11. Request to Subdivide 7 acres into 2 lots and create a new West 64th St. Cul-de-sac. HAZ Development If.
P.C. DATE: July 20, 1988
CITY O F C.C. DATE: Aug. 8, 1
I9 1988
f \�� ClIANIIIISSEN CASE NO: 88-17 SUB
IPrepared by: Dacy/v
STAFF REPORT
I
PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat Request to Create One Outlot and
Two Single Family Lots
I F—
Z
Q
I U LOCATION: South of and Adjacent to W. 64th Street, West of and
Adjacent to TH 41
IAPPLICANT: Roger Zahn Gary and Jan Reed
Q - HSZ Development 2461 W. 64th Street
123 No. 3rd St. , Suite 808 Excelsior, MN 55331
IMinneapolis, MN 55401
./ _ i
I
PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Single Family Residential ` --_.--- (5�-��
I ACREAGE: ;=;e silt..., :; . ,
7 3 acres -o -.gk
r:t Su,r;,ct;
DENSITY: " "I ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N- RSF & BN; single family & vacant commercia
IS- ' , RSF; single family
IQ E- RSF; single family
W- RSF; single family
1I W WATER AND SEWER: Municipal services are available.
I � PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The property contains existing residences
and raises in grade from west to east.
1 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential
I
1
HSZ and Reed Subdivision '
July 20 , 1988
Page 3
proposed cul-de-sac is proposed to be platted as an outlot as the
Reeds will be pursuing development plans in the future. In the
meantime, the applicant, HSZ Development, is filing this applica-
tion in order to comply with Council' s approval prior to partial
vacation of West 64th Street.
Also proposed on the property is the creation of- a stormwater
management pond on the east side of the proposed cul-de-sac. II
This is being provided in order to comply with the Watershed
District requirements and the city' s requirements for on-site
retention. It is then proposed to have a stormsewer pipe
constructed along West 64th Street and then south along the
Oriole Avenue paper right-of-way to its terminus at the edge of
the city park property. The proposed storm sewer plan accom-
modates not only the runoff that will coming from east of TH 41
but also the runoff from the commercial site and Reed property
( see Engineering report) .
Also proposed in compliance with Council action is the provision
of a 8 foot bituminous path in the reconstructed West 64th Street
right-of-way. A 25 foot trail easement should be reserved along
the north boundary of the plat from the cul-de-sac to TH 41 . A
similar 25 foot easement will be reserved from the HSZ site for
the remaining portion. The Park and Recreation Commission recom-
mended that park and trail fees be accepted in lieu of parkland.
The Commission also stated their desire to construct a trail
within the existing TH 41 right-of-way.
Although it is typical that a subdivision pattern is proposed in
connection with a preliminary plat, given the Council' s action
requiring creation of a cul-de-sac into the Reed property, this
application is merely to comply with the Council' s direction.
The property owner should be made aware that upon replatting that
a different street or utility plan may be required. The sub-
divider at that point would be required to make those improve-
ments .
The plat indicates a proposed street name of 64th Street West
Circle. It is recommended that 64th Street remain as named and
not changed in order to avoid confusion and to retain existing
addresses .
RECOMMENDATION
Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the a
following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Subdivision
#88-17 to create one outlot and two single family lots in the
West 64th Street cul-de-sac as presented on the plat stamped
"Received July 13 , 1988" and subject to the following conditions:
I
1 '
HSZ and Reed Subdivision
July 20 , 1988
Page 4
1 . Reservation of a 25 foot trail easement over the proposed
' 8 foot bituminous trail in the vacated 64th Street right-
of-way.
2 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with
' the City and provide the City with the necessary financial
sureties to guarantee the proper installation of this impro-
vement.
' 3 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of
the Watershed District permit.
4 . Utility easements located over the proposed sanitary sewer
and watermain between the existing West 64th Street right-of-
way and the proposed cul-de-sac right-of-way shall be shown
' on the final plat. These easements shall be 20 feet in width
minimum.
' 5 . The applicant shall provide the City with a temporary ease-
ment agreement which will allow entry onto the Reed property
for construction of the cul-de-sac and ponding site.
6 . The proposed ponding site located at the southeast quadrant
of the proposed intersection of West 64th Street and the pro-
posed cul-de-sac shall be located such that a 5-foot buffer
' exists between the existing utilities in West 64th Street and
the 100-year high water elevation for the ponding site.
' 7 . A temporary construction easement will be required from the
Minnesota Department of Transportation such that grading may
take place within the right-of-way owned by the Minnesota
Department of Transportation located adjacent to the
' northeast corner of the parcel .
8 . All erosion controls shall be in place prior to the commence-
ment of any construction, and shall remain in place throughout
the duration of construction. The developer shall periodi-
cally inspect the erosion controls and make any necessary
' repairs promptly.
9 . The plat shall maintain the 64th Street street name.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed sub-
division request subject to the 9 recommended conditions by
staff . Conrad was opposed to the subdivision because he felt
that the cul-de-sac was not the best street plan for the area.
( see attached minutes) .
1
HSZ and Reed Subdivision
July 20, 1988 '
Page 5
STAFF UPDATE
At the Planning Commission meeting the property owner and appli-
cant
raised issues regarding the location of the holding pond and
the location of the proposed storm sewer pipe to Herman Field
Park. As of the writing of this report, there has been no change
in the proposed application. ,
CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
.It is recommended that the City Council approve the subdivision '
request #88-17 based on the plans stamped received July 13 , 1988
and subject to the Planning Commission recommended 9 conditions.
ATTACHMENTS
1 . Memo from Asst. City Engineer dated July 14 , 1988 .
2 . Memo from Fire Inspector dated June 22 , 1988 .
3 . Memo from Lori Sietsema dated July 13, 1988 .
4 . City Council minutes dated April 25 , 1988 .
5 . City Council minutes dated May 31, 1988.
6 . City Council minutes dated October 6 , 1986 .
7 . Application.
8 . Planning Commission minutes dated June 20 , 1988 .
9 . Preliminary plat stamped "Received July 13 , 1988" .
1
1
11
I ,
i
CITY OF
A . CHANHASSEN
1 N ,N;
I,--:'1 ` 690 COULTER DRIVE •• P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
∎' S
(612) 937-1900
1 MEMORANDUM
Planning Commission
ITO:
FROM: Larry Brown, Staff Engineer g.�.�
J
1 DATE: July 14 , 1988
SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Review for HSZ and Gary Reed
1 Planning File 88-17 , SUB, HSZ and Gary Reed
This property is located just south of the HSZ site which was
1 located at the southwest quadrant of Trunk Highway 41 and State
Trunk Highway 7. The developer of the HSZ site and the owner of
the southern subject parcel , Mr. Reed, have reached a tentative
1 agreement such that the HSZ site may be developed. On May 31 ,
1988 , the City Council approved the vacation of West 64th Street
contingent upon the developer of the HSZ site and the owner of
1 the parcel , Mr . Gary Reed, reach an agreement for the reconstruc-
tion of a cul-de-sac through the Reed property. The 7 . 0 acre
site is composed of rolling topography with an existing home on
the southwest corner of the parcel.
1 Sanitary Sewer
I Municipal sanitary sewer service is available to the site by an
existing 8-inch diameter sewer main which runs along West 64th
Street. The appropriate utility easements should be located
along the proposed sanitary sewer main between the proposed cul-
l' de-sac and the existing West 64th Street right-of-way (refer to
attachment 1 ) .
1 Watermain
Municipal water service is also available to the site by an
1 existing 10-inch diameter watermain located within the existing
right-of-way of West 64th Street. Similarly, easements along the
proposed watermain between West 64th Street and the proposed cul-
de-sac will have to be shown on the final plat .
II ,
The applicant has provided for a 50-foot right-of-way for the
cul-de-sac. This is in accordance to the the City' s standard for
IIurban construction.
}
Planning Commission
July 14 , 1988
Page 2
Roadway
The maximum proposed street grade is approximately 1. 8% as com- '
pared to our City' s recommended standard of 7 . 0%. We find that
this is acceptable.
Grading and Drainage
As per staff 's recommendation, the applicant has shown the adja-
cent HSZ grading plan along with the proposed grading plan for
the Reed property. Staff felt that it was important to have both
these items shown together to analyze how they fit together.
The Reed Addition calls for minimal amounts of grading for
construction of the cul-de-sac. The HSZ site located on the
left-hand side of the plan set proposes a storm water retention
pond located immediately east of the proposed cul-de-sac. This
ponding site should maintain a 5-foot buffer between the 100-year
high water line and the existing utilities located within the
platted West 64th Street right-of-way.
If HSZ were to stop construction on the Reed property, the City
would need to draw down the letter of credit posted by the devel-
oper and complete the construction. For this reason, the appli-
cant needs to provide the City with an easement agreement for the
cul-de-sac and ponding site. '
This shows the installation of the storm sewer system on the
westerly side of the proposed plat which extends approximately
200 feet south of the Oriole Avenue/West 64th Street intersec-
tion. Although the proposed storm water retention system main-
tains the predeveloped runoff rate, it is recommended that the
storm sewer pipe be extended to the edge of the City property
within the Herman Field Park. The exact alignment of this storm
sewer section shall be addressed as part of the plans and speci-
fications review process. '
Recommended Conditions
It is therefore recommended that the plat for the Reed Addition '
be approved upon the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with '
the City and provide the City with the necessary financial
sureties to guarantee the proper installation of this impro-
vement . 1
2 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of
the Watershed District permit.
1 '
' Planning Commission
July 14 , 1988
Page 3
3. Utility easements located over the proposed sanitary sewer
' and watermain between the existing West 64th Street right-of-
way and the proposed cul-de-sac right-of-way shall be shown
on the final plat. These easements shall be 20 feet in width
minimum.
4. The applicant shall provide the City with a temporary ease-
ment agreement which will allow entry onto the Reed property
' for construction of the cul-de-sac and ponding site.
5 . The proposed ponding site located at the southeast quadrant
of the proposed intersection of West 64th Street and the pro-
posed cul-de-sac shall be located such that a 5-foot buffer
exists between the existing utilities in West 64th Street and
the 100-year high water elevation for the ponding site.
' 6. A temporary construction easement will be required from the
Minnesota Department of Transportation such that grading may
' take place within the right-of-way owned by the Minnesota
Department of Transportation located adjacent to the
northeast corner of the parcel.
7 . All erosion controls shall be in place prior to the commen-
cement of any construction, and shall remain in place
throughout the duration of construction. The developer shall
periodically inspect the erosion controls and make any
necessary repairs promptly.
Attachments
1. Utility Easements
MEMi
1
C.B. 105
1
I
1
\ I
C.B. 113
- \ ._.......\ q I
64th. <—STREET- °``
1--
;; I_ _ �rsj �� � � `. M H I Q9A 1 b• 6
� ' S
— --f6-8— — — � I I
/ SEE LOAill
F
1 __. , ,. um Noorkkr
20 ft. EASEMENT 'J`" ® \ 14 FIR M
1 __ _ .__ __ �:�_.a .� .�,_:. _ ' I/ / /
M.H. 111 I /
1 38, 7 O?` SQ. F7 / / / /
I / / f / � / // II- - - / / i /
/ r �'P Sid ! / viz . . .
-/ ,,House/Y , 7 / /
T v.1_56 L_ , .. I - - 7 /
•f
l ► i � lam. i / / / / / 111L.' /
q�� , - r /I i ce
t,,---
' / i_t /".'' v kitigit% /
/ / 15.5'-t/ c\l'' ks, ,-- --- — ----v \ liply / / 1
/ // / // /6\11 oc\cb -- — -- I
, , 7 , / „, 00 400
i / / / / / / , i Air \ / !
/
1 i i ( ! , /,,,ef,- — qv- - -- ____ --- / i V \ / II
\ \ t 1 1 1 1 iii;:2 / - / \ \< I
► . x \ 11 ; , ,P / i // \ / �
i
CITYOF
j
otIANHAssEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
�T.
(612) 937-1900
M MEM RA D
0 N U
' TO: Barbara Dacy, City Planner
FROM: Steve Madden, Fire Inspector
' DATE: June 22, 1988
SUBJ: 64th Street Cul-de-sac, File No. 88-17 SUB
Upon completing the site plan review for the new 64th Street cul-
de-sac, I have found that it meets the minimum requirements as
recommended by the Uniform Fire Code.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I #�
a
CITY OF
\ CHANHASSEN
1
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
1
MEMORANDUM 1
TO: Barbara Dacy, City Planner
FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator 1
DATE: July 13 , 1988
SUBJ: Gary Reed Addition
The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the Gary Reed propo- 1
sal at their June 28, 1988 meeting. The Commission was glad to
hear that the City Council requested an off-street trail along
the West 64th Street alignment. They are also aware that a
request to vacate Oriole Lane has been submitted and would like
to discuss trail possibilities on a future agenda.
As for the Reed property, the Commission recommended that park
and trail fees be accepted in lieu of parkland and trail
construction. They also wanted to remind the Council that a
trail is desired along Highway 41 and such should be constructed
within the existing right-of-way.
1
1
1
1
1
1
II
' Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
June 28, 1988 - Page 2
Sietsema : 20 is what we usually have. The grade here, as you go to the
site on the road and it ' s straight down. You' re looking at the tops of
' trees at road level .
Hasek: Yes , but Lot 2 would still be taking the same. . .
' Sietsema: That's why I 'm recommending a trail on the west side rather
than the east side. We' re not taking any trail easement from there.
Robinson moved, Schroers seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend to accept park and trail fees in lieu of parkland and trail
development. Also, to pursue trail development on the west side of
Frontier Trail for the Schlotte Addition . All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
SITE PLAN REVIEW: HSZ AND GARY REED PROPOSAL.
' Sietsema: If you recall, a while back HSZ Development came in with a
proposal talking about a street alignment for West 64th Street. What they
finally decided on was to come into the Gary Reed property, vacate this
portion of the street, this being TH 41, and have a cul-de-sac that would
go onto the Reed property. The subdivision of 7 acres into two single
family lots , one outlot and the West 64th Street cul-de-sac . That area
' would be served by Herman Field which is located to the southwest of the
development and Minnetonka Intermediate School is across TH 41. The Comp
Plan does not identify this as a park deficient area. A trail easement,
the Trail Plan calls for a trail along TH 41. If you recall at our last
' meeting I noted that we were accepting a petition from homeowners in the
area to vacate the Oriole Lane right-of-way and at that time the Park and
Recreation Commission made a motion to let the Planning Commission and
' City Council know that we would be interested in at least a 20 foot trail
easement over the existing right-of-way to get a pedestrial walkway to
Herman Field . Oriole Lane is along the west side of this property so
right down here would be Herman Field. The petition has actually come in
' and if the Commission would like to , we' ve gotten a lot of feedback from
residents in the area. If the Commission would like to review it in more
detail , I could schedule that for our next agenda . They' re expecting that
' to go to City Council in August.
Hasek: Do we have time to take a look at it?
' Sietsema : Their concerns are where the right-of-way and what kind of
trail and who 's going to be allowed to use it. How are we going to keep
motorized vehicles out and what vegetation will come down. If you'd like
to see that further , I can schedule that at the next agenda.
Mady: That would be fine . . . . together for us Lori with location of trees
' and stuff.
Hasek: I think most of the trees are right on the edge of the right-of-
way out there.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting '
June 28, 1988 - Page 3
Sietsema : If they' re within the. . .right-of-way because that was part of
our problem coming down into that. . . On that alignment to Herman Field ,
we didn' t want to take out the mature vegetation.
Robinson: Is that why these people are here?
Sietsema : Yes .
Robinson: And we should get their concerns are and address them I think
shouldn't we?
Mady: You mean a public hearing?
Sietsema: I don't know if they have any comments or not.
Mady: It might help to hear them now so you can be looking at , you have
some idea what they' re looking for. When we get that proposal back, you
could come back and this is what we have to say once we have the proposal II
in front of us.
Sietsema : Before they could do that, why don' t I finish . The 64th Street II
right-of-way, HSZ is going to be putting a trail through the old alignment
and along the north side of 64th Street in this location. The road right-
of-way on TH 41 is wide enough to accomodate an off-street trail. We did
ask for that out of the HSZ development to the north and they have
preliminarily approved the construction of such a trail . Therefore it is
staff' s recommendation to accept park dedication fees in lieu of parkland
and trail fees in lieu of trail development. ,
Mady: Is there any reason why we should go along on any of this
pending . . .?
Sietsema : No, because Oriole Lane is not part of this development . It ' s
just abutting it so I wanted to bring it to your attention because it was
adjacent to the development , to this proposal .
Mrs. Reed: Could you show us, she ' s talking about the right-of-way along
TH 41, we can ' t see from the diagram. Is she talking on the HSZ property
or the Reed property?
Sietsema : We want a trail all the way along TH 41 all the way down II to TH 5 so we would be building an off-street trail along TH 41 within the
TH 41 right-of-way. We wouldn ' t be requiring an additional 20 feet of
your property.
Gary Reed : All the way to TH 5?
Sietsema : Yes , from TH 7 to TH 5. That ' s our goal and according to the II
State, there is adequate width there so we don ' t need to acquire
additional . We did address that same issue when we saw the HSZ
development so I just wanted to bring it to their attention that we' re
I Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
June 28, 1988 - Page 4
I
II going to be continuing that trail but we won ' t be requiring any additional
right-of-way.
