The URL can be used to link to this page

09-2-98 Agenda and Packet FILE AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 1998 at 7:00 P.M. CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 CITY CENTER DRIVE CALL TO ORDER OLD BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Request for preliminary plat to replat Outlot A of Chanhassen East Business Center 2nd Addition into Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen East Business Center 4th Addition (3.36 acres); site plan review of an Office Warehouse building (31,144 sq. ft.) on property zoned IOP and located south of Hwy. 5, north of Lake Drive East, and east of Abra, CSM Corporation, Chanhassen East Business Center Phase M. 2. Request for preliminary plat approval to subdivide 5.54 acres into 8 single family lots on property zoned RSF, Residential Single Family and located east of Hwy. 41, north and south of Lake Lucy Road, Gestach and Paulson, Brenden Pond 3rd Addition. NEW BUSINESS APPROVAL OF MINUTES ONGOING ITEMS OPEN DISCUSSION 3. Westwood Church (verbal presentation). ADJOURNMENT NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 10:30 p.m. as outlined in official by- laws. We will make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda. If,however,this does not appear to be possible, the Chair person will notify those present and offer rescheduling options. Items thus pulled from consideration will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting. C I TY 0 F PC DATE: 9/2/98 � l ' C U A N U A s s CC DATE: 9/28/98 \ CASE #: 95-18 Site Plan 95-18 SUB BY: Al-Jaff:v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: 1) Site Plan Review for the construction of 31,144 square tbot office warehouse building 2) Preliminary Plat to Replat Outlot A of Chanhassen East Business Center 2nd Z Addition into Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen East Business Center 3rd Addition VQ LOCATION: South of Highway 5, North of Lake Drive East and East of Abra APPLICANT : CSM Investors, Inc. CL 2575 University Ave. W. Suite 150 St. Paul, MN 55114-1024 646-1717 i PRESENT ZONING: IOP, Industrial Office Park ACREAGE: 3.36 acres ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - Highway 5 S- Lake Dnve East and Data Serve E -CSM Phase III W-AbrafHighway Business SEWER AND WATER: Services are available to the site. Q SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The site is an old farmstead. The majority of the site has been disturbed by grading activities relating to CSM Phase I, IIand III. 2000 LAND USE: Office/Industrial 5,,„ogig60. 1. nes k -- ------.4t .k107:---:-Wrr-1"5"'• 1111 Elia, , . sor Bert7g11,ni•,'. --';-1-L,.- Ir 7 2 irs - st •C, ` � - 7400 Z., Jl 11 t. � ` y 0 o 7500 ____illiantifrm__ 1 i �.�.• ( �; 1 7600 Ath■14:1_r" II-- .m •-- so,'G' y° :L 1 is'- o I—I ■d ^1 -� i I 7th, i5t d- . 77t t f 7700 ---1 i I hili 5,ij = i -- I I 1 '--I IT - - I H l I , '�- . —,..-::. .:� :,.,__,_.,, k-::.,_,,,>- ,„...,,,a.:_.-, 7800 -� ' y '- i _- �4 -deb i ./`'y Dr / -�-...nve E �J lir l - Lake euy_In� __---1____-:_-____-T------ W'79th = ` — _ _ Chanhassen 7900 r 1� 5--- - Q' Es to tes O • a - -p`DakoiaMini Park , __ /'�/ �� - _fir-Spm -� - -_ • - 8000 _ ___. ate Hrwy 5 v - -6:- z. ~ - \ - - �Jo_ Q. s . r _ qg 4 c r�. SW 2 /� — 8100 �' I _'f1- • - c - 9 , -�' S ---v" Q` �r `eke-+_ter-0 O_ 5 t (--) I I ^ 11CC V Yeo �q 8200 I 3` r r a y koy 1 �� `� " .I. : 8300 : " _ Rice Marsh r '-� Lake P- k Rice ' 8400 1 Ma�eld Court / : ,� 2 Mission Hills Dr / ' a r s h Lake _.�// ' 3 Frisco Crt `' Mission / C ' `� ' i„\ , Hiljs_.. _ ` ' i v� 8500 .�.{-,•,,�court .= C'9' W E.D. ' • C ER' ) C Jh co Q Esc�_T �_. . t w - 8600 N / y _' u, - •o� '=_-�j 0 I C TION W4Y HILL W , ' 1 •lei ►W',' U V 8700 shland Trail vg - CKBIRD CRT PROPOS - ... -:��1�V�0' rtland Crt ,-- R;1--'.4: ..i i1ON W4'HfLL E ,' CRT4:..D,-. •� 8800 lNK CRT "�--, L I 1 -- 8900 CSM Corporation Phase IV September 2, 1998 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY There are two actions being requested with this application, a replat and a site plan review for an office warehouse building. The site is zoned IOP, Industrial Office Park and bordered by Highway 5 to the north, CSM Phase III office buildings to the east,Abra to the west,and Lake Drive East to the south. The lot area of the office/warehouse sites are 3.36 acres. The site is visible directly from Highway 5 and has full access from Lake Drive East. The subdivision request consists of replatting 3.36 acres into Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen East Business Center 4`" Addition and dedicating all the necessary utility and drainage easements. It will contain the proposed office warehouse building. The subdivision request is a relatively straightforward action. The site plan is for the office warehouse building. It is well designed and uses high quality materials. It utilizes face brick as its main material with pre-colored face brick integrated along the upper portion of the building accented by pre-colored masonry bands and glazed square tiles over the brick. Windows are found on all sides of the building with the exception of the loading dock area. Entrances into the building are identified by an arch. The applicant is providing movement in the building to breakup the large masses of walls along Highway 5. The overall design and materials will blend in and complement the surrounding buildings in the area. The building is designed in a "U" shape with the loading docks inside the"U." This area is further screened by a berm and landscaping along the south portion of the site. Parking is proposed along the east, west and north of the proposed buildings. These spaces are screened by a 3 foot high berm. The portion of Highway 5 that abuts the subject site has an elevation of 935. The berm is proposed to have an elevation of 938. The parking lot along the northern portion of the site is proposed to have an elevation of 933. Also, the applicant is proposing to landscape the berm and staff is confident that the parking lot will have sufficient screening from Highway 5. Plantings are being used in strategic locations along the berm and highway to maximize screening of the parking lot. This area is in the highway corridor which uses the underlying district for setbacks. The parking as proposed including the screening meets the Highway 5 zoning district requirements. The building will require 96 parking spaces and the applicant is providing 121 spaces. The spaces were designed surrounding the building. They are broken by landscape islands and screened from views from Highway 5 and Lake Drive East by berms and vegetation. There is a maximum of two rows of parking at any given location. Staff regards the project as a reasonable use of the land. The overall design is sensitive to the Highway 5 corridor's image. The landscape plan meets all the requirements of the zoning CSM Corporation Phase IV September 2, 1998 Page 3 ordinance. Based upon the foregoing, staff is recommending approval of the site plan, without variances, and the subdivision request, with conditions outlined in the staff report. BACKGROUND On May 6, 1996, the City Council approved the final plat for Subdivision#95-18 for Chanhassen East Business Center, CSM Investors, Inc. and DataServ, Inc., to subdivide 61.6 acres into 3 Lots and 2 Outlots. Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, contain office/warehouse buildings. Outlot A was reserved for future development. With this proposal, the applicant is subdividing Outlot A into 2 lots and one outlot. The parcel located south of Lake Drive East contain the DataSery building. Outlot B will contain a pond. The pond is also under construction. At that sane meeting, the City Council approved a site plan review(#95-18) for the construction of two 64,000 square foot office warehouse buildings. These are the buildings that are under construction today. On September 9, 1996, the City Council approved Site Plan Review #95-18 for CSM Phase II to construct 2 office warehouse buildings. The proposal also included approval of Subdivision#95- 18 which divided 7.65 acres into 2 lots. Lot 1 contains a building while Lot 2 was vacant. On May 26, 1998, the City Council approved Site Plan Review for the construction of the two office buildings with an area of 12,727 square feet and 15,005 square feet and Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 3.46 acres into 2 Lots, Chanhassen East Business Center Third Addition. The applicant requested to divide Lot 2 into two lots and proposed to build two smaller office buildings rather than one large office warehouse building. As a condition of site plan approval, the applicant will be required to officially withdraw his site plan approval for Building 2 of Phase I1 for Chanhassen East Business Center 2"d Addition. To date, buildings 1, 2, and 3 are occupied, building 4 is under construction, and building 5 to be constructed in the near future. The application before the City is requesting approval for the 6th and final building within the CSM project. GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE The proposed office warehouse building, with an area of 31,144 square feet, will be situated parallel to and south of Highway 5. The site is bordered by Highway 5 to the north, and Lake Drive East to the south. Access to the buildings is proposed from Lake Drive East. Parking will be located along the east, west and north sides of the buildings. A meandering berm with landscaping, 3 feet in height, is proposed to be installed along the perimeter of the site to provide CSM Corporation Phase IV September 2, 1998 Page 4 screening. The building is located 74.7 feet from the north, 68.2 feet from the east, 66.6 feet from the south, and 71.5 feet from the west property line. Materials used on the both buildings are face brick on all four sides of both buildings. Decorative pre-colored rockface block will be integrated into the walls, accented by pre-colored masonry bands and pre-colored glazed tile. Entrances into the building are identified by an arched element. This feature is different from previous phases of CSM, however, it blends well with the surrounding area. The building's architecture is tastefully designed and meets the standards of the site plan ordinance requirements. The different colors and materials give the building the desired visual appeal. As mentioned earlier, the building has glass windows that rap around the building and the walls are designed in a fashion that provides detail, form and a siting that provides visual interest. This development falls within the Highway Corridor Overlay and must comply with the district's design standards in addition to the Industrial Office Park Standards. The purpose of the overlay district is to promote high-quality architectural and site design through improved development standards within the corridor. The design standards should create a unified, harmonious and high quality visual environment. The plan and design of the proposed development meets the intent of the overlay district with the following features: • The building will be one story and the architectural style is unique to the building but will fit in. The building will provide a variation in style through the use of brick, block, glazed tile, glass, and arched elements. The building is utilizing exterior materials that are durable and of high quality. Samples of the materials will be available at the meeting. • The site slopes easterly and grading of the site is required. The landscaping plan provides a variety of plant materials that are massed where possible, particularly along Highway 5. The berms and landscaping materials will be continuous along the perimeter of the site. The plant materials are repetitious in some locations and variable in others. Proposed plant materials are indigenous to Minnesota. A curb is required along the perimeter of the green space area. All planting areas are adequate in size to allow trees to grow. • A parking lot light plan is required. The plan should incorporate the light style and height. A detailed sign plan which include the lighting method has not been submitted. However, the same sign criteria that governs CSM Phases I, II and III will be applied to Phase IV. Facade signage will be raised backlit letters, within a consistent band. All signage will be uniform color with letters at maximum of 2 feet and logos at a maximum of 30 inches. • The site plan does not show the location of the trash enclosure, however, through discussions with the applicant, it was explained that the trash will be stored inside the CSM Corporation Phase IV September 2, 1998 Page 5 building, next to the loading docks area. Current state statutes require that recycling space be provided for all new buildings. The area of the recycling space must be dedicated at the rate specified in Minnesota State Building Code (MSBC) 1300.4700 Subp. 5. The applicant should demonstrate the required area will be provided in addition to the space required for other solid waste collection space. Recycling space and other solid waste collection space should be contained within the same area. SITE PLAN FINDINGS In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance with the following: (1) Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted; (2) Consistency with this division; (3) Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing areas; (4) Creation of a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development; (5) Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: a. An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community; b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping; c. Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and d. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public CSM Corporation Phase IV September 2, 1998 Page 6 streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. (6) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. Finding: The proposed development is consistent with the City's Highway 5 corridor design requirements, the comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance, and the site plan review requirements. The site design is compatible with the surrounding development. It is functional and harmonious with the approved development for this area. WETLANDS A wetland delineation report was prepared by John Anderson with wetlands data as part of the first phase of this project. The applicant has indicated on the plan sheet that no wetlands exist on this site. These findings have been reviewed and confirmed by both city staff and a Technical Evaluation Panel. GRADING AND DRAINAGE The entire site is proposed to be graded for the parking lot and building. A seven-foot high berm is proposed along Trunk Highway 5 in which the applicant is requesting MnDOT permission to extend the slopes. Based on storm drainage issues along Trunk Highway 5, staff is doubtful whether or not the applicant will receive permission to encroach upon MnDOT's right-of-way. Therefore, the berm may be significantly smaller and lower in height. Berming is also being proposed along Lake Drive East. A small ponding area is proposed in the southwest corner of the lot which, upon further review and analysis by staff, could be eliminated and the stormwater from the site piped directly into the existing pond to the west in Chanhassen Plaza 4th Addition providing the applicant can demonstrate that the existing pond can accommodate the additional stormwater runoff. This would allow additional berming to occur on the southwest corner of the site. The City has existing infrastructure along the westerly property line which will be impacted by grading and site improvements. The applicant will need to enter into an encroachment agreement with the City for encroachment into the City's drainage and utility easement to place the parking lot and landscaping. As a result of site improvements, the existing infrastructure, i.e. manholes and gate valves, will need to be adjusted to final grade in accordance with City specifications. Staff encourages the applicant and/or contractor to review the existing infrastructure, sidewalks, CSM Corporation Phase IV September 2, 1998 Page 7 curbs, etc. for any damage prior to entering the site. The applicant should point out any deficiencies or corrections prior to commencing the construction otherwise they will be held responsible for correction upon final inspection of the site. The site is designed to drain via storm sewer to the southwest corner of the site where stormwater will discharge into a proposed dry pond which will outlet into the City's existing 42-inch storm sewer. Upon further review by staff it appears feasible to extend the storm sewer down to the existing stormwater basin to the west in Chanhassen Plaza 4th Addition and eliminate the dry pond. An outlet control structure will need to be installed and minor grading in the pond to accommodate this site's runoff. Staff would prefer the drainage go to the existing pond and will work with the applicant to achieve such goal. In place of the dry pond staff recommends additional berming to help screen from any neighborhood south of Lake Drive East. Storm Water Quality Fees The SWMP has established a water quality connection charge for each new subdivision based on land use. Dedication shall be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of$2.75 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. The proposed SWMP water quality charge for a industrial developments is $4,633/acre. The water quality fee for the proposed 3.36 acre development will be $15,567. Storm Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Industrial developments will have a connection charge of$4,360 per developable acre. The total area of the proposed development is 3.36 acres. Therefore, the applicant would then be responsible for a water quantity connection charge of$14,650. As part of Phase I of this development, a regional stormwater pond has been designed for both water quality and quantity SWMP credits. Due to the construction of this over-sized regional pond, the City owed the applicant SWMP credits to compensate for the oversizing. As each phase of the CSM development has been submitted, SWMP fees have been paid with this credit. Prior to 4th addition, the City owes a balance of$31,512 to the applicant. The SWMP fees for this phase total $30,216. Therefore, upon completion of this phase the City will owe the applicant $1,296. CSM Corporation Phase IV September 2, 1998 Page 8 EROSION CONTROL Erosion control measures appear to be in general accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH) and the grading plan incorporates erosion control fence (Type I) around the perimeter of the grading limits. A rock construction entrance is proposed at the westerly access point. Catch basins are proposed to be protected with hay bales until the parking lot has been paved. Disruption usually occurs to the City's boulevard area between the curb and sidewalk during site work. This area must be sodded upon completion of the building. UTILITIES Individual sewer and water service has been extended from Lake Drive East into the property. Water service is also proposed from Lot 2, Block 1, Chanhassen East Business Center 3`d Addition directly to the east of the site. Cross-access and maintenance agreements should be prepared for joint parcel use. All utilities will be considered private and not maintained by the City. Utilities will be inspected by the City's Building Department. The applicant and/or contractor shall be responsible for obtaining the appropriate permits from the City's Building Department. Final construction plans are subject to review and approval by the City's Building Department. Final construction plans shall be prepared in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates and/or State Plumbing Code. The applicant should enter into a development contract with the City in conjunction with final plat consideration. The final construction plans need to be reviewed and approved by staff a minimum of two weeks prior to City Council consideration. STREETS/PARKING/INTERIOR CIRCULATION The site is proposed to be accessed from two driveway points off of Lake Drive East. The plans propose on utilizing a 20-foot radius on the access point which may not be large enough to accommodate truck turning movements into the site with the proposed 26-foot drive aisles. The applicant's engineer shall verify that the radiuses are sufficient to accommodate large truck turning movements. Staff suggests that the driveway entrances be widened to 30 feet. In conjunction with Phase I of this development, a traffic study was prepared for the intersection of Lake Drive East and Dell Road. The traffic study revealed acceptable levels of service through Phase I of the development and eventually a level of service "B" for the forecast year 2005, assuming a signalized intersection. Based on the traffic study, it appears a traffic signal may be required in the future at Lake Drive East and Dell Road. The developer shall be responsible for a share of the local cost participation of this traffic signal on a percentage basis based upon traffic generation from full development of this site in relation to the total traffic volume of Dell Road. A condition will be placed in the development contract accordingly. CSM Corporation Phase IV September 2, 1998 Page 9 A six-foot wide concrete sidewalk exists along the north side of Lake Drive East. In conjunction with the proposed driveway curb cuts, pedestrian ramps are proposed at all access points. To enhance pedestrian movement from the parking areas and building to the sidewalk along Lake Drive East, interior sidewalks should be considered. The City's parking ordinance for office warehouse buildings requires a total of 96 spaces. The applicant is providing 121 spaces. The Minnesota State Building Code (MSBC) requires that accessible parking spaces be provided at the rate of one accessible space per every 25 spaces in the lot(s). This calculates out to 5 spaces. The submitted site plan includes eight accessible parking spaces. LANDSCAPING Landscaping requirements for the proposed development include the following: Parking lot Required landscape area: 4,546 S.F. Provided landscape area: 4,591 S.F. Required number of trees: 18 Provided number of trees: 19 Bufferyard 'B' Required landscaping along Hwy. 5: 5 overstory, 10 understory, 10 shrubs Provided landscaping along Hwy. 5: 12 overstory, 22 understory,40 shrubs Required landscaping along E. Lake Dr.: 5 overstory, 10 understory, 10 shrubs Provided landscaping along E. Lake Dr.: 10 overstory, 10 understory, 52 shrubs The applicant meets minimum requirements for parking and buffer yard landscaping. REFUSE COLLECTION Trash collection space will be located inside the building. Current state statutes require that recycling space be provided for all new buildings. The area of the recycling space must be dedicated at the rate specified in Minnesota State Building Code (MSBC) 1300.4700 Subp. 5. The applicant should demonstrate the required area will be provided in addition to the space required for other solid waste collection space. Recycling space and other solid waste collection space should be contained within the same enclosure. CSM Corporation Phase IV September 2, 1998 Page 10 LIGHTING Lighting locations for the parking lot are illustrated on the plans. Only shielded fixtures are allowed and the applicant shall demonstrate that there is no more than %2 foot candles of light at the property line as required by ordinance. A detailed lighting plan should be submitted when building permits are requested. Street lights consistent with Lake Drive East will be at 200 feet intervals, staggered from one side to the other. SIGNAGE The applicant has submitted a signage plan. One ground low profile business sign is permitted per lot. The area of the sign may not exceed 80 square feet and a height of 8 feet. Also, one wall mounted sign per business shall be permitted per street frontage. The total display area shall not exceed 15%of the total area of the building wall upon which the signs are mounted. No sign may exceed 90 square feet. Staff is recommending the same criteria be followed as Phases I, II and III. Sign Criteria: 1. All businesses within a single building shall share one monument sign. One monument sign per lot. Monument signage shall be subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance. 2. Wall signs are permitted on no more that 2 street frontages. The letters shall be located within a designated sign band. 3. All signs require a separate permit. 4. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and add an architectural accent to the building. 5. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights. 6. No illuminated signs within the development may be viewed from the residential section south and west of the site. 7. Back-lit individual letter signs are permitted. 8. Individual letters may not exceed 2 feet and logos may not exceed 30 inches in height. CSM Corporation Phase IV September 2, 1998 Page 11 9. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be permitted on the sign. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the signs on site. One stop sign must be posted on the driveway at the exit points of both site. A detailed sign plan incorporating the method of lighting, acceptable to staff should be provided prior to requesting a sign permit. COMPLIANCE TABLE - IOP DISTRICT Ordinance Lot 1 Building Height 2 stories 1 story Building Setback N-30' E-10' N-74.7' E-68.2' S-30' W-10' S-66.6' W-71.5' Parking stalls 96 stalls 121 stalls Parking Setback N-25' E-0' N-30' E-NA' S-25' W-0' S-35 W-NA Hard surface 70% 66.3% Coverage Lot Area I acre 3.36 acres PARK AND TRAIL DEDICATION FEES The City is requiring that park and trails fees be submitted in lieu of park land. Fees are to be paid in accordance to city ordinance. One third of the fees will be required at the time of final plat recording. SUBDIVISION The preliminary plat proposes replatting 3.36 acres of an outlot into Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen East Business Center 4th Addition. The ordinance requires a minimum area of 1 acre for industrial lots. The lot will have area of 3.36 acres which exceeds ordinance requirements. The subdivision request is a relatively straightforward action. Standard drainage and utility easements around the perimeter of the lot are illustrated on the plat. CSM Corporation Phase IV September 2, 1998 Page 12 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: I. SITE PLAN REVIEW "The Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan Review#95-18 for CSM Phase IV, as shown on the site plan received July 31. 1998, subject to the following conditions: 1. Signage criteria: a. The building shall share one monument sign. Monument signage shall be subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance. b. Wall signs are permitted on no more that 2 street frontages. The letters shall be located within a designated sign band. c. All signs require a separate permit. d. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and add an architectural accent to the building. e. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights. f. No illuminated signs within the development may be viewed from the residential section south and west of the site. g. Back-lit individual letter signs are permitted. h. Individual letters may not exceed 2 feet and logos may not exceed 30 inches in height. i. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be permitted on the sign. j. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the signs on site. A detailed sign plan incorporating the method of lighting, acceptable to staff should be provided prior to requesting a sign permit. k. One stop sign must be posted at the driveways at the exit points. CSM Corporation Phase IV September 2, 1998 Page 13 2. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping. 3. Fire Marshal conditions: a) "No parking Fire Lane" signs and yellow curbing shall be provided. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of signs and curbing to be painted. b) Post indicator valves will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. c) Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention policy regarding premise identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #29-1992. Copy enclosed. d) Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/City of Chanhassen policy regarding water service installation for commercial and industrial buildings. Pursuant to Inspection Division Water Service Installation Policy#34-1993. Copy enclosed. e) Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy regarding maximum allowed size of domestic water service on a combination domestic fire supply line. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #36-1994. f) Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division policy regarding fire department witnessing flushing of underground mains which come into the building for fire suppression systems. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy#40-1995. g) Two additional fire hydrants will be required; one at the extreme southwest corner of the building, and the second at the extreme southeast corner. Contact the Fire Marshal for exact location and resubmit utility plans for review and approval. h) If PIV valve is subject to vehicle traffic and damage,protective bollards must be installed. 3. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted. CSM Corporation Phase IV September 2, 1998 Page 14 4. All roof top equipment must be screened in accordance with city ordinances. 5. Meet with the Building Official to discuss building plans. 6. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. All catch basins shall be protected with silt fence or hay bales until the parking lot is paved. 7. The applicant and/or contractor shall conduct an inspection of the existing utilities, sidewalk and curbs on the site prior to commencing. If any improvements are damaged they shall notify the City Engineer of such in writing. The applicant will be responsible for all boulevard restoration or damage to existing City utilities or street improvements as a result of construction. 8. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, Metropolitan Council Waste Water Services, Minnesota Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. 9. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within street right-of-way. 10. The final construction plans and specifications for the site utility improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates and/or State Plumbing Codes. Final plans shall be submitted three weeks prior to final plat consideration. 11. A cross-access and maintenance agreement shall be executed over the plat to permit utility extension from Chanhassen East Business Center 3rd Addition. 12. The developer shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the City for construction of the parking lot and landscape improvements within the City's drainage and utility easement. 13. The applicant shall work with staff in revising the drainage plans to utilize the existing pond in Chanhassen Plaza 2"d Addition and deleting the proposed dry pond. 14. The boulevard along Lake Drive East shall be sodded. CSM Corporation Phase IV September 2, 1998 Page 15 15. The applicant shall verify that the radiuses on the driveway access points on Lake Drive East are sufficient to accommodate truck turning movements. The drive aisle width at Lake Drive East access points shall be increased to 28 feet minimum." II. SUBDIVISION "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision#95-18 for Chanhassen East Business Center Fourth Addition as shown on the plat received July 31, 1998, with the following conditions: I. Park and trail dedication fees to be collected per city ordinance. 2. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement and development agreement with the City and provide the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit to guarantee compliance with the permit and conditions of approval. 3. The applicant shall provide the City Engineer with and engineering estimate for site improvements which involve the relocation or adjustment of public improvements, i.e. sanitary manhole, gate valve adjustment, curb and sidewalk removal. 4 . The installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Lake Drive East and Dell Road is expected in the future. The developer shall be responsible for a share of the local cost participation of this signal on a percentage basis based upon traffic generation from full development of this site in relation to the total traffic volume on Dell Road. The developer and/or property owner shall waive any and all procedural and substantive objections to the special assessment, including, but not limited to, hearing requirements or any claim that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the property." ATTACHMENTS 1. Memo from Dave Hempel and Philip Elkin, dated August 26, 1998. 2. Memo from Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal dated August 18, 1998. 3. Memo from Steven Torell,Assistant Building Official, dated August 19, 1998. 4. Application. 5. Public hearing notice and property owners. 6. Project Narrative. 7. Plans received July 31, 1998. g:\plan\sa\csm.iv.doc MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II CITY OF �y►�t FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer X/" CHANHASSEN (11/ Phillip Elkin, Water Resources Coordinator 690 Cite Center Drive,PO Box 1-t- DATE: August 26, 1998 Chanhassen,Minnesota)53 - Phale 61293'1900 SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Review for Chanhassen East Business Center 4`h General Fax 612.93..-, 39 Addition Engineering Fax 612.9379152 File No. 98-21 Land Use Review Pi-61ii.S if?r Fri 612 934.252-i Upon review of the plans prepared by RLK dated July 30, 1998, I offer the following comments and recommendations: GRADING AND DRAINAGE The entire site is proposed to be graded for the parking lot and building. A seven- foot high berm is proposed along Trunk Highway 5 in which the applicant is requesting MnDOT permission to extend the slopes. Based on storm drainage issues along Trunk Highway 5, staff is doubtful whether or not the applicant will receive permission to encroach upon MnDOT's right-of-way. Therefore, the berm may be significantly smaller and lower in height. Berming is also being proposed along Lake Drive East. A small ponding area is proposed in the southwest corner of the lot which, upon further review and analysis by staff,could be eliminated and the stormwater from the site piped directly into the existing pond to the west in Chanhassen Plaza 4th Addition providing the applicant can demonstrate that the existing pond can accommodate the additional stormwater runoff. This would allow additional berming to occur on the southwest corner of the site. The City has existing infrastructure along the westerly property line which will be impacted by grading and site improvements. The applicant will need to enter into an encroachment agreement with the City for encroachment into the City's drainage and utility easement to place the parking lot and landscaping. As a result of site improvements, the existing infrastructure, i.e. manholes and gate valves, will need to be adjusted to final grade in accordance with City specifications. Staff encourages the applicant and/or contractor to review the existing infrastructure, sidewalks,curbs, etc. for any damage prior to entering the site. The applicant should point out any deficiencies or corrections prior to commencing the construction otherwise they will be held responsible for correction upon final inspection of the site. The Cit}'of Chanhassen.A wowing coin':::'.:r with clean labs,(lwaht;schools,Al charming downtown,thriving bus ne.se.. d' :.li'S.A great place to lite.work,andplate Sharmin Al-Jaff Chanhassen East Business Center 4th Addition Preliminary Plat Review August 26, 1998 Page 2 The site is designed to drain via storm sewer to the southwest corner of the site where stormwater will discharge into a proposed dry pond which will outlet into the City's existing 42-inch storm sewer. Upon further review by staff it appears feasible to extend the storm sewer down to the existing stormwater basin to the west in Chanhassen Plaza 4th Addition and eliminate the dry pond. An outlet control structure will need to be installed and minor grading in the pond to accommodate this site's runoff. Staff would prefer the drainage go to the existing pond and will work with the applicant to achieve such goal. In place of the dry pond staff recommends additional berming to help screen from any neighborhood south of Lake Drive East. Storm Water Quality Fees The SWMP has established a water quality connection charge for each new subdivision based on land use. Dedication shall be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of$2.75 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. The proposed SWMP water quality charge for a industrial developments is $4,633/acre. The water quality fee for the proposed 3.36 acre development will be $15,567. Storm Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition,proposed SWMP culverts,open channels and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Industrial developments will have a connection charge of $4,360 per developable acre.The total area of the proposed development is 3.36 acres. Therefore,the applicant would then be responsible for a water quantity connection charge of$14,650. As part of Phase I of this development, a regional stormwater pond has been designed for both water quality and quantity SWMP credits. Due to the construction of this over-sized regional pond, the City owed the applicant SWMP credits to compensate for the oversizing. As each phase of the CSM development has been submitted, SWMP fees have been paid with this credit. Prior to 4th Sharmin Al-Jaff Chanhassen East Business Center 4th Addition Preliminary Plat Review August 26, 1998 Page 3 addition, the City owes a balance of$31,512 to the applicant. The SWMP fees for this phase total $30,216. Therefore upon completion of this phase the City will owe the applicant$1,296. EROSION CONTROL Erosion control measures appear to be in general accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH) and the grading plan incorporates erosion control fence (Type I)around the perimeter of the grading limits. A rock construction entrance is proposed at the westerly access point. Catch basins are proposed to be protected with hay bales until the parking lot has been paved. Disruption usually occurs to the City's boulevard area between the curb and sidewalk during site work. This area must be sodded upon completion of the building. UTILITIES Individual sewer and water service has been extended from Lake Drive East into the property. Water service is also proposed from Lot 2,Block 1, Chanhassen East Business Center 3rd Addition directly to the east of the site. Cross-access and maintenance agreements should be prepared for joint parcel use. All utilities will be considered private and not maintained by the City. Utilities will be inspected by the City's Building Department. The applicant and/or contractor shall be responsible for obtaining the appropriate permits from the City's Building Department. Final construction plans are subject to review and approval by the City's Building Department. Final construction plans shall be prepared in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates and/or State Plumbing Code. The applicant should enter into a development contract with the City in conjunction with final plat consideration. The final construction plans need to be reviewed and approved by staff a minimum of two weeks prior to City Council consideration. STREETS/PARKING/INTERIOR CIRCULATION The site is proposed to be accessed from two driveway points off of Lake Drive East. The plans propose on utilizing a 20-foot radius on the access point which may not be large enough to accommodate truck turning movements into the site with the proposed 26-foot drive aisles. The applicant's engineer shall verify that Sharmin Al-Jaff Chanhassen East Business Center 4th Addition Preliminary Plat Review August 26, 1998 Page 4 the radiuses are sufficient to accommodate large truck turning movements. Staff suggests that the driveway entrances be widened to 30 feet. In conjunction with Phase I of this development, a traffic study was prepared for the intersection of Lake Drive East and Dell Road. The traffic study revealed acceptable levels of service through Phase I of the development and eventually a level of service "B" for the forecast year 2005, assuming a signalized intersection. Based on the traffic study, it appears a traffic signal may be required in the future at Lake Drive East and Dell Road. The developer shall be responsible for a share of the local cost participation of this traffic signal on a percentage basis based upon traffic generation from full development of this site in relation to the total traffic volume of Dell Road. A condition will be placed in the development contract accordingly. A six-foot wide concrete sidewalk exists along the north side of Lake Drive East. In conjunction with the proposed driveway curb cuts, pedestrian ramps are proposed at all access points. To enhance pedestrian movement from the parking areas and building to the sidewalk along Lake Drive East, interior sidewalks should be considered. SITE PLAN RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. All catch basins shall be protected with silt fence or hay bales until the parking lot is paved. 2. The applicant and/or contractor shall conduct an inspection of the existing utilities, sidewalk and curbs on the site prior to commencing. If any improvements are damaged they shall notify the City Engineer of such in writing. The applicant will be responsible for all boulevard restoration or damage to existing City utilities or street improvements as a result of construction. 3. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, Metropolitan Council Waste r Sharmin Al-Jaff Chanhassen East Business Center 41h Addition Preliminary Plat Review August 26, 1998 Page 5 Water Services, Minnesota Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. 4. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within street right-of-way. 5. The final construction plans and specifications for the site utility improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates and/or State Plumbing Codes. Final plans shall be submitted three weeks prior to final plat consideration. 6. A cross-access and maintenance agreement shall be executed over the plat to permit utility extension from Chanhassen East Business Center 3`d Addition. 7. The developer shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the City for construction of the parking lot and landscape improvements within the City's drainage and utility easement. 8. The applicant shall work with staff in revising the drainage plans to utilize the existing pond in Chanhassen Plaza 2nd Addition and deleting the proposed dry pond. 9. The boulevard along Lake Drive East shall be sodded. 10. The applicant shall verify that the radiuses on the driveway access points on Lake Drive East are sufficient to accommodate truck turning movements. The drive aisle width at Lake Drive East access points shall be increased to 28 feet minimum. PRELIMINARY PLAT RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with a financial security in the form of a letter of credit to guarantee conditions of approval. 2. The applicant shall provide the City Engineer with and engineering estimate for site improvements which involve the relocation or adjustment of public Sharmin Al-Jaff Chanhassen East Business Center 4'h Addition Preliminary Plat Review August 26, 1998 Page 6 improvements, i.e. sanitary manhole, gate valve adjustment, curb and sidewalk removal. 