lot for development shall submit a separate landscaping plan as a part of the site plan review process. All open spaces and non-parking lot surfaces, except fo~ plaza areas, shall be landscaped, rockscaped, or covered with plantings and/or lawn material. Tree wells shall be included in pedestrian areas and plazas. Storage of material outdoors is prohibited. Undulating or angular berms 3' to 5' in height, south of Highway 5 and along Market Boulevard shall be sodded or seeded at the conclusion of grading and utility constm~ The required buffer landscaping may be installed where it is deemed necessary to screen any proposed development. All required boulevard landscaping shall be sodded. Loading areas shall be screened from public right-of-ways. Wing wails may be required where deemed appropriate. Native species shall be incorporated into site landscaping~ whenever possible~ Signage One project identification sign shall be permitted for the development at each end of Lake Drive and at the south end of Main Street Project identification sign(s) may also be located at thc entrances to the development(s) in Sector IV. Project identification signs shall not exceed 24 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than five feet in height One project identification sign, with a maximum height of 20 feet, which may be increased in height subject to city approval based on the design and scale of the si~; designed as a gateway to the project shall be located at the north end of Main Street Individual lots are not permi~ low profile ground business siEn. Within Sector IH: one sign for the church and one sign for the school may be placed on s/reetseape walls, The top of the signs shall not extend more than ei~t feet above the ground ' and the total sign area for the signs shall not exceed 64 square feet. Pylon si?u are prohibited. The sign treatment is an element of the architecture and thus should reflect the quality of the development. The signs should be consistent in color, size, and material and height throughout the development. A common theme will bo introducod at tho development's entrance monument and w/Il be used throughout. All signs require a separate sign permit. 3. Wall business signs shall comply with the city's sign ordinance for the central business district for determination of maximum sign area. Wall signs may be permitted on the "street" front and primary parking lot front of each building. e Projecting signs are permitted along Main Street and Lake Drive and along pedestrian passageways subject to the conditions below. Signage Plan and Restrictions Wall Signs le The location of letters and logos shall be restricted to the approved building sign bands, the tops of which shall not extend greater than 20 feet above the ground. In Sector II, sign height may be increase based on the criteria that the signage is compatible with and complementary to the building architecture and design. The letters and logos shall be restricted to a maximum of 30 inches in height. All individual letters and logos comprising each sign shall be constructed of wood, metal, or translucent facing. 1 If illuminated, individual dimensional letters and logos comprising each sign may be any of the following: a. Exposed neon/fiber optic, b. Open channel with exposed neon,. c. Channel Letters with acrylic facing, d. Reverse channel letters (halo lighted), or e. Externally illuminated by separate lighting source. 3. Tenant signage shall consist of store identification only. Copy is restricted to the tenant's proper name and major product or service offered. Corporate logos, emblems and similar identifying devices are permitted provided they are confined within the signage band and do not occupy more than 15% of the sign area unless the logo is the sign. e Within Sector II, architecturally, building-integrated panel tenant/logo sign may be permitted based on criteria that the signage is compatible with and complementary to the building design and architecture. 5. Back lit awnings are prohibited. Projecting Signs 1. The letters and logos shall be restricted to the approved building sign area. e All wooden signs shall, be sandblasted and letters shall be an integral part of the building's architecture. e Signage shall consist of store identification only. Copy is restricted to the tenant's proper name and major product or service offered and such ~ messages such as date of establishment of business. Corporate logos, emblems and similar identifying devices are sign and do not occupy more than fifteen (15) percent of the sign display area. Projecting signs shall be stationm'y, may not be self-illun~ but may 5e lighted by surface mounted fixtures located on thc sign or thc adjacent facade. Projecting signs shall be limited to one per tenant on street frontage and pedestrian passageway and my not exceed six square feet. Letters shall have a maximum height of 12 inches. Projecting signs shall be a minimum of eight feet above the sidewalk and shall not project more than six feet from the building facade. Plastic, plcxi-glass, clear plcx, or similar material projecting si~s are prohibited unless used in conjunction with other decorative materials. Projecting si~ns may be painted, prefinished, Or utilize exposed metal. Any exposed metal shall be anodized aluminum, stainless steel, titanium, bronze, or other similar non- corrosive or OhO-OXidizing materials. Window Signs 1. Window si~s shall not cover more than 25 percent of the window area in which they are located. 2. Window siLyns shall not use bright, garish, or neon paint, tape, chalk, or paper. Menu Signs 1. Shall be located at eye level adjacent to tenant entries and shall not exceed 4 feet in height. 2. Shall be used only to convey daily specials, menus and offerings and shall be wood framed chalkboard and/or electronic board with temporary handwritten lettering. No paper construction or messages will be permitted. 3. Menu signs shall be limited to one per tenant and may not exceed 8 square feet. Festive Flags/Banners le Flags and banners shall be permitted on approved standards at~hed to the building facade and on standards attached to pedestrian area lighting. 2. Plastic flags and banners are prohibited. 3. Flags and banners shall be constructed of fabric. 4. Banners shall not contain advertising for individual users, businesses, services, or products. 5. Flags and banners shall project from buildings a maximum of two feet. 6. Flags and banners shall have a maximum area of 10 square feet. w Flags and banners which are tom or excessively worn shall be removed at the request of the city. Building Directory_ In multi-tenant buildings, one building directory sign may be permitted. The directory sign shall not exceed eight square feet. Pole Directory Sign lm Pole directory signs consisting of single poles with individual nameplate type directional arrows may be located within the development. 2. Pole directory sign shall not exceed 15 feet in height. 3. Directory signs shall be a minimum of eight feet above the sidewalk. m A maximum of eight directory signs may be provided per pole. The maximum size of an individual sign shall be 18 inches long by four inches wide. 6. Poles shall be a minimum of 10 feet behind the curb. h. Lighting 10 le e e ia e e Lighting for the interior of the business center should be com~ throughout the development. The plans do not provide for street fighting. As with previous developments, the City has required the developea' to install street lights throughout the street system. A shoe box fixture (high pressure sodium vapor lamps) with decorative natural colored pole shall be used throughout the development parking lot area for' lighting. ~ve, pedestrian scale lighting shall be used in plaza and sidewalk ~ and may be used in parking lot areas. Lighting equipment similar to what is mounted in the public street fight-of-ways shall be used in the private areas. All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2 candle at the project perimeter property line. This does not apply to street lighting. Light poles shall be limited to a height of 20 feet. Parking Parking shall be prodded based on the shared use of surface parking areas whenever · possible. Cross access easements and the joint use of parking facilities shall be protected by a recorded instrument acceptable to the city. A minimum of 75 percent ofa building's parking shall be locatixi to thc "rear" of the structure and in underground garages. The development shall be treated as a integrated shopping center and provide a minimum of one space per 200 square feet of commercial/retail area. The office/personal service component shall be treated as an integrated office building and provide 4.5 space per 1,000 square feet for the first 49,999 square feet, four per thousand square feet for the second 50,000 square feet, and 3.:5 per thousand square feet thereat~'r. Residential uses shall provide 1.:5 spaces per unit as underground parking with visif0r spaces provided as part of the commereial/office uses. Within sector IV, visitor parking shall be provided at a rate of 0.5 stalls per unit. Hotel/motels shall comply with city ordinance. Churches/schools shall comply with city ordinance, however, a minimum of 50 percent of the parking shall be shared. 11 · .:! l I i. ill VILLAGES ON THE PONDS ,, --'~ Houllhan's I [ I;';l'-I:lfl'.:::ll!l I.'~ ;l~ld:~l.l,II ~. Amerlclnn BOKO0 BIK£$ til Bldg._4_- ~l~. 15,000 sqlft, retail iL Bldg. 17 - 2 stow FOSS Swim School ;. 30,000 sq. ft. office I Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 PUBLIC HEARING: .REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW A DRIVE THRU WINDOW~ SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH VARIANCES AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR A 4~882 SQ. FT. CULVERT'S RESTAURANT TQ BE LQ(~.ATED ON LOT 1~ BLOCK 1~ VILLAGES ON THE PONDS 2n° ADDITION~ WAYNE RISER & ASSOCIATES. Public Present: Name Address Robert Savard Kelly G. Walker Luke Fowler Steve Kneeland Mark Clarey Vernelle Clayton Wayne Riser 8080 Marsh Drive 8090 Marsh Drive 250 Lake Drive East 250 Lake Drive East 250 Lake Drive East 422 Santa Fe Circle 13500 James Avenue, Bumsville Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Commissioners, questions of staff. Go ahead. Feik: Have you discussed with the applicant how the western portion Would be treated if the drive thru were denied? And what would be changed on the plans? Generous: We pointed it out in the staff report. We have discussed it with them and I'd like them to make their presentation regarding that whole issue. Fdic Thank you. I guess that was my one big question.