04-17-96 Agenda and Packet AGENDA FILE
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSII
WEDNESDAY,APRIL 17, 1996, 7:00 P.M.
CHANHASSEN CITY HALL,690 COULTER DRIVE
CALL TO ORDER
OLD BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. An interim use permit to allow the temporary outdoor display of boats located on property
zoned BN, Neighborhood Business District and located at the southwest corner of the
intersection of Hwy. 7 and 41, Seven-Forty One Crossing Center, PBK Investments,Inc.
2. Preliminary plat of 2.17 acres into 4 single family lots on property zoned RSF, Residential
Single Family and located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Murray Hill Road
and Melody Hill Road, Hobens Wild Wood Farms Second Addition, Hoben Corporation.
3. Site plan review of a 38,948 square foot office warehouse facility on property zoned IOP,
Industrial Office Park, and located on Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center Second
Addition, located on Lake Drive West,Technical Industrial Sales II, Ray Collings.
4. City of Chanhassen for site plan review for an expansion to City Hall on property zoned OI,
Office and Institutional District and located at 690 Coulter Drive.
NEW BUSINESS
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
ONGOING ITEMS
OPEN DISCUSSION
5. Environmental Commission Update
ADJOURNMENT
NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 10:30 p.m.as outlined in official by-laws. We
will make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda. If,however,this does not
appear to be possible,the Chair person will notify those present and offer rescheduling options. Items thus
pulled from consideration will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting.
C I TY 0 F PC DATE: 4/17/96
\l •
CHA ?HACEI CC DATE: 5/6/96
\�1 CASE#: 96-1 IUP
. By: Rask:v
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Interim use permit request for the temporary outdoor display of boats for sale at the
7/41 Crossings Center
Z LOCATION: Seven-Forty One Crossings Center - Located in the southwest quadrant of the
intersection of Highways 7 and 41
V
0. APPLICANT: Sportskraft International Inc. 7&41 Crossings Center Limited Partnership
a.. Westin Sports 5500 Wayzata Blvd.
Q 2401 Highway 7 Suite 150
Excelsior,MN 55331 Minneapolis,MN 55416
PRESENT ZONING: BN,Neighborhood Business District
ACREAGE: Approximately 5 acres
DENSITY: N/A
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N- City of Shorewood,Commercial
S- RSF,Residential Single Family
E-RSF,Residential Single Family
QW-RSF, Residential Single Family
Q ' WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site
PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The 7/41 Crossings Center is a 26,060 square foot neighborhood
retail center. Access is provided from Highway 41 and a Highway 7.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial
BM„ 1 E
hEiCHTS PARK
_ D
8 �y 8 ' 8p 81 8 - o S_ 8 8 8
8 a A . x 2 3 § FI/.. N N ,, •y P h
.2",.. ...._4.2_t_____ARD / (� I Lail
I _����.��__�_- _, 1 I / I /�...-1.z: 1�1 I I• I, f �f
e..a. LFL.0 L4 I.
`�;lb sK C.vas lip imr,rm��, t •> IT/!4 Ia.irit • i. Inn.ti
1111111111 III ( ? �► ;_. : s ; �..��I�
look, FMAN FIELD w „
',�Q ! air's 7. I�i;�
arm
PARR ,111.wail:..„,,,=.7.1 o •.3F,L 26, i-, ■ A- I+♦
ci
„,„. ,., .:.
, ._ ,....,„,„,,, .
ii„,,,40 , R, ,,. ..., _..._‘..,,L,4,:_,.„,
,„8„, ., ...L.,,,J.L,..„....i.
r os,), , ,,j4Er,
,, .........
MI /■i I' Y i 1r -
i ? R BE.K'N /jrl.■.
LAKE 1 lJ 11111110 � e , '`. ti`/
LAKE 1P ./ "'AY14+ a.iii-,..�° i Uhl WV
/4. p �
N E W A S NTA ` `` _ , y- `
\E7
REGIONAL l ..-7 mos, . ,41
_ __ PARK- i l� �(�� ■■_
R_ Crralsw.;oa• �. LAKE LUCY Bebe■-
y/ MI -.- ,,__ . _____
I a NE
IIIII.r - . Q -
,:ii
(� �jj ��'' �� 1 LAKE ANN i GREEN
i � ti _ -.
- -2C\
MIMI MP.A. NIP_ i.. ;.;; !
.....im
i� 4 t Yl\A/:� /'
•
il14, ...,
IAKE
lit4
Mt.. 1. IAN PA K
In I
11111” l ll'.
`1 I -\ .• '• 8. EVAR.
.111111111
NOWpot#0.-" ''''.
1 Ai
611.1-I.:.P.47. i
OitIlif‘ #VOT#4.4::2'"IE
11,1
�S11.,____'' �,-- _Lt,.�-� .err ier r 0* t4i,
�►
d � } / -*ICC -
IE • 0.
IP � _molin'w.t.n, .. _
• o" 9. Senn °c:t
tae. -tH� ait, .
LYMAN BLVD (CR l61 .IMO .: In•:tr,4 .;t•
O 1 Niles ° •'�+�•"
N N N L
8700—, - -ARK • - o. _
N eaoo— ��!
Westin Sports Interim Use Permit
April 17, 1996
Page 2
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
Sportskraft International, Inc. (Westin Sports and Marine), the applicant, and 7/41 Crossings
Center, the owners, are requesting an interim use permit to allow for the outdoor display of boats.
The applicants have identified three areas along the east property line in which boats would be
displayed. A total number of boats to be on display was not provided. However, upon review of
the site plan, it appears that approximately 10-14 boats could be displayed in the designated areas.
As proposed,the boats would be located in existing parking stalls.
BACKGROUND
Development and Rezoning History
In 1968, the Generalized Guide Plan for Chanhassen designated this property as Service
Commercial. In 1972, the new zoning ordinance designated this area as R-1, Single Family
Residential. In 1982, when the Comprehensive P'an was adopted, the area was designated as
residential low density. In 1983,an application was submitted for a land use plan amendment from
residential low density to commercial. This request was denied. In 1986, a different application
was submitted to rezone the eastern half of the parcel to the then retail district which was known as
the C-2 District. The City Council at their June 2, 1986, meeting denied this rezoning request.
In 1986,the City changed the zoning ordinance to create a neighborhood business district. On July
25, 1988, the City Council approved the final plat to subdivide 7.63 acres into three commercial
lots, rezoning from OI, Office Institutional to BN, Business Neighborhood, and site plan for a
26,000 square foot shopping center for HSZ Development. A total of 212 parking stalls were
provided along with the retail center. City Code requires that retail establishments provide one
space for each two hundred square feet of gross floor area. A total of 130 stalls would be required
based on this standard. The center currently has 82 more stalls than what is required by City Code.
Extra parking was provided for the future construction of a second building on this lot. The
building was proposed in the location that is currently utilized by the day care as an outdoor play
area.
Westin Sports and Marine moved into the 7/41 Center in 1992. Staff questioned the use at the time
the business moved into the center, but determined that a marine supply/sporting goods store could
be considered a "neighborhood oriented retail shop" due to its close proximity to the lakes in
northern Chanhassen and Lake Minnetonka. Staff discussed this issue with the applicant at the
time of sign permit approval. Based on a discussion with the applicant, and the name of the
business (Westin Sports and Marine), staff was under the impression that the store would sell
sporting goods and boating accessory items, and not boats. Because business licenses are not
Westin Sports Interim Use Permit
April 17, 1996
Page 3
required in Chanhassen, we do not receive information on the type of products offered for sale on
the premises.
Background on BN District
The intent of the Business Neighborhood District is stated in the ordinance as, "to provide for
limited low intensity neighborhood retail and service establishments to meet daily needs of
residents." There are two areas currently zoned BN. The first is the property south of Highway 5
and north of Lake Drive consisting of the American Legion, Total Gas Station and adjoining
shopping center, and the day care. The second area is the 7/41 Crossings Center, Super America,
and the vacant lot adjacent to Super America. The "neighborhood" area that the 7/41 Center serves
is northern Chanhassen; recognizing that the center provides an opportunity for passing motorists
to take advantage of the retail services that it provides.
The BN District permits by right uses which are neighborhood oriented: convenience stores,
neighborhood oriented retail shops, self-service laundries, day care centers, personal service
establishments, health services, etc. By conditional use permit, the BN District allows convenience
stores with gas pumps, drive-in banks including automated kiosks, standard restaurants, and bed
and breakfast establishments. In 1990, interim uses consisting of Churches and Temporary outdoor
display of merchandise for sale were added to the BN district.
ANALYSIS
Staff recommends denial of the interim use permit because outdoor display of boats is inconsistent
with the intent and other permitted uses of the BN zoning district. The City created the BN zoning
district to accommodate"neighborhood"oriented retail and service establishments to meet the daily
needs of nearby residents. The current operation consisting predominantly of boat sales is not a
permitted, conditional, or interim use in this district. At the time the business located in the center,
it was believed that the business would be selling sporting goods and boating accessory items, not
boats. Expanding the business by allowing the outdoor display of boats would further violate the
zoning ordinance.
Temporary outdoor display of merchandise for sale was not intended to be used for year around
display of vehicles or boats. The purpose and intent of allowing interim uses is: (1) To allow a use
for a brief period of time until a permanent location is obtained or while the permanent location is
under construction, and (2) To allow a use that is presently acceptable but that with anticipated
development will not be acceptable in the future. Staff is of the opinion that the application does
not meet either of these requirements. The use would be a permanent use at an existing center, and
is inconsistent with current uses in the BN zoning district.
Westin Sports Interim Use Permit
April 17, 1996
Page 4
Should the Commission consider approving the interim use permit, staff would recommend that the
application be tabled to allow staff time to develop conditions and standards for operation.
FINDINGS
Section 20-383 provides general issuance standards which apply to all interim uses. The standards
are as follows:
"The Planning Commission shall recommend approval of an interim use permit and the Council
shall issue interim use permits only if it finds that such use at the proposed location:
1. Meets the standards of a conditional use permit set forth in section 20-232 of the City Code.
Finding: See the standards listed below.
2. Conforms to the zoning regulations.
Finding: Boat sales are not a permitted use in the BN zoning district.
3. The use is allowed as an interim use in the zoning district.
Finding: Temporary outdoor display of merchandise for sale is allowed as an interim use in
the zoning district.
4. The date of event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty.
Finding: A date for termination could be established with certainty.
5. The use will not impose additional costs on the public if it is necessary for the public to take the
property in the future;and
Finding: The use will not impose additional costs on the public.
6. The user agrees to any conditions that the City Council deems appropriate for permission of the
use.
Finding: Conditions could be added in attempt to mitigate any negative impacts.
When approving an interim use permit,standards applicable to conditional use permits must also be
considered. The general issuance standards of Section 20-232,include the following 12 items:
Westin Sports Interim Use Permit
April 17, 1996
Page 5
1. Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or
general welfare of the neighborhood or the city.
Finding. Outdoor display of boat sales should not endanger the public health, safety,
and general welfare of the City, but may change the nature of the Center and neighborhood
by permitting a use that is inconsistent with the district and the intent of providing
neighborhood services. Parking of boats in designated parking stalls may impede traffic
circulation.
2. Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter.
Finding: The City's comprehensive plan has this property guided Commercial which
is consistent with a marine supply store and boat sales. However, boat sales are inconsistent
with the zoning district in which it is proposed.
3. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance
with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the
essential character of that area.
Finding: The intended character of the Center and general vicinity is that of a
neighborhood oriented retail center. Allowing outdoor display of boats would be
incompatible in appearance with the existing area.
4. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses.
Finding: Outdoor display of boats would not be disturbing to existing neighboring
uses because of noise or odors,but would change the aesthetic appearance of the site.
5. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets,police
and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and
schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons
or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use.
Finding: The proposed use would be served by adequate public facilities and services.
6. Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be
detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
Finding: The proposed use will not create excessive requirements for public facilities,
nor will it be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
Westin Sports Interim Use Permit
April 17, 1996
Page 6
7. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of
operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare because of
excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke,fumes,glare, odors,rodents, or trash.
Finding: Outdoor boat sales would not involve activities, processes, materials, or
equipment that would be detrimental to any persons or property.
8. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or
interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares.
Finding: Adequate access and parking is provided.
9. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic
features of major significance.
Finding: The proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar
access,natural, scenic or historic features of major significance.
10. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area.
Finding: The outdoor display of boats would be aesthetically incompatible with the
area as surrounding land uses consist of neighborhood oriented retail and residential.
11. Will not depreciate surrounding property values.
Finding: The proposed use should not depreciate surrounding property values as
adequate buffering and screening occurs between neighboring properties and the center.
12. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article.
Finding: Section 20-291 provides operational standards for truck, automobile and
boat sales. These standards are as follows:
1. No vehicles which are unlicensed and inoperative shall be stored on the premises.
2. All repair, assembly, disassembly or maintenance of vehicles shall occur within a
closed building except minor maintenance, including, but not limited to, tire
inflation,and wiper replacement.
3. No outside storage or display is allowed, except vehicles for sale or rent.
Westin Sports Interim Use Permit
April 17, 1996
Page 7
4. No public address system shall be audible from any residential property.
5. No test driving of vehicles on local residential streets is allowed.
6. A landscaped buffer on hundred(100) feet from any residential zoning district
7. All vehicle dealers shall be licensed by the state.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Commission adopt the following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends denial of the interim use permit based on the findings
presented in the staff. More specifically,the Commission finds the following:
1. Outdoor display of boats for sale is not a permitted use in the BN district.
2. A boat dealership is inconsistent with the intent of the BN zoning district.
3. Boat sales are not an appropriate interim use at this location based on the purpose and intent of
interim uses as stated in the zoning ordinance.
4. Outdoor display of boats for sale is inconsistent with other uses in the BN zoning district.
5. The proposed use is aesthetically incompatible with adjoining land uses consisting of the
neighborhood oriented retail center and residential developments.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Letter from 7& 41 Crossings Center Limited Partnership
2. Application dated March 29, 1996
3. Site Plan showing proposed location of boats
4. Interior layout of store as approved in September of 1992
5. Public hearing notice and property owners list
g:1pl an\jrlwestin.int
To: City of Chanhassen
Re: Conditional Use Permit - Westin Sports
7 &41 Crossings Center, Chanhassen
As owners and property managers for the 7&41 Crossings Center, we are in support of
the application for outdoor recreational vehicle display. Our tenant, Westin Sports,
currently occupies 3,930 square feet of the Center and is located at the far east end. The
tenant feels, and we agree,that in order to remain in business it is important for their
product to be visible to create and maintain customer awareness. The center sits down
low in relation to Highway 41 and is not highly visible. The parking area at this Center is
more than adequate and we feel the areas suggested on the site map would not affect the
other tenants or their customers. In addition we do not believe that this outdoor display
would in any way take away from the appearance of the Center or affect the residential
neighbors. We have submitted photos of the Center, and the proposed areas in the
parking lot for your review and consideration. Although we have suggested areas for
consideration, these are not of the utmost importance. We feel that if a specific area
could be designated and the amount of display be determined, we would work with the
tenant in abiding to the recommendations of your committee.
Thank you.
7 &41 Crossings Center Limited Partnership
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
APPLICANT:5p Sli-t6Ck, �.;A 1.(�C.. 1����� pc . OWNER: `A"Lk
'ADDRESS:2-'10 l �5 1 ADDRESS: S C,-_,Cv V,v
\ m\vc\(N.rt ,\cam �\\�U `�5�'•`�
TELEPHONE (Day time) w 1 -(; OSti; TELEPHONE: cck\-
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Temporary Sales Permit
X Conditional Use Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements
Interim Use Permit Variance
Non-conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit
Planned Unit Development* _ Zoning Appeal
Rezoning Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Sign Permits
Sign Plan Review Notification Sign
Site Plan Review* X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost**
($50 CUP/SPRNACNARNVAP/Metes
and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB)
Subdivision* TOTAL FEE$
A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the
application.
Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
*Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8'/2"X 11" reduced copy of
transparency for each plan sheet.
*' Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract
NOTE-When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
•
PROJECT NAME ` C551'(\
LOCATION lc \\J\, t-A\ a �(* . \( .\ i
LEGAL DESCRIPTION � a ��CcAL, \ 1/41 C Q C ;L��\c\U,
_) c
TOTAL ACREAGE .S . \kz)
WETLANDS PRESENT YES _ NO
PRESENT ZONING .N e_\ �tOC���U` �\,)\ \CNQ��
,1, i
REQUESTED ZONING ��� � t,z:c\ � � ,;%,`Z- �C m<s
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION , , at' �'k c c �nc� Q``c, �C\cs
p
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION S�LL (\C" �Cet� L ��t``.\C`t., -c-tC
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST 1Q..nc�rA �e.15 Ata\�_c, k• cQ.c�\Uar c,,� ��\� ��c�� \JC\ 1<, .
•
ZQ �CL .��J;ocC cN: \slmek_Vv\�\\\N\C,� .
\-'i; C `�', �C"\e��
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning
Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written
notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application.
This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with
all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom
the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership
(either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person
to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge.
The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing
requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day
extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review
extensions are approved by the applicant.
�c �\ 3125(
Signature Applicant rDate
3f 2_Q1
Signature of Fee Owner Date
Application Received on 4/ 76 Fee PaAj6 Receipt
The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting.
If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address.
7
STATE HIGHWAYt� N4.
ti
•
L.
IC�
,c'
: 0'1/4;1_1 - - - - �
115 ��
— — — .r c
I
.47.4.._•)::?.../.1
e 1
�_ j� 1 W
•tNp• •.4 r-o f f 1 "t•
-„( 1 H
.'.y ti
V ,. 4.....h 1
i NI
4 - (� . • I
�s. � 1 •a,y• 1 wow �i.
•_ Sd9's2'3rE i • O
t .Y M. .�
.r. r' • 25821 _Il+• �. _ Sacs?JLrE 4_ 202.39 •
n.•r=-----fir -- - --- .r. err— V
�^ e u r
f , -- _ air • -„r 1 Z
10
t w, il . MI
•
= i .,,_. id
1111111 EL •
.. 1 I\;,,
11 E
ci t "ear.:T. ,,, 1.1 iijkilip .
: i i • , _ •1%0.
i 41111111 - 'Ve '
`� ,� 1 •In
2 • -MU 1.I.On SY 44114 �A r:A
I • •r••
r.Srr
I
IL. .-l- --.-. / . .„ Q�
• o f
_ +rte —����ore*, • 7,,, ••
1 / lo
Ea.: `6779•• O -22 9C
r
• •+. — —- 2
6J �� I
.alar = 1OS� +.` -( i .� a1
—h' vu M -?. `�� a•..•rte -e. rl Oi ry•
I ar
r. r r •v..r - - ` �--.��i .gin r.�r.r •
r .
I Is.
1 =• r
.r-.. •n 0.r 'Is--._
I Th
e.-c_) t 41 J\ w a td..
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
SEP 0 3 1992
BUIIUING DEPARTMENT
is '�'
SKi \tint
E mi:::::g:ipiiimaiiiiiiiiiiiiii::.:::::::.4.11:.*:•:•::.*':::: :i: :::*::'::::::::::::::::::::::::: !..!
WATERSPORT CLOTHESNESTS''
k, Mei zg a
t•
: •:
\
.
is
t� Is
iiiiiii:iiiii
ti;\
, i1
FISHING VESTS •
-n OFFICE ,
--)1",c
N
(
:::: . z ,-t1 u,r'•ed 1.4„..54
O:
\.,Jl.;
�� NOTICE OF PUBLIC .. N
HEARING
PLANNING COMMISSION City of Shorewood
MEETING - .:. . : . __ : � 4 .x .! - 7C -X 3 3 :
Wednesday, APRIL 17, 1996 . �s sa/
� . m
at 7:00 p.m. SHA F% - ! hi* ` rS�
City Hall Council Chambers •
690 Coulter Drive
Herman •
Project: Interim Use Permit Field Park I .1'Hill
Developer: PDK Investments, Inc.
LOCe,e40
Location: Hwy. 7 and 41 -
7/41 Crossing Center ; /
Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your
area. The applicant, PDK Investments, Inc., is requesting an interim use permit to allow the
temporary outdoor display of boats located on property zoned BN, Neighborhood Business District
and located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Hwy. 7 and 41, Seven-Forty One Crossing
Center.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the
meeting,the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project.
2. The Developer will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission
will then make a recommendation to the City Council.
Questions or Comments:If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City
Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to
someone about this project, please contact John at 937-1900, ext. 117. If you choose to submit
written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff
will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on April 4, 1996.
Seven Forty One Partnership Sheldon Rubenstein LTD Rick G. Bateson
c/o R. Soskin Suite 620 6440 Oriole Ave.
