The URL can be used to link to this page

07-6-88 Agenda and PacketAGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, JULY 6, 1988, 7:30 P.M. CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Subdivision of 2.38 acres into 2 single family lots of I.54 and .74 acres on property zoned RSF, Residential Single Family and located at 2841 No. Manor Road, Mary Schumacher. 2 Subdivision square feet Single Fami 77th Street o a Iy a f I.3 acres into 2 single family lots of 151000 nd one outlot on property zoned RSF, Resitlential and located at the northeast corner of west nd Frontier Trai1, Virgil Schlotte. 3. Subdivision of I.66 acres into 2 single family lots of L9,421 and 52r854 square feet on property zoned RSF, Resialential Single Family and located at at 3605 Red Cedar Point Road, George WaY, Jr. 5 Conditional Use Permit for screened outdoor storage on prop- erty zoned IOP, Industrial Office Park and located at 18800 West 78th Street, L,Yman Lumber. Conditional Use Permit for the relocation of their of f ice,,/warehouse and contractor's yard activities to property zoned ioP, Industrial Office Park and located at 8301 Audubon Road, approximately i mile south of Park Road, Merit Heating and Cooling, Inc. NEW BUSINESS 6. OLD BUSINESS Site PLan Approval for a 40,000 square foot shopping center on 4.85 acrii of property zoned BN, Neighborhood Business District and localed on the north side of Lake Drive East, justs east of Q-Superette, Hidden Valley Center' 7. zoning ordinance Amendment to Amend Sections 20-695, 20-7L5l 20-774, 2O-795, and 20-815 to provide for minimum building ina p.iri"g sefbicts for lors ldiacent to raitroads and resi- dentLal zoning districts, City of Chanhassen' APPROVAL OF I{INUTES OPEN DISCUSSION CALL TO ORDER 4 ADJOU RNMENT CITY OF EHINH[SSTN P.C. DAIE: July 6, 1988 C.C. DATE: July 25, 1988 CASE NO: 88-15 SUB Prepared by: OIsen/v STAFF REPORT Fz () JLL ko hJFa 2841 North Manor RoadLOCATION: APPLICANT : 2.38 Acres into Two Single LotsPreliminary PIat of 1-54 and .74 Acres Mary Schumacher 2I4L North luanor Road ExceLsior, MN 5533I f PRESENT ZONING: ACREAGE: DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: WATER AND SE$IER: PHYSICAL CEARAC.: 2OOO LAND USE PLAN: RSF; Residential Single Family 2.38 acres .84 units per acre Shorewood,/Hwy. 7 RSF, single familY RSF, single familY RSF, single familY Available to the site. Residential Low Density The site sloPes toward the south the southerlY portion of the site open area. N- S- E- w- andis PROPOSAL: *lrF.., 'Ir:;:rt: La-atta.t *Abr2r|bt}.f C *.}lJn6C)1,Frz 8q) .N IIAT{P RO oot- E 8tct ooJ' oo.ool oor? 6.| ooAl c.l .L c @ o Lv RR Q LA c RR o /i a o, H R reIEtolt I ) t ciE 7 tJ 0Rrv E rt,PUD- v flruet sot l,i N -- - r': ti_ i k t schumacher Subdivision July 6, 1988 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Section 2 0 -615 requires minimum lot frontage offeet (Attachment #I). REFERRAL AGENCIES a rninimum 1ot area of 90 feet and a minimum 15,000 square feet,lot depth of 150 No comment. No comment . Lot areas meet Iot size with Attachment f2 the required the Shoreland minimum District. The applicant is proposing to subdivide 2.38 acres into thlo single family- Iots of f .Oa ina .74 acres. There is an existing residence on th6 subject property. The southern portion oi the 1ot will be divided from thl suUject parcel to create a single family 1ot' Lot I, Block 1, where the existing residence is located, will continue to be served by North Manor Road. The newly created lot, L',ot 2, Block 1, will 6e serviced from Washta Bay Roaal. Both lots maintain the required lot area and street frontage. There is a shed located less than one foot from the westerly pro- perty line of Lot 2. The shed is located within the minimum side Iard-setback and is also Iocated on a drainage and utility ease- irent. The shed is non-conforming but is rvell maintained and is architecturally consistent ieith Lhe existing residence. Staff is not recommending that the shed be removed from Lot 2 ' Drainaqe, Utilitie s and Grading The Assistant city Engineer, in Attachmeat *2, addresses drainage, utility and grading. RECOT,IMENDAT I ON The proposed preliminary plat meets the requirements of the zoning 6rdina-nce and Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following rnotion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Subdivision Request #88-i5 as shown on the plat stamped "Received June 8, 1988" and subject to the following condition: 1. Lot 2, Block 1 shall be responsible for lateral assessments for sewer and water already paid. paying approPriatse when connected if not Fire Inspector Building Department DNR Asst. City Engineer ANALYSIS Schumacher SubdivisionJuly 6, 1988 Page 3 ATTACHI4ENTS Section 20-615 of City Code. Memo from Asst. City Engineer dated July 1, 1988.Petition supporting subdivision. AppJ.ication.Preliminary dated June 8, 1988. 1 2 3 4 5 o ZONING percent. (5) The setbacks are as follows: a. For front yards, thirty (30) feet b. For rear yards, thirty (30) feet. c. For side yards, ten (10) feet. (6) The maximum height is as follows: _ a. For the principal structure, three (3) storieVforty (40) feetb. For accessory structures, three (B) stories/forty (40) feet. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ S(S-5-S), 12-15-86) ARTICLE XIII. "R.4- MIXED I.O W DENSTTY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT S{:c. 2O{i31. Intent. $ 20-631 o Sec. 20-614. Conditional uses. Ihe following are conditional uses in an .,RSF,, District: (1) Churches. (2) Private stables, subject to provisions of chapter 5, article ltr. (3) Recreational beach lots. (4) Commercial stable with a minimum lot size of live (E) acres-(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ S(5-S4), t2-rb-86) State law referenee-Conditional uses, M.S. $ 462.3b9b. Sec. 2M15. Lot requirements and setbacks. The following minimum requirements sha, be observed in an ..RSF , District subject toadditional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter: (1) The minimum lot area is fifteen thousand 05,000) square feet. (2) The minimum lot frontage is ninety (90) feet, except that lots fronting on a cul-de-sacshall be ninety (90) feet in width at the building setback line. (3) The minimum lot depth is one hundred frfty (f50) feet. (4) The maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is twenty-five (2s) O ffi1{,:t ilt T{T,H:l1T;:l',;::if n",,,,1?";ffl,y".,:la,,ached residen,ia, 1209 +\ Secs. 20-Gl6-20-680. R€served. --.-... .---*. -.- CITY OF EH[NH[SSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE . P.O. BOX 147 . CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEII{ORANDUII{ TO: Planning Commission FROU! Larry Brown, Staff Engineer Xa 1ft,- for Minnewashta Vineyards, DATE: SUBJ : June 29, 1988 Preliminary Plat review The subdivision is located on the north sice of washta Bay Road,approximateLy 600 feet lsest of Tanagers Lane. The 2.3 acie siteis composed of a gentle rolling top5qraphy r.{ith an .*i"tinj r,oo""located on the proposed Lot lr-Bloak-I.- Lot 2, Block 1 alio hasan existing utility shed along the westerly property U"rnaiiy. SANI?ARY SEWER Planning file 88-i5, Mary Schuinacher Municipal sanitary sewer service for LotEo the site by an existing service whichproperty boundary along Washta Bay Road.Lot 1, Block 1 already receives service 2, Block I is availablehas been extended to theThe existing house offrom North Manor Road. WATERMAIN Municipal water service isthe existing service whichdary along Washta Bay Roaal. also available tohas been extended Block 1byproperty boun- LoL 2,to the DRAINAGE AND BROSION CONTR OL The rear of Lot l and all ofsoutherly property corner of Erosion control will beapplication process. MI SCELLANEOUS t.owards the most 1. Lot 2 2, drains B lockLot analyzed as part of the building permit shed does along the encroach upon It should be noted that the existing utj.lityeresterly property boundary of Lot 2] alock 1the proposed drainage and utility easement. Planning June 29, Page 2 Commission 1988 RECOMT\,!ENDAT ION LoL 2, Block I shall be lateral assessments for already paid. responsible for sewer and water paying appropriate when connected if not Ie h; ve :::i :.._.,.critr:r.17 to sel-1 ,-,r*. l:cl se a:ril i:it t ci cul 1ot. The o.f-'el :,i.s contit:;:ent on us l-.reaj<i::; c:.'i the Scuth pozticn of otir }ropert:t, epljrd;xiatelJi .1ii:: o: a.n acie. Then :,,e 'roulcl o:.-ler thai; area :or sale is a sl::,le ia:r-i1;r hc:re si.ie. Thts subdivision is subject +.o the niles a,iir reglations of the Cit.r o:i Chanhassen arcl .::r:st be approveti by the !,J-:::.ring co:n;ission. the oi'.;r s6ur.11 a:td o'r-" 5ood neigirbors. fcrr sig::a+"ure cn -,is le.i.,e:. :.r:-cki inoic.ir e .:l::-, -,,-,u .c nct ob;cct tc :rch a subciivisiono -.J11,-r ne ::]-o :-as tD ob;cctt;::i :::7 Co e o at the :ni:cl:rce<i 1-Le-"::::-::; cc:;rissia:: r.ceti::; c:,,rhe c r:_.ciI ::ee.,i::g. rflr^.-._ -,. ,. _ i.,r. ..u-c c cn,i,;e:,atla::. i]: t,-:i: .::ittrf . ii;hbors, O,/ I Cd*^r"/* I f,\*"-."-t</k 21,#*,/;- ll,t 'h-c-t,,*. +- 7)lru-tp--/@ {L%r Cafr.-a APPLICANT: ADDRESS X PRoJEcr NAME PRESENT I,AND REQTJESTED LAN PRESENT ZONIr\G LAND DEVELOPIIENT APPLICATION CITY OF CEANE.AS SEII 590 Coulter Drive ChanhasseD, tlN 553172) 937-1900 ,1 ER bRE 0 TELEPHONE (Daytime ) REQIJEST: Zoning District Change Zoning Appeal Zoning Variance Zoning Text Amendment Iand Use plan Amendment Conditional Use permit Site Plan Review Planned Unit Development Sketch Plan - preliminary plan _ Final plan Subdivision A elatt ing _ Metes and Bounds Stree t,/Eas ement Vacation Wetlands Permi t TELE PHONE USE PLAN DESIGNATION D USE PLAN DESIGNATION REQUESTED ZONING USES PROPOSED SIZE OF PROPERTY 0 IOCATION .}1/ REASONS FOR THIS REO UESI, LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary) X City of Chanhassen nu"ti! 3""tr"Pmen t APPrication FTL rNG rNSTR U CT IONS : lflt ?ppri.ation must be completed in furt an.i h6 r!,--.-_i. .crearli''p.i.iJ^'.,j must be ;.;;;;.;;J"ii :li f.:l;:Ii::.:;uo.F'il;r'ff I:'ii, iI":il l-i."Ii. -Eiiy"6liin*-un "" f rov is i on s . Berore *"lii=lj;;"T:.:;ff;l*]r:;i$:: ff3';:.:i:l.jl;.:iil.ii:tu, FTLI CERT IF IC ATTON: iI; *:i. i:':rri"{::,xiff .i..: ";.::":::. in:".ili::.*;: o:, Signed By certifies al]' Y Appr rCAN E ee Ownei Date Date The undersigned hereby certifies that thauthorized to make trri=-^i^iii::,. ^'1": cne. appricanr has beendescribed .nrs appricauion for rrr"- p.opu.iv..t l.ili,. Signed By Date Application Application Fee City Receipt No. F be cons ideredand Appeals at )\> {!\Lec FIF.L,L lc I'iLr,LRecei ved Paid by Lhetheir This Application wilLBoard of Ad j us tmen LsmeeLing. pLanning Cornrni ss ion,/ CITY OF EHINH[SSEN P.C. DATE: July 6, 1988 C.C. DATE: July 25, 1988 CASE NO: 88-16 SUB Prepared by: Olsen/v STAFF REPORT Fz o =(LL ko trJ E @ PROPOSAL: 7 617 Frontier Trai ILOCATION : APPLICANT: cres into Two Single Family Lots of eet and One Outlot of 26,724 Square Subdivide 1. 15,000 Squar Feet 3AeF Vir9il Route 1 Cokato , S chlotte MN 55321 PRESEN? ZONING: ACREAGE: DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND I,AND USE: PEYSICAL CEARAC. : 2OOO LAND USE PLAN: RSF, Res j.dential Single FamilY l-.3 acres 2.31 units per acre RSF; RSF, RSF; RSF; single family single family vacant single family very steep slopes and heavily vegetated. Residential Low Dens i ty N- S- E- w- WATER AND SET{ER:Available to lhe site through extension ofexisting service. lJ-rt RD 6700 .6800 6900 7000 __7too -7200 _73OC 7400 L OTUS ( It \CJ .to LATE ) I oo @I 21RoooI oo @ @ ooto @ zlt ; ; t z olJ a ot _8tOO 3 lop 8ij oo(o !9 RSF bkd r=,{1t= UD-R -l \ f! - L ILqro, q acbotvba) SA 5c*uo111- 1 ii & la:rEt ST opJv t"t IAIIX ---..fhi.. \ 7 r- 8200 IdJ Schlotte Subd ivi s ion July 6, 1988 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS section 20-675 requires minimum lot frontage offeet ( Attachment #I). REFERRAL AGENCIES Fire fnspector Building Department Asst. City Engineer BACKGROUND a minimum lot area of 90 feet and a minimum 15,000 square feet,Iot depth of 125 No comment . No comment. Attachment f2 The exact subdivision as is currently proposed. was applied for in 1986. The previous applicant withdrew the application prior to the Planning Commission reviewing it. The applicant r.ras pro- posing to move a home onto Lot 2 and after realizing the cost of filling the lot and moving the home onto it, decided not to pur- sue the application. The previous applicant proposed Outlot A as not being a buildable site until the property to the north (Ted Delancey) was subdivided to provide better access to the site. ANALYS I S Lot 2 and Outlot A have extreme topography with some slopes as steep as 70t grade. Lot 2 and Outlot A are also very heavily vegetated. It is possible to locate a home on the th,o sites but extensive filling will be required. The previous o\,iner of Lot I was notified in June of 1983 that he was illegally dumping fiII onto Lot 2 (Attachment #3). The owner of Lot I lrras required to disconti.nue the iIlegal filling immediately. The existing fill from the illega1 dumping is a mixture of asphalt, leaves and other unsuitable materials. Prior to a home being located on Lot 2, it may be necessary for the i1Iega1 fill to be removed from the site because it most likely will not be suitable to support a foundation. There appears to be dumping of brush and similar materials on Outlot A also. Outlot A should not be serviced by should be serviced from the north. Trail and instead of creating a Frontier Instead The apglicant is proposing to subdivide I.3 acres into two single family lots and one outlot. Lot 1 (151000 sq. ft.) will contain an existing single family residence. Lot 2 (15,000 sq. ft.) is a vacant single family lot and Outlol A is designated as a vacant site not intended at this time as a building site. The existing 1.3 acre parcel has only one assessment. Site Characteristics Schlotte Subdivision July 6, 1988 Page 3 separate outlot which could remain unbuildable ior several years(and potentially become a tax forfeited 10t), staff recommendsthat Outlot A be combined with Lot 2. ff and when the propertyto the north is subdivided, Lot 2 could be resubdivided- and madea part of that subdivision. Utilities Sanitary serder is available along Frontier Trai1.r{ill need to be extended to the aites. Lot t hasand municipal water is available to al1 1ots. D ra i nage The serviceservice already 2Drainage and utility easements have been provided on Lots 1 analas required. Outlot A has not designated any easements sinceit.is.not proposed currently as a buildirrg site. tfrere is inexisting culvert under Frontier Trail whiih directs runoff ontoLot 2 approximately where a house would be located and then inthrough the ravine. If the lot is det.ermined to Oe UuitaiOte,staff is recomrnending that the culvert be relocaued to redirectrunoff from the home site on Lot 2 and a permanent easenent becreated over the relocated pipe. Summary Both.of the proposed lots, Lot 2 and Outlot A, meet the minimumrequirements for lot area and street frontage and have sewer andwater available r.o them. The existing condirions of the siteconcern staff. The topography is extremely steep and for anyhome to be Located on the lots, extensive iillin| will berequired. The filling of these lots wiII result in extensiveclear cutting, creation of new drainage patterns and steepdriveway accesses which could caose sifely problems for tiafficleaving or entering the sites fron Frontilr- trail. Outlot A hasmore extreme topography than Lot 2 making it very difficult, evenwith extensive fil1ing, for the rot Eo be serviced from FrontierTrail. This property (Lot 2 and Outlot A) r.rould be better ser-viced fron the north as part of a potential subdivision on theTed Delancey property (Attachrnent S4). Lot 2 shows a proposed home site. The location of the proposed home was provlde& whenthis plan was first proposed i.n 1S96. As can be seen, the homehras located 20 feet from Frontier Trail instead of the required30 foot front setback to reduce the amount of fill requirJd.Staff is uncomfortable recomrnending creat.ion of a lot that couldresult in the need for a variance. Section 18-39 (f) identifies the findings for the city to approvepreliminary plats. Subparagraphs (3) ana fSl reguire that Lhephysical characteristics of the site are suitable for developmentand will not cuase environmental damage (Attachment #5). Schlotte Subdivision Juty 6, 1988 Page 4 Although the lots meet the minimum zoning ordinance requirements, ine e*lsting conditions of the site are questj,onable for. builda- Uiil.tV. Th6 applicant currently has reasonable use of the land' ;;ki;; the loti'buildable wilr iesurt in a total reconfiguration "i tn6 Iand resulting in tlrainage and stabilization problems' Ci"""-t.tri" analysis, staff cannot recommenil approval' Options remaining are: ]..TabletherequestuntilmoreinformationcanbeSubmitted regarding th6 amount of fiIl, 9radin9, drainage "nq- lt:9 removal necessary to locate a home in compliance with the setbacksonthe-site.Thisisnottoimplythattherequest,""fa U. granted after more information is submitted' 2. Approve the plat with the conditions identified below in the recommendation section. 3. Deny the application based on the findings that the site is not'suitabil for development and !,rould cause environmental ;;";; ierosion and staLilization probrems) and traffic safely problems ( steep driveways) ' RECOMMENDATIOI! to redirect runoff permanent easement over5 6 The existing cuLvert must be relocated from the building site on Lot 2 and a the pipe shall be Provided. The applicant shaIl enter into a tlevelopment contract with ah; aliy ind proviae the City !',ith the-necessary financial suretiei to girarantee the proper instalLation of utilitsy improvements. The applicant shall submiE Plans extension of the sanitarY sewer approved by the City Engineer. and specifications for along Frontier TraiI to the be Should the Planning Commission recommencl approval of the^prelimi- n.iy-pf.t #88-16 ai shown on the plat 'lated "June 13' 1988" and suujeLt to the following conditions: l. Outlot A sha1l be combined \rith Lot 2' 2. Provide a registered engineer report on soils, footings' and siiucturaf d6sign for City Engineer and Building Department "ppr"".f prior Lo issuance of a ouilding permit on Lot 2' 3. Provide a registered engineer grading and drainage-plans for City Engineei approval irior to issuince of a building permit on Lot 2. 4. Provide a tree removal plan for staff approval prior to issuance of a building permit on LoE 2' 7 Schlotte Subdivision July 6, 1988 Page 5 8. The expense for the sanitary sewer extension sha11 be at thesole expense of the developer. ATTACHI\,IENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 City Code. Memo from Asst.Letter from Geor Maps of potentia City Code SectioApplication.Preliminary plat stamped "Received June I5, 1988". City geD 1sun 18 Engineer dated July 1, 1988.onnelly dated June 1, 1988.bdivision to Ehe north. -39 (f ). o ZONING $ 20-631 Sec. 206f 4. Conditional uses. The following are conditional uses in an ..RSF" District: (1) Churches. (2) Private stables, subject to provisions of chapter 5, article III. (3) Recreational beach lots. (4) Commercial stable with a minimum lot size of five (E) acres. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ S(b-S4), t2-1S.86) Statc law rcference-Conditional uses, M.S. S 462.8b9S. Sec. 2GGl5. Lot requiremenis and setbacks. The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "RSF" District subject toadditional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter: (1) The minimum lot area is lifteen thousand (15,000) square feet. (2) The minimum lot frontage is ninety (90) feet, except that lots fronting on a cul-de-sac shall be ninety (90) feet in $,idth at the building setback line. (3) The minimum lot depth is one hundred frfty (1S0) feet. (4) The maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is twenty-five (25) percent. (5) The setbacks are as follows: a. For front yards, thirty (30) feet. b. For rear yards, thirty (S0) feet. c. For side yartls, ten G0) feet. (6) The mavimun height is as follows: - a. For the principal structure, three (g) storieyforty (40) feet.b. For accessory structures, three (3) stories/forty (40) feet.(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 5(b-5-5), 12-15-86) Secs. 2G616-2G680. Reserved. ARTICLE XIII.'R.4- MIXED II)W DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT S€c. 20-681. Intent. The intent of the ..R-4', Di deveropmcnr.t,. -o*i-,_ ";f:::[:1',;:Ififf,,1?::ilrI.']jj:o"n", residentiar (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 6(5.6.1), lZ.15.86) 1209 +\ CITY OF EHINHISSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE ' P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 I{EMORANDUM TO: Planning Commi ssion FROM: Larry Brown, Staff Engineer )4 DATE: July 1, 1988 ( SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Review for Schlotte AdditionPlanning File 88-16 SUB, Virgil Schlotte The subject parcel is located on the east side ofapproximately 300 feet north of West 78th Street.site is comprised of slopes which exceed 50.0t ontwo thirds of the site. The lot is heavily woodedvegetation throughout the site. Lot I of Block Ihouse which is to remain. Frontier Trail The 1.3 acrethe northerlywith mature has an exi st ing Municipal sanitary sewer is available in Frontier Trai1, however,this sanitary sewer will need to be extended approximately 80feet to serve the proposed Lot 2, Block 1. The proposed housepad elevation of Lot 2, Block 2 will require a house pump toobtain sanitary sewer service. The plan properly shows lherequired sanitary sewer clean-out foi services oi this length. The existing house of Lot 1, Block 1is served by existing sani-tary selrer. If Outlot A is ever developed, it is probable that apump will also be required to obtain municipal sanitary sewerservice for this lot. The extension of the sanitary sewer rnain along Frontier TraiIwiIl be at the developer's sole expense and the developer shal1submit plans and specifications for approval by the CiLyEngineer. Similarly the developer wiIl be required to enter intoa development agreement with the City to eosure the properinstallation of the public utilities and the restoration ofFrontier Trai I . Sanitary Sewer hlaterma i n Municipal water service inch diameter waLermain is available to the sitealong Frontier Trai I . by an existing 6 PIann i ng July 1, Page 2 Commission 1988 Acce s s Outlot A has the potential for proposed house pad elevation. grades for any of the proposed A soils report mitted as part a site driveway dependent upon the It is recommended that the alriveway Iots not exceed 14 percent. Drainage Mi scellaneous Recommended Condi t ion s: The applicant shatl enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper installation of these improvements. The applicant shall submit plans and specifications for approval by the City Engineer. Any designs for structures of LoL 2, Block I or Outlot A shal1 be prepared by a registered structural engineer. The entire parcel drains to the northeast. The preliminary plat shows a 15 inch culvert underneath Frontier TraiI which discharges into Lot 2 of Block I. The plans and specifications will be required to properly address this drainage. Since the existing slopes are in excess of 55t, any building designed for either Lot 2 or Outlot A will require the signature of a registered structural engineer. It should also be noted that Lot 2, Block I has been filled without permit over the years to create a building pad. Since in all probability this fill has been dumped in an uncontrolled manner, a soils report will also be required as part of the building permit process. 1 ) 3 5 by of a registered soils engineer shaIl be sub- the building permit process. sanitary sewer extension shall be at the developer . The expense for sole expense of the the 4 fEE$ tr Btrtrtr H I9'6'EIB6 UEAd.}A\I FIdTHHJHN PS Form 3800, F.b. 1982 690 COULT CERTIFIED MAIL June l, 19 83 Mr. Ed Hjermstad 7617 Frontier Trail Chanhassen, t4N 55 317 Dear Mr. H j erms tad : On September 17, 1983 you received a letter from liilliam Monk, the city Engineer, stating that he had become aware that fill rnateriaL was periodically being cieposited into the ravine area to the north of your resj.dence. Ile stated that you should be aware that a city permit, as welJ- as a permit from the Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed District, was necessary if it was your intention to alter the existing contours. On Wednesday, Uay 25, 1983, an inspection of your premises shows that you are sti1l depositing fiIl material into the ravine without the necessary permits. tI ll I c' (J' Cel (.r] o)i-r l\) =rn:o ,,2 -n;= -{ a :P oi =- , ! =; rni -; 4 - 3= I-d m == g =H<P> l- You are hereby of this letter boulevard area. tion which wi 11 Sinc ly, notified that to remove the If you fail require your you will have ten days from fill material now lying on to comply, you will receive appearance in County Court. the date the a ci ta- IrI Ge Bu i/r GD:v ge Donnelly ding Official William l'lonk, City Eng ineer Scott A. Martin, Conununity Development Director Roger KnuEson, City Attorney (,,1''))i Au-- Anx.tN-r-x;*A Ioi a t ot >!x6' o3 oi ET 3 d3,, la o92a oP ; , a & o9a g oq e It Fr 3 o s PAu) ;r ! o r9si {e z ' e.-t :o r{ ( 6 CtTy(OP )r ll I u-r'1 -6700 .6800 6900 7000 -___7too -7200 -730C I RD L OTUS \ It ciIo LAKE 21Roooo ooroI oo(DI oo ao P \t z <l -c i1 5 L-o-tc toP or oo @I Siill =!qNL- UD-R sr(, - I IG /fr I L, 2 L*qo, q aub1tvbta-l SA 9E btsttoga. ,IEac IGHW AY lllt,l RSF -t"oof t I 7400 7 zI() It -8too I ) A -l I I l\ BD II ttl t //6,R.zJ ( 2l 9 I FR ONTI ?2 (o. -^ 7 6 €.u l4 ?? + 50 60; -6 1 B ,t^i ar. (-', "i 1tr' lrJ oC -.tt-o{ >6 u;: \) 9ai o6,pI3 lltrPr6r- Yo -. S '.r'3 g3 lircxa€L soR€r{sEttal. |lo! P605,oo 25t t5 s65.79 ATTACHMENT *7 CltY Ol Ct{AxnA!Saragx. r5a, P !!7 279 t6 r: Il :: 3l - -rL I PART OF LOT 16 2.34 6 R.?. Ntt{oo3I.57r P 3t6 254 56 9 gr( 167! P45r-c,O ?l r. !? E F PAULY Bx 32, P 524 2l2 a! & E l{ scxEUELa :: Ex.5zr p!t9 I . ooll/rLo. coE?zE - Bt r49. P t1 226 to I () a a ao t9 G z@ lr- YcI lrJ /8X. r34. P 3a9 i ft l- t. l> Ir f:o ,...\r._j tt PART OF LOT 16J POSSIBLE ACCESS TO OUTLOT A - II ll ! r. x. xerrsor !- ..rr rrm !slioEtt 0_ gAL|.ER oi ,9. P ?oa ER 66 J GF WA''IE HAOMAN ax r29, P tz8 8l(. r!t i P ata-. GET loN t3\ \\ \ \ t7 , ,';7 ,-' / l.-' '/?-,kt*e ,, "!,,/./ ,i,' ,: '/ i' o Z.1,<I ) \ 92a s 3+' 37ojd, lri;: .'ti I t \t; i,:-\,E4'o /7,its,o- .i |. a I t I I It_'rL -r t: I t' I l I I 0 0 a 0 q Z /, 0 /,o !_:2..--/oor I ,t ,tI'3,r. -i-]J -'F-l-rio -i01i\.i i li| -: S -o oY \ /6aa"ats I L\..t ?- 'o+ d _t I I a -, 1 ,l :'f \' D \AREA ,r>. 0 t\ abaoFU $ 0'\r ) l 3 ,/4 /aoi4 $t: \>1 \ Qt I -! \q \ \ \ \ .? ..4;. , 4:.- tzo4- .': \ \€\)o,Le,a \ a \f\ ,a v N $ I \ Z \ q\. 4 ,\ \ 'o \ 0 $ \ \ , c 5\ -.r*( woqD \i 9- \ \l >, \ R 7,]-.: ". tl-za/ 3-Afq turrzn z'N\- lxl '| /e / . . ---ts_zao /' ./ o:',',, / t I J \ .\: l\ I", I I $ 18-39 CHANHASSENCyIyCODE (2) Befer the preliminary plat to the planning commission or appropriate city staff,offrcers or departments for further investigation; or (3) Disapprove the preliminary prat. If the plat is not approved, the city counc, sha,state the reasotrs for denial on the record. - (0 The findings necessar5r for city counc, approvar ofthe preliminary prat and the finalplat shall be as follows: (1) The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; (2) The proposed subdivision is consistent with all appricable city, county and regionalplans including but not limited to tt e "ity,s "omp.ufrensive plan; (3) The physical characteristics of the site, incruding but not limitear to topography, so,s,vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, andstorm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; (4) The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drain-age, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required bythis chapter; (5) The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; (6) The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record- (7) The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of thefollowing exists: a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage.b. Lack of adequate roads- c. Lack of adequate sanitarSr sewer systems.d. Lack of adequate off_site public improvements or support systems. G) The city shalr notify the applicant of the city council's action, stating the conditions ofapproval or reasons for disapproval. (h) An applicant may at his own risk, apply to process the preliminary and fiaal platssimultaneously- (Ord. No. 33-D, $ 4.1, 2-25€5) Sec. f&40. Same-Data required. waived by the city because of the limited size and nature of the proposal, thefollowing shall be furnished with a preliminary plat: (L) Idcntificatinn and d,escriptinn: a' Proposed name ofsubdivision, which sha, not duplicate or be similar in pronun- ciation or spelling to the name ofany other plat in the county.b. Legal description. c. Names and addresses of the record owner, subdivider, land surveyor, engineer,desigrrer of the plat, and any agent having control of the land. h kI ( e 1002 +5 C June 14, 1988 Developrnerrt Plan Referral Agencies Planning Departrent By: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City plarner Subject: Prelinrirnrlz plat for tle subdivision of 1.3 acres hto 2 sirtgle fandly Date: To: 10ts and one out10t onprolErty zoned IisF Sang re t aml_LyandIocatect at the northeas t corne-r ot West / /th s .!'Iont,.le.rTIal-l.. rn-olge-' for us to pr. ovide a corplete analysis of issues for planning ccnmissionand city council review, we r"aourd appreciate your ccfircnts and recsnrendati.cnsconcerning the inpa.ct of this proposal on traific ciro:lation, existint and pro.-nof$ rytqe utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for icq:iri.ngpublic lands or eassrEnts for park sites, street &iensions o. inerovsrents, andutilities- Mere specific needs or probrems exist, we wcurd like to have awritten report to this effect frcrn the agency concerned so that ire can make arecqnrEndation to the planning Cormission and City Council. This apprication is scheduled for consideration by the chanhassen planning Cormission on July 6 at 7:30 p.m. in ehe Council Chambers atchanhassen city HaIl. we wouLd appreciate receiving your comrEnts by no laterthan Jtxle 27 you nray also appear at-the planning Coiissionmeeti;E-f;-6u-6 desIG. Planning Case:88-16 SUB (Schlotte) Tfg e1"".. described application for approval of a land devel,orrEnt promsal wasfileit with the Chanhasserr planning Deparureat on June lj -- - - - --:- Your cpotrElaEion and assistance is greatly appreciated. I. City Departnents 7. MN Dept. of Natural Resources @ city Engineerb-. Citv Attornev d. citi park oiiector @l hrblic safety Director(y' auikling rnspector. Riley Watershed District EnEineer Soil Conservation Service MN Dept. of Transportation U.S. Almy Corps of Engineers Minnegasco ,c. 8. o I0. u. L2. 13. 14. Corpany ( N1^,11 or United ) ,El€[ric ColrpanyAQgp'or MN VaILey) DOIIDEN Cable System Roger l4achre ierfim Anderson U. S. Fish and liildlife Carver County Engineer 0 '\ \a eE) ry1')ia,*-q )( Other - . -6.j4r.r"!&f-. - ---..--.-r-i. - --- --.j-r:';sr City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive, p.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 ( 612) 937-1900 3. 4. 5. CITY OF EHINH[SSE![ 6e0 couLrER DRrvE ' P'o' t?r',iilr; iT|NHASSEN, MTNNESoTA 5s317 IIEITORANDUM TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Assistant City planner FROM: Steve l{adden, Fire Inspector DATE: June 22, 1988 SUBaIs Schlotte Subdivision, file No. BB-1G SUB Upon completing the site plan review for the Schlotte 1ots, Ihave found that it meets the minimum requirements as recornrnendedby the Uniforrn Fire Code. I,AND DEVELOPI{ENT APPLICATION CITT OF CEATIEASSEN 590 coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317(612) 937-1900 OWNER : ADDRESS "& APPLICANT: ADDRESS TELEPHONE REQTJEST: v3 {-Zip Code32-ra 7'\\55 6'5-3J Zip Code ( Dayt i me ) 1z/43Gn TELEPHONE Z,z-t ^es'z \rd c- Zoning District Change Zoning Appeal Zoning Variance Zoning Text tunendment Land Use Pl,an Amendment Conditional Use Permit Site Plan Review Planned Unit Development Sketch Plan - Preliminary plan Final Plan Subdivision Y. Prattinq' Metes and Bounds II"t,ze.".ment vacation Wetlands Permit PROJEC? NAME PRESEN? LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION REQT'ESTED LAND gSE PLAN DESIGNATION PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING USES PROPOSED SIZE OF PROPERTY LOCATION REASONS FOR THIS REQ UEST LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary) x cit Lan Pag f Chanhassen evelopmen E Application yo dDe2 ff *:i.i!':td{::,:i."x'ii:";'::":x.".in:"';:il:.*,,'x,cer,tiries Signed By Signed By Date Application Application Fee City Receipt No. r This App Board ofneeting. Appl ].CanL Fee O wne r The, undersigned hereby certifies that thaurhorized to make tt i=_"^^ii^.::,. _.1": cne. applicant has beendescribed. .nrs applicarion for th._ p.op"rir..i,I.Jii,. Date Date Recei ved Paid Aa Pw*> enog%) o..'n-Lz,-, vfl bpgvtu4lot-a )8"y2D IicaEion wi 11 Planning Commission,/by thetheirAdjusLments a be cons iderednd Appeals at FTLING TNSTRUCTIONS: Il::.ii"i:i:it::".I}': be comprered in ru,rl ul9 !" typewrirren or *:g*l1+,:!*1#;,ffi ttr+*ItrStrffi f$fri FTLING CERTIFTCATION: Z-1" -PA CITY OF EHANHISSEN P.C. DATE: JulY 6, 1988 C.C. DATE: JUIY 25, 1988 CASE NO: 88-11 SUB Prepared bY: DacY/v STAFF REPORT t-z o =LL ko UJF U) PROPOSAL: 383I Red Cedar Point DriveLOCATION: Subdivide 1.6 Acres intoPreliminarY PIat Request to Two Lots Claudette and BilI WaY 3605 Red Cedar Point Drive Excelsior, l'lN 5533L PRESENT ZONING: ACREAGE: DENSITY: ADJACET{T ZONING AND LAND USES WATER AND SEWER: PEYSICAL CEARAC. : RSF; Single FamiIY Residential 1.65 acres N- s- E- w- RSF , RSF, RSF ; RSF t single familY single familY single f ami lY single fami IY Municipal services are available Prooerty contains existing home, gravel ariii.""v to 4 residences and slopes to the southeast. 2OOO LAND USE PLAN:Lov, DensitY Residential APPLICANT: I 54.. ----{a5ia- * tvF \F I \\ll(,ll GS ROA 0 // (l n\ a @ rz E frIIIINEVASHTA RD PUD-R A2 @cE q 3-@tut $ a2E ttrt f F ** t. $ ,tN __..._l - r\ F /, ^ LAKE AKE IAPLE SHOiEt DR]YE RI IB --{.ri- Way Subdivi s ion July 6, 1988 Page 2 REFERRAL AGENCIES Asst. City Engineer Minnehaha Creek Watershed DNR Park and Recreati-on BACKGROUND ANALYS I S Attac hmen ts Attachment At tachment No adverse #I *2 *3 comments. On August 7, lg78r the City Council approved subdivision of the "rlj"it-pt"ierty into two lots. Attachment #4 represents the enclosure that $ras submitted to the City at that time' During ;;;-;;;r;" fio.."" in :-977 anil 1978, the citv anarvzed the site ioi a potenlial street along the existing graveL drive' .It $'as i[" i"'."^ .ndation of the engineer at that time that a street could be built, however, the construction of such a street could i"-a"f"v"a ontif f"eoie resubdivision of the property' At -mini- mum, it was recommended that a 50 foo! easement be reserved in tf,"'g-n.tuf area along the gravel d1iv9' The property ov'ner at init-ti*e objected to-reseriation of the 50 foot easement' The Council's action on aogo"t 7, Lg78, r"as tso permit the subdivision ;"= pi"""nted b}' the aiplicant", an'l t'he easement was not required. The proposed 1ot split meets the cityts minimum requirements for i;a;i;;..a rot wiairr. rhe parcel is located wiEhin 1C00 feet of Lake Minnehrashta i"a i" thlrefore subject to the-Shoreland i"g":."ii""i.