II Robinson moved, Schroers seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend to accept park dedication fees in lieu of parkland and trail
fees in lieu of trail development for the Gary Reed subdivision. All
Ivoted in favor and the motion carried.
Sietsema : I will schedule that for either the 12th or 26th of July and
II ' ll be sending out a notice to you on the Oriole Lane.
Gary Reed : There will be a storm sewer extending down Oriole into the
IHerman Field area and it's possibly, you can follow that.
Sietsema: Yes. That' s very possible. I don' t know if we'd go right over
IIthe top of it but it might be within the 20 feet.
Gary Reed : There ' s a 20 foot easement for that I assume. Do you take it
down the middle of the road or do you jog from side to side?
IIMady: We try to go around all the big trees . Within the 20 feet .
Sietsema: The easement itself will be 20 feet wide but the actual trail
will be 8 feet wide so we can meander within the 20 feet to miss anything.
Resident: You just stay within the right-of-way of the way the road goes
Iyou' ll be fine .
Sietsema : Right. We won' t go outside of that at all .
IGary Reed: We vacated the street and then they have to have 20 feet.
IMrs. Reed : , . .would they take more? Out to 50 feet?
Sietsemsa: It just depends on the vegetation. We could recommend that
we' re going to take the whole 50 feet for a trail easement and then
I meander an 8 foot trail within that 50 feet but we won' t take additional
outside of the existing right-of-way.
IResident: I don ' t think it is 50 foot wide.
Hasek: Oriole Lane?
IResident: _ Yes .
Hasek: I think it' s 50 foot .
IResident : . . . I was looking at that map for a while and it said 30. . .
I
M
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting ,
June 28, 1988 - Page 5
1
Sietsema : Well , whatever it said. 30 or 50, at this point it doesn ' t
matter . We just have to look at it closer and when I bring that back to
them in July, I ' ll have that information. I
Resident: I was just wondering, is it really necessary to have a trail
down there from that end of the park?
Sietsema: That's what they' ll be discussing in July. They' ll want to
discuss that more in July.
Resident: Because there ' s a dead end road down there now.
Gary Reed: There's an entrance into the park 400 feet west.
Resident : Can I ask one thing? Is the purpose for the junior high to use
that park?
Sietsema : No .
Mady: You mean classes? No . They have their own play facility. '
Sietsema: No, it would be to provide the neighborhood within. . . Our park
entrance will be off of Forest. in
Resident: So we' re going to be looking at a trail going to the other park
about 300 or 400 feet. '
Sietsema : It will just be a second access . A pedestrian access .
Hasek: A house has two doors. A park can have two doors too . '
Sietsema: We also have an easement over to the Piper Ridge subdivision so
those people can walk into the park and it' s just so that not everybody
has to drive to the park. The people within walking distance can safely
get to the park without walking on the street or across private property.
Mady: So when you bring that back to us Lori , they' ll be notified?
Sietsema: Yes .
Mady: Did you have any other concerns that we should know about before
hand? Okay. You' ll be notified then.
Gary Reed : I guess one other thing , I 'd like to see if you could put up ,
barricades so there' s no motorized vehicles.
Hasek: Yes, I think that ' s going to have to be looked at real closely '
because that would be an invitation right there. There' s a dead end
street with a trail into a park. We' ve got the same problem around Lake
Ann and we' ve had to fence it there so I 'm sure we' ll be taking a close
look at that.
' '' " Ci08
ty Council Meeting April 25, 1988
II
placed in another holding pattern while they basically photocopy
last time and I'm wondering why the City was unwilling to take he Attorne '
II recommendation from last time and act on that to get this thing resolved they said
can get our dock? y s
� feel we have...
so we
IMayor Hamilton: I think this is standard
Knutson was here. This time procedure for us. Last time Roger
and so will come up Mr. Farrell is here and he's heard the testimony
II p with the Findings of Fact and talk to Roger and I'm sure
he'll have it back to us in very short order. I suspect we'll have it back
here in a weeks time or sooner.
I Pat Farrell: Next meeting.
Mayor Hamilton: Next meeting we'll have it.
all. We'll get it just as We're not trying to delay you at
IIquickly as we can.
LOT AREA VARIANCE TO PERMIT A HOME TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON AN EXISTING 8,000
I SQUARE FOOT LOT LOCATED ON WOODHILL ROAD, LOTS 2763-2766, CARVER BEACH, R AND R
LAND VENTURES.
II Mayor Hamilton: This item was before the Board of Adjustments and A
Willard, can you inform the Council what the disposition PPeals so
position was.
Willard Johnson: We discussed it. It's a lot of record and we granted the
II variance being it's a lot of record, unanimously.
IISEVER PETERSON, PRELIMINARY PLAT EXTENSION.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman
extension until January 1, 1989 because of the to approve preliminary
Without the corridor having been approved and finalized at this point,Plat
proposed TH 212 corridor.
I
Peterson doesn't know how it's going to affect his property. knows
how it's going to affect his Until he knows
All voted in favor and motionpcarried, he can't go through a platting process.
I
-HSZ DEVELOPMENT, SOUTHWEST CORNER OF TH 7 AND TH 41:
IA. REZONING FROM OI, OFFICE INSTITUTIONAL TO BN,
B. PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST TO CREATE 3 COMMERCIALELOTSORHOOp BUSINESS.
II C. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 25,920 SQUARE FEET RETAIL CENTER.
D. PUBLIC HEARING FOR PARTIAL VACATION OF WEST 64TH STREET.
IMayor Hamilton: This is an item that's been before us many times also.
have new developers of this property who have presented a plat to us.have
I Barbara Racy, At the Planning Commission meeting on March 16
Planning Commission covered a number of issues and 1988, the
�
Chairman is here tonight, or at least I thought the Planning Commission
were discussed at the Planning Commission meeting was. with the Toning that
II issue, the traffic and the transportation all. e dealt with the rezoning
gnmen is and various items on the
II / ., 1�
24 l G C `�-"T
•
City Council Meeting . April 25, 1988
II
site plan. I'd just briefly like to review those and point out some additional
information that has been made available. As far as the rezoning action is
concerned from the office institutional to the neighborhood business district,
-the Planning Commission felt more comfortable with this proposal because of the
creation of the BN district in the new Zoning Ordinance. Now the neighborhood
zoning district specifically controls height to one story for the types of uses II
that are proposed. It also establishes a 50 foot building and
g parking setback
. from adjacent homes and requires a strict amount of screening to be constructed
. between residential and commercial properties. Further,_ it provides for a
II
specific list of neighborhood oriented uses. Another item of this proposal
that seems to gain more acceptance than previous proposals was the traffic
separation from the commercial development to the adjacent neighborhood.
Basically what that entailed, at the Planning Commission was a discussion of I
.two options. Option 1 being vacation of existing 64th Street and realignment
=-bf 64th Street further to the south of TH 41 so that a full intersection could
be created into the development on TH 41 according to MnDot standards,
II
approximately 600 feet south of TH 7. This option proposed an extension of
Oriole Lane down to it's existing terminous and then east adjacent to the Gowen
. and the Reed property. Another option that was discussed at the Planning
II
=Commission meeting, as labeled on your plans as Option 2 or staff has kind of
called it the Z option, would crisscross through the Reed property. Again,
=allowing for the full intersection farther to the north. I think it's fair to
-say that the Planning Commission felt that a reconnection to TH 41 for 64th II
Street was important. They also agreed with the neighborhood comments that
there should not be assessments created out of this road construction project
and the cost, if one of these options or another option to connect it to TH 41 I
should be born by the developer. The Council does have that option to require
that. Since the Planning Commission meeting there have been two additional
-alternatives suggested by the developer. What we're calling as Option 3 is the
construction of a cul-de-sac at the southwest corner of the commercial site on II
64th Street. This option would not make a connection back to TH 41. Option 4
- is the same principle however it goes farther into the Reed property and would
provide for future resubdivision of the Reed property. II
change from the Planning Commi.ssi.on. However, it isystaff'snrecommendataon
that a reconnection of 64th Street is very, very important to the neighborhood
: in this area. As you can tell by this overhead, this is TH 7 on the north,
II
TH 41 over here, that this Washta Bay Road/Orchard Lane neighborhood has no
access into and out of the area other than 64th Street and TH 7. There is no
' ' ability to cross or connect to Dartmouth Drive to the west because of the
wetland area. Closing off 64th Street would force all of the residential trips II
onto TH 7. TH 7 is a minor arterial and serves a different purpose. It's
purpose is to move traffic between two points at a fairly rapid speed and
without a lot of interruption. Retaining the connection of 64th Street would
II
allow traffic coming out of this neighborhood to go south on TH 41 and provides
a second means of ingress and egress. Therefore, what staff is recommending
Council to take direction on is whether or not 64th Street should be
II
reconnected to TH 41. It's our recommendation that it should be. That either
-Option 1, 2 or some other option can be evaluated in more detail when the Reed
property would come in for platting. Condition of approval that was
recommended by the Planning Commission was that that plat for the Reed property II
would be approved by the Council before construction could occur on the
commercial property. As to the site plan issues, three items that we'd like to
follow up on. One, there was concern about landscaping along the western
II
border of the site. That the landscaping would extend to the TH 7 property
25 II
or
•
a,ty Council Meeting - AN C-1 25, 1988
line. The applicant has amended his plans to add ten 6 foot evergreen trees to
extend the landscaping along the Ziegler property line and all the way up to
' TH 7. Another concern was the concern from the Watershed District about water
quality on Lake Minnewashta. The applicant has revised it's plan to provide
for an on-site storm water retention. The applicant has also revised the
' lighting plan to take better advantage of pole standards and so on and to
create lighting structures that are constructed in such a manner to protect
glare from going onto adjacent properties. The Planning Commission and staff
' recommendation remains the same from the March 16th meeting. However, we would
recommend that you would adopt the revised plans. If you'd like, Larry Brown
can address the on-site retention issue and the lighting plan issue, if you
want to go into further detail on it.
' Larry Brown: As stated in the report, kind of at the 12th hour, concerns came
up regarding the water quality as this proposed storm sewer pipe would
discharge into the Herman Field Park. Not the park itself but the wetlands
down by Herman Field Park. In going back to the Watershed District with these
concerns, they revised their initial recommendation and stated that they wanted
additional on-site ponding. The plan that you see before you tonight addresses
' those concerns by constructing two ponds. One up here in the northeast corner
and the one you don't see, because this is the old transparency, is the one
that on your plan shown in the southeast corner. These ponds do provide
' adequate sedimentation and the Watershed District has given their verbal
approval on these. As you know, they will not give their formal approval until
the Council acts on these. The other issue was the lighting concept plan.
' Since the neighborhood had up a brought u such
g great concern about the glare,
they designed out or speced out special lighting fixtures similar to the ones
that you see in the City Hall lots and kept the full heights at 20 feet such
that the glare would not be affecting any other adjacent lot owners. They have
' gone as far as taking this to a lighting consultant and had this plan analyzed
to make sure that the glare would not be affecting the adjacent property
owners. With that I'll leave it open to Council questions.
Mayor Hamilton: What I'd like to do is have the developer, do you have a
presentation you'd like to make?
' Roger Zahn: My name is Roger Zahn. I'm president of HSZ Development. I!d
just like to give a little bit of background on our approach to a number of the
issues that we saw with respect to this property as we studied it and looked
' into whether or not we should go forward with this development. Having read
the Minutes of the past Council and Planning Commission meetings and tried to
take into account the concerns raised there, many of them legitimate and trying
to solve those problems. In our approach to the development, we have tried to
a great extent to listen to the neighbors and if they had a preferred approach
that we might take, we tried to take that and work with them. That has caused
us to kind of change directions a little bit more often I think than staff
' would like us to do and perhaps we've caused a few concerns on their part by
doing that but we have done it in an effort to cooperate with the neighbors.
The cul-de-sac ideas that have been discussed and that have been brought to you
since the Planning Commission meeting were basically the neighbors preference.
The Reeds and- the Gowens, in our discussion with then initially they saw a
little bit more of the idea of moving a road all the way through onto TH 41 a
[77
little bit more favorably and I think in analyzing their own situations, they
would prefer to do it this way and that's fine with us. So we drew up some
' 26
City Council Meeting ,pril 25, 1988 r � '
II
concept plans showing that and it's also fine with us to put the road through.
i If we had a preference we would agree with the Reeds and Gowens and the other
neighbors that thing that way, that the cul-de-sac approach would probably be II
I the best and it is our preferred approach at this time. At this point I think
I'll turn, so you can see, we've got some presentation boards and we've got
John Uban from Dahigren, Shardlow & Uban here to discuss the planning issues
that he has worked on and we've got J.D. MacRae from Heise, Ryan, MacRae and
Associates to discuss the architectural concerns and also Brian Larson from
Barrientos and Associates to answer questions that you may have regarding any
I
engineering. Craig Johnson also from that firm regarding landscaping. I
think I'll turn it over to John at this point. -
John Uban: You're all very familiar with this. I will briefly show this to II
you. To give you an idea of some of the things that we looked and had to deal
with as we were trying to develop a good development scenario for this parcel.
'This is a 200 scale aerial photograph. The subject property is right at the
II
intersection of TH 7 and TH 41. This piece is isolated in a sense from the
neighborhood in that it really doesn't share access into the neighborhood
: itself and really is incumbered by the extreme exposure to the highway system
II
which actually makes it a good site for doing something like neighborhood
commercial. That's the attack we took and yet at the same time, all the
_ residents in the pattern of development that has happened in the past, really
spoke to try to separate the traffic systems from these two uses. So we looked II
at a method of doing that. We worked with the neighbors to really came out
with the best plan. Also to the south is a major Hennepin County park and open
I space system. The actual property is divided up into many single family plots II- onto the west and we have on Oriole Drive the connection of 64th over to TH 41
` the way it exists today. That connects to TH 7 and loops back across into the
neighborhood and to the west. So we looked at the land to the south owned by
two individuals to see what kind of options we had. We also looked at the area II
circulation and did studies and we looked at the basic water drainage system.
Here we found that there were some ponds put in place by the Highway Department
- that were draining the norther portions of the site but primarily most of it
II
came through a very informal fashion and found their way into a marshland just
before it entered the lake which is a good natural system to take care of the
water. So now we've only tried to augment that to meet the criteria of the
II
Watershed District and the City so this water is now handled the best way
: _possible. We've studied this and solved some problems. There's water that
comes across the road. We've looked at all of those developments. In our
_ discussions, staff has already reviewed the options that we've looked at but we II
` _ did several things. We met with MnDot. We tried to work out problems that
- they had. Proposing to add a lane, a by-pass lane and then a deaccerleration
-_ and acceleration lane for the entrances. What we've developed then is a piece
II
of land with it's own full access which separates it completely from the
neighborhood and this went a long way to really get the use integrated with
much better architecture, lower buildings, good landscaping, good setbacks, low
glare lighting, all these features to really make it work. We also worked II
with MnDot to try and develop a solution to a very dangerous situation. It is
very difficult for westbound traffic to make a left turn onto Oriole Lane so we
_ worked with them and they will now, this summer, be restriping that section of
I
ti the road for a dedicated left turn lane because in the past people have been
sittin g high s in there, hi h peed traffic coming up behind them and they're sitting
there waiting to make this seemingly innocuous left turn and it's very
II
dangerous. People have almost gotten hurt so we've worked to try and solve
27 II
City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988
I
that problem and we thing we have worked that out now with MnDot. This
' development looked at different ways of putting access into the land to the
south to give than future development potential. Really what we've done is
opened up the realm of possibilities and what could happen, there are several
' different solutions. This one looped through and followed the existing
right-of-way here but some of the neighbors didn't want this road. Didn't want
to finish out some of the platted roads that were in the area. So we looked at
' another system in which 64th was kept in place that then hopped down to the
Reed property, followed the property line out then to TH 41. This worked
except maybe the timing isn't quite right for both parties at the same time and
then we would not extend Forest Avenue either. The neighborhood did not want
' that to happen. So that's what led us to the final solution. That's maybe not
the best name for it but hopefully it's one that will work very well. The
cul-de-sac idea really is only the first phase of the previous kinds of
' solutions that we looked at. One in which Mr. Reed can develop a few lots,
culminate 64th Street into a safe cul-de-sac and then it offers the platting
and the continuation of the street that could open up the rest of the land in
Mr. Gowen and Mr. Reed on out to TH 41 so it does resolve that deadend issue in
' that it can be completed. It does not use other existing right-of-way. It
doesn't have to although the City certainly has the choice of completing the
road system that exists and eliminating the other cul-de-sac. This also has
' the potential, and is requested by the City for safety purposes as an interim
solution to this cul-de-sac is to provide emergency access right up into the
site itself which we can do if it's really required so all of this is really
designed as a first step. These two landowners are not developers really.
' They're people who own the land, have owned it for a long time and are not
necessarily in a good position today to really jump in and take on all the
responsibilities of development but this is a solution that they can live with
' and it gets then into working with their land on a slower pace. We think this
works very well and will solve all the problems with circulation for the site
itself. It works with the standards of MnDot. It helps revive a solution that
should have been looked at a long time ago with the left turn lane into Oriole
and it really starts the development pattern I think working out very
successfully. We've worked hard. We've met with everyone and we think we have
before you tonight the best solution we can produce and I think you'll see,
' when you see the product, the site design, that it really is going to be a very
good development for you. I'll turn it over now to J.D. to go through that
development unless you have any questions of me.