5591 Bristol Lane 5500 Wayzata Blvd. Excelsior, MN 55331
Minnetonka,MN 55343-4307 Minneapolis, MN 55416
James& Jody Majeres Agnes Anderson Dale J. & Kelly L. Hance
6450 Oriole Ave. 6470 Oriole Ave. 6480 Oriole Ave.
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
William&Delores Ziegler Joseph & Marcia Massee George& Beulah Baer
6441 Oriole Ave. 6381 Hazeltine Blvd. 6300 Chaska Road
Excelsior,MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
Elsbeth D. Reutiman Mike& Diana Dudycha Richard & Paulette Oftdahl
5915 Galpin Lake Road 6451 Oriole Ave. 6461 Oriole Lane
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
Richard&K. Schmidt William Swearengen Gary & Janet Reed
5136 Willow Lane P. O. Box 756 2461 64th Street W.
Minnetonka, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331. Excelsior, MN 55331
Gary& Pennie Reed Mark&Danielle Steele Shawn& Joanne Killian
2471 64th Street W. 2451 64th Street W. 2449 64th Street W.
Excelsior,MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
Thomas& Rebecca Dorr Howard& Michelle Nelson Fred Britzius& Susan Stewart
2447 64th Street W. 2445 64th Street W. 2444 64th Street W.
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
Gregory&Michelle Curtis ROR, Inc. Mark& Lorena Flannery
2446 64th Street W. 2461 64th Street W. 2350 Melody Hill Road
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
Benjamin&H. Gowen D. C. Wakefield et al, Trustees Elsbeth Reutiman
6440 Hazeltine Blvd. Scott J. Wakefield Richard Carlson
Excelsior, MN 55331 24000 State Hwy. No. 7 6140 Lake Linden Dr.
Shorewood, MN 55331 Shorewood, MN 55331
City of Shorewood 23780 Partnership Ryan Construction
5755 Country Club Rd. 23780 State Hwy. 7 23680 Hwy. 7
Shorewood, MN 55331-8927 Shorewood, MN 55331 Shorewood, MN 55331
L .
Gretta J. Reese et al Everett J. Driskill Frank Janake
Frank Reese 6105 Lake Linden Drive 2661 Orchard Lane
6200 Chaska Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
Shorewood,MN 55331
Westin Sports&Marine Career Cleaners Happy Garden Restaurant
2401 Hwy. 7 2425 Hwy. 7 2443 Hwy. 7
Excelsior,MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
Grooming ammarie Villager Flower Shop Fontainebleau Salon
2449 Hwy. 7 2455 Hwy. 7 2461 Hwy. 7
Excelsior,MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
Video Update Subway Sandwiches Fathertime Childcare
2473 Hwy. 7 2485 Hwy. 7 2497 Hwy. 7
Excelsior,MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
Wirtz Insurance Agency
2511 Hwy. 7
Excelsior,MN 55331
C 1 TY 0 F PC DATE: 4/17/95
`, l • C H A N H A SEN CC DATE: 5/6/96
�.� . CASE #: 94-15 SUB
By: Al-Jaff/Hempel:v
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 2.17 Acres into 4 single family lots, Hobens
Wild Wood Farms Second Addition
LOCATION: Southwest corner of the intersection of Murray Hill Road and Melody Hill
Z Road
V APPLICANT: Hoben Corporation Cliff and Pat Woida
18285 Minnetonka Boulevard 6398 Murray Hill Road
a. Deephaven, MN 55391 Excelsior, MN 55331
473-2700 474-8998
Q
PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family District
ACREAGE: 2.17 acres
DENSITY: 1.8 Units per Acre
ADJACENT ZONING AND
LAND USE: N - RSF, Residential Single Family
S - RSF, Residential Single Family
E - RSF, Residential Single Family
Q W- OI, Office and Institutional District, Minnetonka Middle
School
WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site.
WF. PHYSICAL CHARACTER. The site contains a single family home. The site also contains
some mature trees of different species.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential-Low Density (Net Density 1.2 - 4.0 units per acre)
•
C D
co
r- ko ul .41 rn N el 0 01 co r-
N
N N N N CI CI N N i-I r-I 1-1
I \20
City of Shorewood
ct-
lip.-, 7 N-ramtif a *VAC 3 If......0110131= ti * ffqfP_3 T.:NM=31 25 f'..-' *if VOT-1,3.*, - K. 1.- V ft ••- it Pi f*s=fl "I l' Yrci W 3'•'''' il . _ -
pmrpowsw-: I: oop 4 ,7 -c'2 1111111111 °II
i , - - VlE11111 6114 .
A I`
`4-1"
c,
o.
ce
= .:13 wzmisi tuzligg 1.111•1 Mal
1.111"— :aft NM.Pilltir MI 11"
-, CP •.1 St. ..... teW VIVIIIIII MU NEN 4. til A k 0 W
.4%4 • - taic -,...'
- •
,,dit 5
• <511P4142 Alia 63rd St I IIIII
..‘2,diamillim ,
1 i th Alma,* 1'4,4
ii 0 K4 Herman
Field Park
•
dee ....."2111,,
•c11•J;
• 111m
ieiocFv, I
i W.65tiS
-t-.
7 CreSVieWD —-' Ii•su1kCp Priartfr4p.27R-11aiwmIg6gVIiaI1m1,riakI1xI.4lv.i.l
.ti1a11s1wi/Sa1ila1#t94tl1 1l1,S4r44-4i-;a4 k1v11,14I—1.ft
iimVtl1witLtwomPAH
h.w.LeiIo.a1W.sl1r.e
a4p11nd1 it_t.iI.
.4_
',
iii Park
l''' 1144 ill
Lane
) 6tte..•g. 1. umbak
i-. .51•:
. .
t 4044
•=.-4 , 0 skae 41111
•.-
_y a e
ucg43-15b
:.•
..,
-•
t
1kt
t‘s.
•I
vs.
•k Lake
i
( Harrison U
.4:
li
_ ..„ •f"N7F-i--4,-",-,-"-.,333".•-'Mi3M•••v3--•=1„.."3„ ,.a:•,..., _f 3,, ."-',,
a ",....., :1_
_:.
.
L a
,
,
CO
, ..
,..
... .
atitli .rW :4
'I 7
4111111111r :.
c•
k
..-'
//
1.1.N r'A 0 i ...--- __--•\ ,
(77.------------'
,••i Aiiik
Hobens Wild Wood Farms 2nd Addition
April 17, 1996
Page 2
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
The applicant is proposing to subdivide 2.17 acres into 4 single family lots. The property is
zoned R.SF, Residential Single Family.
The average lot size is 22,279 square feet with a resulting net density 1.8 units per acre. The site
is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Murray Hill Road and Melody Hill Road.
Access to the subdivision is proposed to be provided via a private driveway and serve all four
lots. There is a home on the existing parcel which is proposed to be razed.
All of the proposed lots meet the minimum area, width, and depth requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance. The site has mature trees along its westerly portion.
One of the main issues of concern is access to the site. Back in April of 1995, in conjunction
with the Golmen-Hoff-Golmen subdivision, which lies directly to the west of this site, Melody
Hill Road connection was discussed. Some alternative development possibilities on the subject
site and the adjoining parcel to the north have been explored by staff. The Assistant City
Engineer explored these alternatives which will be discussed in detail further in the report. Staff
informed Mr. Hoben that staff will recommend the parcels be served via a public street vs. a
private driveway. This will provide the opportunity for the other adjacent parcel to subdivide as
well and improve access to the existing neighborhood. The private driveway proposal, as
submitted, limits access to only Mr. Hoben's parcel and no future access to the adjoining parcel.
Staff feels that this area can and should be developed under a different alternative which includes
a public street. Therefore, staff recommends that the subdivision be approved contingent upon
the extension of Melody Hill Road. If a private driveway was allowed to be constructed, the
parcel to the north will have limited subdivision potential.
The city did receive a petition from the neighbors requesting the city not extend Melody Hill (see
attached letter).
We are recommending that it be approved with conditions outlined in the staff report.
PRELIMINARY PLAT
The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 2.17 acre site into four single-family lots. The density
of the proposed subdivision is 1.8 units per acre net. All the lots meet or exceed the minimum
15,000 square feet of area with an average lot size of 22,279 square feet. All of the proposed lots
meet the minimum lot width and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
Hobens Wild Wood Farms 2nd Addition
April 17, 1996
Page 3
A single-family residence currently occupies proposed Lot 2, a shed occupies proposed Lot 1,
and a barn occupies proposed Lot 4. The Zoning Ordinance prohibits the building of accessory
structures prior to a primary structure. In this case, the subdivision of the parcel will create a
nonconforming situation. The applicant should escrow funds with the City to guarantee the
removal of the structures no later than one month after final plat approval by the City Council. If
the applicant fails to remove the structure,the City would contract to have the structure removed.
Staff notes that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
WETLANDS
There does not appear to be any wetlands present on-site, however, staff recommends that the
site be assessed by a wetland delineator to verify the City's planning maps.
STREETS
The plans propose a private street to service the development. According to City Code 18-57(N),
the construction of private streets are prohibited except as specified in Section 18-57(0). This
section permits construction of a private street if the City finds the following conditions exist:
* "The prevailing development pattern makes it unfeasible or inappropriate to construct a
public street."
Staff has reviewed the development proposal and found that it is feasible from an
engineering standpoint to construct a public street. The extension of Melody Hill Road
through to Murray Hill Road would eliminate the existing 900 foot long dead-end on
Melody Hill Road. It would also provide continuity between neighborhoods and access
to school facilities. The existing home on the property is proposed to be demolished as
part of the subdivision process. The street grades for the extension of Melody Hill Road
are very level and fairly void of significant tree cover.
* "After reviewing the surrounding area, it is concluded that an extension of the public
street system is not required to service other parcels in the area, improve access, or
provide a street system consistent with the Comprehensive Plan."
Staff has reviewed the neighborhood for potential future subdivisions. The parcel
directly to the north of this site (Burkeholter)has the potential to further subdivide into a
total of three lots (see attached plans). The Burkeholter parcel would be able to utilize
the public street and utilities for future lot subdivision. Without the extension of Melody
Hill Road,the Burkeholter parcel will be limited in development potential to a private
street as well. Staff also believes it is important to improve access to the Melody Hill
Hobens Wild Wood Farms 2nd Addition
April 17, 1996
Page 4
neighborhood. Melody Hill Road has a street grade in excess of 10% in some areas. This
makes winter driving fairly difficult.
* "The use of private street will permit enhanced protection of the City's natural resources
incliy-ling wetlands and .ested areas."
There are no wetlands on the site. The plans propose on grading approximately 75%of
the site for utility and street extension and house pads. Construction of the public street
and reconfiguration of the plat per staff's layout would actually reduce the lot grading by
15%, however,tree loss would be slightly greater in the northern part of the site with the
extension of Melody Hill Road.
Staff believes that the subdivision proposal fails to meet the three conditions necessary for a
private street. The extension of Melody Hill Road to Murray Hill Road will improve access to
the Melody Hill neighborhood, provide access to the school facilities, and provide the
Burkeholter parcel with future subdivision capabilities. It will also minimize the amount of
utilities necessary to serve both parcels.
Melody Hill Road ends approximately 120 feet west of the subdivision. The City would be
responsible for the cost of extending this portion of the street. There is sufficient right-of-way
west of the development for the extension of Melody Hill Road. As the Planning Commission
and City Council members may recall,there were discussions about the extension of Melody Hill
Road with the Golmen-Hoff-Golmen plat which resulted in additional right-of-way being
dedicated for the future street extension.
If a private street is approved, the street shall be constructed in accordance with the City's private
street ordinance. Cross-access and maintenance agreements will also be required.
GRADING & DRAINAGE
According to the site plan, approximately 75%of the parcel will be graded to develop the house
pads, private street, and installation of utilities. Staff has redesigned the plat layout with a public
street(extension of Melody Hill Road to Murray Hill Road). The revised plat reduces the
amount of site grading by approximately 15%, however, additional tree loss will occur along the
north property line with the public street.
The neighborhood drainage pattern is predominantly to the north. As a result of the proposed
site grading, the drainage is proposed to sheet drain over land in an east,west, and north
direction. Additional runoff from this development is relatively small in comparison to the
current conditions. No additional storm drainage improvements are recommended as a result of
this development. The existing streets and drainage system in the area are substandard to the
Hobens Wild Wood Farms 2nd Addition
April 17, 1996
Page 5
City's current street design standards (curb and gutter and storm sewers). In the future when
streets are reconstructed, storm sewer will be installed accordingly.
The plans do not propose any storm sewers nor are any recommended in conjunction with this
subdivision. Staff recommends that the Surface Water Mariagemenl Fees (SWMP) be paid in
lieu of water quality or quantity improvements. Currently, SWIM fees for single-family
residential developments are $800 per acre for water quality and $1,980 per acre for water
quantity. These fees are due to the City at time of final plat recording.
UTILITIES
Municipal sewer and water service is available to the site from Murray Hill Road. Watermain is
also bordering the parcel on the west side from Melody Hill Road to the city water tower. The
existing home on the site is connected to city sewer and water. As a result of the subdivision, the
existing home will be razed. The sewer and water lines will need to be disconnected and
abandoned per City Code unless the new lot will utilize the existing sewer and water service.
The plans propose on extending a common sewer and water line along the private street to
service the four lots. The waterline will need to be increased to a 6-inch diameter pipe versus 4-
inch. All utilities in the subdivision will become owned and maintained by the City upon
completion. All utilities should be installed in accordance with the City's latest edition of
Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be
required in conjunction final plat approval. The applicant will be required to enter into a
development contract with the City and provide financial security to guarantee installation of the
public utilities and conditions of final approval.
If the plat is approved without a public street, a 40-foot wide drainage and utility easement will
be needed over the utility lines on the final plat. If Melody Hill is constructed, the utilities will
fall within the street right-of-way.
According to the City's Finance Department,the parcel was previously assessed for one sanitary
sewer and water hookup and connection charge. As a result of the development,three of the lots
will be subject to hookup charges at time of building permit issuance assuming the applicant
installs the mainline sewer and water lines. Another reason staff believes Melody Hill Road
should be extended is also for utility service to the area. If a private street is permitted,the
Burkeholter parcel to the north will require another sewer and water line in which the City will
own and maintain,thus, requiring maintenance of two separate water and sewer systems in which
one system would suffice to service both parcels. If the applicant installs the utilities along
Melody Hill Road,they will be entitled to compensation for a portion of the utilities. When the
Burkeholter parcel develops and connects to the system,the City will collect connection charges.
In return, the City would refund a portion of the connection charge back to the applicant. This
Hobens Wild Wood Farms 2nd Addition
April 17, 1996
Page 6
scenario has happened on a number of projects where the adjacent parcel wasn't ready to
subdivide at the time utilities are provided.
As proposed, connection to the City's sanitary sewer system may require temporary closing of
Murray Hill Road for up to a day. Special construction techniques such as a construction box or
creating a temporary bypass lane in the boulevard to maintain ingress and egress to the
residences at the end of Murray Hill Road (cul-de-sac) are recommended.
EROSION CONTROL
Type I silt fence is proposed around the perimeter of the site. A rock construction entrance is
also proposed but not shown on the plans. The final grading/development plans shall include a
rock construction entrance at all access points.
MISCELLANEOUS
Staff recommends that an escrow account be provided by the applicant to the city in the amount
of$500 for review and filing of the final plat documents. After the final plat documents are
recorded and the city receives the invoices from the City Attorney's Office, the city will refund
the remaining balance.
The City's Fire Marshal has recommended if the site develops with a private street, either a
turnaround be provided that meets fire codes or the homes shall be constructed with a residential
sprinkler system.
PARK DEDICATION
The Park and Recreation Director recommends full park and trail fees be collected per city
ordinance in lieu of land acquisition and/or trail construction.
COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT
Lot Lot Lot Home
Area Width Depth Setback
Ordinance 15,000 90' 125' 30' front/rear
10' sides
BLOCK 1
Lot 1 21,502' 129' 150' 30'/30'
10'
Lot 2 23,326 148' 146' 30'/30'
Hobens Wild Wood Farms 2nd Addition
April 17, 1996
Page 7
10'
Lot 3 21,347 114' 172' 30'/30'
10'
Lot 4 22,944 155' 150' 30'/30'
10'
It should be noted that these tabulations will change after Melody Hill Road is extended and Lot 2
will be considered a corner lot and have 30 foot setbacks from Murray Hill Road and Melody Hill
Road. The remaining sides are 10 foot setbacks.
TREE PRESERVATION/LANDSCAPING
The applicant failed to submit canopy coverage calculations including existing and proposed
coverage. Staff calculated existing canopy coverage to be approximately 65%, or 1.41 acres.
For a low density residential development,the required base line canopy coverage is 46%, or 1
acre. The applicant will be removing half of the existing trees thereby leaving approximately
33%, or .72 acres. Since trees will be removed in excess of the allowable minimum, the 23%
difference will be multiplied by 1.2. The total reforestation requirement is then .34 acres or 14
trees.
Placement of the reforestation plantings should be done with the following priorities: front
yards, energy conservation (north, east and west of homes), and buffer/screen for neighboring
yards. All trees must be from the City's Approved Tree List and of minimum required size.
The applicant will need to submit reforestation plan prior to final plat for city approval.
PRIVATE STREETS - FINDINGS
The applicant is proposing the use of a private street to provide access to four proposed lots in
this development. City Code, Section 18-57 (o)permits up to four(4) lots to be served by a
private street if the city finds the following to exist:
(1) The prevailing development pattern makes it unfeasible or inappropriate to
construct a public street. In making this determination, the city may consider the
location of existing property lines and homes, local or geographic conditions, and
the existence of wetlands.
FINDING: The prevailing development does not make it unfeasible for the construction
of a public street. Should the applicant be permitted to construct the private street as
proposed, the parcel to the north will be limited in subdividing.
Hobens Wild Wood Farms 2nd Addition
April 17, 1996
Page 8
(2) After reviewing the surrounding area it is concluded that an extension of the
public street system is not required to serve other parcels in the area, improve
access, or to provide a street system consistent with the comprehensive plan.
FINDING: The extension of a public street is required to service the parcel to the north.
(3) The use of a private street will permit enhanced protection of wetlands and mature
trees.
FINDING: The proposed private street will result in the removal of trees. However, a
public street will result in the loss of some trees as well.
Staff is recommending that the private streets as proposed by the applicant be denied for reasons
outlined above.
SUBDIVISION - FINDINGS
1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance;
Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential
Single Family District.
2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans
including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan;
Finding: The proposed subdivision is inconsistent with the subdivision ordinance.
3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils,
vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm
water drainage are suitable for the proposed development;
Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions
specified in this report. The site is fairly level and will require minimal alteration
for development.
4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage,
sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this
chapter;
Hobens Wild Wood Farms 2nd Addition
April 17, 1996
Page 9
Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure.
5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage;
Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage subject
to conditions of approved. The proposed subdivision contains adequate open areas
to accommodate house pads.
6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record.
Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but
rather will expand and provide all necessary easements.
7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the
following exists:
a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage.
b. Lack of adequate roads.
c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems.
d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems.
Finding: The proposed subdivision will require the extension of a public street.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion:
PRELIMINARY PLAT
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision#94-15
for Hobens Wild Wood Farms Second Addition for 4 single family lots as shown on the plans
dated September 20, 1995, subject to the following conditions:
1. The plat shall be redesigned with incorporating the east/west extension of Melody Hill
Road to Murray Hill Road within a 60-foot wide dedicated right-of-way. The applicant
shall be responsible for the cost of constructing Melody Hill Road within the plat. The
City will be responsible for the cost of the street lying west of the plat. All typical
drainage and utility easements shall be shown on the plat.
2. Prior to the City signing the final plat, the applicant shall pay the City a stormwater
connection fee per city ordinance in lieu of constructing any on-site drainage
Hobens Wild Wood Farms 2nd Addition
April 17, 1996
Page 10
improvements. Based on current fee structures,the stormwater quality and quantity fees
are $1,736 and $4,296, respectively.
3. The applicant shall be responsible for extending sanitary sewer and water service to the
development. Detailed construction plans and specifications in accordance with the
City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates shall be submitted to the
city engineer for review and City Council approval. The applicant shall also enter into a
development contract with the City and provide the City with a financial escrow to
guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval.
4. The applicant shall apply for a obtain permits from the MWCC, Health Department, and
PCA for extension of the utility lines.
5. Lots 1, 2, and 3 will be subject to sanitary sewer and water hookup charges. These
charges shall be collected per city ordinance at time of building permit issuance. If the
utilities are extended along Melody Hill Road,the applicant shall be reimbursed for a
portion of the cost of installing the utilities when the parcel (Burkeholter) connects to the
system. Connection charges collected by the City shall be used to reimburse the
applicant their fair share of the cost in providing utility service to the Burkeholter parcel.
6. The applicant shall apply for and comply with City permits to disconnect the existing
sewer and water line to the house.
7. The mainline water system shall be increased to a 6-inch diameter line.
8. If the utilities are not constructed within a public street right-of-way, the applicant shall
dedicate a 40-foot wide utility and drainage easement centered over the utilities on the
final plat.
9. If a public street is not constructed, the private street shall be built in accordance with the
City's private street ordinance. Cross-access and maintenance agreements will be
required to maintain access.
10. During utility and street construction,provisions shall be made to maintain at least one
lane of traffic open at all times on Murray Hill Road.
11. The applicant must plant 14 trees in development to meet minimum canopy coverage and
reforestation requirements. Trees must be from City's Approved Tree List and be of
minimum sized as stated in ordinance.