- H""tipitian lots musE be at minimum of 15'000 =qiii" f""t. The p-roposeC subdivision meets these minimum i6qoii...nt". ttlole-lhac Lot 2 has 87'29 plus 2'7I feet of fron- tage equaling 90 feet. ) Access to the ner4rly created 1ot can be achieved from Red cedar p"ini n".a, or at ihe discretion of the potential gropgrtY.owner' tte e*isting gravel driveway coulil also-be used' It should be noted that lhe gravel driveway will be localed on Lot 2' Access t" in" existing home on Lot l will be through. the -adjacent lot' tt"i"i"i., a piivac" easement should be negotiated between Lot I and Lot 2 to ensure legal access to Lot 1' The existing garage on the property-wi11 be located approximately 6 ieet from-tf,e n6w1y creatla iot 1it'e' The garage is in good condition and, althoirgh it would be rendered non-conforming' a i"q"it"t".i to relocafe or remove it at this time would be too a*ii.... Hovrever, if an addition is proposed onto the lrarage, ieconstruction would require meeting the typically required 10 foot selback. Way Subdrvi s ion,luly 5, 1988 Page 3 Given t.he cityrs prior analysis regarding the access and easernentissue, it is recommended thit a SO-iooi drainage anC utility andstreet easement be reserved on the r,{esterly si6e of r,oi-i-o.,r".the existing gravel, roadway. ttre previous analyses useil by citystaff in r978 were based.oi a neigiborhood plan ror neJ-c"6..Point Road. At the writing of this i.fort a copy of such couldnot be obtained; horrrever, in reviewine'tn" tilu, it r^rasapparently indicated that rhere *u" t5 be a road iiavlisinq ttresi.e alonq the aliqnment of the existing g.u,r.i-.oui;;;-;;theadins wesrward bick toward Mir;;;;;;;. parkway. Uponinspecring the site, staff finds it it -it," ropography and thelocation of exisring homes ar ir,.-""J "i-tt,.'.iilii;g-;;";:idrive would prohibit construction of thrs street through thisarea and toward l,tinnewashta parkway. Retaining the easement would enable .he city to initiate streetconstruction if reques!.9 UV ttre propeity owners. Because thesubdivision meets the-lot aiea urh "i.".t frontage reguirements,staff is not recorunencing constir"ti"r-"t a public street at thistime. Hovrever, Lor 2 is-Iarg" ;;;;;;"ti be resubdivided in rhefuture. rf this r.rere.ro occir, it io"ia b" n;;;;;;;y-io i..".. "public street to provide public "i.""i-ir"ntage to the Iot.upon applying the front yird setback orr-r,ot 2, there appears tobe -approximately 60 to 7-0 feet oi-.r"l"u"tween the set.back tineand the existing 12 inch.caliper pi;;;.- Because of thetopography of the sire, ir i"'.nr'icipiiea trrii i uoiiJing p.ar"rould most 1ike1y be located in t.on[-oi these pines. It shouldbe noted at this rime, r.har tt,.iu-ipf.uil to exist adequarebuildable area such rhar a "u rU".[-iaii]nce wouta not benecessary and the existing trees can be preserved. RECOMMENDATI ON Planning staff recommends the planning Commission adopt thefollowing motion: "The- Planning Cornmi ss ion . recommends approval of Subdivision*88-11 based on the preliminary plat itampea ,Received June 8,I988" and subject ro the rorfoi,ii!-coiJition", 1. Reservation of a 50 foot drainage, utility and street ease_ment along the eresterly side of-Lot 2. If Lot 1 is to continuedriveway, an appropr iater{rth Lot 2. 2 3 access along thedriveway access existing gravel easement be executed If Lot 2, Block 1 further subdivides, a street shall beconstructed at the benefitting propeity ownerr" "*p"n".within this dedicateal roadway easement to service whatbe a1l five lots.egoul-d Way Subdivision July 6, 1988 Page 4 A drainage and erosion control plan shall be submitted aspart of the building permit application process. ATTACHMENT S Merno from Larry Brohrn dated JuIy 1, 1988. LeLter from Minnehaha Watershed District dated June 22, 1988. Memo from DNR dated June 21, 1988. Proposed lot division considered by the City council in 1978. City Council minutes dated AugusE 7, L978. Planning Commission minutes dated JuIy 26, L978. 4 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Letter from Schoell and Madson dated Memo from Steve Madden dated June 22 Map from Red Cedar Point neighborhoo Preliminary plat stamped "Received J Se ,Idp une ptember 26, 1978. 988. lan .g, r988u. CHINHISSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE . P.O. BOX 147 . CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEII{ORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Larry Brown, Staff Engineer DATE: July 1, 1988 SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Review forPlanning File No. 88-11 SUB, Xo&/.t- the Way Geor ge Add i t ion Way, Jr. Sanitary Sewer Municipal sanitary sewer is available to the site by the serviceswhich have been extended out to the east side of tot 2, Block 1.A 20-foot sanitary sewer and utility easenent exists along thedriveway. Each one of the existing homesteads is serviced bythis saoitary selrer which runs along the westerly side of Lot 2. Watermain Municipal existing service is also which has beenof the sanitary \4ratef s ervi ce the may available to the site by extended to Lot 2 in the sewer services described the imme- above.diate proximity Acces s Since bothof Blocr 1 Point Road. proposed lots access either have adequate street frontage, Lot 2the internal driveway or Red Cedar If Lot 2, Block I lvere toshould be constructed inment. For this reason itfeet of LoL 2, Block 1 betime. futher subdivide, a public streetIine \dit.h the existing driveway align-is recommended that the westerly 50dedicated as a roadway easement at this CITY OF This site is located on the south side of Red Cedar point approximately 600 feet east of Minnewashta parkway. The I.7 acresite i.s comprised of a rolling topography with an existinghouse located on Lot 1, Block 1. The existing driveway betweenthe two parcels at present serves three existing homesteads. Planning Commiss ion JuIy I, 1988 Page 2 D ra i naqe The majority of the site drains towards the most southeast corner of the parcel. The anticipaEed house pad location should not affect the natural drainage pattern. crad i n and Erosion Control The plan does not propose any grading on the site. pated that the grading will be limited to the house tion. It is antici- pad construc- AS Erosion control shalI be analyzed as part of the building permit process. Recommended Conditions l_A 5o-foot roadway easement shall be granted to the City on the westerly 50 feet of Lot 2, Block I. If Lot 2, Block 1 further subdivides, a street shall be constructed at the benefitting property ownerrs expense within this dedicated roadway easement to service what would be a1I five 1ots. A drainage and erosion control plan sha1l be submitted part of the building permit application process. 2 3 v TtRSHED l0Ur0tiY MINNEHAHA WATERSHED CREEK DISTRIGT L AXE MIHHEIOIII(A P.O. Box 387, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 8lui0 0F tu[Git Camille 0. Ardre. kes. . Atb€rt L. L€hman . John E lhomas James R. Spensley . Richard R. Miller . Robert D. Erickson . C.Ilbodrow Love !{E s0 TI RIITN June 22, 1988 Ms. JoAnn 0l sen City of Chanhassen P0 Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RE: Proposed development by George tJay, Jr. Dear Ms.Olsen: [.le have received the information you forwarded concerning the proposed development by George llay, Jr. In accordance with Rule B: 5(c), this project is exempt from permitrequirements of the MCWD . If you have any further questions, please contact rne at 473-4224. Sincerely, EUGENE A. HICKOK AND ASSOCIATES Engineers for the Di stri ct nA;^O-'-A",^-,, Kevin C. Larson, Engi neer bt JUN 2 4 l$$g SITY OF CHANhASS!N MEMORANDUM TRANSMITTAL lOrr.ctor lHydrogreDh'csl I Land Use lGrouno*aler I I I Oata Mqt, Chmat ** ll I Suirac€ w.r.r & D.ms I lFire Permrts I I Adm. S".Yic.r IN PERSON TELEPHONE F relO Local I Otrrce Lons D'st I Oul Dare./lG /zt 16g Frie ACTION Nole and Frle Note anc, Relurn Prepare Reply Invest ancl Report rIII- III at6/il\Asi€/,/^''e.rrt4 SuoD.TO FROM t- 14 rur No ^Rb. FuL€s A reu4.sllfr5LA Fo F*ceLo75 Lars /p{ r\to T Agur=r/t/6 NO PRAEL€I), JQti 2;;-isBB' i CITY OF CHANhASSEN NA- 02617-03 ii--- *r.*,;s.*.x'e*..- Taxe ADproD Please Call f ct- f ( {(nl{ , SttVil,ayYU QB;Prt5€b (u)Dtui5 iD ^)€eo-wn.aal /it )..)- f8 '73 , f-- / C)oPt'tf- SPLIT tri ,C 5 , Auti ls ,f, - /, i.a ct=<)-/te EtuccasoRf * / 64:,c',rv/ 7 L te7- 2 c.J b \- l)\ o,- '75Ta u t,b; A v/ -: ICouncil Meet (' August 7, Lgj I (-4- ff SUBDIVISIOIi REQUEST, GEORGE IVAY , 3831 RED CEDAR POTNT DRIVE: councilman Pearson moved to accept council Exhibit A of the chanhasr.Professional Building dated Augu-st 7, I97g, as presented. l,totionseconded by councilman Neveaux. The following i,,oted in favor: M:r,._Hobbs, councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, waritz, aid ceving. rq" ".guliii'votes. Motion carried. councilman Neveaux moved to approve the rezoninq request from R-utto cBD conditioned upon entering into a conditi6nal -use p.r i_t. lo:.seconded by Councilman ceving. The following voted in fivoi, Mayo:Hobbs, councilmen pearson, Neveaux, waritz, ind Geving. No negativevotes . Motion carried . 1iCouncilman Gevinq moved to approve the subdivisj.on of the propertyrepresented on Exhibit A from the Bloomberg properties pariet^ subjec.to presentation of a hardshell. Motion seconaea by councilman peals:The following voted i.n favor: Mayor Hobbs, counciimen pearson, Neve,Geving, and Waritz. No negative totes. Motion carried. council-man ltreveaux moved to direct staff to proceed with drafting tl:documentation to execute the financing scheml described in the cityManagerrs report of August 3, 1979. laotion second.ed. by councilmanwaritz. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, c6uncilmen peu,Neveaux, Waritz, and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. r_s see ng approval to su bdiv e his propert yan to two res a eIots. The Pl-anning Commission held a public hearing but wasto agrree on a recommendation on the road easement through the SUBDIVTSTON RE CUEST GORDON JULIUS,3 3 6 PLEAAANT VIEW ROAD : Mr . arr: k Mr . Ii! ntial unable proPs' 8 Mrs . Ju]property r.us were present requestinto three lots.ang apploval to subd rv1 e their Counc i Lma Case P-55lots and cont i ngen Motion se Mayor Hob ne qa tive n Neveaux moved to approve the preliminary p1at, plannlng9 for Gordon Julj.us, subdividing a parcel- iirto three resiile , approve a variance to Section g.O6-a(1) of Ordinance 33t upon successful negotiations with Near Mountain propertie'conded by Councilman pearson. The following voted in'favo!bs, Councilmen pearson, Neveaux, Idaritz, and Geving. No ,votes. Motion carried. ICouncilman Neveaux moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by CouncilnatGeving. The fol_Iowing voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Corrncifrlilea,Neveaux, Geving, and Waritz. No negative votes. Motion carried.Meeting adjourned at 12:00. Don Ashworth, City Manager -A councilman Neveaux moved to approve the subdivision for Mr. GeorgeWay as presented by the applicant under planning Case p-40g. Moiio:.seconded by councilman Geving. The folrowing v6ted in favor: Mayo:Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, and Waritz. No negativevotes. Motion carried. counciLman waritz moved to a1low the subdivision on a metes andbounds description. _T!"- 1ega1 description wi1l be approved by Citystaff. Motion seconded. by councilman Neveaux. rne iotlowi"q'"ot";in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen pearson, Neveaux, !,iaritz, and Ger.No negative votes. Motion carrj.ed. Planning Commission tleeff g July 26, 'l978 \- The 1.2 acres are Iocated approximately 230 feet west o Drive and West 78th Street on the south side of llest 78 zoned R-lA. It is recommended that the property be rez Planner gave his report dated July 24, 1978. -t -)-( f the intersection of Lar-edo th Street and is currently oned CBD. The Assistant City The. Assistant City Planner reconrnended that the Plann.ing Conmission find this proposalto be.positi.vely consistent with the HRA proposed conceft plan for the redevel|pmbntdistrict and that the Planning Conmission retonmend the'CoirnciI grant a variancato Ordinance 47K. A new plan dated July 26, lg71, was presented Roman Roos - l,Je wanted to try to get a finalized sketch plan and landscape plan that would be ameanable to what the city's recormendations would-be. t.le feel we have done this in several aspects. If you notice on this latest drawing I am using a zero lot line setback. The justification that I am asking for this variance is that smalI triangular piece of 'land that is just north of my property, about 14 fooi on the west sidegoing out to about 20 feet on the eastern side, is county land. It is my intent to try to get the county to vacate that parcel'of land sinceit serves no useful purpose. In the }rorst case, i? the county will not vacate or will not sell, that will mean that that piece of land will be there forever without a real use therefore it will be the frontportion of my property. With the piece of property, in order to get as many parking spaces as I could and still not get the cluttered qpprcach, I elected to set the building on that lot Iine giving me 55 parking spaces with the idea in mind that there is enough Iind betweenthe corner of that building and the highway. It is very difficult totell you or agree to the staff reconrnendation of 73 parking spots based on not knowing what type of tennants will be in there. I am asking that the parking spaces be put on a phased situation. Dick Matthews moved to close the public hearing. lloti on seconded by Jerry lleher. Thefollowing voted in favor: llalter Thompson, Dick Matthews, and Jerry Neher. Roman Roosabstained. Motion carried. Hearing closed at B:45 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING GEORGE llIAY SUBDIVISION Roman Roos called the hearing to order at 8:55 p.m. with the following interested persons p res en t: James Larkin, Attorney for Mr. tlay I'lesley Searles, 3841 Red Cedar Point Drive GIen CarIson, 714l Minnewashta Parkway Ann and Robert Osborne, 38i5 Red Cedar Point Drive Ken Smith, 3837 Red Cedar Point Drive Ed Allerman, 3821 Red Cedar Point Drive Art AIlerman, 3821 Red Cedar Point Drive Dolores Roman, Daughter of Genenieve Draus, 4343 Benjamin NE, l,linneapolis Louis Zakartasen, 386I Red Cedar Point Drive George l,Iay, 3831 Red Cedar Point DriveAI Klingelhutz, 860.l Great Plains Blvd. Dick Pearson, 7307 Frontier Trail I'lr. lay is seeking approval to subdivide his property at 3831 Red Cedar Point intotwo lots and to record it by metes and bounds description. The property would be divided along an existing sewer easement. Planning Commission Mee(,.S July 26, 1978 ( _3- The Planning Commission^requested staff_prepare a report that speaks to the f1ve pointscited in the Assistant City Attorney,s ibttlr of rebi.uirv-Jl-fgie.'- "' 1. The Planning Commission must fi-nd that the elannint'toiliiiiJn oevetopment Guidefor the-Red Cedar Point area requires that a_public rigfrt-oi-wiy-Ue-iiiuUiirf,,.d through ]!.9 ln]1:.tls property. The Development Guide o1-pas6s 2 and 3 provides that potential i:!=:lTlI alignments indicated therein are flexible and will becbme fixed only afterlndrvldual development requests are presented. After extensive study of the trafficclrculation in this area of Red Cedar Point staff has determined th;t the city doeshave an obligation to considering the health, sir"ti, a"A-d;;;i ruiiu"" of at5oiningproperty gwngls. Specifically, this involves the determining of a minimum staniardwith. which all the adjoining properties can be accessed by eieroency vehicles whichhas been partial Iy attempted by the Red cedar point plan.- The [urpirse of the GuidePlan was to establish general quidelines and diminish any oversiqhii is olanninoo-ccurred for individual development.. The Plan was attempting to-express'the ne6dtor the.properties to the south of the l.Iay property to receive access of sufficientstandards so as to satisfy any issues of public heltfir, safety, and welfare.2. The location of the propoied public ri gh t-of-way continuei to be consistent withthe city's p-1an for Red cedirr.Point. The aity Engi-neer's opinion is essentially anextension of the generalized purpose of the Red Cidar Point Plan and thus is consistentwith the city's plan for the Red Cedar point area.3.. There is a public need for the proposed public right-of-way as a continuation ofexisting-streets and future streets 'in the ad5oining ireas. The extent to which thereis a publ ic need for the proposed public ri ght-of-wiy is somewhat nebulous at thistime for the property to the southwest of the l,lay pr-operty but when the criteriaof public need is posed in reference to the properties south of the way property it Decomes a question of whether or not the city has fulfilled its obligation ofproviding for the health, safety, and welfarL of the southern properiies. Theproposal at hand is of such a nature that it could well forclose lhe city's abilityto thoroughly plan for adjoining properties in respect to circulation ani access. .1. A pub I i c. ri gh t-of-vray _-feet in width is a'reasonable portion of the Georgel'lay subdivision in view of-TfiE-publ ic access need occasioned by Mr. way's subdiviiionactivities. In light of the fact that the right-of-ways in thl plat oi the Red Cedar Point are considerably less than the required 50 feet. It would be recornmendedat this time a no build line be established ori the parcel to be subdivided so asto ailow for appropriate setbacks and for the potential provision of a 40 foot easementor right-of-way along the alignment of the exiiting sewer easement. It is apparentthat the parcel to be subdivided is not benefittin! from the prcposed access at issue. However, the abstract history of Mr. l.lay's past su6divisions invojved portions of those. properties to the south having questionable access.5. The public need for said ri 9h t-of-vray is specifical 1y and uniquely attributableto. Mr. llay's subdivision activities. As in four above it is not ileai if pastsubdivision activities of Mr. tlay can be held as argumentative for the accessdeficiencies to the_ properties to the south. From i strict physical standpointthe conveyance of that portion of l,lr. l,Iay's property to Berton Pierce did tontributeto the Iandlocking of these properties. The Assistant City Planner recommended approval of the subdivision with the conditionthat a no build line be established so that no building is to encroach within 50 feetof the eastern border of the existing sewer easement. -The Planning Commission lookwith-favor upon Mr. Way's request to record the subdivision by met6s and boundsprovided that it be in the form of a surveyor's certificate for Council consideration. James Larkin - It seems to me that the problem we are de are taking an ordinance that was desioned applying it to an individual case wheie tI wou]d suggest to you also illegai. I dplanning concepts that may be presented hfor Chanhassen to have the Red Cedar poin aling with here is that you to regul ate developers and he result is very unfair and on't wish to ouarrel with theere. It may indeed be goodt Comprehensive Pian and it may be good at sometime if they vrant to put a road in there but I Planning Conrnission I'tee{I July 26, l97B ( -4- \want to suggest to you that it's not fair to impose that burden on Mr. l,lay. Mr. I,lay is 85 years old and his need to sel I part ofhis property arose because the City of Chanhassen has imposed upon him assessments for sewer and water. That house is served by Red Cedar Point Drive. It doesn't need the new road. He has a contractto sell the lot for $10,000. This lot doesn't need this road. llhat you are saying is that because of the planning concept for. future needs they may want the road. If thatrs so, the city has the right to condemn it but to say we are going to impose a 40 foot setback line in order that we can come along at our leisure and sometime in the future and condemn it, I suggest it simply wonrt meet the test of legality. I appreciate staff's willingnessto reconrnend that the platting requirement be waived. I think from a 'legal standpoint it's un cons ti tuti onal and unfair to impose on one person, especially in this situation, a burden that is really the cornmun i ty 's burden. Ken Smith, Bob l,laibel season vroul d support Ken Smith - The engineering proble guys driveway not how To force a 40 foot roa standard dom the thro Bob Haibel - The 40 foot also incl circulation be camie Minnewashta Parkrvay. re truck going up that road. be solved is how do I get a fire engine up this get to it. I can get to it on the existing road. -r access for four families, that's pushing af an old man who is trying to sell his property. , the Red Cedar Point Plan does show that rough the property southwest of l'1r. l^lay out to 3837 Red Cedar Point Drive - I have an easement over the road in question and I go down to the lake. I am confused what the health, safety, and welfare meant in the planner's report but I interpret that as the city being able to provide services. He is saying, Iet's put a 40 foot road to here so that you can go on up the hill on that 12 foot road. It's notto here (bottom of the hiil) that the problem exists. It's from here. You don't have a problem on this nice straight flat part, you have a problem from the end of that in te rms of getting equipment up. Here is where the problem was where they couldn't get the fire engine had troublegetting up this hill. It nas way up here on his driveway. The 40 foot road here does not solve this problem and that's what I hear you are tryingto solve. This road only serves four people. - It's an engineering question what would be a standard that would at anyafi mto doIdfo ato udeddth Bob 0sborne, 3Bl5 Red Cedar Point Drive - My only corment is that I am opposed that any street or driveway of a 40 foot width coming down in that area. If you are going to provide some true protection you have got to come up thehill and if anybody here has seen that hill there is no way short of condemning the Cobb property that you are going to be able to Ievei it and get a 40 foot width out of it. I really prefer the seclusion that that road provi des. Wesley Searles, 3B4l Red Cedar Point Drive - [ do not want to see any 40 foot road 90 through there. I do not want to see a proposed road going to the. south of me across my property out on to Minnewashta Parkway. I lrant things to stay status quo. Ed AI lerman, 3B2l Red Cedar Point Drive - I would just as soon keep it the way it is right now. Dick Matthews - I would like to ask each one of the landowners here and I would like them to state their name, I would like them to simply say yes or no to this question; do you feel as a landolner adioining or connecting 'irlann'ing commission lleetir(July 26, 1978 ( -5- thispieceofproperty,thatthis40footproposedroadwou.ldserve Your health, safetY or welfare? Bob Osborne - No. f<.r imiit - No, I don,t believe the 40 foot easenent will benefit my health, safety or wel fare. tlesley Sear'l es - No. Glen Car'lson - No. Louis Zakari asen - No. Ilol ores Roman - No. Ed Allernan - No. George Hqy - I am opposed to a 40 foot road. Louis Zakariasen, 3861 Red Cedar Point Drive - It seerm to me that the Planning Cormission' sometiii ii.ri iti'ii.e:has real'ly blorrm it and that there should . be s ome compeisation and some giving on the Planning conrnission's ;;"it ;#!l[i;s:" ii-ilrii tfring ias.that necessary it should have u"en iarJn'ia.ii di-. iong iir. beiore this, activation of Kirkham Road or whatever. Jerry Neher - }lho maintains that road novt? Bill-Brezinsky - It is privately maintained. Dick Matthews moved to close the public hearing. l4otion seconded by Jerry Neher and unanimously approved. Hearing closed at 9:35 p'm' Ann 0sborne - Mr. and Mrs. lll|ay have been under a great. deal of pressure. Mrs' t|lay did not iii. fi'"idni-oeiirse she hai high blood pressure. I would ipp"".iuil"it-ii y;, would make an effoit to get it settled tonight bbtause they have- been under pressure for over a year' Planning Conrnission M".(.,g July 26, .197g ( GEORGE I,IAY SUBDIV ISION: oman s w0u e a concensus from each of you in terms of how you feel aboutthis in vi ew of what we heard at the p ubl r'c heari ng.Dick Matthews My assessment of this is that thi s road is such an "iffy" thing. Nobodyseems to take a stand as to even i ts probabi I i ty of ever goi ng in. Ihave difficulty with a 40 foot roa d going acro ss that mans propertyand then s toppin g somewhere down here. If we extended it out toMinnewashta Par kway we are in fact gol ng to cause another problem wi thanother landowner and I thi nk that pro posed connection wou Id start tocause problems with the lan downers in between. If the ci ty wants thatroad bad enou 9h then they ought to buy it.Bil l Brezinsky lJe are tal ki ng about 40 foot wide ri ght-of-way. one way to com promiseis to say we will squeeze it dovn to a 30 foot righ t-of-way wi th a20foot road. You can,t meet a car o n that road now. If a car breaksdown there or if anything, y ou can't get by them. A 20 foot road iswhat we hav e in Carver Beach with no parking.Dick Matthews I thi nk we are getti n g into an exerc r se in futility. l.le have to Craig Mertz deci d e first of alI,do we need the road. From a legal s tandpoin t you have got to di stingui sh between public safe tycon s i derati ons that gi ve rise to a need fo r a noad. If you find thatthat has oc curre d then that's a justifi cation for condemning propertyIf the acti vi ti es of Mr. l,lay caused the need for a road then you canrightful Iy ask him for the ri ght-of-rvay.If you feel there is a dangerthere and it's not attributable to Mr. W ay then I guess your a ction woul dbe to recommend to the Council that th ey order a feasibiiity study Dick Matthews acqui ring that r oadway.If ure leave it as a p rivate driveway and we go on record stati ng thatthe City will not mai ntain or make any improvements on that p ropertyfrom this day forward Crai g I'tertz Th ere was a driveway there and a1l we purchased from these peopl e was asewer easement. [,le do not buy ri ght-of-ways.Dick Matthews Let 's say we let it go as it is and three years from now th ey come rnandsay, we want a roadway in there and we say to bad becau se there Craig Mertz ls n o way to get the pro perty. You st iilh ave got to face the questi ons, do you need the roadway becauseof somethi n g Itlr. l^Jay has done. I f you answer no to that and the otherfour points then you can't justifi ably ask Mr. t.Iay to give up hisproperty. Bob Waibel If that's the case then have we shi rked our duty? That's my main concernf it comes back to the city a fev, years down the line when an incidenti d oes occur.craig Mertz - There is an. argurnent either way about whether Mr. !.Iay has himselfgenerated the need for this roadway. He created two of the parcels thatare I andlocked. Roman Roos - Do you think he created this oroblem?Jerry Neher - Yes. The problern is there whether those people want to recognize thefact or not. }{alter_Thompson _- I don,t think he created the problem.RomanRoos-Ido. Dick l'latthews - I have difficulty finding out what problem he created. 0bviously thereisn't a problem because alt these people were here telling us thlreweren't. Roman Roos - Let's look at it fronr a planning point of view. Let's look at and seewhat it's doing to the overall [lin.Dick Matthervs - I don't see where you have gbt landlocked land.craig Mertz - There is a private dri veway that goes up that hill and there's four houses that use that driveway. Planning Conrmis Dick l.latthews - Jerry Neher - T sion Mee'i'g July 26, 1978 C Being.Iandlocked means you canrt get in and out and they are gettingin and out. I don't see how it's landlocked, If it,s iandloitced . - because of a definition or.an ordinance, that,s one thing but if it is . landlocked so that you can,t get in or out of it, ttrit ;l "anoifrer ttrlng.he thing about it is, all_these people sitting baik there saying they - ave no problems. They-selI that property and that new buyei ma! tni-nfe has a hell of a problem. h h r o n h 1 aigradf at' If or f a T l{alter Thompso Dick Matthews 's number three point fs very important. There is a public needproposed publ i c_ri gh t-of-way. as a continuat.ion of existing streetsuture streets. That's what the planning obligation is all -about. s what the Red Cedar Point Plan is.I think'the City had better buy that property then. we go with this thinq. He takes us to court. Are you going to win I os6? Craig Mertz - Probably lose.Jerry Neher - I think we could buy it. Dick l4atthews - If we believe in that and that's what we want, then he is due just compensation.BiIl Brezinsky - You are going to improve the access to the base of the hill. Bob l'laibel - To prevent any pioblems'frcm that point between Red Cedar Point Drive andthe bottom of the hill. After that point maybe al 1 liability should be waived.Bill Brezinsky - l'lithout taking the hiil completely dovrn almost, you are not goingto improve those driveways. you are going to have to sweep iround s omehow. Roman Roos - If -we put in a 20 foot road it's going to be just a detrimental to him asa 40 foot. He is going to lose the sale of his land or whatever. Idon't think we can even consider Mr. Way we have to consider the road and the overall Red Cedar point plan. Roman Roos - C Roman - Yes. Jerry - Yes. l^,al ter - Yes . Roman Roos - Item number 3, that there is a public need for a proposed public right- The Red Cedar Point Plan never ever considered going to the top of thathill. t,le, as planning commissioners, if we go ilon! with that', if weacquire that property, run it to the base of that hill at th.is pointin time we have the capability of extending that road ali the wiy overto Minnewashta Parkway then we have met oui obligation as far plinners. We have met our obligation as far as !,hat we feel the injusticl has been done to George.l^lay. If we could maintain a standard roai system. Give . jus!. compensation to Mr. Uay then I feel we have met our obligation.Dick Matthews - That road, if they got a 20 foot or 40 foot easement throulh there,that doesn't mean they are going to put that road in. Theie is nosince in putting that road in under todays cond.itions. AII you are - doing is providing easement for future road system. Craig Mertz - It would merely be preserving the corridor.llalter Thompson - I am of the opinion that we leave the easement as is. Roman Roos - I would like to poll the conrnission. The first question being that thePlanning Conrmission Development Guide for Red Cedar Point arei requiresthat a publi.c right-of-way be established through the applicants property.Jerry, how do you feel about number one, yes or no.Jerry lleher - Yes. Dick Matthews - I disagree. RomanRoos-Iaqree. l^lalter Thompson - I disagree. Roman Roos - Item number 2, that the location of the proposed public ri gh t-of-r.ray continues to be consistent with the City's plan for the Red Cedar Point area. Di ck - Yes. Planning Corrnission Meetif July 26, 1978(( of-way as a continuation of existing streets and future streets in adjoining areas. Dick - Yes. Roman - Yes. l,lal ter - I'lo. Jerry - Yes. Roman Roos - Item number 4, that the public ri ght-of-way 20 or 40 foot is a reasonable. portion of the George t.lay subdivision in view of the public access need occasioned by Mr. Hayts subdivision activities. Dick - No. Roman - Yes Walter - No Jerry - Yes. Roman Roos - Number 5, that the public need for said right-of-way as specifical ly and uniquely attributable to Mr. l,Iay's subdivision activities. Dick - No. Rornn - Yes. . Jerry - Yes. l'lalter - No. Roman Roos - I wou'ld like to go back to number one and see if I can get another vote. That the Pianning Conmission's Devel opment Guide for the Red Cedar Point area requires a public ri ght-of-way be established through somebodies property. Craig Mertz - That is true because the ma of the development guide anit does go through the appl you are doing is recognizin that booklet. Roman Roos - That's why I voted yes. p that you had before you was a photo copy d it shows a line as a proposed roadway and icants property. By this first finding a'll 9 that that is a genuine copy of a page from Dick Matthews - I can't dispute that. llalter Thompson - I didn't understand. Roman Roos - Number four and number five are really tied together. Let's consider them together. Do you agree there is a public need for said right-of- way specifically and uniquely attributable to his subdivision activities. Craig Mertz - Mr. l"lay owned originally the blue, the green, and the purple and he_has divided that into-three'pieces. Now he is requesting another division so this is his forth shot at it. The other divisions took place in the township days before he was answerable to any city-council. That's how he got by wi ttr creating this monster. 0f the two landlocked and when I iay landlocked I simply mean no access to a public street' of those two parcels there is only one with a house on it. Roman Roos - He divided the property and he created this problem. -l^le didn't create it. I don't knbw how inybody can answer negative on items four and five' llalter Thompson - He is not the one that put the road through. Roman Roos - He also created a piece of land that has no access to it. llalter Thompson - That's his problem now. Roman Roos - t^lhat about the land around it going south? l,lal ter Thompson - l{e can't do anything aboui it because of the topography. There isn't anYthing we can do for him. Roman Roos - We have an obliqation to the overall public' Dick Matthervs - If I was doiiq something for the public then I wouldn't have any trouble with it but I don't know what I am doing by voting the road through there. Roman Roos - It's somithing that we as planners feel that that area needs- Dick Matthews - I guess thit's where your quarrel is. Two of us donrt feel that way. a";ig Ma;1t - yo, iin iatti it oui untit yoti come to a concensus on it or ifyou don't- think you are going to arrlve at a concensus I would suggest that one side oi the ot6er iither offer a motion to deny the subdivision on the Planning Cormission r'r""(ns July 26, 1978 C groundsthattheapplicantindicatedanunwill.ingnesstodonatethe iight-ot-nuy or thl'opposing team offer a motion to approve the subdivision'ai p.jt.nita by"the applicant with no requirement that the trifl.tTf;ilt{rl3"i Srtf:'3lt$ie road ri sht-or-way i s there anyone that disputes that the property is properly a candidate for divfsion? Roman Roos - I have no problems with that. Craig Mertz - If you vraht to duck the issue you can make a motion to deny subdivision approval on the grounds that the resultant parcels violate the provision of the ordinance requiring not greater than two to one ratio. Jerry Neher moved to reconmend denial of the subdivision on grounds that the developeris refusing to convey the recormended right-of-way. Motion seconded by Roman Roos. The following voted in favor: Jerry Neher and Roman Roos. Dick Matthercs and l,lalter Thompson voted no. l'4otion failed. l.lalter Thompson moved to recormend the Council approve the subdivision request of Mr. llay as presented. Motion seconded by Dick Matthews. The following voted infavor: Nalter Thompson and Dick l4atthews. Roman Roos and Jerry Neher voted no. Motion fai I ed. It wlLLIAM D. SCHOELL CARLISIE MAOSON JACK T. VOSLER JAMES F. OFR HAROLO E. OAHLIN LARBY L. HANSON RAYMONO J. JACKSON WLIIAM J. BREZINSKY JACX E.6ILL THEOOORE O. KEMNA JOHN \^/. EMONO KENNETH E. AOOLF DANIEL B. BOXRUO wlLLIAM R. ENBELHAROT SCHOELL &, MADSON.INc. ENGINEETS ANO SUFIVEYC)F|S Chanhassen Pl.anning Colasionc/o tlr. Bruce Pankonln Chanhassen, tlinnesota 55317 Subject! Proposed Subdiviaion by ceorge way Gentletnen: Ag dlrected by the Planning Cormission, ue met with !tr. way and other concerned prop€rty owners on the site of the proposedprop€rty division. Our conclusionc are as follorrs: 1. A future atreet acrolr! the Way property shouldfollow the existing acceas road (east of theproposed dlvision line). fhe alignnrent shownon the Red Cedar Polnt Develolment plan wouldbe coatly and restrict development of the Wayproperty. 2. Subdivislon approval should be subject to theOwlrer'! granting a right-of-rray eaaernent onwesterly 50 feeC of the easterly parcel. 