3. The installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Lake Drive East and Dell Road is expected in the future. The developer shall be responsible for a share of the local cost participation of this signal on a percentage basis based upon traffic generation from full development of this site in relation to the total traffic volume on Dell Road. The developer and/or property owner shall waive any and all procedural and substantive objections to the special assessment, including, but not limited to,hearing requirements or any claim that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the property. c: Anita Benson, City Engineer g:eng'davpc\cebc 4th ppr.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 City Center Dr/re,PO Bos 147 MEMORANDUM Chanhassen,Minnesota 55317 Phone 612.9_371900 TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II General Fax 612.93 S 39 FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal Engineering fax 612.937 9152 Pubic Safety fax 612.93- 252-i DATE: august 18, 1998 Web wwwel.ebanha,sen.n:rau, SUBJECT: Preliminary plat to re-plat Outlot A of Chanhassen East Business Center 2nd Addition into Lot 1, Block 1 Chanhassen East Business Center 46 Addition (3.36 acres); said plan review for an office/warehouse building 31,144 square feet on property zoned !OP and located in the southwest corner of Dell Road and Highway 5, CSM Corporation, Chanhassen East Business Center Phase III. Planning Case 95-18 SUB, 05-18 SPR. I have reviewed the site plan review for the above project. In order to comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division, I have the following fire code or city ordinance/policy requirements. The site plan is based on the available information submitted at this time. If additional plans or changes are submitted,the appropriate code or policy items will be addressed. 1. "No parking Fire Lane" signs and yellow curbing shall be provided. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of signs and curbing to be painted. 2. Post indicator valves will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. 3. Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention policy regarding premise identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy#29-1992. Copy enclosed. 4. Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/City of Chanhassen policy regarding water service installation for commercial and industrial buildings. Pursuant to Inspection Division Water Service Installation Policy#34-1993. Copy enclosed. The City of Chanhassen..4 growing community with clean lakes,quality schools,a chaining downtown,thriving businesses,and beauti fnl parks..-1 great place to lire,wss k,and play. Sharmin Al-Jaff August 18, 1998 Page 2 5. Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy regarding maximum allowed size of domestic water service on a combination domestic fire supply line. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy#36-1994. 6. Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division policy regarding fire department witnessing flushing of underground mains which come into the building for fire suppression systems. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy#40-1995. 7. Two additional fire hydrants will be required; one at the extreme southwest corner of the building, and the second at the extreme southeast corner. Contact the Fire Marshal for exact location and resubmit utility plans for review and approval. 8. If PIV valve is subject to vehicle traffic and damage, protective bol lards must be installed. g:\safety\mI\plrev95-18 101 CITY OF CHANHASSEN MEMORANDUM 690City Center Drive,POBox lt,- TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II Chanhassen,,llinne;orrr>j31- FROM: Steven Torell, Assistant Building Official Phone 612.93.1900 General Fax 612.93-.5-39 DATE: August 19, 1998 Engineering Fax 612.93-.9152 Public Safer•Fax 612.93-L252-i SUBJECT: Planning Case 95-18 sub, 95-18SPR I,,. (CSM Corporation, Chanhassen East Business Center- 4th Addition) I was asked to review the site plan proposal stamped, "City of Chanhassen, July 31, 1998, Chanhassen Planning Department" for the above referenced project. Accessibility: The accessible parking space access aisles must be signed "Access Aisle,No Parking". Although only one van accessible access aisle is required for the spaces that have been provided, by utilizing nine foot access aisles a; al! the spaces those also must be signed to maintain open access. . Permit Requirements: Plans are often bid before the City building code plan review, making changes necessary for code compliance difficult and expensive to incorporate later. Accordingly, I would like to request that you relay to the developers and designers my desire to meet with the them as early as possible to discuss commercial building permit requirements and the code review process. Recommendations: The following conditions should be included with the conditions of approval; 1) Revise the parking on the preliminary site plan to comply with the above analysis. 2) Meet with the inspections division plan reviewer as soon as possible,after approval, to begin the building code plan review process and discuss commercial building permit submittal requirements. g lsafetplst'unemos'.plan'•csm4 The City of Chanhassen..4 growing co;nnzunity with clear lakes,quality s hools,a Awning downtown,thriving businesses,and heau;i rl peaks.,]great place to lire,work,and play: CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612)937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: CSM Investors, Inc. OWNER: CI Investors, Inc. ADDRESS: 2575 University Ave. W., #150 ADDRESS:Same St. Paul, MN 55114 TELEPHONE(Day time) (612) 646-1717 TELEPHONE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit _ Vacation of ROW/Easements Interim Use Permit _ Variance Non-conforming Use Permit — Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development' _ Zoning Appeal Rezoning _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Notification Sign )ooc Site Plan Review* • X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** - ' ($50 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) Subdivision' TOTAL FEE$ A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. 'Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2'X 11" reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract NOTE-When multiple applications are processed,the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. • NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME Chanhassen Fast Business Center, Phase IV LOCATION North of Lake Drive Fast South of Highway 5, West of Dell Road LEGAL DESCRIPTION Outlot A, Chanhassen Fast Business Center 2nd Addition PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING • PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THIS REQUEST Site Plan Review, Replat of Outlot to allow development This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible foi complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded a•ainst the title to the i roperty for which the approval`permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's • iie and the original document returned to City Hall Records. 41. 1 ��L' , INC. 7/31/98 Signature of Applicant/O,yner t Date By: Murray Korn g, Vice—President 1 Sig natva\tJ.-�Erftexi c Date Application Received on Fee Paid Receipt No. ' The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ,�1� COMMISSION 4 . \PLANNING E` e� idWednesda , Se tember 2, 1998 s■��► ��? s� eV Y p �q♦ � , t 7:00 •m. mm. ,a p e 'VCity Hall Council Chambers filiTi690 City Center Drive ��:•.0.- �••� 77thst111111111241 0, \ ,c2,,1•11 ,T : -,-„---) I . _. 00,_____ Lake Lae Dr E� Ne E. SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat and Site Plan t 041, 110%11111 Q Review = L a�I, APPLICANT: CSM Corporation MI ma Effilrimi : =w►OO��r� 441111 ., LOCATION: South of Hwy. 5, north of .es 1 Lake Drive East and east of Abra is W ba I .v co NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, CSM Corporation, is requesting preliminary plat to replat Outlot A of Chanhassen East Business Center 2nd Addition into Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen East Business Center 4th Addition (3.36 acres); site plan review of an Office Warehouse building (31 .144 sq. ft.) on property zoned IOP and located south of Hwy. 5, north of Lake Drive East, and east of Abra, CSM Corporation, Chanhassen East Business Center Phase III. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1 . Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The Applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmin at 937-1900 ext. 120. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on August 20, 1998. a �( �1�4 05 CLIFFORD WHITEHILL GOOD YEAR 80 WEST 78TH STREET 50 LAKE DRIVE EAST CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN,MN 55317 PAT DOLAN SYSTEMS CONTROL INC 8007 CHEYENNE AVENUE 9555 JAMES.AVE SO CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 BLOOMINGTON, MN 55431 ALEX KRENGEC CHANHASSEN CAR WASH PARTNERS, LLP 8009 CHEYENNE AVENUE 4711 SHADY OAK ROAD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MINNETONKA, MN 55343 MARY KAY KINNEY JAY& PEGGY KRONICK 8011 CHEYENNE AVENUE 8575 TELLERS ROAD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHASKA, MN 55318 MARILYN M. STEWART CLIFFORD WHITEHILL 8015 CHEYENNE AVENUE 80 WEST 7 4-I STREET CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHAD SEN, MN 55317 RUSSELL HAMILTON 8019 CHEYENNE SPUR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 GLENN HAGEMAN 8021 CHEYENNE SPUR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHAN HOLDING CO 14201 EXCELSIOR BLVD MINNETONKA, MN 55343 CHANHASSEN CAR WASH PARTNERS, LLP 4711 SHADY OAK ROAD MINNETONKA, MN 55343 ABRA 40 LAKE DRIVE EAST CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ®Anand® '/44SS NW d IS OS 1.4 M 3AV Ali INn SLSZ 3 1101S3ANI WSJ 9 Z ZZ-944-84 'A- L4cSS NW N3SSVHNVH3 M IS HI2/ 0c684 )00 iOS HD1V9 S139V1 1V101 ONOW03d WO1 S000 ZZ-914—LO y4 , SS NW V)iSVHD `744SS NW lnYd IS 0S2i31131 SLSV OS1# M 3AV AiIS2i3AINn SLSZ )IDIN02 X r. A`,)03 d 3 1 AVC DNI SIJOlS3ANI WSJ LZ0O c ZZ-914—LO 471 S000 ZZ ZZ-941-9L 174 50690 1D 0L0dWVIS 4�£SS NW L�OISl3DX3 1; 2i3WWnS �00� NVdSN33b NHo —ANI 3) 0/0 O;I X09 0 d 1 1 IIIdd21 N?SSVHNVHJ/NW 03 ?J39Wn1 NVWA1 EODO ££ ZZ-911—LO 47l,Z000 ZZ ZZ-944—E4 h4 LtL0-Ll£SS NW'N3SSVHN'VHO 0ZL6-Ll£S9 NW'N3SSVHNVHO -L IESS NW'N3SSVHNVHO LK X08 Od 2i0 H31130O 069 3AV 3NN3A3H0 l L09 MS 2110 3NN3A3H0£1•09 H323fSV.3H 1110 010 13NNIX AV)i AHVW SIM31 V 1321V0HVW'3 r AHH31 NI3SSVHNVHO dO A110 '8 NOSNHOf 2d N3H01 OZL6-L1•E99 NW'N3SSVHNVH0 OZL6-Ll£99 NW'N3SSVHNVH0 OZL6-LL£9S NW'N3SSVHNVHO 3AV 3NN3A31-10 6009 3M 3NN3A31-10 L008 3AV 3NN3A3H0 5008 130N3H>1 V X31V O3OVWV±kVSGNA- S O2JV213O OIN30)1>1 VIHINAO"3 V 13VH01W -9990911'00VOIHO -Eb£S9 NW'V)iN013NNIW '£7£95 NW'VNN013NNIW L0Z99 X08 Od 0A18 2i01S133X3 lOZil OH)IVO AGVHS l LL7 3HVH.0 dWV 00 ONIOIOH N3SSVHNVHO S3112H3dOHd SAG (Lc -ZZ)d210O S,alVN000W -L£799 NW'NOIONIW00I8 L000-99599 NW'VI210101A L000-98£99 NW'VRi0101A OZZ 311nS S 3AV S3WV19996 --2X08 Od 1 X08 Od 0N1102i1N00 SW31SAS 0N1 S082 3)INHVH ON!S088 3NNHV)i £996-L1£99 NW'N3SSV NVHO 2i0 00 069 -6L9ZE ld'00 2l0 -61•9Z£ld'OONV12i0 N3 NVH3 dO A110 M0OV311,0 NI LtZ9 MOOV3W NVIONI LPZ9 HIfV 1N31N510 3A3O32i 2 ONISflOH 111H31 M 1 OHOddll3 111H311HM 10HOddi1D (0915 tianV se ez!s awes) O9t 9# siagei iaseJ w3,anowaa /Clan% CITv OF CHANHAS$EN; RECEIVED CSM CORPORATION CHANHASSEN EAST BUSINESS CENTER (JUL 311993 Fourth Addition CHANHctv ucr'T East Lake Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota PROJECT NARRATIVE Submitted July 31, 1998 Introduction This project narrative is being submitted on behalf of CSM Corporation for the fourth phase of a proposed office/warehouse development abutting State Highway 5 and west of Dell Road. The parcel being proposed for a preliminary/final plat and site plan review is the 3.36 acre Outlot A of the recently platted Chanhassen East Business Center Second Addition. The proposed building and site design are similar in nature to the previous development and will compliment the high quality design CSM Corporation has adhered to in the continued subdivision of the Chanhassen East Business Center. Development Team: • Applicant and Property Owner: CSM Corporation 2575 University Avenue, Suite 150 St. Paul, MN 55114 Phone: (612)646-1717/Fax: (612)646-2404 Represented by: Murray Kornberg • Architect and Sign Consultant: CSM Corporation 2575 University Avenue, Suite 150 St. Paul, MN 55114 Phone: (612)646-1717/Fax: (612) 646-2404 Represented by: Becky Sonmore • Site Design, Civil Engineering, Landscape Architects: RLK Kuusisto,Ltd. 6110 Blue Circle Drive, Suite 100 Minnetonka,MN 55343 Phone: (612)933-0972/Fax: (612) 933-1153 Represented by: John Dietrich,Marcie Weslock Submittal The submittal is for a preliminary and final plat,and site plan approval for the 3.36 acre Outlot A of the Chanhassen East Business Center Second Addition. The subject property is zoned IOP, Industrial Office Park,and is guided for"Office/Industrial" land uses. The Highway 5 corridor overlay district has been adhered to for site design, screening of parking areas,architectural CHANHASSEN EAST BUSINESS CENTER—FOURTH ADDITION JULY 31, 1998 PROJECT NARRATII E PAGE 1 OF 4 variety and quality of building materials. The application for Lot 1, Block 1 Chanhassen East Business Center 4th Addition will provide an additional 31,144 s.f. of high quality office/industrial space. The application will continue to enhance the entry to the City of Chanhassen by complimenting the previous three phases of development and promote the public/private partnership,which was essential in these phases. The material submitted with this application includes a completed application form for a preliminary/final plat and site plan approval, a list of property owners within 500 feet of the property, storm sewer calculations for the proposed pond,and an application fee for$1,170.00. In addition, 16 full size sets and 1 reduced set of the following plan sheets are being submitted. • Sheet 1 of 9: Cover Sheet • Sheet 2 of 9: Preliminary Plat(Chanhassen East Business Center Fourth Addition) • Sheet 3 of 9: Preliminary Site Plan • Sheet 4 of 9: Preliminary Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan • Sheet 5 of 9: Preliminary Utility Plan • Sheet 6 of 9: Preliminary Landscape Plan • Sheet 7 of 9: Architectural Building Elevations with Signage • Sheet 8 of 9: General Details Sheet • Sheet 9 of 9: Landscape Detail Sheet CSM is committed to continuing its relationship with the City developed throughout the Phase 1, [I & III submittal. It is RLK's understanding with the application being submitted on July 31, 1998,the preliminary plat and site plan application will be before the Planning Commission on September 2, 1998, and before the City Council for a preliminary and final plat and site plan approval on September 28, 1998. Existing Conditions The existing conditions identify the entire Chanhassen East Business Center plat, which includes approximately 60 acres. The property ownership north of Lake Drive East is now under CSM ownership and consists of approximately 21.3 acres. The approved Phase I developments includes two 64,000 s.f. buildings occupying Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 Chanhassen East Business Center Second Addition. The plan sheet has merged the improvements approved in the previous phases of Chanhassen East Business Center and the recently approved Welsh/GE project south of Lake Drive East. Outlot A currently occupies the western 3.36 acres of the CSM property and has direct access to Lake Drive East and is serviced by utilities. The topography has a swale that runs through the center of the parcel and slopes from the northeast to the southwest. The drainage eventually flows to the existing pond located south of the Abra Car Wash. The proposed development has been anticipated and the stormwater pond to the southwest will receive the stormwater and pretreat the run-off for water quality and quantity, prior to discharge. Preliminary Plat • The preliminary plat for the CSM Phase IV development focuses on the existing 3.36 acre Outlot A of Chanhassen East Business Center Second Addition. CHANHASSEN EAST BUSINESS CENTER-FOURTH ADDITION JULY 31, 1998 PROJECT NARRATIVE PAGE 2 OF 4 The plat is 3.36 acres in size and will provide the required drainage and utility easements for the platted lot. There is not a perceived need for any additional public right of way, and the existing sidewalk along Lake Drive East will remain. Preliminary Site Plan The site plan for Lot 1, Block 1 Chanhassen East Business Center Fourth Addition will follow the same criteria which was previously approved for Phase I, II & III. The structures will be setback approximately 100 feet from Highway 5. Berms will be 4 to 5 feet in height above the parking lot surface, which will screen the parking along Highway 5. The proposed site development will continue the quality landscaping and architectural treatment consistent with the previous approvals. The parking ratio of 3.8+/- stalls per 1,000 s.f. for the combined office/warehouse structure is higher than the previously approved development, which will enable building 6 to be built out at an office percentage of up to 75%+/-. The site plan provides for two entrances at the southwest and southeast corners of the proposed parcel. The site will be independent of the Phase III currently under construction. A green belt running north and south between the phases III & IV is present. All code requirements have been met, and no variances or conditional use permits are required for this development. Preliminary Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan This last 3.36 acre parcel of the Chanhassen East Business Center is technically in a different subwatershed than the previous developed 18 acres of the CSM development. Stormwater from Lot 1, Block 1 Chanhassen East Business Center will flow to the west/southwest and not be routed through the regional stormwater pond at Dell Road and Lake Drive East. The stormwater flows from the site will be directed to the southwest to a dry pond in order to slow the discharge rate into the existing 42" RCP that flows across Lake Drive East. A direct connection to the 42" storm sewer from the dry pond through a 15"HDPE pipe will limit flows to the existing conditions. The storm water is then piped to the regional treatment pond RM-P5.7 that is located southwest of the parcel along the Hennepin County/Carver County Boundary. The proposed plan identifies a pervious ratio 33.0%for Block 1, Lot 1 of the Fourth Addition. The grading plan proposes a finished floor elevation(FFE)of 934. For reference,the Third Addition FFE's are 935.5 and 937. A 4-5 foot high berm is proposed at the north property boundary to help screen the proposed development from the Highway 5 traffic. Grading is required in MnDOT right of way in order to obtain the desired screening. Building this berm will require a swale between the berm and Highway 5 to direct the water to an existing catchbasin located directly to the west. It is understood that a permit will be required from MnDOT in order to perform the proposed grading and drainage alterations within the Highway 5 right of way. Preliminary Utility Plan The utility plan provides for the proper connection to the public services of water and sanitary sewer. The sanitary sewer will utilize an existing stub provided from the sanitary sewer manhole along East Lake Drive. The water system will interconnect with the Third Addition and provide an additional two hydrants located at the northwest and northeast corners of the proposed building. The hydrants are proposed at approximately a 300' spacing,which includes two CHANHASSEN EAST BUSINESS CENTER-FOURTH ADDITION JULY 31, 1998 PROJECT NARRATI iE PAGE 3 OF-! existing hydrants along Lake Drive East. Building service is proposed at the south of the building with connection to an existing 6" DIP stub along Lake Drive East. The watermain system and all fire hydrants will be installed acceptable to the Fire Marshal's recommendation. Preliminary Landscape Plan The plan as designed will continue with the same pallet of plant materials,which were well received in Phase I, II & III. The plan proposes to essentially match the design and placement of plant material that will blend and integrate ih:entire CSM development. ' The plan utilizes a linear row of overstory trees along the perimeter and incorporates clusters of plant groupings for year round color and interest. The plant material selected utilizes ornamental, coniferous and overstory trees with a strong emphasis on sugar maples and species from the City's recommended list. Architectural Building Elevations The building height will be 24'-0"to the top of the wall,which includes a 4'-0" parapet to screen roof top equipment. The building elevations will have materials similar to phases I, II, and III with a different color scheme and new design elements. The top half of the building will be rock face concrete block with three horizontal accent bands. A brick veneer with areas of soldier coursing will be at the lower half and above entrances. Glazed accent blocks will be located in the brick at the entry piers and between windows Signage The signage criteria previously approved for the previous CSM buildings are proposed to be incorporated into the building on the Fourth Addition. Facade signage will be raised backlit letters, within a consistent band above the face brick entries. All signage will be uniform color with letters at a 2'height; logos may be increased to a height of 30". Site signage will have one monument sign located at the southeast entrance of Lake Drive East. The monument sign will be constructed of a base material consistent with the building material. The monument sign will be internally lit and the location is shown on the site and landscape plans. CHA:VHASSE.N EAST BUSINESS CENTER-FOURTH ADDITION JULY 31, 1998 PROJECT.1 ARRATII E PAGE 4 OF 4 CITY OF PC DATE: 9/2/98 CUANHASSEN CC DATE: 9/28/98 CASE #: 94-10 SUB By: Al-Jaff STAFF REPORT 1 PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 5.54 Acres into 8 single family lots, Brenden Pond Third Addition. F. LOCATION: Southwest Y4 of Section 3, T116, R23, east of Hwy. 41, north and south of Lake Lucy Road and south of Minnetonka Middle School West. Z " Q APPLICANT: David Gestach-Leland Paulson V DBA: Gestach &Paulson Construction 200 North Chestnut Street Chaska, MN 55318 a r. . . e . . : . 