- Blackowiak: Okay. Generous: Yes, they know we want a bigger seating area. Feilc On the south side. Aanenson: Correct. Generous: South and west side. Blackowiak: Okay Uli, you want to go ahead? Sacchet: Yeah, a couple quick questions. So you say that part of the building to the north where currently there are no windows is basically office and storage? Generous: Well there's different areas but the most northerly portion has an employee break room in it and so they could put a window on the west elevation. Yeah, it shows up as break room on the south end. That's actually the west elevation. And then down in that office area, they could put another window in. 61 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Sacchet: I'll ask that of the applicant. I guess that's... Now in terms of the landscaping, it appears that a fair amount of landscaping to the north and northwest is actually in the wetland area. What's the city policy of doing planting in wetland? Generous: It's their private wetland. It would have to be natural plantings. Sacchet: But they can plant, did anybody look at what they're proposing? Whether that's appropriate for a wetland. Generous: Both Jill and Lori reviewed this. Sacchet: Okay. It says there's some additional grading needed outside the property limits. Is that like at the entrance or? Saam: Yes, I can address that. It's on the south end on the site plan. They're showing some grading. Bob mentioned that turning radius at the end of the drive thru. Sacchet: Okay. And then we have a condition here, you're requesting that they provide some as-built plans before they get a permit to do this. As-built plans of what? Saam: Did you want to address this? Aanenson: Go ahead. Saam: As part of this, the approval of this development, there was a requirement which stated that the developer and his or her engineer must supply us with as-built plans. What those are are plans which shows what pipes are in the ground. The size of those inverts. That sort of thing. Basically a record keeping. Sacchet: But that would be for other sites around it, not for this particular site? That's what I'm trying to get clear. Saanc Yep, yep. It's for the entire development but since it hasn't been done yet, we typically hold up building permits for developments until that's done. Sacchet: So that's standard procedure? Saam: Correct. Sacchet: We're not holding this one piece of property hostage because something's missing for the remaining whatever many. Saam: Well we've done it before. It's standard in the city. Sacchet: Hold some development up? Saam: Yep. 62 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Saechet: Okay. That answers it. That's my question. Blackowiak: Okay. Deb, you have any questions? Kind: Yes I do. In the staff report you attach the PUD development design standards and in there it specifically says that no free standing fast food was allowed in the PUD, yet you support this. Can you explain that? Generous: Well we didn't look at this as a typical fast food establishment. Those are the food's already prepared. You come up. It's ready to go. These you make specific orders and then you have to sit down and wait and they actually have waiters, people that bring the food out to you and by definition that's a restaurant. Kind: Okay. I've been to the Culver's in Navarre. It's very similar to fast food, but you're right. There's a minor distinction there. I' ye got to flip around here to find my questions. I know I had another one. Oh, the EFIS material is also on the columns that have been added and therefore they're in foot and hand traffic areas. We've had some discussions about whether that's a durable material in those types of locations. What's staff feeling about that? Aanenson: I think as an accent material I don't see it as a big problem. It's really a minor portion of the structure. Kind: Is stucco more durable? Aanenson: Than EFIS? Yes. Yes. Generous: Yes. Kind: I'll ask the applicant about considering changing that material. I think that's it for staff. Oh, the windows that you were talking about Bob on the west elevation. Is there a condition in here that talks about that or is that something you're proposing that we add? Generous: I thought it was in there. Kind: I didn't see it but I did kind of a quick read through so that's something that, assuming the applicant is amenable, that we should add as a condition. On the west elevation. Generous: Yes. Kind: That's it for now. Blackowiak: Okay. Rich, do you have any questions of staff right now7 $1agle: Not right now. Blackowiak: Okay, and I don't either. Alrighty. Would the applicant or their designee like to come up before the commission? Please state your name and address for the record. 63 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Wayne Riser: Good evening commissioners. I'm Wayne Riser. I live at 13500 James Avenue in. Burusville, Minnesota. rm the developer for the proposed Culvert's project and rll be happy to answer any questions. We have one of the things that Bob and I did visit about with up fxont and is that we will, it will be necessary for us to, in order to go ahead with the project, to have the drive in feature. If we cannot accomplish that, why we understand but would preclude us from going ahead with the project. There are presently 136 Culver's in the system trtrst one being built in 1992 and they have tried 2 of them without the drive up feature and unfortunately that business that that brings is enough to make it financially impossible to do it for us, or we could not finance it because the numbers just wouldn't support it. Other than that, the windows that Bob talked about adding, he and I have talked together. We'd be very happy to add that. I think it would be an enhan~t to the project and also we would love to enlarge the size of that outside seating area. That seating area,, the tables are, the tops are terrazzo. A ground terraT~x~ top with a concrete base and there's a nice umbrella over it so we haVe a very nice patio area when we get done with the project We'd be very happy to do that. The columns, now the two columns where you come in are concrete split face block and the reason we did that was just as you said, to get away from the wear. Now the reason we went to EFIS on the other was to create some contrast in the building. We thought it would give it a richer look. All those are set back. If you would look on the footprint, so I don't think there will be a problem- I believe also from my limited knowledge of building, that EFIS will stand up as good or probably better than stucco. But if you would prefer we could go like, you know all concrete split face block all the way. Actually that would cost us, we think a little less money but we think the EFIS gives you that contrast and a richer look. And I'll be halJPY to address any questions. That's just our thinking. Our thinking may be aH wrong, It's been wrong before so we're happy to try and cooperate you know where we can. The only real big point I think that we, the only problem we have is that we have to have the drive thru or we just can't go ahead with the project. It's just unfortunately that would stop us. Blackowiak: Okay, commissioners any questions for Mr. Riser?. Sacchet: ...more as a drive thru because you're putting us in a tough spot. Wayne Riser:. Yeah, I don't mean to but unfortunately that's the spot Fm in too. Sacchet: It works both ways, I understand. I had a few small questions. So an extra window wouldn't really... Wayne Riser: No it would not. There's one that was tried in a heavy pedestrian area in Wisconsin Dells and it did not work. Sacchet: I mean I've seen your type of business. They usually do have a drive thru so I understand where you're at. Wayne Riser: Unfortunately I think the rest of our project is nice and that's the one piece of baggage I guess we bring with us. There's really no way to overcome that. Sacchet: The other thing is just kind of a curiosity thing. Just like half tbe building doean't have windows. Wayne Riser: That's where your kitchen area and storage. Sacchet: That's where you make your custard? Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Wayne Riser: Actually the custard's made right out front. That's part of the marketing ploy. We want the people to see the ice cream coming down the stainless steel. You know we're trying to get them to eat mom. Just like the old pizza places where they used to make it in the windows. Same thing, but the back area is, you know there's two. A refrigerator cooler. That's in the building and of course your prep line as they call it and your storage area so that really can't have windows because it really is nothing you want to see. Sacchet: You don't consider yourself a fast food? Wayne Riser: No we do not. Because when we come in, number one. Nothing's made ahead of time. It's all freshly made. You come in. You order. You pay and then you take a number. Sit at a table and a waiter, well waiters may be a little bit high class name for it, but someone. A server. A server I think would be more appropriate. A server comes and serves you. So that's how it works, and actually in the drive thru portion of it, quite often when you get to the window, the order's not ready yet. You pay for it and pull head and in a moment or two someone brings it out to you. And so it's not a real fast drive thru. It's a slower process because it's a higher quality item, we think that we serve. Blackowiak: Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Riser? No? Okay, Vernelle. Vemelle Clayton: Thought I'd never get here. This is just like the good old days. Blackowiak: I was optimistic. Vemelle Clayton: We used to be here, I remember 1:00 one time. Blackowiak: No, no, no. We're not doing that. Vernelle Clayton: I'll talk fast as you know I usually do. It's been a long time in coming for this parcel. In case, two of you are new and Uli you weren't around either but originally this was going to be Famous Dave's and then it was going to be a Ruby Tuesday. We've entertained most recently 3 different proposals, all of whom, all of which would have required a drive thru. One was a bank, which would have required a much more massive drive thru. Two cars plus an ATM lane so yon could really see it. We' ve even, this fellow has been so cooperative, as you' ve probably guessed from looking at the plans as we originally saw them to what you're seeing tonight. It's quite a difference, including even cutting back the roof over the drive-up area so that it wouldn't be obvious that it's a drive-up. It's hardly recognizable as a drive-up. One of the other folks that wanted to be there was a Dairy Queen, and as all of us know, everyone in town essentially has been saying when are you going to get us an ice cream place. Wayne doesn't particularly like it when I compare him with Dairy Queen because his ice cream is so much better, but also we concluded in looking at Dairy Queen's fairly much more rigid requirements than they used to be for building design, that this was a much better fit. We also concluded that ice cream was definitely something that we wanted to have in the Village, even if it is frozen custard. And it's a great addition to the mix that we already have and the mix that we think that we'll be having as you see some plans unfolding for other parts of the project. There is a need for a mix, there's a need for more restaurants. There's a great synergy that occurs when you have more than one place, several places to go for food, and it's something that you really need for a successful retail and shopping experience. So we're pleased to have them and we are very much supportive as the folks that have been working and showing you all of these plans working to get a really nifty project. We're very much supportive of having the drive thru there from the perspective that this is definitely a pedestrian oriented project and 65 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 we're doing everything we can to protect it, the location of this drive thru does not i .mpede upon any pedestrian traffic. Originally when we first brought this through, and I'm sorry to keep doing this with the p's. I'll step back a little bit. When we first brought the project fotwa~ we didn't know who was going to be in the, within Village on the Ponds. Shortly af~ we began the process we had a very good clue that St. Hubert's was going to be there and very soon the~ we had a very good clue that Americlnn was going to be there. Americlnn is here tonight as a matter of fact We have the CF~ and his fight hand person and Mark Clarey, the consmacfion coordinator. Steve Kneeland, I should have mentioned your name and the CEO is of course Luke Fowler who most of you have probably met. So we appreciate their being here. They're a part, a major investor in the Village on the Ponds. Invested both in AmericInn and Houlihan's and as you'll see within hopefully the next few weeks or so, another large, very large part of the project that they're tmde~g. They're also a pa~t. of the overall group that is coordinating, has an option on all of the rest of the Village on the Ponds project so they're very supportive of this project. They have a major investment already and have committed to making more and feel that this is something that should be done for the projecc As I said, we didn't know much about what was going to be happening over there when we entered into the PUD agreement. The staff at the city recommended that we not do anything that would encourage fast food and drive up windows. We were fully supportive of that. We didn't picture that as part of