3. Construction of a rtreet to Clty Standards couldbe delayed until the property to the west i8 sub-divided. lnre future street could either be acul-de-sac or continue rCS6twa rd to county Roadllo. 15. Conltructlon at this time would notrEterially inprove accer! to the hooea on thehill to the loutlr. 4. Ttre 4O foot side Xi rkham Road right-of-way, eastirf the Way property, could be vacated for roadwaypurposes, but should be retained aa a drai.nage eagenent. We recorEnend tlre lot division be granted lubject to theprovisions outlined herein. Very truly yours , SCHOELL & IIADSON. INC. 4/t 4 &i*/r,zu/wJBrezinsky : sg 1412, 93B-7601 . 50 xtNTH AVENU€ €OUTH . HOpKtNS. MtNNESoTA SSg43 OFFICES AT HUFON. SOUIH OAI(OTA ANO DENTON. TEXAS Septenber 25, L977 CHINHISSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE ' P.O, BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO! Jo Ann Olsen, Assistant City Planner FROII: Steve Madden. Fire Inspector DATE: June 22, 1988 SUBJ: George Vfay, Jr., File No. 88-11 SUB Upon completing the site plan review, I the minimum requirements as recommended have found that iE meets by the Uniform Fire Code. I CITY OF ",(l.:{i, l I I I I LEAV E sl- AL({TI IRE EDC LDsU,Rf A ffrccesrgp PlAr- T116 lF }{lr x-' GT,IBED PR' PAII'K [tsE GrE^llo- ' OIED FBGTcmnmcnl'/ REATIo].I USE SUGGESTET) PlrTrNc w, EO, RIGIIT OF RE 'e o TI}YT - USE #Doe.tnoP - ASr ttEllT (rtJtOe 4 lhPrfrt \ --l '-l tr o tl ,-f t tu ( I \, )'. O I to -\ ) aD I o Ioo o I ,I t I I I I I \ I I , t , t I I I ,9 I Igl' t I lt a o -z/ ./ o ,,,a !E oa.4 t-, o HIEIUErcN EIE II 4a CHAI{HASSEII 50&rEcr llt o I I I I :-l I I t I I I I ct I ,} NNNNflGEh NEUFI OPMEI'' CITY OF EHA}IHfiSSTII P.C. DATE: July 6, 1988 C.C. DAIE: July 25, 1988 CASE NO: CUP Prepared by: Olsen/v STAFF REPORT Fz () =LL ko tIJF U) PROPOSAL: LOCATION : APPLICANT: Conditional Use Permit forthe IOP, Industrial Office and Warehouse Use a Contractor I s Yard in Park District and Office Steven Bergquist (Merit tleating ) Thomas Quammen 145 0 Park Court Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: ACREAGE: DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE:N- s- E- w- WATER AND SE9IER: PEYSICAL CEARAC. 3 2OOO LAND USE PLAN:Industr ia1 IOP, Industrial Office Park 7.47 acres IOPi railroad tracks & Public t{orks B1dg. IOPi vacant IOPi vacant A-2i vacant Within Urban Service Area The site is currently used as a singlefamily resid.ence and horse farm with themajority of the site as past,ure. 8301 Audubon Road fiz+r-l I RR E -i.- ---- -*- ro r1 !J -zD loZ,x1en q \A€D t otrvE)v'W)\ol*- fu-ruf1 froz{HE/{lFrh,.CCc,].ttLh o :(:,._,.ffi*&-':' s L I {\ PUD-R LAKE RD- 4z of,A Rh { I t R12 € OUL E VAA (?l BG )6 tn .E lrJ 'oI R8 RSF R4 J aF E, LYY \)-. -:1i; .! | +rr- -*- B VA A'' RSF :i I I I I ; R12 br CUP JuIy Page Meri t r988 Heat i ngfor 6, 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Section 20-1191 requires a 10 foot strip of land betrveen abuttingright-of-way and vehicular use areas including one tree per 40feet and a hedge wa11 or berm of at least 2 feet. Section 20-1192 requires i nteriorwith one t.ree per 40 feet. property lines to be Iandscaped Section 20-l2LL requires interior landscaping for vehicular use areas. Section 20-1178 requires that aIl trash disposal units be comple- tely screened on all sides. Section 20-1125 requires one parking space for each 1,000feet of gross floor area up to 10,000 and one additional for each additional, 2,000 square feet, plus one space for company vehicle. For office buildings, 3 parking spaces 1,000 square feet of floor area is required. Section 20-1723 requires industrial district parking areas access drives shall be paved with a dust free aII weatherwith proper surface drainage and. concrete curb. square space eachfor each and surface Section 20-812 al1ows office and warehouse uses as a use in the IOP District. pe rmi tted Fire Inspector Building Department Asst. City Engineer ANALYS IS At tachment At tachmen t Attachment *2 l*3 #4 The applicant is proposing to relocate their Heating and Coolingbusiness from the Chanhassen Lakes Business Park to the subjectsite. The subject site is currently a horse farm which containsa horse barn, a residence, garage, tack barn and chicken coops. Section 2O-8J-4 al1ows contractorr s yards as a conditional use inthe IOP District. The definition of a contractor's yard is "anyarea or use of land or vehicles, equipment and or constructionmaterials and supplies commonl-y used by building excavation, roadway construction, landscaping and similar contractorr s are stored or serviced. A contractorr s yard includes both areas ofoutdoor storage and the areas confined within a completely enclosed building used in conjunction hrith a contractorrs yard." REFERRAL AGENCIES CUP July Page Merit 1988 Heating The site is zoned IOP and the uses that the applicant is pro-posing are allowed as a permitted and conditional use. The business that the applicant is involved in incLudes havingservice and installation personnel come to the site to pick upvehicLes, equipment and then leave for off site jobs. Based onthe ordinance definition, staff interpreted a contractorrs yardas where employees come to the site, pick up Lhe equipment andtrucks, leave the site for off-site installation and service and.at the end of the day return to the site to drop off equipment and trucks. Therefore staff required t.he applicant to receive acondi.tional use permit. The applicant is proposing tofollows:utilize the existing buildings as Convert to space for use of office staff of 7. we for 6, 3 Horse Barn: Convert Ehe main 1evel to warehouse-original milkhouse and install an overhead door atbarn. The Erade is such as to permit a "dock" area and unloading purposes. The lower leve1 or stablebarn will be storage. Remove the south end offor loading area of the Tack Barn and Chicken Coops: These areas are to remain as is andwiLl serve as cold storage area on1y. Overall Site:It is our intention for the property to remain asrural in appearance as possible. We intend to leave the entrancedrive, yard and pasture areas completely as they are. We intendto create a parking area just east of the barn for use by employees. This area wiII be shielded from Audubon Road by thebarn. Located in this area there will also be a ro11 off type ofcontainer for scrap metal such as old furnaces and ductwork aswell as a smaller rubbish container. Additional parking will be south of the tack barn and will be shielded by the barns. Allparking areas are Lo be graded for drainage and will be graveled.n The applicant is proposing to use the existing features of thesiEe on a temporary basis without any improvements. The subjectsite is zoned IOP and the proposed use is an industrial typeuse. Typically, such a proposal would require the necessary site intend to leave the exterior of the home intact except for theinstallation of an access from the home to the entrance drive.Interior work will consist of updating lhe electrical service andthe installation of air conditioning. Garaqe! This area is to serve as storage for tools and equipmentnormally used in our course of business such as scaffoliling, 1ad-ders, roof curbs, etc. We also intend to store sma1l componentsof higher value such as thermostats, relays, and other parts and components normally associated with the trade. "Residence: CUP Ju Iy Page for 6. 4 Meri t 1988 Heating improvements. These would include the paving and curbing ofparking areas, providing landscaping, sewer and water, etc. The improvements that the apolicant. is proposing at this time is thecreation of a gravel parking area, removal of the milkhousecurrently attached to Che barn, and screening of the trash recep-tacle with recycled wood from the woodshed. The applicant isalso proposing to paint the silos with the company name. Thiswould not be permitted under the sign ordinance. Staff inspected the site with the Building and Fire Inspector todetermine $rhet.her or not the barn and house could be converted to an office and warehouse. Both the Building and Fire Inspectorfelt that the barn was in good enough shape that it could be usedtemporarily as a warehouse with certain imgrovements and the house could be remodeled into an office upon submission ofbuilding plans and again certair improvements to meet building codes. The applicant is proposing to have an office staff of 7 and threeservice personnel and 8 installation personnel for a total of I8employees. The site will be serviced by an existing septic system and wel1. The applicant has provided a letter fromSullivan Services stating that they recently cleaned and checkedthe septic system and found that it was in good rvorking conditionto the best of their knowledge (Attachrnent #5). The major issue with this proposal is the fact that required improvements to the site are not being provided and that anindustrial use is going to be supported by an aged septic system and weI1. The site is within the MUSA line and therefore has theability to be serviced by sewer and lrater. The use is industrial which should be supported by the required improvements. Theparking and access drives should be paveal and have concrete curbfor tlrainage and stability purposes. City water and sewershould be provided to prevent t.he septic system from failing withthe increased use of at least I8 employees. Staff has requested that the applicant provide a timeframe as to what they mean by temporary and to also provide plans for futureexpansion. The applicant has stated that future plans depend on Opus and future subdivision of the property. Without a time-table and future p1ans, it is difficult to support the proposed temporary improvements. Such a temporary use could become a longterm industrial use without adeguate site improvements. Staffunderstands the applicantrs request to maintain the site as is ona temporary basis. The site could be viewed as an agriculturalsite and transition to industrial. But sEaff cannot recommendapproval without the provision of future plans and a timetable.The zoning ordinance requires certain improvements and staff mustenforce those regulations. CUP for July 6, Page 5 Merit 1988 Heat i ng 3. Recomrnend. approval with the following conditions: A1I access and parking areas shall be paved with a dustfree all weather surface and concrete curb. b Provide any additional landscaoing requirements andproper screening of the trash enclosure and proposed dock area - CompIy with conditions of Building and Fire Inspector. A feasibility study sha11 be conducted by a registeredengineer to determine the best alternative to providesanitary sewer and water services to the site. Thisfeasibility shall be compiled at the expense of the developer. The driveway shall be constructsed a minimum of 15 feet inwidth and shall be paved. A11 parking areas shalI be paved and surrounCed by concrete curb and gutter. This is in accordance toSection 20-L123 of the Chanhassen Zoniag ordinance. The applicant shall submit for approval by the City Engineer a grading, drainage and erosion control plan prepared by a registered engineer prior to final appro- val . al g. ATTACHMENTS City Codes. Memo from Fire Inspector dated June 9, 1988. Memo from Building Official dated June 8, 1988. Memo from Asst. City Engineer dated July I, 1988.Letter from SuIlivan Services dated June 23, I988.Letter from applicant.Application.Site plan dated June 3, 1988. f I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 RECOMMENDATI ON The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Deny the application on the basis that it does not meet therequirements of the zoning ordinance. 2. Table action until the applicant provides a letter stating r^rhat is meant by temporary and future development plans whichsupport the request for minimum site improvements at thistime. C -( ZONING $ 20-814 ARTICLE XXII. "IOP'' INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK DISTRICT Sec.20.8ll. Intent. The intent of the "IOP" District is to provide an area identilied for large scale light industrial and commercial planned development. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, ! 16(5-16-1), 12-15-86) Sec. %!8f2. Pernitted uses. lte following uses are permitt€d in an "IOP" District (1) Offices. (2) Warehouses. (3) Lightmanufacturing. (4) Trade shops. (5) Health services. (6) Printers. (7) Indoor hbalth and recreation clubs. (8) Body shope. (9) Utility services. (10) Recording studios. (11) Off-premises parking lots. (12) Conference/convention centers. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 16(5-16-2), 12-15-86) Sec. 20813. Pernittcd accesaory uses. Ihe following are permitted accessory uses in an "IOP" District: (1) Parkirg lots a''d ramps. (2) Signs. (3) Retail sales of products stored or manufactured on the site provided no more than twenty (20) percent ofthe floor space is used for retail sales. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, 5 16(5.16-3), 12-154G) Sec. 2G814. Conditional uses. , the following are conditional uses in an "IOP" District: (1) Concrete mixing plants. (2) Communication transmission towers. L227 \ s 20-814 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE (3) Public buildings. (4) Motor freight terminals. (5) Outdoor health aad recreation clubs. (6) Screened outdoor storage. (7) Research laboratories. (8) Contracting yards. (9) Lumber yards. (10) Home improvement trades. (11) HoL1" .o, .o*r". (12) Food p'ocess'1g. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 16(5_164), 12-15.86) State law reference_Conditional uses, M.S. $ 462.8595 Sec. 2G815. Lot requirementa atrd setbacks. . a. For front yards, thirty (30) feet.b. For rear yards, ten (1O) feet.c. For side yards, t€n 0O) feet. (6) lhe maximum height is as follow-s: a. For the principal structure, four (4) storieVfilty (50) feet.For accessory structures, one (l) story(ffi. No.80, Art. V, $ t6(S.r6_s), t2.l5a6) C ( The following minimum requirements sha, be observed in an ,.Iop,, District subject toadditional requirements, exceptions and modification" *i f"if, in this chapter:(1) The minimum lot area is one (l) acre. (2) The minimum lot frontage is one hundred fifty (150) feet, except that lots fronting ona cul-de-sac shall have a minimum frontage oi "i*ty tOOl f""t. (3) The minimum lot depth is two hundred (200) feet. (4) The maximum lot coverage is seventy (?0) percent. (5) off'street parking areas shalJ comply with all yard requiremenh of this section,except that no rear yard parking serback "huu b;.";ul;; for lots directly abuttingrailroad trackage; and, no side yard .frat U" ."q,rl"iJ JLn aaioioi.,g commercialuses establish joint off-streetparking fac ities, * p.ovid"J ir, "e"tion 20-1122, exceptthat no parking areas shall be permitted i" ."y.;;;"ide street side yard. Theminimum rear yard shall be fifty (50) feet for fr" al.""rf, abutting any residentialdistrict. Side street side yards shall t" u *irrirnr- oi i,ro"rty-nr" (2b) feet in alldistricts. Other setbacks are as follows: t228 e_ ZONING Sec. 2Gll46. Design. All loading areas shall consist of a maneuveriag area in addition to the berth and shall not use any ofthat portion ofthe site containilg parking stalls. Maneuvering areas shall be of such size as to permit the backing of truck tractors and coupled trailers into a berth without blocking the use of other berths, &ives, maneuvering areas or public rightsof.way. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VII, $ 2(7-2-5), 12-15-86) Sec. 2GU47. Required loa.ri-g areas. (a) Any use which the city believes requires the provision of designated spaces for the loading, unloading or parking of trucks or semi-trailers shall provide such spaces and maneu- vering area in the number and configuration which shall be deemed necessarJr ia order to prevent interference with the use of the public right-of-way and with vehicles enteriug onto or exiting from the public right-of-way. (b) Semi-trailer spaces shall be at least fifty-live (5b) feet in length, ten (10) feet in width and fourteen (14) feet in height plus necessary additional maneuvering space. (c) Spaces shall not be located on a street side of any building, or, if so located, shall be provided with screening deemed adequate by the city. (d) Spaces aD.d the associated maneuvering area shall be at least {ifty (SO) feet from the property line of any residentially desigDated property. (e) No trucks shall be parked in areas other than those designed for such purpose on an approved site plan. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VII, E 2(7-2.6),12-15-86) Secs. 20.1148-20.1175. Reserved. ARTICLE XXV. LANDSCAPING AND TREE REMOVAL DIVISION T. GENERALLY Sec. 2G1176. Intcnt, scope and compliance. (a) The intent of this article is to improve the appearance of vehicular use areas and property abutting public rightsof-way; to require buffering between noncompatible land uses; 1251 ( . . *. z -1r *; -. . . . --/r1. --.."i? C $ 20-1176 Sec. 2G1145. Landscaping and screening. All berths shall be screened from public rightsof-way and from view from the property across the street frontage and./or from the zoning district boundary when the a jacent prop erty or property across the street frontage or side street frontage is zoned or used for residen- tial purposes. The screening shall be accomplished as required in article XXV. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VII, E 2(7-24),12-15-86) 0 20.1176 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE atrd to protect, preserve and promote the aesthetic appeal, character and value of the sur-rounding neighborhoods; to promote pubtic health u.ri "rr"ry through the reduction of noisepollution, air pollution, visual pollution and glare- (b) This article does not apply to single-family detached residences. (c) No new site development, bu,ding, structure or vehicurar use:rrea is allowed unresslandscaping is provided as required in this article. (d) No property lines shalr te artered nor shall any building, structure or vehicurar usearea be expanded' unress the miaimum tuna*"piog.";;d by the provisions of this articleis provided for the entire property. (Ord. No.80, Art. VIII, $ 1, r2-t5€6) Sec. 2GllZ?. plan submission and approval. The property owner or rleveloper shall prepare a landscape plan for review by the city.the city shall apply the following conditions in;;p;*rrl" or".rn.oving the plan:(1) The contents ofthe plan shall include the following: a. Plot plan, drawn to an easily readable scale, showing and labelling by larne anddimensions, all existing.and p"opo""d p"op""ty tio"i "*-uot",;ftr*, ;other structures, vehicular use areas tio"iuai.rg parking stalls, &iveways, ser_vice areas, square footage), water outlets and landscape mat€rial (inclurr;.gbotanical name and common name, instalatior sions where applicable, and quantities fo" ., ,,I::";A):nter planting dimen- b. [pical elevations and,/or cross sections ,. _.i t" ."q,rir"d.c. Title block with the pertinent names and .]dd.""""d (property owner, persondrawing plan, andperson installing lanascap; ;aterial), scale date, north arrow(generally orient plan so that north is to top'oifturrl, and zoning district.d. Existing landscape material shalt be shown on'the required ptan and any mate-rial in satisfactory condition may be used to satisfy this article in rvhole or inpart. (2) Where landscaping is required, no building permit shall be issued unt, the requiredlandscaping plan has, been submitted ,.a".pp""""a, ."d no certificate of occupanrysha'be issued until the landscaping i. "o-pi"t"a "" certified by an on-site inspectionby the building inspector, unless a perfo.murr"" Uorra, or irrevocable lett€r of creditfrom a banking institution, has been paid. . (3) If necessary, the city may require a letter of credit to insure proper installation oflandscape materials with complete co"t of AI *,o"t certified by landscape contractor,with the bond amount^to include the actual cost plus ten (tO) percent. The bond shallbe released upon satisfactory completion ofthe nio"t * a"terrrrlrred by the city.(4) Where unusual site conditions exist where strict enforcement of the provisions ofthisarticle would cause a hardship or practical difn";ltl/, the planning commission andcity council may waive th€ requirements as part oii"lrc site plan review process.(Ord. No. 80, Art. Vru, $ 6, t2-rb-86) C ( e_ t252 $ 20-1179 ( S€c. 2Gll78. Landscaping for service structure. (a) Any service structure sha[ be screened whenever rocated in any residential, commer-cial or industrial zone (except RR and RSF zones). Structures may be grouped together; however, screening height requirements will be based upon the tallest ofthe structures. (b) A continuous planting, hedge, fence, wall or earth mound shall enclose any service structure on all sides unless such structure must be frequently moved, in which cas,e screen- ing on all but one (1) side is required. The average height of the screening material shall be oae (1) foot more than the height ofthe enclosed structure, but shall not be required to exceed eight (8) feet in height. whenever a service structure is rocated next to a building wall,perimeter landscaping material, or vehicurar use area randscaping materiar, such wals or screening material may fulfill the screening requirement for that sirle ofthe service structureif that wall or screening materiar is of an average height sufficient to meet the height requirement s€t out in this section. whenever service structures are screened by plaat Eaterial, such material may count towards the fulfrllment of required. interior or perimeter landscaping. No interior lanclscaping shall be required within an area screened for service structures. (c) whenever screeuing material is praced around any trash disposal unit or waste collection unit which is emptied or removed mechanicaly on a regr:.larly occuring basis, a curb to contain the placement ofthe container shall be provided within the screening material on those sides where there is such material. The curbing shall be at least one (1) foot from the material and shall be designed to prevent possible damage to the screening when the con- tainer is moved or emptied. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VIU, $ 4, 12-1546) Sec. 2Gfl79. Tlee removal regulations. (a) It is the policy ofthe city to preserve natural wood.land areas throughout the city andwith respect to specilic site development to retain as far as practical, substantial tree stands which can be incorporated into the overall landscape plan. (b) No clearcutting of woodrand areas shall be permitted except as approved in a subdivi- sion, planned unit development or site plan application. (c) The following standards shall be used in evaluating subdivisions and site plans: (l) To the extent practical, site design shall preserve significant woodland areas. (2) Shade trees of six (6) inches or more caliper shall be saved unless it can be demon_ strated that there is no other feasible way to develop the site- (3) The crty may require the replacement of removed trees on a caliper inch per caliper inch basis. At minimum, however, replacement trees shall conform to the planting requirements identifred in division 4 of this article. (4) During the tree removal process, trees shall be removed so as to prevent blocking ofpublic rightsof-way or interfering with overhead utility lines.-C 1253 :..., C ZONING $ 2O-T179 CHANHASSEN CfrY CODE (5) The removal of diseased and damaged trees is permissible. (d) Tree removar trot permitted under subdivision, pranned unit development or site planreview sha, not be a,owed without the approval of . tr"e removar plan by the city councir.Tree removal plans shall incrude the conteni requirements as dictated in section 20-11?T andidentify reasons for tree removal. Ihe plan sUtj Ue "oUJtt d three (3) weeks iu advance ofthe city council at which it is to be considered- (e) This section does not appry to single-family and twofamily rots of record.(Ord. No. 80, Art. VItr, $ Z, 12-15A6) Secs. 2Gll8G.-2Gtlg0. Reserved. DTVISION 2. PERIMETER LANDSCAPING REQIIREMENTS Sec. 2G1l9l. Generally. (a) where parking areas are not entirely screened visua,y by an intervening builriing qrstructure from any abutting rig-ht-of-way, there shall be provided landscaping between sucharea and such right-of-way as follows: (1) A strip of rand at reast ten (10) feet in depth rocated between the abutting rightof-way and the vehicular use area which shall be landscaped to include "" ."""*" ",one (1) tree for each forty (40) linear feet or fraction thereof. such trees shalT belocated between the abutting rightof-way and the vehicular use area. (2) In addition, a hedge, walr, berm, or other opaque durabre randscape barrier of at Ieasttwo (2) feet in height shall be placed along the entire length of the vehi"rh ;;;.If such opaque durabre barrier is of nonliving material, a shrub or vine shalr bepranted arong the street side,of said barrier and be planted in such a manner to breakup the expanse of the wall. A two-foot berm may be used; however, additionallanilscaping at least one.) foot in height at time of planting sha, be installed. Theremainder of the required landscape areas shall be landscaped *,f, O".", ".ouracover, or other landscape treatment. , (b) This division applies to perimeter landscaping. (Ord. No. 80, Arr. VItr, 0 2(8-2-1), 12-15-86) Sec. 2cll92. Required landscaping adacent to intcrior property lhes. (a) where parking areas abut property zoned or, in fact, used primarily for residential or.institutional purposes, that portion of such area not errtrr"ty .""""n"a ,isua,y by an interven-ing structure or existing conforming buffer from an abuttin'g ;roperty, there shalr be provideda landscaped bulfer which should be- maintained ""a ""-pr'ol"a as needed. such landscapedbulfer shall consist of plant material, wall, or other a*-oUt" U."ri"" at least six (6) feet inheight measured from the median elevation ofthe pu"r.ng ".". "ror"st to the common lot linelaad be located between the common rot tine and the on-",.1.i f"*ing areas or other vehicularuse area exposed to the abutting property. Fences shall be constructed according to theatandards in section 20-1018. C ( e_ 7254 -*>a; ( (b) In addition, an average of one (1) tree shall be provided for each forty (40) linear feet ofsuch parking area or fractional part thereof. such trees shalr be rocated between the commoulot line and the off-street parking area or other vehicular use area. (c) where such area abuts property zoned and, in fact, used for offrce, commerciar, orindustrial purposes, that portion of area not entirery screeneil visually by an interveningstructure or existing conforming bufer, shall comply with the tree provisions only as pre- scribed in this section. (Ord. No. 80, Art. Vm, $ 2(8.2-2), 12-tS-86) Sec. 20-1193. gelalining with easeEents. rhe required landscape bufferyard may be combined with a utility or other easenent aslong as all of the landscape requirements can be fuly met, otherwise, the randscape bufferyard ehall be provided in additio' to, and separate from, any other easement. cars or other objectsshall not overhang or otherwise intrude upon the required randscape bufferyard ,oo." thuotwo and one-half (2%) fsg6 an6 .ur6s will be required. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VI[, 5 Z8-2-3), 12-15-86) S€c. 2G1194. .Fristing landscape naterial. Existing landscape materiar sha be shown on the required pran and any material insatisfactory condition may be used to satisfy these requirements in whole or iu part. (Ord. No. 80, Art. Vru, $ 2(8-24), 12-15-86) ZONING i 20-1212 Secs. 2&1195-20-1210. Reserved. DTVISION 3. II{TERIOR LANDSCAPING FOR VEI{ICULAR USE AREAS Sec. 2Gl2ll. Generally. (a) Any open vehicular use area (excluding loading, unload.ing, and storage areas in the IOP and BG districts) containing more than six thousand (6,000) square feet of area, or twenty (20) or more vehicular parking spaces, sha[ provide interior landscaping iu accordance with this division in addition to "perimeter" lanilscaping. Intcrior lanclscaping may be peninsular or island types. (b) This division applies to interior landscaping of such areas. (Ord. No.80, Art. Vm, $ 3, 12-15€6) Sec, 2cf2f2. Landscape area. (a) For each one hun&ed (100) square fe€t, or fraction thereof, of vehicular use area, irve(5) square feet of landscaped area shall be provided. (b) The minimum landscape area permitted sha[ be sixty-four (64) square feet, with a four-foot minimum dimension to aI trees from edge of pavement where vehicles overhang.-C t255 C C ( (12) Mortuaries-One (1) space for every three (3) seats. (13) Motel or hotel-One (1) parking space for each rental room or suite, plus one (1) spacefor every two (2) employees. (14) Ofice buildings (administrative, business or professional)_Three (B) parking spacesfor each one thousand (1,000) square feet of floor area, (15) Public service buildings, incruding municipar administration bu dings, q6mmrrnirycenter, public library, museu:u. art galleries, and post ofiice_One Ol p*ti"g "pr."for each Iive hundred (500) square feet of floor .""" in th" principal J**;:, ;i;one (1) parking space for each four (4) rests within public assemblyor m*ti;;; (16) Recreational facilities, inclufing golf course, country club, swimming club, racquetclub, public swimming poo-l_Twentr (20) spaces, pi* oo" (1) space for each frvehundred (500) square feet of floor area in the;rinc;l structure or two (2) spaces percourt. (17) Rese".ch, experimental.or testing stations_One .,) parking space for each frve hun_dred (500) square feet of gross floor area within the building, whiche*,er is great€r. (18) Restaurant, cafe, nightclub, tavern or bar: a. Fast food-One (1) space per sixty (60) square feet of gross floor area.b. Restaurant: 1. Without full liquor license_Oae (1) space per sixty (60) square feet of grossfloor area or one (1) space per two and one-hatf (2%) seats whichever isgreater. 2. With full liquor license_One G) space per fifty (b0) square feet of gross floorarea or one (1) space per two (2) seats whichever is great€r. (19) Retail stores and service establishments_One 0) space for each two hun&ed (200)square feet of gross floor area. (20) School, elementarSr (public, private or parochiall_One G) parking space for eachclassroom or olfice room, plus one (1) space for each one hundred hlty OE0) squarefeet of eating area incruding aisres, in any "rdi;;; or grmnasium or cafetcriaintended to be used as an auditorium. (21) School, junior aud senior high schools and colleges (public, private or parochial_Four(4) parking spaces for each class^room o. om""-"or- plus one .,) space for each onehundred Iilty (1S0) square feet-ofseating area including aisles, in any auditorium orgrmnasium or cafeteria intended to be used as an audit-orium. (22) shopping center-on-site automobile parking shall be provided in a ratio of not lessthan one 0) parking space foreach two hundred t2O0) slquare feet of gross floor area;separate on-site space shall be provided for loading and unloading. (23) Storage, wholesale. or wareho,,se establishments_One [) space for each one thou-. sand (f,000) square feet of gross floor area up to ten thousand 00,000) square feet ardone 6) additional space for each additional two thousand (2,000) square f""t pfu" oo" t249 .---- . - !:r,aiA--- .-..!::\1:: . , ZONING $ 20-1r25 j-;.n,!.-q6rr. CITY OF EHINHISSEN MEMORANDUM TO: FRO!,I: DATE: SUBJ: Jo Ann O1sen, Steve Madden, June 9, 1988 !4erit Heating the si 690 COULTER DRIVE . P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 Assistant City Planner Fire Inspector and Cooling te plan for Merit Heating, I recommend theUpon review offollowing: 1. A total sprinkler system should be iastalled in the barn for both levels and also in the house. 2 Heat aod smoke detectors should be installed buildings. This system should be connected central dispatch center. aIl tJ/ lntoa ( approval This 20 3 A fire lane should be installed around each building. Iane should be constructed !iith an all weather surface, feet in width (UFC Section L0.207, 'No Parking Signs"). 4 A11 exits should be 44 inches in $ridth. Both levels of tne barn should have tiro exits (UFC Section 12.113 and 12-Il4). arr AIso, a structural engineer should check the building for s trength . 5 6 A11 exits should have lighted exit signs. Fire extinguishers should be installed in each buildin9. One by each exit on each level in the barn ( two A-10BC minimum). A smoke removal system should be installed. Minimum six exchange per minute is required (UFC Section 81.106).7 Should you have any questions, please ask. CITY OF EHINHISSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE . P.O. BOX 147 . CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUU TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Assistant City Planner FROM: Ron Julkowski, BuildinS Otficial ;p DATE: June 8, 19 88 SUBJ: Merit Heating and Cooling Co. An inspection was made at the temporary office and warehouse forMerit Heating and Cooling Company and will need the following: 1. Verify the size of the existing septic system, confirm thatthe sept.ic t.anks are watertight and verify liquid capacity. 2. Design a septic system based on the estimated gallons per dayfor the new occupancy. 3. Require a floor plan (to scale) of t.he existing house for thepurpose of determining building code reguirements. 4. AIl existing outbuildings appear to be strucrurally sound andcould be used as a parts storage/warehouse building. 5. Outbuildings are to conform to exiting requirements of thebuilding code. CITY OF EHINHISSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE ' P.O. BOX 147 . CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEIT1ORANDUM TO: Planning Cornmiss ion FRoM: Larry Brown, Staff Engineer !a-A/U- DATE: JuIy I, 1988 SUBJ: Conditional Use Permit for Off ice/Warehouse andContractorrs Yard, 8301 Audubon RoadPlanning Fil-e No. 88-7 CUp (Merit Heating) This site is located on the east side of Audubon Road approxima-tely l mile south of Park Road. The site exists as a flimyardwith several structures including a house, barn and chicken coop. Utilities This parcel is zoned IOP and has been proposed as an industrialuse inside the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). Staff hasbeen informed by the owner of record that the existing septicsystem was installed with the existing homestead. Attached is aletter verifying that the septic system has been inspected and issti1l functional (refer to Attachment No. 1). Existing sanitary sewer and water services are not within closeproximity to the site. The existing railroad tracks andtopography surrounding the tracks makes it especially difficultto gain service from the north, It should be noted that the pro-posed McGIynn and Audubon West sites propose to extend sanitarysewer and watermain immediately north of the railroad tracks andwest of Audubon Road (refer to Attachment No. 2). The topographyof this area may require a lift station to connect to t.heie pro-posed extensions. The precise timing of the extension of theutilities is conE.ingent upon the two referenced sites receivingall the necessary approvals from the City and other appropriateagencies. At present, the applicant would be required to extend.sanitary sehrer and water services approximately 550 feet whichincludes jacking under the railroad tracks. Sanitary sehrer and. water services have also been proposed to beextended to Audubon Road via the Lake Susan Hills planned unitdeveLopment (refer to Attachment No. 3). Since the portion of theplanned unit development adjacent to Audubon Road south of thesubject parcel has not completed the platting process, it is expectedthat utilities wir.1 not be available untir some time in the future. Planning Commiss ion July I, 1988 Page 2 The proposed conditional use and zoning wiLhin the I4USA areawould strongly suggest that this site be serviced by municipalservices. Due to the existing constraints of topography, proxi-mity of the existing services, and the location of Lhe railroadtracks, a feasibility study would need to be conducted at the expense of the applicant to investigate the proper extension ofthese utilities. If the feasibility study determines that theextension of these utilities is impracticaL, the applicant will be required to prove that the existing septic system will handl-eall projected demands. In addition, if the septic system is per-mitteal, the applicant shall agree to connect up to saniLary serrer and water service as soon as it is available to the site. Acc es s The existing residence is serviced by a gravel driveway which isapproximately J.2 feet in width. Based on the proposed use, heavytruck traffic can be anticipated. Sect ion 20-1123 of the City'sZoning Ordinance states that all parking areas and access roadsbe paved wiLh a dust free, a1I weather surface, and concrete curb and gutter. In addition, the driveway access should be a minimumof 16 feet in r.ridth. This would be the absolute minimum drivewaywidth that would support two-way traffic. Gradinq and Draina qe The proposed plan indicates a rninimal amount of grading toconstruct the parking lot and berm immediately north of theparking area. The plan does not address any form of retention such that the predeveloped runoff rate is maintained. A revisedplan which addresses this issue should be submitted to the CityEngineer for approval prior to final approval. Erosi-on Control SimiIarly, the plan and erosion control approval. not address erosi on should be submi tted A drainagefinal doe s p Ian control.prior to I Recommended Cooditions A feasibility study shall be conducted by a registeredengineer !o determine the best alternative to provide sani-tary sewer and water services to the site. This feasibilityshall be compiled at the expense of the developer. The driveway shall be constructed a minimum of 16 feet inwidth and shall be paved. 