Hobens Wild Wood Farms 2nd Addition
April 17, 1996
Page 11
12. Placement of trees will be based on the following priorities: front yards landscape
requirements, energy conservation (north, west, and east of homes), and buffer/screen for
neighboring yards. Reforestation plan must be submitted prior to final plat for city
approval.
13. Tree preservation must protect trees on lot 3 by tying into the silt fence line and
extending it to the private drive. This must be accomplished prior to any grading on site.
14. Building Department conditions:
a. Applicant shall obtain demolition permits for any buildings to be removed before
their removal.
15. The existing garage shall be removed no later than one month after final plat approval by
the City Council. Financial guarantees shall be posted with the city to ensure compliance
with this condition.
16. Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition
and/or trail construction.
17. The applicant shall provide the city with a$500 escrow prior to the city signing the final
plat for review and recording of the final plat documents.
18. If the site develops with a private street,the applicant shall provide a turnaround which
meets fire codes or the homes must constructed with a residential sprinkler system."
ATTACHMENTS
1. Application.
2. Public hearing and property owners list.
3. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated October 11, 1995.
4. Memo from Dave Hempel dated April 9, 1996.
5. Preliminary plat dated September 20, 1995.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
APPLICANT: /+OBA/ Cet2p4401;0.A/ OWNER:lam.(Pr Poc-7` WO(P/Q-
ADDRESS: I Er 2' /N17‹A- 131--IID ADDRESS: 6 3 9 $ N iii•,4A.>r Tr/GL 2Q
VQerk#4-1/42,N , /j'1/wl' 6'53 9 / C44-rv4,4-5Se.v, 41/414/
TELEPHONE (Day time) / 2-" l73 — 7.7G0 TELEPHONE: 4 / 2. — ‘041 -- S-T 7 r
1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW/Easements
2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance
3. Interim Use Permit 13. Wetland Alteration Permit
4. Non-conforming Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal
5. Planned Unit Development 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment
6. Rezoning
7. Sign Permits
8. Sign Plan Review l Notification Sign0 e-e•- •
q) c.1)etoplc
9. Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost**
($50 CUP/SP tC/VAR/WAP/Metes
and Bounds, ',400 inor SUB)
10. ( Subdivisio4i4)Q -1-(/1. y. 6) lit TOTAL FEE $ I/0 I j'
A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must
included with the application.
Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted.
8'/s" X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet.
* NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract
PROJECT NAME /440001111 CviL p F mA,$e � �- O 41
LOCATION 4 3
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PRESENT ZONING �.•eJf
REQUESTED ZONING
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION -�y--
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST &d4 ..car V +- ac/tA-4..d v
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the
Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying
with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party
whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of
ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the
authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge.
77/
ature of Applicant J Date
Signature of Fee Owner Date C�7 /
Application Received on 9����?5 Fee Paid /(-/C• CC Receipt No. J / -!
The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the
meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address.
Charles E. Spevacek, Esq.
6474 Murray Hill Road
Excelsior,Minnesota 55331
Telephone: (612)470.9697
June 20, 1995
The Honorable Donald J. Chmiel Ms. Kathryn Aanenson
Mayor of the City of Chanhassen Director of Planning Department
and and
Mr. Donald Ashworth Ms. Colleen Docke:_2,�-1
City Manager 7,1r. Mark Senn
and Mr. Steven Berquist
Mr. Charles Folch Mr. Michael Mason
City Engineer City Council Members
and
Ms. Nancy Mancino Post Office Box 147
Chair of Planning Commission Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Re: Proposed Melody Hill Street Extension
Dear Sirs and Mesdames:
We understand the City of Chanhassen is copsidering extending Melody Hill Street west from its
intersection with Murray Hill Road, through the property presently owned by Clifford Woida, 6393 Murray Hill
Road.
This letter is to advise you that the residents of Murray Hill Road, Melody Hill Street and
Sommergate, indicated on the enclosed Petitions, are strongly opposed to this proposal. The signatures on these
Petitions represent the vast majority of the residents of our neighborhood.
We see no benefit to our neighborhood in particular, or to the City in general, by this project.
Instead,we believe its completion would be of considerable detriment. We are concerned the quiet character of our
neighborhood would be destroyed by the increased traffic using this new route as an unnecessary shortcut from
Hazeltine Boulevard to Galpin Boulevard. We fear for the safety of our children,particularly during the school year
(the neighborhood school bus drop is at the corner of Murray Hill Road and Melody Hill Street). We do not
understand why this disruption to our neighborhood and devaluation to our properties should be tolerated when we
understand a new cross street between Hazeltine Boulevard and Galpin Boulevard is planned at a location less than
two miles south of us; and when the trip which would be"saved"by this road extension (between the intersection
of Melody Hill and Chaska Road, and Melody Hill and Murray Hill) amounts to all of seventh/tenths of one mile,
and less than two minutes travel time.
There are many other objections to this proposal which we could raise if the City is, indeed,
contemplating this project. We trust,however,that the wishes of the citizens most directly impacted by this project
will be sufficient in persuading the City such project is unnecessary and inadvisable. We would appreciate your
confirmation that the City has no plans to undertake this disruptive,wasteful endeavor.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
D4)431/1'1'
Charles E. S vacek
CES/pep1277080
Petition to the City of Chanhassen
We understand the City of Chanhassen is considering a plan to extend Melody Hill Road west from its intersection
with Murray Hill Road,through the property presently owned by the Woldas. We,the undersigned,stronglx oppose such
a plan.
Extending Melody Hill Roa' n this manner would result In an Irrevocable, detrimental,change in the character of :!
our neighborhood, reduf.47,k the value and desirabi'zty of our piopf ties and increasing the safety r;.ks i..
neighborhood's children. We see no need fu.this project,or benefit from its completion.
Please consider our input In any decisions you may make regarding this wasteful, detrimental and unnecessary
proposal.
Date Name(Printed) Address Signature
5(605 l v-',5 A.
5i is hf Awo s• I 69:9+ �A L___/2„,„
pei
.5-/fcbs- •
//-'k.3— llenNj , L-1`-/`fd
?e,- .
��� ?.a ��r► c ohyf//<1.4-i
ly/9� /PALER rc, i !M -(6 ,(54,
3,e
SusAN A.STH,, a. 7)2,14 die
5117/ mark S riatlh a3SD He/0y l5r 11 (Q 's-6 eAd
51'7/9stot-e 6me r X350 ►LIE I ock,1 N k l( Xpaits1--7itfc-c,--k
5b 1/95 oetido RA • as 80 Iritt5
t nda N1coJ�
Ovvio 27.tc8a
Petition to the City of Chanhassen
We understand the City of Chanhassen is considering a plan to extend Melody Hill Road west from its intersection
with Murray Hill Road,through the property presently awned by the Woidas. We,the undersigned,strongly oppose such
a plan.
Extending Melody Hill Road In this manner would result In an irrevocable,detrimental,change in the character of
our neighborhood, reducing the value and desirability of our properties and Increasing the safety risks to our
neighborhood's children. We see no need for this project,or benefit from its completion.
Please consider our input in any decisions you may make regarding this wasteful, detrimental and unnecessary
proposal.
Date Name(Printed) Addresse(Print
ed
c� 644 IMurray //,// QA 1,1 77t.� ly/m1-€71 J, i-Um C%.CNLs r P1thi-533/ '�
co s-y Ph..rrai H,'!/ rt/ —
-
5- /c_/_91 Tali,,. L�.ca_ c<c--fi icr Al•r/6533 '�'
4
" - )4-/-7� l 3L 3 �'N,.,ry;--/AU i(ci ,
1 w �-CG/
lcCC/��'vL vl CS-S31 i, _
Petition to the City of Chanhassen
We understand the City of Chanhassen Is considering a plan to extend Melody Hill Road west from its Intersection
enth Murray Hill Road,through the property presently owned by the Woidas. We,the undersigned,str onelr•oppose such q
a plan.
Extending Melody Hill Road in this manner would result In an irrevocable, detrimental,change in the character
our neighborboA. reducing the value and desirability of our propertie- olid in.teasing the safety risk tc our
+telgi,boil.00d's children. We see no geed for this project,or benefit from Its completion.
Please consider our Input In any decisions you may make regarding this wasteful, detrimental and unnecessary
proposal.
Date Name(Printed) Address Signature
C' u\ark,t e ipLo4 IAJ{Tay 1A: \RI 6\a6..t .i,x1,0&,Q
4/41
iGace li._ Ei,caS to r, KtJ 5531
S/VI5- A>E,C G, ZZagf to G
---
e.44/,61 Lt5,4 J . /,; V
= L4-S ''`44)ss 3,✓1\e'''
1\KS-------re410.6/4/4
i.7(/ - 4.1 ,,i/4,7-;, ` —'41 `-''' 1 6 7, ,. -741 /folird7
•
4l4- ZZ�° /1/rn 6{.,11
,c�
J
5 �Li Lyni@ ‹uzma �l �►►, '' _ 1
,(#:
q/1 PeYk7 C. 1-111-r1se4\ -2,27:2-1 soMt^GKGAT� (,
41L_____:_,
/I . . „....j /
��y'47044- S
Petition to the City of Chanhassen
We understand the City of Chanhassen is considering a plan to extend Melody Hill Road west from its Intersection
with Murray Hill Road,through the property presently owned by the Woidas. We,the undersigned,strongly oppose such
a plan.
Extending Melody Hill Road in this manner would result In an irrevocable, detrimental,change In the character of
our neighborhood, reducing the value and desirability of our properties and increasing the safety risks to our
neighborhood's children. We see no need for this project,or benefit from Its completion.
Please consider our input In any decisions you may make regarding this wasteful, detrimental and unnecessary
proposal.
Date Name(Printed) Address Signature
/ 6 3 v/ /1c'/VA y /x —ems.
/4 1- l)'tkf 62 E/ /f1vr-rtk,ty C/ ----
3"Alfi 5- p,h---4
Mv• a 1`1 v$ c2_31 vh,Avv.,y
ifr
ifr: X�S�t N i 0 ►�S . 41111,0- 4/7-1
_ ,
_9//c//15iM• r ti^4S• c)3/Jo $:Yf t/''1/ :1 � i r_/�
,2V----et -41-''.7 0,-,)
s//yA- m 44(Y 23,36 ,,,,,x Auz ',__I /X
5-8-1C /lf i-4.64 .
S-I S--ti S 11'i f-i:: 67c1j-fail-AA i W„... Ri)
-�/555 iii.Y /h 'S / /' !i-7 / //(/.47 f/)// '" • /, - L
lv L (
)
i3j%Sa� I � 2.>? . /:66(/,',e(4 (M )C� —i:3L r r j
% (3vrKric�1
L7
Petition to the City of Chanhassen
We understand the City of Chanhassen is considering a plan to extend Melody Hill Road west from its intersection
with Murray Hill Road,through the property presently owned by the Woidas. We,the undersigned,LV=W1oppose such
a plan.
Extending Melody Hill Road in this manner would result in an irrevocable,detrimental,change in the character of
our neighborhood, reducing the value and desirability of oar ,;roperties am increasing ''s:• safety risk; to our
neighborhood's children. We see no need for this project,or benefit from its completion.
Please consider our input in any decisions you may make regarding this wasteful, detrimental and unnecessary
proposal.
Date Name(Printed) Address Signature
Ati)qc
Suoc(1--tOUitkt,o U' 8 ) \nv.cra., H it ��`(�
4-Xc siCr J u-C
J 4. 48.2 /y1m +�r .S is
/��S//G/'i T�1-�l.
if ✓62iE "?`"/s/01. I,r,
/ • ,,
A,5S6. � I-� !�� /1 a 1%
matilaRr IF
54ff.. bii_Lk_ °O51177t16441 -Wi 11 Pcix„j(diStk_
n.
l`k `\lmwv Zee ?,0'ID K kW0,0' 149- •:i vi .,
5/IL/ JCS' 0 a J � n
JCE Prit- 1c ,c.� Mfl� ; „or ,
.S iY M i ch.Qila-
o)oo 1-ceic I-10 1 x`7"}1 Ma„8.
V/(( J4a�it .9._c5:6 tme/�c7 #17/ J
6--e...-c-&-: c(3/
E11-1 Senn( DoBo me o
�nC.ncr WI
ga K'4'l) Zoo V1ELL p, Uiu
1ID0 rr��611'1Y►1(ur.) r ` . ,ti
t (--41Viv"\k
;(tib,,, a �` I
►1/ l-L j� �.4(-- ,) u
o 0 0 0 0 0
o 0 0 0 0 0
IS) Tr r1 N 0
N N N N N N
. SLA.- i
NOTICE OF PUBLIC of Shorewood
HEARING . a__._ :ig . UP Rf wt�Zg R I.. ._
PLANNING COMMISSION1/5t,MEETING ,I Wednesday, APRIL 17, 1996 .1I � H� T
at 7:00 p.m. rti I `44",
City Hall Council Chambers Hni ••::e ' "�`°
690 Coulter Drive l ►
w.6.54,stI 1
Project: Hobens Wild Wood Farms I 1 l ���
2nd Additionrestliew°i
Developer: Hoben Corporation
Location: SW Corner of Intersection of
Murray Hill Road & Melody ,:' = - I i
Hill Road ._
'r; .6cy Rab
Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your
area. The applicant,Hoben Corporation, is proposing a preliminary plat of 2.17 acres into 4 single
family lots on property zoned RSF, Residential Single Family and located at the southwest corner
of the intersection of Murray Hill Road and Melody Hill Road, Hobens Wild Wood Farms Second
Addition.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the
meeting,the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project.
2. The Developer will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission
will then make a recommendation to the City Council.
Questions or Comments:If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City
Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to
someone about this project, please contact Sharmin at 937-1900 ext. 120. If you choose to submit
written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff
will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on April 4, 1996.
Robert& Delores Aman Steven&Denise Artley Harry&Lynn Baert
2250 Melody Hill Road 2098 Melody Hill Road 6300 Hummingbird Road
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior,MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
Thomas Baurle Claude& Kaye Benson Philip& Susan Bonthius
2231 Sommergate 2211 Sommergate 2300 Melody Hill Road
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior,MN 55331 Excelsior,MN 55331
Gary Brunsvold David Brush and Erin Kerans Paul&Agnes Burkholder
6287 Chaska Road 6257 Chaska Road 6370 Murray Hill Road
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior,MN 55331
Shirley Butcher& Lorraine Clark Robert&Margaret Cristofono
Rosemary Fruehling 2161 Melody Hill Road 2210 Sommergate
2240 Sommergate Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
Excelsior, MN 55331
Lea Foli & Marilyn Zupnik Wayne& Barbara Fransdal Terry&Vicki Franzen
6200 Hummingbird 6200 Murray Hill Road 6260 Hummingbird Rd.
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior,MN 55331
Thomas&Kimberly Gallogly Greg Golmen Steven& Carol Good
2230 Sommergate Junie Hoff-Golmen 6245 Chaska Road
Excelsior, MN 55331 2220 Melody Hill Road Excelsior,MN 55331
Excelsior,MN 55331
John&June Hamsher Perry Harrison Ind. School Dist. 276
2081 Melody Hill 2221 Sommergate 261 School Ave.
Excelsior,MN 55331 Excelsior,MN 55331 Excelsior,MN 55331
James & Michele Infanger David & Christine Johns Craig& Catherine Johnson
2080 Melody Hill Road 2220 Sommergate 2071 Melody Hill Road
Excelsior,MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
Harlan& Eleanor Johnson Lennart& Deadra Johnson Glenn,Jr. & Sherry Johnston
6340 Hummingbird Road 7605 Hyde 6263 Chaska Road
Excelsior, MN 55331 Cottage Grove,MN 55016 Excelsior,MN 55331
Randy&Jennifer Merry Koski Frank&Lynda Kuzma Robert E. Lee
6231 Murray Hill Road 2241 Sommergate 6261 Murray Hill Road
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
John&Diane Lenertz John&Nancy Liberg Evelyn Lohr Trust
6269 Chaska Road 2091 Melody Hill Road do Evelyn Hohr& C.J. Hasse
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior,MN 55331 6240 Hummingbird Road
Excelsior,MN 55331
Richard&Joyce McFarland Kenneth&Nancy Meyer Richard& Linda Nicoli
6341 Murray Hill Road 6251 Chaska Road 2280 Melody Hill Road
Excelsior,MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
Thomas H. Parker Arthur&Jane Partridge Karen Signe Peterson
6235 Chaska Road 6280 Hummingbird Road 2240 Melody Hill Road
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior,MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
Wayne&Joyce Slater Poppe Ward Allen& Sandra Putnam Frank& Greta Reese
2090 Melody Hill Road 6285 Chaska Road 6200 Chaska Road
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
Thomas& Virginia Rode Todd Rowe Robert F. Sommer
6275 Chaska Road 6270 Murray Hill Road 6239 Chaska Road
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 5533? Excelsior, MN 55331
Peter& Lisa Staudohar Robert J. Stone III& William Swearengen
2204 Sommergate Joan M. Stone P. 0. Box 756
Excelsior, MN 55331 6201 Murray Hill Road Excelsior, MN 55331
Excelsior,MN 55331
Jon&Laura Williamschen Clifford& Patricia Woida
6230 Murray Hill Road 6398 Murray Hill Road
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
4 CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff,Planner II
FROM: Steve A.Kirchman,Building Official
DATE: October 11, 1995
SUBJECT: 94-15 SUB (Hobens Wild Wood Farms Second Addition,Hoben Corporation)
I was asked to review the site plan proposal stamped *CITY OF CHANHASSEN, RECEIVED,
SEP 18 1995, CHANHAS SEN PLANNING DEPT. " for the above referenced project.
Analysis-
Demolition Permits. Existing structures on the property must be demolished and will require demolition
permits. Proof of well abandonment, if applicable, must be furnished to the City and a permit for septic
system abandonment, if applicable, must be obtained and the septic system abandoned prior to issuance of
a demolition permit.
Recommendation:
1. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the property.
E
f�
frzgacate`
�:�k,y,sp {em\Pl,d'W ddwdl2
r CITY of
isLr
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II
FROM: Dave Hempel,Assistant City Engineer
DATE: April 9, 1996
SUBJ: Review of Preliminary Plat for Hobens Wild Wood Farms Second Addition
Land Use Review File No. 96-12
Upon review of the site plans prepared by Roger Anderson & Associates dated March 22, 1996, I
offer the following comments and recommendations:
STREETS
The plans propose a private street to service the development. According to City Code 18-57(N),
the construction of private streets are prohibited except as specified in Section 18-57(0). This
section permits construction of a private street if the City finds the following conditions exist:
* "The prevailing development pattern makes it unfeasible or inappropriate to construct a
public street".
Staff has reviewed the development proposal and found that it is feasible from an
engineering standpoint to construct a public street. The extension of Melody Hill Road
through to Murray Hill Road would eliminate the existing 900 foot long deadend on
Melody Hill Road. It would also provide continuity between neighborhoods and access to
school facilities. The existing home on the property is proposed to be demolished as part
of the subdivision process. The street grades for the extension of Melody Hill Road are
very level and fairly void of significant tree cover.
* "After reviewing the surrounding area, it concluded that an extension of the public street
system is not required to service other parcels in the area, improve access,or provide a
street system consistent with the Comprehensive Plan".
Staff has reviewed the neighborhood for potential future subdivisions. The parcel directly
to the north of this site (Burkeholter) has the potential to further subdivide into a total of
three lots (see attached plans). The Burkeholter parcel would be able to utilize the public
street for future lot subdivision. Without the extension of Melody Hill Road, the
Sharmin Al-Jaff
April 9, 1996
Page 2
Burkeholter parcel will be limited in development potential to a private street as well.
Staff also believes it is important to improve access to the Melody Hill neighborhood.
Melody Hill Road has a street grade in excess of 10% in some areas. This makes winter
driving fairly difficult.
* "The use of private street will permit enhanced protection of the City's natural resources
including wetlands and forested areas".
There are no wetlands on the site. The plans propose on grading approximately 75% of
the site for utility and street extension and house pads. Construction of the public street
and reconfiguration of the plats per staff's layout would actually reduce the lot grading by
15%, however, tree loss would be slightly greater in the northern part of the site with the
extension of Melody Hill Road.
Staff believes that the subdivision proposal fails to meet the three conditions necessary for a
private street. The extension of Melody Hill Road to Murray Hill Road will improve access to the
Melody Hill neighborhood,provide pedestrian access to the school facilities, and provide the
Burkeholter parcel with future subdivision capabilities. It will also minimize the amount of
utilities necessary to serve both parcels.
Melody Hill Road ends approximately 120 feet west of the subdivision. The City would be
responsible for the cost of extending this portion of the street. There is sufficient right-of-way
west of the development for the extension of Melody Hill Road. As the Planning Commission and
City Council members may recall, there were discussions about the extension of Melody Hill Road
with the Golmen Hoff Golmen plat which resulted in additional right-of-way being dedicated for
the future street extension.
If a private street is approved, the street shall be constructed in accordance with the City's private
street ordinance. Cross-access and maintenance agreements will also be required.
GRADING & DRAINAGE
According to the site plan, approximately 75% of the parcel will be graded to develop the house
pads, private street, and installation of utilities. Staff has redesigned the plat layout with a public
street(extension of Melody Hill Road to Murray Hill Road). The revised plat reduces the amount
of site grading by approximately 15%,however, additional tree loss will occur along the north
property line with the public street.