Councilman Boyt: How long is your cul-de-sac?
' John Uban: This small one, I'll measure it exactly. A little over 500 feet.
Councilman Johnson: All the way.
' Councilman Boyt: There's a second entrance there Jay on the bottom.
John Uban: I'm measuring from this to this.
' Councilman Johnson: All the way up. That's your one and only entrance.
Councilman Boyt: No. It comes out another part of TH 7.
[E:
28
0�L II
" . , City Council Meeting April 25, 1988
I
- Joh
n Uban: There are different ways of looking at it. If you want to measure
4
it from TH 7, obviously we have several hundred more feet there but there's a
I platted road through here that forms a'road. Physically it is not in place I
but it's platted right-of-way.
Councilman Boyt: That other one is another 600 or 700 feet up to TH 7? That II
extension? ' -
Councilman Johnson: Where Orchard intersects.. . II
Councilman Boyt: I think I've got the idea. "
: John Uban: If you're measuring from TH 7, this is over 500 feet. 1
Councilman Hoyt: Like about 1,000. - '
John Uban: That's why we're providing the option II
then can pursue the dedication through easements and dedication right-of-way landowner
for the completion of the roadway. I
J.D. MacRae: My name is J.D. MacRae. I'm with Heise, Ryan, MacRae and
Associates. We're the architects on the project. To go quickly through the
II
site issues first of all. Again, reorientating, TH 7, TH 41, full access
onto TH 41 and a right turn lane only off of TH 7. We chose to build up on TH
7 two outlots that would be sold off for commercial uses. Then pulled our site
",_ back away from TH 7 feeling that the highest visibility is TH 7. The best
I
_ useage for those lots then, for that intense type use on that outlot would be
i --up on TH 7. We then orientated the building along the south property line.
`Following the property line. We orientated it that way for two reasons. One,
the intersection with the stop light. . Full visibility of the project. The I
most sighted for the retailers. Secondly, trying to reduce the impact of building on the neighborhood to the west which was of great concern. The
our
II
, __ i-mpact to the south obviously, we have a lot of building along there but due to
_ _ ' the height difference between this piece of property and the property to the
south, they're really looking up through a berm and seeing very little of the
building from this height. - We then have an accessory building which is on the
II
west side. Again, trying to minimize the amount of building there with a
Maximum amount of square footage that you can put on this site. We then have
the parking out in front with some drive-up parking along the center. The
parking meets all the requirements of the City. The setbacks to the paving are II
actually about 59 feet I believe we have here rather than the 50 foot setback.
Most of that is due to the grade difference from about this point to this point
and the needing for the slope and the berm up on top to the landscaping which II
,we'll get to in a moment. Well, we can get to it right now. We have a
landscape plan here which has been amended, is not amended on here, continuing
landscaping up to TH 7 as Barb had discussed. We have fir trees all along the
I
perimeter of the property intermixing types of vegetation other t
Scotch Pine. Then down below it we have sumac n. and bringing i n
Craig Johnson: We have deciduous shrubs.
II
a
J.D. MacRae: Along this portion of the berm. We then have deciduous trees out
in front that are thin, light trees so again the visibility is easy to see
II
through. We have an arcade of trees on each side of the entrance making
II
29
I .
City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988
II
somewhat of a parkway entrance off of TH 7.- Then landscaping out i.n. here.
I With that landscaping, this all meets down here. The landscaping along the
perimeter, we've also incorporated berming along the top of. this hillside here
to help screen the residential. We have sight section A, B, C and D which are
reflected here showing a typical two story house and it's proper elevation and
I the relationship of distance and height to our project. Through this accessory - , ,
building we would actually berm up onto the back of the building and carry the
berm up somewhat higher and then scotch pines and the deciduous trees... The __
II sight line actually from eye level on the second level cutting across, I
believe we see about a foot of the accessory building. You get into the small _ _
side of the retail center itself, again here cutting through; you see about the
I same amount of building. Not taking into consideration that we have
landscaping on top of that that is there year round. On the back side, Section
C and D, we're just showing there is obviously no development down there.
II These are the existing contours coming up the hill and again showing the
minimal amount of the building with the berm itself and then the landscaping up
on top of the berm. The biggest concern we have with the terming was to hide
the cars and hide the parking lot so we're not looking at a parking lot.
I Looking at a minimal amount of building. Making the smallest amount of impact.
Getting to the actual building itself, along the front side, the street side,
we have windows, full height from the sidewalk 9 feet high. We have a canopy
II that carries across the face of the building that sticks over the sidewalk so
you can walk underneath the canopy. Then we anchor at each end of the
building, this is sort of a shorten elevation, this is the actual elevation to
make sense of how long it really is. We have anchored each side of the
f_.
I building with an architectural element that sticks up above the top of. the
building and using brick and rock face concrete block, we tried. to make a real
pretty elevation here and'here. Again, with' the glass and concrete, columns
II going across here, the signage will be incorporated into the canopy. We then
wrap around the corner here carrying the brick back to about a two-thirds point
and then it's a rock faced- block mask that sticks 2'8" here and then wraps
around the back side of the building. We've clad the roof of the canopy and
Ithe roof of these two elements in a red standing seam roofing.. This black mass
you see back behind is another metal roofing that is being used as a screening
element for the rooftop units. It runs the continuous length of.the building.
I Again, it has the two-thirds point back, wrapping around this concrete mass and
then coming around the back of the building a short distance and terminating.
We chose to do that for two reasons. One, the intersection of TH 7 and TH 41
is slightly higher than the floor height here which means somebody sitting in
I their car would have the opportunity to look up onto the roof and see not the
roof but would see the rooftop units. We think that's very distracting and not
good looking. Two, as we drive along this side on TH 41, TH 41 is as high as
1 our building is and you actually have the opportunity to look down upon the
building. Again, trying to lessen the impact of the rooftop unit. I'll leave
you with, and we have a rendering to give you sort of an image idea of what
1 kind of a center we're talking about. A very high quality, nice materials.
Again, the sign band up in the canopy. The canopy going back. Many people
walking along the sidewalk. Only two cars, I don't know how they got there.
Then our tall element up here. Again, the tall decidious trees out in the
II parking lot for minimum impact.
Mayor Hamilton: Anybody from the neighborhood like to make comments? . If you'd
[7
II like to, now is your 'chance. Preferably if there is somebody representing the
whole group I'd appreciate hearing from them rather than each individual.
1
30
c 1
City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988
II
4 Gene Conner: I'm the next door neighbor to Bob Wagner on Orchard Lane. Bob
t poked me and said okay, it's your turn. I feel like I've kind of been II
subjected over the years to the Chinese water torture with this project. I
must admist that I do have to congratulate the developers for finally coming up
2 with something that at least seems like a reasonably intelligent approach 1
the project. I really can't say that for previous a g stillch to
P approaches. I still have
reservations. It's been said over and over and over again that that area is
not suitable for residential. I really don't believe it. Since that's been
said so many times it's almost become a thing with me. I drive around and II
I look at residential development areas that are close to highways much busier,
much bigger than that one and see really nice places being built close to
intersections. That property also has enough contour in it so that residences
II
-could have been built in off 64th Street with, I think .the highways would not
have bothered them at all. I built facing TH 7 and I don't have a problem
with TH 7 and I think there is some property in there, most of the property in
there could have been utilized with more screening toward the highway than I II
had. But the Council in all their wisdom has decided that that's not going to
- be residential. I still think it's suitable for the OI that it's presently
• designated. I guess I'm not sold on a commercial type development in there yet
II
although this is far better than what we've had in the past. I do have two
- areas of concern with this however and that is the two pieces of undeveloped
--property in front of it. I mean as sure as God made little green apples, the
II
next approach is going to be for a full blown commercial on those lots because
- they're facing right out on the highway. It's creeping commercialism. I just
know in my own heart that if this goes in, that is going to go full blown
- commercial out there. Maybe not with this Council. It's easy for this Council I
to say it won't happen but down the road you people won't always be here.
L - Again, my congratulations however to the developers, a very fine presentation.
-' Ben Gowen: I'm the adjacent property to the south of Reeds. Under the latest II
proposal of the cul-de-sac, I see where I'm not involved one iota now or in the
future. If I've got that wrong, please correct me. Another thing, it was
' mentioned by Barb earlier that during the Planning meeting it was stated by her II
that Reed's plotting was a part of the discussion. I don't think that was a
-.fact in the Planning meeting. Otherwise, I'm for the commrecial corner. I
think there's only one way to do it and that's commercial.
II
Bob Wagner, 2511 Orchard Lane: Of course I couldn't pass_ up the opportunity to
come up here and talk to you guys again. I'd like to take you back to your
I
',August 3rd Commission meeting in which you met without the luxury of us, the
homeowners, and Mayor Hamilton talked to Councilman Johnson and he said if the
ingress and egress on that property could be resolved to Councilman Johnson's
• satisfaction, would he be in favor of commercial and he said yes. I think II
- that's still a major issue from what I've heard tonight. I'm not sure I've
heard the proper solution. We've talked about two options, two of which were
discussed at the Planning Commission meeting. Two of which were discussed for
II
' the first time tonight, at least amongst us homeowners that are here. One of
those I have heard is very disturbing to me and that's where we talk about an
-- emergency route, if you will, back up into the shopping center which to me
II
} - means we're distroying the privacy, we're tearing down berming, we're not
protecting the residential any longer. Of course I understand where that's
coming from. We have 1,000 foot or longer cul-de-sac which is against the Code
II
I believe. I'm more opposed to the entrance back into the shopping center than
anything and I think that deserves a lot of discussion. I think it destroys
-
. r
31
1 73
C _
City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988
I
the concept that we were trying to sell in the beginning which is keep it
Ir
1 separate. Councilman Boyt made a statement on August 3rd, he said to vote on
that we've got to be able to show that there's a significant portion of the
neighborhood that supports it. I've heard Ben get up and say he supports it. •
I I have yet to hear anybody else in the neighborhood 9 get up and say they support
it. I don't know what you consider significant but I don't consider one or two
neighbors significant. I think I've heard a lot more neighbors o that
for. Councilman Geving said something a little bit better quality, brriing that
1 back or something that could sell the quality angle. Keeping it separate from
the homeowners. Low density. Bring us back something that's good quality, low
density, good separation from existing homes. I think the one point in that
I that should be discussed is intensity. I think if you look at the records and
if you look at previous proposals, this may be less intense by 1,000 square
feet but you're not considering the other property up front yet to be developed
and I would challenge that to the question of intensity. Mayor Hamilton made a
1 comment in that meeting about, I'll quote, I can't for the life of me figure
out how they can complain about noise, talking about the neighbors, or whatever
it was they were complaining about that far away from the road. I think
1 they're complaining about something that isn't a problem and I think I'm being
realistic and they're not. I think if that's true Mr. Mayor, then residential
would fit there. If noise isn't an issue. Going back to the Planning
1 Commission meeting, the last meeting we attended, it was stated by Barb Dacy
that as to this application, what we're saying is they can't start building
here until the City has resolution on the street connection issue. From the
staff standpoint, that's the major issue and that is to get the traffic
1 connection back to TH 41. That's on page 15, about the third paragraph.
I still think that's the issue tonight. I hear a sense in change in direction.
I guess I'm just concerned that it's adequately discussed. There is a
1 presentation on this board that shows two buildings. One is the 26,000 square
foot building but there's another building placed off to the side in the
presentation that is not part of what they're planning on developing. That
particular building sits right behind Ziegler's home and that would in fact
1 create a privacy issue with them in that it would protect them from the
shopping center. I just want to point out to you that's really not in this
phase of development unless they could find a builder but I think the way
1 they're presenting it, it's not in there although it's in the picture. The
statement was made about the berm and the statement was made that it's somewhat
higher than the parking lot. Having lived through this in front of my house
I with what was the Baltic property, somewhat highwer is a very disturbing term
to me. I'm still looking for the landscaping and the evergreen trees that was
reserved with a letter of credit at that time. It's still not there today.
II That's back in 1979 so I think somewhat higher is a rather elusive term and I
think you need to do a better job of finalizing what that is. We talked about
the view from TH 41 as we listened to this and the fact that somebody could sit
in their car and possibly look down, at least slightly on the units on the top
1 of this building, I'd like to point out to the Council that I live on the hill
higher than TH 41 and I'm going to have the opportunity to look down across the
whole roof, not just part of it. I think that's an issue. A community f.ssue.
Maybe very much a personal one but with good reason. I've been here before and
1 I would like to see something directed in that area. We talked about the
pleasing look. I call it the Canterbury stables look with the two cones on top
of the roof. I would ask you to verify that that's within the height limit of
1
[7
the Building Code for BN. I think it might be out of that area that's
approved. I think that's the major issues.
1
32
1
City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988
II
r
i Gar Reed:
i y My brother and I own the property that's adjacent to the shopping II
a center on the south. As far as the shopping center going in, it just depends
on what Mr. Zahn is going to do for us. If we vacate the street, we have
approximately five sewer and water system that we're not currently paying for
II
along the street so that is the reason for the extension of the cul-de-sac into
the property. We felt that that would be a good compromise to vacate the
street. That we would then be able to develop around the cul-de-sac area which
°`would give us a little more depth into the property. Then the drainage
II
situation that is currently there, where it cuts through the property, would
have to be dealt with if this concept were to be accepted. We have a lot of
- -drainage that comes off of the West Jr. High or whatever it is now, the Middle
I
School, that-comes off of their parking lot and cuts through our property and
it can be a torrent at times so I think we're looking for the developer to look
at that situation too because it would certainly be a part of his drainage
-problem and we all met at one spot there. We would hope to also be applying II
for a BN type zoning on probably the front 3 1/2 acres and residential then
around the cul-de-sac area. We feel that being back up to the shopping center,
Ben Gowen has conditional use running on the other side of us and then to the
II
south is the park and school and so on, that we would also apply in the future
for a BN for the frontage along the highway. We asked Roger for a permanent
• - easement into his parking lot so that we would then have two exits. One on TH
II
- 41 and then into his parking lot for that frontage. Then develop the back lots
as residential at some future plat that you would have that comes before you.
These are just some of my thoughts on it. We would be in favor of the cul-de-
. sac idea that's being proposed as we could work it out with Roger. I
- Councilman Geving: Are you in favor then of that second access into the
shopping center from your property to the north? You're the one that worked
I
out and negotiated with the developer?
- Gary Reed: In the front part of his parking lot we would ask for an easement
over his parking lot so that if we did develop it, we could then be part of his II
' entrance and exit. We could exit out ours and then we would have no impact on
-the neighborhood as far as traffic flow is concerned. Now if you're talking
about the emergency access to the back.
II
Councilman Geving: That's what I'm really talking about.
Gary Reed: I think if that's handled properly, there shouldn't be any traffic II
-back through. My wife and I were concerned about the people that walk up to
- the school, we suggested to Roger and he agreed that putting a bike path up
through and along the shopping center and then that would double as the II
emergency entrance into the cul-de-sac area if an-emergency vehicle needed to
go in there. Possibly leave a notch in the berming. At that point, I don't
think it would bother anybody. I guess I hoped a little bit about protecting
II
• the rooftop units on the front of the building but I would certainly like to
see them protected on the back side too. I wouldn't like to look at-them.
Councilman Geving: So you're in favor of the project as it's being proposed 1
tonight?
Gary Reed: Well, as the amendments go on, as long as we work things out.
II
r
33
A
II "
City Council Meeting - App 25, 1988
IILarry Brown: Point
of clarification. I think Barb had put up on the overhead
there, and correct me if I'm wrong Mr. Reed but I believe that was the entrance
I that you were in favor of. The one showing on the right hand side. Not
confused with the one that the applicant had shown.
I Gary Reed: That was the easement I had discussed with Roger and this concept,
this isn't exactly laid out the way it would be probably. The concept is the
same but I would prefer it being forward here so, this isn't really to scale. I
I have 155" feet in here. My house and my sons house would be built on that and
then I would like another 100 feet or 150 feet in the lots here and another 100
here...
ICouncilman Boyt: How many acres do you have?
Gary Reed: There's approximately from, I'm severing this off so the rest would
Ibe probably 7-7 1/2 acres or so.
Councilman Boyt: So you're looking at about half of that BN?
IGary Reed: Yes, just enough to put one business on the property. We've had
the drive-in up there for years you know and I've been talking to some people
that would reconstruct that idea and make a restaurant. Put an extension on
I the Reed's Drive-in theme. Operated for years and it was an asset to the
community.
II Paul Kerner, 6351 Minnewashta Woods Drive: I'm just here on behalf, we want to
see some commercial development at that location. I just wanted to show my
support.
I_
IMayor Hamilton: We should take them one at a time and
look at the
from OI to BN first of all. After that we'll look at the preliminary zplatgand
I see if we can't hammer out something that's workable there. Jay, do you want
to start? Do you have any comments on the rezoning issue?