2 3 A1l parking areas shalI be paved and surrounded by curb and gutter. This is in accordance to Sectionthe Chanhassen zoning ordinance. concrete 20-I123 of Planning Commiss ionJuly 1, 1988 Page 3 Letter from Sullivan Services dated June 23, 1988.Location map. Location map. 1 2 3 4. The applicant sha11 submit for approval by the City Engineera grading, drainage and erosion control plan prepared by aregistered engineer prior to final approval . ATTACHMENTS S ULLIVAN'S ERVICES, INC. 3660 HWY. tOl SOUTH WAYZATA. MN 5539I 473-4300 June 23, 1988 City of Chanhassen Planning Departoent Attention: Jo Ann Olson 690 Coulter StreeE Chanhassen, Mlnnesota 55 317 Ji-n McMahon 8301 Audobon Chanhassen, Minnesota To Whom It May Concern: On June 22, L988 we cleaneci anci checked the septic systemat the above menEione<i address and found Ehat it is ln good working condltion Eo Ehe best of our knowledge. RE O l,-l <) 'L--'i Patrick S. Sullivan PresidenE .iUtJ2iigEB ul fy Ci: CHANhassrr! --+-,-f tt_ i I II; N dt SU] M d ( _n dr &uL ) C)(o ril t' f,, I ' II I J ^ Ql1: :,() n id I I : I I ltl ,^\ I) _l I -":l:. :::\\\ \ _-)J{- l ) t- I- --\,"i".,/- Ir ,l I -I { I I I i I I .K o \, 1 I ,. I i II \ I I 1 I I l I ! I i l i I I t. - ,-- I €o A or { 80 EV ARUL I ealr F,* A- \r.$ P PO $ u\9 ft/l)/ {a ?L8X€ SUSA,.Lr L, {3 -) c rl (. t) il t- ---J I r!L, c :) i! i , ..x;6:..li ii l I I F LY i- utz J0- F tr.,t IvA RD c.a I .) s _l -*r* I-. I I I I f I i I I i I ! i J i i i l I I I I i i I I S ULLIVAN'S ERVICES, INC. 3660 HWY. lOI SOUTH WAYZATA. MN 55391 473-4300 June 23, 1988 City of Chanhassen Planning Department Attentlon: Jo Ann Olson 690 Coulter Street Chanhassen, Mlnnesota 55317 RE: Jim McMahon S30L Audobon Chanhassen, Mlnnesota To tJhon It May Concern: on June 22, L988 we cteaned and checked the septic systen at the above mentioned address and found that it is in good working condition to Ehe best of our knowledge. ?i "<J Or.,.-.,--k-l!r--c,-,-6.1 Patrick S. Sullivan President ..I(;tit e Z igEB ulIY CrF CHANhessr.r\ I COMMEFC I AL 5 I TE PLAN ELET,IENTS TemDorarv Off i ce arrd CooIrr-rg. Irrc - (Merrt '.Jarehouse f or Mer i t HeaL 1no and HVAC - Inc. ) Sleverr Berquist and Thomas Quammen as owrters of Mer].L HeaLinq and CooIrng. Inc. 1456 Park CourL. Chanhassen. Ph. S: 934-9A26 James and Roseanne McMahon 8381 Audobon Rd - . Chanhassen -Ph. *: 44A-37 Al Leqal Descr ipt ron: See aLLached. b. AopIlcant: C Ormer of Record: e See a L Lacheci submitLal Assocrales. See aitached submi t LaI Associ-aLes - Ba rn se rve and as drawrrrg daLed Mav 20. 1988 bv Cardarelle & IL 1s our rnLerrtlon to uLrltze the e>:lsLrnq buildlnqs as follows: Resrdence - ConverL to space for use by our office sLaff of 7. VJe ]nLend Lo leawe Lhe exl.erlor of Lhe home lntacL excepL for the inslallaLrorr of an access from Lhe home Lo the enLrance d.1ve. InLerlor work v!,ll consj,st of updaLtnq Lhe electr].cal ser]rice and the insLallatr.on of a1r condiLion:.no. Garaqe - Thts arsa ts La serve as slaraqe for L{lols and esulpBenl normal1v uged tn our coursE of bus:.rress suclr as: gceffoLciirlq, Iadders. l.ooi curbs. eLc - ile also tnLeni to st_ore smalI courportents Of htghec value such as: lfrermostals. relays. and olher parLs and componenLs normally associateci IJlth our trade. Horse Barn - Converl the ma1n level Lo lrareftouse. Remove t}.e orlqirla1 ftrlkhouse arrd InsLaIl an overhead door at s6uLh end of barn. The grade i.s such as to permr+- a "dcrck" area for loacling and un-Loadlng Furposes - The lower level or slable area of the barn is Lo be storarte - Chlcken Coops - These areas are to remain as ls and cold storaqe area onl1/. Ctvera.l I SrLe - IL rs our tnterrllon for Lhe propert\r to remaln as rural trr aplleararrce as possiLle - l.ie lrrLend Lo Ies've the entrance drlve. yard arrd pasLure al:eas complelelv as Lhey are- We intend to create a Darkrrrq area lust east of Lhe barn for use bv employees. Thrs area rrlII be sLrt elded from Audobon Rd. by the barn. LocaLed rn Lhrs area Lfrere w1ll also be a roll off Lvpe of contatner for scrap metal such as o.l-d furnaces and ducLvrork as vell as a smaller rubbrsir conLalner. Additrona] Darkrng wrll be south of the tack barn and wlll be shrelded bv the barns. AIIparkrrrg ateas are to be qaac-ied for d.ralnaq e and rrrLl be 'lEERlT i{X/AC, ifldC. 1 1450 Pank Count . Chanhassen. MN 55317-0490 . I61el 934-OE|p6 tirr EL-&5 raveled. GBTERAL a.- Prorect Narne: d. drawing daLed Mav 24. 1988 bv Cardarelle & ql S iTE PLAN a tfrrough e - Please see al Lacired pholographs of The proEerLv is a horse boar.ding srte olan dated Malr 26. bur. -tdrnqs - 194I and zonlrrq beri:g 1s commerclai / rr-rdustrral - used as 3 aes lcience wl Lh h k I m 1. 3. 4. 5. 9. L6- 7 -47 Actes - Residence - 1588 so. ft. on ? Ievels. (1056 I 444) Garaqe - 480 sq- ft. Barn - 234q sq. fL. on main level. Tack Barn - 416 sq. fL- Percenl of srLe covered bv buildrnqs ].s less than 1.5%. Percent of site covered by impervious surface is none - Percerrt. of srLe covered by park1nq area is to be approx- 2.5%- We currenllv emplov 7 olfice staff- 3 servrce personnel, and I i.nstal la.Lion personnel - NoL applica.ble- ApproximaLeLlz 26 parking spaces wrll be required. There rrrll be 23 parklng spaces provlded as per proposed IayouL . All bul.tding Lreights 3.re L-vplcal of farm consLructlort- Resrdence :.s 2 slory - approx- 26 ft- to roof peak. 9iarehouse (Ba.rni 1s apprcx. 36 fL- tc, roof peak- Tack Barn is approx- 26 fL- Lo rooi peak- 2 aLiacned e:': f s t 1r-Iq f g h remowal of sCi'eerrlnq wooci s i-r eci LO in keep rnu us lrrq l,eaLi"rerer:i lrood r./1th rural appearance reclrc i eci bir Not aDp l rcab-Le - 1L is our lrrtenL].on rntend Lo i-eLLer the t rad eria rk - to parnL Lhe ex1stlng concrete silos vrrLh Lhe companlr name. block phone srlos. rlulr.be r We an ci I There rs currently a sod:.rrm yardl j.ghl on Lhe properLy thal rs Lo rema].n. l. Please see altached phoioqrapfis - Please see aL L ached s 1Le plan- irazarc:Gus maLerlaIs are io be used or sLored.NoL appl rcable. No Fire exLlnqurshers of approprrate types and slzes are to located as codes dictaLe- I{tEfitT FiUAC, iilC. 1450 PBr'k Count . Chanhassen, MN 55317-0496 e [61p] 9g4-0AA6 lrtt $a426 ExrsLrrrq cur r enL 1v buslness - LEGAL DESCF IPT] CN ParL of ttre norLh half of Lhe soulhvesL quarter or^ Sectlon t4.Townshrp iI6. Rarrge 23. Carver Countl/. Mlnn.. descrtbecl as f ol]ows: Beornnr:rg aL a polnt on the I'esL line of sard norttr halfof the southwesL cruarLer, 827 -gA feet. measured alono sard vrestIi.ne, souLiler-ilr of tire norLhwesL corner of sald north half of thesoulhvesL cruarle.r sarci west I lne assumed to bear S Z cleorees11'0I" E: Lhence N 87 Cegrees 48'59" E. a drstance of 556-b6 feeLlLhence N 2 derlrees 11'61" ii, paralleI !rith said Lest Iine. adistance of 180.00 feeL: Lhence N 32 deqrees 05'05" !1, a drsLanceof 642.31 feet to Lhe souLheasLer.ly rrqhi or- wav of the Chrcago,Mrlwaukee. St. PauI and Facrrlc Rallroad. as recorded rn Book 23of Lileds. paqe 266: Lhence S 55 deqrees 32'47" W. alonq sa:.dsoutheasterly rlghL of lray line. a disLarrce of 25O -06 feet Lo sarclwest lrne of the north ha-lf of Ltre souihwesL quarter; Lhence S 2degrees 11'61" E. along salci wesl Iine. a distance of 615 -32 feeL t-.o th* prtlnt Di beqrnnrne. Sub lect to Countv Road No. 17 over the wesLerlv 33.04 feel Lo Lhe above descrlbeci parcel. Conlalns 7-47 acres. COMMON DESCRIPTION 8381 Audubon Roaci. Chanhas s err *#kr :7-a- ta 'ENTRANCE DRIVE VIEW FROM AUDUBON ROAD VIEW OF BARN FROM AUDUBON ROAD t,. :l I. t tt {. t lr .J;., *- 'l.-' I i \ \ I E.-4 t; l, ' I I / s.-dr. rl-l - a VIEl.l OF HOUSE FROM FRONT OF TACK BARN I I! ,.! - _l- i-. cv J'. I li ' -1 -{."1 ;,1: Ll ; VIEW OF HOUSE FROM APPROXIMATE SOUTH I.OT LINE VIEW. FROM HOUSE OUT TOWARDS PASTT'RE VIEW OF TACK BARN AND BARN FROM BEHIND GARAGE l t :! it 1:ar: I I I LAND DEVEI,OPI{ENT APPLICATIOI{ CITI OF CEANEASSEN 690 coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317(612) 937-1900 APPLICANT: Elgyen Berquist & Thomas O!iNER:James & Roseanne McMahon Quannen ADDRESS 1450 Park Court ADDRESS 8301 Audubon Road Chanhassen, Mn. 55317 Chanhassen, Mn. 55 317 Zip Code TELEPHONE (Daytime) e34-o826 REOUEST: Zoning District Change Zoning Appeal Zoning Variance Zoning Text Amendment Land Use plan Amendment Condi t iona .l- Use Permi t Site Plan Review TBLEPHONE 448-3701 Planned Unit Development _ Sketch PIan _ Preliminary plan Final plan Subdivi sion _ Platting _ Metes and Stree t/Eas ement Wetlands permit Bounds Vacat ion Tempor ary Office & Warehouse for Me rit Htg. & C1g. (HVAC), rnc.PROJECT NA.I.4E PRESENT I,AND USE PLAN DESIGNATION corunercial ,/ indus triat REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION same PRESENT ZONING industrial REOUESTED ZONING SA]TE USES PROPOSED Offices and warehousin g for heating & air conditioning buslness. SIZE OF PROPERTY 7 -47 acres LOCATI ON 8301 Audubon Road REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST ro sain permission from the city adminj-stration to permit operation of a heating and air conditioning business on the existing premises until such time as subdivision becornes viabte. IEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary) see attached. zip code City Land Page FILTNG rNS TRUCT I ONS : FI LING CERT IF I CAT ION : of Chanhassen Development Application2 -' This application must be completed in fuLl and be typewritten orclearly printed and must be iccompaniea oy aII information andplans required bv r"pr-ica[i"-;;;;t;;i;.nce provisions. Beforefilin9 this aoolic"iion, you shoi:Id confer with the City plannerto derernine the speciri"'"iai"li;; ;;;';appricable i"-vJ"I'ippri;.ii;;l-" Procedurar reguirements The undersiined rthat he is fami liapplicable City O Signed By Signed By epresentative of thear with the procedur dinances - App j /1,, applicant hereby :ertifiesaI requirements of a1I The. undersigned herebyauthorized to make thisdescribed - certifies that the appl icantapplicaLion for the property Date Application Application Fee City Receipt No. Fee Ogrne r Received 5 23-* Pai d ,n /SZt " " Date M^v 21.19 88 has been herei n Date May 23 1988Ln lu This application wi l1Board of Ad j us tmen Lsmeeting. be and cons idered Appeals at by thetheir Planning Commission,/ CITY OF EHINHISSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE . P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: FROH: DATE:June 29, 1988 SUBJ: Realignment of TH 101 Attached is the staff report for the review of the 40,000 square foot shopping center on Lot 1, Block 6, of the Hidden Va1ley sub- division. Although staff has proceeiled ldith the typical reviewfor a site plan application, r{e are recommending that the Planning Commission table the application for approximately one monlh to tshe August 3, 1988, Planning Commission meeting so that the city can complete additional analysis on the TH 101 realign- ment project. Because of the accelerated schedule that has been generated bypro-MnDOT for widening TH 5, MnDOT has requested that the Cityvide them with a formal ilecision as to r,rhether or not thegoing to pursue the project and if so, submit construction City IS drawings by January 1, 1989. In order to provide MnDOT with these items, the city needs to accompJ.ish the following: The City, in making a formal decision as to whether or not theproject should be pursued, neeals to process a land use plan amendment amending the Transportat.ion Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan to identify the proposeil realignment. After the decision on the lanil use plan amendment, the Cityshould adopt an official map establishing the constructionl-imits of the proposed right-of-way. As will be done for the TH 2L2 corridor, adopting the official map is necessaryfor a project such as the realignment of TE 101. 3. BRW has been authorized to prepare a feasibility studylooking at not only the costs of completing the project butalso completing the necessary traffic analysis requested by I,hDOT for implementation of the project. It is anticipatedthat BRW will complete a najority of the study in the monthof JuIy so that the necessary information can be presented tothe Planning Commission and City Council for the land useplan and official map hearings in August. Planning Commission Planning Staff I 2 Planning Commission June 29, 1988 Page 2 Again, staff is recomrnending that the Planning Commission tableaction on this item until the August 3, 1988, meeting. At the August 3, 1988, meeting, the land use plan amendment public hearing will be scheduled as well as Planning Commissiondiscussion of the official map. Should the Planning Commissionact on these items as well as the site plan application, thematter would be referred to the City Council at the August 22,1988, meeting. State statutes call for a public hearing beforethe Council for an official map. Therefore, the City Councilwill act on the land use plan amendrnent., conduct the publichearing for the official map for TII 101 and also the site plan application for the shopping center. The applicant for the shopping center is understandably concernedabout the additional 30 day delay in the processing of the siteplan application. The city is trying to pursue a "parallel traci<" whereby the city can process the property ownerrs application aswell as trying to meet the request of MnDOT in resolving the TH10I issue. City staff will have conducted an informational meeting with the cornrnercial property owners and residential neighborhoods on July 5, 1988, regarding this item. It is anti-cipated that another informational meeting will be held at the end of July erith E.he property owners. Staff feels that vre can accomplish the time lines that have been previously beendiscussed and present these items for formal hearings in August. CITY OF EHf,NH[SSEN STAFF REPORT P.C. DATE: July 5, 1988 C.C. DATE: July 25, 1988 CASE NO: 88-5 Site Plan Prepared by: olsen/v Fz C) =(LL ko hJF U) Site Plan Review for a 40,000 Square Foot Shopping C en terPROPOSAL: LOCATION: APPLICANT: Lot I,Block 6, Hidden Valley New American Homes Corporation 256 FirsE Avenue North, *200Minneapolis, MN 55 401 PRESENT ZONING: ACREAGE: DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: I{ATER AND SEWER: PEYSICAL CHARAC. : 2OOO LAND USE PLAN: N- S- E- w- BN, Neighborhood Business 4.86 acres Highway 5 & Business Highway District PUD-R; Ilidden valley Estates PUD-R; future church site BNt Q-Superette shopping center Available to the site. The site i.s an open field with a slight s lope to t.he south. commercial UD-R _l ll 7- &o LAKE j t 3SF 14 ^-.i: *.:;: 2 € I Rt! B,e+:rtan.'.- - ' !E'r- i ! -\'.1*<!- \ $----- o @ €, R 1 R12 or E SA I G BDBG P o t \loLl{lltu 4 erf7- V?lA+'1 L;ltau) trot- A ' lorw Qt ecf^t> /-er-{za,-toP ot ( \\ ..---- RSF INNENclac!l NICE X E:N LAKE SUSAN RD a i1I g6 TH Sr lilr tt I I rr;Ef,lFfi!i nwa rI IGIr.lIEI -t?t-l:a IE I I?: 17,rE:II Ir,.,IIltIt.F mIE +I IE;-.-llru.l taa I E:llt.I t,t 6!!I t tE:ll crEtt t-I llllt llllll =llt lt lli D -, E ! ? D3e4 - ?qt=ill:=, R : Hidilen Valley Shopping Center June 15, 1988 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Section 20-692 (12) a1lows the BN District.shopping centers as a permitted use in Section 20-695 (5) alLowsDistrict.a maximum lot coverage of 65t in the BN Section 20-695 foot rear yard Section 20-695 maximum height ( 6-a) requires setback and 15 ( 7-a) requiresof one s tory. 35 foot front yard setback, a 30foot side yard setbacKs. the principle structure to have a Section 20-L178 requires that all trash disposal units be comple- tely screened on all sides. Section 20-1191 requires a 10 foot strip of land between abuttingright-of-way and vehicular use areas including one tree per 40feet and a hedge wall or berm of at least 2 feet. Section 20-1192 requires interior with one tree per 40 feet. property Iines to be Iandscaped Section 20-12).7 areas. requires interior landscaping for vehicular use Sectsion 2O-1I25 requires 1 parking space for each 200 square feet of gross floor area for shopping centers. Section 20-1302 24 square feet Iot. permits a and 5 feet ground low profile sign notin height i^rith a maximum of to exceed two per REFERRAL AGENCIES City Engineer Building Department Fire Inspector ANALYS I S Attachment #2 No comments Attachment #3 The applicant is proposing to construct a 40 shopping center on approximately 5 acres of Neighborhood Business District. The site is5 to the north and is serviced by Lake Drive and east. The proposed buildinq is located ,000 I and bord EaST a long square foot zoned BN, ered by Highwayto the south the north and Lake Drive a maximum west. side of the property with the parking area alongEast. The building will be one story in height withheight of 28 square feet. The applicant is required to provide 200 parking spaces to meetthe Zoning Ordinance reguirements. The applicant is providingexactly- 200 parking spaces which includes 4 handicap ita11s.The applicant is providing parking and vehicular acless completelyaround the building with the parking staIls at the rear of ihebuilding being used for employees and truck traffic. The applicant has met all of the landscaping reguirements exceptfor the interior landscaping. staff has- rne[. wi€h the applicant andhas reviewed an alternative plan that provides additionii interiorlandscaping which would meet the zoning requirement. The interiorlandscaping will remove several, parking spices which will reguirethe applicant to reduce the size of the Uuitaing somei,,rhat. The applicant is proposing two ground low profile signswhich are rneeting the requirements of the ioning ordinance andhas provided adeguate lighting in the parking aieas which meetthe zoning requirenents. The proposed trash enclosures will becompletely screened by a rockfaced block walI and cedar door. Hidden Va11ey Shopping Center June 15, 1988 Page 3 Gradinq, Draina qe, and Streets In his report, the Assistant City Engineer will review theproposed grading and drainage for the site and street access.Staff will be requesting a secondary entrance or exit from thesite as we did with the church site directly across Lake DriveEast. This will also possibly remove proposed parking spaceswhich will cause the applicant to adjust ihe siie of ihe-buildinqagain to meet the required number of parking spaces. SUMMARY "The Planning Commission tables Site plan August 3, I988. " Request #88-5 until ATTACHMENTS The.proposed site plan currently meets the requirements ofzoning ordinance except for the interior landJcaping. Thecant wilI be providing a revised Iandscaping plan piovidingquate interior landscaping with an adjustment to tne numbeiparking spaces and building size. the appl i - ade- of The cover memo on this report explains the implications of Ehe TH101 realignment project on Ehis site. Given Lhe issues identifiedin that memorandum, planning staff recommends the planning Commission adopt the following motion: I 2 3 4 Parking and Landscapinq . Excerpts from City Code.. Memo from Assistant City Engineer dated ,Iu1y 1, I9Bg.. Memo from Fire Inspector dated June 9, 1988.. Sit.e plan dated May 3, 1988. s 20-693 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE Sec. 20.693. Permitted accessory uses. The following are permitted accessory uses in a .'BN,' District: (l) Parking lots. (2) Car wash (when accessory to automotive service station). (3) Signs. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 10(5-10-3), 12-15-86) Sec. 2M94. Conditional uses. the following are contlitional uses in a ,.BN" District: (1) Convenience store with gas pumps. (2) Automotive service stations. (3) Drive-in banks including automated kiosks. (4) Temporary outdoor display of merchandise for sale. (5) Standardrestaurants. (6) Bed and breaksfast establishments. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 10(5-104), 12-15-86) State law reference-Conditional uses, M.S. $ 462.8595. Sec. 20.695. Lot requirements and setbacks. The following minimum requirements sharl be observed in a "BN" District subject toadditional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter: (1) lhe minimum district area is three (3) acres. This paragaph may be waived in the C ( case of expansion to an existing district. The minimum lot area is fifteen thousand Ob,000) square feet. The minimum lot frontage is seventy-five (75) feet, except that lots fronting on a cul-de-sac shall have a minimum frontage of sixty (60) feet in all districts. T?re minimum lot depth is one hundred fiIty (180) feet. The maximum lot coverage including all structures and paved surfaces is sixty-five(65) percent. off-street parking areas shall comply with all yard requirements of this section,except that no rear yard parking setback shall be required for lots directly abuttingrailroad trackage; and, no side yard shall be required when adjoining commercial uses establish joint off-street parking facilities, as provided in section 20-1122, exceptthat no parking areas shall be permitted in any required side street side yard. Theminimum rear yard shall be lifty (50) feet for lots directly abutting any residentialdistrict. Side streets side yards shall be a minimum of twenty_five (28) feet. Other setbacks are as follows: a. For front yards, thirty-live (3S) feet. rzt6 (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) e ( ZONING i 20-772 b. For rear yards, thirty (30) feet.c. For side yards, frfteen (15) feet. (7) The maximum height is as follows: a. For the principal structure, one (l) story. For accessory structures, one u) story.(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ t0(5-10-5), 12_15-86) Secs. 2G696-2GZI0. Reserved. ARTICLE XVII. (BH- HIGHWAY AND BUSINESS SER\rICES DISTRICT Sec. 2G?ll. Intent. The intent of the '.8H,, Districtj: to provide for highway oriented commercial develop-ment restricted to a low building profile. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, S 1r(E-r1-1), 12-18-86) Sec. 2G,712. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in a .,BH,, District: (l) Financialinstitutions. (2) Fast food restaurant. (3) Automotive service stations. (4) Standardrestaurants. (5) Motels and hotels. (6) Offices. (7) Retail shops. (8) Miniature golf. (9) State-licensed day care center. (10) Car wash. (11) Convenience store with or without gas pumps. (12) Personal service establishment. (13) Liquor stores. (14) Health services. (15) Utility services. (16) Shopping center. ( 1217 ( $ 20-1176 Sec. 2G1145. Landscaping and screening. A11 berths shall be screened from public rightsof-way and from view from the property across the street frontage and/or from the zoning district boundary when the adacent prop- erty or property across the street frontage or side street frontage is zoned or used for residen- tial purposes. The screening shall be accomplished as required in article XXV. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VII, \ 2(7 -24),12-15€6) Sec. 2Gll,l6. Design. All loading areas shall consist of a maneuvering area in addition to the berth and shall uot use any of that portion ofthe site containing parking stalls. Maneuvering areas shall be of such size as to permit the backiug of truck tractors and coupled trailers into a berth without blocking the use of other berths, drives, maneuvering areas or public rightsof-way. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VII, g 2(7 -2-5),12-15-86) Sec. 2Gll47. Required loading areas. (a) Any use which the city believes requires the provision of designated spaces for the loading, unloading or parking of trucks or semi-trailers shall provide such spaces and maneu- vering area in tlle number and configuration which shall be deemed necessary in order to prevent interference with the use of the public right-of-way and with vehicles entering onto or exiting from the public rightof-way. (b) Semitrailer spaces shall be at least frfty-five (55) feet in length, ten (10) feet in width and fourteen (14) feet in height plus necessaq/ additional maneuvering space. (c) Spaces shall not be located on a street side of any building, or, if so located, shall be provided with screening deemed adequate by the city. (d) Spaces and the associated maneuvering area shall be at least fifty (50) feet from the property line of any residentially desigrrated property. (e) No trucks shall be parked in areas other than those designed for such purpose on an approved site plan. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VII, S 2(7-26), 12-15-86) Secs. 2G1148-2G1175. Reserved, ARTICLE XXV. I,ANDSCAPINC AND TREE REMOVAL DIVISION 1. GENEBALLY Sec. 2Gll76. Intent, scope and compliance. (a) The intent of this article is to improve the appearance of vehicular use areas and property abutting public rightsof-way; to require buffering between noncompatible land uses; t25L C ZONING $ 20.1r76 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE C ( e_ 1252 and to protect, preserve and promote the aesthetic appeal, character and value of the sur_rounding neighborhoods; to promote public health ,rri .rr"ry through the reduction of noisepollutiou, air pollution, visual pollution and glare- (b) I'his article does not apply to single-family detached residences. (c) No new site deveropment, building, structure or vehicular use area is a,owed unlesslandscaping is provided as required in this article. (d) No property rines sha,Ie artered nor shall any building, structure or vehicular usearea be expanded, unless the minimum randscaping reiuired by the provi"rr* "iiil" ii"r"is provided for the entire property (Ord. No. 80, Art. VItr, $ 1, 12.18€6) Sec. 2Gll??. Plan submission and approval. The property owrer or developer shall prepare a landscape plan for review by the city.the city shall apply the following conditions in a,O"o"ir,, o" ar."rnroving the plan:(l) The contents ofthe plan shall include the following: a. Plot plan, drawn to an easily readable scale, showing and labelling by name anddimensions, all existing:.nd proposed property lines, easements, i"rfar*", ,"aother structures, vehicular use areas (including parking stalls, driveways, ser.vice areas, square footage), water outlets and landscape material d"f"ai"gbotanical name and common name, installation size, on center planting dimen-sions where applicable, and quantities for all plants used).b. Tlpical elevations and,/or cross sectio.ra * _u, be required-c. Title block with the pertinent names and aid."s""d (property owner, persondrawing plan, andperson installing landscape mat€rial), scale date, north a'ow(generally orient plan so that north is to top of plan), and zoning dist"ict. - - - d' Existing landscape material shalr be shown onihe required plan and any mate-rial in satisfactory condition may be used to satisry this article in whore or inpart. (2) Where randscaping is required, no buding permit sha, be issued until the requiredlandscaping plan h"s- [oe1 submitted urd ,pp.or"d, and no certificatc of occupancyshall be issued until the landscaping is compieted as certified by an on-site inspectionby the building inspector, unless a performance bond, or irrevocable letter of creditfrom a banking institution, has been paid. . (3) If necessary, the city may require a letter of credit to insure proper installation oflandscape materials with complete cost ofa, work certified by landscape contractorlwith the bond amountro include the actual cost plus ten (r,i;";;;;;. il";; #iibe released upon satisfactory completion ofthe work as determined by the city.(4) where unusuar site conditions exist where strict enforcement ofthe provisions ofthisarticle would cause a hardship or practical difficulty, the planning commission andcity council may waive the requirements as part of the site plan review process.(Ord. No. 80, Art. VUI, $ 6, 12-15€6) ( ZONING Sec. 20-1178. Landscaping for service structure. (a) Any service structure shall be screened whenever located in any residential, commer- cial or industrial zone (except RR and RSF zones). structures may be grouped together; however, screening height requirements will be based upon the tallest ofthe structures. (b) A continuous planting, hedge, fence, wall or earth mound shall enclose any service structure on all sides unless such structure must be frequently moved, in which case screen- ing on all but one (1) side is required. The average height of the screening material shall be one (1) foot more than the height ofthe enclosed structure, but shall not be required to exceed eight (8) feet in height. whenever a service structure is located next to a buililing wall, perimeter landscaping material, or vehicular use area landscaping material, such walls or screening material may fulfill the screening requirement for that side of the service structureif that wall or screening material is of an average height suflicient to meet the height requirement set out in this section. whenever service structures are screened by plant material, such material may count towards the fulfrllment of required interior or perimeter landscaping. No interior lantlscaping shall be required within an area screened for service structures. (c) whenever screening material is placed around any trash disposal unit or waste collection unit which is emptied or removed mechanically on a regularly occuring basis, a curb to contain the placement ofthe container shall be provitled within the screening material on those sides where there is such material. The curbing shall be at least one (1) foot from the material and shall be designed to prevent possible damage to the screening when the con- tainer is moved or emptied. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VItr, $ 4, 12-15-86) Sec. 2G1179. Tlee removal regulations. (a) It is the policy of the city to preserve natural woodland areas throughout the city and with respect to specifrc site development to retain as far as practical, substantial tree stands which can be incorporated into the overall landscape plan. (b) No clearcutting of woodland areas shall be permitted except as approved in a suMivi- sion, planned unit development or site plan application. (c) The following standards shall be used in evaluating subdivisions and site plans: (l) To the extent practical, site design shall preserve significant woodland areas. (2) shade trees of six (6) inches or more caliper shall be saved unless it can be demon- strated that there is no other feasible way to develop the site. (3) The city may require the replacement of removed trees on a caliper inch per caliper inch basis. At minimum, however, replacement trees shall conform to the planting requirements identifred in division 4 of this article. (4) During the tree removal process, trees shall be removed so as to prevent blocking of public rights-of-way or interfering with overhead utility lines. 1253 $ 20-1179 C $ 20-1179 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE (5) The removal of diseased and damaged trees is permissible. (d) l'ee removal not permitted under subdivision, planned unit deveropment or site pranreview shalr not be allowed without the approval of a tree removal plan by the city counc,.Tlee removal plans shall incrude the content requirements as dictated in section 20-1lz? andidentify reasons for tree removal. The plan shall be submittcd three (3) weeks in advance oftle city council at which it is to be considered. (e) This section does not apply to single-family and two-family lots of record.(Ord. No. 80, Art. VItr, $ Z, 12-15-86) Secs. 2Gll80-2G,1190. Reserved, DTVISION 2. PERIMETER LANDSCAPING REQUM,EMENTS Sec. 2G1191. Generally. (a) where parking areas are not e.tirely screened visuany by an intervening buding oratructure from any abutting right-of-way, there sha, be provided randscaping betw".o "l"narea and such right-of-way as follows: (1) A strip of land at least ten (10) feet in depth located between the abutting rightof-way and the vehicular use area which sha, be landscaped to incrude * "'"".ig. "rone (1) tree for each forty (40) linear feet or fraction thereof. Such trees shatt belocated between the abutting right-of-way and the vehicular use area. (2) In addition, a hedge, wall, berm, or other opaque durable landscape barrier of at leasttwo (2) feet in height shall be placed arong the entire length ofthe vehicular use area-If such opaque durable barrier is of nonliving material, a shrub or vine shall beplanted along the street side of said barrier and be planted. in such a manner to breakup the expanse of the wall. A two-foot berm may be used; however, additional landscaping at least one (1) foot in height at time of planting shall be installed. Theremainder of the required landscape areas shall be landscaped with grass, grouni cover, or other landscape treatment. (b) This division applies to p€rimeter landscaping. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VItr, $ 2(S-2-1), 12-15-86) Sec. 2Gll92. Required landscaping a{iacent to int€rior property lines. (a) Where parking areas abut property zoned or, in fact, used primarily for residential or.institutional purposes, that portion of such area not entirely screened visualry by an interven_ing structure or existing conforming bulfer from an abutting property, there shal be provideda landscaped bulrer which should. be maintained and replaced as needed. such landscapedbuffer shall consist of plant material, wall, or other durable ba.rier at least six (6) feet inheight measured from the median elevation ofthe parking area crosest to the common rot line,and be locatcd between the common rot line and the off-street parking areas or other vehicuraruse area exposed to the abutting property. Fences shall be constructed according to thestandards in section 20-1018. C ( 1254 e_ ( ZONING | 20-12t2 (b) In addition, an average ofone (1) tree shall be provid.ed for each forty (40) linear feet of such parking area or fractional part thereof. such trees shall be located between the common lot line and the off-street parking area or other vehicular use area. (c) Where such area abuts property zoned and, in fact, used for ofiice, commercial, orindustrial purposes' that portion of area not entirely screened visuary by aa intervening structure or existing conforming buffer, shall sq?"ply with the tree provisions only as pre- scribed in this section. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VItr, 9 2(8-2-2),12-tE-86) Sec. 2G1193. Combi-i-g with easemerta. The required lanilscape bufreryard may be combined with a ut ity or other easement as long as all of the landscape requirements can be fully met, otherwise, the landscape bufferyard shall be provided in addition to, and separate from, any other easement. cars or other objects shall not overhang or otherwise intrude upon the required landscape bufferyard -o"" th* two and one-half (2)i) feet and curbs will be required. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VItr, $ 2(8.2-3), 12-15-86) Sec. 2G1194. nyistirrg landacape material. Existing landscape material shan be shown on the required plan and any material in satisfactory condition may be used to satisfu these requirements in whole or in part. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VItr, $ 2(8-24), 12-1s€6) Secs. 2G1195-2G1210. Reserved. DIVISION 3. IT{IERIOR LANDSCAPING FOR VEHICI]LAR USE AREAS Sec. 2Gl2l1. Generally. (a) Any open vehicular use area (excluding loading, unloading, and storage areas in the IOP and BG districts) containing more than six thousand (6,000) square feet of area, or twenty (20) or more vehicular parking spaces, shall provide interior landscaping in accordance with this division in addition to "perimeter" lantlscaping. Interior landscaping may be peninsular or island t5rpres. (b) this division applies to interior landscaping of such areas. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VI[, $ 3, 12-1546) Sec. 2Gl2l2. f,andscape area. (a) For each one hundred 000) square feet, or fraction thereof, of vehicular use ar.ea, five(5) square feet of landscaped area shall be provided. (b) The minimum lanilscape area permitted shall be sixty-four (64) square feet, with afour-foot minimum dimension to a[ trees from edge of pavement where vehicres overhang. C r255 C ZONING (12) Mortuaries-One (1) space for every three (B) seats- $ 20-r125 ( (13) Mo1"1 o" Sotel-One (1) parking space for each rental room or suite, plus one (1) spacefor every two (2) employees. (14) ofiice budings (administrative, business or professional)-Three (3) parking spacesfor each one thousand 0,000) square feet of floor area. (15) Public service buildings, incruding municipar administration buildings, communitycenter, public library, museum. art galleries, and post office_One Oip*tiog "p.""for each frve hun&ed (S00) square feet of floor area in the principal jr"""r", pf""one (1) parking space for each four (4) rests within public assembly or meeting rooms. (16) Ilecreational facilities, including golf course, country club, swimming club, racquetclub, public swimming pool-TVenty (20) spaces, p-I.r" oo" Q) space for each fivehundred (500) square feet of floor area in the principal structure or two (2) spaces percourt. (17) Research, experimentar or testing stations-one (1) parking space for each frve hun-&ed (500) square feet of gross floor area withia the iuilding, whichever is greater. (18) Rsshur..,, cafe, nightclub, tavern or bar: a. Fast food-One (l) space per sixty (60) square feet of gross floor area.b. Restaurant: l. Without full liquor license_One 0) space per sixty (60) square feet of grossfloor area or one (1) space per two and one-harf (2%) seats whichevir isgreat€r. 2. With full liquor license-One G) space per fifty (50) square feet of gross floorarea or one (1) space per two (2) seats whichever is greater. (19) Retail stores and service establishments_One (1) space for each two hundred (200)square feet of gross floor area. (20) School, elementary (public, privatc or parochiall_One G) parking space for eachclassroom or office room, plus one (1) space for each one hundred frlty (150) squarefeet of eating area including aisles, in any urdito"irr- or gyrnnesium or cafetcriaintended to be used as an auditorium. (21) School, junior and senior high schools and colleges (public, private or parochial_Four(4) parking spaces for each classroom or office room plus one (l) space for each onehundred fifty (150) square feet ofseating area including aisles, in any auditorium orgymnasium or cafeteria intended to be used as an auditorium. (22) shopping center-on-site automobile parking shall be provided in a ratio of not ressthan one (1) parking space,for each two hundred (200) iuare feet of gross flmr area;separate on_sit€ space shall be provided for loading and unloading. (23) Storage, wholesale, or warehouse establishments-one .) space for each one thou-sand (1,000) square feet of gross floor area up to ten thousand (10,000) square feet andone (l) additional space for each additional two thousand (2,000) squar" feut plos orre L249 690 COULTER DRIVE ' P.O. BOX I47 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 CITY OF cHINHISSE![ ft? SUBJ : This site is located immeiliately west of the intersection of Lake Drive East and Hidden Court. The 4.86 acre parcel is comprised of a rolling open field with 1ittle or no vegetation. Sanitary S e',ve r Preliminary Site Plantot 6, Block 1 of the New American Homes for the Kerr/Chanhassen Valley Subdivision Review H idden Municipal sanitary sewer is available to the site by an 8-inch sanitary sewer main which has been extended from Court underneath Lake Drive East. exi st ing H idden wat erma in Municipal water service is also available to the site from the 12-inch diameter main located down at the southwest corner of thesubject parcel . Calculations which verify that adequate pressure and flow conditions exist to handle the maximum demand that rpould be necessary from the building sprinkling system and fire depart- ment demand should be submitted to the City Engineer for approvalprior to finaL site plan approval. The watermain from ilidden Court to thesubject parcel should be looped. Thisof the final site plan review. southwest cornerwill be ana Iy zed of AS the pa rt Access The existing plan shovrs only one singular access to the site. Itis recommended that another access be considered down at the southwest corner of the site onto Lake Drive East. This a<idi-tional access would enhance traffic flow patterns as lrell as pro- vide additional access for emergency services. I UEUORANDUi{ TO: Planning Conmission FROM: Larry Brorrn, Staff Engineer DATE: July 1, 1988 The access that has been proviiled along the north and vrest sidesof the building will not accommodate a semi-trailer vehicte. Itis recommended that the building be adjusted such that thesevehicles can be accorurodated to facilitate the anticipated deli-very traffic. Planning Commi ssi onJuly I, 1988 Page 2 G radin and Erosion Control The majori!y ofparking l-ot and The proposed grading plan wiII direcL vJest corner of the property where anpipe exists for this site. This sitehydraulic calcuations for the Hiddenthe predeveloped runoff rate for the main tai ned. The concept plan for the realignment of Trunk Highway 10I at thistime suggests that the realigned section of Highway-I0I will rundirectly through the middle of this parcel and ionn-ect up to LakeDrive East in the proximity of the southwest corner. At thistime, staff is investigating the feasibility of the realignmentof Trunk Highway 101 with MnDOT. This is a complex issue whichhas been acceleraLed due to the recent construction plans pre-sently under design by MnDOf for Highway 5. At this point- intime, however, we are unable to ans.rer these access q-uestionsuntil t"lnDOT and the City further evaluate the traffiC impacts andfunding scenario. the site will be flattened out to create theproposed building pad. The current plan does not address erosion control . A revisedplan shor.ring all erosion control measures should be submitted forapproval by the City Engineer prior to final site plan review. pra i nag e drainage down to Lhe south-existing 21-inch storm se$rer was accounted for in the Va11ey Subdivision such thatentire subdivision could be In light of the questions that need to be answered for Lherealignrnent of Trunk Highway 101 which would traverse this entireparcel, it is recommended that Lhis item be tabled such thal theoutstanding questions for the realignment of Highway 101 may beaddressed properly. Recommendation I It is recorunended that this item bethe City resolve the Trunk flighwayinterchange i ssue. tabled until MnDOT and10l,/Trunk Highway 5 EHINHISSEN 590 COULTER DRIVE . P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 CITY OF MEMORANDUM TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Assistant City Planner FROM: Steve Madden, Fire Inspector DATE: June 9, 1988 SUBJ: Hidden Valley Center Upon reviewing the site plan for Eidden Va11ey Centser, I recom- mend the following: I. A hydrant. system be installecl, as markeal, around thebuilding (UPC, Section I0.30[cl). 2. Install a second driveway from the park areas to Lake Drive - 3. A total sprinkler system be installed, both above ceiling and below, with a U,/L approved di spatch/monitor syslem. 4. Post inilicator valve be installed. 5. Flow alarm be1l be installed above the Fire Department connection (as marked) . If you have any questions, please ask. (.. \\L.rr --j-)- ,i? -LLu:- - [!^t E-!.v^r-!qt i) i.:= llor\lt\1;\N \ l\55('r( l;\ll5 ry I{:I atlvalloL aaot lata DllYl laal 2 E! rll*lll IT il Et4C*>!).a.a|tw--'4rt-rtlI---,Ealllll_qtilllrlltr$tl!lt'fliL|EU lt anlit IIIffit:IIIllIlllit lril ti,l;i llil mtilrill !tc!!9! IIIIIIIIIIIII I-- n (Eii/ cH txaa6aL tEtaL oaY!lotrltll CITY OF STAFF REPORT P.C. DATE: JuIy 6, 1988 C.C. DATE: July 25, 1988 CASB NO: 88-11 ZOA Prepared by: Dacy/v Fz () J(LL ( E hJFa Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Amend Sections20-695, 20-7l-5, 20-755, 20-774, 2O-795 and 20-8I5to Provide for Minimum Building and ParkingSetbacks for Lots Adjacent to Railroads inResidential Zoning Districts PROPOSAT: LOCAUON: APPLICANT: PRESENT ZONING: ACREAGE: DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE:N- s- E- w- WATER AND SEWER: PEYSICAL CEARAC. : 2OOO LAND USE PLAN: EH[I[H[SSEN ZOA - Setbacks JuIy 6, 1988 Page 2 The Planning Commission tabled this request from its JuneI988, meeting. The Planning Commission minutes and staffwere forwarded to the Attorney,s Office t.o help determineappropriate language. ANALYS I S Two items, however, will neetl to be added. In Sections 2the proposed ordinance, the following should be added: Attachment *1, as prepared by t.he City Attorney, proposes todelete the existing language of paragraph (6) regarding off steetparking and replace it with specitic statements regarding offstreet parking abutting a railroad, another off street pirkingarea, or a residential district. L, repor t the The building setbacks are then identified in a separate paragraghin each district. Separating the parking setbacks and thebuilding setbacks helps clarify the differences and wilI easeadministration. 7of al . The minimum setback is fifty (50) feet when it abuts aresidential district without being separated from theresidential district by a street or railroad right-of-rcay. This will identify a 50 foot buildinq setback as well as aparking setback. Second, current language identifies a side streetparkinq setback of 25 feet. This is for yards onThe following should be added to proposed Section ordinance: side yard corner lots.1of the d The minimum setback isstreet side yards. twenty-five (25) feet for side d the minimum setback isstreet side yards.twenty-five (25) feet for side BACKGROU ND RECOMMENDAT ION The proposed ordinance greatly improves the clarity and enfor-ceability of these regulations. Approval is recommeniled. tThe Planning Comrnission recommends approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment #88-1I to amend sectioos as shown in Attachment *1 iriththe following additions: SECTION 1. Add: ZOA - Setbacks July 6, 1988 Page 3 SECTIONS 2-7. Add: d. The minimum setback is fifty (50) feet when iE abuts aresidential district without being separared from theresidential district by a street or railroad right-of-way. ATTACHMENTS I 2 3 Proposed ordinance.Letter from Daryl Fortier dated June 6, 1988.Staff report dated June 1, 1988. ORDINANCE NO. CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA AN ORDTNANCE AMENDING CIIAPTER 20, THE ZONING ORDINANCE, OF THE CIIANIIASSEN CITY CODE CONCERNTNG SETBACK REQUIRE!.IENTS FOR OFF-STREET PARKING The City Council of the City of Chanhassen ordains: SECTION 1. 2O-774 (5) , 20-795 (5) ,aLl amended to read: to read: forforfor Sections i\0-695 (6) , 2o-7ts(6) , zo-7s5(s) ,and 20-815(5) of the Chanhassen City Code are Off-street parking shall conply with district setbackrequirernents except: a) There is no ninimum setback when it abuts a railroadright-of -!'ray. b) There is no minimum setback when it abuts, without beJ-ngseparated by a street, another off-street parking area. c) The nininun setback is fifty (50) feet $rhen it abuts aresidential district withoul being separated fron theresidential district by a street or rlil.roaa right_of_way. AECTION 2. Section 20-695 is arnended by adding Section (8) ( I ) l.{ininum setback reguirements : a) for front yards, 35 feetb) for rear yards, 30 feetc) for side yards, 15 feet SECTION 3. Sectj-on 2O-7t5 is arnended by adding Section (8) (8) Minimun setback requirements: ) ) ) a b c front yards, rear yards, side yards, 25 feet 20 feet L0 feet to read: SECTIoN 4. Section 20-755 is arnended by adding Section 7) to read: (7) Minimum setback requirements: a) for front yards, 25 feb) for rear yards, 25 fec) for side yards, l-O fe SECTION 5. Section 20-774 is et.et.et. amended by adding Section (7)to read: to read: (7) Minirnuro setback requirements: a) for front yards,b) for rear yards,c) for side yards, 25 feet. 20 feet. 10 feet. aECtIoN 5. Section 20-75 is anended by adding Section (7) (7) Minimun setback requirements: a) for front yards, 35 feb) for rear yards, 30 fec) for side yards, 15 fe SECTION 7. Section 20-815 is et.et.et. amended by adding Section (7)to read: (7) Minimurn setback requirements: a) for front yards, 30 feet.b) for rear yards, L0 feet.c) for side yards, 10 feet. SECTION a. This ordinance shall become effectiveirnrnediately upon is passage and publication. ADOPTED by the ,198a. chanhassen City council this day of ATTEST 3 CITY OF CHANHASSEN Thomas L. H am1 l-ton, Mayor BY: Don Ashworth, C l-ty Manager -2- D^!'rD L. GE NNI5 - 1874-1961 D^vD L. Gx.^NNrs, JR. . 19l0-1980 V^NCE B. GRANNTS V^NCE B. Gr,^NMs, JR. PATRTCK A. FAarEu D^vrD L. GR NNTS, III RocER N. KNr[soN Ilv OFFrcEs GaaNNrs, GRANNTs, Fannrrr & KNr.moN h.ofrssroN,rr Assoct rtoN PosT OrrrcE Box ,7 ,+01 NoRvEsr BA.}IK BuuDlNc 16l NorrH CoNcoBD EXCHANGE SourH ST. P^uL, MNNEsor ,r07, TETPHoNE (612) 4rr-1661 June 28, 1988 TEtcoPrEr: (612) 45r-2r59 D^vrD L. HAaMEYB. EIUorr B. KNErscx MrcH,rE J. M^yE TD{orEY J. BERG i'ii:Ci; '/ i:t) JUN sO 1988 CITY OF CHAN HASSE{\I' Ms. Barbara Dacy Chanhassen City HaIl 590 Coulter Drive, Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RE: Minimum Setback Dear Barb: RNK: srn Enc losure yours, IS, FARRELL Roger Knutson Enclosed is a draft ordinance that attempts to accomplishwhat the Planning Commission wanted. I was somewhat confused bytheir discussion, so I may not have been successful. Very t ( June 6, 1988 "Properties which are zoned Inilustrial or separated frorn an adjacent Residentially railroad or street right-of-way sha1l be the railroad or street and not abuttingtlistrict. " FORTIER & ASSOCIATES, INC. ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INIERIOR DESIGN Commercial and are zoned district by a deemed as abu tt ing the res iden ti a1 Ms. Barbara DacyCity Planner City of Chanhas sen 690 Coulter DRiveP. O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 5 5317 Dear Barbara: I was very pleased to learn that the City Staff is attempting toclarify an apparently confusing issue affecting setbacks in Park One,as r^relI as other industrial properties where they abut railroadtracks or road right-of-viays. As indicated at the Planning Commission neeting, you have our full support in making the ordinanceIess confus ing. As I understand it, the Planning Commission has directed you to seek language which would essentially say: The only request that we would make on behaLf of our clients is that the proposed ordinance address the confusion only anil not attenpt to anend the present setback requirenents, that is, changing a rear yard setback from 20 feet to 25 feet. I{e believe that the present 2o-footconservation ilistrict, the Landscape screening requirements, anil thedistance afforded by either the railroad or street right-of-wayshould prove as tnore than an ample setback from any residential d is tr ict. Good luck in your attemptrevision. Upon complet ingfor our rev ie w. appropr iate word ingdraft, please send to find theyour rough for us a th is copy Yo Daryl P. Fortier, A.I. A. DPFls f cc: Frank Beddor, Jr.Jules Smitb Jim Benson iui'i c 7 i988 SITY. OE CHANhASSEN 408 Turnpike Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55416 (612) S93-12S5 Re: PARK ONE Comm: 8 6-19 tru1y, ({P.C. DATE: June 1, Iggg C.C. DATE: June 13, 1988 CASE NO: i Prepared by: Olsen,/v CITY OF Elifi}IH,lSETI[ STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: LOCATION: APPLICANT: !9nin9 Ordinance Ameidment to Amend Sect,ions20-695, .20-715, 2O-755, 2O-774, 2O-795 and 20-815to Provide for Minimum Building and parking Setbacks for Lots Adjacent to i.ailroads in-Residential Zoning Districts Fz () J(LL E IJF @ PRESENT ZONING: ACREAGE: DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE:N- s- E- 9t- WATER AND SEWER: PEYSICAL CHARAC. : 2OOO LAND USE PLAN: ({ Zoning Ordinance AmendmentJune 1, 1988 Page 2 APPLI CAB LE REGULAT TONS sections 20-695, 2o-715, -20-755, 20-774, 2o-7g5 and 20-815 - offstreet parkinq areas shalI "o*piy r^rirh ;11 yrra ietoii..lir" orthis.section, excepr. rhar no ,;;; y;;; iarking serback sharl berequired for lots direcrly-abuttini iiiiroua [.rackage; ;;;;-n"side yard shal1 be requirld *f,.n "ji"ining .o*"r.ial usesestablish off street. parking f..iiiii.", except that no parking:I:?:--:h.'"Il be permirred. in-any requiret "t.e'.t "ia" yi.il-''rr,"mlnrmum rear yard shall be 50 ieet -for iots -aireciiy iu"tii.rrg .rryresidential district. Side streei "iae-yaras shal1 be a minimumof 25 feet in all districts. ANALYSIS A11 of the comrnercial and industrial districts, except for theCBD Districtr contain. the above reie.e"cea ,.gofatioi. -A" currently worded, it is confusing to both the "de"ui"p...'-Inastaff to interpret setbacks to. i.of".iies that .U"t-U"ttr-"rairroad trackage and resirlentaii ais!iicts. This amendment hasbeen iniEiared by sraff as ," uru inii.iputing ;;;";i";niii."_tions which are affecred by.rhe i.ni"iliui"tioi oi ;hi; i;;;""s..rn fact, some of the potenliar applicints wirr u" pi-"""t-'lt tn.meeting. The city Attorney tas ilauea rhat ir is i "onio"i.,gsection and should be clarified. Attachmene #2 illustraE.es areas where cornmerciar and industrialdistricts abut railroad trackage and residentiaL districts. Thefirst sentence of rhis secrion-refeis r.o off srreei p;;ki;; u..."stating that no rear yard parking setback shall be rlquiiee forLots directly abutting raiiroad iracXate. it also stat.es thatthere shaI1 be a minimum rear yard of 50 teet for lots directfyabutting any residential district. alihough the commercial sitemay directly abut railroad trackage, it ma! also abut u-i.":.a.n_tial district. Therefcre, the inieipi.tution of rhis i".tioncould either be that for those ur.a"-abutting rai froaa - ti".i."g"and residenrial disrricE.s thaE off stieet paiking in ir,"-iJ..could directly abut railroad trackage or tirat ctr6 par<ing-iruu.in the rear must mainrain a 5o i;;l';eitacr from the residenrialdistrict. Staff has reviewed several ordinances from surrounding com_munities. - The majority of the ordinances do not f,.o.-=l..ifi"setbacks for commercial and inausiiial- areas Ehat. abut a residen_tial district' rn those o.ainin.." -"ni.n aia estabrish differentseE.backs, the setbacks were increised ior ttrose districtsabutcing residential areas. The ordinances did not differentiatebetr{een structure setbacks ".;--;.;ii;;-setbacks and none of rheordinances had reduced setbacks'ioi-"it"" abutting railroadt rackage . ,rr a\ Zoning Ordinance Amendment June 1, 1988 Page 3 staff is recommending Lhat the regulations be amended to diffen_t.rate. bet.rveen parking _and s trucruiii -""tu""f" e"i liop"iti""aburting residential districts ana iaiiroaa trackaie.' -a= -Jnornin Attachment #2, there-are onry a iew-inaustrial and commercialareas that abut rairroad trackale and residenti^:. aistiicf". Themajority of the industrial ana "o*."i.iaI areas that abutrailroad rrackage also abut inaus tiiii -and . cornmerciir -piJp"rtv onthe other side of the lracks. tfre commercial and industrialsites rvhich abut both railroad t.""Lig; and residential districtsare separated by slope and vegerarion-along rh" ;;ii;;;a-iiacragefrom the res identi a1- di str ict.i . i;-i";t, a 20 foot conservationeasement was reserved.along the rear of the 1ots abutiino-ttr"tracks in rhe indusrrial sribdivision u.r,i.a r;;-p;;;-;"iriirg.Therefore, having a reduced setbaci aiong tnese areas would nothave a negative impact to the residential ".""" ":.n"a ttu--railroad righr-of-way irseli-pr;;i;;;-;;p.rarion. rt should benoted that this ameodment only affecis-ine setback. A six footscreening reguirement is also required betr.reen residential andnon-residentiaL uses. Staff finds that 50 feet is too excessive in instances vrhererailroad tracks exist and wouta recomm""a a ZS foot setbackinstead. Thi.s would mainrain-se;;;;'#;; from .he rairroad tracksand would permit adeguare space ior oerm;.n!-ina-'1";;;;;;;g. Further, the ordinance states that a ,rear,, yard setback of 50feet is required. In some cases, a commercial or industrial areamay abut a side yard.. The ordinance should not differentiater.rhat type of yard it is, Out ratnei -." tJaf:. "n a minimum setbackfor the building and parking "."u"-"t"tting residenr.ial areas. R ECOMMEND AT I ON Planning staff recommends thefollowing motion:Planning Commission adopt the nThe-Planning Cornmission recomrrends aoprovalAmendment to Amend Secrions 20-695, i611:.::,20-795 and 20-815 to read as follows: of Zoning Ordinaace20-755,20-774, - !i.'r -a . i--a,B Off s tree t pa rk ing areas shall comply with all yard requ i rementsof this sec tion except that no rear yard parki ng setback shall berequired for lot s directl y abutting railroad t r ackageide yard s hall be and commer- requiredItstriditrits. No swh en o n ng commerc al uses es tablish off street parking faci -Iities,except that no parki n9 areas shaI1 be permi t ted in anyrequired side s tleet. s ide yard.I fo r trarbefTLr S1 SS I a ct notS r t.rrar t t reseetotstrct o eet n aL districts.,,street s ml ots n ( Zoning Ordinance AmendmentJune 1, 1988 Page 4 ATTACHMENTS 1. Excerpt from ordinance.2. Uap shor,ring locations of areas whichand residential districts.abut railroad trackage ( a $ 20.693 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE Sec. 2G693. Permitted acccssory uses. The follorving are permitted accessory uses in a ..BN,, District: (1) Parking lots. (2) Car wash (when accessory to automotive service station). (3) Sigls. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 10(5-10-9), t2-15-86) Sec. 2M94. Conditional uses. .. Ihe following are conditional uses in a ..BN,, District:(l) Conveuience store with gas pumps. (2) Automotive service stations. (3) Drive-in banks including automated kiosks. (4) Temporary outdoor display of merchandise for sale. (5) Standardrestaurants. (6) Bed and breaksfast establishments. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, S rO(E-rO4), t2-15.86) State law reference-Conditioual uses, M.S. $ 462.8Sg5. Sec. 20€95. Lot requirements and setbacks. The follorving minimum requirements shall be observed. in a ..BN,, District subject toadditional requirements, exceptions and modilications s€t forth in this chapter:(1) The minimum disrrict area is three (3) acres. This par.agraph may be waived in thecase of expansion to an existing district. (2\ (3) (4) (5) (6) Off-street parking areas shall comply rvith all yard rcquirements of this section,except that no rear yard parking setback shall be required for lots directly ibutringrailroad trrckage; and, no side yard shall be required rvhen udjoining conrmercialuses establish joint off street parking facilities, as provided in section 20-11 . excepa r t o The minimum lot area is fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet. The minimum lot frontage is seventy-five (25) feet, except that lots fronting on acul-de-sac shall have a minimum frontage of sixty (OOl f""r'in off districts. The minimum lot depth is one hundred fifty 050) feet. The maximum lot coverage including all structures and paved surlaces is sixty-(ive(65) percent. that no parking areas shall be ermittcd in any requircd side street side vard. Thep o- x y (50) feet for lots dircctly abutting any residential mlnrmum yard shall be fift distric ide streets side yards shall be a minimum of trventy-five (25) feet. Other tbacks arc as follorvs: t yards. thirty-five (35) feet. RKor+WTr6? % a. F.r fron r s 20-712 (17) Private clubs and lodges. (18) Community center. (19) Funeral homes- (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 11(5-tt-2), t2-18-86) Sec. 2G713. Permitted accessory uses. The following are permitted accessory uses in a ,,BHl, District: (1) SigN. (2) Parking lots. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, S 11(5-11-9), r2-1b-86) CHANHASSEN CITY CODE I { a I I I I I I I l T T I I I Sec. 2G714. Conditional uses. The following are conditional uses in a ..BH,' District: (1) Outdoor display of merchandise for sale. (2) Supermarkets. (3) Small vehicle sales. (4) Screened outdoor storage. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, ! t1(5-114), 12-15-86) State law reference-Conditional uses, It.S. $ 462.3595. Sec. 2G,?15. Lot requirements aud setbacks. The following minimum requirements shall be observed in a ..BH,, District subject toadditional requirements, exceptions and modilications set for-th in this chapter: (1) The minimum district area is ten (10) acres. This paragraph may be rvaived by acondition use permit in the case of expansion of an existing district. (2) The minimum lot area is twenty thousand (20,000) square feet. (3) The minimum lot frontage is one hundred 000) feet, except that lots fronting on acul-de-sac shall have a minimum frontage in all d.istricts of sixty (60) feet. (4) fire minimum lot depth is one hundred fifty 050) feet. (5) The maximum lot coverage is sixty-five (65) pcrcent. (6) off-street parking areas sha. compry with alr yard requirements of this section,except that no rear yard parking setb:lck shall be required for lots directly otrttJgrailroad trackage; and, no side yard shall be required when adjoining "orn.u".iojuses establishjoint off-street parking facilities, as provided i. *"ii". zirrzi, ".""p,that no parking areas shall be permitted in aiy required side street side yard.Minimum rear yard shall be fifty (50) feet for rots directry abutting any residential l2t8 r( @ 5 20-77 | The minimum lot frontage is one. hundred 000) feet, except trtat lots fronting on aculde-sac shall haye a minimum frontage ofsixty (G0) feet in all districts. ttre minimum lot depth is one hundred Iifty 050) feet. The maximum lot coverage is seventy (20) percent. Off-street parking areas shall comply lvith all yard requirements of this s€ction,except that no rear yard parking setback shatt l. requirJ-for lots directly abuttingrailroad trackage; and, no side yard shall be .equireJ _iur, ,a:oirriog commercialuses establish joinr off.streer Darking facilities, as pr;"ra"Jr" """r"" ,0-1122, exceptthat no parking areas shall be-permitted i., "rry ."qrir"J"iae street side yard. Theminimum rear yard shall be fifty (so) feet for i;";;;'"r;;;"tins any residentialdistrict. Side street side yards shall U" u .tr,irn,rrn oiii"iry-frr" (2S) feet. Othersetbacks are as follows: a. For front yards, twenty-five (2S) feet.b. For rear yards, twenty-five (25) feet.c. For side yards, ten (10) feet. lhe maximum height is as follorvs: _- (5) Major auto repair and body shops.(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 1g(E-184), 12_15.86) State law reference_Conditional uses, lU.S. $ 462.85gS. Sec. 2G?58. Lot requiremeats and setbacks. The following minimum r additionar requir;"* ;ffi:"":ff Tl*11,1".::::#;ti;3fl "Districr subject ro (1) The minimum lot area is twenty thousand (20,000) square feet. (2) (3) (4) (5) @ (6) a. For the principal structure, three (3) storieVforty (40) feet.b. For accessory structures, two (2) stories.(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, S 13(S_rg_5), t2.r5-86) Secs. 2G?56-2GZ?0. Reserved. ARTICLE XX. ''BF- FRINGE BUSINESS DISTBICT Scc, 20-721. Intent. The intent of thc ,.BF,, Distservices. ;rict is to accommodate limited commercial uses without urbano(Ord. No.80, Art. V, $ t4(5.1{-l), 12.15-86} t223 ZONING C i 20.772 *c. 2O-772. Permitted accessory uses. The following are permitted. accessory uses in a ..BF,, District: CHANHASSEN CITY CODE C Parking lots. Signs. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ t(5-14-g), 12-15A6) Sec. 2G7?A. Conditional uses. lhe following are conditiohrt uses in a ..BF,, District: (1) Automotive service station without car washes- (2) Tiuck/trailerrental. (3) Utility services. (4) Outdoor display of merchandise for sale. (5) Cold storage and warehousing. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ t4{b-14-2), 12_18a6) State law reference_Conditional uses, M.S. S 462.g595. *c. 2O-7%. Lot requirements and setbacks. The following minimum requirements shall be observed in a ..BF,, District subject toadditional requirements, exceptions and modification" ""i r""ri, in this chapter: (1) The minimum lot area is twenty thousand (20,000) square feet. (2) The minimum lot frontage. is one hundred (100) feet, except that lots fronting on aculde-sac shall huve a minimum front footage of six;, t00) feet in all districts. (3) The minimum lot depth is one hundred fifty G50) feet. (4) The maximum lot coverage is forty (40) percent. (5) Off-street parking areas shall comply with all yard r.equirements of this section,excepr that no rear yard parking setback shall bJ required f". l"t" di"""t.;;;;i;;railroad trackage; and' no side yard "ha, be .equi-ia when adjoining commercialuses establish joint off-street parking facilities, as provided in seion *:r*;:;_;that no parking ar-eas sl.rlll b, p..mittod in nry iu.p,i.ua side street side."-nrd. Theminimum rear yard shall be fifty (50) teet for tot" jir""tty abutting anl, residentialdistrict. Side street side yards shall be a minimum of trventy-live (25) fcet in ulldistricts. Other setbacks are as follows: a. For front yards, twenty-hve (25) feet.b. For rear yards, twenty (20) feet-c. For side yards, ten (IO) feet. (1) e) o o { $ 20-793 CI{ANHASSEN CITY CODE (2) Signs. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 15(5-rS-3), t2-1S-86) Sec. 2G794. Conditional uses. Sec. 20-795. Ir,t requirements and setbacks. a. For front yards, thirty-five (BS) feet-b. For rear yards, thirty (80) feet.c. For side yards, fifteen (lE) feet. (6) The maximum height is as follows: f The follorving are conditional uses in the ..OI,, District: (1) Adaptil'e reuse of vacant pubric or private school.buildings for private business uses.(Ord. No. 80, AIt. V, S r5(S-154), 12-15.86) State law reference-Conditional uses, M.S. $ 462.3595. t C The fo,owing minimum requirements sha, be observed in an ,.o. District subject toadditional requirements, exceptions and modifrcations set forth in this chapter: (1) The minimuut lot area is fifLeen thousand (15,000) square feet. (2) The minimum lot frontage is seventy-five (7S) feet, except that lots fronting on acul-de-sac shall have a minimum lot frontage of sixty (60) feet. (3) The minimum lot depth is one hundred iifty (150) feet. (4) The maximum lot coverage is sixty-five (65) percent. (5) Off-street parking areas shall comply with all yard requirements of this section,except that no rear yard parking setback shall be required for lots directly abuttingrailroad trackage; and, no side yard shall be required when adjoining commercialuses establishjoint off-streetparking facilities, as provided in seciion 20-ll2Z, "*"ufithat no parking areas shall be permitted in any required side street side yard. Theminimum rear yard shall be lifty (50) feet for tot" air""tty abutting any residentialdistrict. Side street side yards shall be a minimum of twenty_five (28) feet. Othersetbacks are as follows: a. For the principal structurc, two (2) stories.b. For accessor.y, structures, one (1) story.(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ tS(S-rb.S), 12-15.86) Secs. 2G796-20-810. Rcserved. t226 o {. s 20-814 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE (3) Public buildinss. (4) Motor freight terminals. (5) Outdoor health and recreation clubs. (6) Screened outdoor storage. O) Researchlaboratories. (8) Contracting yards. (9) Lumber yards. (10) Home improvement trades. (11) Hotels and motels. (12) Food processing. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, S 16(5-164), t2-15-86) State law reference_Conditional uses, M.S. $ 462.g595. Sec. 2G815. Lot requirements aud setbacks. (3) (4) (5) (b, The folrorving minimum requirements sha, be observed in an ..Iop,, District subject toadditional requiremenrs, exceptions and _oain"ution" "ui foith in this chapter: (1) (2) C oThe minimum lot area is one ( l) acre. The minimum lot frontage is one hundred fifty (lS0) feet, except that lots ti.onring ona cul-de-sac shall have a minimum frontage of sixty (60) feet. The minimum lot depth is trvo hundr.ed (200) feet. The maximum lot covel.age is sevent-v (20) percent. Off-street parking areas shall comply rvith all yard requirements of this section,excepr thar no rear yard parking setback "h,rll b;.";ri;;ior tots direcrly aburringrailroad rrackage; and. no side yard "hrn b" ;;;ir;; *i"r, ,o:orn,.,, commercialuses establishjoint off-streer parking facilities, as p.o.,rii"Jlr, "u"rror, 20-t122, exceptthat no parking areas shall be^permitted in any required side street side yard. Theminimum rear -vard shall be fifty rSOf f*t f"" iot" a-i"ec-t-ly .ir,rrn* ary_ residential l:trlct. S]de street side yards shall be a minimum "i irr"r,, n* (25) feet in alldistricts. Other setbacks are as tbllorvs: a. For front !.ar.ds, thirt-y (30) fcet.b. For rcar yar.ds, ten r l0) fe,et.c. For side yards, ten ( 1.0) fcer. The maximum height is as follows: a. For the principal structure, four r{) storics/fifty (S0) feet.b. For accessory structures, one (l) story.(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, S 16(5-16.5), 12-15-86)o x -5.OO 5600 -6?00 6800 7000 -7lOO 75C 7.roo RSF R12 7200 RS R4 R R1 R12 @e tJ I z \.1 ,\r R12 -aoo - 4200 -a6oo - troro atoo iI 2 I i iit\i -l D-RU RD L OTUS , LAKE R12 I sr T tM 14,BG 3 lop olElloP \RSF ntc€ y NL SH LAKE R12 RB UD-R RSF -aaoo l SIF rq\eil-iF. -. L iI- 7 ot LAKE SUSAN RD E[83 € ! o oo oo 6oo 5oo oooo Noo oo {oo ('too @oo 4f.."'": < '''' i 33doxvHs lo lll3 J zv =NfxvT f9ta to I 7,v I I t.l I (\€feo/l i f Z3_ lrl I Planning Comm i ssion June l, 1988 - page Meeti ng L7 { Dacy: Irm stiIl conferring with my previous opinion. What you,redeciding on the rezoning issue is if-you're toialry satisfied $rith arl ofthe uses in that district being appliad to that paicel , yes, you nay havea specific- site pran thaE.'s coming in at the su.3 ti..'uut you,ve g-ot tobe aware that that specific site pran, that he deveroper "o'ord calr it ap.'"