the project either. And it was good probably to have that at the outset. At this point though, thi~ is the only parcel that possibly could have one. We don't feel that this puts the project in any kind ofjeopardy. As I say, we like the product and we think that's a benefit to the project. We had hoped, as a matter of fact, to have brought to you two other projects before this project came through so you could see the credibility of my statement that this would be the only place where we would be apt to be having the drive up window. As a matter of fact on the application we're applying only for this particular, this site has a lot, it's own lot and block number. It was platted as a part of the Village on the Ponds 2"a Addition which is not the entire project that we're needing to get you're the as-builts. It's just the 2~a Addition, and _that was done as kind of one site plan if you will. The parking lot was always intended to be shared. There's-some engineering, some site grading that's been done. The site that we're talking about tonight has been rough graded and a couple of catch basins are in and that's why they need the as-builts so they can see that we're tying it in on this project. So, and now I've lost my train of thought but in any event we had hoped to bring, I think I was about to tell you that we hoped to bring a couple of other projects that actually are larger than thi~ to you so you could see how it would all fit and see that there's going to be a whole lot going on there. We do, what I have instead of actual applications, are some, is a copy of some site plans that Mika Milo, our architect for the entire project and as you noticed in the staff report, he is the architectural review committee and he's supportive of the drive thru as well. I think he visited with staff last week on that subject, or earlier this week. The plans that we have were done by Mika for Medicine Marquettes' use in going to the national market for national retailers. Is your screen jumping like this or is it just on the one? Kind: It's doing the same thing. Vemelle Clayton: Oh, I feel sorry for your eyes. Well in any event, this is the site that we're talking about and this looks very much like what you've always seen for Village on the Ponds, although I noticed Bob we need to get you a new site plan with Houlihan's in the right place and things like that. This project, this is St. Hubert's. This whole southwest qnsdrant is the one that you've been hearing for a few months now that Presbyterian Homes is going to be doing, and we reviewed their most recent plans with them last Friday and hopefully they'll be having some site plan.~ to visit with the staff about on this in a couple of weeks. Some engineering done hopefully in about 3 weeks and with some final revisions on this building, hopefully we're going to, they're pressing to try to get this in in about 30 days. So as you can see there will be no drive thru on that one. This building, we're going to be insisting that there be a Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 retail segment on the comer. Oh incidentally, there will be some retail on at least this much, and maybe their restaurant open to the public here on this comer so we're insisting on some key things here which is there be retail on anchoring each comer. That there be activity across the street from this. This will be retail on the first floor. Needing some retail to lead down to the Bookoo Bikes. He's depending on some more retail. Now that I've introduced this comer, that's the next, within the next short while Luke and his group will be having a really nifty proposal for this project. This comer. Won't have any drive up windows. We'd have a restaurant here, restaurant here, maybe some other food, some other space and so forth. That leaves this and that's what we' re, one of the portions that the marketing is really focusing on. We've got a couple alternatives. Doing this building 80 feet deeper, 100 feet deep depending on what kind of requirements the tenants have. 'This is our only big building that someone, one larger tenant could have, or two could have a reasonable good size. So we don't want, we don't need, we don't plan for any drive up windows. Now you know some new invention will come along and they're going to have to drive up and pick it up and they'll prove me a liar and everybody will love it but we don't plan for it and we don't think it's going to come. So that's, we have some of these pages that any of you are welcome to come and take a look any time you'd like. This is a view from the pond looking southeast. This being St. Hubert's down here. This being much less a pond than it cun~nfly looks. Is there anything you can do to, well anyway. I won't talk about the pond. A'lot of frustration. This is another view. Starbuck's being here. This is where Ctflver's here. Actually with dimensions and the roof line that they have. The larger building here. Retail here .... and that's Houlihan's. So we get kind of excited about this when we think about it. This is the building across the street from Stat'buck's. This is a picture from skycam of the four comers. This being...and this would be residential and retail. So that's about as far as we've gone. That's what we're taking, that's what we're peddling on the street from co&st to coast. So it's kind of fun to be here. It'd be fun to have been here with all 3 and then you would have seen you know kind of how it all fit and why we feel so strongly that tl~s is not going to be in any way detrimental to the project. If you approve it this time next year we can all sit down to frozen custard. So if you have any questions, I'm here. Blackowiak: Okay, commissioners any questions? No. Thank you. Come on up. Luke Fowler: Hi. I'm Luke Fowler. I think I know most of you. I'm the owner of Northcott Companies and Americlnn's. Our headquarters is right at the pedestrian bridge. We also own the Houlihan's and the AmericInn and for those of you that don't know, I'm also on the Landscape Arboretum Board. I have known Wayne Riser for about 8 years. He's a franchisee of our's and I would just like to say that I think from the City of Chanhassen's point of view, from the point of view of somebody that offices here and likes to walk around, I'd love to be able to walk down to Culver's. I know as a practical matter that Culver's cannot do things without a drive thru. And I can assure you that Wayne Riser, and we will do everything to make sure that if you do allow that, that it is a aesthetically pleasing so that you don't see ears lining up and that kind of stuff. And I think it can be done pretty easily. It would be a great addition to the city so I hope you vote in favor of the variance. Thank you very much. Blackowiak: Thank you. Any further comments by the applicant? Okay. This item is open for public hearing, so anybody wishing to comment on this matter, please come to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Bob Savard: Good evening. My name is Bob Savard and I live at 8080 Marsh Drive. And I'm the closest residential neighbor to this development in almost every aspect. And I want you to know that I believe in being a good neighbor. I've been at almost every Planning Commission meeting regarding developments at this site and I wish you would put them earlier on the agenda. You don't know how many times I've been here past 11:00 p.m., but at any rate. My concerns have always been issues about 67 Planning Commission Meeting- Suly 17, 2001 the environment. About the noise. About the litter. About the traffic. And I've spoken to Mr. Riser. Spoken with Mr. Fowler. I speak to Vernelle all the time, and a lot of my initial concerns have been addressed. The one that the developer has no control over is the traffic and the speed. And although Vemelle has promised and assured us that the traffic will go slower in the future when there's more development, my question is what happens if it doesn't? As it is now the traffic has increased significantly on Lake Street. And I look out my front window and I see Mr. Fowler's building and I'm very pleased. I look out my screen porch and I look at the Starbuck's and Building 4 and I'm very pleased. The only thing I am concerned about is the traffic. Now I'm not sure that this is the right place to ask, but in the event that we complete all of the development on Village on the Ponds, I want to know what will be done to control the traffic. As it is now by design, the width of the street is narrower. The roads are curvy you know in order to try and slow down the traffic, and I'm here to tell you it's not working. AS it is now with the swim school there, there are a lot of parents with young children who are in harm's way because of the speed of the uaffic. All you have to do, and I know that most of you go to this site and look and take a look at the street. We have young people, or old people. I can't tell. All I can do is hear their vehicles laying 30 feet of rubber on the pavement within Village on the Ponds, and that concerns me a lot. As it is right now my ~ has Gre~ Plains Boulevard in the back, Lake Street on the side and Marsh Drive on the front. So at this point it's, I hope you'll hear my concerns. Thank you very much. Blackowiak: Thank you. Vernelle Clayton: I'm sorry, I promised I wouldn't talk a lot but I do want to back him up on the Ira~c and I wonder if we could ask you to look into that. I asked a couple years ago if we couldn't have the streets patrolled a little bit more and a slower speed limit. Slower posted speed limit and I was told that we couldn't, but I wonder if you would look into it and see what it would take to have it. It's something to do with the proximity to Great Plains Boulevard and it's proximity to ~5 and how you have to gradually slow people down, but it was not our intent to have such a high speed limit going through there. Mark Clarey: Hi. I'm Mark Clarey. I'm with Northcott Company also. lust one quick thing with regard to the pedestrian traffic. In my conversations with Mika Milo, the overall master architect or design developer, my opinion and our feeling with regard to the pedestrian traffic is that the drive up window will not greatly affect the overall pedestrian traffic because that traffic then is off of the main street travel. It's no different than pedestrian traffic coming into the AmericInn, coming into the CUlTeut Houlihan's, coming into the Starbuck's, Quizno's and so on. People undoubtedly are going to be driving into this area, particularly in this state with our snowfalls and everything else. There's not that many people that are going to travel across Highway :5 to get into this area. Once they're within the confines of the property, it's a different situation then and that's why we don't feel there's going to be that much of an impact on it. Thank you. Blackowiak: Thank you. Susan Bix: Hi. I'm Susan Bix and I live at 311 Siunen Circle and I also bugged Vernelle too, but I used to live in the Linden Hills area and I moved out to Chanhassen because of the Village on the Ponds and having a place to walk to in the suburbs I think is just wonderful so I really support the idea. And I wasn't sure about the idea of the drive thru, and I'm still not but I do like the idea of a family type restaurant that's real accessible and if, you know if there is a stipulation about the fast food, I think it is a nice mix because there's a lot of families in our area that I think would really benefit from that and so I guess it sounds like the overall affect of the drive thru isn't as, what I was picturing of a Burger King or 68 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 something. So I think it does sound like a nice mix. Although I did ask about the calories of the frozen custard. Blackowiak: Thank you. Kelly Walker: Good evening. My name is Kelly Walker and I live at 8090 Marsh Drive. I'm neighbors with Bob Savard and I also look out across the way to the Starbueks and this whole development area. I moved in within the last year and was not aware of all the goings on that were coming to this whole on the ponds area. I am