'esisenia in_ e • r ACREAGE: 5.54 acres DENSITY: 1.85 Units per Acre-Gross 2.15 Units per Acre-Net ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N -RSF& RR, Residential Single Family and Rural Residential Districts S -RR, Rural Residential District E -RSF, Residential Single Family District W-RSF,Residential Single Family District WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. to PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The majority of the site has been graded to prepare for the connection • of Lake Lucy Road and during the grading of Brenden Pond First Addition. A Natural wetland is located along the southern portion of the site. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential-Low Density fY _ , � ' -44440\-.47* �. uuua. � •r BMW Al L---/A* A ' - e ri WY AiN L o 2 Er 4r iAh1 q � Melody Hill e/0•- A 1,U i VI . 65ti St. I t Whtt:t- 1 .0 Cres iew Dr. R�d•y� C wt., X14 I WA Elli ,. Ilk. PP zAd;41. 4 in•mowiroj Mg . 1 the Rik IOW 911111 � `/ LiLA*41SL ucyRo, . ,_ ikingmidi III AM MAP" liii kV " l k110e rN all i_ ay 41.31, . 4%1-: .1 11 0 a / Hihor aii Q Crt 4 / , R004 'il' 0 SRP O0 vv. y*p.w --jc! G nfli 0 u ,... , N• .4,* • L• : qa Brenden Pond Third Addition September 2, 1998 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is proposing to subdivide 5.54 acres into 8 single family lots. The property is zoned RSF, Residential Single Family and is located east of Hwy. 41, and north and south of Lake Lucy Road.. The average lot size is 26,870 square feet with a resulting gross density of 1.85 units per acre. Access to the subdivision will be provided via Brenden Court and an extension of Lake Lucy Road. All of the proposed lots meet the minimum area, width, and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. In summary, staff believes that the proposed subdivision is well designed. Minor revisions will be required. We are recommending that it be approved with conditions outlined in the staff report. BACKGROUND On November 14, 1994, the City Council approved the final reading to rezone property from RR to RSF for Brenden Pond subject to conditions. The Council also approved the final plat for Subdivision #94-10 for Brenden Pond for 19 single family lots with a variance to the street grade (10%)on Pondview Court subject to conditions. As part of the subdivision and since the alignment of Lake Lucy Road was not exactly known at the time, the applicant elected to plat the portion of the property impacted by the street as Outlot A and reserve it for further subdivision and future development which is the subject application. Also, Lot 2, Block 2, Brenden Pond has and area of 24,544 square feet. The applicant wishes to combine this lot with the third addition of Brenden Pond and replat it into a lot with a smaller area. On June 21, 1995, the City Council approved the preliminary and final plat for Subdivision #94- 10 for Brenden Pond 2nd Addition for 2 lots and 1 outlot with a variance to the side yard setback along the easterly lot line of Lot 1, Block 1. PRELIMINARY PLAT The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 5.54 acre site into 8 single family lots. The density of the proposed subdivision is 1.85 units per acre gross, and 2.15 units per acre net after removing the roads and wetlands. All the lots meet or exceed the minimum 15,000 square feet of area, with an average lot size of 26,870 square feet. All of the proposed lots meet the minimum width, and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff notes that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and generally consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. Brenden Pond Third Addition September 2, 1998 Page 3 GRADING A majority of the site is proposed to be graded for development of the house pads. The roadbed has already been graded to subgrade as a part of utility extension to Woodridge Heights. The City's Lake Lucy Road street project will be performing most of the grading work for this development. Soils from the north side of Lake Lucy Road will be hauled to the south side of Lake Lucy Road to build the house pads on Lots 1 and 2, Block 2. Staff has been working with the applicant in the grading of Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 as custom-graded lots; however, given the soil corrections necessary for the lots and the amount of earthwork involved in the project, it is prudent to include the grading of these lots with the City's Lake Lucy Road street project. This will minimize damage to Lake Lucy Road and traffic concerns. An individual grading, drainage, tree removal, and erosion control plan will still be required on lots 1 and 2, Block 2 for staff for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. The intent is to limit disruption to the property south of Lake Lucy Road. Depending on the house design, it may be possible to place the home up to three feet lower than the street and reduce grading and impacts to the wetland/vegetation. In conjunction with the City's improvement project for Lake Lucy Road, the existing 30-inch storm sewer located underneath Lake Lucy Road will be extended southerly along the easterly property line of Lot 2, Block 2 to a proposed water quality pond on Lots 1 and 2, Block 2. The storm sewer extension requires fill material to be placed over the proposed storm sewer which will encroach into Lot 1, Block 1, Woodridge Heights 2"d Addition. The grading plan proposes extending the final slopes well into Lot 1, Block 1, Woodridge Heights 2nd Addition which will not be the case unless the homeowner desires so. The filling will be limited to within the City's 10-foot wide drainage easement. The City's contractor will restore all disturbed areas as a result of construction activities within the easement in kind. The developer shall dedicate on the final plat a drainage and utility easement over the storm sewer along the easterly line of Lot 2, Block 1. The exact easement width shall be determined after the installation of the storm sewer. DRAINAGE In conjunction with the City's Lake Lucy Road project, most of the necessary drainage improvements will be installed to facilitate this development. Staff has reviewed the grading and drainage plan and believes a catch basin is warranted along the common property lines of Lots 4 and 5, Block 1 at Lake Lucy Road to convey stormwater runoff from the lots prior to discharging over the trail and into Lake Lucy Road. The storm sewer line will be the responsibility of the developer to install. The City's project will provide a storm sewer connection point at the property line. Detailed construction plans and specifications for the storm sewer will be required at time of final plat approval for staff review and City Council approval. The City's Lake Lucy Road project will also be installing draintile behind the curb in Lake Lucy Road to address sump pump discharge from the future homes. The applicant should also extend a drain Brenden Pond Third Addition September 2, 1998 Page 4 tile along the west line of Lot 5, Block 1 to address sump pump discharge for Lots 1 through 4, Block 1. In concert with this project and the Lake Lucy Road public improvement project, the City has been working with the applicant to design a stormwater quality pond on Lots 1 and 2, Block 2. The City's Surface Water Management Plan(SWMP) has identified this area as a location for a stormwater treatment pond. There is an existing drainage and utility easement on these lots which may facilitate the pond. However, an additional easement may need to be acquired or traded with the applicant in order to construct the pond. Another means of acquiring the easement would be through reducing the applicant's SWMP fees. Staff will continue to work with the applicant to negotiate for the stormwater pond easement. The existing drainage and utility easement may affect Lot 1, Block 2 from the home building aspect. Currently, the easement extends up to the proposed house pad on Lot 1, Block 2. The developer may petition the City to vacate the unused portion. WETLANDS Part of a large natural wetland has been identified on site, located in the southeaster corner of the property. The majority of the wetland is off-site with only approximately 2 acres on-site. Previously, there have been two delineations prepared that have established this wetland's north west boundary along what is now a drainage utility easement. This easement is identified on the plan sheet. As part of the development process the applicant had a third delineation performed by Svoboda Ecological Resources dated June 20, 1997, which identifies a new or revised wetland boundary based on the absence of ground water hydrology. The City initially rejected this delineation, citing that it believed the area has historically supported the hydrology to be considered a wetland. This opinion was based on past delineations and the below normal precipitation conditions prior to the time of delineation. The applicant appealed this decision to a Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP). The TEP consists of wetland specialists from the State, County and private sector to resolve differences in wetland delineations. The TEP met on site and still could not come to a consensus on the wetland boundary. At issue were the ground water levels in the area. While the TEP panel was divided, the new delineation was permitted due to the following factors: • A City well located the site may be impacting wetland hydrology • Previous delineation reports do not detail the presence of wetland hydrology. • Prior to 1996, an area needed only hydric soils and wetland vegetation to be considered a wetland. It is highly probable that areas considered wetland in 1994, are no longer defined as wetland. • The City is unable to provide records or evidence of ground water levels in this area Brenden Pond Third Addition September 2, 1998 Page 5 • The applicant provided records showing normal precipitation records at the time of the second delineation. The buffer strip width required for natural wetlands is 10 to 30 feet with a minimum average width of 20 feet. The principal structure setback for these wetlands is 40 feet measured from the outside edge of the buffer strip. The proposed plans show a house pad on lot 1 block 2 constructed up to the allowable edge of the wetland setback and buffer zone. This does not leave adequate room for a deck off the rear of this house. In addition both lots 1 and 2 are graded at 2.5 %slopes leaving very little usable yard space. Based on past experience, staff foresees difficulty in protecting this natural wetland from future impacts. The City wetland ordinances requires a buffer strip and buffer strip monumentation along wetlands. Staff would recommend in addition to monumentation, the applicant provide a dense vegetative barrier along the buffer edge, to define the area not-to-be disturbed. There are some fairly steep side slopes, therefore, it is very important that type III erosion control be constructed and well maintained during construction around the wetland. A potential erosion problem exists; therefore, the side slope should be re-vegetated as soon as possible after site grading with erosion control blanket. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP) Water Quality The SWMP has established an assessment rate for water quality systems. The cash dedication shall be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using the market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of$2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. The proposed SWMP water quality charge for single family resident developments is $800 per acre. Therefore,the water quality fee for this development will be $3,456 based on 4.32 acres of developable land. The applicant will be eligible for credits to this fee for construction of water treatment ponds that meet NURP standards. The applicant is currently working with the City on a combined pond as part of the Lake Lucy Road project,and credits will be determined once these plans are finalized. Water Quantity The SWMP has established an assessment rate for different land uses based on an average,city- wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes all proposed SWMP trunk systems,culverts, and open channels and stormwater ponding areas for temporary runoff storage. Single-family residential developments will have an assessment rate of$1,980 per acre. Brenden Pond Third Addition September 2, 1998 Page 6 The proposed development would then be responsible for a water quantity assessment fee of$8,553 assuming 4.32 acres of developable land. UTILITIES Municipal sewer and water service is available to the development except for Lot 1, Block 2. Staff has met with the applicant to discuss options for providing sewer and water service to this lot from Lake Lucy Road. The utility extension may be included in the City's Lake Lucy Road improvement project or the applicant may hire an outside contractor to perform the work. This should be resolved prior to final plat approval. STREETS The City will be constructing Lake Lucy Road through this development. The project is anticipated to begin in September 1998 and substantial completion in November 1998. Street access will be via Brenden Court and Lake Lucy Road. Lots 1 through 4, Block 1 have an existing street access. Lots 5 and 6 , Block 1 and Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 are proposed to access proposed Lake Lucy Road.. Lots 5 and 6, Block 1 and Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 are proposed to share common curb cuts along Lake Lucy Road to minimize turning movements. This practice has been used in Brenden Pond ls` Addition, Highover and Woodridge Heights. Lake Lucy Road is a Municipal State Aid (MSA) route. In both Brenden Pond and Woodridge Heights, a no parking zone has been established along the north side of Lake Lucy Road. The applicant should be aware that on-street parking will be prohibited along both sides of Lake Lucy Road. EROSION CONTROL The grading plan will need to be revised to include Type III erosion control in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook adjacent to the wetland on Lots 1 and 2, Block 2. In addition, depending on timing, Type I erosion control fence may be required along the north right-of-way line of Lake Lucy Road to control erosion into the City's trail and street. PARK DEDICATION The Recreation Section of the Comprehensive Plan identifies this site as lying within the park service area of Herman Field Park and the Minnetonka Intermediate School campus. A trail is identified on the comprehensive trail plan, running east/west along the extension of Lake Lucy Road and will be constructed as a part of this future road project. The 8 foot trail identified on the plan running along the north side of Lake Lucy Road will be constructed in conjunction with the city's Lake Lucy Road projects. Brenden Pond Third Addition September 2, 1998 Page 7 Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition and/or trail construction. COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT Lot Lot Lot Home Area Width Depth Setback Ordinance 15,000 90' 125' 30' front/rear 10' sides BLOCK 1 Lot 1 16,877 90' 186' 30'/30' 10' Lot 2 15,000 96' 161' 30'/30' 10' Lot 3 15,002 94' 157' 30'/30' 10' Lot 4 15,491 94.28' 157' 30'/30' 158' corner lot 10' Lot 5 17,410 90 199' 30'/30' 10' Lot 6 16,317 100' 135' 30'/30' 10' Block 2 Lot 1 78,767 309' 311' 30'/55'* 10' Lot 2 40,098 167' 415' 30'/65'* 10' Wetland in Block 2 53,087 Square Feet Lake Lucy Rd 26,396 Square Feet Brenden Pond Third Addition September 2, 1998 Page 8 The buffer strip width required for natural wetlands is 10 to 30 feet with a minimum average width of 20 feet. The principal structure setback for these wetlands is 40 feet measured from the outside edge of the buffer strip. TREE PRESERVATION/LANDSCAPING Tree canopy coverage and preservation calculations for the 3rd Addition of the Brenden Pond development are as follows: Total upland area (excluding wetlands) 188,179 SF or 4.32 ac. Total canopy area (excluding wetlands) 61,855 SF or 1.42 ac. Baseline canopy coverage 32.87% Minimum canopy coverage allowed 30% or 1.3 ac. Proposed tree removal .55 ac. Proposed tree preservation 20% or .87 ac. The developer does not meet minimum canopy coverage allowed, therefore the difference is multiplied by 1.2 to calculate the required replacement plantings. Difference in canopy coverage 18,731 SF or .43 ac. Multiplier 1.2 Total replacement 22,477 SF Total number of trees to be planted 21 trees A replacement planting plan has been submitted to the city,but needs to be revised to include 21 trees as replacement plantings. The current plan includes 18 trees. All replacements must meet minimum size requirements. Colorado Blue Spruce is specified on the planting schedule for the evergreen component of the landscaping plan. Because these trees are known to be susceptible to a variety of diseases and therefore relatively short-lived, staff recommends that the applicant modify the landscape plan to include a different variety or species of evergreen. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: PRELIMINARY PLAT "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision#94- 10 for Brenden Pond Third Addition for 8 single family lots as shown on the plans dated February 17, 1998, subject to the following conditions: Brenden Pond Third Addition September 2, 1998 Page 9 1. The proposed development will be responsible for a water quantity connection fee of$8,553 and a water quality fee of$3,456 assuming 4.32 acres of developable land. This fee is due payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. If there are any modifications to the acreage or easement acquisition,the fees will be modified prior to final plat approval. 2. All lots must conform to the City's wetland ordinance. Lot 1, Block 2 needs to be removed/relocated to meet the City's buffer strip requirements. The developer may appeal this determination through the use of a Technical Evaluation Panel. The natural wetland buffer area shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The developer will install wetland buffer edge signs under the supervision of city staff before construction begins and pay the City$20 per wetland sign. 3. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to wetlands and storm ponds shall be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100-year water level. 4. The developer shall report to the City Engineer the location of all drain tiles found during construction. Drain tile should be relocated or abandoned as directed by the City Engineer. 5. The developer shall enter into a development contract for Brenden Pond 3rd Addition with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee the installation of the public improvements in compliance with the conditions of approval. 6. The developer shall revise the grading plan to include Type III erosion control adjacent to all wetlands and provide Type I silt fence along the north right-of-way line of Lake Lucy Road and Brenden Court. Erosion control blanket shall be utilized on all slopes exceeding 3:1 as soon as grading is completed. 9. Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 shall be designated custom-graded lots. Individual grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plans shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit on Lots 1 and 2, Block 2. The first floor elevation of the homes may be up to three feet below the curb height on Lake Lucy Road. 11. The developer shall revise the plans to include a drain tile, storm sewer and catch basin to convey storm water from the rear of Lots 1 through 5, Block 1. Detailed utility construction plans and specifications in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates shall be submitted to the City three weeks prior to final plat consideration for staff review and City Council approval. 12. Detailed storm drainage calculations and area drainage map for a 10 and 100-year, 24- Brenden Pond Third Addition September 2, 1998 Page 10 hour storm event shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final plat. 13. The developer shall resolve with the City the responsibility for extending sanitary sewer and water service to Lot 1, Block 2. 14. On-street parking shall be prohibited along both sides of Lake Lucy Road. 15. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc- mulched or wood fiber blanket within two weeks of completing site grading unless the City's (BMPH)planting dates dictate otherwise. All areas disturbed with slopes of 3:1 or greater shall be restored with sod or seed and wood fiber blanket. 16. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, MCES, Health Department, PCA, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers and comply with their conditions of approval. 17. Access to the individual lots shall be limited to the interior streets and not from Lake Lucy Road with the exception of Lots 5 and 6, Block 1 and Lots 1 and 2, Block 2. 18. The developer shall dedicate on the final plat the necessary drainage, utility and street easements to encompass the proposed street, drainage and utility improvements as shown on the construction plans for Lake Lucy Road dated June 8, 1998 prepared by RCM. Lake Lucy Road right-of-way shall be 80 feet wide. 19. The developer agrees to waive any and all procedural objections to the special assessments resulting from Project No. 98-1 Lake Lucy Road Improvements including, but not limited to, hearing requirements and the assessments as outlined in the feasibility report dated March 1998 prepared by RCM. 20. The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan showing 21 trees. Colorado blue spruce may be changed to a different variety or species of evergreen. 