II Councilman Johnson: Since this is the first reading of rezoning and the change
to our ordinance on the cause for rezoning, and we're putting conditions in the
plat and site plan review and stuff, we prevent a second reading until we've
satisfied the other conditions, I don't have a lot of problem right now with
I the rezoning because it's not a total rezoning at this time. I believe that BN
is better than OI for the neighbors in that the OI is three story buildings
maximum at this time and possibly in the future will even be taller buildings
I in the future so theoretically four years down the road, we could see a six
story office building in this area if one of the premise that we have, the
three story restriction on is because, one of the reasons is because the fire
trucks can't fight a fire at this time. The new platform truck we'll have a
I couple years from now, we may be changing that ordinance. It's quite possible
that OI in this area, we could have a fairly extensive, several hundred square
foot office building placed in this area that could cause even worse problems
I than the BN. Even currently you could put three stories worth of office
buildings in here which could be a considerable amount of square footage of
area. A lot of employees. A lot of traffic. A lot of potential problems.
k7
II Site wise, a three story building is a heck of a lot harder to berm away then a
one story building. Given this is the first reading and it's not final until
I34
•
J.
City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988
II
1 r- the second reading, we're not actually rezoning it tonight, until we get the
single issue here is access and I'm going to talk more about access and I think
everybody else is going to talk more about access on the next phases of this II
but to me, this section should either be residential or business neighborhood.
Right now we don't have anything before us saying go residential. Business
neighborhood to me would be better than OI for the residents in the II
neighborhood. -
Councilman Horn: I'll just repeat what Jay said. I think the BN makes sense. I
I think the BN makes a good transition for this area.
Councilman Geving: Bill, do you have any comments on just the first issue I
please. The rezoning issue. Just limit it to that at this time.
Councilman Boyt: I have a hard time separate this out into four issues. I'll
make an attempt. I think that the strongest tool that we have here is the II
request for rezoning and that takes a four-fifths vote. I was happy to be
reminded of what I had said earlier by Mr. Wagner. It's always nice to be
haunted by one's quotes Mr. Wagner. I would suggest that it's somewhat
II
difficult for me to know, I know this issue is probably beaten down a lot of
the neighbors and it must be hard to get up and rally the troops one more time.
I have heard that there is some sense that this is better. Whether it's good
II
_ enough or not I think is something we have to hammer out between now and when
it's finally improved. My guess would be that this developer is determined to
meet all reasonable interests of the neighborhood and I would anticipate
i eventual approvement. You show me that a significant part of the neighborhood II
is in fact opposed and I'll vote against it. By significant I mean you show me
- that, for my vote, that somewhere in the neighborhood of 60% to 70% of the
neighborhood is opposed to this kind of development. I'd vote against it. I
I
think it's incumbent upon the developer to meet the concerns of the
neighborhood. I think the neighborhood has said that yes, the developer is
-_ moving in that direction. TA; have this zoned, it's kind of an unfortunate
zoning. I think Jay has mentioned one reason it's unfortunate. I think II
another one is, it's taking a valuable piece of property out of circulation in
the community. I think the thing that will keep this piece of property from
developing residential is it's commercial value. Eventually someone, they II
__ can't afford to put a house there because the land is potentially worth that
much. I think you've seen that over the years. You've seen it with four
different attempts to develop it commercially. As far as the preliminary
II
reading, I think that it's very important for the developer to show a
significant support of the neighborhood. I don't see a significant part of the
neighborhood saying that they oppose it so I think it's incumbent upon the
, neighborhood to do that. This is pouring gasoline on the fire but I happen to II
agree with you that since a conditional use for a 'BN is a convenience store
- with gas pumps or an automotive service station, I would be inclined to think
that what we're really looking at here is a very good screening system. I
II
__ think it's a fairly good screening from that but I would anticipate that the
_ use right off of TH 7 would be more intense than the shopping center: It's all
projections so how do I know? Put simply, I like what I see. I think that
II
I there has-been a good bit of adjustment to the concerns of the neighborhood. I
don't see a significant portion of the neighborhood speaking against it and yet
I want you to know that I will stand by my earlier quote.
Councilman Geving: I think that we have come a long way in this development 11
II
35
cl
II City Council Meeting - Api,l 25, 1988
from where it was just several years ago. I think that the developers have
' gone back to the homeowners and made a really significant attempt to work with
the homeowners. I got this impression and that was the marching order that we
gave to the developers. To meet with the homeowners. Work out the problems.
Try to keep the separation as was mentioned earlier from the homeowners and
' don't impact them in terms of assesments. This is your project and it's very
important that it remain your project. If there are improvements to be made in
your area, they should not impact upon the homeowners in terms of assessments
' for roads and whatever is going to be constructed here. I think we've come a
long ways in terms of trying to look at that corner. Now two years ago, we
made an attempt to look at this as an office institutional area. We thought
offices might be the way to go. It just didn't happen and I guess the market
' research and the studies will indicate that there just isn't a demand, a great
demand for office at this time. Certainly not at that location. I think it's
time to develop this property. I think it's time to develop that corner. In
time it will get developed. Whether it's now or at some future time. The
concern that I have is that we continue to look at the separation of the
development from the homeowners both on the west and to the south and I'm very
much concerned about the drainage issue. There's going to be a lot of water
coming south and to the southwest. It's happening now in fact and we're going
to intensify that with any kind of construction. The big concern of course is
the highway issue. I know we're on the rezoning issue but it all has to do
with rezoning. I'm for rezoning personally because I think until we resolve
that we can't go onto the other issues on the preliminary plat and look at
where we're going. For the record, I'll be for rezoning this from OI to BN.
Mayor Hamilton: It's certainly been a difficult piece of land to work with
over the years and I like the plan I see. I know that office industrial space
on the strip for instance, has between 17% and 25% vacancy rates. It's
understandable that somebody wouldn't want to come in here and put in any
office/industrial. It's just not in demand for it right now so I'm very much
in favor of rezoning this to BN. I think it's a good use for the corner. I
' also feel that to reply to Mr. Connor's comment, I think if there had been
somebody who wanted to do, felt it was a good residential corner, it's been
available for so long that someone would have been here requesting to do that.
' It appears that this is the use that the people with the money who want to
invest it to do something, this is the use they want to use it for and I think
it's a good use for that corner.
' Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to a rove the Rezoning
Request #85-2 to rezone 7.63 acres from OI, Office Instituti.onaltoBN
' Business Neighborhood, First Reading as legally described in the proposed plat
application. All voted in favor except Councilman Boyt who opposed and motion
carried.
PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST TO CREATE THREE COMMERCIAL LOTS.
' Mayor Hamilton: We have Outlot A and B which will be developed at a future
time and the Lot C which has the retail strip center on it which we have before
us.
' 36
. II' City Council Meeting Cpril 25, 1988 j
Councilman Johnson: My main comment on this one is rewording of condition 1
. which currently reads, approval of the preliminary plat and site plan shall be
contingent upon the vacation of 64th Street right-of-way, approval of final
plat of the Reed property. I think we've got a real problem with Options 3
and/or 4 because I see this as an extreme, extreme might too far, I see this as
a public safety issue and a public convenience issue. When we cul-de-sac that
- property, that forces these homeowners living on Oriole and that area, they
have to exit onto TH 7. I hate exiting onto TH 7 up there. I drive up there
every once in a while and I purposely go down Oriole and_around on 64th Street
so I can get onto TH 41 where it's much safer to drive. Somebody in a Trans Am
- might have a better chance than me in my Horizon. I appreciate the developers
pointing out to MnDot that you can make that left turn lane in there and
hopefully that will work. That's one place where I saw death coming in my rear
-- -view mirror one day. What I'd like to do is redo this number 1 to make it a
- little more restrictive. Say, approval of the second reading of the zoning
ordinance change, preliminary plat and site plan should be contingent... '
- Mayor Hamilton: What page are you on?
Councilman Johnson: Page 11. Under City Council recommendation. First item. '
Say approval of the second reading of the zoning ordinance change, preliminary
plat and site plan shall be contingent upon the vacation of 64th Street right-
of-way, approval of a final plat for the Reed property with no commercial, i.e.
retail, business neighborhood, etc., access to the relocated 64th Street. Then
continue on the way it is. In other words, the purpose for moving 64th Street
in the first place is to prevent commercial traffic from being on 64th Street.
That's one of the things the neighborhoods have complained about over the years
is that traffic. That was the neighborhood concern that I'm addressing here.
The movement of 64th Street to the south side of the Reed property and then
rezoning the Reed property BN and allowing an access from this BN onto the
commercial property has done absolutely nothing. All we did was separate. If
the Reed property can be serviced from the existing entrance on the proposed
shopping area without having to have their own access to TH 41, which MnDot '
won't allow them to have anyway, without having access to 64th Street, then it
could work. But at no time will I vote for any plan that closes 64th Street's
..:access to the TH 41 for any significant period of time. It can be closed
. during construction.
Mayor Hamilton: We're still on (b) .
Councilman Johnson: That _i.s (b) .
Mayor Hamilton: You're talking about (d) now. You're on 64th Street. '
Councilman Johnson: That's right. Condition 1 talks about 64th Street. If we
don't approve this then (d) is just out the window anyway. That's the length
of my real comment on this. I do want to compliment the developers here
because they have gone a quantum leap I think from the last development I saw
when I was here as a citizen, the citizens from this area were also here
protesting Copperwood Developments or whatever it was back then and we have
made some improvements here. I think there's room to work and we might
actually get this accomplished.
37 '
City Council Meeting - A i.l 25, 1988 `--
II
Councilman Geving: I just want to go back to the Watershed retention of the
I stormwater to assure ourselves that that's going to be retained on-site and the
1r
staff update is correct as far as the record is concerned there in that the
indication was that it's going to be retained in two places. Is that correct?
ILarry Brown: That's correct. On the southeast and northeast corner.
Councilman Geving: You've calculated this out and this will work?
IILarry Brown: I have checked the applicant's calculations and they are true to
form.
ICouncilman Geving: I still believe that we've got to get 64th Street out to
TH 41. I just feel that somehow or another that's got to happen. I will
continue to work in that regard. I have no other comments about the platting.
II think we're in good shape here and I'll go along with that.
Councilman Horn: My biggest concerns are the transportation. At one point we
II thought we found a way to eliminate the left turn on TH 7 which seemed to me
like a good way to go. The problem I'm really having with this whole thing is
when I put together a whole transportation thing in a vaccum it makes a lot of
sense to go one way but when I hear what all the neighborhood concerns are and
I the developer concerns and the people who have property and they want to
develop in that area, this scenario isn't quite simple. I guess we have an
ultimate access to Herman Field now but my first impression on this is that I
II would somehow develop another access to Herman Field and I'd get an alternate
out to TH 41 and I'd take as many accesses off of TH 7 as I could. But
understanding the realities of what we're living with, I would support the last
I recommendation which is to put a cul-de-sac in. I think that's the best
compromise with all the bodies and the all the people who are concerned about
this because it is going to impact the neighborhood. There's no question about
that. I think we've got to be sensitive to minimize it. I'm also concerned
I about this emergency access from the parking lot. I'm not so sure how we're
going to handle that and I want to make sure that we don't misuse that and have
bicycles and trail bikes and everything else going back into the neighborhood
I through that area. I want to make sure we handle that. Just to summarize, I
think what we have here is the best compromise. Certainly it wouldn't be the
plan that I would have come up with the first time I looked at this without
hearing all the input but I think it's workable.
ICouncilman Boyt: No comments.
I Mayor Hamilton: I have no problem planning and creating three commercial lots
on this particular piece of property. I have a little problem with the first
condition that says that approval of this is contingent upon approval of a
final plat for the Reed property. I'm not sure we can do that, number one.
I Mr. Reed could just, if he wanted to, drag his feet and change his mind and do
everything he can think for the next 20 years and never reach an agreement so
I'd like to ask Pat, that doesn't seem to me to be a reasonable thing to put in
Ia condition. _
Pat Farrell: About half an hour ago I starred that particular point with a
[7
II question mark. I'm not so sure that that is an appropriate condition. As
I understand it, there is not a preliminary plat or any sketch plan or anything
I38
�r 1
" . City Council Meeting Ap _
ril 25, 1988 ' , . •
by Mr. Reed at this point. I understand where you're trying to get to. I II
think it's appropriate for the Council to apply pressure, if that's the right
schoice of words, upon the developer to acquire this right-of-way and the layout II
s of the Reed property and that it all be considered but that's not the way to do
it.
Mayor Hamilton: I would prefer to see us put conditions in that the develop I
continue to work with the Reeds as far as developing their property and getting
access to it. We could actually leave 64th Street as it is for this parcel to
develop as long as the developers need to work with the Reeds to continue to
II
come up with the proper layout for their property.
Pat Farrell: One of the things, as I understand this layout, you may have to
II
go to the Reed property to accomplish the connection of the street. One of the
things that you could put in there that in the event that access is not
obtained through the Reed property and the City has to come in with it, the II developer pay for it. That might be a little bit tough but it's the only thing
that I can think of at this point. You're going to need that and it's going to
cost money unless he plats. If he chooses not to plat, you have a problem that
requires a solution that requires money. I
Barbara Dacy: Two points of clarification. The property couldn't go ahead and
build with the full access onto TH 41 and with 64th Street there. MnDot has
II
said, if they want a full access, 64th Street entrance has to go.
Mayor Hamilton: They said that specifically?
1
II
Barbara Dacy: Right. In their letter that's attached to the report. If I
- can, maybe the Attorney can help me out, if the words in the condition are not
phrased the right way, maybe we can work together to reword that so that it is
II
appropriate but the point being is that the intent is that the City wants to
insure that the realigned 64th Street is connected to TH 41 and we want that
surety prior to them building on this lot. The intent being is that the only
II
way we would get to this point would be to have an assurance that the
development contracts there which is usually as a result of a plat application.
However, if you're saying that a plat is not necessary but some other type of
assurance, staff's objective in any case was to make sure that 64th Street
II
would be reconnected.
Mayor Hamilton: I understand that and I think that's a good idea. However, to
II
tie it to another person's platting of their land is unreasonable I think to
the developer in this case.
. Pat Farrell: Illegal too.
I
Mayor Hamilton: Okay, illegal. Let's come right out and say it. As a
condition of the development contract I think it could be put in there that the
I
_ developer needs to continue working with the Reeds. What I was trying to say
is that we'll attempt to work with the Reeds and with the developers to
_ accomplish this so that it's fair with everybody but allowing the developers to
II
continue-with their project so this thing doesn't sit here for another couple
1 of years.
39
I
-Elly Council Meeting 47- il 25, 1988 r
Gary Warren: I think, and we're trying to sta y on each
prepared by staff memo for the vacation issue, goes over item here but as I
er and over here how
' can you spec even in a development contract performance for HSZ of an item that
at this point is almost out of his control. That being the Reed property. I'd
be uncomfortable a little bit I guess even trying to write a condition that
' says you have to provide a connection of West 64th Street to the Reed
property
or words to that effect in that it would be pretty difficult to really enforce.
Even with a letter of credit or anything like that. That's why I approached it
saying the call would have to be made is can we, with a cul-de-sac and a
' reverse scenario with a lot of our subdivisions that we end up dealing with,
where we try to preserve right-of-way for the future. Here you've got one and
you're being asked to vacate it. The question is can you live with a cul-de-
' sac with full intent that when Reed or Gowen or both come in that we would push
through at some time in the future. Otherwise it gets pretty unmangeable from
my perspective.
' Mayor Hamilton: It's kind of whatever works. Whatever is going to work is
what ought to be done. If cul-de-sacing 64th Street and closing it on TH 41 is
what has to be done so it can move forward then I think that should be done so
' this project can move ahead and then you can still continue to work with the
Gowens and the Reeds to accomplish whatever is going to happen there and the
developer will be involved in that.
Gary Warren: If someone wondered the assessments that are presently against
the Reed property are a legitimate issue that needs to be dealt with here if we
would vacate a portion of West 64th Street because there is access and there
' are assessments that need to be paid and that could be a job of HSZ if the
Council would choose to go with this cul-de-sac.
' Pat Farrell: I don't see that that requirement is so ownerous. I think we're
all making too much of it. I think the requirement that there be a connection
to the other road is a legitimate requirement of plat approval under Minnesota
' Statute and even the cost of that road could be appropriately charged against
the developer. That's not to say that the Reed's ought to have a free ride.
There ought to be some discussion back and forth of that but I think this
Council could legitimately require that as a condition of plat approval.
' Ben Gowen: I'm just confused here. You're talking about a cul-de-sac
terminating in the middle of the Reed's property and yet you're talking about
' connecting to TH 41. Now it you connect to TH 41, I'm back in the picture very
definitely. But if you cul-de-sac in Reed's property, I'm out of the picture.
In any case, I'm for the development.
' Mayor Hamilton: What we're saying is that we want to connect to TH 41 at some
time. When that happens is not clear at this time. Staff is saying we want
that and the Council is saying we want that connection to be made someday. If
' it has to be a temporary cul-de-sac now for a period of time until the Reed's
decide how they want to develop their property, that's a possibility but we
don't want to condition everything on the HSZ's development by what the Reed's
are going to do.
' Ben Gowen: You better continue then, Reed has to plot his land so that it can
be continued.
1
' 40
• f 55 II
City Council Meeting Cpril 25, 1988
1
Mayor Hamilton: That's correct. That's what we're trying to get done.