also concerned mostly with the traffic. I don't have a personal concern with the Culver's per se. I am concerned with the traffic and the patterns of flow that we're going to have and the times of the day we're going to have them. I do think that the whole ponds area is going to want to cultivate a positive image with the neighborhood and the pedestrian traffic and I know currently to try and get across Great Plains Boulevard at this point to just go to Starbucks can be a major affair. Mostly because of they do not have a stop sign, etc. and I'm sure those things can be addressed and probably are not a personal issue here but I think that it does need to be reviewed. And I also think that besides noise you also in the evening hours have ear light problems with young kids in the house. We get a lot of lights going through the rooms and that kind of thing and it's just something that I would like to be taken into consideration. And with drive thru traffic you're going to have a higher volume than you would with a sit down type restaurant. I have nothing against Culver's. It sounds like a lovely place. I don't have a nay or yea for the drive thru per se but I do hope that the traffic considerations are taken into consideration. Thank you. Susan Bix: I'm sorry, I got side tracked. I forgot. Does anybody know, is there going to be something about Great Plains. I keep hearing that there might, you aren't going to be able to turn out of there or something. I didn't know if anybody knows. Blackowiak: Matt, would you like to speak to that? Saarm Where specifically are you talking? Susan Bix: I thought somebody said at Great Plains and Highway 5 and that you aren't going to. Saam: No, that will always be a full access, lighted. Traffic signal. Susan Bix: Somebody at the comer there where they're selling the, or moving the Legion mentioned something about that. That you' re not going to be able to. Saam: That's another issue. Blackowiak: Yeah. I think you're talking the in/out to the Legion right there. Susan Bix: Oh, the light at Great Plains and that's still always going to be? Saam: Oh yeah. Blackowiak: Okay. Are them any more comments? Seeing none I will close the public heating. Commissioners, who would like to start? Deb, go right ahead. 69 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Kind: I'll go. I'm probably the biggest Culver's fan up here. I drive all the way to Navarre when I get a hankering for a lemon ice and I think it's a wonderful restaurant and a nice addition to this town. Hopefully I won't have to drive all the way to Navarre. Architecturally I thought that the i .mru'ovements were quite nice. It was very helpful to have in the packe~ the typical prototype restaurant. I think the improvements that have been made are really nice and I agree with the architectural review committee that the plan is appropriate for the Villages. I also agree with the architectural review committee that the location and the screening of the drive thru is acceptable. And architectm~lly I think the applicant should reconsider the ENIS. Maybe go a stucco, but I do agree. I like bow it's kind of solid in those areas so I would probably think about adding a condition that you consider a mare durable rrmterial but it does make sense to me how you placed it in not high traffic areas. I think that's a wise solution. Regarding the drive thru, while I like the concept of pedestrian friendly environment in the Villages and .defini'tely support the intent and I really believe that we will be able to accomplish that in the Villages, I do think we need to consider reality. And it is winter here half of the year. There's not going to be a lot of pedestrian movement during, from November to March. And the drive thru is really helpful in those times of the year. And that our community has many, many young families and Culver's is a family friendly restaurant. It's got more affordable pricing and the drive thru aspect is i .mportant to young families who don't have the time necessarily to stop. It just gives another option. I believe the exclusion of drive thru's will not encourage more pedestrian movement. It will just encourage people to go elsewhere. I believe that drive thru's and the notion of being pedestrian friendly are not mutually exclusive and could be compatible with careful design and therefore I support, amending the PUD specific to this site in the way that we did on the last item for us. It was site specific. So that we don't have drive thru's. I don't see us amending the entire PUD to give carte blanche for drive thru's but specific to this site and I would want to include conditions regarding visual impact and pedestrian movement. Overall I think it's a nice plan and I'm looking forward to having it closer by so I don't have to go to Navarre. Blackowiak: Okay. Rich, do you have any comments? Slagle: I do. Having been now a resident of Chanhassen for 3 years I am able to bring some, perhaps some ignorance, but perhaps some objectivity to this and I have to tell you, I think the development is just awesome. I've heard nothing but good things. We love Culver's. My company does work with your company and enjoys that very well. But I have to tell you this area to me is just a jewel and I think a drive thru would be the wrong thing to have there. I believe that the site, I would love to see a different restaurant just to be honest with you. A more of an upscale, and I'll give you an example. Today I was at Starbuck's in Golden Valley, and there's a development there just north of 5 and I think it:s Winnetka. Wherever it is. Just right off north of 55 and it was just neat. The way that they had the archways and the different shops and retail outlets and lots of people, and not lots of ears. And I have to tell you I sit at the Starbucks on the patio very often, probably 2 mornings a week, and there is a lot of ears going through there. I have to be honest with you. And the way that that development is laid out for streets, when I saw those beautiful renditions of what it's going to look like, I'm going to be interested to see how the traffic patterns will fall within those renditions and what not because fight now if'you sit at Starbucks, there are lots of cars cutting across Starbuck's parking lot to get to what.you might call the main center, and then a shortcut to maybe get to 101 .... everything else about this is just perfect except the drive thru. Whereas a sit down, that doesn't sound like can work, so I'm just going to have to tell. you I'm on the other side of Deb but with all due respect I just think it's a great, great area. Blackowiak: Okay. Uli. 7O Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Sacchet: This is a tough one...couple places I've seen, not just the Culver's they have drive thru's so I understand your business point. And then we can ask, well how is this different in terms of the PUD versus the...with the car service thing. Well I do believe there's a difference. I do believe that in this case the no drive thru has been anchored into this PUD very fundamentally for the purpose of making this very pedestrian oriented. But I do believe it has more weight in the frame of view than before with car service. I believe that as such it's a policy question...City Council and for the Planning Commission be more in the framework of applying the established ordinance, as much as I like custard. I would have to say I'd be hard pressed at this point to recommend the drive thru because it's contrary to the overall intent. Now yes. I do admit, and I agree with you Deb that you make it site specific, makes it more palatable The site where we're trying to do, you put in a very good complex Vernelle. I mean you did a very good...but at this point I think I would want to pass it on to council to make an exception and support staff in their recommendation as far as the drive thru is concerned. I would like to see some additional conditions to the site plan approval in that I think there's an issue about speed, traffic. I mean we could be harsh and put in speed bumps. That'd slow it down. They're actually, you know those things that come out from the side when there's a little snow, there's quite a few people probably damage there...effeetive speed bump, but maybe we could do the real speed bumps that everybody gets affect, not just those trying to rub the corner. I would also like to see staff reviewing those plantings to the northwest for wetland appropriateness. And I think that's my comments. Yes, thank you. Blackowiak: Thank you. Bruce. Feik: I guess I'm the contrarian on the panel tonight. I don't eat ice crearra I apoiogize but those pork sandwiches you make are really good, but I just can't do ice cream. My concern with the drive .thru is the queuing. I've been to the one in Navarre a number of times. Driven through. My brother lives in Maple Plain and it's very convenient. My concern is getting a handle on how many ears can realistically be queued up prior to the window and where they are going to go after the 7th, 8th or 9~ car. And is that going to be. Aanenson: That's one of the things that staff did not look at because we recommended elimination of that and that goes back to Rich's same comment. We believe there's only stacking for 3 so, we need to look at that. Feik: I have a real concern with the queuing as it relates to the pedestrian friendly.. Aanenson: Well just backing out of the other cars in the rest of the area. As a similar problem with Taco Bell so we would have concern with that. Wayne Riser: Could I Bruce? Feik: Certainly. Wayne Riser: As fax as queuing. There are a spot for 4 cars to pull up once they've pulled to the window. Feik: That's after the window. Wayne Riser: Oh after, okay. You're. 71 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Feik: A lot of room in McDonald's out here but the queuing Fm going to guess is 20 cars long at Aanenson: Right, that's my concern. Wayne Risec. We've not experienced a problem with that. We have of course some very high production restaurants in Milwaukee, Madison and now in Chicago area, and to date that's not been a problem in any of those. You know in front of the queuing, and we do, that's one of the things I reme~ I mentioned when I met with Bob. I said I have to have 4, once I pull past that drive up. I can't make it with 3 and you've been there enough to know that I can't. We can make it with 4 and we have that in the plan. But we've not had a problem with queuing in the back and we've been in some pretty high productive areas. And we do feel this would be a very high productive area too if we're permitted to have the facility. Biackowialc_ Thank you. Feik: I have another very quick question for staff as it relates to the definition of fast food. You said that if it's pre-prepared it is fast food. If it' s not pre-prepared it' s a restaurant. Is that the dumb dumb version of the definition? Aauenson: What's the old fashion A & W where they bring it to your table. Feiic That's, but you know what? That's not made ahead of time. That's a restaurant. Aanenson: Right. It's the shade of gray. Feik: And so is Quizno's and so is Subway. Kind: They're not fast food. Aanenson: Our definition was adding the drive thru and that's why when we put this together, we clarified that further by saying the drive thru window to discriminate. Feilc Okay, thank you. I'm done. Blacknwiak: Those your comments? Okay. Well my comments are fairly s~ to Uli right now. I do believe that this is a policy decision for City Council. Village on the Ponds came before us, and I was on . this Planning Commission when it came before. Actually I think started Planning Commission right after, right kind of in the middle but I've been here and one of the big selling points was it was a pedestrian friendly, new urbanism, lots of neat ideas going around and the decision was made at that point in time to do this PUD and to promote pedestrian access and not to have drive thru's. And that's a. decision the City Council at that time made. I think that's, if that decision is going to be changed, it's a decision that this City Council has to make and that we as a Planning Cowmission are bound by what is currently written, and I don't really want to get into policy choices at all. TraflSc is a big concern for me too. Fm wondering how the counts that we did initially with the original concept for Villages would be changed if there was a drive thru because I think that would skew those numbers and I don't know if we have that information, and I don't even know if, I wouldn't be comfortable making any kind of decision tonight without having that kind of information. What kind of additional trips are generated by a drive thru, etc. And that's the kind of information I think that would be helpful when this goes before City 72 Planning Commission Meeting- July 17, 2001 Council because it will go before City Council and that would either, that would just make the decision I think a little bit easier. I'm not ready to make a policy decision tonight so that being said I would like somebody to make the motion please. Sacchet: I want to preface this that I really would...for the Planning Commission I'm making the motion the Planning Commission recommends denial of the amendment to the Planned Unit Development Standards permitting a drive thru window. Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second7 Feik: I'll second. Sacehet moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the amendment to the Planned Unit Development Standards permitting a drive thru window. All voted in favor, except Kind who opposed, and the motion carried for denial 4 to 1. Blackowiak: Motion carries 4-1. Deb, would you like to add any further comments? Kind: Mostly I just want to raise a flag to the City Council that I think they should consider changing the policy for this specific parcel. Blackowiak: Okay. Alrighty, I need another amendment please. And a motion. Excuse me, whateverl It's late. I'm sorry. Kind: I move the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site, well I'd better not make this motion either. Never mind. I have changes to it.that wouldn't get approved. Blackowiak: Let's somebody else be brave. Slagle: Let me ask this question. If the applicant has already said that without the okay for the drive thru, the plan won't go through. Do we need to address this other? Blackowiak: We do. I think we need to address the site plan whether we approve it or not. We have to make a recommendation so it can go to City Council. They do with it as they please. We're just making, based on what's in front of us tonight. Sacchet: Well I'm willing to make a motion. I've made most motions tonight. I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #2001-7 as shown on plans prepared by John Oliver & Associates, Inc. dated 6/13/01, subject to the following conditions 1 through 22. I'd like to add the condition number 23. Staff will review plantings to the south and west for wetland appropriateness. And number 24. Aanenson: Windows on the west elevation, is that the one? Sacchet: No, are the windows already in there, fight? Aanenson: No. 73 PPLICANT: ~DDRES8: CITY OF CHANHAESEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 65317 (012) 937-1000 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION RECEIVED JUN 1 4 2d01 CiTY OF CH^NHAS~EN · V P2, z./..¢ by ADDRE88: .~,_PO ~.~m (Day time) c_~,~. ~,ff.~/..~,~3,~O, TELEPHONE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW/Easements Conditional Use Permit 12. Vadance interim Use Permit 13. Wetland Nteration Permit Non-conforming Use Permit 14., Zoning APpe~ PAnned Unit Development 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Notiflo~tion Signs Site Plan Review Subdivision X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost** ($50 C U P/S PP,/VAC/VAR/WAP/M etes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) -TOTAL FEE $ A list of all property ownem within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must Included with the application. Twenty-slx full size .folded copies of the plans must be submitted. 8~" X 11" Reduced copy of tmrmparency for each plan sheet. - When multiple applications are pra¢essed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each appll~tlon. will be required for other applic~tlons through the development contract PROJECT NAME LOCATION ~a~'~ LE~ D~RI~~, PRESENT ZONING. REQUESTED ZONING. PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DE81GNATION 4,, . ! FIEASON FOR THIS REQUEST rhis application must be completed In full and be typewrttten or dearly printed and must be accompanied by all Information md plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the =iannlng Department to determine the specific: ordinance and procedural requlrernents appl~e to your application. rhis Is to certify that I am making application for the desc, rlbed action by the City and that I am responsible for complying vith all City requirements with regard to this request. ThIs application should be processed In my name and I am the party ~'hom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. '1 have attached a copy of proof of ~mership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the ~Jthorlzed person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed thIs application. will keep myseff Informed of the deadlines for submissbn of rnaterlal and the progress of this application. I further ~nderstand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any ,utlx)rlzation to proceed with the study. The documents and Information I have submitted am true and correct to the best of Fee Owner ' Date Received on Fee Paid Receipt No. applicant should contact 8taft for a copy of the staff report which will ~ .vallabh~ on Friday prior to the coting, ff not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant'8 acldma~. ATTAC~ TO APPLICATION FOR PUD AMEND~ Villages on the Ponds The property ~ by thls requested PUD m~kne~t is limited to the parcel which is across the parking lot from the Silo I Building (which houses Bell Mortgage on the north and Starbucks on the South). This parcel has been purchased by Northcott Co .re!tony, which has in twn entered into a purchase agreement for a sale to the party who has submitted an application for Site Plan approval for a Culver's Restaurant. One of Cuiver's i%-peratives is that ~ be a drive up window and their site plans and elevations drawings have been completed with a proposed window and drive up aisle. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in ~ C, Develo~ Design Standards, Subsection b. Permitted Uses, a drive up window as a part of the improvements to be constructed on Lot l, Block l, Villages on the Ponds Second have no problem with c6nsistent design standards. I'm in favor of the present logo, but it doesn't have to be on every- ~ing. You're looking for something that says, 'This is in a Victoria park.'" Said Jim Paulsen of the city's current log'o, "This is a trademark and I think it's just fine. I think we should let a subcom- mitte work on this. There are sym~is in society that people object to. Moses is above the Supreme Court building." Said Richard Tieden, "I think the lo~go is just fine. It's simply advertising what's here. But'l do think it's important to 'identify the city parks. When you · move to a new community, th~'s a lot to leS'n, a lot to know. I only learned a little while ago that the tennis courts at Lake virginia arkl at Deer Run are public tennis Mr. Weller was advised to return to t~e council with .design suggestions and recommendations. tona Aug:':'9:.:.- ne. The aame information is expected to be provided at each Open House. Update".bn ViCtoria ie6':Ar na'.' . It's turning into a.Community. Center... It's not a done~leai. Peop!~ sh~u .kin_ 't . many ~u~esfions Of couneilmembers. ' g~t too excited. The design is not etched ' "' "Said Mike Ayres, who respond- Was m. stone. Costs are not known for its ing to a question about'groundbreakin~ "It;is ,most important to get .the'_right various components. It doesn't have a .:-. name. But it does haoe a location, if it happens. That location would be.' : · Diethelm Park h3 Victoria. : -. · ' " '. On June 28' 'Mike Ayres, principal with Oppidan and the Minnetonka Ice .. Arena that almost came to Victoria, gave an update on the proposed ice arena for. Victoria. "We've sold out every single .' hour of ice at $17:5 per hour," he. said. "Ice time is guaranteed for a seven-year c[ iod. There are 1,8:50 hours each year m September to March. We expect to · have a great facility for the City of · Victoria next year." · A specialVictoria city council meet- i. ng wLts called for 3 ~..m. on Thursday, July sm, at which time it was more or less decided that one single regulation shee.t of ice, rather than two, would suit the needs of Victoria better at this time, especially as the pians could then include other amenities such as a gymnasium, workout room and lockers, meeting rooms, kitchen and public bathrqo, ms. It could then host wedding receptions and Victoria's Touch of Bavaria event. Councilmember Richard Tieden, who complimen .t.ed Mike Ayres on his ability to sell the available ice time to various hockey associations, agreed with Mayor Mary Meuwissen that the community has needs beyond skating. Councilmember Jim Paulsen ~aid the facility needs to have showers and'a kitchen. Parks & Rec Director Mary:. saarion said the weight room and meeting rooms that overlook, the ice. arena would · be-~,-neficial, for_ families:that are..wai~ng - for their children to complete ice praCtic~. · On July 26~ another special work- ahop was held before the regularly sched= uled council meeting at which time Chuck Freiberg, architect with RSP, presented drawings of a facility that'incorporated the · , Mr.. Freiberg's drawing included a concessmn-'area, a weight room, reception rooms, track, showers, ,warming kitchen that could be. used for cooking, an elevator that serves both floors, easy .access to public bathrooms, park vistas from some windows as well as views over the ice · floor 9'om other windows. The four community, rooms would each be about 750 square feet, with the option of opening them to one large room of 3,000 square feet. · _ Said Mr. Freiberg, "Basically, we've added 5,000 square feet to a single sheet of ice. The arena is handicapped access- ible. The floor is 6" of concrete and could accommodate 'bike races, rodeos, soccer, rollerblading, hockey, concerts, class parties. Cars can drive on it." He spoke of carpet and wood material that can be used over the floor.. "This building can have ice on it year 'round," he said. "It really is a versatile · building." Regarding the exterior as seen from Kochia or within the park, he said, "We're not here to give you anything but a nice looking building. It's no longer just an ice rink. It's n community building.".' Cost of the various components will probably dictate how much of'the bu}lding gets built immediately and how .much will be .added.as it becomes affordable. Said Dave Hanson of Wells Fargo, "We'll do a line item budget for. you. It'll be 90% to 95% as accurate as'we can be.;' I'll'l~mb- ably have i.t in about thi~i'~, eeki~.:', '-' :i ,~ T" MOi~'Waiiahitps~'bei~i'~c}~edu.!ad. Said MayOr Miit/, "Wi~ neiid to'mike i~ui~ we've explor,d all the options so 'the PthUblic doesn't think they're getting some- lng for sure and then it falls through." CiTy oF V CTO Pu zc. ODD /EVEN NON-ESSENTIAL WATER USAGE NOW. MAtOnATPn. CITYOF CHANHA EN ~2.~$7.1~ ~2.~$7.