21. Tree protection fencing will be required along all wooded areas at the edge of grading limits. 22. Revised landscaping plans shall also show that all proposed plantings will be located outside of the street right-of-way. Evergreens shall be located at least 15 feet from the trail. 23. Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition and/or trail construction." Brenden Pond Third Addition September 2, 1998 Page 11 ATTACHMENTS 1. Memo from Dave Hempel and Philip Elkin dated August 24, 1998. 2. Public Hearing Notice. 3. Application. 4. Preliminary plat dated February 17, 1998. g:\plan\sa\brenden3rd.doc 1011 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner H FROM: David Hempel, Assistant City Engineer CHANIIASSEN Phillip Elkin, Water Resources Coordinato ;90 Cite Center Drive.PO Box 14- DATE: August 24, 1998 Chanhassen,Minnesota 5531 Phone 612.93-.1900 SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Approval for Brenden Pond 3rd Addition General Fax 612.937.5.-39 Land Use Review File No. 98-5 Engineering Fax 612.93-.9152 Publte Safety Fax 612.93-i.2524 11.;1,u.�;.ei'auh,,isen.nl;i:. Upon review of the plan prepared by William Engelhardt& Associates dated February, 1998, I offer the following comments and recommendations: GRADING A majority of the site is proposed to be graded for development of the house pads. The roadbed has already been graded to subgrade as a part of utility extension to Woodridge Heights. The City's Lake Lucy Road street project will be performing most of the grading work for this development. Soils from the north side of Lake Lucy Road will be hauled to the south side of Lake Lucy Road to build the house pads on Lots 1 and 2, Block 2. Staff has been working with the applicant in the grading of Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 as custom-graded lots; however, given the soil corrections necessary for the lots and the amount of earthwork involved in the project, it is prudent to include the grading of these lots with the City's Lake Lucy Road street project. This will minimize damage to Lake Lucy Road and traffic concerns. An individual grading,drainage,tree removal,and erosion control plan will still be required on lots 1 and 2, Block 2 for staff for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. The intent is to limit disruption to the property south of Lake Lucy Road. Depending on the house design, it may be possible to place the home up to three feet lower than the street and reduce grading and impacts to the wetland/vegetation. In conjunction with the City's improvement project for Lake Lucy Road,the existing 30-inch storm sewer located underneath Lake Lucy Road will be extended southerly along the easterly property line of Lot 2, Block 2 to a proposed water quality pond on Lots 1 and 2, Block 2. The storm sewer extension requires fill material to be placed over the proposed storm sewer which will encroach into Lot 1, Block 1,Woodridge Heights 2nd Addition. The grading plan proposes extending the final slopes well into Lot 1, Block 1,Woodridge Heights 2nd Addition which will not be the case unless the homeowner desires so. The filling will be limited to within the City's 10-foot wide drainage easement. The City's contractor will restore all disturbed areas as a result of construction activities The City of Chanhassen.,-1 growing community with clean lakes,quality schools,a chanting downtown,thriving businesses,and beautif el paiks.A great place to lire,work,and play: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II August 24, 1998 Page 2 within the easement in kind. The developer shall dedicate on the final plat a drainage and utility easement over the storm sewer along the easterly line of Lot 2, Block 1. The exact easement width shall be determined after the installation of the storm sewer. DRAINAGE In conjunction with the City's Lake Lucy Road project, most of the necessary drainage improvements will be installed to facilitate this development. Staff has reviewed the grading and drainage plan and believes a catch basin is warranted along the common property lines of Lots 4 and 5, Block 1 at Lake Lucy Road to convey stormwater runoff from the lots prior to discharging over the trail and into Lake Lucy Road. The storm sewer line will be the responsibility of the developer to install. The City's project will provide a storm sewer connection point at the . property line. Detailed construction plans and specifications for the storm sewer will be required at time of final plat approval for staff review and City Council approval. The City's Lake Lucy Road project will also be installing draintile behind the curb in Lake Lucy Road to address sump pump discharge from the future homes. The applicant should also extend a drain tile along the west line of Lot 5, Block 1 to address sump pump discharge for Lots 1 through 4, Block 1. In concert with this project and the Lake Lucy Road public improvement project, the City has been working with the applicant to design a stormwater quality pond on Lots 1 and 2, Block 2. The City's Surface Water Management Plan(SWMP) has identified this area as a location for a stormwater treatment pond. There is an existing drainage and utility easement on these lots which may facilitate the pond. However, an additional easement may need to be acquired or traded with the applicant in order to construct the pond. Another means of acquiring the easement would be through reducing the applicant's SWMP fees. Staff will continue to work with the applicant to negotiate for the stormwater pond easement. The existing drainage and utility easement may affect Lot 1, Block 2 from the home building aspect. Currently the easement extends up to the proposed house pad on Lot 1, Block 2. The developer may petition the City to vacate the unused portion. WETLANDS Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II August 24, 1998 Page 3 Part of a large natural wetland has been identified on site, located in the southeaster corner of the property. The majority of the wetland is off-site with only approximately 2 acres on-site. Previously, there have been two delineations prepared that have established this wetland's north west boundary along what is now a drainage utility easement. This easement is identified on the plan sheet. As part of the development process the applicant had a third delineation performed by Svoboda Ecological Resources dated June 20, 1997, which identifies a new or revised wetland boundary based on the absence of ground water hydrology. The City initially rejected this delineation, citing that it believed the area has historically supported the hydrology to be considered a wetland. This opinion was based on past delineations and the below normal precipitation conditions prior to the time of delineation. The applicant appealed this decision to a Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP). The TEP consists of wetland specialists from the State, County and private sector to resolve differences in wetland delineations. The TEP met on site and still could not come to a consensus on the wetland boundary. At issue were the ground water levels in the area. While the TEP panel was divided, the new delineation was permitted due to the following factors: • A City well located the site may be impacting wetland hydrology • Previous delineation reports do not detail the presence of wetland hydrology. • Prior to 1996,an area needed only hydric soils and wetland vegetation to be considered a wetland. It is highly probable that areas considered wetland in 1994, are no longer defined as wetland. • The City is unable to provide records or evidence of ground water levels in this area • The applicant provided records showing normal precipitation records at the time of the second delineation. The buffer strip width required for natural wetlands is 10 to 30 feet with a minimum average width of 20 feet. The principal structure setback for these wetlands is 40 feet measured from the outside edge of the buffer strip. The proposed plans show a house pad on lot 1 block 2 constructed up to the allowable edge of the wetland setback and buffer zone. This does not leave adequate room for a deck off the rear of this house. In addition the both lots 1 and 2 are graded at 2.5 %slopes leaving very little usable yard space. Based on past experience, staff foresees difficulty in protecting this natural wetland from future impacts. The City wetland ordinances Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II August 24, 1998 Page 4 recommend in addition to monumentation, the applicant provide a dense vegetative barrier along the buffer edge, to define the area not-to-be disturbed. There are some fairly steep side slopes, therefore, it is very important that type III erosion control be constructed and well maintained during construction around the wetland. A potential erosion problem exists; therefore, the side slope should be re- vegetated as soon as possible after site grading with erosion control blanket. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWNIP) Water Quality The SWMP has established an assessment rate for water quality systems. The cash dedication shall be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using the market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of$2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. The proposed SWMP water quality charge for single family resident developments is $800 per acre. Therefore the water quality fee for this development will be$3,456 based on 4.32 acres of developable land. The Applicant will be eligible for credits to this fee for construction of water treatment ponds that meet NURP standards. The applicant is currently working with the City on a combined pond as part of the Lake Lucy Road project,and credits will be determined once these plans are finalized. Water Quantity The SWMP has established an assessment rate for different land uses based on an average, city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost in- cludes all proposed SWMP trunk systems,culverts, and open channels and stormwater ponding areas for temporary runoff storage. Single-family residential developments will have an assessment rate of$1,980 per acre. The proposed development would then be responsible for a water quantity assessment fee of $8,553 assuming 4.32 acres of developable land. Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II August 24, 1998 Page 5 UTILITIES Municipal sewer and water service is available to the development except for Lot 1, Block 2. Staff has met with the applicant to discuss options for providing sewer and water service to this lot from Lake Lucy Road. The utility extension may be included in the City's Lake Lucy Road improvement project or the applicant may hire an outside contractor to perform the work. This should be resolved prior to final plat approval. STREETS The City will be constructing Lake Lucy Road through this development. The project is anticipated to begin in September 1998 and substantial completion in November 1998. Street access will be via Brenden Court and Lake Lucy Road. Lots 1 through 4, Block 1 have an existing street access. Lots 5 and 6 , Block 1 and Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 are proposed to access proposed Lake Lucy Road.. Lots 5 and 6, Block 1 and Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 are proposed to share common curb cuts along Lake Lucy Road to minimize turning movements. This practice has been used in Brenden Pond 1 S` Addition, Highover and Woodridge Heights. Lake Lucy Road is a Municipal State Aid (MSA) route. In both Brenden Pond and Woodridge Heights, a no parking zone has been established along the north side of Lake Lucy Road. The applicant should be aware that on-street parking will be prohibited along both sides of Lake Lucy Road. EROSION CONTROL The grading plan will need to be revised to include Type III erosion control in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook adjacent to the wetland on Lots 1 and 2, Block 2. In addition, depending on timing, Type I erosion control fence may be required along the north right-of-way line of Lake Lucy Road to control erosion into the City's trail and street. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II August 24, 1998 Page 6 1. The proposed development will be responsible for a water quantity connection fee of$8,553 and a water quality fee of$3,456 assuming 4.32 acres of developable land. This fee is due payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. If there are any modifications to the acreage or easement acquisition, the fees will be modified prior to final plat approval. 2. All lots must conform to the City's wetland ordinance. Lot 1, Block 2 needs to be removed/relocated to meet the City's buffer strip requirements. The developer may appeal this determination through the use of a Technical Evaluation Panel. The natural wetland buffer area shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The developer will install wetland buffer edge signs under the supervision of city staff before construction begins and pay the City$20 per wetland sign. 3. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to wetlands and storm ponds shall be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100-year water level. 4. The developer shall report to the City Engineer the location of all draintiles found during construction. Draintile should be relocated or abandoned as directed by the City Engineer. 5. The developer shall enter into a development contract for Brenden Pond 3rd Addition with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee the installation of the public improvements in compliance with the conditions of approval. 6. The developer shall revise the grading plan to include Type III erosion control adjacent to all wetlands and provide Type I silt fence along the north right-of-way line of Lake Lucy Road and Brenden Court. Erosion control blanket shall be utilized on all slopes exceeding 3:1 as soon as grading is completed. 9. Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 shall be designated custom-graded lots. Individual grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plans shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit on Lots 1 and 2, Block 2. The first floor elevation of the homes may be up to three feet below the curb height on Lake Lucy Road. 11. The developer shall revise the plans to include a drain tile, storm sewer and catch basin to convey storm water from the rear of Lots 1 through 5, Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II August 24, 1998 Page 7 Block 1. Detailed utility construction plans and specifications in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates shall be submitted to the City three weeks prior to final plat consideration for staff review and City Council approval. 12. Detailed storm drainage calculations and area drainage map for a 10 and 100-year, 24-hour storm event shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final plat. 13. The developer shall resolve with the City the responsibility for extending sanitary sewer and water service to Lot 1, Block 2. 14. On-street parking shall be prohibited along both sides of Lake Lucy Road. 15. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket within two weeks of completing site grading unless the City's (BMPH) planting dates dictate otherwise. All areas disturbed with slopes of 3:1 or greater shall be restored with sod or seed and wood fiber blanket. 16. A snow fence shall be placed along the edge of tree preservation easements prior to grading. 17. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, MCES, Health Department, PCA, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers and comply with their conditions of approval. 18. Access to the individual lots shall be limited to the interior streets and not from Lake Lucy Road with the exception of Lots 5 and 6, Block 1 and Lots 1 and 2, Block 2. 19. The developer shall dedicate on the final plat the necessary drainage, utility and street easements to encompass the proposed street, drainage and utility improvements as shown on the construction plans for Lake Lucy Road dated June 8, 1998 prepared by RCM. Lake Lucy Road right-of-way shall be 80 feet wide. 20. The developer agrees to waive any and all procedural objections to the special assessments resulting from Project No. 98-1 Lake Lucy Road Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II August 24, 1998 Page 8 Improvements including, but not limited to, hearing requirements and the assessments as outlined in the feasibility report dated March 1998 prepared by RCM. Attachments: 1. Letter from Phil Elkin dated March 3, 1998. 2. Excerpt from draft feasibility study for Lake Lucy Road. c: Anita Benson, City Engineer \\cfs I\vol2\eng\dave\pc\brenden 3rd.ppr.doc I4144tiu ,G 12 1111W --- - l4/ 'p Me fhd NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 4 65t[St1 PLANNING COMMISSION I Wednesday, September 2, 1998 at 7:00 p.m. C„«iewOr. //City Hall Council Chambers 1 ` 690 City Center Drive 4 A �►/ :- SUBJECT: Brenden Pond Third Addition 7 kit 0glat, . GLuCV R' �'�,•� mi APPLICANT: Gestach and Paulson Construction k mfoll t,g LOCATION: East Hwy. 41 and north and =:`°�' i rut=mu south of Lake Lucy Road .' �474 r� • �I NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Gestach and Paulson Construction, is requesting preliminary plat approval to subdivide 5.54 acres into 7 single family lots on property zoned RSF, Residential Single Family and located east of Hwy. 41 and north and south of Lake Lucy Road, Brenden Pond 3rd Addition. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1 . Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmin at 937-1900 ext. 120. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on August 20, 1998. DENNIS CLARK STEPHEN & LAURIE KERKVLIET 6651 HAZELTINE BLVD 2201 LAKE LUCY ROAD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JEROME CARLSON LARRY A. CONSTANTINEAU 6950 GALPIN BLVD 2340 LAKE LUCY ROAD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 GESTACH/PAULSON CONST. EUGENE HANSON 200 CHESTNUT ST. N 2380 LAKE LUCY ROAD CHASKA, MN 55318 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHARLES & LEONIDA ROBINSON 6613 BRENDEN COURT CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 LECY CONSTRUCTION 10340 VIKING DRIVE SUITE 105 EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 MIKE DEGENEFFE 6654 BRENDEN COURT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHARLES G. GOERS, SR. 6673 BRENDEN COURT CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 DARIN &JULIANNE VOGEL 6693 BRENDON COURT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 NANCY MANCINO 6620 GALPIN BLVD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 CENTEX HOMES 12400 WHITE WATER DRIVE #120 MINNETONKA, MN 55343 :1 (( 212/38 14 :32:15 6 'J37-5739-> 612+448+7183 page 2 t j I I. 'i CITY OF CHANIIASSI'_N ,, 890 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 5 317 (812) 937-1000 i DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION 1' t APPLICANT: GESTACH & PAULSON CONST. , )WISER, GESTACH & PAULSON CONSTRUCTION 1 ADDRESS:200 N CHESTNUT STREET ADDRESS:200 N CHESTNUT STREET i ( . ______;_ii' Aaxa , MN 55-318 CHA$ A , MN 55118 s TELEPHONE(Day time) ( 61 2) 448:3332 TELEPHONE: ( 612) 448-3332 ' i Comprehensive Plan Amendment 1 1 Temporary Sales Permit $ {t ~ Conditional Uwe Permit _ Vacation of ROW/Eeeemente t 1 interim Use Permit Variance— . �_ Non-conforming Use Permit — Wetland Alteration Permit i' �_, Planned Unit Development` _ Zoning Appeal s. _— Rezoning 0 _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment • •l Sign Permits f --- i I _ Sign Plan Review Notification Signc.$ 15(i Site Plan Review' X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" ($60 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAPlMoto ' and Bounds, 5400 Minor SUB) CCD ' I Subdivision" O TO1AL FEE Ir. lAC7C.`x' A list of all property owners within 000 feet of the boundaries of the property must be Included with the application. 1 i .`) I . Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. f i 'Twenty-.Ix full size ft cl d copies of the plans must be submitted,Including en 81/4"X 11"reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet, " Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract i NOTE•When multiple applications ere processed,the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. 11 q r i. 1 62/12/98 14:32:49 61Z-937-5739-> 612+4413+71E33 Paye 3 r1_; ?� • PROJECT NAME BRENDEN POND 3RD ADDITION _ LOCATION _ LAKE LUCY ROAD / BRENDEN COURT LEGAL DESCRIPTION OUTLOT B OF BRENDEN POND 1ST ADDITION & OUTLOT A OF BRENDEN POND 2ND ADDITION 1 OTAL ACREAGE WETLANDS PRESENT X YES NO PRESENT ZONING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL , REQUESTED ZONING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL — REASON FOR THIS f'EQUEST • This application must be completed In hill end be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all Information and plana required by applicable City Ordinance provlsbns. Before filing this epplioation, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shell be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written • notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. This is to oertlfy that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name end I em the party whom the bit), should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this epplicetlon. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I em the authorized peraon to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself Informed of the deadlines for submission of material end the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and Information I have submitted era true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 80 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the epp!leart that the city requires an automatic 80 day extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review extensions are approved by the applicant. ^l_ Sig *tyre of Applicant Date t -- �+ Signature of Fee Owner Date Application Received on —__ Fee Paid Receipt No. Tho applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. 41,+ If not contacted,a copy of the report will be mailed to the eppllcer,t'a address. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 19, 1998 Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Peterson, LuAnn Sidney, Matt Burton, Alison Blackowiak, and Ladd Conrad MEMBERS ABSENT: Allyson Brooks and Kevin Joyce STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO THE ENTIRE 2020 CHANHASSEN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, INCLUDING LAND USE, HOUSING, TRANSPORTATION, PARK AND RECREATION, NATURAL RESOURCES, SEWER AND WATER. Public Present: Name Address George& Patricia Dorsey 1551 Lyman Boulevard Anne Rasmusson Minneapolis Jacqueline Schroeder 7720 Frontier Trail Aanenson: Thank you. We held the original public hearing on this item back on June 17`n Planning Commission directed staff to set a joint meeting with the city council to discuss several issues. Those meetings were held on June 29th and August 3rd. What we would like to do at this time is kind of go through those outstanding issues. There was some minor changes that you did direct us to make in the plan which we can discuss but there were some issues that we have accommodated those. Those are some broader issues that we would like to go through and I think it might help for maybe people here on specific issues, we'll kind of pause at the end of each one and maybe you might want to take comments at that point so we don't get lost. But one of the first ones under the land use was to talk about a vision statement regarding, we did mention the Highway 5 corridor. Bluff Creek. Natural resource plans and the storm water management plan so what we're proposing is to amend that section and incorporate the vision statements. So you have each of those documents. They are a part of the comprehensive plan but they wouldn't be, if somebody just wanted a copy, this would be a good place to give a summary of those documents so I think that was a good comment. We did put those in. LuAnn spoke to me and some minor modifications which I think some of those grammatical word changes which will accommodate. I think those were good comments. So unless you had any comments, that we'll be making that change and that again would be on the land use section right Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 1998 at the beginning on page 3. I think I'll take the fiscal impacts last. That probably has the most discussion on it. The next section that we were asked by the school district to look at is they presented a letter to you requesting that we look at two more elementary school sites and one middle school site. Elementary's requiring at least 40 acres each and the middle school looking at 80 acres. We proposed three sites. One being the Eckankar site. North of the current Eckankar. The Eckankar site, which probably more than likely would be an elementary. And then the northeast corner of TH 5 and TH 41 which we had already guided institutional and that would actually follow the southern, with south of the frontage road. The frontage road actually swings a little bit further to the north on that so there would be acreage there for a middle school site. And then the other property we looked at was south of Lyman, west of, excuse me, east of Bluff Creek and that included several property owners. Frank Fox, the Degler's and the Dorsey's who are here tonight. And what we're saying by these, and we met with the school district, this is putting people on notice. This will be...change that these are possible school sites. The city is not acquiring these properties. What we're saying is that if people were to go and develop next to them, they may know that that is a site that the school will be looking at. But it's up to the school district to make the acquisition happen or work with the city. But at this time there are no plans to acquire it. They're looking at schools at least 5 to 10 years out. So we kind of made that clear in our mot:on that we would amend that. On page 9 that we say District 112 is seeking three additional school sites. The following sites are being identified just as I mentioned and again, making it clear the city is not proposing to acquire any subject property at this time. The underlying land use is still in place. It does not change the proposed land use designation. If it's guided low density, it would still be low density. Medium, medium institutional so we're not changing that. And then again, I think clarification is made and LuAnn mentioned this too. That it would be encumbant upon the school district to acquire the property and that'd be a good thing to add too. So we're not changing land use. It's just really putting on notice that that's a potential school site for anybody else that lives in that area. Okay? I know the Dorseys are here. I don't know if they had any questions on that part. George Dorsey: My name is George Dorsey. We're one of the possible sites. I have several questions. One, is Chanhassen the only area that they're looking to build more schools? Aanenson: No. We are the largest city in the school district. Chanhassen is. The school district includes Victoria, Chaska and East Union but we would be the largest city in the district but they are asking Victoria to look another school site, which they are too. George Dorsey: So they're setting up other sites so you're just putting on three? Aanenson: Yes. George Dorsey: It seems we might be the biggest right now but the expansion's going west. The people seem to, would rather have the elementary school west of here instead of coming in here. The school district's one of the biggest in the state. It's 35 miles across and we have two grade schools, senior and junior high school. Yeah two, right here in the eastern part of the county. Eastern part of District 112. 2 Planning Commission Meeting- August 19, 1998 Aanenson: Yeah. That, the city has no jurisdiction over that. I understand what your issue is but what we did do is looked at enrollment projections for Minnetonka, Eden Prairie, and tried to compare how close and see if that seemed reasonable or realistic and the population, the ultimate Chanhassen population and the Chaska School District is going to be still, well part of the northern half goes, that's where the vacant property is south of Lyman and we still have quite a bit of property in the current MUSA that would be in the 112 district so there is still a significant population that would still be Chanhassen residents. Again that's, you're looking at ultimate development, and that's the year 2020 so none of this is going to happen within the next 5 years. They're looking long range. George Dorsey: I have another question. You know they say well we need 40 for a grade school and 80 for a junior school. Is this a magic number or something? The school I sent to had about 2 acres if that. The school I went to had about a block and a half. The school my kids went to had about 2 blocks and now all of a sudden somebody's got the idea about 30 years ago that we have to have a lot of grass and trees and all kinds of beautiful things to increase the cost and increase the maintenance and it certainly hasn't contributed to improvement of schooling, which is primarily what we're building the school for. So I just wondered if there's a magic number. They say look for 40. Did anybody ever think of saying why in the hell don't you take and put it on 5 acres or something? Aanenson: I think that's a good point and the school district and the city has worked cooperatively with the elementary school right here. We share a city rec area here. Organized activities at the Bluff Creek Elementary and we worked in partnerships and that is one of the goals that we state in here. That we try to do a partnership. I know Victoria's looking at the same thing. Combining some soccer fields. Looking at how we can partner so we're not... exclusively for one use where we can make better use of the facility. But where that 40 acres comes from, that's kind of a national desired standard. George Dorsey: That's just crazy. You have people out east that don't even have anything but blacktop to build a school on but I just wondered. I mean they ask you to set aside these areas and granted it's 20 or 30 years ago but I began hearing this number about 30 years ago. You know they started, they tore down a wonderful school in Edina. The problem is I guess the kids went out of there and went onto college and graduated and went out and got jobs and worked so naturally tear it down. That'd be the best thing to do and build another one where you had to take a bus for about 40 minutes to get the kids there. They're going up this corner. So I just wonder when they ask a number, do we just automatically say oh yeah, 40 acres. That'd be nice. Aanenson: Well we're not acquiring anything. All we're doing is. George Dorsey: I know but just to take and toss it in. Because this started 40 years ago. I'm just hearing the same thing. This isn't something new what I'm hearing. When it's somebody from the government comes down, well 40. Next it will be 80. Junior high school needs 80 acres. So we can build more. I guess the other question I have is, how much land, this is not going but it's germane because the city looks to acquire more land for this,that and the other thing. How much land is actually set aside for parks and lakes and what percentage? You've got roads. You've 3 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 1998 got all the government buildings. You've got churches. All these different things. What percent, all this land goes off the tax rolls and yet we keep taking more and more off and we're the third highest taxed I understand and if we keep taking more, the taxes naturally will keep going up I presume. If you set aside land or do whatever it is, what are you going to do? You want a highway corridor? You want all kinds of stuff. There's no room to build stuff to take and increase the tax base. So I'm just wondering, what is the percentage? I don't know what it is. You've got the Arboretum. You've got Minnewashta. You've got the schools. You've got roads and government buildings, church buildings and everything else. That's all off the tax roll. Have you got 25%? 30% of the city that's non taxable with a taxable portion of TIF which I'll probably be dead before you get any money from that. Aanenson: Probably about 20%. George Dorsey: 20 counting the Arboretum and Minnewashta and all the lakes and all the parks that you've got here and all the schools. Aanenson: 25 maybe, yes. We have no jurisdiction over the Arboretum. George Dorsey: I know you don't but you can't tax it either. I know you can't do anything about, they think, it sounds like when you last entertained the comprehensive plan, they consultant didn't want to sign it because you can't keep the taxes the same or lower if everything you do is going to increase the spending. Peterson: One of the main things we talk about throughout, as we developed and drafted this plan was balancing the need to have lower taxes with how we were going to zone. I think what we've tried to do with the plan is to do a balancing it and we talked about that as recently as two weeks ago as far as do we have enough commercial property versus homes and not to be taking away commercial property that will hopefully increase the tax base and lower the individual taxes of the home, but what the plan that we've got, 100 and some pages is trying to find the answer to that. To keep taxes lower but provide the services to the... George Dorsey: Well it's not keeping the taxes lower. The taxes are going up. If you take more land out, you're going to provide tax base for you, taxes will go higher if you keep spending. If you keep, you're going to have the Bluff Creek corridor so that will be beautiful and you can walk along the creek and do all kinds of fancy things but it's not going to provide anything on the tax base way. You say well people will flock here because it's going to be so beautiful until they find out what it costs and then they say well I live across the county line or I'll live in the other school district or whatever. If you build another home on the senior high school, that's going to take some more land. That's going to raise the tax if you build all these others. Whether it's 10 years, 20 years, what does it matter? It's still going to raise the tax. You say well we'll have more people. Peterson: I hear your point but you also have to deal with the need to, we have to provide for a school somewhere, if the population grows proportionately. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 1998 George Dorsey: I have no quibble that you have to provide schooling. I'm for schooling. I'm on one of the planning commissioners up here for schooling, but the idea that you need 120 acres for 800 people or 1,000 people is ridiculous. But if you accept that, which you start making your long range plans, it seems like it gets accepted because somebody, somewhere in Washington who may have air in his head, thinks that fresh air is good so we'll take and build these expensive schools and acquire the land and so on and so on and so on. I mean you can't do anything about that but if you go along with that, you're not keeping the taxes lower. The taxes are going up. You say well it didn't go up. No, they raised the assessment. We haven't gotten the next tax increase but we also don't know what taxes are for all the stuff that the comprehensive plan, the city, and the county and everybody else has set aside. It's the third highest. There must be some way to keep it down. I don't see it going down and it's just as part of the comprehensive plan you keep chopping out more land for some other use. You're going to want a highway corridor, schools. And now say well, as a part of the plan maybe you're in for school. Well what if I want to do something else with it? You say well, yeah you can do it. I went through this when they set it up for going to make it a dump site. You could do anything you wanted except if they made it a dump site, you never got any reimbursement. They didn't make it a dump site. But 7 years they were playing around with it. You couldn't do anything. We went out of business. The business that we had because that's what they going to do. Maybe. And it went out after they S52 million trying to figure out where they're going to put all these dump sites and the money ran out and they made a decision right away. Perpich said Garberbring make a decision. She did. So it goes on and on. So when you say we're trying to balance, I'm not sure what you're trying to balance. I'm not saying you're not trying to do the right thing but I'm not sure what you want to balance. You say we're trying to keep the taxes, lower the tax. The taxes are going up. I think you said that or you said it's. Peterson: We're trying to maintain at a minimum, maintain if not lower the taxes. George Dorsey: Main to lower taxes. Peterson: That's not, I'm speaking on behalf of the council. On the planning commission side we're trying to guide the zone or provide zoning that provides for a variety. Whether that be park and recreation. Whether that be for all types of land uses. A variety of those and with this comprehensive plan is a great deal of variety and types of zoning so we try to provide for fiscal responsibility by not having too many of non-productive taxable areas. We realize as a city you have to have commercial supplied for a tax base... The balance between that and having no commercial, having a bedroom community, that's the balance I'm talking about. George Dorsey: Well we must not be balancing it too well if we're third highest in the state. Would you agree or wouldn't you agree? Peterson: Well I'm, again we are positioning to. George Dorsey: Well you say you're trying to do this. I'm saying well how hard are you trying or are you getting the wrong information or what? What kind of trying, if you're third highest in the state, we must be complying. We must be going along with whatever is tossed in there. Do 5 Planning Commission Meeting- August 19, 1998 we never say no? Do we ever question anything? We're third highest. I mean obviously everybody out in their areas are trying to do some of the same things. I'm just asking. Peterson: All I'm saying is that we as a planning commission are doing, what we believe... Whether we're the third highest or not, I can't argue that point. I don't know whether we're the first or the 20`h. George Dorsey: Well I don't know, that's what came out in the paper, third highest. Maybe that's not correct. But even if we're 10`h highest, I don't even know how many there are. Huh? Peterson: What we're trying to do in this one is build into the future that we aren't number one by any means. Our goal is not to raise the taxes. Our goal is to provide zoning that makes everybody that has to be satisfied that taxes aren't going up. That's for one. George Dorsey: Well there's no use going on because obviously we're not getting anywhere but they are going up. Aanenson: Not the city's. The school district is. The city's hasn't gone up in a number of years. Conrad: The city is doing it's job. Aanenson: The city has not raised their taxes. Conrad: Yeah, very much under control. Aanenson: They even went down last year so. George Dorsey: The appropriation, the assessments have gone up. So that's another way of raising tax. You've got a heck of a lot more money than when I first moved out here to play with and to spend and to provide... Conrad: The economics are probably pretty good. George Dorsey: Yeah well. Conrad: But just so you know, seriously the city is really controlling. George Dorsey: The percentage but the taxes are going up on everything they do here. Conrad: The other thing you should know is, in '91 the land use had 25% for park and open space and the one we're looking at right now takes it down to 20. So you know in terms of what you're looking for probably, we're trying to allocate a little bit more to productive revenue generating, and we're looking at those issues. We're concerned. You're not talking to deaf ears here. We've been beating this a little bit and probably will talk about it a little bit more. 6 Planning Commission Meeting- August 19, 1998 George Dorsey: I remember some of these same conversations going on when my taxes were lower and they're still going up even though everybody's trying to keep them down so I guess now I'll pass it on. But that's, and that's, you just take these things, 40 acres and 80 acres, this is nonsense. But we do it. And even though it's 20 years from now, maybe it will be 10. Maybe it will be 5. Maybe it will never be. Blackowiak: I'd like to make one comment Mr. Chair. You make a really good point. I mean there are a lot of assumptions I think that are out there that we may need to challenge. Is 40 acres the right amount? The school board is telling us yes. Common wisdom says yes but you know maybe they could do with 30 or 20. I mean that's maybe something we have to look at. When you talk about Highway 212, it's been on the books you know since 1956 or something. So what? Is that the right thing? I mean you're right. I think we have to challenge some of these assumptions that people have just accepted over the years. And when you say, I like your point about the school because I don't know that 40 acres is what you need for an elementary school. It sounds like a lot. George Dorsey: You say common knowledge or common wisdom or common whatever. Common from where? Blackowiak: Exactly. George Dorsey: You read it in the newspaper, which has got plenty of bias. Blackowiak: So I'm saying, I like your thinking. I like that. Challenge your assumptions because we. Burton: If I could. The only thing that I hear is that the language that we're proposing to insert into the comprehensive plan is not stating an acreage. It's just stating these are possible sites. Now if they are picked with those thoughts in mind but the actual comprehensive plan is not going to say 40 acres or 80 acres. It's identifying potential sites. Aanenson: That's correct. George Dorsey: Well we got, yeah in the letter we sent,you're looking for 40 and then 80 right along side. That adds up. Aanenson: That's what we sent to you to identify that but the motion that, or what we're placing in the comp plan doesn't identify an acreage amount. Burton: The actual plan won't say anything about 40 or 80 acres. George Dorsey: Well let me ask you this. What if the school says we want 120 acres in town? Aanenson: It's up to them to acquire it. They'd have to secure a purchase agreement with you. 7 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 1998 George Dorsey: All right, and if you don't change the zone, or you leave it in that zoning, what is a person to do? If you zone it for school use and I don't sell it and they don't buy it, then what can you do with the land? Aanenson: As we indicated before, it still has the underlying land use. We are not changing that. It's been that way since we did the Bluff Creek overlay zone when we met before on that issue. George Dorsey: Yeah, okay. Aanenson: We're not changing that. I made that perfectly clear at the beginning. We're not changing the... George Dorsey: All right, is that different than when the city labeled it as a dump site? Is that different? Aanenson: I wasn't here when they did that. George Dorsey: I know but is that, I was here and I can tell you what it was and a lot of people in a lot of the counties got going if it's, you're telling me the same thing. I believe