� tBen Gowen: It's not fair to him.
Mayor Hamilton: We're trying to be fair to everybody. We're trying to make
sure that everybody's needs are taken care of and we can move ahead here. I
guess I wish we had this worked out ahead of time with the legal counsel. We
could figure out some way to handle this item.
Councilman Boyt: Can we strike "approval of" in what's in parenthesis there '
and then accept what's left?
_ .Councilman Geving: I think we should. '
Barbara Dacy: I'm sorry, what are you referring to in parenthesis?
_Councilman Boyt: Approval of final plat for the Reed property, just strike
that phrase.
Mayor Hamilton: Good idea. '
Councilman Horn: I think the TH 41 issue is something we have to deal with
later. I don't think we can tie it to this. '
Councilman Geving: When we see Reed's plat.
* A motion was made at this point with the following discussion.
Councilman Johnson: The rest of this thing talks about the execution of a
development contract with the City of Chanhassen. I believe staff was looking
at a development contract for developing 64th Street to TH 41. A letter of
credit, etc. the rest of that is in reference to the realignment of 64th Street
to-TH 41. '
Mayor Hamilton: I think that's exactly what we're saying is going to have to
happen.
.Councilman Johnson: You can't execute a development contract until you have
:. approval of final plat. I don't what we just gained by getting rid of that.
-Mayor Hamilton: You're not tying it up with the Reed property. The thing can
move ahead.
Councilman Johnson: We're going to have to get a development contract from '
somebody to develop. As I read this. ..
Mayor Hamilton: We're talking about HSZ's property. Not the Reed property. '
This does not pertain to the Reed property.
Councilman Johnson: It used to be until we removed that one. The development
{ contract. ..
Mayor Hamilton: No. All it said about the Reed property was approval of the
final plat for the Reed property. It didn't say we were having a development
41 1
II
City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988
I
contract with the Reed property or anybody else. All this pertains to the HSZ
property.
Councilman Johnson: Okay, then you're going with the rest of this. So they
have to have 64th Street completely realigned to TH 41 prior to the approval of
the preliminary plat and site plan?
Mayor Hamilton: That's what it says here. As far as I'm concerned, you could
have a temporary cul-de-sac until such time as the Reeds want to develop.
There's all kinds of way you can solve that problem.
Councilman Johnson: That's what we have to do here. Your motion didn't talk
about the temporary cul-de-sac.
Mayor Hamilton: - That's why we have discussion.
Councilman Johnson: I'm against the temporary _
discuss temporary cul-de-sacs. p Y cul-de sac if you're going to
Councilman Boyt: My problem is that we're talking about 64th Street. Ca
just vote on these things one thing at a time and take the issue and if we've
got an issue with 64th, do it then.
Mayor Hamilton: They're intertwined. You're talking about one issue. We're
talking about one item on the approval process of the preliminary plat. This
Ifs one of the conditions and in one of the conditions it talks about 64th
Street to TH 41. You can't eliminate that. We're going to get back to it and
talk about it some more in a few minutes.
Councilman Boyt: Do we have a motion on the table?
Mayor Hamilton: Yes we do have a motion on the floor.
Councilman Boyt: I call a question.
Mayor Hamilton: There is still discussion. Jay was talking about it. Did you
have additional questions?
' Councilman Johnson: As I understand your motion then we get exactly what I
want with the exception of I would like to see something in condition one that
restricts commercial access to 64th Street. One of the original complaints of
the neighbors is that it would increase the traffic up Oriole and through their
' subdivision if commercial had direct access to 64th Street which is what the
previous plans had.
' Councilman Horn: This doesn't have that.
Councilman Johnson: Me Reed had stated that he wants to put commercial on the
front 3 acres of that which will then have access to 64th Street.
Mayor Hamilton: That's not a part rt of this.
Councilman Horn: Not necessarily.
42
i /
•
II
City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988
r
Councilman Johnson: It could.
Mayor Hamilton: That'd be a whole other issue.
Councilman Horn: That's the whole point. We can't put a restriction on what
- the Reed property is in respect to this property. That will take a whole other
plat when that comes in and then we'll see...
Councilman Johnson: We could at least talk that our intent is not to it r
commercial traffic on 64th Street so that when the Reeds, a future council can
look at our minutes and when the Reeds come in here and say okay, the whole
64th Street was realigned to avoid commercial, one of the purposes was to avoid
commercial traffic on Oriole Lane.
Mayor Hamilton: Well, you said it. Ftture Council is not bound by anything we
do so it doesn't really matter if we say it or not.
-Councilman Johnson: It matters if we say it because it might help sway the
future council one way or the other as to what we are thinking at the time. r
- -Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve Subdivision Request
#85-7 subject to the plat stamped "Received March 7, 1988", the grading and
drainage plan stamped "Received April 6, 1988", the utility plan stamped
7 "Received April 6, 1988" and subject to the following conditions:
---1. Approval of the preliminary plat and site plan shall be contingent upon
vacation of 64th Street right-of-way, execution of a development contract
with the City of Chanhassen, filing of a letter of credit with the City of
Chanhassen from a recognized financial institution authorized to do
business in the State of Minnesota and a form subject to the City of
Chanhassen's reasonable approval, and realignment of 64th Street to TH 41.
2. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and
provide the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper
installation of the public improvements. r
3. The developer shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed
- District permit. r
4. Hay bales shall be placed and staked around all storm sewer inlets.
5. Wood fiber blanket or equivalent shall be used to stabilize all disturbed i
slopes greater than 3:1.
6. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the permits r
from the Minnesota Department of Transportation.
7. Calculations verifying adequate pressure conditions for the sprinkler r
system of the proposed retail building should be submitted for approval by
the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit.
8. The proposed sanitary sewer and watermain systems internal to the site will
be constructed and maintained as private utilities. The City of Chanhassen
r
43
I fiJ 0
City Council Meeting - Aril 25, 1988
will not be responsible for any maintenance of the utilities (with the
' exception of public storm sewer drainage facilities) internal to the site.
9. An acceptable traffic sign and pavement marking plan shall be submitted to
the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit.
t10. Specific plans and specifications which address the specific alignment,
installation and erosion control for the proposed storm sewer system must
be submitted and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
11. The applicant shall submit a revised erosion control plan subject to the
' approval of the City ENgineer prior to the issuance of a building permit.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 25,920 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL CENTER.
' Councilman Boyt: I'd like to start by saying to the neighbors who are here, I
think you have a good point in which to use leverage and that's in how this
site is developed. I think you're going to have to show some inequities in how
' it's developed to sway somebody else on the Council if you want to defeat the
zoning change. On how it's developed, the Planning Commission made comment
about Scotch Pines. I wasn't aware of this but one of the Planning Commission
members said that they occasionally brown off. Is that right? Does anyone
know? You're using a lot of scotch pines.
Craig Johnson: They actually turn purple. That's the fall color. They do get
dark purple.
Councilman Boyt: They don't defoliate?
Craig Johnson: Well, all pines do. They go in cycles of 3 years perhaps. It
depends on the species but all pines drop their needles in cycles of 3 to 5
' years but then each year they grow them again. That's the way the pines work.
Councilman Boyt: What I'd like to see here is, I think what you're after and
what I'm after is a visual screen that fortunately would get higher every year
' and I would like to see some sort of blend so we don't have all of one kind of
tree. If for some reason they get struck by a disease, we're out of a visual
barrier. So maybe you can blend in some other appropriate types of pines that
t are dense. I have a question about grading. Is there extensive grading going
on on this property? It looks to me like there is extensive grading. What's
the depth of the cut?
' Larry Brown: The depth of the cut would be fairly minimal. It's going to be
the fill amounts along the southwest corner, the grading along the southwest
corner that's going to be. . .
Councilman Boyt: So we're talking about how much fill? How many feet? Give
me a sense of what we're talkz y
talking. 20? Alright. I would like to see that as
' you develop this concept, I think that some sort of maybe a two tiered pine
arrangement so that it's not just single trees in sort of a row even though
11 44
. * , �4
'
�
City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988 ;
II
Iyour row appears to be somewhat staggered, that we really make that very dense.
I would like to see, I appreciate the gentleman's comment about more total roof I
screening. It sounds like you've done a good job from the highway and from a
good bit of the housing in looking at your perspective. I really think that
the view of the roof, as you agree, is very important and we should make every
II
effort to make it a pleasant view for those who are going to have to look at it
so if we can screen off any kind of structures up there. That's all I've got.
I'm sure interested in other comments from the Council. I think that this, to
me the acceptance of this in the neighborhood is going to depend a great deal II
on what it looks like. It appears like it looks pretty nice from the highway.
What's it look like from the neighborhood?
Councilman Horn: Did we ever get an answer to the question about the height of II
the building being appropriate? g
Barbara Dacy: Yes. Mr. Wagner raised that issue also. The Zoning Ordinance II
states that the maximum height is one story and his question was whether or not
that met the Building Code. Although I'm not exactly familiar with the
contents of the Building Code, they will have to meet that. There are portions
II
of the elevation that do extend above 20 feet and that's the Canterbury
approach. The height of the occupied area will be I think approximately 17
_ feet in height and it is our interpretation that that met the one story
II
requirement. Whatever the Building Code says, we have to do anyway. So if it
has to be reduced, it has to be reduced.
IIi Councilman Horn: I guess my only concern is I'm not a real fan of the vinyl
clad vinyl. Obviously if somebody wants the green stuff, well, now we've got
red and black stuff but that seems to be what everybody is building with these
:days. Currently I don't believe our ordinance is quite clear on that issue.
II
I know we had a tough time defining what's an acceptable metal and what isn't.
It seems like that corregated clad metal is fine but if you've just got
corregated metal, that wouldn't be fine. My particular preference is not for II that kind of appearance.
Councilman Geving: I think it would be appropriate again for J.D. to come back
up here and persent that landscaping and berming plan one more time and give us
II
an idea on your board here. I want to know whether or not we're looking at it
from the west or we're looking at it from the south. Tell us again- what kind
_ _of berming you're planning on the west side which faces the residential area
II
-. and potentially to the south where there could be some residential properties
looking to this site and also the extent and type of greenery that you'll have.
The types of trees. How tall they will be and so forth.
� g son from. Craig Johnson: First of all, let me introduce myself. I'm Craig John II
Barrientos and Associates. We are landscape architects and engineers.
Initially we went through the process of the Planning Commission approval,
II
developing and screening, etc. the issues. On the west side, we also have
extended the scotch pines. There is potential for a berm to run from the
right-of-way line to approximately this point here. That berming then would be
II
I accented by conifers. Those conifers, we selected the scotch pine because of
their rapid growth first of all and their ability to withstand drought and the
soil conditions that are on the site. We could intermix, I don't see any
problem with intermixing species. Particularly if something becomes very II
linear and the contrast would be very nice. We also introduced deciduous
II
45
City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988
1
trees. The Norway pine to break that up also in view of the contrast to the
' deciduous and conifer trees. They're used limitedly on the west and south
because they do not provide winter screening. We've maximized the south and
the west with evergreens. Be it Austrian Pine and Scotch Pine and we've broken
that up with deciduous trees and Norway Maple. Then we go to the setback
screening in this general area. We exceeded the Planning Commission's
requirements in regards to overhead canopy or tree and an additional screening.
Plant material would be planted at grade to provide, I believe it was 80%
opaque in the winter screen. Internally we've used a lighter Honey Locust, the
Sunburst Honey Locust which would allow for light shade and some view into the
retail center which is very critical to the developer but also adds some shade
' for vehicular and users. For the entrance we decided to create, increase the
impact of the sense of arrival by developing a canopy all the way up through
and then orientating that to the center of the project site. This canopy would
be made by the Little Leaf Linden. It has a very nice spring bloom and I think
' that is just another accent to the sense of arrival. The flowers are also very
fragrant so the drive in will be visually and...
' Councilman Geving: On day one when you open the center and the landscaping is
i
in, how tall will those trees be on the west side of that development?
' Craig Johnson: We're proposing to use 6 foot trees at time of installation and
also a 12 foot. We place the 12 foot in the most strategic location adjacent
to the building and we've also introduced I believe some 12 foot at this point
also. The back side would mainly be 6 foot and then this first stretch would
' be a 6 foot tree.
Councilman Geving: How high is that berm on the west side? Tell us what the
' view is from Section A? Are we looking from the west to the east?
J.D. MacRae: This is the south face and this is the section. This would be on
the west.
Councilman Geving: Ziegler's home for example.
' J.D. MacRae: Right. Looking up through what we call the auxillary building.
You have heard that building won't be built right away so it would be bermed up
and dropped back down to a flat building surface. This section is just further
' south of this one. This one actually cuts into the middle of the center.
We're showing at this point we've got about a 4 foot high berm here. This
point we're also 4 feet high. As we get along the back side, due to the
incline, we're showing a 2 foot berm on the back side. Now again, as was
' brought up, at this point we're 18-20 feet high. The thought was that being
that the property continued to fall off or stay at the same level. When you
get down here, you're looking up into the building through the berm. You've
' got Section A that went through the auxiliary building. Section B that went
along a portion of the building. Section C is cutting through the building on
the west end. Section D is cutting through it on the east end. Section E the
grade starts coming up as 64th comes up and meets TH 41. The grade difference
' is very minimal. Here we've got a 3 foot high berm.
Councilman Geving: I'm satisfied with that. I just want to advise you though [E:
' that this is the thing that Mr. Connors and Mr. Wagner were referring to. It
always seems like the developer shows these kinds of schematics to us. They
46
City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988
ir- look really good. We approve the project and the landscaping is the last thing
to go in and they generally skip so I assure you that we'll be watching for
:that kind of thing not happen on this project.
-Councilman Johnson: Do we have any financial assurance that if landscaping
doesn't go in, that we have any way of putting it in?
Gary Warren: We'll have a letter of credit.
-,-Councilman Johnson: The letter of credit will cover landscaping?
` Gary Warren: It will cover everything. '
Councilman Johnson: I don't have a lot of problems with this.
Mayor Hamilton: I don't either. I think it's a nice plan. I'd just like to ,
see the same type of materials used on this building as is being used downtown.
I like that retail west or whatever it's called. I don't know if it's the same
thing or not but if we can do something similar to that it would look nice. ,
Barbara Dacy: The only thing that's metal is on the roofing. The remainder is
concrete and rock faced block. 1
Councilman Johnson: I will have to revert back. I did mean to mention that
- there's one thing that we've doing with residential areas on trees where
1 somebody, there's one down here where they put in Marshall Seedless Ash to
every front yard, straight in a line. If a disease comes through like the
-Dutch ELn or whatever that affects Marshall Seedless Ash, it wipes them all
- out. That's why I think I'd like to see a mixture of your evergreens along the
back to where if something is going to come in that's going to wipe out scotch
- pines, that we don't lose all the trees across the back. If we have a mixture
- of Scotch or Marshall or whatever. Something that would be slightly different.
Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve Site Plan Request
• #86-2 for the construction of a 25,920 square foot retail center based on the
site plan stamped "Received March 7, 1988" and the lighting, landscaping,
_ = utilities and grading plans stamped "Received April 6, 1988" subject to the
- - -following conditions: - '
- - 1. All bituminous areas shall be lined with concrete curb.
2. The building permit for the retail center will not issued until the City
has approved the vacation of 64th Street including submission of financial
sureties and execution of the development contract to insure that 64th
Street will be realigned to intersect TH 41 in another location. '
3. Compliance with all conditions of the Subdivision Request #85-7.
All voted- in favor and motion carried.
J
47
City Council Meeting - Ail 25, 1988
PUBLIC HEARING FOR PARTIAL VACATION OF WEST 64TH STREET.
' Mayor Hamilton called the public hearing to order.
Gary Reed: I guess I'm a little confused on what you've struck from the
Planning Commission. It seems like I've lost a little bit of bargaining power.
I guess if you don't approve, and I guess I understand that you approve the
concept of the cul-de-sac without extension of that to TH 41, is that correct?
' Mayor Hamilton: Right.
Gary Reed: Then if it is extended, then I would not be able to get a BN type
of zoning on my frontage there. Is that correct?
Mayor Hamilton: - No, I don't know where you came up with that.
' Councilman Johnson: I tried for that and it didn't get put in the motion.
' Gary Reed: I'm just trying to sort this thing out.
Mayor Hamilton: We can't deal with something that's not before us is the whole
thing. You say you want some BN...
Gary Reed: I'm just trying to get a feel for where I'm at with the frontage.
' Mayor Hamilton: What I'd like you to do is make comment on the road. The
partial vacation of West 64th Street.
' Gary Reed: I can't really make a comment on it if I don't know what it's going
to do. At this point I'm for that concept. Not extending West 64th Street and
cul-de-sacing it. I guess you guys heard that there was some future plan for
reconnecting it. Well, I have no future plan for that. The only future plan I
' would have would be maybe utilizing a lot on the south side if there was some
way to get into Ben's property if that would work out. But according to your
cul-de-sac plans, I guess that wouldn't be a viable.. . I think another convent
would be that it seems to me they want the road realigned with the school exit.
Is that correct?
Mayor Hamilton: There's been some discussion of that but I don't think that's
real critical.
Gary Reed: If they did then we would be dealing with Ben so it's not all on
' my shoulders.