The neighborhood drainage pattern is predominantly to the north. As a result of the proposed site
grading, the drainage is proposed to sheet drain over land in an east, west,and north direction.
Additional runoff from this development is relatively small in comparison to the current
conditions. No additional storm drainage improvements are recommended as a result of this
development. The existing streets and drainage system in the area are substandard to the City's
current street design standards (curb and gutter and storm sewers). In the future when streets are
reconstructed, storm sewer will be installed accordingly.
Sharmin Al-Jaff
April 9, 1996
Page 3
The plans do not propose any storm sewers nor are any recommended in conjunction with this
subdivision. Staff recommends that the Surface Water Management Fees (SWMP) be paid in lieu
of water quality or quantity improvements. Currently, SWMP fees for single-family residential
developments are $800 per acre for water quality and $1,980 per acre for water quantity. These
fees are due to the City at time of final plat recording.
UTILITIES
Municipal sewer and water service is available to the site from Murray Hill Road. Watermain is
also bordering the parcel on the west side from Melody Hill Road to the city water tower. The
existing home on the site is connected to city sewer and water. As a result of the subdivision, the
existing home will be razed. The sewer and water lines will need to be disconnected and
abandoned per City Code unless the new lot will utilize the existing sewer and water service. The
plans propose on extending a common sewer and water line along the private street to service the
four lots. The waterline will need to be increased to a 6-inch diameter pipe versus 4-inch. All
utilities in the subdivision will become owned and maintained by the City upon completion. All
utilities should be installed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications
and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required in conjunction
final plat approval. The applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the
City and provide financial security to guarantee installation of the public utilities and conditions of
final approval.
If the plat is approved without a public street,a 40-foot wide drainage and utility easement will be
needed over the utility lines on the final plat. If Melody Hill is constructed, the utilities will fall
within the street right-of-way.
According to the City's Finance Department,the parcel was previously assessed for one sanitary
sewer and water hookup and connection charge. As a result of the development, three of the lots
will be subject to hookup charges at time of building permit issuance assuming the applicant
installs the mainline sewer and water lines. Another reason staff believes Melody Hill Road
should be extended is also for utility service to the area. If a private street is permitted, the
Burkeholter parcel to the north will require another sewer and water line in which the City will
own and maintain, thus, requiring maintenance of two separate water and sewer systems in which
one system would suffice to service both parcels. If the applicant installs the utilities along
Melody Hill Road, they will be entitled to compensation for a portion of the utilities. When the
Burkeholter parcel develops and connects to the system, the City will collect connection charges.
In return, the City would refund a portion of the connection charge back to the applicant. This
scenario has happened on a number of projects where the adjacent parcel wasn't ready to
subdivide at the time utilities are provided.
As proposed,connection to the City's sanitary sewer system may require temporary closing of
Murray Hill Road for up to a day. Special construction techniques such as a construction box or
creating a temporary bypass lane in the boulevard to maintain ingress and egress to the residences
at the end of Murray Hill Road (cul-de-sac) are recommended.
Sharmin Al-Jaff
April 9, 1996
Page 4
EROSION CONTROL
Type I silt fence is proposed around the perimeter of the site. A rock construction entrance is
also proposed but not shown on the plans. The final grading/development plans shall include a
rock construction entrance at all access points.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. The plat shall be redesigned with incorporating the east/west extension of Melody Hill
Road to Murray Hill Road within a 60-foot wide dedicated right-of-way. The applicant
shall be responsible for the cost of constructing Melody Hill Road within the plat. The
City will be responsible for the cost of the street lying west of the plat.
2. Prior to the City signing the final plat, the applicant shall pay the City a stormwater
connection fee per city ordinance in lieu of constructing any on-site drainage
improvements. Based on current fee structures, the stormwater quality and quantity fees
are $1,728 and$4,277, respectively.
3. The applicant shall be responsible for extending sanitary sewer and water service to the
development. Detailed construction plans and specifications in accordance with the City's
latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates shall be submitted to the city
engineer for review and City Council approval. The applicant shall also enter into a
development contract with the City and provide the City with a financial escrow to
guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval.
4. The applicant shall apply for a obtain permits from the MWCC, Health Department,and
PCA for extension of the utility lines.
5. Lots 1, 2, and 3 will be subject to sanitary sewer and water hookup charges. These
charges shall be collected per city ordinance at time of building permit issuance. If the
utilities are extended along Melody Hill Road, the applicant shall be reimbursed for a
portion of the cost of installing the utilities when the parcel (Burkeholter) connects to the
system. Connection charges collected by the City shall be used to reimburse the applicant
their fair share of the cost in providing utility service to the Burkeholter parcel.
6. The applicant shall apply for and comply with City permits to disconnect the existing
sewer and water line to the house.
7. The mainline water system shall be increased to a 6-inch diameter line.
8. If the utilities are not constructed within a public street right-of-way, the applicant shall
dedicate a 40-foot wide utility and drainage easement centered over the utilities on the
final plat.
Sharmin Al-Jaff
April 9, 1996
Page 5
9. If a public street is not constructed, the private street shall be built in accordance with the
City's private street ordinance. Cross-access and maintenance agreements will be required
to maintain access.
10. During utility and street construction,provisions shall he made to maintain at least one
lane of traffic open at all tiro-- On Murray Hill Road.
jms
Attachment: Revised plan layout.
c: Charles Folch, Director of Public Works
g:'eng'dave\pc'hobens2.ppr
3.
CITY 0 F P.C. DATE: 4-17-96
\� C U A N U AC.C. DATE: 5-6-96
AQ .,
CASE: 96-2 Site Plan
BY: Al-Jaff:v
STAFF REPORT'
'
3s'
PROPOSAL: Site plan review for a 38,948 square foot office/warehouse building - Technical
Industrial Sales II
LOCATION: Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center 2nd Addition
V
APPLICANT: Ray Collings
(L 1480 Park Road
0. Chanhassen, MN 55317
Q (612) 474-4100
PRESENT ZONING: Planned Unit Development, PUD
ACREAGE: 3.56 acres
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N - PUD, Highland Development
S- PUD, Lake Drive West and Vacant Parcel
E- PUD, Paulstarr Enterprises and Commerce Drive
W - PUD, Control Products
QWATER AND SEWER: Available to site.
PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The site has been graded and is devoid of vegetation.
Ili 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Office/Industrial
... - ,
_ -1 .
oi Ili 4141 _
,
•-- ' ‘c, • o4r %,(
p ::,:: Lake
Ann
.4500 . 0, t - El IIIII , , m
vglimpri •
:;.
•?; 'T#
1 .- c,,‘ . c. • /
Mao tar w Limaiekticivi.-1 ,--
• * -' d-L- dir 1'4 ' , ,
: - - • . i,,---', 0 park 1111 1
).- - 4
. A .- lifiCaY
. a-, ii
---.....-1 r•
. •..-_-_-_--.E 14 j :• 11111 ,_(-) MINI g
. ›' 1 • ,, ....
i Maikillill I 1 .. .
. . . ..
III
IlkOrair . . .
,'. idthe
•
41 ...,....:_ ..
„
:-- •
L...
II .„
,
,,„ *
\ ,,,,, _ .
iiite Park ..,..-i......::.........:
. .
_
- , • 4- - - ^.1...2m--1,4 •-41..zs,,---..-.11,..z.
P \
. . . ,
•
Park .
0 cs) IPV
. . .. .. , ,.... Bluff Creek
Elern School
'111110 .
'
Parks,LI..--
'41 --1114k.....Coulter Blv.(1,„_.iiiiiiellidi. Cs
- •
°u/ter Blvd
11411 *
liti*.
• - ,, be ••• Dr
• ' •
c.._._._.__
--. '
Va.
.. . ,10,11p''Se°- For illy tinwEllt
....
._ . t IP Mk 40, C.a e “ttW4P
)11111P111111111* k 'ilii11111111111111.1/
k. - -14.11iivrty
Li IN% gni ig'' N, -Aril
- itior arat I ' --' -141111111.111LjrairilT4'‘.\N* ..,...*.Jtii1P7-4141111111''''':
a wino . , sto•e C r e, ,Liam'um nAkaillit I, a akil ,• 4
1/1111/saimm : WO , w III/0# ..t‘ AL .
.. as • I 0, 0
:
_ one Creek Ittne
> t$,driepuryji tfil"="No firti1111/
/ I
1-0 aiikli *ow 41111Ir amain. ..10, i.6
ss- wiiis;o• .
U Or 0711/11 4.0.
, v. 10 1/11 V
1
A
\e, • Lake D 0 .i.• ......i.,
lows,-
T 6.1 Or
it, _ego 6111111
kirAlri:111 LPO
• /11M i$No.4:m13
vim
" /BIWA 4114 arAip INI,. 1ft gin-. '
it 111".
tll MEE; 1
pi (kit: =err. Ica -
i 1
Lyman B444pliza*. ,..,, ..__ ;%•._„ __... _,
'j:),:r-:,.?,;•-:;:;:---',) --:,..7111.VifirMININEI r, piaiv, ma.., .ii.--% 11IV -,-..-
3 t '15 lita Ell ir ruiv
4, lakik:1,.°
..
•. am,-
:Petrill.- "'1-11# 461.,glIWmilromilli
ILIIIIIV 4 ,
8700 ,s „IP'g.
41."PAVZI a 1•- -•r
40 cl.fr937 II e. 1.8/11
.. #•-• 7110 Alltr 1.Al. , . -- • abb w
, Park
fl ...- e bialitirhiRtal i:i
4 ..
4kt
00 , .
••,' NM I pr I P IP: 11111 1 al
:..
0 0
1 Arg
,. . _
Technical Industrial Sales II
April 17, 1996
Page 2
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting site plan approval for the construction of a 38,948 square foot office
warehouse building on Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center 2nd Addition.
The site is zoned PUD-IOP, Planned Unit Development-Industrial Office Park, and bordered by
Highland Development to the north, Lake Drive West and vacant land to the south, Paulstarr
Enterprises and Commerce Drive to the east and Control Products to the west. The lot area of
the office/warehouse site is 3.56 acres. The site has full access from Lake Drive West and
Commerce Drive.
The applicant is proposing the use of smooth face block on all four sides. The PUD requires that
all walls shall be given added architectural interest through building design or appropriate
landscaping. Horizontal bands and geometrical shapes of rough face block, accentuate the
building. A pitched element, brick and glass adorn the entry ways into the building. The overall
design provides variation and detail on the facade of the building. However, this design could be
further improved by stepping out sections of the walls.
The building will serve office/industrial tenants. Parking for vehicles is located along the -
northeast portion of the site and truck loading area along the southwest portion of the site. The
site landscaping in certain areas is lacking, such as the southwest portion of the site, where the
loading docks are located. The applicant could use a variety of trees and bushes for additional
screening. A meandering berm of 3 to 4 feet in height runs along the entire edge of the site that
does provide screening some screening.
Staff regards the project as a reasonable use of the land. The overall design is sensitive to the
image of the industrial park and meets the standards established as part of the PUD. Based upon
the foregoing, staff is recommending approval of the site plan,without variances, with conditions
outlined in the staff report.
BACKGROUND
On January 13, 1992,the City Council approved the preliminary plat for the Chanhassen
Business Center as shown on the attached site plan. The PUD was amended on February 8, 1993
to allow for a church as a permitted use and the final plat for phase I of the project was approved.
On April 24, 1995, the Chanhassen Business Center 2nd Addition, subdividing Outlot C into 7
lots,was approved by the City.
The Chanhassen Business Center is an industrial/office park on 93.7 acres. The original plat
consisted of 12 lots and 2 outlots. The ultimate development for this proposal was to have a total
of 700,000 square feet of building area with a mix of 20% office, 25%industrial and 55%
Technical Industrial Sales II
April 17, 1996
Page 3
warehouse. The first phase of final plat approval included two lots. The National Weather
Service (NWS)was built on Lot 1, Block 2 and the Jehovah Witness Church was built on Lot 1,
Block 1 of the 1st Addition. Highland was built on Lot 2, Block 1, Power Systems on Lot 4,
Block 1 and Paulstarr Enterprises was built on Lot 7, Block 1 of the 2nd Addition. One of the
original conditions of the PUD was that the perimeter landscaping was to be installed as well as
the trail. This condition has been met and the landscaping is consistent with the approved
landscaping plan for the original PUD.
On September 25, 1995,the City Council reviewed the replat of Outlot A into Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4,
Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center 3rd Addition. Control Products is built on Lot 1, Block 1,
Chanhassen Business Center 3rd Addition.
GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE
OVERVIEW
The proposed building is situated on a corner lot facing Commerce Drive and Lake Drive West.
Access is gained off of both streets. Parking is located to the northeast of the proposed building.
Direct views of the docks, which are located to the Southwest of the building, will be visible
from the surrounding areas. Additional landscaping will be required to screen the docks from
views. This issue is discussed in detail in the Landscaping Section of the staff report.
The building height is 16.8 feet, located 30 feet from the northwest, 95 feet from the northeast,
86' from the southeast, and 116' from the southwest property line.
The applicant is proposing the use of smooth face block on all four sides. The PUD requires that
all walls shall be given added architectural interest through building design or appropriate
landscaping. Horizontal bands and geometrical shapes of rough face block, accentuate the
building. A pitched element,brick and glass adorn the entry ways into the building. The overall
design provides variation and detail on the facade of the building. However, this design could be
further improved by stepping out sections of the walls.
The applicant has not shown the trash enclosure location. The materials used to screen the trash
enclosure shall be the same type of block used on the building.
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The development standards will remain the same as previously approved with the PUD.
Technical Industrial Sales II
April 17, 1996
Page 4
a- Intent
The purpose of this zone is to create a PUD light industrial/office park. The use of the PUD zone
is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive
proposal. All utilities are required to be placed underground. Each lot proposed for development
shall proceed through site plan review based on the development standards outlined below.
b. Permitted Uses
The permitted uses in this zone should be limited to light industrial,warehousing, and office as
defined below. The uses shall be limited to those as defined herein. If there is a question as to
whether or not a use meets the definition,the City Council shall make that interpretation.
1. Light Industrial. The manufacturing, compounding,processing, assembling, packaging,
or testing of goods or equipment or research activities entirely within an enclosed
structure, with no outside storage. There shall be negligible impact upon the surrounding
environment by noise, vibration, smoke, dust or pollutants.
2. Warehousing. Means the commercial storage of merchandise and personal property.
3. Office. Professional and business office, non-retail activity.
FINDING: The proposed uses of light industrial and office are consistent with the parameters
established as part of the PUD.
c. Setbacks
In the PUD standards, there is the requirement for landscape buffering in addition to building and
parking setbacks. The landscape buffer on Audubon Road is 50 feet, south of Lake Drive and
100 feet along the southern property line. The PUD zone requires a building to be setback 50
feet from the required landscape buffer and public right-of-ways. There is no minimum
requirement for setbacks on interior lot lines.
The following setbacks shall apply from the right-of-way:
Building Parking
Required (interior road system) 25' 15'
Provided 86' 16'
Technical Industrial Sales II
April 17, 1996
Page 5
FINDING: The proposed development meets or exceeds the minimum setbacks established as
part of the PUD.
d. Development Standards Tabulation Box
Chanhassen Business Center Second Addition
CBC PUD Lot Size - Bldg Ht. Bldg Sq. Ft. Building Coverage Impervious
Acres (ft.) Surface
PUD 3.56 40' 40,000 26% 67%
Requirement
Technical 3.56 16.8' 38,748 23.0% 61%
Industrial Sales
II
COMPLIANCE TABLE
PUD Control Products
Building Height 2 stories 1 story
Building Setback NW-25'NE-25' NW-30'NE-95'
SW-10' SE-15' SW-166' SE-86'
Parking stalls 56 61 stalls
Parking Setback NW-15'NE-15' NW-52'NE-16'
SW-10' SE-15' SW-10' SE-16'
Hard surface 70% 61%
Coverage
Lot Area 1 acre 3.56 acres
Variances Required -none
The PUD standard for hard surface coverage is 70%for office and industrial uses.
•
Technical Industrial Sales II
April 17, 1996
Page 6
Parking Standards: Office-4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet; Warehouse - 1 space per 1,000 for
first 10,000 square feet,then 1 space per 2,000 square feet; Manufacturing - 1 parking space for
each employee on the major shift and 1 space for each motor vehicle when customarily kept on
the premises. Staff has estimated the required parking at 56 spaces. The applicant has provided
61 spaces.
Building Square Footage Breakdown;or entire development
Office 20% 120,700 sq. ft.
Manufacturing 25% 150,875 sq. ft.
Warehouse 54.09% 326,425 sq. ft.
Church 0.91% 5,500 sq. ft.
Total 100% 603,500 sq. ft.
FINDING: The proposed development meets the development standards established as part of
the PUD. The city has previously approved the following square footage within the Chanhassen
Business Center:
Development Office Manufacturing Warehouse Church
PUD
Requirements 120,700 150,875 326,425 5,500
Church 5,500
National
Weather Service 17,500
Power Systems 7,433 20,317
Paulstarr 7,287 18,017
Enterprises
Highland 1,802 7,359
Control 10,000 16,750 8,250
Products
Technical 38,748 20,999 10,000
Industrial Sales
II
Percentage 13.7% 6.2% 10.1% 0.91%
Total 82,770 37,749 60,943 5,500
Technical Industrial Sales II
April 17, 1996
Page 7
e. Building Materials and Design
1. The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural
standards and site design. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material
compatible to the building.
2. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Masonry material shall be used. Color
shall be introduced through colored block or panels and not painted block.
3. Brick may be used and must be approved to assure uniformity.
4. Block shall have a weathered face or be polished, fluted, or broken face.
5. Concrete may be poured in place,tilt-up or pre-cast, and shall be finished in stone,
textured or coated.
6. Metal siding will not be approved except as support material to one of the above
materials or curtain wall on office components or, as trim or as HVAC screen.
7. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary structure.
8. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible appearing material.
Wood screen fences are prohibited. All exterior process machinery, tanks, etc., are to be
fully screened by compatible materials.
9. The use of large unadorned,prestressed concrete panels and concrete block shall be
prohibited. Acceptable materials will incorporate textured surfaces, exposed aggregate
and/or other patterning. All walls shall be given added architectural interest through
building design or appropriate landscaping.
10. Space for recycling shall be provided in the interior of all principal structures for all
developments in the Business Center.
FINDING: The applicant is proposing the use of smooth face block. The PUD requires that all
walls shall be given added architectural interest through building design or appropriate
landscaping. The plans include horizontal accent bands and geometrical shapes surrounding the
building. The building design in general meets the intent of the PUD design requirements.
However,this design could be further improved by stepping out sections of the walls.
Technical Industrial Sales II
April 17, 1996
Page 8
f. Site Landscaping and Screening
1. All buffer landscaping, including boulevard landscaping, included in Phase I area to be
installed when the grading of the phase is completed. This may well result in landscaping
being required ahead of individual site plan approvals but we believe the buffer yard and
plantings, in particular, need to be established immediately. In addition, to adhere to the.
higher quality of development as spelled out in the PUD zone, all loading areas shall be
screened. Each lot for development shall submit a separate landscaping plan as a part of
the site plan review process.
2. All open spaces and non-parking lot surfaces shall be landscaped, rockscaped, or covered
with plantings and/or lawn material.
3. Storage of material outdoors is prohibited unless it has been approved under site plan
review. All approved outdoor storage must be screened with masonry fences and/or
landscaping.
3. The master landscape plan for the CBC PUD shall be the design guide for all of the
specific site landscape developments. Each lot must present a landscape plan for
approval with the site plan review process.
4. Undulating or angular berms 3' to 4' in height, south of Lake Drive along Audubon Road
shall be sodded or seeded at the conclusion of Phase I grading and utility construction.
The required buffer landscaping may be installed in phases, but it shall be required where
it is deemed necessary to screen any proposed development. All required boulevard
landscaping shall be sodded.
5. Loading areas shall be screened from public right-of-ways. Wing walls may be required
where deemed appropriate.
FINDING: The landscaping requirements for the proposed development include 3,760 sq. ft. of
landscaped area, 15 trees for the parking lots, 34 trees for the perimeter area, and screening of the
loading area. The applicant meets the required landscaped area with over 3,500 sq. ft. of
landscaped and open area. Of the 49 trees required for parking lot and perimeter plantings, 17
trees currently exist on site. The applicant proposed another 21 trees to be planted along the
boulevards of the parking area and around the building. Still, another 11 trees are required. Staff
recommends these trees be placed on the north and south side berms to provide enhanced
landscaping and further screening of the loading area on the west side.
Additional screening of the loading area located on the west side will be required in excess of the
required landscaping for parking lot and perimeter plantings. According to city ordinance,
Technical Industrial Sales II
April 17, 1996
Page 9
"undesirable visual impacts must be screened . . . including truck loading areas." The proposed
landscaping plan makes no effort to screen the area from the road or neighboring buildings. The
loading area will be able to be viewed from both the road and buildings. The north and south
sides each have 4 to 5 foot berms and west of the loading area is a 3 foot berm. Staff believes
landscaping is necessary in addition to these berms.
g. Signage
1. All freestanding signs be limited to monument signs. The sign shall not exceed eighty
(80) square feet in sign display area nor be greater than eight(8) feet in height. The sign
treatment is an element of the architecture and thus should reflect with the quality of the
development. The signs should be consistent in color, size, and material throughout the
development. The applicant should submit a sign package for staff review.