they accepted historically you go back and things weren't the way they seemed. Aanenson: What the future land use designation and what's currently zoned. It's currently zoned A2. There are some things that would be permitted in an A2 district so. George Dorsey: Okay I don't, but as the information obviously I do and when you built it, when the dump site was set up, the same thing was said and you went to the State and the counties, the seven county metropolitan district and they said that's right. You can do all these things but if we make it a dump site, you're screwed because you're not going to be reimbursed for anything that you do with that land. And so if you have a business, you either let the business go to pot. Keep it the size it is and not be able to compete with anybody, or go out so that's all. What I'm asking is to challenge some of the others and not accept it. Common wisdom. I don't know what common wisdom is and so, I'm done. Aanenson: Okay. Amphitheater. That was something that you asked us to look at. It was identified as a future vision or implementation. Something the Park and Recreation Commission wanted to look at. It is identified as a future facility in the Minnewashta Regional Park. I did speak to the director there and their only concern is that the access as proposed on the site right now may not be the greatest but if and when we get to that stage we said we'd probably be working with them. If we were out ahead or something that we wanted, that we would be working with them to make sure it's sited in such a way. Then the other site would be on the north side of TH 5. On the west side of TH 41. That also is already guided public so it would fit within that land use designation so that would not take a land use designation. So our recommendation on that would be to change the comprehensive plan and that would be under the parks and open space. Under the regional open space section on page 2 of the parks and open space and say that the city may support the use of an outdoor amphitheater on the Arboretum 8 Planning Commission Meeting- August 19, 1998 property located north of Highway 5 and west of 41. The reason why we didn't change it on the other is it's already stated in their, the comprehensive plan of the regional park and it's already identified as a goal of the park and rec commission so we thought that would be redundant so we are also recommending...and again it's two state highways so we thought that might be a good spot too. The next one would be community facilities and this is kind of based on the, regarding the cooperation between jurisdictions, including the school district and library, recreation facilities, public works. This is the one I was just talking about previously regarding schools and that would be, we'd amend the land use section which is the first section on page 12 to say the city would seek to work with other jurisdictions to combine resources, including city, county, Southwest Metro Transit, and the school districts to collaborate on mutual interests it should say. Not interpret. Mutual interest such as the library. Where we talk about doing a recycling center. A public works. Where we can actually kind of partner like we do with Bluff Creek and we think that again is a good use of resources. So we would amend that section to reflect that. Transportation. I know you had a difficult time reading that and we wanted to make sure your comment that it was very technical reading, we concurred. That was one part we didn't write but the consultant so Bob did make a change and we wanted to show you that we did follow through on your comments and I'll just let him summarize some of the main points and the issues that you had raised. Generous: The primary issue that you had was it was difficult to read and there was a lot of redundancy so we tried to consolidate references where we're describing the roadway system up in one portion where it's first mentioned. We tried to consolidate as much as possible. Highlighting the Highway 5 problem. It's in there. What we're proposing is that we use some editing techniques to help bring it out to put it in bold so that it really stands out on...or underline it in certain instances. The substantive changes to the element were, we were ahead of the county in their traffic study and so it was necessary for us to add some of the roadway, arterial roadway systems into that. We did propose to change this by adding Lyman Boulevard from Highway 41 to Highway 101 as a minor arterial. That will be four laned in the future and will provide access to an interchange at Highway 101 and 212. We created two classes of connector roadways. The Class I was the more heavily traveled to provide intra-community links and to that we added an east/west roadway, south of Powers, or south of Lyman between Powers and 101. It shows up as the curved roadway west of Lake Riley. And as that area develops, it will provide a connection from the neighborhoods that grow near out to the primary roadways. We also added Lyman Boulevard from 101 to Eden Prairie. The easterly leg of Lyman. Eventually we envision that there will be a connection and upgrade and Eden Prairie to that roadway system right now is just a gravel road and so it will provide another east/west connection. And finally we're proposing to reclassify some of those collector 2's. Pleasant View Road, which is a substandard roadway. It doesn't have the sufficient width to bring it to urban standards but it is our only east/west connector between Powers and Highway 101 on the north side of the city and so it does serve a function as a collector. And then we would add the Longacres Drive which is a east/west connector between TH 41 and Galpin and Park Drive which is a collector in the industrial park between Audubon and Powers. As far as deficiencies, we pointed out some additional deficiencies in our roadway system. Intersection access was at Highway 5 and Minnewashta Parkway. There's some turning movement problems, especially during the rush hour. Now they'll probably be signalized in the future as traffic numbers warrant it. Trunk Highway 5 and 9 Planning Commission Meeting- August 19, 1998 Audubon, there's turning movement problems there. That would...warrant it. Capacity problems, we added existing Trunk Highway 212 which is a two way, through road facility and West 78th Street. It's not continued out to Highway 41. That's the north frontage road. ...the jurisdiction of continuity we added Pioneer Trail. That is a significant east/west collector in the city and it connects Chaska and Eden Prairie and eventually you can get to Bloomington on that. And Trunk Highway 41. Roadway improvements. If 212 is not constructed, we have to add four lane to the existing Trunk Highway 212. Highway 101 north of TH 5. Highway 5 west of TH 41 and Highway 7 west of TH 41 to County State Aid Highway 10. It's a little redundant but even with 212 we're still, due to growth in the region we would have to four lane Highway 101 north of TH 5 and we've been working with Hennepin County and Carver County on getting that as part of the programming. Powers Boulevard north of TH 5 up to Highway 7. And then Highway 7 west of TH 41. And there's also a section that was, we were working on...capacity by limiting access and so there's a three page addition on access management and corridor preservation that we're proposing be added to the transportation element. And then finally as part of that, the capital investment element is included at the end of that and we had to show that Powers Boulevard four lane up to Highway 7 and we're proposing that in 2003. It shows up both as a storm water project and as a road project because we'd make that at the same time. We deleted S2 million from the Lyman Boulevard water tower. The timing had shifted and one of the...had been left in there inadvertently. And finally the east/west collector road south of Lyman Boulevard from Powers and 101. We'd propose that 2009 that $900,000.00 be added... That's all I have. We hope, when it's all cleaned up, it will be a lot easier to read and friendlier to laymen. Peterson: ...basically applied to council's meeting. Aanenson: We're trying to, when we type set it this way, it's a little bit more work... We might just type it and then submit it to them in that format and then retype set when we're ready to go to final. Okay? Last but not least. Fiscal impacts. Burton: Just a question. Aanenson: Sure. Burton: ...On the community facilities part. I'm just noticing it says, I think it might be a typo in there. It says collaborative... Aanenson: Interest. Yeah I stated that, yeah. Burton: Okay, I'm sorry. Aanenson: That's all right. Burton: Is that the only discussion of the library is that? 10 Planning Commission Meeting-August 19, 1998 Aanenson: Capital improvements plan still. But my understanding is they would still like that moved up and that's something you stated that we will be carrying over to the Council that they consider that. I mean if this recommendation goes forward, there's still other things that we're not making changes to but forwarding your comments to Council to investigate and that was one of your comments to move forward. Fiscal impacts. What was included here, that the City Manager wrote was something that went to the city council which they're discussing. What I'd like to do is kind of just back up and look at fiscal impact analysis. Again, where we've been with this comp plan and what we're proposing tonight. As stated in the charts that we did in the comp plan, there was a significant area of the city that was vacant or left unguided. What we tried to accomplish with the Bluff Creek and the Highway 5 corridor study was to revisit those areas and make sure the appropriate guiding was in place. Again taking the consideration, the comments from the people that were on the task force and the vision that this community's had and taking that through the public process. So having those land uses we were able to compare, as we did in the land use section on page 4, where we were in 1980, what we had in 1991 and what we're ultimately going to end up with. And your concern was, is this going to pay for itself so the broad question is how does growth pay for itself? While you were discussing this, the city of Victoria undertook a broad study. Pretty lengthy in looking at the same question. How does growth pay for itself? And they're predominantly residential and they will always be predominantly be residential. They're only proposing 2% industrial/commercial for their ultimate land use. So what they came back and said is they're projected residential growth doesn't pay for itself. In the years to come. The new growth will not generate sufficient property taxes to offset the associated costs so their taxes are going to go up. Which means one of two things. People may be wanting to pay that because they want to live in that type of community, or they're going to re-examine some of their impact fees or assessments and how they pay for that development, which is something that we do too. We have impact fees for park, storm water. There's those sort of fees that are associated with development. But the issue is more complex than that. In 1991 Lakeville and the City of Plymouth both undertook this issue as they were looking at comprehensive plan and what Lakeville found is that, looking at density and the value, it does affect the assessable, which we know. The price of housing. If it's higher density or higher value, there is different financial benefits. And in Plymouth they found, based on theirs that they felt that there was no net property tax burden that exists to the typical resident. They felt like it came out even at the end so, is this telling us anything? Well, what I'd like to do is just kind of talk about how generally the planning pattern works. We have jobs that are being created in an area, and with jobs people need housing. And with housing people want services. They want their streets plowed. They want to be able to get lunch, buy groceries. That sort of thing. So there is a relationship between the different uses. So all forms of development use add to the demand for public service and the service population and the potential need for police and fire and streets all tend to grow. As with that, the administrative expense is also increased as the residents demand services. So looking at that,we could say that guiding development can't be reduced necessarily to the top benefit because you have to look at, if we said okay we're going to take all of our...and turn them into commercial, what's the benefit of that type of community and where people want to live. So what we're saying,and again looking back and looking at our vision of where we want to be, numbers alone would say that the entire city should be commercial industrial. I mean that's pretty obvious. But we're saying while that's not really the kind of community we want to live in, we said that we're always wanting to be going back to the 11 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 1998 original comprehensive plan. That this community wants to be predominantly residential. But we also want it to be economically stable and fiscally responsible. So how do we find that mix? Again, looking at them individually they may make sense but economics is only a part of shaping what a livable community is and herein lies the problem. This is what we said from the beginning. We believe that the land use that's proposed here has more industrial/commercial and what we said under the PUD, we would examine where we have some opportunities to provide additional commercial, but we don't want to put those on now because that may not be appropriate. We also have the fact that there's certain...landforms that we don't want to destroy the integrity that are also adding to making this a sustainable livable community. So we stand on what we said previously and what we've always come back to and that's land uses are interdependent on each other. And to have a sustainable community, a livable community we said we want to life cycle. We want to livable. If we have only jobs and nobody's living here to service those jobs. If we have only houses, our taxes are going to be very high so we believe that this is a well conceived plan. Is there going to be changes to it over time? We're going to get requests and we may re-examine those and we put in here that we want to re-examine it every 5 years and we think that that makes sense. Go back and as we learn more or different techniques, we should examine that but we stand by what was done with the Bluff Creek study and as we move this document, we think it is responsible. Again we've been going back to the school sites. We put those on property that was already residential. Then held fast on the rezoning industrial in the past. We've recommended denial on those where we felt that's not the right thing to do. So with that, we're recommending approval of the comprehensive plan with the four or five changes recommended in the report. And I'd be happy to answer any other questions that you may have. Peterson: Questions of staff from fellow commissioners? Conrad: Mr. Chairman, yeah I'll bring this up right now rather than waiting. A lot of really probably good things and I think that things are moving in the right direction. I made a comment about the fiscal responsibilities and I really didn't understand anything that Don Ashworth said. It's way over my head. So it didn't help. And he didn't hear my point and there's a great distance between what I say or staff hears and what city council asks for. But I have to restate what my point was because it wasn't answered. The way I look at the land use, we were going to increase our revenue generating lands by about 30 some percent. Industrial, office, whatever. We were going to increase our population by 80%. 70 something or whatever the final numbers are. My point was, not what the quality of life is here. That's why I'm on the planning commission. My point was, I saw one number saying we're going to add 30%more land, revenue generating land. Yet so if I saw our population was going to increase by that same amount, I'd be pretty happy. Unfortunately, and I'm very naïve as to how I interpret our numbers. That's why I asked the staff and the consultant and Mr. Ashworth, or somebody to advise me on this seemingly unsolvable problem. And it's still not solved. I couldn't understand this. It really didn't address my issue. So I still have, so I'm making a statement. You know you said do we have any questions for staff and Kate, I don't know what you want to do with that but Don didn't answer my question. And again, it's my point is this is buildout. This is the end of the line. This is where we don't have too many more choices and yeah we can guide, we guide land use. A little bit here and there. Put a little bit more in. I just had this one simple question 12 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 1998 and it's still not answered. So and I don't even know if I want you to answer it Kate. I really, you know if you've got an answer for me, maybe you can do that. Aanenson: I think I answered it with the first work session, if you look at my numbers. I think that was when Mr. Johnson was here throwing out the...households and population and I did recalculate a few numbers and I know what you were going for and I thought we discussed that in the first meeting but your concern was the amount of, the ratio of population that we're increasing as opposed to a ratio and I believe I stayed consistent. What I did is I put down in a report that went out and it may be in the back of, we compared with Eden Prairie and Minnetonka, Plymouth, a comparison of their ultimate population in the year 2020 and a good comparison would be households and employment. And looking at that, we felt again we were being responsible. Again you look at, we'll throw Victoria out because their percentage is real small. We thought we have a very comparable to Chaska... Conrad: ...percent of land dedicated to those. Aanenson: Correct. Yes. Conrad: Well by that I hear you. Okay, that's fine. We're not out of the ballpark but I said go back and say how do we, if we're really, I'll throw the other element in. We're probably looking for more affordable housing and maybe some land uses that don't generate revenue. And maybe Don's factored that somehow into his analysis but still, you know the percent that other communities use, all I see is that we've got 1,200 acres right now in productive revenue generating stuff and we're going to go up to 1,600 and our population's going from 19 to 30 some. So it just doesn't seem like we're adding the revenue generating land in the same ratio. It doesn't matter what our final, I don't care if it's 1%or 3% for 10 or for any, I don't care. Because I think, well as I told everybody, I think we've done a pretty good job. I like how our land looks. I like what we're doing but I'm real nervous about the fact, the issue that I just raised. And to say that we've got enough in there, it just, it still doesn't rationally, it's hard for me to accept that it's going to do it. Aanenson: I understand that. Again,what we said, which was demonstrated in the report... density does affect value and the price of home affects value. Are we going to have some looking at providing low and moderate? Yes. But we're also looking at densities and one way to make sure you have a...investment is the intensities that you're developing at. Whether that's industrial, floor area ratio or whether that's the densities of residential and that's one of the things and we suggested we come back at is looking at the PUD that allows some of these sort of things. We're seeing some of our old development patterns are going to. That was one of our recommendations with a follow-up to this document. Conrad: Tell me what's wrong with my logic. You've just got to help me on this one because. Aanenson: I don't think your percentages are right compared to the other communities. I think we're in very good standing compared to other communities. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 1998 Blackowiak: Can I take a stab at it? There's not a one to one ratio between the taxing, tax generated by commercial/industrial and the tax generated by residential. ...take the assumption that commercial/industrial is 2 to 3 times what the residential does. So if commercial/industrial is going to go up 33%, it's 33%but the bang for the buck so to speak has a multiplier affect. Whereas residential is kind of a one, almost a one to one except for high density residential which is going to give you more people... It's not. Aanenson: Except that you have to be careful when you say high density. It does not generate more children per unit so that's not affecting the schools and we've got studies. Blackowiak: I'm not talking schools. I'm just talking about people. You're going to be having types of housing that we haven't done predominant in Chanhassen. Correct? High density residential is not, we don't have a lot. There are areas that are zoned so that might add a lot of people to our final number...talking myself into a circle here. But it's also going to add a higher percentage in a tax. On a property tax basis. I mean...what you're saying? Conrad: Let me, I'm not sure. Let me rephrase what I said and see whether somebody, either one of us can understand this. If I need a hundred acres of industrial office to kind of subsidize our current population. How much revenue is generated? But it's subsidizing us. 100 acres. If I double my population, add another 19,000 people. That's not the right number but if I did, wouldn't I need another 100 acres to subsidize them? Aanenson: No. Peterson: I think the infrastructure is one point. You already have the infrastructure that proportionately won't be needed with the services, i.e. the MUSA line is...and you've also got, one thing I did understand...consider the average tax capacity of the home will take care of, because it's not one to one, it will take care of that growth by itself. That's what I got out of Don's memo is that the tax capacity within the housing growth will take care of the majority of the ancillary services that the city provides. It's hard for me to believe but that was... Aanenson: But that's a true statement though. That's a true statement though. That's what he's saying, and that's why the Park and Rec Commission is looking long term and saying we need other revenue generating down the road where we can generate revenue to run our programs when we don't have that new development coming in so that's was part of their statement. That they need to be looking long term. Peterson: I mean that's the only way that I can accept this issue because I know council also said the same thing last meeting that they're not satisfied that the cushion there for growth. But I think Kate made an excellent point in that we are going to review this every 5 years or sooner, to have a reality check of the, do we need more? Do we need less? Or are we right on? But you've got to believe some of the assumptions. If you believe the assumption that tax capacity of the additional homes that are going to go up in the next 10 years or 15 years, will subsidize basically the growth, then you're okay. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 1998 Conrad: And so whatever gets put into commercial, office, industrial is pure gravy? Peterson: Exactly. That's my interpretation of what Don was trying to say. Maybe... So that's really, you've got to get over that. Conrad: Yeah. That's important for me to know and it sure didn't jump out based on what Mr. Ashworth said. That becomes real important because if we do allot some of the, you know we can't just say we want a quality city without generating the revenue to create a quality city and we're pretty lean right now. We really, we're not, we're pretty lean. Aanenson: One comment I have on that is, we went through those Bluff Creek hearings. If you want to go down and try to find some areas that doesn't have wetlands or slope on it and try to put some industrial, we'd be happy to do that. I'm not sure you'd be pleased with that but we can go back and examine that. We spent a lot of time looking at those during the Bluff Creek overlay district. That doesn't mean that down the road you know as we indicated, we should be examining those every 5 years. If someone comes in for a request and they think they can make it work, we'll look at it but we did put a lot of time into that with that task force to try to look at that. Peterson: At ease? Conrad: No. No. But I really. Peterson: You're satisfied with the answers so that we can move on? Conrad: ...we can move. Peterson: I agree with that. Other questions of staff? Okay, this is a public hearing. May I have a motion and a second to open to the same please. Blackowiak moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission, please come forward and state your name and address please. George Dorsey: George Dorsey. The only reason that you've been able to do what you've been able to do is because...because the assessment of your houses have all gone up. This...enough tax to provide for all the schools and infrastructure and all that. The population didn't grow fast enough. So the people ended up getting stuck with more assessments on their homes and then the state jacked it around when they said business didn't have to pay so much tax as you counted on and so then the homes had to pay more. I've got farmland and my assessment on my farmland has gone up so that no farmer can make money on crops with the assessments that was just placed on my land this year. You can't do it. In fact you'd go broke like they're going broke in northwestern Minnesota. Because the price for the crops has gone down. Degler has told me the 15 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 1998 same thing. He isn't going to make money on those crops...but it hasn't. And that's why it's gone up. You can't have affordable housing if property goes up. If the infrastructure costs all go up and if business provides jobs that don't pay enough money so that your people can buy the house in the area, and they can't buy a house in the area because everything has gone up. And it will keep going up if you keep spending more money. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Jacqueline Schroeder: Good evening. My name is Jacqueline Schroeder and I live at 7720 Frontier Trail and I have a question about some of the land use maps. We've been talking with the Mayor and with the City Attorney on a few occasions. The current folks that did the land use map for the existing land use for the city and for the future land use for the city have made some mistakes in the map. Those mistakes have been pointed out to both staff and to council members and yet you haven't seen some of those changes. Part of it happens to deal with the property that my parents own. Currently we live right behind the old St. Hubert's... And currently that says we're office institutional... My family's concern is this map has knowingly been wrong and it gets adopted for a future land use as office institutional, if something would happen, you know heaven forbid. .A tornado comes through the town and my parents want to rebuild, if the house is damaged they can't because it's no longer zoned, or designated as a land use for residential purposes and that does have a severe impact upon my family. And I guess before this plan is adopted we would like to see those changes made. We've been asking since March. I don't think that's unreasonable. Aanenson: Yes, we're aware of it. Yes. The zoning map and the comprehensive plan are in conflict. There's 3 or 4 of them which we said that that's the first thing we'll do is take it through the process. We told the Council that. They're aware of that one too. Peterson: But the map isn't the guiding principle. It's the phase and. Jacqueline Schroeder: No, the land use map is the guiding, that's what guides the comp plan. Aanenson: Yeah, well but state law says they have to be the same. The zoning map and the comprehensive plan. We brought you this same issue last, 2 weeks ago on TH 7 and 41, yeah. Peterson: So it is something we are going to fix. Aanenson: By the end of the year, yes. Jacqueline Schroeder: There will be public hearings or how is that going to be handled? Aanenson: Yeah, there has to be public hearings, yeah. There's four of them that we're aware of that we have to fix. Yeah, that's a good point. Peterson: Okay, thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the commission? Seeing one, may I have a motion and a second please to close the public hearing. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 1998 Conrad moved, Burton seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Ladd you're on a roll. Do you have anything additional to say to? Conrad: No. We're moving, you know we're really moving in the right direction. I think the transportation was a big deal. I think what Bob was talking about made me feel real comfortable with where we're going there. Nothing. I think library still is an issue. I don't know you've analyzed. There's some words in there that I don't know where, somebody may want to take that one up. Amphitheater. Best location for the amphitheater is close to downtown. That's not been identified. Aanenson: Well the Eckankar site was discussed but. Conrad: I'm just making my point. Best location for the amphitheater is downtown. If we learned anything, and I said this before when Village on the Ponds came in. It's the community that's close and you go there. You go downtown. You make it vital and live. Best location for the amphitheater is close to downtown. Everything else looks good except for the economics feasibility. I'm going to have a tough time, I'm not sure how I'm going to vote on that. I really do need just closure on it and maybe the information is there. I want to challenge the City Council on that. Underlining the fact that my point is not really trying to change the direction of the community but making sure that they really have allocated the right amount of resource to, to make sure we can afford the things that we'd like to do. And that's real important. We really do have to not always skimp, which I think we do sometimes. You've got to have the right resource to make us money. Peterson: Good, thanks. Alison. Blackowiak: Well I think it's very good. The transportation was much more clear. I still do have a little problem with the Highway 5 classification. I don't know if I can change anything but I worry that we're going to get stuck with something we may not want. I don't know what that is. ...I don't know exactly what the worse case scenario is but I wonder about the classification. I wonder if Highway 5's going to be turned back. I mean all these things could happen I think and I'm curious. On 212. I think it's going to be built. As much as I hate to say that. I think that it's going to be built sooner...they're talking about letting bids in the next couple years for Phase 2. Things seem very positive despite what we may hear from other sources so I just would...going to happen in this area. I think that we really have to just keep a close watch on what's going to happen with 212 because that's going to affect our community. Potentially really divide us and we have to keep that in mind and annually or bi-annually or something just keep an eye on what's happening because things are going to have to change to accommodate 212. But overall I like the plan. Regarding adding the vision statement and talking specifically about the Highway 5 corridor study being the Bluff Creek watershed because I really feel that those are two very important components and that we need to tie them into our comp plan. Other than that, I think it's good. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 1998 Peterson: Okay, Matt. Burton: I'd like to first thank the staff for the time and attention they've put into this and they've been good at answering questions and spending time with us and they've been very helpful. I agree with Ladd. I think the amphitheater is nice. I too believe that the best place would be to have it close to downtown. I think if it's further out that it's less likely that people would attend events there. And I think having it somewhere near the center of town here would be ideal. I'm a big advocate of the library and my recollection was that the planning commission as a whole was an advocate of including the library and I guess we don't really, my understanding is that there's going to be some comments about to the city council what we said earlier and I just want to re-emphasize that that my recollection was that the entire planning commission was a strong advocate of the library. That we'd like to see that receive a lot of attention. Otherwise, I think everything looks fine. It's hard to get your arms around the whole thing but in general I feel pretty comfortable with it. I did have a question real quick. I was looking at the proposed motion for this evening and every time I bring up something like this I'm always missing something but the four recommendations. I'm just wondering if the community facility one was left out or if tha. should be added in. Aanenson: The reason we left that out is that, let's see. Oh, you're right. That should be in the motion. You're right, on page 12. Correct. Yes,thank you. That should be number 5 then. Burton: I got one. Aanenson: Good job. Peterson: LuAnn. Sidney: I'd like to echo the comments of the commissioners and really appreciate the amount of work. It's an incredible amount of work to put together a document like this. Appreciate the comments from the residents and also from staff and their guidance. About the fiscal impact. I guess I was thinking, I'm wondering if there aren't some simplified fiscal models that might be available and published. I keep thinking that this might be somebody's senior project or thesis from school somewhere that might shed some light about the economic impacts. Aanenson: We've got a simple model that doesn't work again because what it doesn't show you, the interdependence on these land uses and how connected they are. It's like you're struggling with, that's what it doesn't show. I can show you a summary of Victoria's but again they're predominantly residential. Every community is so unique and a lot of them are measuring their own impacts and their own services and a lot of our burden is the school district and the growth impacts from that so it's. Sidney: So everybody's different then in terms of. 18 Planning Commission Meeting-August 19, 1998 Aanenson: It's so complex, right. So we did summarize, we looked through 3 or 4 other communities and we'd be happy to share that with you if you would like to include it in the packet. Again,we did a summary of the last showing our land uses compared to other communities. Comparing to Plymouth. Comparing to, does that mean we're developing at the same intensities in every land use? Residential compared to the same, you know, what those mixes are. That's why it gets a little bit hard to do that because we are dependent. Sidney: I guess I'd be curious to know,understand more about the other communities. How they approached it. If it isn't a burden I guess. And I do think we need to beef up the library discussion a bit. I didn't pick that out to look at it tonight but I do think that's an important thing we need to look at. So I was talking with Kate about the discussion about school sites. Whether or not we need to be clear about...responsibility of financing and purchase or figuring out some type of purchase with that. It would be something that we'd want to include in the motion tonight. I guess I'd be interested in the commissioners. Peterson: Okay. I, clearly it's been a long and winding road. I guess I can't empathize being pregnant for 9 months but it's been longer than 9 months of giving birth to what I think is a good...for Chanhassen over the ensuing 10 plus years. And I think the key issues for me are the library. We still need to reinforce the importance of that. And to have reality checks, not necessarily 5 years but every year that we're making the right decisions fiscally as it relates to the tax base and I think that we as a commission have to consciously make that...in the forefront in all our decisions,which I think we have done pretty successfully over the years. And Ladd has been...really has been the leader in that and I certainly feel that all of us how important that is and I think that we will continue to keep that... Certainly endeavor to do that. With that, I would ask for a motion. Burton: ...proposing that we add some language with the land that's going to be acquired by the school district? ...after the discussion? Peterson: Well yeah. Kate, can we... Aanenson: Yeah,you know we did work together with the Bluff Creek so I want to make sure that is we say it's encumbant upon the school district to acquire the property, because we have done joint partners. That's why I kind of left it the city's not proposing to do it at this time. The only reason I'm saying,what if they partner up with somebody else, a school,a library and the county works together. Just to make sure that if we put it's encumbant upon the school district to acquire the property, it may not be...some other partner. I guess was my only concern...Yeah, so I guess that's why I left it that the city's not proposing at this time to do it but it may if it becomes a partner in something. Sidney: So you're suggesting leaving it. Aanenson: Yeah. I guess I hear what you're saying,to make sure it's clear that the school district will be doing that but what if we did a recreational, amphitheater or we tied something 19 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 1998 with it. It may be a possibility that we'd be a partner. This may say well it's against your goals or something. Burton: I move that the Planning Commission adopt the comprehensive plan with the changes 1 through 4 in the staff report and adding number 5 which is the recommendation from the land use...section on page 4 of the staff report and do I need to read that? Aanenson: That's fine. Peterson: Is there a second? Blackowiak: Second. Peterson: All those in favor. Discussion points? Burton moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the comprehensive plan with the following changes: 1. Change in the parks and open space section of the comprehensive plan under Regional Open Space Arboretum (page 2), "The city may support the use of an outdoor amphitheater on the Arboretum property located north of Highway 5 and west of Highway 41." 2. Amend the Land Use, Office Institutional, (page 9), "District 112 is seeking three additional school sites. The following sites have been identified as potential school sites: 1) the Eckankar site, 2) northwest corner of Highways 5 and 41, and 3) south of Lyman and east of Bluff Creek. The city is not proposing to acquire the subject property at this time. The underlying land use is still in place. 3. Amend the Land Use Introduction on(page 1), "the proposed vision statement of the Highway 5 Corridor Study, Storm Water Management Plan and the Bluff Creek Watershed Management Plan." 4. Amend the Transportation element to reflect the changes as proposed by staff in this report. 5. Based on the discussion regarding cooperation with other jurisdictions including school districts, library, recreation facilitates, public works expansion, staff is recommending a new policy be added to the land use section (page 12), "The city will seek to work with other jurisdictions to combine resources including city, county, Southwest Metro Transit, and the school districts: to coordinate and collaborate on mutual interpret such as a library, public work/collective waste, arts council, transit site, school, recreation, etc." All voted in favor, except Ladd Conrad who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Peterson: Explanation please. 20 Planning Commission Meeting- August 19, 1998 Conrad: As I said before, I'm still not convinced that we've examined the fiscal impact of the land use plan on the year 2020 and I want to make sure that the City Council examines that to the point where, I wonder where the City of Chanhassen can be able to afford those quality items that we all moved here for. Peterson: Okay, thanks. Good work staff. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Burton noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated August 5, 1998 as presented. ONGOING ITEMS: Aanenson: On the September 5`h we've got the Lynmore may be back on. They're not in concurrence with the parks and open space. I think that they have intents to subdivide that property in the future that we requested the open space and that was part of the reasoning for the PUD and the flexibility to preserve that slope area. Blackowiak: I'm sorry, could you clarify which property? Aanenson: I'm sorry,that's off of Galpin. The one you saw last week. Just north of Stone Creek. Blackowiak: Oh,that one okay. Aanenson: We took the density and pushed it up and I think they were hoping to subdivide. We'll be seeing the final CSM piece out on TH 5 and Dell Road. That will complete that industrial area out there. Brenden Pond, the connection of Lake Lucy Road. And then under open discussion, the Westwood Church is looking at a site and they want to come talk to you about it. They're in their planning and they just want to kind of introduce themselves and what they're looking at and get some feedback for you so that will just be a discussion item. I don't think they'll be bringing you, they want to talk about ideas and get some feedback. And then on September 6th we do not, September 16th we do not have any scheduled items. The deadline passed for that. On October 7th we had scheduled a work session so we're thinking of maybe moving that to the 16th to maybe get a little bit more daylight. Have a field trip, have dinner. Field trip some projects. We've got a few ideas. If there's something that you'd like to look at or want us to discuss, let me know. Otherwise we'll kind of share a little bit more with you on the 5`h of what we're planning on that 16`h. So we looked at... Blackowiak: ...the 2"d? Aanenson: The 2nd, you're right. So then and again, the work session on the 16`h. We'll move that up a week, or two weeks. That's all I had. Peterson: Other discussion points? 21 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 1998 Conrad: What's the sequence of the comp plan right now? What happens? Aanenson: Well, it goes to the City Council on the 14`h. I mean they can put it on. I know they're still struggling with the fiscal impact. Legally we have to have it done by the end of the year. I'm not sure if we want to, and we've got some rezonings to do. To get into compliance. There's some areas that we indicated and then we also want to come back and re-examine the PUD ordinance to look at that because right now the only place you could do the flexibility in land use is under the medium or high density so we're saying in low density we want to do some cluster. Reduce infrastructure. Those are other areas we want to look at. And we also want to...where we set some mixed use. A little bit more mixed uses in those area where we can put some support commercial so we want to look at that. So Bob's got that written. We're ready to roll on that. We're just waiting to get through this process. Conrad: So it's really in their court. Aanenson: Right, and I have a feeling it's probably going to, with budgets it's probably going to take towards the rest of the year. But we'll come back with the rezonings to you while they're waiting up there and then we'll also look at the PUD and just get your feedback so we're ready to roll. Peterson: Okay, do I hear a motion to adjourn? Conrad moved to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 22