Ben Gowen: I think it's pretty important to figure out what your plan is for
' connecting. If you connect it, it makes a lot of difference where and how
you're going to do it. Can you give us any clue what you plan on for the
future connection?
' Mayor Hamilton: That's something that's going to have to be worked out with the
property owners. It's pretty hard for us to say.
Ben Gowen: When?
48
,r , 'City Council Meeting (April 25, 1988 k
Mayor Hamilton: As soon as possible.
Ben Gowen: Before they start building or what? ,
- Mayor Hamilton: That's right. -
` Ben Gowen: Then you're requiring them to connect to TH 41?
Mayor Hamilton: That's right.
Ben Gowen: Do you have that perogative to require that?
Mayor Hamilton: Sure. ,
Ben Gowen: .I doubt that.
- .Mayor Hamilton: That's up to you. You can talk to your attorney I guess.
Ours tells us we have every right to do that so that's what we've done.
Ben Gowen: Then if you're going to connect, how are you going to connect? The
drawings you're showing here don't show it on my property except for the very
last 20-30 feet. These are sketches I realize but if it's a sketch, let's talk
about what the reality is.
Mayor Hamilton: We're talking about partial vacation of existing West 64th
Street and how 64th Street gets reconnected to TH 41 is something we just
that's something that the developers are going to have to work out with
yourself and with the Reeds and see where it comes out. If they can't reach an
agreement, then the City is going to have to go through a condemnation process
to accomplish it. We can't sit here tonight and say we know it's going to
connect up here, here or here because we haven't any idea. It's going to
_connect up with TH 41 someplace.
Ben Gowen: That wasn't my understanding coming in here tonight. You guys are
really going to connect it up regardless.
Mayor Hamilton: That's what the motion that was passed, that's what it
contains.
Ben Gowen: It doesn't seem very fair. '
Mayor Hamilton: I thought you were in favor of it just a minute ago.
Ben Gowen: I'm in favor of the project, yes but not in being told what is
going to happen to my road. I'd like to have a say so.
Mayor Hamilton: You'll have a say. I'm just telling you right now that we '
don't know where 64th Street is going to connect back with TH 41. We don't
know that yet. It's going to connect up with it someplace. That's going to
have to be worked out with you, with the Reeds and with the developers.
Roger Zahn: I may have waited too long to make this comment. I was trying to
address your concern about waiting until we get to (d) to talk about 64th. We
have worked extensively with the Reeds and with Mr. Gowen and we have no
49
II • . r a
-City Council Meeting - AL .il 25, 1988 k
objection'
Pe personally as far as being the developers to connecting up to TH 41.
' This proposal came as a result of our listening to them and
way they wanted to have it done and that's the way we would proposing it
toneet
it
also. Am I to understand that you have already voted.
' Mayor Hamilton: I guess I don't know how else to say it so that you understand
it. If I could draw a picture or something, I guess I'd do that but. ..
Roger Zahn: So you are going to condemn 64th if we can't work something out?
Mayor Hamilton: Yes, that would be our only choice at this point.
' Roger Zahn: Could we come back and ask you to cul-de-sac it at a future point
in time? We have worked hard with those people and that's clearly what they
want on their property. It isn't really that we want to do any one of these
' things in particular except we want to work with the people in the neighborhood
and that's what we've tried to do and we've talked extensively and that's
really what they want. It seems like somehow this deliberation got taken out
of their hands and it certainly wasn't our intent. We'll cooperate with
whatever you folks what us to do but we do want to support them. That wasn't
our intention to get this thing set up that way, not at all.
' Councilman Horn: It was my intent that what we were proposing was what you
recommended with the cul-de-sac. That was my intention and I thought that was
how we changed the wording. That's my impression of what we want it to be.
' Councilman Johnson: I very clearly stated and restated that that's not what
we're voting for.
' Councilman Boyt: I'd like to take a shot at this if I might. I think all we
did was say we took off a constraint on you that said that Mr. Reed's final
plat had to be approved before you could do anything. Then I think we had said
' all along, the Planning Commission had said that we think that it makes sense
to eventually have this hooked up to TH 41. I don't see that we've changed
anything except we said to you, your project does not have to wait until his
' project is approved.
Mayor Hamilton: Item 1 of the Planning Conuussi.on's approval did not change
other than to take out the Reed's necessity to have their plat approved.
' Nothing changed other than that.
Councilman Horn: It doesn't work.
' Councilman Geving: I have to reiterate. My intention and my thoughts when we
approved this was that we were only striking a few words which left out the
Reeds from their approval of their plat. Also there's a bottom line, there's a
' very last line of that particular condition 1. It talks about 64th Street and
that should be struck as well. The very last 6 or 7 words of that condition 1
should also be struck because it refers to the realignment of 64th Street.
' It's my understanding that what we voted upon was an intent at some future time
to realign 64th Street to TH 41. Just an intent. At sometime as Mr. Reed
comes in with his plat, that would be worked out. What we voted upon was the
cul-de-sac that was shown to us on the plan. That's the way I read it.
50
City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988
II
F- Mayor Hamilton: That's because that's what I had said that if you want to
cul-de-sac it temporarily until at some it oint
1 fine. p gets to TH 41, then that's II
Councilman Johnson: That's why I pointed out that this last sentence was there
and that we were saying that they couldn't cul-de-sac it. I thought I said it 11
quite clearly.
Mayor Hamilton: Did you want to leave in, and alignment of 64th Street? I
Councilman Johnson: Yes, and I pointed that out and you didn't leave it in
your motion. II
Mayor Hamilton: Both Clark and I had struck the last, where it says "and
realignment of 64th Street to TH 41." Both Clark and I had struck that from
condition 1 as well as, approve of a final plat for the Reed property. Those II
were the two items that we struck from condition 1.
Gary Warren: The motion didn't strike the last phrase of it. At least the way
II
I copied it down because I still had the question in my mind.
Mayor Hamilton: My motion was it only struck the part dealing with the Reed I
property. It did not strike out the realignment.
Councilman Geving: But Tom it can't work unless you do strike the- last part.
s - II
1 Mayor Hamilton: That's fine with me. I oo:.ld just as soon cul-de-sac it.
Temporary or whatever. I guess what I was saying all along was do whatever it
takes to make the whole thing work and it ties back to TH 41 at some future
date than that's what ought to be done. II
Councilman Geving: But that's the future and we can't. . .
Barbara Dacy: Maybe the City Attorney should advise as to how the I
clarify the intent and/or the wording on condition 1 on the preli.minarycplatan
for the record. II
Pat Farrell: You could have a motion to reconsider. You could go back to
resolution whatever it is or motion whatever it is and make a motion to I
reconsider that to clarify the intent of the Council. Restate it deleting the
last, whatever those words ending at approval and deleting approval of the
final plat of the Reed property if that's really what your intention is.
Councilman Horn: Right, and I made the second and I fully intended II
not part of the motion. that that
Mayor Hamilton: I think we need to finish the one that we're on. Seeing how II
we have a public hearing open and then we can go back. Is there anybody else
from the public who has a comment about the vacation of West 64th Street? Any
II
additional information?
1 Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Geving seconded to close the public
hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. The public hearing was
II
closed.
51 II
•1 . 4 rs
City Council Meeting - April g A �.l 25, 1988
Councilman Johnson: I think it's premature until we find out how 64th Street
' is going to be connected up. We can't close the people's lifeline to TH 41, or
your driveway. How can we vacate something until we know how we're going to
replace it? Until the 64th Street issue is resolved, this should be tabled.
' This is a premature application for vacation.
Pat Farrell: One thing that you could do is, you closed your public hearing.
You could move to table that matter until a later time.
' Councilman Boyt: Before we consider the move to table, I think that the issue
for me i.s, our intent on what we're going to do with the connection to TH 41.
' To move to vacate is to take an existing entrance and exit out of that picture.
So the question to me is, are we taking that out permanently or are we taking
it out until such time as there is an opportunity to put it back in? I like
the idea of tying that particular question down sometime soon. If it seems
' appropriate to table it, I won't vote against that. It just seems to me at
some point pretty quick here we have to decide what kind of connection do we
want and that's going to impact on this gentleman's ability to develop that
' corner.
Mayor Hamilton: I see no reason why the development can't move ahead prior to
' doing any vacation of 64th or coming up with the realignment. It doesn't have
any affect on what's happening on the property to the north, just so long as it
gets done and I agree with you.
' Councilman Boyt: I would argue Tom that this is a critical issue to the rest
of the development. I don't think we have to vacate it until somewhere down
the road but I sure think we have to tell them what our intentions are.
Mayor Hamilton: Sure. That's exactly what I'm saying.
' Councilman Boyt: How can we do that if we table it?
Mayor Hamilton: We'll table it until as soon as we can get it back on the
agenda and work with it more clearly. Somehow it's got to be worked out and I
' don't think we're going to solve anything here tonight. I would rather table
it so staff can work with the Gowen's and the Reed's and the developer to come
up with something that's going to work. All I'm saying is I think that can be
' going on while the development is going to proceed or whatever else they need
to do to continue on with their development. It doesn't stop that.
Councilman Boyt: I see two of the neighbors saying, at least two of the
neighbors we want a cul-de-sac.
Councilman Johnson: The two property owners.
Councilman Boyt: What I'm very interested in is what do the people say who
might be using 64th as a current entrance/exit off of TH 41? That's another
' affected group and I think we need to hear from them. For that reason along we
might want to hold this up.
Councilman Horn: The vacation of West 64th is a clear indication that the
intent of the overall plan was to create a cul-de-sac and this portion would be
vacated. I think the request to require that 64th go out to TH 41 is a total
52
. . City Council Meeting (April 25, 1988 .�
� 1
change in direction from what was being proposed and what these four conditions
II
3 we were asked to vote on tonight represented. To me we clear this thing up by
iaccepting the cul-de-sac as it is, it's a permanent plat and later when the II
Reed's develop and the Gowen's develop and they decide that they want to have a
proposal come in where it makes sense to run that through, we should deal with
it at that point but at this point the request is to have a cul-de-sac at that
II
point and we don't need 64th Street anymore and that's why we have the request
to vacate it. I believe, as I said before, that's the best compromise for this
development at this point, and we should go ahead and proceed that way. As a
II
matter of fact, I thought that was the way we had decided to proceed initially.
We would deal with the issue of 64th when further development took place.
Therefore, I go along with the partial vacation. I think what that's telling
us is that in no plan is there any attempt to leave 64th the way it is today. II
I don't see that in any of the plans that there is an attempt to leave it the
way it is today so I think it's appropriate to vacate it and I don't think it's
necessary for them to have it to proceed with the project. I
- Councilman Geving: I think it's premature at this time to consider the
vacation of 64th Street and I'll tell you why. It's a very legal matter. You
vacate a street and you've just given it back to the property owners. We're II
not prepared to do that tonight. We don't know what we're going to do once we
have made that decision. The property owners have it as of the moment that we
vote on it and I think the Council would agree with me on that. It's a very
II
legal situation so we're premature on this. I think we need to buy some time
until we work out exactly what we're going to do with 64th Street as far as
vacating it. In fact, the preliminary plat and the site plan is contingent
II
f upon the vacation of this street. That is again going back to the number 1
issue that we're going to bring back after this is over so I think tonight we
'- need to table this matter and bring it back with some good intelligence of what
we're going to do with the vacation. We can not vacate it. I'll tell you, we II
can not do it tonight. That's how I feel about it. We should table this
matter for further consideration.
II
Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to table the request for
partial vacation of West 64th Street for further consideration. All voted in
II
favor and motion carried.
Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to reconsider item 8(b) , the
I
preliminary plat request to create 3 commercial lots. All voted in favor and
motion carried.
Councilman Geving: My feeling is we should drop the last wordage of condition II
1. Put a period after "reasonable approval" and strike "and realignment of
64th Street to TH 41" and strike the words "approval of a final plat for the
Reed property". I
Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to amend condition 1 of the I
1 Subdivision Request #85-7 to read as follows:
L 1. Approval of the preliminary plat and site plan shall be contingent upon
II
vacation of 64th Street right-of-way, execution of a development contract
II53
City Council Meeting - Ai ll 25, 1988
II
with the City y of Chanhassen, filing a letter of credit with the City of
Chanhassen from a recognized financial institution authorized to do
I business in the State of Minnesota and a form subject to the City of
Chanhassen's reasonable approval.
IAll voted in favor except Councilman Johnson who opposed and motion carried.
Councilman Johnson: I think what you just did, I hope you attend the funerals
I of the people that get killed on TH 7 because now they're taveling TH 7 more
often. This exit to TH 41 is a crucial exit to those people living on that
street and you just closed it.
ICouncilman Geving: We understand that.
Mayor Hamilton: _ Closed what?
IICouncilman Johnson: You just closed 64th Street. They no longer have access
to TH 41. You say sometime in the future. Frontier Lane was sometime in the
future, it was many, many, many years in the future. These people are going to
I have to contend with TH 7 who now drive TH 41 because we're closing their only
access and I don't think that for this commercial development that we should
put our citizens in a safety predicament making than drive a much more intense,
I making the primary and the single exit out of this residential development to
State Highway 7 is ridiculous. They should have an exit to a less intense
highway, a less used highway other than TH 41. A safer route to get out onto
I the highway. Then they can go back up to the lights and have a red light
protecting them from those oncoming eastbound cars as they try to get on if
they're trying to go westbound. Have you ever gone up into Oriole Lane and
tried to go westbound on TH 7?
IMayor Hamilton: Yes. You can do it.
I Councilman Johnson: I'm going to totally vote against it. It's a prime public
safety issue.
I Councilman Horn: I'd like to ask how this precludes another exit? All we're
doing here is just...
Councilman Johnson: You just gave them a cul-de-sac.
IICouncilman Horn: All we gave than here was the fact that we didn't tie this
redevelopment to another development on somebody elses property. We have not
I vacated existing 64th Street. All we're taking it out of here is saying that
that is not a condition to approve this development.
Councilman Boyt: I think Clark in the second line there where it says
1 contingent upon vacation of 64th Street right-of-way so we are saying
contingent upon the vacation of 64th which does mean closing it off. This is
what we're going to do.
IIMayor Hamilton: Contingent upon though. It hasn't been done.
II Councilman Boyt: That's right. It hasn't been done so the vote as to what
happens as far as the exit will turn upon our tabled matter. What I understand
I54
' City Council Meeting (April 25, 1988
you're doing with what you currently struck is you're simply taking out the
reference. You're not eliminating the ability.
j
Barbara Dacy: Despite the option, connect or reconnect, you're going to have
to vacate a part of 64th Street in order for the developer to get full access
onto TH 41 so the intent of your condition is you're not making a specific
statement at this time as to whether or not it should be reconnected. You're
stating that you're reserving your option when the Reed comes back in for a
potential plat. Is that correct?
Mayor Hamilton: I think that's pretty accurate.
- Barbara Dacy: The intent of the staff report was, again, that will come back '
in a fairly similar manner. The recommendation being that the City would not
file the resolution to vacate the street until something is resolved. Either
connect or reconnection so it's the cat catching it's own tail or the dog or
-somebody in Canterbury Downs. In any case, you're going to seeing the issue in
very similar format with the same type of options.
Gary Warren: Which means MnDot will not issue an access permit for the
development and their new driveway access on TH 41 until the City vacates our
connection so we're still tied in there.
Mayor Hamilton: We've got to have more information on this and clarify some of
this stuff that filtered out. Y
Pat Farrell: re approving
� ll Is the preliminary the Y' pproving is the cul-de-sac on the
L Reed property?
Gary Warren: The one I had on the screen, the last one, is my interpretation '
of what you're approving.
Pat Farrell: Which one? ,
Gary Warren: The short cul-de-sac not on the Reed property.
Barbara Dacy: That's the one that's not on the Reed property.
Gary Warren: Otherwise if this is the version, than you're tied in with the
platting...
Pat Farrell: Just to clarify, my only point is you ought to nail down which
one you're talking about because you've seen two of them. '
Mayor Hamilton: It has to be the first one because we're not tying this to the
Reed property. We've already eliminated that.
Barbara Dacy: So the Council is saying this one?
Councilman Gevi.ng: Can we call it Exhibit A or something. '
1 Barbara Dacy: Option 3.
55
II '471, Council Meeting - A 1 25, 1988
Councilman Johnson: That cul-de-sac happens to
pp be on somebody elses property,
not HSZ's property either. That's on Schmitz' property and Reed property.
Mayor Hamilton: Put a T on there on the HSZ property. There are a lot of
alternatives I think that we haven't even looked at.
' Councilman Boyt: What do we gain when we pass this? I will admit to being a
bit lost. It seems to me as though what the developer is trying to do is make
some progress knowing what should be the next step the developer is taking and
' MnDot is saying if you guys don't vacate 64th Street, the guy can't have a
major entrance and exit to his operation. We've tabled that issue. Now we're
coming back and we're sanitizing number 1. What I read, number 1 now says that
' the gentleman is eventually going to need to post a letter of credit for his
development and that's about all.
' Mayor Hamilton: That's normal.
Councilman Boyt: Yes, but I'm saying that doesn't say. ..