2. Each property shall be allowed one monument sign located near the driveway into the
private site. All signs require a separate permit.
3. The signage will have consistency throughout the development. A common theme will
be introduced at the development's entrance monument and will be used throughout.
4. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights.
FINDING: The applicant has not provided details regarding signage for the site. All signs must
receive a permit prior to installation.
h. Lighting
1. Lighting for the interior of the business center should be consistent throughout the
development.
2. A decorative, shoe box fixture (high pressure sodium vapor lamps)with a square
ornamental pole shall be used throughout the development area for area lighting.
3 Lighting equipment similar to what is mounted in the public street right-of-ways shall be
used in the private areas.
4. All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2
foot candle at the property line. This does not apply to street lighting.
Technical Industrial Sales II
April 17, 1996
Page 10
FINDING: The applicant has not provided lighting details or calculations for this development.
However, city ordinance and the PUD standards provide sufficient control to assure compliance
to an established standard.
GRADING & DRAINAGE
The proposed si.. grading is in general conformance with the overall grading plan for
Chanhassen Business Center 2nd Addition with a few modifications. The westerly parking lot
grade needs to be adjusted to drain half of the parking lot north and a catch basin extended from
the cul-de-sac to convey this runoff. A master drainage plan was prepared for the overall
development. The site must conform to this drainage plan to avoid exceeding capacity of the
storm drainage system. Detailed storm drainage calculations will also be required prior to
issuance of the building permit to ensure the master drainage plan is being followed. Roof
drainage also needs to be addressed.
The plans also need to adjust the grading limits to end at the property line to avoid impacting the
existing 6-foot concrete sidewalk, boulevard trees, and street lights along Lake Drive West.
These modifications are relatively minor and can be resolved prior to issuance of the building
permit. Erosion control measures such as rock construction entrances,protection around catch
basins, and silt fence need to be shown on the final construction plans prior to issuance of the
building permit.
UTILITIES
Municipal water and sewer service is available from Commerce Drive. Utility stubs have been
extended from the main to the property line. The plans propose on extending a separate water
line from Lake Drive West to service the site. This involves unnecessarily relocating a fire
hydrant. Staff recommends that the applicant use the existing water and sewer service provided
from Commerce Drive and not Lake Drive West.
STREETS
The site is proposed to access from both Lake Drive West and Commerce Drive. The truck
loading/dock facility at the west end of the building will access only Lake Drive West. Staff has
reviewed the access locations and finds them generally acceptable with the following
modifications:
1. All access drives need to be increased from 24 feet wide to 26 feet wide face-to-face per
city ordinance.
Technical Industrial Sales II
April 17, 1996
Page 11
2. The radiuses of the drive aisles at both Lake Drive West and Commerce Drive for the
easterly parking lot need to be increased from 10 feet to 15 feet to accommodate fire
truck turning movements.
3. The easterly curb cut on Lake Drive West also needs to be moved easterly approximately
8 to 10 feet to avoid impacting the existing fire hydrant. All ar•veway curbcuts along
Lake Drive West need to incorporate pedestrian ramps to accommodate pedestrian traffic
using the sidewalk.
4. All access points should be constructed per the City's Industrial Driveway Detail Plate
No. 5207.
SITE PLAN FINDINGS
In evaluating a site plan and building plan,the city shall consider the development's compliance
with the following:
(1) Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides,
including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may
be adopted;
(2) Consistency with this division;
(3) Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing
tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the
general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing or developing
areas;
(4) Creation of a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site
features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the
development;
(5) Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with
special attention to the following:
a. An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and
provision of a desirable environment for occupants,visitors and general
community;
b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping;
Technical Industrial Sales II
April 17, 1996
Page 12
c. Materials,textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of
the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and
neighboring structures and uses; and
d. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives
and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public
streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior
circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement
and amount of parking.
(6) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision
for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers,preservation of views, light
and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations
which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses.
Finding: The proposed development is consistent with the comprehensive plan, the
zoning ordinance, the design guidelines established as part of the Chanhassen Business
Center PUD with the modifications outlined`in the staff report, and the site plan review
requirements. The site design is compatible and harmonious with the approved industrial
developments throughout the city.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan 96-2 for a 38,948 square foot
industrial office building, located on Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center Second
Addition as shown on the plans dated received April 2, 1996, and subject to the following
conditions:
1. The grading plan needs to be modified as follows:
a. The westerly parking lot grade needs to be adjusted to drain half of the parking lot
north and a catch basin extended from the cul-de-sac to convey stormwater runoff
from the site.
b. The overall site must conform to the master drainage plan. Detailed storm
drainage calculations will be required prior to issuance of a building permit.
Drainage calculations shall be for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event.
Technical Industrial Sales II
April 17, 1996
Page 13
c. Grading limits shall be adjusted to end at the property line to avoid impacting
existing boulevard improvements.
2. Erosion control measures such as rock construction entrances,protection around catch
basins, and silt fence around the perimeter of the site need to be shown on the final
construction plans prior to issuance of the building permit.
3. The applicant shall use the existing sewer and water service provided from Commerce
Drive. Utility extension from Lake Drive West shall be prohibited.
4. All access driveways need to be 26-feet wide face-to-face and the turning radius on the
drive aisles from the easterly parking lot on to Lake Drive West and Commerce Drive
need to be increased from 10 feet to 15 feet.
5. The easterly curbcut on Lake Drive West needs to be moved easterly 8 to 10 feet to avoid
impacting the existing fire hydrant.
6. All driveway curbcuts along Lake Drive West need to incorporate pedestrian ramps.
7. All driveway access points shall be constructed with industrial driveway aprons per City
Detail Plate No. 5207.
8. Fire Marshal conditions:
a. Additional information will be required with reference to warehouse commodity
classification, height of storage and shelving plans. Contact Fire Marshal for
details.
b. A ten (10) foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. City
Ordinance Sec. 9-1.
c. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy#04-1991.
"Fire Department Notes to be Included on Site Plans." Copy enclosed.
d. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy#07-1991,
"Prefire Plans." Copy enclosed.
e. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy#29-1992,
"Premise Identification." Copy enclosed.
Technical Industrial Sales II
April 17, 1996
Page 14
f. Comply with Inspection Division Installation, Policy #34-1993, "Water Service
Installation for Commercial and Industrial Buildings." Copy enclosed.
g. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy#36-1994,
"Combination Domestic/Fire Sprinkler Supply Line." Copy enclosed.
h. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy#40-1995,
"Fire Sprinkler Systems." Copy enclosed.
i. Install and indicate on plan a post indicator valve (P.I.V.) on water service.
Location must be approved by the Fire Marshal.
9. The applicant shall enter into a site development contract with the city and provide the
necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of approval.
10. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible appearing material.
Wood screen fences are prohibited. All exterior process machinery, tanks, etc., are to be
fully screened by compatible materials. As an alternative, the applicant can use factory
applied panels on the exterior to the equipment that would blend in with the building
materials.
11. All freestanding signs shall be limited to monument signs. The sign shall not exceed
eighty (80) square feet in sign display area nor be greater than eight (8) feet in height.
The sign treatment is an element of the architecture and thus should reflect with the
quality of the development. A common theme will be introduced at the development's
entrance monument and will be used throughout. Each property shall be allowed one
monument sign located near the driveway into the private site. The monument sign must
maintain a ten foot setback from the property line. The signs should be consistent in
color, size, and material throughout the development. The applicant should submit a sign
package for staff review. A separate permit is required for all signage on site.
12. Lighting for the interior of the business center should be consistent throughout the
development. A decorative, shoe box fixture (high pressure sodium vapor lamps)with a
square ornamental pole shall be used throughout the development area for area lighting.
All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 'h
foot candle at the property line. This does not apply to street lighting. Lighting
equipment similar to what is mounted in the public street right-of-ways shall be used in
the private areas. Wall pack units may be used provided no direct glare is directed off-
site and no more than '/2 foot candle of light is at the property line.
13. Park fees shall be paid in accordance with city ordinance requirements.
Technical Industrial Sales II
April 17, 1996
Page 15
14. Applicant must provide 49 trees on site to meet ordinance requirements. Trees must be a
minimum of 2 1/2 inches if deciduous and 6 feet if evergreen. The applicant is required
to guarantee the trees for two growing seasons.
15. The applicant must provide additional screening of the truck loading area. Landscaping
must be provided on the north, west and south sides of the area.
16. Sections of the building walls shall be stepped out to provide variation and detail.
17. The applicant has not shown the trash enclosure location. The materials used to screen
the trash enclosure shall be the same type of block used on the building."
ATTACHMENTS
1. Chanhassen Business Center Preliminary Plans.
2. Memo from Dave Hempel dated March 29, 1996.
3. Memo from Mark Littfin dated March 27, 1996.
4. Site plan dated received April 2, 1996.
�� .;7. —tom A• WS;vlOCT:,w'.K.•J
OY.L,1•O•.•T'CS,...0 1.• t:�[
9C KS'Nn.3111M1 Net N3O3 � Si3Jr.4r+J O'.:::f 5'.`J
- ..,. —$b15•� 71X7]SS3N sr9\3SS HNV Id0.2yJN 3O dtli3 NpBnOnr �— r".=.--.---74r-7----415-7'11-.4 '�N'S31r N73. 1Ci•w�i*i'i nv T.k
I:•n NOIJJf1tlLSMO7 tl0i JON I -..-.•� IT �,•.;��
SNYL Jtlr NIWIl3Yd I •...O S.C•Sw]• ••Ou•...:J
�L•O
OK. I
` Gv.•b ;-_,..-----,-----=---- ..:F.--,..
_--__ ~ . • u ` `'wi - i amy--- `
l'. L+
�r •
m � g 'ag \ =gY - - ------'..i.
:&
�' /f \\ : v- .2%.. \ 4t ���i/.�` ,may :��._
1 .4j '.4 /4 ,• - - /t)• [tib..• . •, .<4,••.'•„\,, \ st .... —� ---:---- _' `.,... ._
$ •\ r
�'� �'4� .ti -n\� • •:\ -`'--- .•\\• ( i i•- m • y J / ---....'"4%-'7--....- --
•
Z \ •J;e: .W \ ' ..`h \ \,d,� yr 1 $
Jit, ,,\\ 1° H \ - \\\\ /'• 1 .� -
•
.,' ..":"."-•.1.,: -;•. . `
ii\ °/ / 1\ ...'\•` '
..- Y.
T 2 \i` f
<+�-�,\, -1—,' i .-', •
'' `:}c V '- p • N :k-1 I 4
•
;\\ - t-:•% S W 11-!Z
t 1S ?ice ice=-- --- --- ti -Z-^--o_ -.
v t'.. \ U
2
Wy ,.
T .I \ .
✓/ 2
_I '
\ (?--- - I
\
-1.4 +
• . Ii
F1 oA.
t o i i ?e! i4 d. ,. uJf 1• i-
i I-1 •3 I �! !
4 i tst1] ms•s : I: I ti 1-
a • i 71
t ¢t tl t
49 I {s p ; eri \ •3
cS`Ja • \ ` I'
‘C---
-1111 : iii I illI£Eiii !IlE;EEEiEli i 1 II - - -
iii
I f�11 I �}{{ i I `s,\ ?S 5 o mss_
u.
"It1t tti1It �} i = £?il 111lfili=iI" " Ell
II 5ii i \\ u?8 _
i I j
S %,,,, m
1 1 ! 11II = IIIil, I' illi!!!!!! !
IE ! !lilt \
E 11. 1111 i
l \
•
I I t ! _ it : st i tttstgrilt :
did 3 Ji
\
i .
CITY 4 F
,
4
\ ' :-.
V CHANHASSEN
\ 7 , . ,
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
r (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II
FROM: David Hempel, Assistant City Engineer /3'
DATE: March 29, 1996
SUBJ: Review of Site Plan for Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center 2nd Addition
1480 Park Road, Ray Collings - Land Use Review File No. 96-10
Upon review of the site plan prepared by John Oliver& Associates dated February 29, 1996,
revised March 10, 1996, I offer the following comments and recommendations:
GRADING & DRAINAGE
The proposed site grading is in general conformance with the overall grading plan for Chanhassen
Business Center 2nd Addition with a few modifications. The westerly parking lot grade needs to
be adjusted to drain half of the parking lot north and a catch basin extended from the cul-de-sac to
convey this runoff. A master drainage plan was prepared for the overall development. The site
must conform to this drainage plan to avoid exceeding capacity of the storm drainage system.
Detailed storm drainage calculations will also be required prior to issuance of the building permit
to ensure the master drainage plan is being followed. Roof drainage also needs to be addressed.
The plans also need to adjust the grading limits to end at the property line to avoid impacting the
existing 6-foot concrete sidewalk, boulevard trees, and street lights along Lake Drive West.
These modifications are relatively minor and can be resolved prior to issuance of the building
permit. Erosion control measures such as rock construction entrances, protection around catch
basins, and silt fence need to be shown on the final construction plans prior to issuance of the
building permit.
UTILITIES
Municipal water and sewer service is available from Commerce Drive. Utility stubs have been
extended from the main to the property line. The plans propose on extending a separate water
line from Lake Drive West to service the site. This involves unnecessarily relocating a fire
hydrant. Staff recommends that the applicant use the existing water and sewer service provided
from Commerce Drive and not Lake Drive West.
Sharmin Al-Jaff
March 29, 1996
Page 2
STREETS
The site is proposed to access from both Lake Drive West and Commerce Drive. The truck
loading/dock facility at the west end of the building will access only Lake Drive West. Staff has
reviewed the access locations and fords them generally acceptable with the following
modifications:
1. All access drives need to be increased from 24 feet wide to 26 feet wide face-to-face per
city ordinance.
2. The radiuses of the drive aisles at both Lake Drive West and Commerce Drive for the
easterly parking lot need to be increased from 10 feet to 15 feet to accommodate fire truck
turning movements.
3. The easterly curb cut on Lake Drive West also needs to be moved easterly approximately
8 to 10 feet to avoid impacting the existing fire hydrant. All driveway curbcuts along
Lake Drive West need to incorporate pedestrian ramps to accommodate pedestrian traffic
using the sidewalk.
4. All access points should be constructed per the City's Industrial Driveway Detail Plate No.
5207.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. The grading plan needs to be modified as follows:
a. The westerly parking lot grade needs to be adjusted to drain half of the parking lot
north and a catch basin extended from the cul-de-sac to convey stormwater runoff
from the site.
b. The overall site must conform to the master drainage plan. Detailed storm
drainage calculations will be required prior to issuance of a building permit.
Drainage calculations shall be for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event.
c. Grading limits shall be adjusted to end at the property line to avoid impacting
existing boulevard improvements.
2. Erosion control measures such as rock construction entrances, protection around catch
basins, and silt fence around the perimeter of the site need to be shown on the final
construction plans prior to issuance of the building permit.
3. The applicant shall use the existing sewer and water service provided from Commerce
Drive. Utility extension from Lake Drive West shall be prohibited.
Sharmin Al-Jaff
March 29, 1996
Page 3
4. All access driveways need to be 26-feet wide face-to-face and the turning radius on the
drive aisles from the easterly parking lot on to Lake Drive West and Commerce Drive
need to be increased from 10 feet to 15 feet.
5. The easterly curbcut on Lake Drive West needs to be moved easterly 8 to 10 feet to avoid
impacting the existing fire hydrant.
6. All driveway curbcuts along Lake Drive West need to incorporate pedestrian ramps.
7. All driveway access points shall be constructed with industrial driveway aprons per City
Detail Plate No. 5207.
.lam
c: Charles Folch, Director of Public Works
g:'eng\d ave'ic\cbc2.1-1
CITY OF
, S
1
. „
1 .,
,...,-
..
CHANHASSEN
..
y
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
ME ORANDU`
TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff,Planner II
FROM: Mark Littfin,Fire Marshal
DATE: March 27, 1996
SUBJ: Site Plan Review of 38,948 sq.ft.Office Warehouse Facility
on Property Zoned IOP, Industrial Office Park,
Located at Lot 1,Block 1,Chanhassen Business Center 2nd Addition,
1480 Park Road,Ray Collings
PLANNING CASE: #96-2,Site Plan
I have reviewed the site plan for the above project. In order to comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention
Division,I have the following fire code or city ordinances/policyrequirements. The site plan review is based on the available
information submitted at this time. As additional plans or changes submitted,the appropriate code or policy item will be
addressed.
1. Additional information will be required with reference to warehouse commodity classification,height of storage and
shelving plans. Contact Fire Marshal for details.
2. A ten(10)foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. City Ordinance Sec. 9-1.
3. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy#04-1991. "Fire Department Notes to be
Included on Site Plans". Copy enclosed.
4. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy#07-1991,"Prefire Plans". Copy enclosed.
5. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy#29-1992,"Premise Identification". Copy
enclosed.
6. Comply with Inspection Division Installation, Policy#34-1993,"Water Service Installation for Commercial and
Industrial Buildings". Copy enclosed.
7. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy#36-1994,"Combination Domestic/Fire
Sprinkler Supply Line". Copy enclosed.
8. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy#40-1995,"Fire Sprinkler Systems".Copy
enclosed. -'
9. Install and indicate on plan a post indicator valve(P.I.V.)on water service. Location must be approved by the
Fire Marshal.
ML:cd
g:.safety\m1196.2
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
I
,f- 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317
r (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY
CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT NOTES fO BE INCLUDED ON ALL SITE PLANS
1. Fire Marshal must witness the flushing of underground sprinkler service line, per
NFPA 13-8-2.1.
2. A final inspection by the Fire Marshal before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued.
3. Fire Department access roads shall be provided on site during all phases of
construction. The construction of these temporary roads will conform with the
Chanhassen Fire Department requirements for temporary access roads at
construction sites. Details are available.
4. Onsite fire hydrants shall be provided and in operating condition during all phases
of construction.
5. The use of liquefied petroleum gas shall be in conformance with NFPA Standard
58 and the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code. A list of these requirements is
available. (See policy #33-1993)
6. All fire detection and fire suppression systems shall be monitored by an approved
UL central station with a UL 71 Certificate issued on these systems before final
occupancy is issued.
7. An 11" x 14" As Built shall be provided to the Fire Department. The As Built
shall be reproducible and acceptable to the Fire Marshal. (See policy #07-1991).
8. An approved lock box shall be provided on the building for fire department use.
The lock box should be located by the Fire Department connection or as located
by the Fire Marshal.
Chanhassen Fire Department
Fire Prevention
Policy #04-1991
Date: 11/22/91
Revised: 12/23/94
Page 1 of 2
9. High-piled combustible storage shall comply with the requirements of Article#81
of the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code. High-piled combustible storage is
combustible materials on closely packed piles more than 15' in height or
combustible materials on pallets or in racks more than 12' in height. For certain
special-hazard commodities such as rubber tires, plastics, some flammable liquids,
idle pallets, etc. the critical pile height may be as low as 6 feet.
10. Fire lane signage shall be provided as required by the Fire Marshal. (See policy
#06-1991).
11. Smoke detectors installed in lieu of 1 hour rated corridors under UBC section
3305G,Exception#5 shall comply with Chanhassen Fire Department requirements
for installation and system type. (See policy #05-1991).
12. Maximum allowed size of domestic water service on a combination domestic/fire
sprinkler supply line policy must be followed. (See policy #36-1994).
Chanhassen Fire Department
Fire Prevention
Policy #04-1991
Ce,9,7 � Date: 11/22/91
Revised: 12/23/94
Approved - Public Safety Director Page 2 of 2
CITY OF
2,
cuittizAssEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
�.% CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT
POLICY REGARDING PRE-PLAN
Prior to issuing the C .O. , a pre-plan, site plan shall be submitted
to the Fire Department for approval . The following items shall be
shown on the plan.
1) Size 11" x 17 " (maximum)
2) Building footprint and building dimensions
3 ) Fire lanes and width of fire lanes
4) Water mains and their sizes, indicate looped or dead end
5) Fire hydrant locations
6) P. I .V. - Fire Department connection
7) Gas meter (shut-off) , NSP (shut off)
8) Lock box location
9) Fire walls, if applicable
10) Roof vents, if applicable
11) Interior walls
12) Exterior doors
13 ) Location of fire alarm panel
14) Sprinkler riser location
15) Exterior L. P. storage, if applicable
16) Haz . Mat . storage, if applicable
17) Underground storage tanks locations, if applicable
18) Type of construction walls/roof
19) Standpipes
PLEASE NOTE: Plans with topographical information, contour lines,
easement lines, property lines, setbacks, right-of-way lines,
headings, and other related lines or markings, are not acceptable,
and will be rejected.
Chanhassen Fire Department
Fire Prevention
OetflY
Policy #07-1991
Date: 01/16/91
Revised: 02/18/94
Approved - Public Safety Director Page 1 of 1
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY
PREMISES IDENTIFICATION
General
Numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing
buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible
from the street or road fronting the property. Said numbers shall
contrast with their background. Size and location of numbers shall
be approved by one of the following - Public Safety Director,
Building Official, Building Inspector, Fire Marshal .