!olg, the property is sord and'you'courd be rookin! at another use forthat district. you just can't based your approval on the rezoning soteryon that site plan. Batzli: I would like to state that I don't think thereanalysis of what that property could be zoned. ShouldWhat should it be there? We were presented this as ifgarden center. There was no anlysis of r.rhat the use ofsite should be. Emmings: Except hatf the site is already exactlywhole thing so I suppose to the extent tirat the.. was any rea Iit be zoned I Op?itrs going to be athat particular the zoning we gave the you rdant to make the whole ei ther one didn' t have. . . item that vre'redeciding whether itfurther along than we ( Batzli: I know but itrs arbitrary on which waylot. I think we've should just look at that. Enmings: I guess the anslrer to that would be, Dacy: We can certainly do that analysis for the Council. Conrad: Thatrs wourd be appropriate. r think they wourd appreciate that.steve, vourre absorutery righr. This is phi.rosoph| here. ii.,i" i" ir;;t--tower non-specific but nobodyr s persuaded-me thai -we shourd change it. rcan-go either way and the only wiy r can go either way is io "." the realstuff and the rear stuff is not tr6re. rn the absence of a rear thoroughstaff investigation of what's the best and in the absence of the appricantbeing herer I donrt vrant to change the zoning hTilS=: My thinking on that issue, this parricutarmulling over tonight is, you could spend f6ur yearswould better to be BH or IOp and we wouldn't b6 anyare nord. Conrad: Right. Butbe able to make somesit here tonight. the appl icant posi tions but they had a pl.an, we mightapplicant doesn,t h,ant to PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTIONS 2q-6g5, 2g-7L5, 2g-774,2g-795, AND 2O-815 TO PROVIDE FOR MINIMUM BUILDING AUO PANiiUC SETBACKSFOR LOTS ADJACENT TO RAILROADS AND RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, CITY oFCHANHASSEN. if we saw real good and the Public present: Name Address Architect and Land planner for Erank BeddorDa rrel l Fortier ( Planning Commission June 1, 1988 - page Meeting 18 -{t ( Barbara Dacy presented the staff report. DarreLl Fortier: We appreciate first of all., the Cityrs attention to thisdetail. we personalry never found it confusing. w. ii,oottt the ordinancewas. fairly clear and we believe, up until now, that the oidinanceindicated that we rdere abutting'a iairioad tracks, just ai-we aid when webuirt united Mairings and when we built rnstant webb and when we looked atother deveropments here. rf that's causing tne coniusi;n;--;.,d certainlyappreciate that the confusion be clarified so we ,n"v-g"i--6n with ourprans. we berieved, up untir novr, that the originai 6onaitions, about sixyears ago when rre received concept and site dev6l0pment approvar of parkone, was that hre were actuarry going to be arror.red-a zero'Letuacx rorbuilding and parking. we had.n eaith sherter p.opo=ul unJ-trr"." ,r." uconsiderabre debate yi!l the pranning commissioi aid councit. we rearrysince have backed off that proposal ind we developed what ii a plat thatyou see in front of you. we have since then also agreed that a 2g footconservation district for preservation of some of tie trees wourd beappropriate. rrm not sure if anyone has been through the Drive there inPark one but we maintain what we berieve is a very b6autifur area and r.rehave tried our best to preserve as many trees as possible and wervecooperated, we think, with the staff the best we ian. putting through adrive. that rearry brends werl with the environment but in doing "o 16 h".r"relatively narror^, and deep, I shouldn,t say too deep, some of them areonry around 25fr feet for depth. we donrt ouject to- having a 20 footbuirding and parking rot setback from the ra-irroad. thatis what weberreve we have now when we estabrished the 20 foot conservation easement.we would not be opposed to having that clarified and established. That'sa minor difference- r berieve the ordinance right now is saying, or whatyourre proposing is suggesting 25 for building ind parking. we wourd justas soon keep it consistent with the conservation diitrict-and make it i0feet. If you're willing to geE g and Lq feet right .,or, .nJ that has tobe clarified. we are a rittie bit confused arso about ihe ranguage in thepresent ordinance the way it,s wri.tten and perhaps r courd ask Barbara tointerpret this for me.- ff that's acceptabla to yor.r. Barbara, in ourfirst sentence here under the proposed ordinance'on pug;-31-lt reads offstreet parking areas sharl comply with arr the requiiefr"ni", .t... whereyou add. the new language you say, abutting railroa-d tracXage anacommercial or industriar distriits. we,re wondering why i6" ,o.a and isin there and the word or. This seems to us that we r,rourd have to abut arailroad trackage and a commercial or industriar. w" "o"rJ rather see itsimpry saying if you're abutting a rairroad trackage or commerciar orrndustrial. Dacy: track there uses. For a rear setback. Letrs say you weren't abutting a railroadand you had a rear yard situation with another induitriar use.should be that rear yard setback between two abutting industriarThere should be some separation. Then Darrell Fortier: I guess Irm still confused. Pacy: Okay, as written the ordinance said if you abutted the l::"5 Voy. could 9o down to zero, right? rf you didn't have aErack, otherrdise the ordinance said... railroad ra i l road -1_ Planning Commission June I, 1988 - page Meeting I9 rL t Darrell Fortier: 50 feet to a residential. Dacy: No, IeE's skip residential. Ifhad a lot here and commercial Iot here.rear lot line, you'd still have to meetfeet, right? Dacy: Right. The Commission needs hrant to put on the railroad tracks?land between a residential zone anda railroad tracks justify the zerolrhat you need to decide and that's you didn't have residential and youOr industrial and this was youiyour rear setback which is 10 Darrell Eortier: That I s correct. Dacys so rrhat we vrere_trying to say is that those parts of the city whereyou did, and this wourd be a reason for putting it in, where you did forexample ret's take rnstant webb, you abui a rairroad irack ani yourve gotindustrial zoning right next door-arso. we wanted to make sure that y6s,you courd park right up to the railroad tracks. rn this case, if thi3area rdas single family or residential, then that would trigger... Darrell Fortier: The difficulty we find when we rook at the land abuttinga railroad track and. commerciar, for one property line to abut to this,there are t$ro uses, it would be difficult on one side. How does thediagram yourve drahrn, if that was a raiiroad track bethreen theindustriats, wourdn't you say the industriaL abuts the railroad. Not therairroad and industriar. we wourd say it abuts one but it doesn,t abutboth- rt abuts the rairroad tracks aid beyond. we certainry agree withabutting both. Abutting trackage and someihing. when you onry have oneproperty and that one property side going theri, it bec6mes coifusing tous. rf there r.ra s someway to clarify thai we wourd certainry appreciiteit. The same is true when. we get d6wn to the other paragraph thatrs beingadded where it says, abutting iny residential distri.t .ia iailroadtrackage. The way we rook at it, it was stated that residentiar courd beon the north and the rairroad could be on the east but they wourd not bothbe on the north side. Am I making my point reasonabiy "i"1.: That,swhere the confusion is coming int5 ui.' Dacy: our concern is that. the zoning rine runs right along the railroadtracks. Ellson: Between? to -decide whaE type of status do youIf that just happens to be the commonindustrial use, does the existence ofsetback back to the tracks? ThaE'sfine if you do. to close the publ icThe publ i c hearing hearing. AtI voted in was closed. Conrad: Barb, I eri th this. when board. .. need you to diagram this forI think I get it straight, I really strugglingto raise thatneed I rm you Erhart moved, ElIson secondedfavor and the motion carried. Planning Commission June I, 1988 - page Meeting 2g { Dacy: Letrs say here,s the railroadindustrial lot here, industriat herezoning Iine for the residential runsrailroad. The question is, in thisyou abut railroad tracks.. . tracks, we're going to have anand this lot is residential. Thealong the property line and along thecase, the proposed ordinance says if Conrad: Would you do me a favor? what the current ordinance says. Dacy: okay, the current ordinance says, if you abut the railroad tracksyou can park right up to the railroad tracks - Wi ldermuth: Railroad easement. Dacy: Correct. Conrad: Does it matterthe tracks? what the other district is on the other side of Dacy: Letrs just ignore that. This is case 1. Case 1, you can park upto the railroad tracks and the buirding setback is 10 feei. tn tiris ca'se,staff's concern is that because the zoiing district rine exists right hereand because the ordinance as written it siys when you have an industrialcommerciar district abutting a residential-districi, you shourd have aminimum rear yard of 50 feet. That's one sentence bul then therersanother sentence in there that says, but if you abut rairroad tracks youcan park right up next to the railroad tracki. so werre trying, wtren'youhave this situation, you're trying to say, what should we o6 in thissituation? should we stilr alrow them t6 park up to the rairroad tracks?Do we recognize the railroad itserf as a separation and buffer or do $rereduce this or shourd we keep it the same? Mr. Fortier was saying,r didnrt think there was a probrem in the first place. so if thecornmission r^rants to direct st.aff that that's the vray we should beinterpretting that section, that makes our lives a iot easier, thatrs surebut our Attorney said, it's kind of ambiguous and you ".n 9.t into asituation that could be challenged. L \ Conrad: Okay, Ier's talk about what the railroad tracksbuffering standpoint. Is it typically elevated?does do from a Dacy: Yes. Conrad: So by itself, other than comes through, do you believe itfrom residential? Dacy: Yes. Erhart: Wha E I s Dacy: I think that three times a day a trainbuffer separating i ndustr ial the is a fact good a typical railroad easement? on this drawing it's sho$ring as L30 feet. L3S?Conrad: What's ( Planning Commi ss i on June I, 1988 - page Meeting )1 you evaluate thi sas well? What hre Ho$, would the conserva t i on Was that negotiated? Dacy: The railroad right-of-way. It's Erhart: So itrs more than the number ofwhatrs our Attorney talking about? at least I00. feel we require anyway. So going Dacy: Some precedent maybe later on. Ellson: It just seems like you could say it easier. Dacy: Thatrs what in the report rde were saying. rn the l.cations in thecity that has rairroad going- in the commerciar and industrial areas. Forexample, in the industriar, are the rairroad is erevated and there issignificant grade change as werr as the 2a foot conservation easetnent.That.lessens as proceed west into the dorrntown areas. rn that case yourretalking about a distance factor. prus, there stirr is ine-ieguirement ofscreening between commerciar and industriar and non-.orn*"i.iat anaindustrial areas. {\ in light of perhaps Iight railwould do down in that area? Dacy: With the light rail use as opposed to a railroadparticular track is used on a fairly consistent basis.of light rail, they are supposedly iess noisy. Batzli: But more often. use, Er om Dacy: potentially, it could be. It depends Batzli: As far as where the districts comerail srould go, yourre on a different tine... BatzIi: Did through here Wi ldermuth : Property? on how many together and this trha t I know trips it makes. where the l ight Dacy: That Iine would be the railroad lineand then along the TH 212 area so thatrs thefor light raiI. that goes south of Lake Rileyline that would be proposed Batzli: Right, but did you look at if it wourd impact that area at arr? Dacy: In this area we stillIt is so far up and there isit's going to be low impact.this area would have to be, appl ication, we're going toback. have the same slope and elevation conditions.a ravine at the base of these properties thatAs a matter of fact, anything Uuitding inand remember from the conCractor's yardhave to go more towards. . .because iL slopes easement come into...on the Beddor t 1986 prior to thisby the Council $rith thealong the rear of the Dacy: They went through the platting process inordinance being adopted and that was-eitablishedcondrtion to number I, preserve a screening areaIots so it was a condition of plat approval. Planning Commission June I, 1988 - Page Mee t. i ng 22 It almost seems like a good idea in any case. A conservation me. Ird like to see all the termsI Iike the crux of it. I guess I keep wi th {\ t'li ldermuth 3district. . - Headla: RaiLroad trackage bothers changed to railroad r ight-of-way.thinking...railroads in it. Dacy: rf a railroad doesn't exist and you have an industrial lot or aconmercial lot directly abuEting a residentiar lot, then the 50 footsetbacks stirL apply. we're only concentrating on those appricationsrailroad tracks. Headla: I mean ...and railroad tracks along here. Dacy: The 50 foot setback, you mean the residential setback? DarrelI Eortier: ThaErs correct. I think becausethis roadrs not as wide as a railroad track... Ellson: There's stirr lo0 and some feet inbetween them. rf you took outthe tracks, there... r vronder if they might have probrem with the currentone. Discussion said for rots directry abutting any residentiar. r wouldthink that if therers a railroad track thatrs not a-direct abut, orwhatever the term would be, therefore yourre covered. Maybe you want toput in parenthesis, railroad means not abutting or something rite that butI think that's spells it out absolutely perfect. Dacy: r think there should be some crarification if thatrs the way thecommission wants to do it, maybe just adding a paranthetical statementsaying this does not include lots that abut railroad trackage. El-lson: something like that. r think this makes more sense. Maybe rikeyou said, you I ve have probJ-ems where there I s. . . Darrell Fortier: r realize the pubric hearing is closed and r appreciatethe chance to speak again. I did forget one other thing that wasimportant. lihen we did the platting of park One, t e gave up an additional10 feet of right-of-way for the convenience of designing the crossing atDelr Road and l{est 78th without knowing what the alignment is going io be.we simpry did it for convenience of the engineering ttaff and ioad-design.At the same time it was understood that we were giving enough but wedidn't wanE to be giving up more even more of the tand so at that time itwas agreed that the plan rroul.d either be reverting back to park one oreven simplier yet, would be a reraxation of the setback requirements onLot 7. Right now we hear there is a 15 foot proposal for t-he side yard onLot 7. This is the property with one rot that addresses the Eden piairie !id9. We'd just like to refresh the City,s memory on that. perhapsBarbara if you go through the records or-talk to tne Engineering alain, itwas simpJ.y a convenience to expand the righE-of-way dis[.rict beiauie aithe time, Eden prai.rie was not interested in constiucting the road.I think the same thing is true of the 60 foot right-of_wJy that wasextended all the way down the east side. there ' s only a road, -( {. Planning Commission June 1, 1988 - page Meeting 23 r Dacy: Thatrs another goodrailroad tracks separat i ngthe street r i ght-of-way. Ellson: I think we justthings that do not maketrackage, easements anddirect abutting. have to define directly abutting. them direct. These things includeroads and lhings that prevent them should add, instead of aindustrial,, why donrt we have There are ra i Iroad from being point. Maybea residential we and Dacy: As a matter of fact, the previous ordinance,an exclusion for areas that erere separated by streetidea...statement disclaiming railrof,d right-6f_waysways so that would be a good idea. the 1972 ordinance hadright-of-ways so the and street right-of- Conrad: Wo we need to make a decision recommendation of 25 versus the 50? on the 25 feet? The staff Dacy: To be honest, that number basicarry came from knowredge that theconservation easement existed out there already. If what r'm hearing fromthe commission, if.you don't want to establish- a specific setback an6 iustsay rrhat the district- regulates now is appropriate when you havesituations where the lot abuts railroad Liackage, thatts fine. rt wourdbe I'ess confusing as far as staff was concerned. rnstead of thro.Jring outanother number.{ Conrad: Would anybody like tooriginally drafted here? Doesthe ordinance or should we letfeelings? pursue ttj.e 2q or 25 foot setback asanybody vrant to document that setbackit be loose as has been in the past? 1n No Headla: Have we had problems in the past? Dacy: To be honest, because we,re anticipating applications inspecific areas, we really haven,t deal witn tnis iisue but it,swe'd like to get it resolved. There are a couple of applicantsthrough the process. Headla: whatrs that you mentioned when you have industrial, a road right_of-$ray and then homes on the other side? what's that dimension? rs t6;athe 50 foot setback if you're abutting a street right-of-wayz rndustrialrriEh homes on the other side of the sireet? Dacy: Thatrs part of the issue that werre rooking at. we have no setbackas yourve described that situation now. what the ordinance is saying ii---the rear yard directry abuts a residential area, then r"re need anoihei 50feet. the se coming and going Batzli: se tbacks So if there was a road youare as follows Ianguage?t Dacy: Right. would be looking at, the other Planning Commi ss ion June I, 1988 - page Meeting 24 HeadIa: aIl? Dacy: No. Dacy: Werre saying that lre rrould still enforce thedispite the existence of the railroad tracks. wirdermuth: r think uniformity as far as the rast sentence, side streetside yard shall be a minimum of 25 feet in all districts. Dacy: Thatrs referring to corner rot situations. where you have twostreets abutting a rot, that is defined as a corner lot and the sidestreet yard is that yard thatrs not the front yard but the other side ofthe lot that abuts the other street. Emmings: You brought up one other thing here andclarification. you talked about the scieening...have two industrial uses abutting one another andthere. If therets a railroad track. . . is there any Did the Parkrs people, the park and Recreation look at this at I just want some Now obviously if you you t ve got a street screening requ i rement? sc reen i ng requlrement Emmings: Okay, so if there was trees on part of mine, that screeningisn.rt going to take land so in effect, even though it says there is io { setback requirement because you have a screening- requirement, you will end\ up wrth a setback from the railroad right-of-way anyway. rs that right? Dacy: yes. Wildermuth: Is the screening requirement the conservation easement...? Dacy :Yes. And thatrs the basis for the staff recommendation of 25 feetConrad: setback. Dacy: It was some type of a distance... Conrad: We need that, whether it be 2g ox 25, isthat do for us r"rith it? How does that help? Dacy: You could divide extra feet of area to $rorkyou, therers not much difference. that in step? What does with. To be honest with Emmings: whenwind up being? you get to the screenj ng requi rements, how did that one Dacy: It basically went on some totaI... Emmings: So you guysreasonable to prov ide into account what was screen j. ng ? too k some Dacy: Right. there and did something -{ Planning Commission June 1, 1988 - page Meeting 25 r Dacy: Are you saying that requ i red? conrad: we r",ourd like to possibly, as you suggested, we donrt know that $reneed 25 feet. r don't know that r n"u3 zg. r."t. ri we've -got a screeningrequirement that solves the problem, r might just feel comt;rtaore wi ttrthe screening requirement versus a distan"e. Hnmings: Because you already have the distance. Conrad: Right, the distance is already Ehere. The only thing is,rairroad tracks are typical-ry flat and thaErs not a screen. ThatrsTherefore, r r^rourd rook at that to see if thaE's ".r"i"g-;iv of theproblems that the distance. is attempting to solve. Barb, would youus to table this item and have you lake-a Iook at it? you want to look at that also to see if that's with f 1at. like to get rid of rhis? Dacy:No. You'd IikeConrad: Conrad: Weire notAt least I'm not. Dacy! Yes. In order to constructor vegetation, yourre going to needarea so that planting materials canThatrs what the landscape ordinancethink we really need to clarify thelssue. I hate to have it linger onthink itts okay. 6 foot screen, either between berminqaE IeasE, at least I0 feet. of Iandbe maintained at least at minimum.and $re recognize other issues. Iparking and building setbacks on thisand on unLess you guys really don't a seeing the need for a setback at this point in time. {\ Emmings: That seems to be the better way to go because first of all,railroad. right-of-ways seem to provide pLenty of distance. Whatis oneother thing yourre looking for? The otirer thing is screening. we,ve gotthe screening requirement that we should be sur! applies to thesesituations and then ar,roe, staff to be abre to be ftexible r.rith thedeveloper. Maybe there'is a hirr but maybe it's onry ii-r."t but maybethatrs enough then. That spot wirr screen it from the other use and wedonrt need to be always striight trara lines. conrad: Does the screen, we keep rashing here from one thing to the next,does our screeninq ordinance, dols the screening requirement ordinance,will it take care of, should ," ,"ui", it to """ how it applies in thisparticular case by a railroad track? Dacy: Thatrs the best. r can give you in help one way or the other. Thescreening requirement is you have io have a 6 foot oiaq,re screen betweenan industri.ar or commercilr and residentiar. yoo ;..'so=t- tJ-n.u" uconsistent screening. Eunings: werre tarking about bet$reen a commerciar or industriar use andthe rairroad right-of-way that has the sarne residential on the other side? Planning Commission June l, 1988 - page Meeting 26 ( Darrell Fortiert I'lo :"Iry. Ty- eyes arenr t quite.well enough to recognizeAnnette's last name but r think ihe reatty h-as hit the ;;ii- rigrrt on-[iie-head. The confusion is whether or not th6 property auuts the railroad or!'rhether it abuts residential. If we r^rere to say that there will besome... which says abutting a rairroad is not to be considered as abuttingresidential even if residential vrere across the railroad tracks. r thinkwe've.got to crarify-that. The presence of screening r"qui."ments cancertainly be reviewed-with sight Iines, etc. when th; building pLan isreviewed and we already-have icreening requirement"...ir,"I-gives you atLesat, even if the residential rrrere biiLt across the railroid tracks, thatgives you at least 130 feet or r50 feet of distance. rt is far moregenerous than the majority of residentiar developments wouid have thatabut highway or somet.hing. The issue of getting ria of itre-conrusion thatthe- Attorneyrs brought up, are we abutting resiientiar or are we abuttingrailroad seens to be the most germain issue. rf we could get rid of thatissue tonight, r think our whoie lives would be made a lot-easier. Conrad: Annette, how did you think you could sove that problem? Ellson: .Something like either a parenthetical phrase that isdistinguishing a road and a railr6ad as separat-ing that. Conrad: And you would put that where? Ellson: The ordinance as it is, I like. I vrould just go that one linethat says areas sharr be 50 feet unress directly abutting any residentiarand then say somet.hing to the effect of a railroad track or road, whatever we might else think of. A horse path. who knows what erse we mighthave around here, are considered separiting and abutting, what.ever. Ican't rewrite it but Irm basicalry saying ihat we want io say that thosethings are separating that and thlref6re you're not abutt j.n9 thatresidential- rn other words, we're trying to tet them knorv that the 5gfeet isn't requi,red if there's a railr6ad tracks. rf someone terrs mewhat is going to constitute not abutting a residential. {\ Batzli: In other words, what you're trying toUnderline d i r ectly. ELlson: That's exactly howdirectly. say is direcE means direct. I had it in my noEes. JusE underline Emmings: ElIson:gives you ra i 1 road Conrad : th ing? Taking Eo the You canrt indirectly abut something. or define the exceptions of r^rhat we mean by not directry. whi cha parenthetical phrase, does not directly r.rould be wheie atrackrs involved, a roadrs involved, whatever. okay Barbara I how do you want to work thi.s to get us out of this Annette's suggest j.on, I last sentence. Dacy: sec o nd would add the following afEer the r ( Planning Commission June 1, 1988 - page Meeting 27 knolv hrhat yourre looking at. first ordinance. Emmings: I don't Dacy: took at the Conrad. L2l6? Dacy: yes. And number 6rear yard shall be 50 feetdistrict. (This does noror street right-of-ways. ) ElIson: you didn't mention residential. there, second to the last sentence, the minimum .for lots directly abutting any residentialinclude lots which abut railroid .ight_of_rays Batzri: r don'!t think that crarifies it werl enough. you,re tarkingabout the...r4rith that directry adjacent to the raitroad tracks. with whatyou just said, you could have a r6siaent;..1 ;; l;;-;i;;;;;, railroadtracks on the back yard and yet you,ve just fit yo". J.finilion... Conrad: Do you have an alternative plan? Batzli: No, I e/as trying. to put together some language. I was justtrying to say something iuout, wtrat-weiie not tarking about is rrrhentherers a rairroad or. road immediatery between the tio proferties. r wastrying to come up with language that iaid that. wildermuth: Let me try something. off street parking areas shallwith.aLl yard requirements of this section except that no rear yardparking setback shall be requj.red for iots directly abutting railrotracks rishts-of-wav and corimerciar or-i;;r;;;iJi-lr=..i"l!l No si ;::iirii"::quired ualoinins "o*.i"i.i rlses for orr streei-larxine compl y ad de yard be doing here is crossing out tr,ro words, vrhat you t re. . . Wi Idermuth: lto parkingyards. That's what you areas shall be pernitted in any required sidesrant to say. don't want to change anything as $rriEten as far as Dacy: As wri tten? you that's concerned? Wi ldermuth : Wel L r wha t r^re wouldexcept that, and taking. .. Dacy: I guess I donrt undersEand Wildermuth: you want. . . Dacy: No, that's existing nou, and I donrt $/ant to mess with that. rtrssaying that if you directiy abut another commerciar or industriar use youcan establish adjoining off street parking facirities ""a in" side yardsetback wouldn't be imposed. you c6uld hive a ;h;;J p..Xiig rot:1tuatio.n. I guess Brian, I stiII don,E understand where you,re comingtrom vri th your comments. Planning Commission June I, 1988 - page Meeting 28 ( Dacy: The minimum rea rresidential district (aThis would not apply to yard shall be 50 feet for lots directlyrailroad right-of-way or street right_6Iots abutting the railroad right_oi_way Batzli: If you were have agreed with you. talking about the rear yardyou just said it abutted. abutting that, I vrould abutting f-way). or street. line yoursel f trying to limit yourgoing down your sideyard,yard setback under $rha t B3t3li: If your rear yard, you,re talking about your rear yardabutting that, then mayue trrit wirr ;;;k. you'ri noE limitingto that. Uake that on the side yard. Dacy: So you want to eliminate the word rear? Batzli: No. It's gotexception to the rule. you I re abutting that,you just said. to be parenthetical. IrmIf yourve got a railroadthen you dontt need a rear P3.yr I see $rhat youtre saying. So then you're saying in the parenthesisthen, qualify that by saying, ihis does not apply for lots having rearyards abutting railroad rights-of_way or streei iigtrts_of_way. Emmings: If this helps, isn't wha. werre trying to do, would it hetp toget asray frorn where weJre talking about rear-yaid, side yard, front |ard,$rhatever and we're talking about whatever boundary abuts either therailroad right-of-way or Lhe street right? so why don't we just say thatwhen a property line abuts a railroad iight_of_rulr or screet- rigfrt_-ot_waythere wirl be no setback requirement but it wilr Le subject to screeningtrequirements. Dacy: I think if we did eliminatestill saying that if you,ve got acommercial or industrial district,of yard. Rear, side or front. Batzli: Okay, so just take out the word rear. if the Iotsaying tha t Batzli: yes, I will agree to that. the hrord rear in that sentence, we,reresidential d istricE abutting ayou need 5g feet. No matter what type for lots directly abuttingfor lots abutting railroad Dacy: Right, and then saystreet right-of-way, wer re abuts a railroad right-of-way oryou don't have to have the 50 feet. Emmings: Read the way for them. Dacy: The minimum yard shall be 50 feetresidential district (this does nor applyright-of-way or street righE-of-way) . Emmings: But you only vranE to exclude it onyourre not doing that yet in your language. Dacy: Okay, help me. any the side where it abuts and Planning Commission June I, 1988 - page Meet i ng 29 r Emmings: I did. I read $rhat I would say. Where the property line abutsa railroad right-of-way or street right-of_way. Emmings: r dontt understand it but if everybody else does, r,tr vote forit- where the property rine abuts the rairioad'rignt-or-wiy or ttrestreet, the setbacks for that yard sharr not apply but it ,ilr. be subjectto screening requirements. That's the idea. i-aon,t definitely knord howto say it. I think that's vrhat we're trying to get at. Batzli: (Except the side streetGetting rid of that one. side yard.) That,s legit though. Dacy: There's got to be some way that wesentence and add an exclusion.can use that an existing Emmings: Why does it have Eo be? Dacy: It just seems to be a lot easier. Ellson: It I s Conrad: Itrs gorng Dacy: If you can agreeapplicable when the lot lray. the logical way. to be hard for us to S EEMS { draf t this. vrith the inteot of saying thatabuts railroad right-of-way or 5g fee tstreet ls not r ight-of- Emmings: It's the line. i tsel f isn't it?Itrs the particular 1ine. Itrs not t.he lot Ellson: se tbac k setback You're doesn I t doesn I t saying i have to have to f the railroad is in the rear than the rearbe that. If the roadrs on the side than thebe that. Thatrs what he's worried about.side Emmings: Right and yourre have to do it on the side.abuts only. Emmings: you have to have 50 feet on that yard. Dacy: Okay. r ight-of-way, if it abuts it on the rear it doesnrtworried about the particular side that yard area directly abuts a residentiaL lot abuts a railroad aPPry. ) trackage or street sayr ng Werre Dacy: Correct. Erhart: you I re not and do that. Dacy: What wer redistrict you have saying is,to have 50 putting that in your language. you need to go back if the feet. (If a portion ofthi.s secEion does Erhart: Only for that portion. the not Planning Commission June l, 1988 - Page Meeting 33 Ell"son seconded to adjourn the meetj.ng. AI1 voted in favorcarried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:59 p.m.. -( conrad: what we'd like to do then, if we send rhis up to councir fortheir discussion and their direction to staff. Erhart: Are we aII saying generalty favorable direcEion on this? Conrad: Irve got some small nit picky things. Erhart: You're using just the Minutes to support that? Conrad: I think in our motion we can... Erhart: Yourre Iooking for a motion? Conrad: Yes . Erhart: Okay. conrad: And send this to city councir to provide staff with the directionand I think under that motion we can conment thaE the planning Commissionendorses this particular paper. Is there a motion? Emmings moved, Wildermuth seconded to send Tim ErharE's memorandumdated May 27, L988 onto the City Council for them to direct staff and thePlanning Commission with regard to itts content and further action on it,noting that the planning Commission finds this to be logically explainedand an arI around good idea. Arr voted in favor and the motion carried. { Emmings and the mov ed , mo tion Submitted by Barbara Dacy City Pl anner Prepared by Nann Opheim \- CHATIHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETlNG JUNE 15, 1988 MEI4BERS PRESENT: Steven Enunings, Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad, JamesWildermuth and Brian Bat zI i MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Erhart and David Headla srAFF PRESENT: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. city planner and Jim chaffee, public Safety Di rector PUBLIC HEARING: CONCEPT PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF 11 ACRES INTO 9 LOTS AND A DOUBLE LOT ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD-R, PLANNED UNIT RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED ON HWY. 41, CHES MAR FARMS, BRADLEY Public Present: SINGTE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT- JOHNSON. Bradley Johnson Harold Nasset Chuck and cinger GrossTerry Jones Appl i cant Appl icant 2'7 g3 Ches Southridge Mar Farm Road Development Inc. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on Chairrnan Emmings ca1led the public hearing thi s i tem. to order. Brad Johnson: I do represent Gary Kj.rt who is the owner of th j.s propertyin this particurar case. Therets arways a reason behind somebody comi ng-in and asking for something thatrs not supposed to be done. fn tnj.sparticurar case the reason is that the property has continuously for thelast 30 years decreased in value. primariiy due to the decay oi tnestructures that exist there. we've had a number of fires and basicalrychanged the uses over the years. Or j.ginally, th j.s is r.rhat the farmoriginalry looked l-ike. This is what the firm was originarry rike in thelate 40's. I don't know jf anybody has been out there lately but what hashappened over the last few years, about 20 years since it was originallyolrned by charles and Mary Johnson as a working horse farm. over the yeirsas working horse farms became uneconomical, a fellow by the name ofNaegele purchased it as a l-and speculation and tried to develop it intosome form of property. 