~75~ 952.93Z9152 Building Detutrtment Fax 952.934.2524 Web Site u~,u:ci.d~anlnusen, mn. us July 31, 2001 Ms. Susan McAllister 7461 Hazeltine Blvd. P. O. Box 311 Excelsior, MN 55331 Re: Response to Serf-Appointment as Acting Historic Representative Dear Ms. McAllister: This letter is to inform you that I am in receipt of your letter dated July 27, 2001 stating that you have appointed yourself as the temporaxy acting Historic Representative for the City of Chanhassen. I want you to know that the City of Chanhassen is "not" endorsing or recognizing your self-appointment as tempomxy acting Historic Representative. Any misrepresentations of your relationship with the City of Chanhassen or implied, representation will not be tolerated. Sincerely, ~ Acting City Manager C: Mayor and City Council Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director JUb-2~-200i 0~:5~ FROM MS R{]SIES FARM TO 9529.3?5'?39 P. 01 Susan McAllister 7461 Hazeltine Boulevard P,O. Box 311 Excelsior, MN 55331-8001 (952) 474-5099 TOTAL P.O1 Page 1 of I Hoffman, Todd From: Hoffman, Todd Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 8:59 AM To: 'terry@cychilds.com' Subject: RE: [SPAM] Capital Development Idea Hi Terry Thank you for your messagel We have been talking about a dog park for a Couple of years. The hold up to completing one is the lack of an available site. I am also talking with Marty Walsh the Caver County parks director about the idea of locating one in Minnewashta regional park. We know it will be well received so we will continue to work on it. Todd H Original Message From: terry@cychilds.com [maiib3:terry@cychilds.com] Sent: Fdday, July 20, 2001 10:26 AN To: THoffman@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Subject: [SPAN] CapEal Development Idea For your consideration: An area developed for the Chanhassen dogs to run free and socialize. Penalties . established for owners who do not pick up 'the stuff" their dogs leave behind. Funds for a perimeter fence possibly sponsored by a dog food manufacturer. -As an incentive to sponsor, they could be given the exclusive dght to advertise with a billboard on the fence. The billboard(s) could contain dog care/training tips etc. Toss it around .... , ~,/~/~ ~. p.,'/~"' Sincerely, /~],//x/~/~'~ ,x ~6 Childs 7/2~01 July 10, 2001 Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District Web Site: http//www, barr. com/rlley/ Legal Advisor: Krebsbach & Halk 701 4th Avenue South, Suite 500 Minneapolis MN 55415 612-333-7400 FAX: 612-333-6959 Engineering Advisor: Barr Engineering 4700 West 77th Street Minneapolis, MN 55435 612-832-2600 FAX: 612-832-2601 Mr. Todd Hoffman City of Chanhassen 690 City Center Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re' Permit #2001-22: Bluff Creek Trail Improvement Upstream of Audubon Road; Chenhaasen Dear Mr. Hoffman: The Board of Managers of the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District has reviewed the plans and grading and land alteration permit application as submitted to the District for the Bluff Creek Trail Improvements upstream of Audubon Road in Chanhassen. The District understands that work on the project has been completed and this has been submitted as an after-the-fact permit. The Managers approve of the grading and land alteration permit submitted for this project subject to the following conditions: 1. All erosion control measures installed must be removed. 2. The City is responsible for ensuring that positive drainage is provided from upstream areas through the embankment. If you have any questions regarding the conditions of the District's permit, please call us at (952) 832-2600. B~RR ENGINEERING CO~. Engineers for the District oved by the_.~car¢ 9f Managers Y-PUpPetRY ~BLUFF CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT RCO/lah /1 0 c: Paul ~k Howard Peterson ::ODMA~CDOCSkDOCS~227398\I RECEIVED JUL 3 2001 CITY OF CHANHASSEN Howard Peterson Perry Forster Board of Managers: Conrad Fiskness Frederick Rahr Susan Scribner Bmr Englneedng Company 4700 We~t 77th Street Minneapolis, MN 554.t5 Phone: (952) 832-26~ Fax: (952) 832-2601 P.A. # 2001-22 RILEY-PURGATORY-BLUFF CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT GRADING AND EARTHMOVING PERMIT NameofApplicant: CTTY OF CHANHASSEN~, c/o TODD HOFFMAN~ PARK AND RECREA'i"ZON DTRECTOR Address 690 CTTY CENTER DR'rVE, CHANHASSEN, MN '55317 Telephone 952-937-1900r X-12'1 Nature of Work RELOCATTON OF. 60" CMP Locafion of Work bLuPP CHEEK N l/Z: ::ibc Z;/, IWi-' 11~3, HANI~b Z;:I Munidpa,ty CHANHASSEN projected duration of work COMPLETED 1999 Pro.dura, to be used to cor~~ ~Ar~r~s~ STLT Legal Owner of Property: Lega~ DescripUon of Property: 0UTLOT A BLUFF CREEK Property IdenUfica~n Number:. 25,1250210 FENCE AND CURTAZN Fletd Inspection Fee: Projects less than 10 acres: $600 Projects greater than 10 acres & less than 40 acres: $1,500 Project greater than 40 acres: $3,000 Payment is to be made to the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District at the time of application. Fees am not required for public projects. The District's Rules and Regulations outline the requirements of the Dis Oate ~rmit ~ppli~tioo ~vod by U~ Ois~ct ~ the ! 1ch ~ of ,June .20 01 . All work shall be completed by the -- day of collateral required Is -- .20 --. The amount and nature of This permit application is hereby (diURil: I approved) by Ihe Board of Managers of the Watershed District this 10 th day of Jul7 ,20 01, subject to lhe conditions contained in the attached correspondence dated July 10~ 2001 . This permit is permissive only and does not release the permittee from a~ ~atq[y ~ ol~gafion i~ Minq~a ~tutes, Federal Law, or local ordinances. Pre'dent ~ BSard of Managers Noace of:. completion of work authorized l-l; expiration of grading permit ri. is hereby given to the District on thia day of .20 . Permlttee Certification of the satisfactory completion of work authorized is hereby made on the 20 day of C:\WlNNT~Proflles~l~Desktop~DOCS.17.DOC Inspec~ Memorandum C OF PO ~ I~? ~ M~n~o~ 5~17 952~3ZI~ 952.93Z5~9 ~~g Dq~t ~ 952.937.9152 B~g D~~t ~ 952~M.252~ ~b ~c~~mm~ TO: FROM: Dispatch, 2800 Squads, City Hall Staff ]eft Meixner #763 DATE: ,luly 30, 2001 SUB3ECT: Lakeview Hills Hey everyone! I Just wanted you all to know In case you get calls about possibly stolen cars that approximately 35 cars were towed from Lakevlew Hills Apartments today. The vehicles were towed because they were in vio!atlon of the Junked/abandoned vehicle ordinance (lacking curr~nt registration, or Inoperable or both) or parked In the wrong place, ..The cars were towed .... by Williams Towing to their impound facility. I bell. eve the cost Is $125 ... for the tow and $15 per day for storage, · · . Following is'a list of Vehicles towed, It should' be.:d0se to.complete but there may POSSibly be.. vehlc!es ~'at were. ta. ken..that- a're'not..0n here. DNC 191 Red Encore-'" · EVV? 386 Wine CheV,'L~mr~'a' ..... 310 PUY Tan Escort.. ' 406 KVM Blue Buickm BVG 144 Wh'Ite ExpedlU0n. 383 MYX Grey-.VW..::".."-:." DEM 635 Honda Accord' ' ' .... BXP 359 Black Tau.rus' EHN989 Blue:.~rd:!':. .. · .. . . DRM 753 White.OldS. -. '-' 455 3Vt Biu'e chev.van .. ... VB'E 8030N!):.F0~;Van . " EST 200 BILi&"Isuzu'.:. -" No plate brown Buick-' 350 LCB B'I'U~ 'Bron.'cti'...- . ALM 847 Mere'..TopaY.:: .' :'" 822 LNN Sable-". 7:::'.- BSD 051 Blue Cavalier" : · ... · Any questions, Call me. Tl~an~! AVH ·395. Tan . · . . FDF'!50 Green LeSab.'.re DS¥596 Gr..eY'Mazda'I' ' . CGU 999 Rust. TOyota'.... - FAE 319BIiSe LeBaron-" .. 032 KI.] Blue. Ford. Van'-'I'-- .. . . · .836'.lZP .W-bite'TaurUi".--"' :.. - :'. '"CPT 732'B!ue SubarU.;i."-'"'- ' '- . 453 PKU'White' Grand.pdx:'i CBR:779 Brown. TauruS. ' -'.. .. - ; . ; ::'-.. ... :338..NRR.B'.u. rg: Mazda :' '"' 3.15:MCK. RedHond~i: ' - -. · . .. . . ELB 836..ChriSt ' N'o. Pla~ Blue Buick.;- Nb' Plate Honda-'~'lvlC -' EPG 2g7.:Berret~': .. · 247.]PF-Bl~C-'k iC~iebrity .! -.. · . · .. Moa Moa Mon Tu~s Weds Weds Thurs Thurs Thurs Sat Sun Sun Sun Jul23 Jul23 Jul23 Jul24 Jul25 · Jul:25 Jul26 $u126 Jul 26 Jul 28 Jul29 Jul 29 Jul 29 6:57 AM 9:20 AM 1:08 PM ll:ISAM 10:52 AM 9:21 PM 3:17 AM 6:08 PM 8:54 PM 11:09. AM 2:12 PM 7:42 PM 9:04 PM CHANHASSEN. FIRE DEPAR.~ W~g.K OF JULY 23 - JULY 29, 2001 7sa ar t Galp~n Boul~ St~ll~r Circle ~ P~ ~~ '~ion ~ ~o ~~ 5 & ~ B~d W~ 78a S~ . T~ Po~t Minn~ ~~ C~I~ B~ Bow T~ Medical- seintres Fire alarm- ~ alsrm, no fire Fire alarm- fals~ alarm, no fire Medical - person eolhtpsed Medical - trouble bresthing Medical- rapid heart beat . Medical- trouble brealhing . Fir~ alarm - false slarm, no fire Mutual aid- boat snak Carbon Monoxid~ alnnn Mol} Mon Mon Tues Tues Thurs Thurs Fri Fri Fri Sat Sat Sat Sun Sun Jul 30 Jul 30 Jul 30 Jul 31 Jul 31 Aug 2 Aug 2 Aug 3 Aug 3 Aug 3 Aug 4 Aug 4 Aug 4 Aug 5 Aug 5 3:10 AM 12:I6PM 2:57 PM 6:36 PM 8:53 PM 12:32 AM 1:16 PM 4:29 AM 7:58 AM 5:56 PM 9:20 AM Il:lC, AM 4:04 PM 9:18 AM 1:27 PM CHAN HAS SEN FI RE DEPARTMENT FIRE/RESCUE WEEK OF JULY 30 - AUGUST 5, 2001 Sandy Hook Road Forest Ridge Circle West 78th Street Lake Minnewashta Park City Center Drive Forest Ridge Circle Market Boulevard Highway 5 Lyman Blvd & Audubon Rd Shadow Lane Sunnyvale Drive Lyman Blvd & Hwy 101 Pauly Drive West 78th Street Stone Creek Drive West Smell of smoke in the house Medical - asthma attack Medical- unknown problem, cancelled Facial injury Fire alarm- false alarm, no fire Medical - asthma attack Medical - unknown problem Car accident, no injuries Car fire Me~iical - bee sting Medical - head injury Leaking propane tank, unfounded Medical - person fainted Medical - possible seizures Medical - seizures CITYOF CHAI EI 690 Orl Center Drive PO &x147 7~nhauv~, Minnesota 55317 Phone 952.93Z1900 952.93Z5739 ~n~i,,e~ring ~n~,t Fax 952.937.9152 Buil~'ng Deparm:ent Fax' 952.934.2524 Web Site u~,uad, chanl~me,.mn.m TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Todd Gerhardt, Acting City Manager DATE: July 31, 2001 SUBJ: Metricom, Inc. has Filed Chaptm' 11, Bankruptcy This memo is to inform the City Council that Metric. om, Inc. has filed Chapter 11, Bankruptcy. Metricom is a wireless internet provider in Chanhassen. The City entered into a franchise agreement with Metricom in May, 2000 which allows them to locate their receivers on our light standards and other equipment in our right-of-ways. Under Chapter 11, Metricom will have the option of reorganizing or liquidating their assets. No plan has been filed as of yet and I will ke~ the City Council informed as information becomes available. ' O'tv ofCl~.hau~. A .m,,,i,,. m,,,,,,,,,,/t~ ,,,;th d.a. !~i~ a,,al;~ M~lc a e~a..;.../..,.~,,., d,.~a.~ t.,d....~ .~./i~m,dl;,! .a,& 4 ,.~ .I~,~ ~. I;, .... ,4. ~...I .I.~ UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN $OSE DIVISION In METRICOM, INC. and certain affiliated entities, including METRICOM FINANCE, INC. METRICOM INVESTMEKFS DC, INC. M~'RICOM DC, L.L.C. METRICOM NEW YORK, L.LC. Debtors. Case No. 01-$3291-ASW Chapter 11 NOTICE OF CHAPTER 11 BANKRU~CY CASES, MEETING OF CREDITOR~ SPECIAL PROCEDURES, AND DEADLINES FOR FH.,ING ~MS Bankruptcy cases under chapter 11 of thc Bankruptcy Code (title 11, United States Code) have been filed in this Court by Metricom, Inc. and its domestic subsidiaries, Metricom Finance, Inc., Metric. om Investments DC, Inc., Metficom DC, L.LC., and Metricom New York, L.L.C. (collectively, the "Debtors"), debtors and debtors-in possession, and an order for relief has been entered. The cases are assigned to the Honorable Arthur S. Weissbmdt, United States Bankruptcy Judge. Chapter 11 allows the Debtors to reorganize or liquidate pursuant to a plan. No plan has been filed yet, and a plan is not effective unless confirmed by the Court. In the future, you may be sent a copy of a plan and a disclosure statement telling you about the plan, and you might hsve the opportunity to vote on the plan. You will be sent notice of thc clato of the confirmation hearing, and you may object to confirmation oft. he plan and attend the comqrmation hearing. Unless s trustee is serving, the Debtors will remain in possession of the Debtors' property and may continue to operate any business. Le~! Advice. The staffofthe bankruptcy clerk's office cannot give legal advice. You may want to consult an attorney to protect your Attorney(s) for Debtors (name and address) Margaret Sheneman IOith A. McDaniels Murphy Shencman Julian & Rogers A Professional Corporation 101 California Street, Suite 3900 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone No.: (415) 616o7614 MEETING OF CREDITORS DATE: August 17, 2001 Location: Office of the United States Trustee San Jose Division TIME: 10:00 a.m. 280 S. First Street, Room 130 San Jose, CA 95113-3099 The Debtors' representath~ must be present at the meeting to be questioned under oath by the United States Trustee and by creditors. Creditors arc welcome to attend, but are not required to do so. Thc meeting may be continued and concluded at a later date without further notice. COURT FILINGS (OTHER THAN PROOFS OF CLAIM) An original and three C31 copies of all pleadings and other papers or documents (other than proofs of claim - see below) must be submitted for filing. All papers must be 2-ho!