' Councilman Johnson: We haven't solved anything here tonight unless we solve
whether or not the realigned 64th Street is going to reconnect to TH 41 and at
what time period does that happen? Without that we've wasted a lot of time
' tonight. We can't just cul-de-sac it like this. We can but I'm not going to.
I'm saying that prior to vacation of 64th Street, those people need an exit to
TH 41 and they need a road connecting all the way from TH 41 to where the old
64th Street used to be and that's the position I'm taking on this prior to any
' vacation of the other one. We can approve a preliminary plat but the
preliminary plat doesn't have that cul-de-sac on it. The preliminary plat
!-
shows a vacated street but then a condition of approval of the preliminary plat
' is that we vacate the street and then we go to the next argument. We haven' t
solved anything yet.
Mayor Hamilton: If that's the case, and if that's what you really believe,
then what the City has to do and we should do immediately is start condemnation
process and just select a place where the road is going to go. Based on what
the developer is saying, they've worked with the neighborhood and they have not
' made progress and so rather than tying this to the Reed property, the City will
have to go through a condemnation of property and force the road through.
That's an option we have to take a look at also and I think those are the
' options we don' t have laid out for us tonight and that's what we need to look
at. And I don't agree that we haven't accomplished anything. We've come a
long ways. Maybe there's been a lot of gum beating but this is not an easy
issue to deal with.
' Councilman Johnson: Could I ask staff a question?
' Mayor Hamilton: Is it something new that we haven't dealt with before?
Councilman Johnson: It's something you brought up. Can the City condemn
' somebody's property to put a new street in for the purpose of allowing a
commercial development to develop in this area?
Pat Farrell: Yes.
LE:
t56
_ 9 '
City Council Meeting- April 25, 1988
_ Mayor Hamilton: So now we have before us, we voted to reconsider item 1.
We're on 8(b) but item 1 of the conditions. We have striken approval of the
final plat of the Reed property and at the last line, and alignment of 64th
Street to TH 41.
: Councilman Horn: Unless I misunderstand something, our choices are we can have
- 64th go through or we can have the main entrance to this development.
Barbara Dacy: 64th realigned.
Gary Warren: One or the other.
:Councilman Horn: Realigned to go through or?
Gary Warren: 64th 1,100 feet south.
Councilman Horn: 1,100 feet south of the Reed property or farther south?
Gary Warren: 1,100 feet south of the center line of TH 7 which puts you into '
the Reed property.
Councilman Horn: So if people really want that to go through to TH 41, then
they don't want to approve this cul-de-sac?
Barbara Dacy: Right. That's the issue. Either the cul-de-sac or you
reconnect to TH 41.
Mayor Hamilton: And that's why I'm saying their option is we should start
condemnation process if those are our choices.
Councilman Boyt: And that's why we tabled that is because we don't know so
let's vote on this.
Councilman Geving: I think we're still alright with condition 1.
Councilman Boyt: All condition 1 says is the whole thing falls apart if we '
don't vacate 64th Street. Does anybody have trouble living with that?
Councilman Geving: No, because it's going to happen.
Councilman Johnson: Because we're really not saying how they going to
. cul-de-sac. . .
TRAPPERS PASS ADDITION, LOCATED ON THE NORTH AND WEST SIDES OF PLEASANT VIEW
ROAD APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE WEST OF HWY 101, LUNDGREN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION: '
A. SUBDIVISION OF 32.5 ACRES INTO 34 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS.
B. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A POND WITHIN A CLASS B WETLAND
AND DEVELOP WITHIN 200 FEET.
Barbara Dacy: Briefly, I know the applicant has submitted a letter to each of
the Counci.lmembers objecting to three conditions on the plat. One of them
being the tree removal plan. Secondly, in regards to the Park and Recreation
57
6)4-)77
■
' City Council Meeting - May 31, 1988
Mayor Hamilton: We could have it on our consent.
Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to direct the City Attorney to
draft a resolution declaring the the Old Assumption Seminary as a public health
hazard and a public safety hazard to be available for the next City Council
meeting. In the meantime, directing staff to move ahead to proceed to do
whatever they can to close it down. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PARTIAL VACATION OF WEST 64TH STREET.
Mayor Hamilton: We've gone over this a number of time. I guess Barb, has
anything changed since last week that you want to bring to our attention?
Barbara Dacy: It's my understanding from the Reed's that Roger Reed has signed a
petition agreeing to the vacation.
' Councilman Johnson: So now we're at a three-fifth's vote.
Roger Knutson: Last time there was a concern that two people owned the property.
Have they both signed?
Mayor Hamilton: Gary, your brother is owner with you, is that correct?
IRoger Knutson: Now you both signed the petition?
Mayor Hamilton: Including your wife so there's three of you.
' Jan Reed: We haven't actually signed it.
Roger Knutson: If they sign it and if they own a majority of the land abutting
' the road to be vacated, then it is. ..
Mayor Hamilton: Maybe you could examine the document and tell us what needs to
' be done.
Roger Knutson: I guess know someone needs to sign i.t.
' Barbara Dacy: They are signing our standard application. You should probably
write on there we're going to vacate 64th Street.
Roger Knutson: From point to point.
Councilman Boyt: It's a little sketchy isn't it?
' Roger Knutson: Yes. Why don't I draw something up right here.
Councilman Johnson: Of course his brother's not here.
Mayor Hamilton: Barbara, could you review what the current plan is at this
point in time?
' Barbara Dacy: The Council at last Monday's meeting was talking about one of the
' 3 .i
�•
4
1
223 2
City Council Meeting - May 31, 1988 11
cul-de- sac options and what would have to happen is 64th Street would be
vacated from the southwest corner of the HSZ site to TH 41. So this area would
be vacated. Then either cul-de-sacs here or into the Reed property. At the
last meeting the Reed's and HSZ appeared to have agreement to build a cul-de-sac
into their property. Is that correct?
Mayor Hamilton: Do you agree with that Gary?
Gary Reed: Yes. They've given us a written agreement that is putting the
cul-de-sac into our property, that compensate... He would like some area for
ponding on our property. Barb, that hasn't been approved?
Barbara Dacy: The planning issue is really not part of the Council's review
tonight. The main issue is whether or not 64th Street should be vacated or what
alignment it is. - Other related ponding issues or drainage issues have to be
addressed at another time.
Gary Reed: If you'd like to see, I drew up an option of coming in off of TH 41
and some of the reasons why it doesn't seen to be working out. Bill was
concerned that we looked that over as an option...
Councilman Boyt: I'd like one, thank you.
Gary Reed: This would be coming in off of TH 41 coming down to here.. . Without
Ben Gowen's cooperation for the. ..it comes real close to the house right
here...so that's one of the reasons.
Councilman Geving: How many units are there?
Gary Reed: As far as lots go. With the West 64th Street cul-de-sac I get one
more lot plus I don't use all this land on the road here. So this is not quite
as efficient as what I consider the land use to be. So that's another reason
that it doesn't really work out for me. The other reason is HSZ won't put in
the other cul-de-sac. On this plan. . . Then we would probably have to stub the
sewer in across the easement from West 64th Street. Sewer and water is not
available up here by the highway and that would be another additional cost. To
get the sewer from West 64th Street to seven lots, in this area here... I guess
my conclusion was that this option worked for me. A little better land use. I
come up with approximately a 260 foot from West 64th Street to the end of the
cul-de-sac here. Anything you wanted to ask?
Councilman Boyt: What's the length of the whole cul-de-sac?
Councilman Johnson: From Orchard.
Gary Reed: I suspect it would be close to 1,000 feet. ,
Councilman Johnson: Where are you with the drainage issue?
Gary Reed: We're trying to nail that down. We have put in the holding pond for
their property and the main drainage coming off of TH 41 from the school is
channeled through our property. It's been a problem with us and it would go
into the holding pond and is this correct now, the runoff is going to go
underground to the park?
4
. City Council Meeting - May 31, 1988
Councilman Johnson: How does it affect the 8 lots you're proposing?
Gary Reed: I haven't nailed down the ponding site with them. Possibly put it
up in this area here with this sharp angle.. .the drainage comes into my property
now. At that point now there's a natural...and from there goes
underground. There's another possibilty but I'm not sure. ..
Councilman Johnson: So you're not fighting the ponding at this point?
Gary Reed: No.
Councilman Johnson: You're just trying, you agreed in principle to allow them to
pond on your property for their area and it looks like. ..
Gary Reed: I -agreed to a pond of not more than 10,000 square feet. Somewhat
smaller than a minimum sized lot should be sufficient I imagine.
Larry Brown: Just a point of clarification, if West 64th Street is vacated and
Mr. Reed comes in for a plat, he will be responsible as well for on site ponding
to maintain a predevelopment runoff rate. Therefore there will be a pond
somewhere on his property.
Gary Reed: Just for the blacktopping? The water running off the blacktop?
P
Larry Brown: And the houses that potentially would be there.
Councilman Johnson: His pond could be the same pond?
Larry Brown: Correct. If it were sized appropriately, yes.
Gary Reed: Like I say, the major drainage comes off the school parking lot and
they have no on site ponding at all. I feel that they should be responsible for
their blacktop and should provide on site ponding for their runoff because it
comes down really fast through there. They've got a spot next to the highway
there. They've got plenty of land. They're going to channel their runoff
into...
Mayor Hamilton: Doesn't any of that go to the park?
Gary Reed: Some of it does go into that pond to the north...
Mayor Hamilton: Underneath that driveway?
Gary Reed: Where that pond is now. ..i-f that culvert ever opened up, you would
have a problem there with our lake.
Mayor Hamilton: Anything else Gary? Is that it? Bill, do you have any
additional questions?
Councilman-Boyt: I appreciate the answers I got. Barbara, I had a question
for you. The current limit on cul-de-sacs and how that affects this?
Barbara Dacy: There's is no specific limit identified in the subdi vi.sion
5
v„
City Council Meeting - May 31, 1988
I
ordinance other than length that's appropriate for the development and intensity
which the cul-de-sac serves. The cul-de-sac that goes into the Reed property is
approximately 900 feet from Orchard Lane. Typically staff has used a 1,000 foot
rule of thumb in the urban area. There are different issues that we look at.
Gary Reed: The density is not too great on that cul-de-sac. The lots there are 1
over 60 feet.
Councilman Boyt: You've agreed to maintain the walkway from the end of 64th
Street out to TH 41?
Gary Reed: I have agreed to make a walkway through my property.
Councilman Boyt: There's a road through there right '
g g t now and I thought one of
the considerations was that you were going to allow a path width to remain.
Gary Reed: A road easement you mean?
Barbara Dacy: As a condition of the vacation, if the Council wishes to reserve a ,
trail easement in that vacated area, they have the power to do that.
Councilman Boyt: In talking to the neighbors that day, it was my understanding
that there was concern that there be some way for the kids to continue to cross
that property to the school so I think we should maintain a trail easement on
64th. My concern with this is, as I have expressed I think right along, is I
don't know how to deal with long cul-de-sacs. I would like to see the City
Council wrestle with this issue in the future. I think that we need to work at
it with the Public Safety people and come up with what are we going to do with
long cul-de-sacs. This is a pressure all the time it seems to allow them yet
I think we all know that they test the limits of our ability to provide public
safety protection for the people in the community. I don't know that now is the
time to fight that issue. I think the developer and the Reeds have worked at
this for quite a while and if the neighbors don't substantially object to this
plan, I gather that they don't from the conversation that I had with them, I c:.r
su000_.t it.
Councilman G vi.ng: I like to know no w if have narrowed the potential
cul-de-sacs to the three that are slxmn on the sketch that you've provided. Now
we can rule out 2 for sure. That's certainly not to be considered. At least in ■
my view and apparently you have now ruled out number 1, is that correct? I —_
guess I'm most concerned about the comments from citizens who are now using 64th
everyday to get to work from TH 41. Do we have any live petitions? Do we have
any recent comments that have come in in terms of memorandums? Letters from
people?
Barbara Dacy: I have not received any at my office. I know some people are
here.
Councilman Geving: Again, like I said, my major concern was those people who do
live to the west who are now traveling east to get to TH 41. Their comments
regarding our action tonight and what their alternative will be if we do vacate
64th. Whether this is a substantial number of people who would object to that
or whether there's a substantial number of people now will accept this
cul-de-sac arrangement and if they want to use TH 41 they'll have to go out onto
6
`
ippw_____________
City Council Meeting - May 31, 1988 �
TH 7 to get to TH 41. I'd like to hear from those.
Mayor Hamilton: I'll get to you in just a minute.
C ncilman Geving: I'd like to hear that in our discussion before we vote.
Whther or not there are people representing the area to the west or anybody
that lives on Oriole Lane that would want to speak to this issue. I guess my
1 only feelings is if there is substantial agreement among those people that this
I would not be an undue hardship, they could live with this, I would vote
accordingly to vacate the property. I think what I saw tonight in Mr. Reed's
alternatives and what he's going to do with his property, you're going to
develop there obviously and we have to move ahead with the HSZ development and I
Idon't want to hold it up any longer. I'm pleased we're at this point.
Councilman Johnson: I met with the citizens too. I still have, even though I
I had a meeting with the neighborhood, the only one part I have problem with even
though I'm in general favor of it, is emergency access and our fire trucks are
going to have to use TH 7. Fortunately our prime responder is going to be
coming from Minnewashta so it's going to be coming down TH 7 anyway but you're
secondary response would be coming from the main station or again, the call for
extra help from Shorewood and Excelsior, etc. would be coming down TH 7. Seeing
the primary use may be actually TH 7 now anyway and conditioned upon the fact
I that the deceleration lane to go into the HSZ property is going to extend all
the way back to Orchard Lane to act as an acceleration lane and be a much safer
entrance onto TH 7 than they presently have onto TH 7. I'm not sure whether
that lane's going to extend all the way to TH 41 or not. I don't think it will.
it It would be nice if it went all the way to TH 41 and then you wouldn't have to
get on TH 7 at all. Generally i would like to see it connected through...there
because of the commercial going on, it's going to be residential traffic. If it
I went all the way through we could again be looking at the front part of this
property being built commercial and when we would have commercial on this
residential street again. I don't particularly want to see that happen so
I ( weighing everything I'm leaning towards this option and they want to sit in
there and fight it out and negotiate for this easement. I agree with Dale, I'd
like to hear from citizens that are here tonight. Whether they agree with my
analysis or not.
IMayor Hamilton: I have just a couple of comments. I too
have been concerned
about the residents to the west. However, the previous developers of this area
I had always tied the shopping center in with the traffic going to the west to get
into the center, as I recall, from Oriole. Now we've eliminated that. I guess
that's what the residents wanted and now I'd be surprised if we heard them say
they didn't want that. I think I'm concerned that they're satisfied with their
I access. Entrance and egress onto TH 7 is going to be adequate for them and I'm
pleased that the Reed's have reached agreement with the developer that's going
to satisfy their needs and accomplish what they want to do. Perhaps sooner than
they want to do it but nevertheless get it done when they want to do something.
Seeing how that's the case I'm all in favor of this.
Gene Conner, 2521 Orchard Lane: I would like to restate, just to make sure that
I it doesn't drop through the cracks because sometimes things seem to do that,
that any vacation of 64th Street be absolutely tied to a left turn lane being
completed before vacation on TH 7.
I 7
234
City Council Meeting - May 31, 1988
t
Councilman Geving: It doesn't have anything to do with the vacation. It's a
separate issue.
Councilman Johnson: You've got to cul-de-sac the end of the street.
Roger Knutson: The fact that you're vacating it is causing an expense to incur.
Now's the best time to make sure everyone knows who's paying for it.
Mayor Hamilton: That's what Mr. Reed had said. That they have agreed to that
in writing.
Roger Knutson: The vacation is contingent upon them signing a development
contract with us.
Mayor Hamilton: That would be a fourth condition.
Councilman Boyt: I would like to ask that we modify the trail easement. I
think it should be more than an easement. There's a roadway there now. I think
the trail should be there and done. It's a very minor cost to pave that trail.
There are going to be people, children who are going to want to use that.
Gene Conner: A lot of them ride bikes.
Mayor Hamilton: Do you see any problem with that? Okay. We're modifying the
third which was that there be a trail easement. Not just a trail easement but
that a trail be constructed from the portion of West 64th that's being vacated
to TH 41.
Roger Knutson: At who's expense?
Mayor Hamilton: The developer's.
Councilman Johnson: Who maintains it?
Mayor Hamilton: The City.
Councilman Johnson: I need a review of exactly what we're voting on. 1 and 2 Et
are out?
Mayor Hamilton: Right. Approval of the vacation of 64th Street with the I I
recommendations are, number 3 becomes 1. 2 is that the left turn lane off of
TH 7 be completed as quickly as possible as soon as the construction starts. I I
Whether it's by the developer or by MnDot.
Councilman Johnson: Prior to vacation.
Mayor Hamilton: 3 is that the trail be constru j I
4 was as Roger had stated. cted through the property. And
Roger Knutson: The condition be put in the development and that the development
contract be executed before vacation actually takes place.
10 I
. City Council Meeting - May 31, 1988
Mayor Hamilton: That a signed agreement between the Reeds and the developer be
signed so everybody knows who's paying it.
Councilman Johnson: The trail being built?
Mayor Hamilton: Right.
Roger Knutson: The development contract requires someone to do something. We
Na,lso require an escrow or letter of credit to make sure it gets accomplished.