1 tl-rink he ran into the sewer probrems and lateron sold parts of the property off to the county as a part of carver countyPark. The next person who owned it went bankrupt. Not just because ofthis but a couple of other dealings that he had and Mr. Kirt purchased itout of a forecrosure hrith the intent that he could bring it back to life.Itrs a very beautiful piece of property. It probably has a Iot ofhistor j.c significance to those people who live on Lake Minnewashta. Iknow the crosst who are here can attest to the fact that years ago it usedto be an active part of the Chanhassen community. The problem that'shappening is Mr. Kirt acquired it and r thi.nk he was going to live t.here Chairman Emmings called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. Planning June 15, Commission Meeting 1988 - Page 2 and he moved a home on there which he had planned on doing and for variouseconomic reasons decided that it was not, at that time, a good idea toremodel that partj.cular home. When you have a duplex and a 6 unit in arural community, a rural area with non-owner occupants living in the unit,it tends to degenerate into a slum. Mr. Kirt asked me to visit thatparticular piece of property about 6 months ago because hetd had it on themarket for approximately 2 years. As Jo Ann sai.d, they've been able tosel1 off two of the buildings. One's a duplex which Jerry Eickenspot hasfixed up a littLe bit and then the front gate house was sold off andthaE's been fixed up quite a bit but hets been unable to seII the tv,,ounits. He said when he bought the Kirt place he literally drove a truckup to it, filled a truck futl of garbage and hauled it away. Interestinglyenough, unless he's had family members living in the units, which he haihad off and on, other than one unit periodically, they have to drive atruck up to the door and clean it out. this is not uncommon in this typeof property where you real),y have buildings that are not really designedto be rental units, whi.ch is the case here. It is not a real attractiveplace for people to live in the long term. The type of tennant that theyattract seem not to take care of the property so thaE's the economicproblem. Valuation from a tax purposes has steadj ly declined over thelast few years also for tllat reason. He came jn and requested this as a PUD, I think as your staff report indicates, that this was at that t imeand has historicallyr you'11 notice that it has at tj.mes a much hjgherdensity than j.t currently has even. It.,s just there and the concern that \^re have had is that it js getting tagged, Mr. Chaff3e is here from thePublic Safety Department and this is whether jtts Mr, Kirt r.rho owns it oranybody that owns j.t, jt wjll probably always be the eccnomic problem asIong as therers six units there. Our solution was to shift the valuationor the debt that happens to be on the property from tire 6 unit buildjng tothe land. To that end we purchased, or have optj.on, an addiiional 2lacres because we felt rhat one Lhjng we could noi do j.s come in here andask for an increase in density in that particular area. So currentlythere is 1.2 acres per unit and our proposal i.s 3.1acres per uoit byadding the outlot. The configuration Lhat we,re proposing is therebecause we felt that thjs particular piece of land should remaj n lookinga little bit like it does at the present ti.me, which you see is the fentesand things like that. By creati ng a large outrot and clustering the homesaround what is nor^r the existing drive, we felt we could maintain thecredibility of the existing community. This is a pUD. It is a rural pUD.If you look in your ordinances, there's nothing that allows pUDrs not doyou allow 6 unit buildings out in those areas. Nor do you allow duplexesout in that particular market. They just happen to be there and whatwerre trying to accomplj sh is dealjng $rith them. cary dealt with it in away. He was in fact able to sell off two of the buildings to ownersoccupants. Our concern now is how do we make this particular property vj.abl-e as a real estate place to Iive without just burning j.t dolrn, titingit off the tax rol1s and forgetting about it. We felt that one of thereasons people may not want to develop it is because iE is outside the MUSA line so we've been in contact with the Metropoli tan council folks andthey have no problem, at least verbally, with the plan that we havepresented here. In other words, either the City, through the CityCouncil, has an agreement that they will not increase the density. Theyfelt that. this project j.s not increasing the density out j.n that area Planning June 15, Comrnission Meeting 1988 - Page 3 therefore, from an agreement point with the City. There wontt besewer and water there but at least werre not violating anything so woul-d be no oppositi.on on their part, at least verbally, with thisparticular plan. That was our first step. the there Emmings: Could I ask did you talk to the Met Council yourself? Brad Johnson: Harold You r did. Harold Nasset: I spoke with Matt paul of Met Council. a telephone conversat ion?Emmings: Was this Harold Nasset: Counc i 1 . It was a meeting that Barb Dacy and I had over at Met Emmings: And they salv this drawing? Harold Nasset: They saw this concept and the idea was that we were goingno more units. That we were trading rental units for single family ind - they were reading it as... So there's 11 units if you count on therepresently. If you count the number on the single f arnilies that wereconverted to duplex, or the 6 unit j.nto a duplex, it,s the same amount. Enmings: Okay, and they saw this land. That part of the Land thatrsbeing counted in is this tong skinny trail going down to the lake? Harold Nasset: Yes. Brad Johnson: They actually saw even a more common area type of thing.The idea of the common area, by the way, again was to r-naintain it from rtt41, the look that that property currently has. Using the pUD technique insome communities, you go to more clustered urban type housing where youcluster things. Here around the knoll or around the beauty area or yougive them a view point and you try to maintain the other property as itis. The other problems that we have in dealing with this particular pieceof property, other than the fact that iEts outside the MUSA line at thepresent time, it's just that it,s there already. The road system has beenthere for a number of years, probably 4g or 5g years, so you have to tryto work whatever plan that you put together around what exists. Theorange indicates the three properties that are currently owned by peopleother than Mr. Kirt. The crossr, Chuck and Ginger cross are here tonightand we've been working with them for a while. Each of these parties has acertain interest in the project because they live there. I lrould say itr^rould be safe to say that, and Ginger you or Chuck could speak to this,that they would like to see something done. How many years have you beenworrying about thi s? Chuck cross: Werve lived there close to t5 and werve seen adeterioration. ...is.stil1 there and yes, r.re are interested in seeingsomething done about it. we would rike to see an upgrading. Better gradeof people living there as neighbors. l,Ie have a vested interest with ourmanor home there that werre living in. Planning June 15, Commission Meeting f988 - Page 4 Brad Johnson: We get tags and it's not as if, in this kind of property isas close, I use to deal just in properties in 30th and Hennepin and 30thand Lake and that area. Itis as close to that kind of propeity or isgetting to it fron a tennancy point of view as you can possibly get.Another party owns thi.s property and another party ohrns this property outin the back. They aII have concerns and I think I've listed them in ourpresentation and I'11 touch on them but in the design of the project $rehave to deal with their rights. Currentty there is a 25 foot easementthat goes with the project. In other words it goes with the back property from this TH 41 to this point. whoever established this whole thingoriginally made sure that Ehere was only a 25 foot easement, good oi bad.The balance of the property is owned by the Grossr. The road itself j.s on both parties property. Now we could put a road to the right of thatand infringe on these folk's homes but that's not the proper way to do itso werre working through them. one of the requirements that bolh theseparties have relative to a road system coming in there, at least untilpublic utilities are there, is that that road remain private. They areconcerned about taxes. Theyrre concerned about traffic and anyconnotation that would have to do with a public road entering into theproperty. Traffic, things like that. Much like what has been establishedlike at the Hesse Farm which is a well esEabli.shed subdivision in thi.sparticular community. From there on in we are okay with most anythingthat courd happen. what we did say though as an alternate and for puuticsafety reasons or whatever, we needed a pubric road and these two pirtieswould not agree. Then we have provided an outlot around the back of trreproperty through the acquisition of the property to the south. We alsohave set this outlot up in case, in some future time, maybe 12 years away,that they actualry want to run sehrer and water in and then that city thencould do that. This would just be deeded over to the city or accessed tothem so they could do that. From this point on we would like to lay theroad system out a littre bit different than it is but therers an easementthat runs from here to here to service this particurar party. Her feeringis that she does not want to allow any change in the easeme-nt on thisroad. That it must remain as iE is and rather than argue that point outwe therefore run the road in along the northerLy portion of the propertyand spun it around here. I,ie had a couple of other ones that wrapped itouL and probably very smalr as a cul-de-sac or an effecti.ve way of dealingwith it. Thus the plan. I don,t think there would be too much problemI^Iithin the plan to meet a L acre standard for most of the lots except forthe duplex lots. The duplex lots, theyrre kind of, there again, we justcan't do much about it. Again our contention is that the outlot con-ept Brad Johnson: Yourre faced with, let's say there home is worth at least $lqU,Agg.00 but letrs say there home is worth 9266t6A6.Sg to g4AA,qTg.gg, which is the pinnacle as you come in. you have a small gatehouse thatfits in the sides. They have this huge monsterous building in the backwhich adds value to their home until you get near it. I was just readingChaffee's report, you can smell it as you get closer. Thatrs the problemwerre facing with in that property. what would you say about the state ofrepair Jim? Jim Chaffee: It needs a little work. PI ann i ng June 15, Commission Meeting 1988 - Page 5 with trying to maintain some.type of identity within the farm is the wayto do it. we arso have set it up, whether iE,s a useable beachLot or n6t,at least it's perceived to be that way. concerns that peopre have raisedare _things rike.septic. r believe you have in generar, in the rurar area,2.1/2 acre requirement primariry foi septic purloses. rn checking around,there are other methods of handling septic on the tot. Actually fhe troadjoining properties are exampres of that. camp Tanadoona and -oogwood both have what's called the mound system, which is a community selticsystem and they've been in operati on for t0 or 15 years and a-cording toour engineers who have been out there, theyrre working very fine. a6th otwhich are on the lake. There are probably engineering way!, Iet's say, ofgetting around the lot size and the septic syitem prouteni. Therers Leena concern about is there vrater out there or not. Again, thatrs anengineering probrem. we've been sort of assured by our engineers thatwater has serviced through private wells, a few homes out ihere in thepast and there shourd be prenty of $rater for a number of years more out inthat particular area. The 1ot sizes, as I said, I think we couldconfigure it to make it l acre. we courd actuall-y increase some of themto 2 L/2 acres but we think from strictly planning and aesthetic point ofview, we'd be.distroying a lot of t.he things that the current propertyhas. As r said, we designed it so that the density is 3.1 acris ler i:nit.As I understand we,re coming in under an adjustment in a pUD and thepurpose for a PUD is exactly this. How do you dear with something thatshouldn't be there probabry in Ehe first prace and/or hor., do you 6ear withsomething where yourre trying to preserve the beauty of the site withoutexceeding the density? we felt that if we stayed under 2 l,/2 acres perlot, in other words more, that we,d at Ieast be showing you an effort ofnot trying Lo increase a high densi.ty and therefore we went with the costof purchasing the balance of the property. The private versus publicroad, as I said, Hesse Farm has a private road systern. There werredealing with, and maybe Ginger or Chuck can speak to that private roadsystem concept. what is your concern? r know what they are but you mightpoint them out. Enmings: Vlhy don't you make your presentation and then IrIl- ask forcomments from the ot.her people. Brad Johnson: setbacks, I think most of the other kinds of things couldbe met. I think the only, our concern from the land planning point ofview is that rre rearize that this does not meet standards cuir6ntlyestablished by the City. We are here just to explain our case. theownerrs got a problem and you may or may not i.rant to address the problemat the Planning Commission. we are Looking for some feedback. werre morethan happy to come back again if you have some ideas of things that weshould change or concerns and make some modifications to our current ideasbut- we will persist I guess is what Irm saying. We think we have a legalright to proceed based upon the pUD and that'a kind of the comment I,vebeen given by the guy who's basicalry knows about it. Thatrs my comments. Emmings: Just a couple of questions. you kno$, our regulations. When yousay this one doesnrt meet our standards, thatrs rearry an understatement.rt doesnrt meet any of them. rt doesnrt come crose and r understand thatyourre here, making a proposal on beharf of the client and yourve come up Planning June 15, Commission Meeting 1988 - Page 6 with a plan. That's fine, we'II take a 1ook at it but Irm sure you,realso aware that when we looked at this before, there were some, in,g5when r^re looked at this and we made it a pUD, it was done at that time,very different things were said to us than are being said now. One ofthem Lras r.re want to maintain the character of this pi.ece of property as afarm and now it looks to me like a lot of buildings. Now it looks to melike it's going to look Iike a residential subdivision. I guess Irmwondering, that bothers me because I'm rrondering if that wai part of aplan. Was I getting the straight shot then? Am I getting a straight shotnorr? I $ronder about that. It's probably something you can't anserer. you didn t t. represent them before. Brad Johnson: He was planning on living on the property. It just didn'tcome about. Erunings: The other thing is, both at the city councir and at the planning commission $re're very concerned that there not be any increased density.we were talking about the land area that was there within the puD at thetime and all that's getting shuffled around. rs there any reason to thinkthis isn't subject to our subdivision ordinance? Do you igree that it issubject to our subdivision ordinance as weII as the pUD? Brad Johnson: I guess if you Iooked at, Irm not a }awyer okay. I do knordthat you can take cases like this a rong ways and normalry the city wourdlose because it,s generally felt that Ehey have Ehis Iost. I think itrsone of those hardships that somebody has dealt with in the past and whenyou have a grandfathered type of a situation. In other words, I wouldn'tcome in here and say this is the thing to do. I was contacted by theoerner, whors a friend of mine, and he'd been trying to market the propertyfor 2 years. I said, hrell cary it tooks like it isn't working. L;t,; trito figure out vrha E the problem is. I net with all the neighbors. Donethe history of the thing and my bottom line is, from rny experience inrentar property, that this place vrill tend to degenerate forever until the MUSA line is extended and you put 60 lots in Ehere or 30 ox 40 or 5A.Itrs just a problem. Even if you bought this building for nothing, itwould still cost you more than you could renE it for. Emmings: The si xpl ex ? Brad Johnson: yes. Itisinterestingly enough. Enmings: The s i xplex ? just a probl-em. It's a very nice duplex Brad Johnson: The sixplex is rearry a ni.ce duplex but theyrve modified itover the years. It used to be a barn years ago. Emmings: So iErs at his hj.ghest and best use? Brad Johnson: Yes. It's been moved. If you look at this, it,s verycreative. r found out that the duplex that,s way out in the back of theproperty was a chicken coop so this thing has gone on and on and on andthe neighbors, you could think what kind of credibility I had when I Planning June 15, Commission Meeting 198 8 - Page 7 proposed to them that $re change this again.be honest. Noe, cinger Irve been talking tofigure out. what you see here is sonething h,hat they r.rould probably accept. Emmings: Yes, yourre having the same problem here. Brad Johnson: r think Gary in good faith was trying to figure out h,hat todo himself. r said cary you've got to accomprish something. rt may nothave been the right thing certainly at that time. ttow the 21 acrei wepurchased back was part of the farm but even when they subdivided thiswhole thing out for many different reasons they did iL incorrectry. Garycould have come in here, not a very months ago, a year ago, and come in - for a 2 l/2 acxe subdivision on this property after acquiring this andprobably making it work. Today rde're just stuck with the currentordinance. r told him, r donrt see fox 12 years you're going to see sewerand water on that street. r don't know what to do and so we-thought thatere'd try to create a real posh community out there. Now ere got siopped alittle bit, not by aII the neighbors, by some of the neighbois, that- thisdoesn't come off the way we thought it should. iVe have io deal withexisting houses. We offered for exampl,e to buy this back and try tostraighten it out a littre bit. They'ire just there. we did acqiire this.One of the covenants of the transaction is that this wiII never besubdivided. It wiIl always be an outlot. Interestingly enough, as wemoved along and started. talking this way, we found people, werve got aperson in the crowd tonight thatts wirring to move in ilong with 5ne ofhis friends and families and they will actuarly move in heie and startwork on this project July rst. To live there which we,ve been looking fora long time for somebody srho wants to live there other than caryrs tamity. So Ginger sa j-d, yourve got toyou, because $re tried tothat, not what we rrant but is Emmings: You said something justsaid that one of the covenants onpurchase the 21 acres, one of thesubdivide that 2I acres. now that I want to follow up on. you your option Eo purchase, if you do covenants will be that you cantt Brad Johnson: This parcel here. Emmings: But those lots go j.nto that Brad Johnson:No, the I said the out lot parcel now donrt they? that would remain. fturrings: Okay,new outlot? Brad Johnson: yes. I think one of the reasons the Grossr, again ftmspeaking for them, I donrt mean to do that, but one of the reisons theyrreinterested in this is that we perceive the, and again we don't want to bestuffy but the average val-uation of a home in here vrill be 9366,0A6.6e to$5gg,6gg.qg. currently the tax base in there is g4ootaog.ga. we think wecan increase the tax base. secondry, the scare of houses that we,d haveto build in here wouLd then be the size of the Gross' or the size of themonster duplex in the back which until, quite honestly, Z months ago Ithought was a big single family house. I thought thal was the main housebut the main house has always been the Grossr iouse. That's where the Pl ann i ng June 15, Commission Meeting 1988 - Page 8 Johnson's used to live in the front. so we're just trying to deal with it. . r'm not saying this meets, rrm sure earb just enioyea seeing me walkin the door and saying rrve got a probrem but on ttre 6tirer hand Lhis is anopportunity. Thatrs where we are. werve got a coupre of other ones rikethis in town too wetre working on and this is a claisic problem. The puDis a sorution and it'd be a rear easy solution if there ias sewer andsrater there but there isntt. Emmings: Would thethe beachl ot? gatehouse, the Gross' and the dupJ-ex have access to Brad Johnson: I think actually by the way it was set up, they do not.Therers a deed that transferred this property and within that deed it saidches Mar Farm, which at that time was this piece of property, sharl alwayshave access to the Iake. So technically they *ay or-ma! noi. Emmings: r specificaLly asked when this was here before, whether or not,Ches Mar Farms, what we were dividing into a pUD, into 4lots, whetherthey had access to the rake and r was tord they did not. rs that wrong? Brad Johnson: Therets an easement that runs from this point to here.under the originar transfer. The property itself was not owned by Gary.There was just an easement that ran fron this rot over to here. Now hemay not even have known that but thatrs what we found out rater. Nobodyhas ever exercised the use of that easement. No$, wasnit there always aconcern by Margaret or somebody, r hate to ask but they have the anlwer.That I s the idea. Emmings: This is a pubric hearing, is there anybody else who wishes tospeak on this proposal? Ginger Gross: r'm Ginger Gross and wetve been on the farm for about l-5years and ere are thankfur to see something proceeding at this point. Mr.Johnson is right, there has been a good dear of deteiioration and it doesnot appear itrs going to get any better. hfe're not 100? sold on theproposal as rrm sure yourselves are not. There are some questions that wehave and some other avenues we'd like exprored. what we wourd rike toknow is if they have been explored. es ihings stand, it is mostunacceptable. We've had deterioration that has been almost lifethreatening in many regards out there at the farm so somethinE does haveto be done. If Mr- Johnson's plan does not go through, I thi;k if youmove to put Mr. Kirt in some regard. Bnmings: What are your concerns about this specific proposal? Ginger Gross: we would like to see the area remain as rurar as possibre.Olylg":ly if we had preference, if it was my property to develop; rrdstilr rike to see horses. rtd still like to iee-wilalife. The currentresidents there vrourd like to see people who appreciate the outdoors andtake part in it. Thatrs the concept of the faim. In regards to Mr.Johnsonrs proposal, again r do appreciate what he,s tryiig to do. r wouldlike to see something a bit more natural. some of the houses maybesnuggled within some of the contours of land, if that's possibre. r don't PI ann i ng June 15, Commission Meet i ng 1988 - Page 9 know hor., rearistic it is, r'd like to see 2 or 3 parties there as opposedto as many as he's proposing. vle really don't want to see a public ioadgoing through. we feel that it woul-d be most i.nappropriate to the entirearea. I think then you would probably have a lot of people approachingyou and wanting to develop there if we had a 50 foot ioad. Now it's aquaint private road and it does not stand out. There is someconsideration that we might have a privacy gate or security gate at theentrance. r think should Mr. Johnson do the development, i ttrini< he wourddo it in good taste. I dontt know, Irve not seen his work but if that'swhat his plan is. Mr. Johnson is trying to work with all of us and r.reappreciate that. He's trying to observe the things that are important tous. r donrt know how much you can preserve the eiisting character. A rotof the existing character does not need to be preserved. we would rikethe feeling that it still is a rural area. Heis right, if we wait I0 orL2 or 14 years, vrhoever sells off the property wiII not have appropriateuse of the property either. Anyone who would come onto the farm, want tobuy those properties at this point, probably would also let them continueto deteriorate. A lot of people who think that they could have a rot ofhouse for rittle money. r donrt think it would rend anything to the areaat all. Again, I donrt know if itts been properly marketed. previously Iknow Mr. Kirt had marketed it through his own realty company and Mr.Johnson through hi.s. r did some research, r went to waconia and victoriaand r understand that the kinds of things that we assume they were tryingto develop on the farm, those things are happening in the Viitoria andWaconia area. I don't know if Mr. Kirt or Mr. Johnson spent any time inthose areas or with people vrho, most peopl,e think you have to go furtherout than we are to have that kind of acreage and the comments that r hadout there is that what we thought should be done on the farm is bei.ng doneout there aII the time. Hnmings: And that is what specifically? Ginger Gross: People Iooking fox Lg acres or 2A acxes. 2 or 3 people.Not necessarily revitalizing the area. A lot of those people want tobuild private homes that are going out Lhere. If thatrs what it takes, itwould be nice for something like that to take place. r don,t know how farMr. Johnson or Mr. Kirt are willing to go or can go in marketing propertyto say, horse people or animal peopl-e or outdoors people. I dontt knowhow much control they have over that but they have indicated that theywould work with us as much as they courd. obviousry there's some econornicfactors and there are a lot of considerations that are coming into playthat that may not take place. That does concern us. We dontt wantplastic people in prastic houses. The public road would be a probrem. weshare a well with the famiry at the gate and the road separates the two ofus. Our well, is on their property. They have easements, Mr. Kirttsproperty has, Mr. Kirt the owner, their property has easement for theroad, r think that's the appropriate term. rf you were to widen the road,it would take it up to the front door of the LittLe cottage that has ourwerl and the well is right under that proposed roadbed are. so you do havea problem there. We could work with Mr. Johnson on some of our propertybut we really donrt r^rant to give up a good deal of our project. Mrs.Johnson, the original oerner, again I dontt know the techniialiEies, shelaid her pl-an out accordingly. Her attorney laid it out so that she would not ever have more road coming into her yard. she sold the property toNaegelers who were bringing new developing but she sord the property tlatshe sord to them with the understanding that her property would alwiysremain her proper ty. Emmings: So in other words, if they widened the entry road, none of theadditional land woutd come out of your parcel? Ginger cross: Thatrs right. obviously a lot of things have taken place down through the years. That rittre gatehouse burned down at one time. rthink if people had reatry been on top of it, the rittre house rdould havebeen rebuirt because that did not allow them the appropriate roadbed thatthey needed...but apparently they needed a roadbed. That's the onry praceit could come from is where that house is. Mr. Kirt and Mr. Johnson havesome definite probrems that they have to overcome there that are going tohave to be dealt with at some time. We like some of their proposils.-They're Erying to work with us as best they can but we are Loncerned aboutthe private road. we would rike to see it ihat way. obviously for thenext 10 or 12 years, if it remain private that it remain as it is but itwould also remain as it is for the-.. Terry Jones: I because I rm theproperty. I rm was asked to come here this evening to address you allperson vrho is, also like tvlrs. Gross, moving onto ther,rith Southridge Development Incorporation. Emmings: Where are you moving onto the property? Terry Jones: rnto the doubre home which is now a sixplex. werre arso theproposal, depending upon the outcome of this entire proposal , to purchaseand develop the rest of the project. My partner couldnl t be here tonight,David Kenneth is also personally going lo live on the property and mycowboy boots show that we like horses also. fhe propeity is a verytranquir setting. Thatts what attracted us in the first place. speakingfor myself and my company, which becomes very personal, we also would noilike_to see a prastic type of development bul iather a deveropment whichwould lend itserf to homes posi.tl.oned just right in the right praces sothat it preserves the beauty of the property. These are ttrings that haveto be dealt with down the road and r was juit here tonight to introducemyself and say that depending upon the outcome of this entire property, wedo have someone who's wirling to throw in the necessary money to make-surethat these things happen. lnmings: Do you feel this pran meets your desire to have things laid outin the best possible way for the property? Terry Jones: BasicalLy yes. With the time that I've had to spendthe property, I think it does. I'm moving onto the property at theof the month where I can deal with that more on a hands on basis. wi thfirst Brad Johnson: As a part of our proposal Mr. Kenneth, when we first metthey had a number of objections to the current status of the property. Asas far as Terry and his family and Dave Kenneth and his family moving ontothe property, l[x. Kirt has agreed to fund basically the exterior of Planning Commission Meeting June 15, 1988 - page 10 refurbishing - the sixplex and the clean-up of the yards which is somethinghe just didn't feel comfortable doi.ng. He's done it once before and now-werre doing it again 3 years rater. so he feers comfortable he canattract a good tennant, erorse case, potentially with development, bestcase., if we can get it done. Fix it up. fix it up and it ?alls apart.Somehow werve got to stop that and sre think the concept is simply iotransfer, r^rhat we calr a debt of the sixprex into the rand and setl tneland out so the erhore cost of the project is taken care of in that way.we just canrE reclaim anything from the sixplex. pranning commission'shistoricalry arenrt concerned about that. The problem is wetve just got aprobrem werre trying to solve and that,s an economic probrem. r- thinliTerry came after they started the process. Hers the iype of guy I wassglg r was going to be able to attract to this project.- rt witi work. rtwirr be a very nice place. r thought about mov-ing up there myself. rf hedoesn't, r am. r hope he does because m comforfabie where i.m at butwerre going to get this done and thatrs r^rhere this whore thing originated. Batzli moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. Al1favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. voted in Wj ldermuth: Brad, whaL is on the outlotTherers a green box. A circle.A? Yourve got 3 things there. Brad Johnson: somebody said preserve the character of the farm and keepthe barns and stuff like that. werre leaving some on there. some arefalring apart so this is a barn that werre going to move. r think r.re canbuy the one thaE's over on westin. whaErs the subdivision just over thisway? I'lhat's the name of the one on Minnewashta that. was juit compLeteda Olsen: Pemtom? Brad Johnson: pemtom has a little barn that's for sale socould bring in a barn. There,s a stable. These are justhorse corral that $re could add back. we thought images for a Wildermuth: But therers nothing there now? Brad Johnson: No. rtrs.interesting, if you rook at that photo. r arr.raysthought, if you ever go in there and it looks like theEers-a bridge wherlwater used to go under. Look at the photo. rt's the bridge where thehorses used to go back and fortb across the road so bhatrs the way thatwhole thing vras set up. I always through there must have been u iugegushing of srater contiouousry. rn rear rife, this $rhole thing *"s just "big farm years ago. Wildermuth: Outlot A, just outline the part that will never be... Brad Johnson: And we did it, if you sa!r, somewhere rrve got some otherprans but original.ry.r^,e were just going to even shorten tie length ofthese lots and make it a littre bigger but it got to be too much of avariance. this would work nicely *i* t/z acr6 sites but we' felt that rrasa litt1e bit too mucb for the faim. Planning Commission Meeting June 15, 1988 - page 11 Pl ann i ng June 15, Commission Meeting 19 88 - Page 12 wirdermuth: r guess r'm incrined to agree with the staffrs anarysis ofit. rt no $ray meet.s our rural subdivision. rt appears somethin! has beenattempted with the sixplex. rt's in a pretty sad staEe of repaii and thehouse that was moved onto the site really with those t$ro structures on thesite, even if something rike this were E6 be acceptable, r don't see ho r.,you could attract 9L0g.qgq.gA into an area like that. I guess otherconditions that $rould be required or a bending of the rur6s, bending ofour ordinance structure, would be that there would be a central wat6ringsystem and a central sewage system for this puD. rrm surprised that tie PUD was. . . Thatrs all I have. Batzli: I guess I,d be interested in hearing $rhat the public SafetyDirector has to say about putting up structures such as this. rf ti:eyrregoing to have individual werls, obviously to bring your own water but thenagain the buirdings that they've got now are supposidly hooked up to, notthe mansion... I think something needs to be done about the sitE. Ithink it's a beautifur ol,d farm and r kind of got nostalgic wanderingaround it when I vrent out there but I donrt know that the economichardship of deveroping in a different way, if that,s the criteria for $rhythis pran in particurar was presented, is enough to convince me that thisis the best plan for that area. conEad: r have just a few commenEs. r think something shourd be done. rlike the concept of this a whore bunch. rf r courd aeiign chanhassen rgyears ago and no doubt. at 15, this type of deveropment would have been,stirr is, real attractive. I have a problem of the ordinances that arequite sound. r'm not even getting into the design in terms of some of thedetails of soil condilions and septic things. Iim hung up on ourordinance in which it talks about I unit per r0 and 2 i/2- acre minimums inthe rural area and I just don't knor., ho!,, to justify changing thosestandards to other rural people that might want to do thi sime thing. rwourdnrt know how to defend any acEion if r.re took a look at this and triedto massage our standards a littLe bit. I don't know on what groundssomebody...te11 me hov,r to do it. I thought about it and I can't figureout how to do it. I can't tell Brad, Bradts in here for a concept ;nd Ithought about r"rha E r wourd tell him to go away with and come back with andI donrt know what I would do. I honestly donrt know what would workwithin our ordinance so we wouldntE have to drastically change it. Iguess Irm kind of at a Ioss. I go back to some concepts, however, that Ithink something should be done. I'm empathetic to thE situation and r dolike the overalr concept but r don't have a clue as to hor., to get it done. Ellson: f don't really like it. I think the pUD !ras, you could say thecity and the planning commission and the city councir b;nding to try andaccomodate somebody vrho, at that point had ecooomi.c hardship also. Heeranted the puD so that he courd eventually separate the parlels which hehas been abre to do in a coupre of the cases. r think we went above andbeyond just granting the PUD to help him out and I think he's stretchingi! 