¢ punched at the top and all original documents must be conspicuously rna~ed "Orieinai" with signatures in bluc ink and one copy must be marked "Judge's Copy." You may inspect all papers filed, including thc list of thc debtors' property and debts at the bankruptcy clerk's office. By U.S. Mail United States Bankruptcy Court Attn: Janet Dustin San Jose Division 280 South First Street, Room 3035 San Jose, CA 95113-3099 To receive a return copy of your filing showing the Clerk's file stamp, you must provide a postage-paid, self-addressed envelope. In person / by ovcfnig, ht delive _tT United States Bankruptcy Court San Jose Division 280 South First Street, Room 3035 · ' San Jose, CA 95113-3099 Open 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. (but all documents requiring a f~ must be processed by 4:00 p.m.), Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. PHOTOCOPY REQUESTS (OTHER THAN PROOFS OF CLAIM) To obtain a photocopy of any document on file with the court (other than proofs of claim), contact the following independent photocopy service (the "Copy Service"): Jim's Copy Service 280 South First Street, Room 3044 San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone No.: (408) 294-5200 A description of thc photocopying services, charges and billing procedures is available from the Copy Service. PLEASE DO NOT ADDRESS PHOTOCOPY REQUESTS TO THE BANKRUPTCY COURT OR TO COUNSEL FOR DEBTORS. DEADLINE AND PLACE TO FILE A PROOF OF ~ The Court has established Octbber 17, 2001 as the deadlin~ for filing proofs of¢lslm Your proof of claim must be received by October 17. 2001 (cxcept for 8overnmcntsl units, whose claims must be r~civ~ by November 16. 2(}01~ notwithsmmiing _p~,,kn~mmy Loc~ Rule 3003-1. A Prnofof Claim form is not included with ~ Notice, but will be mailed to you ~m'ately ~ ·hter ~ ~ moro A Proof of Claim is a signed statement descn'bing a creditors claim. The debto~ will ffl~ ~ of a~se~ taxi iiabilifi~ in ~ ~ will be allowed in the amount ~cheduled unlm you file a Proof of Claim or you are'~eat fatlizr notice aborn th~ Claim. W'he~h~ or not yonr claim is scheduled you are permitted to ~¢ a Proof of Claim. If yoor chim is not lis~d ~ ~!! or ffyom' cldm i~ lh~d ~ dhpu2d, continE~nt or unliquidated, tben you mu~t file a Proof of Claim or you might not be p~d any money on your chim ~ th~ Deblm~ in Chim~ Notic/ng and Balloting AE~t will ~md you a ~ nofico of the Clahm Bar Da~ and & Proof of Chim form. If you do not receive a Proof of Claim form, you may obtain · form from the Chims, Noticing and Balloting Agont. Tho Proofof~ form ~mt by the Cl~'n~, Noticing mi Balloting Agent will include your name, how your claim w~ schedul~ and a creditor number emblisl~ by the Claim~ Noticing and Balloting Agent. All Proofs of Claim droll be filed with the Claims, Noticing and Balloting Age~ by mailing to tho following addre~: Metricom, Inc. Open: 8:30 a.m. - ~:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, except PMB 1015 10351 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 10lA Telephone: (818) 771-T751 Each original claim shall be filed with one (!) copy. Parties filing proofs of claim who whh to receive a return copy of their proof of claim showing the Cierk'~ file ~tamp mu~ provide an extra copy (in ,ddifion to tho odgiml ami ono copy required by lbo pv,zcedin~ sentence) and a postage-paid, self-~4drc~ envelope. PROOFS OF CLAIM SHALL NOT BE FILF. r~ WITH THE BANKRUPTCY COURT. Pet~ons who hold common stock, preferred stock, or equity intere~ in the Deblm~ do not need to file a proof of interest at this time. CREDITORS MAY NOT TAKE CERTAIN ACTIONS The filing of the bankruptcy case automatically stays certain collection and other actions a~i~,t the debtors and the debto~ Prohibited collection actions arc !~__~_ in Bankruptcy Code section 362. Common e~z~nples ofpmhibil~d actions inclu~ coatacttng tho debtors by telephone, mail or otherwise to demand repayment; t~king actions to collect money or obtain property from thc dobtorg starting or continuing lawsuits against ~he debtom If you ,____n~_mpt to collect a debt or tak~ other wi/on in violation of the Bankruptcy Code, you may be pen,l~ SPECIAL PROCEDURES The Court has entered an Order Ezt~lishing Notice nad Case Management Ptocedur~ and Setting Claims Bar Deadline and Other Dates containing information relating to. among other things: (1) procedures gov~'ning the filing and service of motion papert, oppositions and replies; (2) the establishment of hearing dates in these bankruptcy cases; and (3) procedun~ for seeking ex parte or expedited hearings, DISCHARGE OF DEBTS Confirmation of a chapter ! 1 plan may result in a discharge of delta, which may include all or part of your debt, Wee Bankruptcy Code § ! 141(d). A discharge means that you may never try to collect the debt/',om the Debto~ except as provided in the plan. NOTICES OF CERTAIN HEARINGS AND RELATED MATTEILS Ail Creditors and certain parties in interest will receive notice by mail or by publication of the following matIerr (1) any hearing on tho dismissal of thc cases or conversion of the cases; (2) the following matters related to tho plan of reorganization: the time fixed for filing objections tg and thc .heating to consider approval of a disclosure statement, the time fixed for accep6n~ rejecli~ and objecting to confirmation of a plan or any modification thereof, and the hearing thereon and the entry of an onier confirming a plan; and (3) any other Pursuant to the Order Establishing Notice and Case M~%oe,nent Ptocedm~ and Setting Claims Bar Deadline and Other Dalm, in onier to receive notice of other p _roce~__Jngs in this case, you will be required to file with the Clerk of the Banhuptcy Court and serve upon counsel for the Debtors a written request for notice. A copy of the Order Establishing Notice and Case I~ Proceduros and Setting Claims Bar Deadline and Other Dates, and of the current list of the partie~ who a~ entitled to receive not/ce of matters, is available by requesting such list from the Debtors' counsel at the following location: Muxphy Shoneman Julian & Rosen 101 California Stree~ Suite 3900 San Francisco, CA 941 i 1 Telephone No.: (415) 616-7614 Arm: Bill Petty DATED: July __. 2001 For the Court: C~e~k of the ~ Court In re UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION Jointly Administered for Procedural Purposes under METRICOM, INC. and certain affiliated entities, including METRICOM FINANCE, INC. METR1COM INVESTMENTS DC, INC. METRICOM DC, L.L.C. METRICOM NEW YORK, L.L.C. Case No. 01-53291-ASW Chapter 11 NOTICE OF CHAPTER 11 BANKRUPTCY CASF_3, MEETING OF CREDITORS, SPECIAL PROCED~ AND DEADLINES FOR FILING CLAIMS Bankruptcy eases under chapter 11 of thc Bankruptcy Code (title 11, United States Code) have been filed in this Court by Metrieom, Inc. and its domestic subsidiaries, Metricom Finance, Inc., Metricom Investments DC, Inc., Metricom DC, L.LC., and Men'icom New York, L.L.C. (collectively, the "Debtors"), debtors and debtors-in possession, and an order for relief has been entered. The cases are assigned to the Honorable Arthur S. Wcissbrodt, United States Bankruptcy Judge. Chapter 11 allows the Debtors to reorganize or liquidate pursuant to a plan. No plan has been filed yet, and a plan is not effective unless confirmed by the Court. In tho future, you may be sent a copy of a plan and a disclosure statement telling you about the plan, and you might have the opportunity to vote on the plan. You will be sent notice of the date of the confirmation hearing, and you may object to confirmation of the plan and attend the confirmation hearing. Unless a trustee is serving, the Debtors will remain in possession of the Debtors' property and may continue to operate any business. Le~l Advjc4. The staffofthe bankruptcy clerk's office cannot give legal advice. You may want to consult an attorney to protect your rights. Attorney(s) for Debtors (name and address) Margaret Sheneman Keith A. McDaniels Murphy Sheneman Julian & Rogers A Professional Corporation 101 California Street, Suite 3900 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone No.: (41:5) 616-7614 MEETING OF CREDITORS DATE: August 17, 2001 Location: Office ofthe United States Trustee San Jose Division TIME: I0:00 a.m. 280 S. First Street, Room 130 San Jose, CA 95113-3099 The Debtors' representath~ must be present at the meeting to be questioned under oath by the United States Trustee and by creditors. Creditors are welcome to attend, but are not required to do so. The meeting may be continued and concluded at a later date without further notice. COURT FILINGS (OTHER THAN PROOFS OF CLAIM) An oriliual and three (3~ copies of ail pleadings and other papers or documents (other than proofs of claim - see below) must be submitted for filing. All papers must be 2-hole punched at the top and all original documents must be conspicuously Blerked "Original" with signatures in blue ink and one copy must be marked "Judgt~'s Copy." You may inspect ali papers filed, including the list of the debtors' property and deb~ at the bankruptcy clerk's office. By U.S. Maim United States Bankruptcy Court At,n: Janet Dustin San Jose Division 280 South First Street, Room 3035 San Jose, CA 95113-3099 To receive a return copy of your filing showing the Clerk's file stamp, you must provide a postage-paid, self-addressed envelope. Ip ~rson / bv ovemiuht delive _rv United States Bankruptcy Court San Jose Division 280 South First Strut, Room 3035 San Jose, CA 95113-3099 Open 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. (but all documents requiring a fee must be processed by 4:00 p.m.), Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. PHOTOCOPY REQUESTS (OTHER THAN PROOFS OF CLAIM) To obtain a photocopy of any document on file with the court (other than proofs of claim), contact the following independent photocopy service (the "Copy Service"): Jim's Copy Service 280 South First Street, Room 3044 San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone No.: {408) 294-5200 A description of the photocopying services, charges and billing procedures is available from the Copy Service. PLEASE DO NOT ADDRESS PHOTOCOPY REQUESTS TO THE BANKRUPTCY COURT OR TO COUNSEL FOR DEBTORS. DEAD~ AND PLACE TO FILE A PROOF OF ~ The Court has established Octbber 17, 2001 n~ the dendline for filing proofs ofdalm. Your proof of claim must be received by ~ 17,2001 (except for gavcmmenml units, whosc claims must be m:eived by November- 16. 2001), ~ _/~kmp~ Local Ruk 3003-1. A Proofof Claim form is not incb__,d~__ with tiffs Notice, but wOl be mailed to you separa~y ,t a later dat~ u ~ -. A Proof of Claim is a signed siat~nent de~m'bing a eredit~s claim. The debtors win filo w.,hed,~ of assets and liabilitlos in this which may contain information abouI your ehtim. If your elnlm is scheduled and is not listed -, ~ contin~tnI or unliquidat~l, it will be allowed in the amount scheduled unless you file a Proof of Clal~ or you. are sent further notice about tl~ ~ Wh~ber or nat your cialm is scheduled you am permitted to file a Proof of Clnim. If your claim is not lisu~l at all or ifyour claim is ii, md as ~ conting~t or unliquidsted, then you must file a Proof of Claim oryou might not be paid an~' monoy on your claim agthtst fl~ Dedmmm in Claitn~, N°ticing and Ball°ting Agent will send YOu a separat~ notice of the Claims Bar Ds~ and a Proof of Oaim form. Ifyou do not receive a Proof of Claim form, you may obtain a form from the Claima, Noticing and Balloting Agunt. Tim Proof of Claim form s~nt by tho Claims, Noticing and Balloting Agent will include your name, how your claim wa~ sc~dul~ and · cm~litor number e~ablish~ by the C~n,~ No~cing and n~k.~8 A~. All Proofs of Claim shall be filed with the Clain~ Noti~ng ~d Balloting ASent by ~ to the follow~ addre~ Metrieom. ~ Open: 8:3O a.m. - S.