Requirements are for new construction and existing buildings where
no address numbers are posted.
Other Requirements-General
1. Numbers shall be a contrasting color from the background,
2. Numbers shall not be In script.
3. If a structure is not visible from the street,additional numbers are required at the driveway entrance. Size
and location must be approved.
4. Numbers on mall box at driveway entrance may be a minimum of 4". However, requirement*3 must still
be met.
5. Administrative authority may require additional numbers H deemed necessary.
Residentiai Requirements(2 or less dweiflng unit)
1. Minimum height shall be 5 1/4".
2. Building permits will not be finaled unless numbers are posted and approved by the Building Department
Commercial Requirements
1. Minimum height shall be 12".
2. Strip Malls
a. Multi tenant building will have minimum height requirements of 6".
b. Address numbers shall be on the main entrance and on all back doors.
3. If address numbers are located on a directory entry sign, additional numbers will be required on the
buildings main entrance.
Chanhassen Fire Department
Fire Prevention
- � Policy #29-1992
Date: 06/15/92
Revised:
Approved - Public Saty Director Page 1 of 1
to, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
4 CITY 4F
cHANBAssEN690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
WATER SERVICE INSTALLATION POLICY
FOR COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS
1) The Inspections Division shall be responsible for issuance of permits. No permit
shall be issued until approval of plans have been obtained from the following:
a) Engineering Department
b) Fire Marshal
c) Minnesota Department of Health
d) Plumbing Inspector
2) Plumbing inspectors will do all installation inspections and witness the hydrostatic
and conductivity tests.
Inspection and Test Requirements
a) All pipe shall be inspected before being covered. Phone 937-1900, ext. 3,
to schedule inspections. A 24 hour notice is required.
b) Conductivity test is required. The pipe shall be subjected to a minimum
350 amp test for a period of not less than 5 minutes.
c) Hydrostatic test required. All pipe shall be subjected to a hydrostatic
pressure of 150 psi for 2 hours. Allowable pressure drop shall not exceed
1 PSI.
3) Upon approval of the hydro test, the plumbing inspector shall submit a copy of
the inspection report to the utility superintendent. The inspection report shall note
whether the system is ready for main flush and drawing of water sample for the
bug test.
Inspections Division
Water Service Installation
Policy#34-1993
Date: 04/15/93
Revised: 6/07/94
Page 1 of 2
4) Water main flushing shall be witnessed by the utility superintendent.
a) Watermain flushing may be scheduled by contacting the utility
superintendent at 474-2086. A 48 hour notice is required.
b) The utility superintendent shall obtain a water sample for a bacteria test
after the main flush and deliver to a testing company. The contractor shall
be responsible for testing costs. Allow two weeks for testing results to be
returned to the City.
c) Upon receiving approval of the water sample test, the utility
superintendent shall submit a copy to each plumbing inspector and turn
water on to the tested and approved sections of the piping.
5) An additional supervised flush and flow test will be required by the Fire Marshal
for services supplying fire suppression systems. The flush and flow test shall be
performed in accordance with 1991 edition of NFPA 13, Sec. 8-2.1. Contact the
Chanhassen Fire Marshal at 937-1900, ext. 132.
6) Watermain installations shall comply with:
a) Minnesota Plumbing Code, Chapter 4715
b) Chanhassen Engineering Department,Watermain Specifications
7) Only authorized city employees are permitted to operate city water control valves.
For water turn on or off contact the utility superintendent by phone 474-2086. A
24 hour notice is required.
Inspections Division
Water Service Installation
Policy#34-1993
Date: 04/15/93
Revised: 06/07/94
Approved- Public Safety Director Page 2 of 2
4 CITY OF
CHANEASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY
MAXIMUM ALLOWED SIZE OF DOMESTIC WATER SERVICE ON A
COMBINATION DOMESTIC/FIRE SPRINKLER SUPPLY LINE
1. Domestic water line shall not be greater than 1/4 pipe size of the
combination service water supply line.
2. 1 1/2"domestic off 6"line.
3. 2"domestic off 8"line.
4. 2 1/2 domestic off 10"line.
Option 1: Domestic sizes may be increased if it can be calculated hydraulically that
the demand by all domestic fixtures will not drop the fire sprinkler water
below its minimum gallonage required.
Option 2: Combination domestic and five line service shall
have an electric solenoid valve installed on the domestic side of the service.
This valve shall be normally powered open and close on loss of electric
power or signal from the system water flow indicator.
Must be approved by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal and Chanhassen
Mechanical Inspector.
Chanhassen Fire Department
Water Line Sizing
Policy#36-1994
Date: 06/10/94
Revised:
Ap oved - Public Safety Director Page 1 of 1
CITY CF
0�i
0 ,,
' CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
y
CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY
FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS
1. Permits are required for all sprinkler work.
2. A minimum of four sets of plans are required. Send, or drop off plans and specifications
and calculations to:
Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
3. Yard post indicators are required and must have tamper protection.
4. All control values must be provided with tamper protection.
5. All systems tests must be witnessed by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal. Appointments can
be made by calling the Fire Marshal at 937-1900, ext. 132, between 8:00 AM and 4:00
PM, Monday through Friday. Please try to arrange tests at least 24 hours in advance.
All revisions of 25 heads or more will require a test.
6. Main drains & inspector test connections must be piped to the outside atmosphere.
7. Water may not be introduced into sprinkler piping from the City main until the Fire
Marshal witnesses a flush test per NFPA 13-8-2.1.
8. The City of Chanhassen has adopted Appendix E (see 1305.6905 appendix chapter 38 of
the MBC).
Chanhassen Fire Department
Fire Prevention Division
Policy #40-1995
Date: 01/12/95
Revised: 04/26/95
Page 1 of 2
9. All systems must be designed to NFPA-13, 1991 edition and Chapter 6 Standards. All
attic systems are to be spaced at a maximum 130 square foot coverage. 3/4" plastic
piping will not lx allowed at any time in attic space.
10. All equipment installed in a fire protection system shall be UL listed or factory mutual
approved for fire protection service.
11. Fire protection systems that are hydraulically calculated shall have a 5 psi safety factor
at maximum system flow.
12. Acceptable water supplies for fire sprinkler systems are listed in NFPA-13, 1991 ed.,
Chapter 7. Swimming pools and ponds are not acceptable primary water supplies.
13. Pressure and gravity tanks shall be sized per the requirements contained in NFPA-13 and
22. Duration of the water supply shall match the hazard classification of the occupancy.
14. Include spec sheets for fire sprinkler heads - dry pipe/pre-action valving.
15. The definition of inspection is contained in MN Rule 7512.0100 Subpart 10, and states
that inspection means:
1. Conducting a final acceptance test.
2. Trip test of dry pipe, deluge or preaction valves.
3. A test that an authority having jurisdiction requires to be conducted
under the supervision of a contractor. Only licensed fire protection
contractors are permitted to conduct these tests.
4. All other inspections including the inspectors test, main drain and
other valves are permitted under MN Rule 7512.0400 Subpart-2G,
as maintenance activities and do not require a license as a fire
protection contractor.
16. Per Section 904.3.2. and the 1994 Uniform Building Code, an approved audible sprinkler
flow alarm to alert the occupants shall be provided in the interior of the building in a
normally occupied location. (Location must be approved by the Chanhassen Fire
Marshal).
Chanhassen Fire Department
Fire Prevention Division
Policy #40-1995
Date: 01/12/95
Revised: 04/26/95
Approved-Public Safety Director Page: 2 of 2
CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MAR 0 1 1996
(612) 937-1900
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
APPLICANT: RAY COLLINGS OWNER: RAY COLLINGS
ADDRESS: 1480 PARK ROAD ADDRESS: 1480 PARK ROAD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
TELEPHONE(Day time) 474-4100 TELEPHONE: 474-4100
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Temporary Sales Permit
Conditional Use Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements
Interim Use Permit Variance
Non-conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit
Planned Unit Development' Zoning Appeal
Rezoning Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Sign Permits
Sign Plan Review _ Notification Sign $150.00
ST Site Plan Review' $650.00 X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost"
($50 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP/Metes
and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB)
Subdivision* TOTAL FEE$ 800.00
A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the
application.
Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
'Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2"X 11" reduced copy of
transparency for each plan sheet.
" Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract
NOTE-When multiple applications are processed,the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
PROJECT NAME Chanhassen Business Center — Warehouse/Office
LOCATION
LEGALDESCRIPTION Lot One (1) Block One i1} L;hanhassen Business Center Second Addition
according to Plat there of.
TOTAL ACREAGE '3. 56
WETLANDS PRESENT YES X NC
PRESENT ZONING r PUD
REQUESTED ZONING PUD
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION Industrial
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION Industrial
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST Site Plan Review
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning
Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written
notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application.
This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with
all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom
the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either
copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title,Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make
this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge.
The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing
requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day
extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review
extensions are approved by the applicant.
Signature of Applicant Date
Signature of Fee Owner Date
Application Received on - - Fee Paid hcX Receipt No. GUV
The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting.
If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address.
P,. '
1.V e ".,,s1 WA taill
* ; ,
NOTICE OF PUBLIC w NM in f'
HEARINGVIII 1141
PLANNING COMMISSION �
MEETING L�1
4.II) .
Wednesday, APRIL 17, 1996 ,.,
, ,
at 7.00 p.m. //' :.:;� �'
CityHall Council Chambers , �!
�' . Lip n11!1
690 Coulter Drive 1-a take D i` w�giillinn
teen • 1G'' irli iAlt,
Project: Technical Industrial Sales II , ��.bo a Vie, ria
Site Plan Reviewa
itilitt474mt
ks
1 liottim„44 ebir
Developer: Ray Collings 'Park 1110 AIL` �r at
Location: Lake Drive West ayrice, SC � F 8311.
: ` r .'r ,• ., , Park
,
Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your
area. The applicant, Ray Collings, is requesting site plan review of a 38,948 square foot office
warehouse facility on property zoned IOP, Industrial Office Park, and located on Lot 1, Block 1,
Chanhassen Business Center Second Addition,located on Lake Drive West.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the
meeting,the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project.
2. The Developer will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission
will then make a recommendation to the City Council.
Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City
Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to
someone about this project, please contact Sharmin at 937-1900 ext. 120. If you choose to submit
written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff
will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on April 4, 1996.
Chan-Land Partners Chanhassen Venture Ltd. City of Chanhassen
200 Hwy. 13 W. 400 E. Randolph 690 Coulter Drive
Burnsville MN 55337 Ste. 300B Chanhassen MN 55317
Chicago IL 60601
Audobon 92 Building Management Group LLC Mr. David L. Obee
15241 Creekside Court 7667 Cahill 2050 Majestic Way
Eden Prairie MN 55346 Minneapolis MN 55439 Chanhassen MN 55317
Harley E. & Elizabeth Bergren Paulstarr Enterprises, Inc. g:\admin\lists\collings
10405 Shelter Drive 3170 Ranchview Lane
Eden Prairie MN 55347 Plymouth MN 55447
APR-03-1996 14:58 FROM TSP/EOS TO 9375739 P.03
CARVER COUNTY ABSTRACT AND TITLE CU., INC.
GtYK)CrAINTY
(B1 Z)448455T0 20141411,1^40 St_#(. FAX jet)441/_5158 A#ITRAC7!?Mr
P.O.ataxia
Data B.Kutter Chaska,toil 53318 David E.Moot
,1J ✓
March 19, 1996 C
Ray Collins
Ray Collins Properties J
1460 Park Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Attn: Rick Wessling
According to the 1996 Tax Books in the Carver County Treasurers Office the
following persons are listed as naners of the property within Carver County,
Minnesota. which 1fea wirhin 500 feet of the following dcscribed property:
Lot 1, Block 1. Chanhassen Business Center Second Addition
1. Chen-Land Partners 5. Building Management Group LLC
200 Rwy 13 W 7667 Cahill
Burnsville, MN 55337 Minneapolis, MN 55439
2. Chanhassen Venture Ltd 6. David L. Obee
400 E Randolph 2060 Majestic Way
Ste 500B Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chicago, II. 60601
7. Harley E & Elizabeth L Bergren
3. City of Chanhaeseu 10403 Shelter Dry
c/o City Treasurer Eden Prairie, MN 55347
690 Gaultier Dr
Pt) 'lox 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317 8. Paulstarr Enterprises, Inc.
3170 Ranchview Ln
Plymouth, ,O1 55447
4. Audubon 92
15241 Cre.kside Ct
Eden Prairie. MN 55346
z,,75 ,74*?•,ver7) 4‘ elio____
er County atract 6 Title Co. , InC.
This company does not assume any ;viability for the accuracy of this report.
C I TY 0 F PC DATE: 4/17/96
1 . C H A N H A S SEN CC DATE: 5/13/96
. CASE #: 96-3 Site Plan
By: Generous:v
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Site Plan Review of a Two Level Expansion to City Hall t,.t.?1;ng approximately
11,000 square feet, City of Chanhassen
Z LOCATION: 690 Coulter Boulevard
0
APPLICANT: City of Chanhassen
a_
a-
Q
PRESENT ZONING: OI, Office & Institutional
ACREAGE: 3.7 +
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N - OI, City Center Park
S - OI, office building and vacant
E - OI, post office and fire station
QW- BG, West Village Center
WATER AND SEWER: Available to site
1„ .� PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The expansion site is over the existing western parking lot and the
baseball field in the southwest corner of City Center Park. The site
slopes to the south and west with steeper grades down to Coulter
Drive and Kerber Boulevard.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Public/Semi-Public
L-*vi,� �� '�Wil ,oso.ff` �0` Park
.\\41\_ "---111111-
_.„,,,,,
-caarlb 14 ND
Al ..TOM E1111 ME MI/ i,1111;;�. •Edi, ��� Lotus
. . .-- algt4011111111 4 Ire ri,er it... x......-rAir,rAii,- 1/, a FM
taw •
iktr A 0t 4011 a Mead• l) ' �'� d 4♦. 71 1t rte
.. ■T- tta ray`. �a -v-111 �L'LJ `'Qi��� �A�
.imiavia.. flet•sa i . , .,. � 'd` ,tF_ .
*rv. ■0.1�.i Green.fi z: �r
Greenwood *3Park4
Immo. lir 4611.4111Shores _ i ! s.
4'4' " ,Park ¶IIIIU ' P4P4I11 *41, A. '�
� rLake I�� � . � %Vr1 IA
, srk4 iti : . 41 � ■NE
N%
. f=�4 �-. ��� : �& nAnn �• ,,, v am ■ .
.,
Iiiii.tr.,--,Av . irmia. ,-:.:_-_:.111 :pH IffriMi_
ow
APP-
&V•V '�1�`r7n a �4 -4711111111
Egli 44s� 9�'� � ro1ieril j �.
Lake •„,10,, gli
, I%. --_ . .:. -. -. - -.
&_4 =: r �Z ^� ! �e
Ann t�; lit
;�• 1.4.. is.. 1�ks 76 S
4.Alt :uuu :3 osoZs t:a '• . € ii Q 12. p
®_ I , d haw �- ' II:
Park MI I
____= ;,r.4:i II s •- u o $
' ' .. Z . - ' " LOCATION
y r ' x � I µ ' ►►► i►i� 11 _
.k ail 1111111.111116".3 t
ntt.:.Pi,,,----- t,,-..,-,4-::.=wr "um mo
r
06111 m
Court.: mullitilla '
VII
OPP . .....0
-N11411133...da I ow.. vol...:411111 topiali fah
°ad
r
01 4-.11-4 -r.'.11, „4/046
. \Jeste
IW • Crs '
1n
eState Hw 5
- . '01P ' l
e
P' ham` % o�
1-7_
+,
F- fes: h. tZ
.
T �
/ L- a g-.. s
k •
40
' �. %
44 la 4t1s•/ �� `Y<oml ----- am Lie _
LakeSusan _ ,;
City Hall Expansion- Site Plan
April 17, 1996
Page 2
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
The city is proposing a two level expansion in the northwest corner of the existing city hall. The
proposed expansion consists of approximately 11,000 square feet. The building materials would
match as to courses and orientation, and continue the existing building materials which are two
tones of brick, sandlewood and sand. The proposed expansion covers the existing public safety
parking lot area and necessitates the expansion of the parking area to the north. The driveway
access to the south of the public safety parking area will be closed and the driveway revegetated
and a new driveway entrance will be located across from the West Village Center(Byerly's north
access) driveway. In addition, a driveway connection will be provided from the eastern to the
western parking lots of city hall.
To provide safer pedestrian access and reduce turning movements in the west parking lot, staff
has redesigned the parking lot with a larger center median (Attachment No. 1). The median will
also provide additional room for landscaping materials. The drive aisles will also be increased
from 22 to 24 and 26 feet wide and turning radiuses increased to provide sufficient turning radius
for truck traffic. These changes will result in expanding the westerly parking lot four feet
towards Kerber Boulevard.
Staff is recommending approval of the site plan subject to the conditions contained in the staff
report
BACKGROUND
On May 19, 1980,the City Council approved the platting, rezoning, site plan, and public
improvement project necessary to initiate the construction of the city hall and library. On March
25, 1988,the City Council approved a 6,411 square foot expansion to city hall for the western
side of the building. In both 1980 and 1988, it was envisioned that the city hall would need to be
expanded in the future as the city continued to grow.
GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE
The city is proposing a two level expansion in the northwest corner of the existing city hall. The
proposed expansion consists of approximately 11,000 square feet. The building materials match
as to courses and orientation, and continue the existing building materials which are two tones of
brick, sandlewood and sand. The proposed expansion would cover the existing public safety
parking lot area and necessitate the expansion of the parking area to the north. The driveway
access to the south of the public safety parking area will be closed and the driveway revegetated
and a new driveway entrance will be located across from the northerly West Village Center
driveway. In addition, a driveway connection will be provided from the eastern to the western
City Hall Expansion- Site Plan
April 17, 1996
Page 3
parking lots of city hall. Pedestrian access to city hall is being enhanced through the inclusion of
sidewalk and stairways from both Coulter Drive and Kerber Boulevard.
GRADING
The building expansion will require relocation and expansion of the existing westerly parking lot
facility. Since the property is relatively flat,very little site grading will be involved to construct
the parking lot and drive aisles. Landscape materials impacted by this construction are proposed
to be relocated. There is an existing irrigation system around City Hall which will be disturbed
in conjunction with site improvements. Considerations for a new irrigation system should be
included in the plans.
DRAINAGE
Expansion of the parking lot and drive aisles will require additional storm drainage
infrastructures. The plans propose on extending the storm sewer line from Kerber Boulevard to
convey storm water runoff to the downtown storm water basin for pretreatment. The catch
basins proposed in the west parking lot drive aisles should be relocated to the westerly curb line
and parking lot grades adjusted to drain accordingly. Staff has worked with the project engineer
in the design of the storm drainage system and these modifications can be easily incorporated
into the final plan sets. Erosion control measures will need to be incorporated on the final plans
as well. Erosion control measures such as rock construction entrance and protection around
storm sewer inlets will be necessary.
UTILITIES
No new utilities will be necessary with this expansion. The existing fire hydrant at the northeast
corner of City Hall will be relocated as a result of the new drive aisle from the north side of the
building.
STREETS
The current access from Coulter Drive will be abandoned and relocated to Kerber Boulevard
across from Byerly's northerly access drive. Another access drive is proposed around the north
side of the building from the east parking lot to provide continuity between the east and west
parking lots. Staff has reviewed the traffic and pedestrian circulation and has recommended
changes. To provide safer pedestrian access and reduce turning movements in the west parking
lot, staff has redesigned the parking lot with a larger center median(Attachment No. 1). The
median will also provide additional room for landscaping materials. The drive aisles will also be
increased to 24 to 26 feet wide and turning radiuses increased to provide sufficient turning radius
City Hall Expansion- Site Plan
April 17, 1996
Page 6
circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement
and amount of parking.
(6) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision
for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light
and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations
which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses.
Finding: The proposed expansion creates a functional and harmonious design for
structures and site features. The proposed development is consistent with the City's
Highway 5 Corridor design requirements, the comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance,
and the site plan review requirements. The site has few existing natural amenities due to
previous development in the area. The site design is compatible with the surrounding
development and enhances the open space and landscaping of the city center.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan#96-3 for the Chanhassen City
Hall expansion, plans prepared by Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc., stamped received March 28,
1996, subject to the following conditions:
1. The final site plan should be revised as shown on Attachment No. 1.
2. Erosion control measures such as rock construction entrances and protection around the
storm drainage inlets should be incorporated on the final plan set.
3. The proposed storm sewers in the west parking lot shall be relocated to the west curb line
and parking lot grades adjusted accordingly.
4. Evergreen plantings should be increased along the northern side of the new entrance drive
and to the north of the building to achieve a more complete windbreak for the site.
Electrical outlets should be installed at the base of the evergreens planted north of city
hall.