3n9 trying to get a little bit more. I,m not sure that I can go aloigwith being that much more accomodating because that really is a Lot ofincreased density. The area is gorgeous but r wouldn't wint to see havingany units in there. Irtn not opposed to looking at other plans and things PI ann i ng June 15, Commission Meeting 1988 - Page 13 like that but r think it doesnrt conform so drastically and r think tryingto slip under, weII now that this is a pUD we're trying other things i3kind of taking advantage of the good nature that thay gave you the puD inthe first place whi.ch was for the original plan and noi thii one. r don'treally think this is called a pUD an).more because now theyrve changed itso it's not the existing conditions when we calred it a pup. r do;'t knowwhatts been used to what wirl hord it in court. Now that itrs a puD werregoing to go for different things so Irm against it. Irm not againstsonething about the area but I'm against this exact one. Emmings: I made the motion when we turned this thing into a PUD, I noticed in our old Minutes so some ways I feel like I've got tojustify that. It made sense at the time based on what ure erere t;ld by theappricant that he courdn't sell the individuar. rt vras arr one parcel andhe couldnrt sell the whole parcel, he needed to break it up. To be ableto seII it, he $ranted to maintain the farm and rural character of theproperty and that sounded very nice and wetre concerned about him wantingthem to subdivide the four parcels we 1et him have at that time so *e pu[.in a specific condition that werre not going to have any greater aensiiy lr.tg. We're_not going to let you subdivide this down. Now they've com6back and basicarly it rooks to me an attempt to backdoor or shoehorn inwhat is basicarry an urban subdivision into a ruraL area and r think it'stotally inappropriate. I did drive through the property tonight. TheGrossr property is very beautiful and the rest of it is in a sadcondition. I sure can't approve of a pl-an that looks like this. Our PUD ordinance says it has to be coordinated with the subdivision ordinanceand it has to be coordinated with the provisions of the, what is atlaround it there? Is it A-2 or RR? OI Sen: RR. Emmings: In either case, they both require the 2got the I in 10 problem. Irm real uncomfortablecount as acreage in their density a long hall,waynever be built on. That doesn't make any sensethat ' s very inappropriate. l/2 acte lots and werveallowing somebody toof land that really couldto me at all. I think Conrad: So what would we like to Emmings: When we have an outlotcount those in computing density? done here? this, this Outlot A, do we typically see Iike olsen: we usuarly do the net and the gross density and the net densityjust the lot areas and it doesn,t include the outlots or park areas andstreet areas. Typicarly we have used net in the past. Arthough in theComp Plan the densities are determined by gross dlnsities. ls Conrad: OI sen : Conrad 3 Jo Ann, under our ordinance, what could be done Under our ordinance, again we'd have to meet the And therers 28 acres? to... 1 in IA densi ty. PI ann i ng June 15, Commission Meet i ng 1988 - Page 14 28 acres, help me figure that out. Two uni ts. So they would get 2 uni.ts? Conrad: Ol sen : Conrad: Wi ldermuth: system? orsen: Right. rf Met council is wirling to forego that 1 unit/lo acres, thel$rould still have, to have a minimum of. 21/2 acres per lot. The reasonthat we have the conrmon mound slzstem on DogMood was because the systemfail-ed and the city had to put that in. Never have we permitted that colnmon Dound system- simpry because of the 10ts created would not supportthe septic system. What about a central water system and a central sewage Olsen: I donrt have an answer to well have done that. We may have done thatnot determined that each of those lots system. I donr t.for the Lakev i ew couldn I t support know whether Apartments.a well. we IErs Wildermuth: In concerned about read i ngthat.Mr. whitehillrs letter and he seems to be very Olsen: About limiting his water? yes. Wildermuth: His concern has impact upon everybody. Olsen: I asked our engineer if that would impact other wells and hedid not know. Emmings: I'd also like, I noticed in the Councilts Minutes from January21, 1985 that Councilman Horn, at the time this pUD was before us saidthat in this case we're dealing with pre-existing conditions. We reallydonrt have a choice because this stuff was put up before our Zoningordinance r.ra s t.here. we can be comfortabre with this because of that butif we were creating something from scratch, thatrs one thing but thi.salready exists and r think now they're going back and creating somethingfrom scratch. I think they're going over that limit and I do;'t see an! way- that we can support this kind of concept at arl. As far as what oughtto be there r I don't know but thatrs not my problem. I donrt own theproperty and r think we're being asked to do this to make this marketableand by god r don't think that's the city's rore aE arr. I donrt think wehelp developers make a bad investment good. If it doesn't meet theordinance, it doesnr t meet the ordinance and Irm sorry. I wish I had agreat idea to make the property look nice and I guess you need somebody.If a horse farm isnrt viable economically, and I see them being built outin the Waconia area, as the cross, were Eluding to. They just put up anoEher big one up on the way to Waconia. They tvro out there now justrecently. I donrt know, maybe land cost is too high in here to do that, I Olsen: Yes, so you get two units. PI ann i ng June 15, Commission Meet i ng 1988 - Page 15 don't kno!, but wonderful . if they can do something like that, that $rould be conrad: one of the neat things about a concept plan is where we can givethe developer some input. That's the point oi a-concept. Emmings: You kno$, why r think we canrt on this one? Because this one isso far off that it doesnrt advance anything. tots of times-when you comein with concept prans ere say, yes chaige tfiis a rittle bii. shove thisover here a little bit but this is more tike okay, if we can,t do this,what can we do? This is so far off it doesn,t jist need a little Tasi?slnsr it's got to go back to the drawing b6ard and start arl over andr think-thatrs why we're having troubre comiig up with iaeis. That's myimpress ion. Conrad: I donrt know hor., to change it but I think it's just smart for Mr.Johnson to take it to city council. Hers obviously dealing with someeconomics that hre are not inclined to deal with. wirdermuth: The addition of the tax rore r think is very attractive.Therers no question about that but when the puD r4ra s g.uni"a it eras toprovide parcers that courd be sold individuarry, r tiini it..u"y parcerswere sold individually. The sixplex is a mess. The house that iai movedonto the property is probably a good candidate for practice for the FireDepartment. I don't think you could probably put $r5g,6g0.00 in thatthing before you could get it to look rike somi of the othei homes thatyou might anticipate building. you'd probabry have to put $250,gqa.oqinto that Herman House - Brad Johnson: 9L56,6A0.96 to g2gg,qgg.gO. The valuation$40g,ggg.0g to gSgA,Agg.g0. It,s a very historic house.there is the lot. The lotrs r.rorth, jusi sitting there by Wildermuth: The lot is a nice lot. It's a nice size. Brad Johnson: werre basically serring that particular thing, we,ve beenable to sell. that as either a group home or individuars 1ik6 mysetf thatare interested. in purchasing. a group home is permitted in th-is whorearea and that is probably another alternative t6 tne whole situation.- rnboth cases, peopre erho eranted to buy the Herman House looked to thesixprex and they wourdnrt buy the Herman House if there was a sixprex. i{eget a carl a week on the Herman House and the price is a buck for thehouse and 9125,ggg-gg for the tand, Ehat xina ot thing. p"opr" are veryattracted to that house. r think there were one of oir saresmen already,had they be abre to appropriatery pass the si.xplex .na-tr,.ii" v,rhy r'mhere. you guys $rant to know $rhy rim doing thi; is r""uo""-r was going tobuv the Herman House and we finirry rigur6a ir arr ;;a-;; inen we got for-re wi!!r it, Iike you said, we'd have-$150,066.66 ir.to it ir SZAI,Ogg.ggbut until the sixplex question was taken care of and you ioox.t trr"economics of the whole. deat and. it just doesn,t w;;k.'-ioiil. right, itrsan economic probrem Lrhich pranning -ommissions aren,i ="ppo""a to dealr.,ith. rrm here realizing that. w! deat witn tnose ";.;;'5;; in thedor'rntown area. r do know that peopre's cities take carl of it. otherwise thatrs the The real trick i tsel f ... Planning June 15, Commission Meeting 1988 - Page 16 they end up with a doh,ntosrn like Chanhassen has. Sooner or later theproblem wilr come up and it will be taken care of more from the counciltsside. Irve listened to the neighbors. Irve Iistened to you guys. yourretelling me what r thought r'd hear. It'd be interesting to figirre out asorution and rrm not asking for a solution per se. whai you see there iswhat we came up with as I understand a pUD. Thatrs my business and mybusiness is understanding that kind of stuff. Now r understand that i;the PUD ordinance that we have to have out there, you have atl theflexibility in the rrorld. In theory. Thatrs why it's there. pUOrs arethere. Yourve got an apartment building we approved over here not too far ar"ray thatrs got 23 units per acre. The minimum in town is 12. Why is itthere? Itrs there because of the great need. Ennings: Brad but you're aware too that our puD ordinance says that a puD may include only those uses consistent with the general, rand use categoryfor the area on the comprehensive plan and also that subdivision revi6w - under chapter 18 has to be carried out simurtaneousry with the review of a PUD so it also comes under all the subdivision ordininces. Brad Johnson: Without a doubt and the last thingthe ordinance. you r.rant to do is change Hnmings: I've got pages of questions here. If I thought this plan wasclose to being approved, there are buildings on lot lines in this and Idonrt know if those buildings, if you're planning to tear them down.Therers a garage right behind the Herman House. I donrt know, maybeyou're planning to tear them down but I've got a lot of little questionsIike that. Brad Johnson: would be part Brad Johnson: on the market Emmings: He r s In this kind of thing, the onlyof the sixplex and that $rould be thing that vrould be Ieftall. Enmings: And why is the sixplex on two lots? Brad Johnson: werre going to divide it.run it right do$rn the middle and go in andSeriously. It was buiIt... Emmings: And is Lotus Realty, noe, yourveyou listed this property? Is that what's got a going sign out on the road. Have on? what I should do and we left itisnrt going to work. It.rs truly ait's a very good duplex.nice place.You Six months for a while ago he asked me and I said this Emmings: And our mayor i.s still ldorking with Lotus Realty? Brad Johnson:No. not? What js he doing now? He works for Realty World. He has for about I monEhs.Brad Johnson: Pl ann i ng June 15, Commission Meeting 1988 - Page 17 Emmings: comments? I didn'E know that. Alright, anybody else have any more Brad Johnson: should r take it on? My real question is, should r bringit back or should we go on to the City Council? Emmings: Weill ask for a motion here to get you out of here. El1 son : Il acres PUD-R on I moveinto 9 TH 41, the Planning Commission deny approvalsingle family lots and a double lot on Ches Mar Farms. Does that make sense? of a subdivision ofproperty zoned Conrad: Do vre need a motion on the concept? Olsen: Yourre really not acting on the subdivision itself. Emmings: Okay, so we're just going to pass our comments up? Conrad: Bradrs got our comments. Brad can run with them and do whatever he wants. Council gets the l'{inutes and Brad know more than he did when he came in here. Enmings: Itd Iike to ask staff one other thing that didnrt seem to come up and that is, this is a private drive. Donit vre have limits on the number of houses that can be on private drives? Olsen: Yes. It would have to be improved to a Public street' The question is whether it woul,l be rural or an urban street. 50 foot or 60 foot r ight-of-waY. Emmings: And how are we going to deal $,ith that gatehouse . Problem that Mrs. 6ross brought up if ihat- has to be improved to a public street? Brad, hov, do you PIan to deal with that? Brad Johnson: The request that we have was that we needed' one of the i"iio.r" that we foughi the neighbors ProPerty to the south is we have the ability without having to deal with that entrance' Emmings: So to go around the Gross property? Brad Johnson: If that was the requirement and if the neighbors were against it, thatrs what wetd do. wildermuth: How would the Gross' feel about having a road on four sides of their property? Brad Johnson: I wouldn't feel very good abouts that. Thatrs just the way it is. When I took it out as a road and left it as the outlot for Public utilities but. .. Batzli: can you see down TH 41 at all if you move the street further to the south lik6 you're proPosing? The.sight line is bad alreatly when you're coming oirt of that street looking to the right down TH 41' PI ann i ng June I5, Commission Meeting 1988 - Page l-8 Brad Johnson! In talking to Ehe engineers, the cornera bad corner in the first place. When that corner wasTH 4I. The old Ches Mar Road used to 90 down the hillanother problem but it's got to be corrected over time. potentially is j ustthere, there was nothere so itrs just Emmings: coming out Wou ld on TH they be 4L? allowed an access thaE close to the other road Olsen: You mean the outlot? Emmings: yes. Olsen: No. One ofengineer was sayi ng .those outlots. them would They are have to be closed. Thatts what theproviding the 50 foot right-of-way with aII Emmj.ngs: So if t.hey gotwould have to come in onback around. AlL around Brad Johnson:to do. llr.t, th"r, the people who Iive in the gatehousethe road on the south side of the Grosi' and gothe cross property and back to their house? Olsen: Thatts something that we still have to work That ' s vrhat they $rant to do. Tha t r s on. r^,hat they lrould 1i ke Batzli: That woutd avoid all the traffic by their house everyday. Brad Johnson: That makes the problem bearabLe.you go throuqh this process is- "onien"uJ iruif aingcertain economics woiking .gui".i'-rn.l--- Wha t an you see there, agreement. . . I when ha ve Batzli: your location. Wi Idermuth: Whentrash. There are Brad Johnson: Andwhere the problem Emmings: ft's difficult forforesight t$/o years ago whentha! it got to this condition me to understand he came in to asktoday. a owner had so li ttledo what he did then concept is probably great.Itrs just it's in the wrong Brad Johnson: Itrs there already you see and the question is, and it,snot a Plannins commission thing;'"l;it-i:t our of t,".., "r,oird rhe ciryconEinue ro arror^r tr,. aur".ioiiii.i oi Ir,t" p.op".tii-,T;";"".y $/erl, thecommon thins is we'rr rer the tanaioiJ i.pror. iI.-'wt"i^'Iirirn.."tyhappens in these kinds of ei.n";;;;;-in"n yoo go into an urban reneerardistrict and tax increment riiuncing, "l-i.y.,re improved and that,s the:i:;::' ui:l"H'n:::: :;:$::;'--;;; Ji 'ro"" ti'ut so inio"tt'i" tinJ ot how this \rha t to f- went out there, it,s pretty unimpressive.old appliances. Old rurnr ture.There I s know whoItrs not Puts that there is thethe landlord that does tenants. That'sthat. It's the you is. PIann i ng June 15, Commission Meeting 1988 - Page 19 tenants. Wildermuth: frm surpri.sed he didn't haul it off. Brad Johnson: rt is. being haured away this week. As r said, itrs part ofa-general clean-up thatrs under process. If it were cleaned up, hre,IIfigure out a sorution but the solution, untir there is ttrai tina orproperty... r wour-dnrt berieve it had r not gone back and guys like BobNaegere owned it and a guy by the name of... Both of those-were ofconsiderable net erorth at the time and the prace just kept going nowhere. Emmings: so this just goes onto the city council and we don't have totake any act i on? ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 2g-8L3 CENTERS AS AN ACCESSORY USE IN THE IOP, INDUSTRIAL INSTANT WEB, INC. . TO ALLOW CHILD CARE OEFICE PARK DISTRICT, PubIic Present: Richard Warren Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff reporb. Chairman Emmings called the pubtic hearing to order. Dick Warren: Irm Dick Warren $rith the Instant Webb Company. I wrote theletter that is included in the packet. I told Barb that I would bringalong a copy of the revised 4,399 foot structure plan to give you a senseof vrhat that vrould Iook like. It's the same concept. The fundamentalissue is we're dealing with so many ratios, space ratios, it's a littlebit like designing a...and we just couldnrt get the job done in thestructure design. Irm available for any questions that you have otherwiseI donrt have any further comment. Conrad moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing. A1I votedin favor and the notion carried. The public hearing was closed. Ellson: I love it. I love the idea. I think it's great. I think yourreidea is great. You can hire me any time because I,d love to have anoffice that had a daycare. I think it's wonderful. Conrad: No comments. I think it's a good idea. Batzli: I had a comment and I realized probably how silly it is now thatI reread the definition of an accessory use and my question was going tobe why donrt we make it a conditional use but it's a permitted accessoryuse so 6 of l and half a dozen of the other, I guess, and since theyrrelicensed, I don't have a problem with that. Wildermuth: Excel lent think they're probably center. idea. I think Instant webb is to be commended.the first company in Chanhassen to have a daycare I Emmings: I have no comments. I agree $/ith Annette. EIIson moved, Wildermuth seconded that the planning Commissionapproval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Request *88-10 to amend2A-8L3, Pernitted Accessory Uses of the IOp, Industrial OfficeDistrict as fol lows: (4)Licensed Care Center.Day and Olsen: Wer re asking you want to publish the whole r ecommend Section Park State votedAl l in favor the motion carried. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 2O-9A4 AND SECTION 2g-6L5 168) ,ACCESSORY STRUCTURES TO PROVIDE SETBACKS AND MAXIMUM SIZE OE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, STORAGE BUILDINGS AND DETACHED BUILDINGS. to table it right now until te can republish. Wething so people can see it. Planning Conunission Meeting June 15, 1988 - Page 2g Emmings: At this point you just want to know that we... olsen: That this is okay. The nee, stuff is in bord hopefurry to make iteasier to see what the changes were. Enmings: Werre going to table this I guess. Conrad: So vrerre not going to have a public hearing. Enmings: so werre not going to have a pubric hearing and r think whatthey're gsking for is our comments as to the content-of this irrhen it doescome back on the pubtic hearing so they lrant to be sure that werre inagreement srith what this says at this point in time. ir -unvuoav, s got anyreservations, just go ahead and speak then out.. conrad: The onr,y thing that r find interesting is the city council, whowas.very concerned about r,609. square foot accessory building and werationarized L.ggg as a good sized three. car garage and a shop. Thatrshow we came Eo thaE r,0go feet. That makes s6nse-to *".- i-tur" no othercomments but thatrs a number we could certainly move around. whether itrsL,066 ox whatever. r think city council wirr irove it to where they wantto move it anyway so I don,t really care. Emmings: The 3 acres is the same t.hing. rt courd be 3. rt courd be 4.rt could be 5 or 9 but r think iL's reasonabre. Then does everybody feerthat this basically says, that it brings together what we tried to io.omany times before. PI ann i ng June 15, Commission Meeting 1988 - Page 2l Batzli: The one comment r had r,ra s for agricultural distri.ct with lessthan 3 acres. Are there many agricurturar districts in the city with ressthan 3 acres? Are you talking about lots in agricultural districts? Ol sen :Yes. I think I'dBatzl i : lots. just clarify that or something. we,re taLking about the district. divided into lots. and ag r i cul tura l Emmings: Agricultural district lot. Batz1i: Something like that. yourre not talking aboutYourre talking about lots within the district. Emmings: Or parcels maybe because they probably arenrt Batzli: Thatrs just kind of a clarification. Olsen: Just add parcels to residential district parcelsdistrict parcel s . Batzli: Does the 3 acres apply to the residential district as vrell? Olsenr No. Irm just saying, if youtre confuseddistrict maybe residential district is confusing with agricultural too. Batzli:district correct? WelI, itrs io any residential district or inon lots of less than 3 acres is what you're I guess Ird just clarify that a little bit. an agricultural trying to say, Hnmings: Okay, then is there a motj.on to table this until proger notice can be given for a public hearing? BatzIi moved, Wildermuth seconded to table the Zoning to amend Section 2g-904 and Section 2g-615 (6b) untilgiven. AII voted in favor and the motion carried. Ordinance Amendnentproper notice can be SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR Jo Ann OIsen presented OF THE FIRE STATION, 7610 LAREDO DRIVE. report. EXPANS ION the staf f Wildermuth: I have no questions on this issue. I think itrs a fine ideato expand the fire department. Batzli: I think itrs a fine idea to expandquestions though. I was curious rdhere, thenorth side of the property. Apparently somethat where the property Iine is? weII. I have a coupJ.eLines now run along theof utility easement. Is it as POhrersort Planning June 15, Commission Meet i ng 1988 - Paqe 22 Olsen: Where the utility easement is? Batzli: Is there a utility easement on the north side of the property andis that where the property line is? Olsen: If therers a utility easement, Irm sure itrs along the north edge. Batzli: Because if that's where the property is and they, re coming in 16feet 16 inches from the property Line, thereis no way theyrre going tosave any of those pine trees on the north side. rtis about 15 feei to thepine trees. That was one question. The other one was, are they going toremove that mapre tree on the northeast corner of the property? is t6at$rhat theyrre doing by putting in this new bituminous surfice? A big old30 foot tree? Jim Chaffee: I don't think we are. Batzli: r also understand therers not going to be an elevator in this? Jim Chaffee: No. Batzli: Why not? Jim chaffee: r think when we presented it to our building inspector, theydecided because of the dock we proposed, we did not need it. Batzli: 9lhat about handicap accessible? Jim Chaffee: I think they considered... Wildermuth: There aren't too many handicapped firemen. Batzri: But this is, the lo$rer rever is available to the entire city. Jim Chaffee: I knoe, r.rhat your re saying. I canrt remember how theydetermined that. They thought aboui tiat and they decided it wasn'tnecessary. . . . Batzl-i: r guess r have a probrem with that and r donrt even knoe, that rmentioned it srhen we talked about the addition to this uuirding but r havea big problem with that. r think that every buirdinE ttre -ity buirdsshould. be handicap accessibre in all ways. My one rist question ,ru., irwe continue to have the voting at the fire station, are ie iosing pairingaGaining parking? Thar kind of stuff by doing thi;? Olsen: No, werre not losing it. Werre maintaining the same. Batzlis Once you pull all the trucks out so people can go in to vote? Jim Chaffee: I donrt think we'Il be losing anything. It,s hard todetermine that because the back parking rof on- the iest-siJe nas not beenmarked_in any sray. This time it will be. r don't think ,"ilt b. rosin!any. That was one of the major concerns of the fire depariment because Plann i ng June 15, Commission Meeting 1988 - Page 23 we're adding members, part of thehopefully increase our membership. looked at that. for Ehe expansi.on $ras tothat they have to park so we reason To do Olsen: We didnrt look at it in terms of the requirenents in terms of the square footage. voting. . .but the 26nj1g Batzli: I think some of your peak periods of parking might be during those periods and obviously yourve got a lot of city streets there andother things that people can kind of muddle around in. Then I had a minor changes to the staffrs recommendation. Those were my four questions. Enmings: what are the changes? Batzli: Just that theyr re going to be acceptable to city staff. to the City Engineer. For instance, in condition 4, calculationsverify. Just calculations will be provided to the City Engineer. type of thing. Prov ided which That Conrad: 50t impervious ratio. missing it Jo Ann? when I look believe that therers 508 thatrs the part that isn I t? That just always amazes me. Where am I at the layout here, it's just hard to not impervious and 508 that is. where is OI sen : street really Conrad: never,are no Conrad: was It's in the setback areas. and parking. It alwaYs does add up those areas. quite an open area between the Itrs just those setbacks There I s ama ze . Conrad: It's just incredible to me. Therer s no way it can be' Hnmings: Is this going on? Thatrs the only place it can be. Therer s the little jog never land to th; left and yes, that's it. The Plantings, sugar maples on the plantings. Any particular reason? EIlson: That big one thatrs there norr. any logic to the Plantings just go vrith the Plantings say r ng there one there around the f ire recommended and station? thenOIsen: We confirm... usually conrad: r'm just looking for why are we Planting a juniPer Olsen: They usually do it in terms of density" ' conrad: Theyrre lower trees right? OIsen: The juniPer ? log ic . here? Irm just trying to figure out why. PI ann ing June I5, Commission Meeting 1988 - Page 24 Conrad: It looks like the planting schedule are aLI shorter. Junipers.The crabs are smaller. Summit ash, I have no idea what that does. Thesanchera is small... I'm not going to force with this but lrhen anarchitect comes up with prantings for chanhassen and werre talked about ita little bit. If Headla was here he.d talk about it some more. Why notthe sl.mbol of our. . . Olsen: A lot of times they pick Iook at it from the aesthetics ofthan looking rt the maple trees. out the more exotic trees because theywhat kind of form it will have rather Emings: None of these are that. Conrad: I guess the only thing that I would, and I really donrt care awhole rot other than it's kind of interesting to know what the architector the planner was thinking of when they said this is rationel for thetypes of trees. That's a one liner on our staff report that says thearchitect pranted these trees for these reasons but r don't thi;k itrs fliytime or anybody's time right now to talk... Batzri: From the pranting schedure, they don't have, r donrt think theyhave the one maple that remains. Jim Chaffee: I pretty sure itrs staying. Batzli: Do they Ol sen : ElIson: It looks to rne like they're planting two snowdrift crabs there.take out the maple and put in two sn6wdrifts? Werll check that out, No comments. Emmings: r don'E real-ry have any comments either. r didn't rook at thefire station, r had to admit but if therers a big mapre over there, iftherers anyway to keep it,-it ought io te kept. And for god sakes, Bobsiegel used to sit heie and say 6u..yii*u, ret,s see "o*"-"og". mapres inh"r:.. . Especially on city-buitaings iheie we,ve goE control over it. I:::.l.: i*:!ine why we wourdn,t r,a"6 tnem-there. rtrs kind of a minorrssue. Brian, is there a motion? Batzli: As much as I hate to do this because I still r,,ant an elevator,r nove that the planning conmission recommend .pp.o.,r.r"oi-"it. pran review#88-5 for expansion of the fire station based-.i' lrr"-prun IiampteatrReceived May 23, 1988'r and subject to the rorrowing loia'iii"rr.condition I as ir reads. condi-tion 2, the l.na;;;;in;-pi"i-snart ueamended to indicate a species- for the proposed t."L" ir3n9 the south 10tline and to attempt to iave t.he sugar irapte on the northeast corner anirmaybe throw a few more sugar maprei in there. conaiiion-i is it reads.condition 4, carcurations sharr be provided Eo the ciiv--eiqin.er whichverify that adequare frow and pressire .onJiui"n""rrii'i"TEi ro meet rhe Planning June 15, Commission Meeting 19 88 - Page 25 dg1algs for the sprinkling system. Condition 5 as it reads and I guessIrd like somebody to verify erhere the heck the property line is so that weknow. This isn,t part of my motion. My motion is Cone. I'd like somebody to verify where the property line is to make sure that art thosetrees are going to stay on the north side. APPROVAL OF M INUTES. Conrad moved, Wi ldermuth Commission meeting dated and the motion carried. seconded to approve the Minutes June I, 1988 as presented. AIl of the Planning voted in favor OPEN DISCUSSION. Bat zli : meeting. ElIson: there. Letrs talk about this memo that I'd only do it if Ladd didnrt about adding an ex tra meeting. we run got the I think yourre really asking are we goiog to get at least four in Olsen: Werre just asking if you do want to split those up or if you want them all on one? Batzli: these as Itrs hard towell.say without seeing what would be involved on all of Batzli moved, wirdermuth seconded that the pranning commission recommendapproval of Site PIan Review *88-5 for expansion of the fire station basedon the plans stamped "Received May 23, 1988" and subject to the followingconditions: 1. concrete curbing shall be added to the north side of the proposed driveway entrance to the net, appartus storage area. 2. the landscaping plan shall be amended to indicate a species for theproposed trees along the south lot line and to attempt to save thesugar maple on the northeast corner and maybe throw a few more sugar maPles in there. 3. A revised grading plan shall be supplied to the City Engineer forapproval prior to final site plan review. 4. Calculations shall be provided to the City Engineer which verify that adequate flow and pressue conditions will be met to meet the demandsfor the sprinkling system. 5. Adequate fire hydrant spacing will be met as part of the pl,ans and specif ications review process. AlI voted in favor and lhe motion carried. Emmings: Obviously you must have thought it r4ra s a lot. Ellson: Some of these are back again. They shouldn't bedifficult. Which ones have big public concern? quite AS olsen: A lot of them, ceorge way subdivision- The schl-otte and schumacherare just two lot splits. Those are real easy. Lyman Lumber, that shouldbe pretty easy. The site plans usualty go pretty easy. Mcclynn is kindof changing the $rhol.e site but that rdouldn, t really take too 1on9. MeritHeating there will be lots of discussion with that one. Aidden VaIIeyCenter, I think we'lL be recommending that you table that one because ofTH 191, realignment. . . Emmings: What does the 20th look like? Olsen: We donrt knorr. Bnmings: why donrt we knock off, Ithose at least could be knocked off. suppose 11 and 12 are small items but Ellson: Yourre talking about II and 1,2. Olsen: A lot of those, almost al1 ofwanted to be on the last applicationdifficult for us to tabl_e. fn fact,l-ast week . Olsen: Oh, I'm sorry. Enmings: I said 1I and 12. Even ifPublic hearings, like 12 is a public we just Iooked at tonight right? those short subdivisions I told you Process. Thbse vrouf d be real-l-ythey all got their applicationi in those are just shorthearing because that i tems .is the They are one that Olsen: Yes, that would be short and lIthat might have lots of discussion. hrould be short. Reed, I th j.nk Hrmings: Is that one up on TH 41? Olsen: Adjacent to HSZ so you'll getBaPtist, that might be a long one but that publ icthe rest of agarn them , and the tha nsite Westside plans. Batzli: ft sure sounded to me likewere going to maybe long ones. Wildermuth: Jo Ann, isnrE g,restside you just named about half of them that Baptist already being bui I t? Olsen: No, thatrs out on TH 41. Enmings: But it is. Itis under construction.there.Theyrre moving dirt out Planning Commission Meeting June 15, 1988 - Page 26 Pl ann i ng June 15, Commission Meeting 19 88 - Page 27 Wildermuth: Right. Theyrve got the erosion barriers in already. Emmings: We already approved that, I remember it. Olsen: No. Emmings: - Theytre moving dirt. I donrt know if they're buildng butthereis big piles of dirt out there. Wildermuth: Therer s equipment out there. olsen: r'rl check that tomorrovJ. Are you sure thatrs not the Lake AnnInterceptor going in? wildermuth: No. Therer s a sign there. The erosion control barriers areup and evetything else. ftnmings3 I remember looking at that in the past Jo Ann. olsen: what we tlid was we amended the ordinance to alrow a church in therural . Emmings: Okay. Conrad: Is Hidden VaIIey going to be tabled? olsen: werre going to recomnend tabling that one so that one would realrybe all. Conrad: How long is that McGIynn going to take? Ellson: We always theyrre going to... conrad: There are four of thero that could take, Mccrynn, the Merit, theWestside and Reed addition and Hidden Valley. We couldn't do aII ofthose- rf they alr happened but r courd armost, the others r assume arenot much other than those. Olsen: They could be real quick. Conrad: But if you threw Hidden Valley in there, than ererre justpressing. olsen: we're definiLely recommending tabling. werve already told theapplicant. rn fact that'!s what the next item is on open dislussion that rneed to tark to you about. you .remember with our transportation pran hov,it shorrs TH 101 going by take Drive East. Hidden Va1le|, that siie is,!?Te. TH 101 is going through so rrer re working with MnDot trying to get anofficial !?p Soing. Trying to come up with our traffic counts io get tnatsite estabrished so what we want to do on eugust 3rd, tbe first erinningcommission meeting in August is to have you idopt a section of the tr..ri-portation chapter. June one section and then we will also be rooking ui tt. PI ann i ng June 15, Commission Meeting 1988 - Page 28 Hidden VaIIey site plan at that time.be recommended to be tabled.But that one is definitely going to Emmings: I know if I was running thestuff but Ladd, since you're going to meeting I could get through all this be doing it. Conrad: I thought Steve, you'd take what was left over for the 13th. the meeti.ng on the 5th and I'd take BatzLi: Then do sayi ng? you $rant to have an extra meeting? Is that hrhat you r -re Conrad: My preference is to have, I can make both those meetings. Mypreference is to have meetings every other week and not be here everyweek. It gets real tiring being here every week. That's not fun. Emmings: Yes, because this is three Conrad: Yes, two in a row is no bigyou say boy I'm here again. Ellson: we could even arrange it so Conrad: NovJ that Jirn's back, therebasis than werve had. in a dea I rovr, not two but when you in a row. get that third one, at least four was always here. are more peoPle attending on a regular Emmings: I should be able to make two meetings for myself. those two. I donrt think I can make theEIIson: I 20th as it think I could makeis. Emmings: Br i an? Batzli: Irm not sure right now, to be honest. I don,t think I can makethe 20th actuaIly, the third one. I don't think these two dates are aproblem right now. Emmings: Jim whatrs your preference? Wildermuth: I can make it. Conrad: Letrs Ieave it that we have the two then. Olsen: You could do it that way too. See what we can get through. Conrad: Itrs real,Iy, I personally like short meetings Iike Steve ledtonight. Yourre fresh and you can react and itrs fun. When we get intol-L.gO, it stinks. It just is not fair to us. IErs not fair to me but thepeople who come here. To hold them on and sometimes, like the first itemtonight, I had no idea. I thought that one was going to be a half hour,45 minutes. Well, it lasted an hour and something. Simple things lastlonger. It would be nice to take care of al1 of them in a short meetingbut I donrt know if we can do it. Pl ann i ng June 15, Commission Meeting 1988 - Page 29 Emming: Conrad: Try and Un Iess even it up. staff sees rnagic and can put it into one. Emmings: Except they've got to advertise and give notice and once theyrvedone that, they canrt pull back to the 6th. Try and even them up soyourve got a couple of big ones and a couple of little ones but itso ifyou think therers a couple that could be tabled, wind up being tabled,make sure you put one on each. Do stuff like that. what else Jo Ann? Olsen: The final one was what I was kind of bringing up just to let you know what was happening with t.hat. What werre going to be doing is onAugust 3rd werII be bringing just that portion of the transportationchapter, not the whole chapter but just the part that addreises that TH10r realignment across TH 5. we'!rr be bringing that to you on August 3rdfor approvar and the reason wetre doing that is to show our commilment.MnDot needs to see our commitment for that intersection so we can keep thebaII rolling. We have to have construction plans by the end of this yearso that $rhen MnDot gets their construction plans completed, they cancombine so when MnDot builds their extra intersections, they wilr alrowfor ours so wetre trying to work with them. Then again, thit also workswith that site plan. We will be in j.tiating an offiiial map process to getthat realignment official so that we can acquire the proper easements.That was just to Iet you know. Batzli moved, EIIson seconded to adjournand the motion carried. The meeting was Submitted byCity Planner Barbara Dacy Prepared by Nann Ophe i m the meeting. adjourned at voted in favo rp.m.. AlI 9 .39