Councilman Boyt: Now we need to understand what we're getting. We are talking
about a city trail. Right? It's 8 feet wide. That's our standard. Just so
there's no confusion. That's our typical trail.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the partial vacation
of West 64th Street conditioned upon the following:
1. The City Attorney's Office shall prepare an analysis of all steps to be
accomplished prior to filing the vacation resolution including driveway
relocation expenses, reconstruction and relocation plans, filing of
appropriate letters of credit or escrow amounts, and retaining necessary
drainage and utility easements and any other items deemed necessary by the
City Attorney's Office. This will be brought back for Council approval.
2. A left turn lane off of TH 7 be completed prior to the vacation of 64th
1 3 - Street. Completed either by MnDot or the developer.
3. An 8 foot trail be constructed by the developer from the vacated portion of
64th Street to TH 41.
4. Vacation of 64th Street is contingent upon a development contract being
signed and that the development contract spells out that the developer is
responsible for the expense of constructing the cul-de-sac and construction
of the trail.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. Resolution 88-48
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-263 (6 & 7) OF THE CITY CODE TO
AMEND THE LOT DEPTH REQUIREMENT FOR INSTALLATION OF A DOCK AND ONE CANOE RANK/
DOCK REQUIREMENT.
Barbara Dacy: Two issues, one issue is the lot depth requirement p qu ent for a
beachlot in order to have a dock. The second issue is the canoe rack issue.
Currently as written you have to have a dock in order to have a canoe rack. So
the Planning Commission acted to recommend that the Council amend the ordinance
to keep the 100 foot lot depth requirement for a dock but added a phrase that
said, inclusive of street right-of-ways. And as to the canoe rack issue, they
made the language on page 7 in the staff report, recommending that there be no
more than 7 racks per beachlot. Those are the two issues.
Councilman Johnson: Did they come up with the number 7?
11
1 1,: ),
City Council Meeting - October 6, 1986
II
ii
i , ✓,,' Councilwoman Swenson: Would this come under further subdivision then? Are we
b �u talking about further then? Further back? I agree.
1/
a Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded that the City allow the
developer, the Mjolnes', to develop the subdivision without the need of
II
paving Sunset Trail, putting in an improved road with a hard gravel surface.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
LOT SPLIT REQUEST TO DIVIDE 1.71 ACRES INTO TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, 2461 WEST II
64TH STREET, GARY REED.
Mayor Hamilton: This again is an item that we saw previously and there was I
some misunderstanding when Mr. Reed was here, as to exactly what his request
was and what we, I think probably were approving. The recommendations made by
Staff that didn't really go too well with the property. i
Gary Reed: 'Ihe last time I was in was on September 22nd and we requested a
simple lot split and the City Council granted that but the Staff recommended
the contingencies that we didn't consider to be in line with what we wanted to
I
do and that would effect some of the other neighbors too. The contingencies
were that we realign the driveway for the existing house which I think was
dropped from the Staff's report on this meeting which went through a real
II
thicket of trees and would damage the aesthetic beauty of the property and the
useability of the driveway. The second contingency was that we petition to
put a road in on the west line of the division into the park. Now, we're not
r `' in favor of having the road go into the park at that point. We think it is F r
ti not the right location. It would be a detriment to our ro
p petty. If we want r;
I,' ''- pay for roads, we would like to put them into the remaining part of the
property that we plan on platting in the future. This would also affect the I
Ziegler's who own the lots adjacent to the proposed street that they would
like to have into the park and the Ziegler's are here tonight and they are not
in favor of sharing the cost of putting the street in either so I guess our II petitioning to put the street in would obligate us for paying for the street
and we don't wish to do that. All we want to do is just utilize some of our
buildable property that we have at this point. We also own the property to
the east of this lot which is approximately probably 6 acres and we are
II
currently charged for five sewer stubs on that property which are unbuildable
at this point until major drainage work is done. The water comes from
basically West Jr. High School and it is in a culvert and dumped into our
II
property at what would be the southeast corner of our property that comes
through a creek and then it kind of meanders over the fields and down onto
West 64th Street where it kind of makes it way across the north corner of the
proposed lot split and then it meanders back on it's way to Little Minnewashta II
through the proposed park area and so on. At this point, we can not utilize
those five sewer stubs in that particular part of the property because of the
drainage. In the future I guess we would like to put in a short road or cul-
de-sac depending on the going property and what happens with that also. We
II
would have to work with total property to be developed at that time and work
the plat out but at that time then both of our houses would face a cul-de-sac I
or a street and I think my wife wrote quite a lengthy letter and she listed
all the points and sent one to all the people here so you should be familiar
with our plight here.
28
-7013#1/6917-#1611
1J,41
II
(7
' City Council Meeting - October 6, 1986
Ir Mayor Hamilton: I don't know if the Council members have any questions. I
guess I would just comment that I guess I misunderstood what you requested
last time certainly and I thought I was going out to the properties to make a
decision on it but after going out and looking at it again with Gary and Jan
' and we walked around the property, I understand more clearly the type of
development or division that you are trying to put in there. I think your
request is very simple and straight forward. You want to divide your lot, use
' the current driveway, not drive through to cut down all the trees to the west
of your lot and I certainly disagree with the recommendation that Oriole be
put through as the road to the park. I think we are a long ways from deciding
' where that road is going to go and I see no reason for the Reeds or the
Zieglers to pay for a road going through. I think we need to as a City and as
a Council to sit down and look at that and start looking at the other
properties in that area that are going to be developed over the next several
' years. I'm not sure what the alignment of the road is going to be to get into
Herman Field. I don't think I have seen the right alternative yet from
v.\
anything
foolish I.have seen up to this point but to extend Oriole, I think would just
Ibe
Councilwoman Swenson: I concur.
' Councilwoman Watson: I think the Reeds have a very good point in that the
traffic for that park is not going to come from their immediate area but from
west of here and whether those people would come all the way down to Oriole or
. if there is a better access to this some other place rather than here and
there is no way that they need Oriole paved to subdivide their lot or the
Zieglers paved so I think for a simple lot split they should just be allowed
' to split the lot and use the present driveway.
Councilman Geving: I don't understand Mr. Mayor how this got messed up. The
' Council met, they discussed this. I'm reading very clearly that it was
approved by the Council and then along comes a condition or two. Who put
those conditions on there?
Don Ashworth: It was put on in the Staff Report. When you reviewed this on
September 22nd, that was part of the recommendation.
' Councilman Geving: But is wasn't part of the motion? Is that correct?
Don Ashworth: You approved the item as submitted, yes.
' Mayor Hamilton: You see at that time the Reeds were here and they explained
what they are attempting to do and then the conditions to them that evening
weren't clear because they had just gotten them and did not make comment on
' them because maybe they thought they weren't suppose to so we thought we were
doing what they wanted to do with the misunderstanding. We always felt we
were passing exactly what they wanted us to do.
ICouncilman Geving: I can understand that. I can see where that is confusing.
We thought we were doing you a favor. I'm sorry I wasn't here that night. I
agree that it should be undone and not improve Oriole.
' 29
C ' II Council Meeting - October 6, 1986
Councilwoman Watson: What is the procedure for undoing it?
Don Ashworth: I think in this case it is simply a clarification of the
previous motion. If you took the position that this was a reconsideration,
then you could not act on it tonight. You would have to wait for two weeks
and I don't think that is the intent of the Council. If you want to simply
call it clarification.
Councilwoman Watson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to clarify the motion made
on September 22, 1986 to read to approve the lot split request to create a
38,750 square foot lot and 35,650 square foot lot using the metes and bounds
description for Parcel A: the north 250 feet of the west 155 feet of Lot G,
Bardwell Acres; and Parcel B: that part of the west 155 feet of Lot G,
Bardwell Acres which lies south of the north 250 feet of said Lot G, with the
following condition: '
1. When the rest of the adjacent property belonging to Mr. Reed is
developed and platted, that these two lots be platted along with the
� rest of the property.
e All voted in favor of the motion and motion carried.
ty Councilman Horn: I would also like to comment that if this question comes up
again, I would like to see some type of an access study done for the park.
Not just carried on as part of the subdivision.
Councilman Geving: We're still playing around with that. We don't know
whether to come in from the west or north.
Gary Reed: Can I make a comment. The bulk of the people that are going to
use it are in the Minnewashta Manor area and it seems to me that some quick
access into the park would probably be a better place then on Oriole. I think
at the present time the park is being used. The kids go in there and play all
the time. It is kind of wilderness area and I think that is what our kids
need. Sometimes we don't need a groomed, mowed lawn to play on. They can
wrestle around back there in the woods is probably better for them then
hanging some ropes.
Mayor Hamilton: One thing we have discussed briefly Gary is the possibilty of
the Gowen property developing and coming into the MUSA district if that
develops and having a road off of that somehow is a real possibility also.
There are a lot of alternatives.
Gary Reed: But I think the park is being utilized even though. We use it for
cross country skiing in the winter.
Councilwoman Watson: A park is not necessarily a ball field and tennis court.
The way our city is developing I think more and more of our parks should be
just like open land because we are going to forget what it looks like. '
30
I r
LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
' (612) 937-1900
APPLICANT: '/SO- DQ�,x, , ,�, / OWNER: 0 /�'� ,
' ADDRESS i3 ,e/ _5a 57z, 67.4 ADDRESS
7/1/.4i 27,u.:- 53-33/
'
TELEPHONE (Daytime) 3;7- Zip U Code
TELEPHONE Zip Code
REQUEST:
Zoning District Change Planned Unit Development
' Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan
Preliminary Plan
Zoning Variance Final Plan
1 Zoning Text Amendment
>‹, Subdivision
Land Use Plan Amendment `• Platting
Metes and Bounds
Conditional Use Permit
Street/Easement Vacation
Site Plan Review
Wetlands Permit
PROJECT NAME
PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION (•.,icW
REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION
PRESENT ZONING
REQUESTED ZONING
USES PROPOSED
SIZE OF PROPERTY
LOCATION
REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary )
JUN 11988
CITY.OF CHANhASSL.AV
. 1
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 20, 1988 ,
Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7: 35 p.m. .
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steven Emmings, Annette Elison, Ladd Conrad ,
James Wildermuth and David Headla '
MEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Batzli
STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner ; Jo Ann Olsen, Asst.
City Planner and Larr Brown, Asst. City Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING:
SUBDIVISION OF 7 ACRES INTO TWO LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT AND TO CREATE A NEW
64TH STREET CUL-DE-SAC ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY II AND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WEST 64TH STREET AND HWY. 41, REED
ADDITION, GARY REED AND HSZ DEVELOPMENT.
Public Present: '
Name Address
Gary and Jan Reed 2461 West 64th Street
Roger Zahn HSZ Development
Barbara Dacy and Larry Brown presented the staff report.
Conrad : Just a quick question Larry. It was stated in the staff report
like it ' s a standard for water retention on site. Is that a City
standard? '
Brown: Yes. That retention pond , as Barb mentioned before, will
accomodate a 100 year storm event or, not only for the Reed property but
for the HSZ property. I should also add that the pond will also help in
the drainage problem that' s occurred in the past on the Reed property from
drainage that flows underneath TH 41 from the Minnetonka school .
Conrad: I think it ' s a good standard.
Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order .
Gary Reed, 2461 West 64th Street: The holding pond, I haven ' t discussed
this with Mr,. Zahn yet but I don' t know if it would make a difference
whether it went in one or another place as far as the location of whether
it be, I 've done some test drilling since I last talked to Roger and we
found one lot that the bottom would be pretty low and hard to build on so
we thought that would be a better location for the pond .
I .
II ,
'
''
.
Planning Commission Meeting
IJuly 20, 1988 - Page 2
C
Conrad : So you feel there' s a better place for the retention pond?
II Gary Reed: Yes. They had it in Outlot A here that we had kind of located
the pond and this is the lot that I was informed on that it would probably
be low so if. . .
IHeadla : Could you put that slide up Larry so we can all see?
Conrad : I don' t know that we care right now but we would direct staff to
I be working with the applicant to find the right location and whether
engineering feels it' s appropriate.
Gary Reed : . . . it' s just a matter at this time, it ' s kind of preliminary
I and . . .
Conrad: And possibly would you have that information ready to discuss
I with Larry and staff within a week so they could take it to City Council
in two weeks from now?
IGary Reed: Yes . I think the test report should be back.
Conrad: It'd be nice to go with that kind of firm agreement between you
and staff before it gets to City Council . Anything else besides that?
ICGary Reed: As far as the rest of it ' s concerned, I think we' re all . . .
I Roger Zahn, HSZ Development: I just wanted to maybe alert the Commission
to the fact that the additional length of storm sewer that we 've been
asked to add to our earlier proposal , we ' ve gotten a preliminary estimate
I on the cost of that and it turns out to be about $25, 000. 00 over and above
what we had proposed to do before. We were looking at some othere
alternatives. Possibly a study as to the topography or something. I 'm
sure our engineers have talked to Larry. You might study it a little
I closer and find that the earlier proposal might actually work but we want
to find something that does work. This one alternative certainly does but
it ' s an expensive alternative too. We just wanted to alert you to that.
I If you can find something that works as well and is a little bit less
expensive than that.
Conrad : Barbara , here we have two cases where we have a retention pond
Iand we have some concern with how we run the water off and it seems like
the applicants are asking for some time . Do you have a suggestion to us?
I Dacy: I can ' t believe that the applicant really wants this thing tabled
because the original approval on this was that the storm sewer issues and
plans and specs had to be approved prior to permits and I know they want
I to get going on the shopping center . These issues do need to be resolved
as quickly as possible because if there are any changes and we change the
plans . . . In order to keep your schedule going , there ' s going to have to
I[— be some decision made.
Roger Zahn : I understand . Just to clarify. I only got that number today
and it 's a big number. The bottom line is, if we had to do it that way, _
I
' i
Planning Commission Meeting
July 20, 1988 - Page 3 ,
we would . If there isn' t something that ' s clearly suitable, that' s less
expensive, that' s . . . It' s sort of a recent development. We don ' t want to
slow down. ,
Emmings : It seems to me that the storm sewer question is a condition of
the approval that' s already been given. What we' re looking at here
tonight is just a replat of the Reed property and it doesn ' t matter for
what we' re looking at in front of us or am I wrong about that?
Dacy: The first part of your statement is correct also. Part of this
plat is the creation of the pond on the Reed property which does handle
the run-off from the HSZ property.
Emmings: Is it in there? Where do I see that in here? Is it in here as
a condition?
Dacy: What' s that? ,
Emmings : The creation of the holding pond?
Dacy: It' s indicated on the drawings. On the right hand side and number
6 of the conditions .
Emmings : But resolution of the drainage problem is a condition of the
other approval that 's already been made.
Emmings moved , Erhart seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Headla : On the page 2 of the staff ' s memo, it says the property owner
should be made aware that upon replatting that a different street or
utility plan may be required . Are the applicant' s aware of that? Did you II
get this part Barb?
Dacy: Yes . Both Mr . and Mrs . Reed and Mr . Zahn received a copy of the
report.
Headla : What are we really supposed to be voting on tonight or
considering?
Dacy: Tonight you' re approving a preliminary plat creating the creation
of an outlot and two single family lots. The creation of a cul-de-sac on
64th Street into the Reed property. You ' re reviewing the utility and
drainage plans for the construction on that street of a proposed trunk
sewer system.
Headla : We don ' t have that will we?
Dacy: Yes . Shown on the plans is creation of a pond and a pipe from that
pond along 64th Street and then down Oriole Lane. II
Planning Commission Meeting
July 20, 1988 - Page 4
47
Wildermuth : Independent of the storm sewer system and the street right?
Dacy: I don ' t think there ' s storm sewer out there.
Brown : There ' s a paper street right now.
Dacy: What you' re seeing is an improvement over the existing situation.
That ' s going to handle existing and . . .
Conrad: Of this whole site, water is an important consideration and on
paper it looks like it' s been resolved but the applicants are finding a
little bit different alternatives .
Headla : Maybe I 'm confused but on number 2, didn' t you pull that out
before on one of our motions?
Brown: That the applicant shall enter into a development contract?
Headla: Yes .
Brown: I 'm sure that we probably have, yes .
Headla: What determines if it ' s in or out?
Dacy: He' s referring to the Waytek plan I 'm sure.
Brown: Usually anytime that there ' s a . . .we require the applicant to enter
into a development contract because there' s a platted public right-of-way
that the City then has interest in with creating a street. The other plan
that you' re referring to is the Waytek plan filed at the last Planning
Commission meeting which was a site plan only.
Headla : And . . .
Brown: Correct , because we really did not have a public interest in any
of the platted right-of-ways.
Wildermuth: From the engineering standpoint , wouldn ' t you want to run
some kind of a storm sewer line down the cul-de-sac to tie into that other
line that ' s shown at a right angle line? Otherwise it ' s just going to run
down the cul-de-sac right?
Brown: You' re saying run a storm sewer system down this direction?
Wildermuth: From the cul-de-sac down going north to the other line.
Brown : I 'm sorry, I guess I don ' t understand .
Wildermuth: How are you going to drain the cul-de-sac?
Dacy: Going down the south of the cul-de-sac .
Gary Reed : Are there catch basins on the cul-de-sac?
1
•
Maar