5. For the overstory or large deciduous shade tree as described on plans, recommendations
include: sugar maple, red oak, hackberry, Kentucky coffeetree, and white oak; for the
small deciduous shade tree, recommendations include: crabapples, hawthorn, amur
maple, Japanese tree lilac, serviceberry; and recommended evergreens include: red pine,
City Hall Expansion - Site Plan
April 17, 1996
Page 7
Black hills spruce, and Austrian pine. Large mulch beds should be considered under
groups of trees and shrubs.
6. The southern and northern landscape islands in the new parking lot will need aeration
tubes installed.
7. Signage shall comply with city code requirements and must receive a separate sign
permit."
ATTACHMENTS
1. Development Review Application
2. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List
3. Revised site plan
City Hall Expansion- Site Plan
April 17, 1996
Page 4
for truck traffic. These changes will result in expanding the westerly parking lot four feet
towards Kerber Boulevard.
LANDSCAPING
Landscaping for the new city hall appears to sufficiently accomplish multiple items: the number
and placement meet ordinance requirements, provides good coverage of the site, and will act as a
windbreak for the addition and parking lot. Evergreen plantings should be increased along the
northern side of the new entrance drive and to the north of the building to achieve a more
complete windbreak for the site.
Suggested species for the landscaping have been chosen based on the city's approved tree list and
the plantings that exist downtown and will occur along highway 5. For the overstory or large
deciduous shade tree as described on plans, recommendations include: Sugar maple(to honor
our city tree), red oak,hackberry, Kentucky coffeetree, and white oak. For the small deciduous
shade tree, recommendations include: crabapples,hawthorn, amur maple,Japanese tree lilac,
serviceberry. Recommended evergreens include: red pine, Black Hills spruce, and Austrian
pine. Large mulch beds should be considered under groups of trees and shrubs to reduce the
need for mowing in those areas as well as set an example for the proper care of the plants.
The park land located north of city hall will continue to be used as a skating rink during the
winter. Landscaping recommendations should include installing electrical outlets at the base of
proposed evergreens to be planted north of the building drive. This would allow the park
maintenance crews to decorate the trees with seasonal lighting. This type of lighting is currently
being done at the Chanhassen Recreation Center and has been done in the past at City Hall using
the existing crabapples located on the northeast corner of City Hall.
The southern most island in the new parking lot will need aeration tubes installed. The island is
approximately 5 feet wide,a tight fit for most trees. Ordinance requires islands less than 10 feet
wide be fitted with aeration tubes.
LIGHTING/SIGNAGE
The development shall comply with City Code in the provision of site lighting. Lighting shall
use shielded fixtures and be directed away from public right-of-way and adjacent property.
Sufficient lighting shall be provided to illuminate all areas of the parking lot to provide adequate
levels of safety. To minimize off-site impacts, light levels as measured at the property line, shall
not exceed one-half foot candle. Lighting fixtures shall incorporate the use of photoelectric cells
for automatic activation. Light poles shall be neutral in color. Parking lot lighting shall be
corten type poles with shoebox style light fixtures.
City Hall Expansion - Site Plan
April 17, 1996
Page 5
The proposal shows the relocation of the building signage to the north elevation of the building
expansion. City code permits wall signage on street frontages only so the signage would have to
be relocated to the west building elevation. Signage shall comply with city code requirements
and must receive a separate sign permit.
SITE PLAN FINDINGS
In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance
with the following:
(1) Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides,
including the comprehensive plan,official road mapping,and other plans that may
be adopted;
(2) Consistency with this division;
(3) Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing
tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the
general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing or developing
areas;
(4) Creation of a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site
features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the
development;
(5) Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with
special attention to the following:
a. An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and
provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general
community;
b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping;
c. Materials,textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of
the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and
neighboring structures and uses; and
d. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives
and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public
streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
APPLICANT: �r-7, "1CtVA- AS "rte OWNER:
ADDRESS: (/'O V " 4e._(- V ADDRESS:
( t,L tit 41 it'
/ �
TELEPHONE(Day time) q.3-7 ' r 9 6 U TELEPHONE:
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Temporary Sales Permit
Conditional Use Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements
Interim Use Permit Variance
Non-conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit
Planned Unit Development* Zoning Appeal
Rezoning Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Sign Permits
Sign Plan Review Notification Sign
/Site Plan Review* X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost**
($50 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP/Metes
and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB)
Subdivision* TOTAL FEE$ /��4-
A
'IA list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the
application.
Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
*Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2"X 11" reduced copy of
transparency for each plan sheet.
** Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract
NOTE-When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
CALL_
I C- 7 �
PROJECT NAME �� �' l c . lam—, ��
LOCATION C }
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
TOTAL ACREAGE /
WETLANDS PRESENT YES V NO
PRESENT ZONING C J—
REQUESTED ZONING (�
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION 1 .. L.A i e
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION T `t OL (--
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST 4! /1 Ci 4,y, "fir . C'X �!�"'br ✓
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning
Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written
notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application.
This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with
all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom
the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership
(either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person
to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge.
The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing
requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day
extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review
extensions are approved by the applicant.
Signature of 'cant Date
y77 /? 6
Signature of Fee Owner Date
Application Received on Fee Paid Receipt No.
The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting.
If not contacted,a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address.
~� /� / Naamaw s$ I7/ MOW111`
‘...., k 3 , ' lit iii: ifiav iii VA, r4 o I'` �' NOTICE OF PUBLIC •• " ' --'.1114-1111 :' 1111„
'� `�w 'maw `''' +
HEARING . $ j� _� , , �111111‘ rg
, Num mPLANNING COMMISSION ".T.%, fflEhIPEP�rTIN
MEETING onism
;,i�;. _ •At . ,.��ail . .. ..
i-ped` �•�; tin!vfl •y,M a► � £ � Imam O on, ��
Wednesday, APRIL 17, 1996 : ',,i e$ 3°9 a W JS ms
.icy 8, .gra ...
at 7:00 m. r- ` .g ..S.
p' LOCATION 2 �:� !� :. .
City Hall Council Chambers , ffesici '
690Coulter Drive `O°""
) �44, I � �1�i■t
Project: City Hall Expansion -4s I Flit�� Er i.-joimmi. ...
ma IN
Site Plan Review "' i *111111
J, _. .---H"------
Y /\ F • , S1.
Developer: City of Chanhassen Stern.'a, .d , �1�`
Location: 690 Coulter Drive — State Hw 5
Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your
area. The applicant, City of Chanhassen, is proposing site plan review for an expansion to City
Hall on property zoned OI,Office and Institutional District and located at 690 Coulter Drive.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the
meeting,the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project.
2. The Developer will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission
will then make a recommendation to the City Council.
Questions or Comments:If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City
Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to
someone about this project, please contact Bob at 937-1900 ext. 141. If you choose to submit
written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff
will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on April 4, 1996.
City of Chanhassen HRA State Bank of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive City of Chanhassen 680 W. 78th Street
Chanhassen MN 55317-0147 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen MN 55317-9585
Chanhassen MN 55317-9683
ISD 112 Chanhassen Retail Ltd Partnership Bloomberg Companies, Inc.
110600 Village Road c/o Weis Asset Management Intl. P.O. Box 730
Chaska MN 55318-1358 8524 Irwin Road Chanhassen MN 55317-0730
Bloomington MN 55437-1523
National Lodging Companies Inc Dayton Hudson Copr T-862 Mr. John Dorek, etal.
9855 W. 78th Street, Ste. 220 Property Tax Division c/o Chanhassen Bowl
Eden Prairie MN 55344 777 Nicollet Mall P.O. Box 513
Minneapolis MN 55317 Chanhassen MN 55317
Market Square Assoc Ltd Prtnrshp Market Square Assts. II LLC Beddor Enterprises/E.J. Carlson
200 Highway 13 W. 470 W. 78th Street 6950 Galpin Road
Burnsville MN 55337 P.O. Box 250 Excelsior MN 55331
Chanhassen MN 55317
Mithun Enterprises, Inc. John M. Howlite, Jr. George B & Mildred I Hassmar
900 Wayzata Blvd. E. Box 195 7615 Laredo Drive
Wayzata MN 55391 Chanhassen MN 55317-0195 Chanhassen MN 55317-9611
Evelyn N. Thysse Joel W. & Faye E. Hedtke Charles F. Littfin
7613 Laredo Drive 7611 Laredo Drive 7609 Laredo Drive
Chanhassen MN 55317-9611 Chanhassen MN 55317-9611 Chanhassen MN 55317-9611
Anthony M. & Patricia Pieri Brian S. & Christine M. Beniek Elaine D. Bjornson
7607 Laredo Drive 7605 Laredo Drive 7603 Laredo Drive
Chanhassen MN 55317 Chanhassen MN 55317 Box 261
Chanhassen MN 55317-0261
Mr. Ted Bigos T.F. James Company
c/o Park Towers 6640 Shady Oak Road
4820 Highway 7 Ste. 500
St.Louis Park MN 55416 Eden Prairie MN 55344
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 3, 1996
Chairwoman Mancino called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Nancy Mancino, Craig Peterson, Bob Skubic, Don Mehl, Jeff
Farmakes, and Kevin Joyce. Ladd Conrad arrived after item 2.
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Bob Generous, Planner II; Dave
Hempel, Asst. City Engineer; and Phil Elkin, Water Resource Coordinator
PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 0.862 ACRES INTO 2 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS
ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED ON
ORCHARD LANE, LINOUIST ADDITION, STEVE LINOUIST.
Public Present:
Name Address
Dick & Yvonne Brown 2630 Orchard Lane
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Nancy Mancino: Thank you. Any questions for staff at this point?
Craig Peterson: Can you give me a sense of the ditch? The perspective of it. How
significant of.
Aanenson: Fill?
Craig Peterson: Yeah.
Aanenson: Do you want to answer that Dave?
Hempel: The property slopes off northerly from Orchard Lane towards Highway 7. It
appears that approximately 6 to 8 feet of fill will be needed adjacent to the homesites once
the homes are built. The lots actually are pretty conducive to walkout type lots.
Mancino: I think that 8, 6 or 8 feet is from the northern side of the road. It needs to go just
straight north, right?
Hempel: That's correct.
I
Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996
Mancino: So it will be much like the house that's already there. That's on the western lot.
Where it looks like they've added fill to the yellow home. The existing home. Is that correct
Dave?
Hempel: Yes.
Peterson: Thanks.
Mancino: Any other questions at this point? Okay, having no questions. Does the applicant
or their designee wish to address the Planning Commission tonight? No?
Applicant: No.
Mancino: Okay. May I have a motion to open for a public hearing then?
Fannakes moved, Mehl seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened.
Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Any of those wishing to come up and address
the Planning Commission at this time, please do so. Please come up to the podium.
Dick Brown: My name's Dick Brown. I live at 2630 Orchard Lane, and I'm the first house
west of the existing home on Orchard Lane. And I guess I have a question as to what impact
cost wise to the neighbors this project will have. Will there be street work done? It would
cost the neighbors one way or the other and I think there's people here that live across the
street too. Will any street work be done or any cost be incurred which we have to share?
Mancino: Dave, will there be any infrastructure cost that the residents in the area will have
to bear?
Hempel: Madam Chair, not to the adjacent property owners. The applicant is the one that's
going to be responsible for the extension of sanitary sewer to service these lots. As a result,
part of the road may be disturbed and have to be replaced and that cost would be born by the
applicant. Not the adjacent property owners.
Mancino: What will that do, the disruption of the street? How long will that last? I mean is
there a period that they have to tear up the street so that those in the area will know how long
that will go on?
2
Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996
Hempel: This is a very small project. I would imagine that it would be completed in a
couple of days and the street restored probably within a week to two weeks after the initial
utility installation.
Mancino: Okay. Will the neighbors be, will they be notified when this is going to happen?
Hempel: We do require traffic signage on the road. Utility road work ahead. That type of
notification. We don't typically notify individual homeowners unless we do have to shut the
water off. Then we do require at least a 48 hour notice to the homeowners that are affected
by the turn off. We don't anticipate any of that in this situation. We will maintain traffic on
Orchard Lane, or that will be the responsibility of the applicant at all times. There may be a
period where you have a flat person or they have to direct traffic and periodically stop it but
for the most part it will remain open.
Mancino: Mr. Brown, do you have any other questions?
Dick Brown: I have a question. Will the City require those lots as they're developed to trees
or shrubs or anything of that nature?
Aanenson: Sure, I'll be happy to answer that question. As a part of the landscaping tree
ordinance, canopy coverage. It is deficient in trees and we are requiring that 8 additional
trees be placed on the site.
Dick Brown: Thank you.
Mancino: You're welcome. Would anyone else like to address the Planning Commission? If
you have any questions whatsoever, now's the time to ask. So please come forward. Seeing
none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing.
Mehl moved, Joyce seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Mancino: Comments from commissioners. Don.
Mehl: I think it looks pretty straight forward. I think the city probably will...I support it.
Mancino: Thank you. Bob.
Skubic: It looks like a straight forward subdivision. I don't have any further comments.
Mancino: Jeff.
3
Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996
Farmakes: Nothing additional to add.
Mancino: Kevin.
Joyce: Ditto.
Mancino: Craig.
Peterson: Nothing additional.
Mancino: Thank you. I just have a couple questions. Dave. We are asking that we create,
is it swales on the west side of Lot 1, and a swale on the east side of Lot 2. So that any of
the runoff will go down the swale, into the northern part where there's going to be a retention
pond?
Hempel: That's correct.
Mancino: Am I explaining that correctly?
Hempel: Very well, yes. We just want to maintain the neighborhood drainage patter on the
site. That we're not forcing any of the drainage as a result of the building onto the adjacent
property owners so typically the drainage swales are on the common property lines to
maintain that drainage through the property so it can get back towards Highway 7 where it
continues underneath Highway 7.
Mancino: And there is enough room between the house pad and the property line to do that?
Hempel: There will be as a result of the building. There's a minimum of 10 foot side yard
setback. It should give sufficient.
Dick Brown: I have a question in that regard too.
Mancino: Can you hold on just one second please Mr. Brown. So within that 10 feet, you
should have enough room to do that?
Hempel: That's correct. Any house plans that come in to the city for review, that's one thing
that we will look at and require as a part of the building permit. That they show the drainage
swale on the certificate of survey so they know up front that's the way it has to be graded.
4
Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996
Mancino: Okay, thank you. Kate, one other question that I have. I'm assuming that the
Colorado Blue Spruces that are on the eastern side of the property that abut the property line
are going to stay there? They will not be.
Aanenson: Correct. Those are on the adjacent property. They shouldn't be destroyed.
Mancino: Okay. And the ones that are on Lot 2 are going to stay? Or will be moved.
Aanenson: You can see the limits of the grading. These are the limits of the grading right
here so they shouldn't be.
Mancino: They should be okay. Okay, thank you. Those are all the questions I have. Mr.
Brown, the public hearing is closed but please come up if you do have a question.
Dick Brown: What good would it do me now?
Mancino: Pardon?
•
Dick Brown: What good would it do me to talk if it's closed?
Mancino: If you have a question, I will open it for you to come up and ask a question.
Dick Brown: Oh okay. I do have an objection I think. If I understand, you're talking about
putting 6 foot of fill roughly...property behind here. You're also talking about draining the
water to the north or towards Highway 7. I think that's probably going to impact my property
because my property was about the same level as the current property. It does get wet in the
spring and when it rains and I can just see that water draining off to the north, coming over
to my property. How would you prevent that?
Hempel: Madam Chair, the amount of drainage from the site will not significantly increase
with this development. Right now the water does drain north to Highway 7, towards that
ditch. There's a culvert underneath Highway 7 at that location on the property.
Dick Brown: Where's that location?
Hempel: I'll show you on the overhead. The low point in the area is at this location here
where there's a culvert underneath Highway 7. It takes the drainage from both Highway 7
and these back yard areas underneath Highway 7 to a pond on this side of the street. With
the homes here, all we're saying is the drainage from the front of the house will drain this
5
Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996
way, around the houses and continue on in back to where it drains today. Just to maintain
that. We don't want to push the water off onto the adjacent property owners.
Dick Brown: I'm not trying to tell you where to drain the water. What I'm telling you is, I'm
here to tell you that there is more water back here and more water that goes to the west than
you're indicating. We live there and I see that all summer long. So I can see the drainage as
being a problem for our property. If the water comes over, we have a tree grove between the
existing property and our home now.
Mancino: Yes, I've seen it.
Dick Brown: What I'm trying to do is to develop some kind of a walking part in there. To
keep it natural and during the summers I work out there. There is, or there are lots of water
problems already. I can see it being worse now.
Hempel: Mr. Brown, your residence is over here?
Dick Brown: Yeah. I didn't see where you pointed.
Hempel: In this area to the west of the existing home here.
Dick Brown: Yeah, right.
Hempel: The back yards all drain north towards Highway 7. There is a break here. I'm
assuming there is a drainage ditch along Highway 7 that takes the water either to the west or
back to the east to this low point. And that's all, it could be maintained that way.
Mancino: It won't be any better than what it is now but it won't be any worse.
Dick Brown: I hope you're right.
Mancino: I hope so too. We will do what needs to be done to make sure it isn't.
Dick Brown: Well, I don't agree with it but...I'll be down to see the city if it doesn't work.
Mancino: Thank you. Thank you Dave. May I have a motion please.
Mehl: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Subdivision
#94-19 as shown on the plans dated March 1, 1996, subject to the following conditions as
outlined in the staff report.
6
Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996
Mancino: May I have a second please?
Farmakes: I'll second.
Mehl moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
Subdivision #94-19 as shown on the plans dated March 1, 1996, subject to the following
conditions:
1. The applicant shall be responsible for extending sanitary sewer service to Lots 1 and 2.
The city shall be responsible for extending water service to Lot 2. Detailed construction
plans and specifications in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard
Specifications and Detail Plates shall be submitted to the city engineer for review and
City Council approval with final plat consideration. The applicant shall also enter into a
development contract with the City and provide the city with a financial escrow to
guarantee installation of the sewer line and street restoration.
2. Access to all lots shall be limited to Orchard Lane.
3. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the MWCC, Health Department,
and PCA for extension of the sanitary sewer line.
4. The applicant shall be responsible for a storm water quality/quantity charge of $768.00.
These fees are payable to the city prior to final plat recording.
5. No landscape materials shall be planted within the northerly 25 feet of Lots 1 and 2.
This area is reserved for future stormwater ponding.
6. Type I erosion control fence shall be installed along the front of Lots 1 and 2 during site
grading and a rock construction entrance employed and maintained until truck hauling
operations are completed.
7. Lots 1 and 2 will be subject to sanitary sewer and water hook-up charges and Lot 2 will
be subject to a water connection charge. These charges shall be collected per City
Ordinance at time of building permit issuance.
8. Drainage swales shall be designed and constructed along the east line of Lot 2 and the
west line of Lot 1 to maintain drainage between the houses to Highway 7.
9. Full park and trail fees be paid at the time of building permit approval in the amount of
the park fee in force at the time of building permit application.
7
Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996
10. Tree preservation fencing must be installed prior to excavation or any construction on
the site. The tree fencing may follow the proposed erosion control fence as drawn on
the grading plan received by the city March 1, 1996. Erosion control fence shall also be
extended along the east, west, and south sides of the lot at the grading limits.
11. The applicant shall preserve the 20 inch maple located on Lot 1 and consider
transplanting the four pines within grading limits along the eastern property line of Lot
2.
12. The applicant shall plant 8 trees on site. Lots 1 and 2 shall receive two trees each in
the front yard. The remaining 4 trees may be planted anywhere on site outside of
drainage and utility easements.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CITY OF CHANHASSEN IS PROPOSING A RESTORATION PROJECT THAT WILL
PROVIDE ADEQUATE SPACE FOR A CITY TRAIL ALONG CO. RD. 117 (GALPIN
LAKE ROAD). THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS TO FILL 0.13 ACRES (5663 SQUARE
FEET) OF AG-URBAN WETLANDS. WETLANDS WILL BE MITIGATED ON SITE AT
A RATIO OF 2:1. THE ON SITE CREATION WILL PROVIDE FOR NO NET LOSS
POLICY. A 0.22 ACRE WETLAND WILL BE CREATED ON SITE AND 0.05 ACRE
WILL BE PART OF A WETLAND BASIN LOCATED IN A FUTURE PARK IN THE
SAME DEVELOPMENT, THE WOODS AT LONGACRES 3RD ADDITION.
Public Present:
Name Address
Maureen Farrell 7336 Fawn Hill Road
Phil Elkin presented the staff report on this item.
Mancino: Thank you. Any questions at this point? May I have a motion to open this for a
public hearing please, and a second.
Faimakes moved, Peterson seconded to open the public hearing. The public healing was
opened.
8
Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996
Mancino: Thank you. This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the
Planning Commission.
Maureen Farrell: Actually I was just, my name is Maureen Farrell and I'm a resident in this
area and actually.
Mancino: Could you give us your address please?
Maureen Farrell: Yes. 7336 Fawn Hill Road. And actually I'm interested in finding out
what the overall plan is. I see this as a section of the bike path, but is this to connect onto
TH 5 and how far north is it to go and...interested in finding out.
Mancino: Okay.