-00 p.m. Monday t~ah Fricay, ~ c/o Robert L. Bergar & Associates, LLC general Imsine~ holidays PMB 1015 10351 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite Telephone:. (8 ! 8) 771-7751 Each original claim shall be filed with one (1) copy. Parties filing proofs of claim who wish to receive · return copy ofthcir pflx~f of claim showing the Clerk's file stamp must provide an extra copy (in nddition to the original nnd one copy requin~ by tho lX~cedin8 sentence) and a postase~d, self-addressed envelope. PROOFS OF CLAIM SHALL NOT BE FII.Kf~ ~ BANKRUPTCY COURT. Persons who hold common stock, pr~ferr~ stock, or equity interuts in the ~ do not need to file a proof of interest st this CREDITORS MAY NOT TAKE CERTAIN ACTIONS The filing of the bankru~ case automatically stays certain collection and other actions against the debtors and the debtm~ property. Prohibited collection actions arc listed in Bankruptcy Code section 362. Common examples o.t'prohibi~! actions include contacting tho debtors by t~lephone, mail or otherwise to demand repayment; tnkin8 actions to collect money or obtain proper~ fi'om tho d~,tors; ami stntiing or continuing lawsu~ against the debtors. If you atl~mpt to collect · debt or tak~ other action in violalion of'tho Bankmp{~ Code, you may be penalized. SPECIAL PROCEDURES The Court has enh~'~d an Order Establishing Notice and Case ]v~ Procedures and Setting Claims bar Deadline and Other Dates contnining information r~lating to, among other things: (1) procedu~ governing the filing and service of motion pzpe~ opixmsitto~ and replies; (2) the establishment of hearing ~ in these bankruptcy cases; and (3) pmcedu~ for seeking ex parte or encpeditM hearings. DISCHARGE OF DEBTS Confirmafio~ of a chapter 11 plan may result in · discharge of debts, which may include aH or part ofy~mr debt. See Bankmp~ Code § 1141(d). A discharga means that you may never try to collect tho debt fu:un the Debtors, except as provided in tho plan. NOTICES OF CERTAIN m~-~RINGS AND It~LATED MATTERS All Creditors and certain parties in interest will receive notice by mail or by pub{ication of the following ~ (1) any hotdng on the dismissal of the cases or conversion of tho cases; (2) the following nmtters r~lated to tho l~n of m~nniza~m: the time fixed for objecIions t~and the..hearing to consider at~mval of a disclosure sinIeme~ the ~ fixed for ~cepiin~ ri:jetting and objeciing to confirmation ora plan or any modification theruof, and the heating thereon ami the entry of-,, onln' confirming a plan; and (3) any otber Pursuant to the Order Establishing Notice and Case Manngement Procedm~ and Se~ing Claims bar Dond~ and Other D~, in ouler to receive notice of off, er _proce~___ings in this ca~ you will be required to file with the Clerk of the Baninuptcy Court and serve upon counsel for the Debtors a written r~iuesi for notice. A copy of tho Order Esiabli~. Notice and Case Iv~ Procedm~ and Setting Claims Bar Deadline and Other Dates, and oftbe ~ list of the parties who are entitled to ruceive notice ofmatte~, is available by requesting such list from the De~,icu-~' counsel at the following loc~ion: Murphy Sh~eman J.li,,~ & Rogn~ I01 California Street, Suite 3900 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone No.: (415) 616-7614 Arm: Bill Petty DATED: July _, 2001 For the Court: Clerk oftt~ Bankrupl~cy Court In re UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DMSION METRICOM, INC. and certain affiliated entities, including METRICOM FINANCE, INC. METRJCOM INVESTMENTS DC, INC. METRICOM DC, L. LC. METRICOM NEW YORK, L.L.C. RECEIVED JUL 3 0 2001 Jointly Administered for ~! Purposes OF CHANHASSEI Case No, OI-$32~I-ASW Chapter 11 NOTICE OF CHAPTER 11 BANKRUPTCY CASF.~ MEETING OF CREDITORS, SPECIAL PROCEDURES, AND DEADLINES FOR FILING CLAIMS Bankruptcy cases under chapter 11 of thc Bankruptcy Code (title 11, United Sates Code) have been filed in this Court by Metricora, Inc. and its domestic subsidiaries, Metricom Finance, Inc., Metricom Investments DC, Inc., M~ricom DC, LL.C., and Metricom New York, L.L.C. (collectively, the "Debtors"), debtors and debtors-in possession, and an order for reliefhaa been errtered. The case~ are assigned to the Honorable Arthur S. Weisabrodt, United States Bankruptcy Judge. Chapter 11 allows the Debtors to reorganize or liquidate pursuant to a plan. No plan has been filed yet, and a plan is not effective unless confirmed by the Court. In the future, you may be sent a copy of a plan and a disclosure statement telling you about the plan, and you might have the opportunity to vote on the plan. You will be sent notice of the date of the confirmation hearing, and you may object to confirmation of the plan and attend the confirmation hearing. Unless a trustee is serving, thc Debtors will remain in possession of the Debtors' propm'ty and may contint~ to operate any business. · Legal Advice. The staffofthe bankruptcy clerk's office cannot give legal advice. You may want to consult an attorney to protect your Attorney(s) for Debtors (name and address) Margaret Shcnernan Keith A. McDaniels Murphy Shcneman Julian & Rogers A Professional Corporation 101 California Street, Suite 3900 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone No.: (415) 61&7614 MEETING OF CREDITORS DATE: August 17, 2001 Location: Office of thc United States Tms~ TIME: 10:00 a.m. San Jose Division 280 S. First Street, Room 130 San Jose, CA 95113-3099 The Debtors' representath~ must be present at the meeting to be questioned under oath by the United State~ Trustee and by creditors. Creditors are welcome to attend, but are not required to do so. The meeting may be continued and concluded at a later date without further notice. COURT FILINGS (OTHER TI-LAN PROOFS OF CLAIM) An original and three (31 copje4 of all pleadings and other papers or documents (other than proofs of claim - sec below) must be submitted for filing. All papers must be ~ at the top and all original documents must be conspicuously lV. arked "Original" with signatures in bluc ink and one copy must be marked "Judge's Copy." You may inspect all papers filed, including the list of the debtor~' property and debts at the bankruptcy clerk's office. Bv U.$, Mail In _~non / bY ovcroi_~tt delivcw United States Bankruptcy Court Attn: Janet Dustin San Jose Division 280 South First Street, Room 3035 San Jose, CA 95113-3099 To receive a return copy of your filing showing thc Clerk's file stamp, you must provide a postage-paid, self-addre$~l envelope. United States Bankruptcy Court San Jose Division 280 South First Street, Room 3035 San Jose, CA 95113-3099 Open 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. (but all documents requiring a fee must be processed by 4:00 p.m.), Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. PHOTOCOPY REQUESTS (OTHER THAN PROOFS OF CLAIM) To obtain a photocopy of any document on file with the court (other than proofs of claim), contact the following independent photocopy service (the "Copy Service"): Jim's Copy Service 280 South First Street, Room 3044 San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone No.: (408) 294-5200 A description of the photocopying services, charges and billing procedures is available from the Copy Service. PLEASE DO NOT ADDRESS PHOTOCOPY REQUESTS TO THE BANKRUPTCY COURT OR TO COUNSEL FOR DEBTORS. DEADLINE AND PLACE TO FILE A PROOF OF The Court luts established Octbber 17,2001 as th~ deadline for filingproot~ofclahzL Yom' ixoof of claim muatbe roc~vedbyCh:mb~ 17, 2001 (_~.___~pt for govemnmmd units, whose claims mast t~ recoiv~ by November 16, 2001), notwl~ _pam~ Local Rule 3003-1. A Proof of Claim form is not included with this Notice, but win be rmailed to you sepata~yatalatordatoas ~ A Proof of Claim is a signed ~t de~:n'bin8 a ~ ¢_lnlm. Tbe d~m~ will filo W. bedul~ of assets and liabt=lifl~ in this mso which may contain information about your claim. If your elnlm is scheduled and is not'listed as ~ contingent or unUquidat~, it will be allowed in the amount scheduled unless you file a Proof of Claim oryou at~ sent ~ notice about the Claim. ~ or not your claim is scheduled you ar~ permitted to file a ProofofClalm l. f your clalm is not listed at nll or if your clalm i~ lis~d as dispul~d, - ~eiv~ a Proofo~Oalm ~ you nmy obtain a th~ Claims, Noticing and Balloting All Proofs of Claim shall be filed with tbe Claims, Not~ing and Balloting A~ by ~g to tbe following edd~as: PI~ 10IS 103~ Santa ~onica Blvd., Suite ~01A Telephone: (~ 18) '~ 1-77S 1 Each original claim shall be filed with one (!) copy. Parties filing proof~ of claim ~bo wish to ~iv~ ,, t~mrn copy of their proo~o~ claim showing the Clerk's file stamp must provide an extra copy (in addition to the original sentence) and a postage-paid, self-addressed e~velope. PROOFS OF BANKRUPTCY COURT. Persons who hold common stock, proof of int.-est at this CREDITORS MAY NOT TAKE CERTAIN ACTIONS The filing of the bankruptcy case automatically stays certain collection and oth~ actions a~ingt the debtors and th~ ~ ptolm~. Prohibited collection actions are listed in Bankruptcy Code section 362. Common examples of prohibited actions im:lude cottmetin8 tl~ debtors by telephone, mail or otherwise to de~mnd repayment; taking actions to collect money or obtain ptoper~ from the dd~to~ and sutrting or continuing lawsuits aLJnin~t the debtors. If you attempt to collect a debt or tak~ oth~ action in violation oftbe Bankmpl~ Code, you may be penalized. . . SPECIAL PROCEDURES Thc Court has entered an Order ~lishing Notice and Case Mansgemmt Procedu~s and Setting Chirra Bar Dendline and Other l~tes containing information relating to, among other things: (1) procedures gore-ming the ~ing and re'vice of motion pa/ms, oppmiliom and replies; (2) the emblishmeni of bearing dates in these bankrufgcy cases; and (3) pmcedmm for seeking ex parte or entpedil~ hearings. DISCHARGE OF DEBT8 Confirmation of a chapter 1 ! plan may result in a discharge of debts, which may include all or part of your debt. ~ Bankntptry ~ § ! 141(d). A dischnrge means that you may never try to collect the debt from the Debtors, except as provided in the plan. NOTICKS OF CERTAIN mCARINGS AND RRI.ATED MATTERS All Creditors and certain parties in interest will receive notice by mnil or by publication oftbe following tnal~s: (1) any 'h~ring on tim dismis~d of the cases or conversion of the cases; (2) the foUowing matters related to tbe plan of t~snimion: thc t~e fixed for flun_~ . objections t~ and the..hesring to consider approval of a disclosure stateme~ the time fixed for ___nccep~_~ '-~ t~-jeedng and objecting m confirmation ora plan or any modification ~f, and the hearing ~ a~nd th~ enlry of an orckn' confirming a plan; and O) any other Pursuant to the Order Ezt~lishing Notice and Case ~t Procedux~ and Setting Claims Bar Deadline and ~ Dat~, in order to r~ceive notice of other proceedings in this case, you will be r~iuired to file with the Clerk of the Bankruptcy Court and ser~ upon counsel for the Debtors a written request for notice. A copy of the Order Establishing. Notice and Case Management Ptocedm~ ami Setting Claims Bar Deadline and Other Da~s, and of the current list of the parties who a~ entitled to receive notice of matt~X is available by requesting such list from the Debtors' counsel at the following location: Murphy Sheneumt Julian & Rogers 101 California Street, ~ 3900 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone No.: (415) 616-7614 Arm: Bill Petty DATED: July __, 2001 For th~ Court: Clerk 6ftl~ Ba~ Court Todd, This is Jim Cooper with a goose update. We have trapped the following birds so far: Lake Minnewashta Lotus Lake Near Mountain area 27 33 11 (not many birds there) The folks over at Hunter, west of Lakes Lucy and Ann, indicate that they have only one family of geese and they weren't to be found anywhere. There was nothing on Lucy or Ann this year, so it looks like it's really down. We figured the populations were down due to the spring flooding. If you know of any spots that people are complaining about, please give me a page and we'll do our best to get them. My pager number is: 612-527-0323. Thanks Todd. July 13, 2001