Aanenson: Phil's going to quickly run and get the trail plan map. Just so you know, it's tied
into the updating of Galpin Road. Right now it is under the jurisdiction of the County. It's
possible that it be turned over to the city in the future. Depending on whether it's upgraded at
urban section. What type of cross section it would be and at what time it's upgraded is when
the trail will be built. So at this time it's on our master trail system. It will connect down to
TH 5 and all the way up north but it's not on a specific time table yet, but we are making
provisions for it to happen.
Mancino: And it usually happens as development comes in. As each subdivision comes in,
then that part of the trail is continued.
Aanenson: But not with this segment because we're not sure exactly what the section of this
road will look like. Again because we're not sure, it's under the County's jurisdiction and
we're not sure at this point. There's talk that with the TH 101 turn back, that maybe this will
be given back to the City and it may have a different design standard than maybe the County
would give it. So that would mean whether or not it would be at grade, which would be
similar to other trails that are like maybe Kerber Boulevard or it'd be separated. Maybe
benched in to, benched in a little bit off separated so there's different design techniques.
What we're trying to do now is acquire the right-of-way. Actual right-of-way width.
Maureen Farrell: So as this part of the development goes in, it doesn't necessarily mean that
the bike path will come in...
Aanenson: That's correct, right.
9
Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996
Maureen Farrell: Is there any, I mean is there a point where you say it needs to be done or is
it really just open ended? ...time frame at all.
Aanenson: Again it goes back to when the negotiations with the County, because it is a
County road and normally it's tied in to when Galpin be improved as a whole and widened at
a future date. They would do that as a part of that project. Similar as they're doing Powers
Boulevard and Lyman. Those projects are being done by the County and then the
improvements are being put down. You mentioned Lake Susan has been down there a long
time without trails and that's being done now as Powers is being widened. So it's kind of
done as an overall improvement project.
Mancino: So the County would want to give us back the highway so we could keep it up,
right?
Aanenson: If they give TH 101, yeah they may give it. It's part of the discussion.
Mancino: Okay. But there's no question the City has a master plan to, as Kate said.
Aanenson: It's highly desirable for this trail to connect, certainly. But it's not going to
happen as a part of this.
Maureen Farrell: Okay. I guess my concern is that it is going to be a very large
development and you have a sizeable development across the road and right now with the
grade school just down, and the community center, I am concerned with how narrow that road
it and there's no place for children and bikes presently. So my concern would be that that is
part of the game plan in deciding when that does become effective...thank you.
Mancino: You're welcome. There will also, there may be in the fall a referendum the city
will have to create and to build more trails and one of them would be on Galpin and it would
be hopefully connecting to the Bluff Creek Elementary School.
Maureen Farrell: Thank you.
Mancino: So we all may be voting on that soon. Anyone else wishing to address the
Planning Commission? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing and a
second please.
Fa hakes moved, Mehl seconded to close the public hewing. The public healing was closed.
Mancino: Thank you. Comments from commissioners. Craig.
10
Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996
Peterson: No comments.
Mancino: Kevin.
Joyce: I'm fine. No comments.
Farmakes: Nothing to add.
Mancino: Bob.
Skubic: Nothing.
Mehl: Nothing.
Mancino: I don't either. May I entertain a motion please, and a second.
Skubic: I make a motion the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland
Alteration Permit #95-4 for The Woods at Longacres 3rd Addition, subject to the conditions 1
through 3 as outlined by City staff.
Mancino: Is there a second to the motion?
Farmakes: I'll second it.
Mancino: Any discussion?
Skubic moved, Fannakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
Wetland Alteration Permit #95-4 for The Woods at Longacres 3rd Addition, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Wetland Conservation Act and the City of Chanhassen Surface Water Management Plan
requirements.
2. General Permit 17 under the Army Corps of Engineers is applicable and should be
completed by the City.
11
Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996
3. The City shall develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's
Best Management Practice Handbook. Type III erosion control fencing will be required
around the existing wetland.
All voted in favor and the motion caned.
(Ladd Conrad arrived at the meeting at this point and was present to vote on the following
items.)
PUBLIC HEARING:
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN USE AMENDMENT FROM OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL TO
RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY. THE APPLICANT IS ALSO REQUESTING
CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR A MIXED
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROJECT ON PROPERTY
LOCATED NORTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD AND SOUTH OF THE TWIN CITIES
AND WESTERN RAILROAD TRACKS, THE VILLAGE AT BLUFF CREEK, D.R.
HORTON, INC.
Public Present:
Name Address
Allyson Brooks 1831 Sunridge Court
Steve Schwanke, RLK Associates 6110 Blue Circle Drive, Minnetonka
George Seagraves, D.R. Horton Inc. 3459 Washington Drive, Eagan
Roger Christensen 6960 Fernbrook Lane, Maple Grove
Corrine Erb 3459 Washington Drive, Eagan
Neil Hansen 3459 Washington Drive, Eagan
Douglas & Cindy Merrigan 8736 Valley View Place
Luke Sydon 6110 Blue Circle Drive, Minnetonka
Ed Sieber, East Associates Inc. 11792 Rawhill Road
Russell Hagen, Data Recognition Corp. 5900 Banker Road, Minnetonka
Charles R. Poppler, RLK Associates 6110 Blue Circle Drive, Minnetonka
Charles W. Mattson 2870 Wheeler Street No., Roseville
Kevin VonRiedel, RLK Associates 6110 Blue Circle Drive, Minnetonka
Michael Crosby Landmark Holding Company
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
12
Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996
Mancino: Thank you very much. Does the applicant or their designee wish to address the
Planning Commission?
Steve Schwanke: Madam Chair, members of the Planning Commission, my name is Steve
Schwanke with RLK Associates. I'm here tonight on behalf of Joe Miller Homes of
Minnesota, a Division of D.R. Horton. Madam Chair, if I could just take a moment. It's
going to take us a moment to get set up and we've got some booklets that Mr. Sydon is going
to be distributing to the Planning Commission members and the staff, and we do have some
extras. I don't know if we have enough for everybody in the audience. We might. We'll be
close. If there are those in the audience who would like a copy of the booklet, we did make
some extra copies and just contact Luke to get a copy of that. It will just take us a moment
to set up Madam Chair. While they're doing that, let me just mention a couple of things here
quickly. Again for the record though...aware of this. I'm with RLK Associates, Steve
Schwanke, 6110 Blue Circle Drive in Minnetonka. Unlike other times I've been before this
commission, we typically come here and say we concur with the comments of staff and we're
available for questions. Tonight unfortunately we have a bit of a difference of opinion. Of
recommendation of staff and we accept full well to demonstrate tonight the request that's
before you that this concept...and for the land use change. In regards to that, we have
prepared a full presentation and we'll take a little bit of time to make that presentation tonight
and we do believe that at the conclusion of that, we'll fully demonstrate the appropriateness of
property for industrial purposes and even more appropriate for a multi-family type of
development. Before we actually get into the presentation there, I'd like to take a moment to
introduce the remainder of the development team who are here tonight and will be making
various parts of the presentation with me. It's going to be a very interactive kind of thing and
we certainly do encourage the Planning Commission at any point in time if there is a
question, if it is the pleasure of the Chair, to stop us and ask the question. We're happy to
address them that way and of course at the end of the presentation we're certainly available
for questions as well. George Seagraves is here this evening on behalf of Joe Miller Homes.
George is the President of Joe Miller Homes Division here in Minnesota. Neil Hansen as
well is with Joe Miller Homes and Neil handles for the most part the sales and marketing of
the product that Joe Miller Homes constructs...here in Minnesota. Has a very good handle on
the marketplace and the type of buyers, the type of product that Joe Miller Homes does
produce. Those gentlemen will be on talking about the product. The architecture. The type
of people who buy these types of units and Joe Miller Homes in general as well. Also here
this evening we have Mr. Roger Christensen who is with Tobin Real Estate. Roger is an
expert in industrial development. Many of his clients are industrial users you retain him
exclusively for the purpose of their relocation efforts. In addition Roger has actually looked
at this property on behalf of a client in the past and as you can imagine, that property had
been rejected for that corporate client. Roger, for the most part, is going to speak tonight on
behalf of, regarding the subject property and the suitability of the subject property for
13
Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996
industrial purposes. And the profile of typical industrial users and what they look for when it
comes time to relocate. Mr. Russ Hagen is President of Data Recognition Corporation. Russ
is really here tonight as the guy on the street. Russ is not with RLK Associates. He is not a
consultant. He's not a real estate person. He's not a developer. He's a business owner, and
he's an industrial business owner who right now is trying to relocate his facility and would
like to share with you tonight just some of the things that he's taken a look at. Some of the
problems he's running into as he's going through that process. Really again, no ax to grind on
the part of Russ. He's really just very interested in this topic. He's right in the mist of many
of the problems and issues that are associated with this and was willing to come here tonight
and tell you a little bit about what he's going through. On behalf of RLK Associates tonight,
Kevin VonRiedel is here. He's a senior designer associated with the project. Kevin not only
worked on the multi-family component but we have worked a couple of industrial designs,
conceptual in nature, just to see how the site might work for industrial purposes. Kevin did
most of the work related to that. And Mr. Chuck Poppler is here tonight also with RLK
Associates. Chuck is the person in charge at our firm who, when things are approved here,
Chuck's responsible for getting them constructed out in the field. Again, Chuck's going to
share a little bit of his perspective of what it would be like to actually construct this site as an
industrial site and what it would be like to construct this site as a multi-family site. So he
moves us perhaps a little bit from the theoretical to the product. Where we're really at
tonight, and I do want to take a moment to distinguish that Bob did a very good job. This is
our perspective tonight and the hooks of our presentation really is related to the
comprehensive land use guide plan change. Very much a policy related kind of issue. Many
times when we're here before the Commission it really relates to site design related issues. Is
the berm too high? The setback appropriate? The design of the buildings appropriate? A lot
of our focus tonight isn't going to be related to that. If we do talk about that, it's really going
to be related to making the policy point more than any specifics related to the site design.
And as Bob indicated, what we have prepared for tonight is a concept PUD. Again it's a
little different from what we had typically presented before this commission. Even when
we've been presenting PUD's, we've attempted to combine two parts of the PUD process,
conceptual and the preliminary and as a result, in many cases that taken us into a little bit
more of some of the design issues. But that isn't the case tonight. This really is just the
concept PUD. I say that to an extent as to justify a little bit some of the drawings and a little
bit of a preliminary to some of the comments that will be made tonight. Our plans that we
have prepared really are concept, and what we really want them, in doing the plans and
preparing the plans, we're attempting to portray a big picture. We're attempting to illustrate in
the nature. Bob mentioned for example some of the issues related to wetlands. Some of the
issues related to the bluffs. We can assure you we have no intentions of filling any wetlands.
If we missed a wetland on site, we'll certainly pick that up as we get into the next stage. We
hope to get into the next stage of this process, so I just wanted to again make sure that we're
all aware of that. We believe we're at the concept stage. That's really where the product of
14
Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996
our material is at tonight. We also think that we've had, in addition to where we're at in the
process, we think we've been able to bring a rather unique perspective to this type of
discussion. I suspect your staff, like I when I was a public staff planner, and the work that I
do when I work on behalf as a consultant for public agencies, for the most part the review I
suspect of your staff has been in response to the existing comprehensive plan and in response
to your existing codes. And that's how it's supposed to be. Those are the public documents.
Those are the official documents that are in place. From where we sit we've got a little more
freedom and we've got a little more access to what the private market is actually thinking.
Again, Mr. Christensen is here tonight. He's going to be able to elaborate a little bit on that.
George Seagraves...is going to be able to elaborate a little bit on the residential. We've
actually been able to go out and survey several cities and we'll be talking about that data
some tonight. So we've been able to broaden the discussion a little bit we hope. Bring in
some pertinent data from both the private sector. Bring in some market research that Roger
Christensen has to contribute to this discussion and with that hopefully bring a little bit more
perspective that broadens this out a little bit. Comprehensive plan was last updated in 1991.
I trust based on information that was probably gathered in 1990-1989 and so we're hoping
tonight that one of the contributions we can bring is really things that are going on in the
marketplace right now as well as more of a detailed analysis related to the developability of
this. So then Madam Chair I'm going to sit down and ask Mr. Seagraves and Mr. Hansen to
come up and talk a little bit about Joe Miller Homes. A little bit about the product and the
organization.
Mancino: Thank you.
George Seagraves: Good evening. I want to take a few moments to explain who D.R.
Horton of Minnesota is and the connection with Joe Miller Homes. D.R. Horton of
Minnesota is a wholly owned subsidiary of D.R. Horton Inc. We are a publicly traded,
national home building company listed on the New York Stock Exchange. We do
approximately 3,000 homes as far east as the Washington D.C., west to California, south to
Texas and north to Minnesota. We have currently about 25 operating divisions. There's an
exhibit in your packet that identifies some of the locations where we build. In the spring of
1994, D.R. Horton acquired selected assets of Joe Miller Homes. We do business, or we are
known in the marketplace as Joe Miller Homes when we sell our homes to buyers. Mr.
Miller is a consultant to us but he is no longer involved in the day to day operation of the
business. What we have done is to try to maintain the quality of the construction that Joe
started. All of the superintendents and the construction people that actually build the houses
for us are the same ones that were in place when we acquired the company. What we've
brought is a financial strength to the company and hopefully make it a little more long term
thinking as to where we want to take the company and the type of product we want to present
to our buyers. Really the only person who is any different in the company is me. I moved
15
Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996
up here from Florida about a year and a half ago but otherwise the people who work on the
homes and sell the homes are all the people who were... I can see Madam Chair will question
why I moved? Actually I had an option. We're a rapidly growing company and I had a
choice of 3 or 4 locations that I could go to and I chose to come to Minnesota. I heard a lot
about the people in this market and I looked forward to coming up here. I've never lived in
the north before and I can tell you that it has exceeded all the expectations that I've had. I've
really enjoyed here. I wish summers were a, excuse me. I wish winter would have ended
about a month ago but that's part of the price we pay and I've enjoyed it. I like the winter
and hopefully here for a long period of time. Here in the Twin Cities we do approximately
200 homes a year in various locations. As you all know we're in the process of finishing up
our very successful Lake Susan Hills development. We're in the 9th Addition. We have just
a very, probably 20 lots, give or take a few to have that project and we'll be finished out. We
build basically four product types in the variety as a market. We build a condominium type
townhome that is priced in the 80's up to the low 100's. We build a town, a rambler type
townhome that is priced between 130 and about $200,000.00. We build a Presidential Series
single family homes that are priced from about $130,000.00 to $160,000.00 and then we build
a Charter Series of single family homes that start at again $190,000.00 and go all the way up
a half a million dollars. You're probably familiar with our Charter Series. That is what we're
building right now in Lake Susan Hills. As Steve had mentioned, I also have Neil Hansen
with me tonight. Neil personally has been with Joe Miller Homes for 14 years. Here in
Chanhassen he is responsible for, he's done about 400 homes...in the Lake Susan Hills
development in the neighborhood of about half of those. Our application tonight, what we are
indicating to you is that we would like to continue to build homes for the citizens of
Chanhassen. We feel like we have an excellent relationship with the city. Our approach to
business with the city has been whenever issues arise, to handle them in an expeditious and
fair manner. I think that if you were to ask the people that deal with our company on a daily
basis, the people out in the field perhaps inspecting our homes or reviewing the different
ordinances that we have to work with, we'll find that our people go the extra mile to do a
really good job and also try to eliminate as many problems as come up that the city staff has
to deal with from time to time with homeowners. So I think from that standpoint we're good
corporate citizens here in the community. The other thing I'd like to mention is our
philosophy as a company is that we are the developer and builder. Should you decide to
allow us to develop the property...which we're showing here tonight, we will be the person
who develops the lots. We will also be the people building the homes. So whatever
agreements are made up front, there'll be one entity, in particular one person that you'll be
dealing with. And I think that that offers us a big leg up over some of our other competitors
or some of our other people in the marketplace where they kind of separate the development
part of the operation and the building operation and both sides tend to point fingers at each
other and say they didn't do this and they didn't do that. We will be the only party
responsible. Now the development of this site, what we've tried to do is identify within
16
Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996
Chanhassen as a city, groups of people where we feel like maybe the housing needs aren't
being met today. And that's basically how we came to the product that you see on this site.
We've identified a couple groups. One is really a first time home buyer looking for a more
affordable shelter for their families. Closer to work. You will see that one of the product
lines that is here directly at this group. The other group is families. They perhaps have had
their children grow up but still like to stay in the C!' 'nhassen. 7 ev want to be near their
churches and their neighbors and the group of people they've been around for the last several
years but perhaps would like to move into a smaller home, and maybe a maintain a different
lifestyle where there's a homeowners association that takes care of some of the responsibilities
that people that have single family homes only have to take care of themselves. One of the
first product that we're talking about here is for a single level townhome. What this is an
indication, this is an end home condition. What we've done is kind of highlighted one
particular home of the series that we'd be the time. This would be part of a townhome
configuration but this is the end unit. It's approximately 1,366 square feet. It has 2
bedrooms, 2 baths, 2 car garage. All of the homes in this particular series will have 2 car
garages. Right now we believe that we would be able to bring these particular homes into the
market between $105,000.00 and perhaps $125,000.00. One other thing to point out is that
with our proposal in mind, we only sell homes. We don't do rental units. We don't do
apartments. We are strictly a homebuilder and a for sale is the only products that we offer.
We have never done rental as a company anywhere nationally, and as long as Bob Work...is
the chairman, I'm sure that will continue to be the case. Tonight is the first time that we've
actually showing, we have a couple of other sites in other areas of the Twin Cities where we
hope to begin construction on these units towards the middle to the later half of the year, but
we'd like to be building these here in Chanhassen and this is the first time that we've unveiled
any of this type of product to the public. Okay, the other product, this again is an end unit
condition. This is our condominium type townhome development. We are currently building
these in Burnsville at the northwest corner of 13 and West River Hills Drive. We have a
couple other sites that we're working on so we should be doing this in other areas of the Twin
Cities as well. This unit is again very close to about 1,350 square feet. The price point on
the condominium townhome will probably start in the 80's and perhaps get into the low 100's.
The end units that you see here will have 2 car garages. The interior unit has a 1 car garage.
All of the products that we're showing you here tonight has 2 bedrooms. Why I think that is
important is the profile of the people that we've looked at is not, there will be some children
in this group but from our experience in selling them and then looking at the other
communities where they've been built, typically what happens if a young family does have a
child, this may be the first home and then they move into a single family home as they start,
as their family starts to grow. The other group of people that you will see in here are
primarily single. Unmarried with a variety of professional and jobs. The income levels that
we expect the minimum to be able to purchase a home in here will need to have a combined
family income of approximately $30,000.00. This group we anticipate would have to have a
17
Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996
minimum of about $50,000.00 but typically this group of buyers is a little bit more affluent
and the income is not as big an issue to them on the housing product whatsoever. Basically
that's what I have for the product right now. If you have any questions you want for me now
or if you'd like to later. We enjoy being in Chanhassen. We like building here and we
would like the opportunity to continue.
Mancino: Thank you.
Steve Schwanke: We're going to move now Madam Chair to the next part of the presentation
really focusing on the development of the industrial market place. The suitability of the site
for industrial development. And beginning with that, to kind of back up a little bit. Perhaps
get a little bit back to what Bob went through. Again, we want to identify the site and really
how we view it a little bit different... I'm going to start over here and use this a little bit.
This is the subject property right here. Again as Bob had indicated, Lyman over here.
Galpin through here, the railroad tracks in this area here. You're probably already familiar
with the 1995 study area is in this area here. Our perspective on it is that really this property
here is very much of a transitional piece of property. An island so to speak if you'd like.
There is residential over in this area here. I'm sure you're all well aware of. Residential over
in this area here. Industrial over in this area here. So in effect you have industrial up to
about this spot here. You in effect cross the road and now you're into residential of varying
types. Obviously we can't say much about this area down here since this is we understand
currently under study right now. So as a result, if you have, if you take a look at it from an
east, or excuse me from a west-east perspective, the industrial being over here in the city of
Chanhassen. Of excuse me, the city of Chaska. Single family, excuse me residential over
here in the city of Chanhassen, the question really becomes what are you going to put, what
do we do with this piece of property here. Part of this thought, to be very honest with you,
came from reading the city's comprehensive plan. We took a look and read the discussion
relative to this piece of property and it appeared to us, our interpretation of it was, there were
a number of pros to the property relative to industrial. There were a number of negatives
relative to the property for industrial. There are a number of pros to the property in regards
to residential. There were a number of negatives to the property relative to residential. So if
that is indeed everyone's interpretation of it, we're in effect saying we agree. We think this is
indeed a transitional piece of property. But perhaps you could flip the coin and say we'll take
2 out of 3 and see which way it goes. Only that, what we'd like to do this evening in
addition to some of the work here, is take a detailed look at the piece of property and really
see if you were to develop this property industrial, what would that really take. And if you
were to develop it both in terms of residential, multi-family, what would that really take...
Since doing that, I'm going to start a little bit by just reviewing some of the specifics. Again,
this sheet here should be in the packet, if it's not clear for the Planning Commission. Just to
review some of the specifics relative to the property. Again, this is the subject property in
18
Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996
this general area here. As has been indicated by Bob in his staff report and to an extent in
the comprehensive plan, it is a difficult site. You have the wetland here, which is again to
the best of our knowledge. Wetland in this area here, to the best of our knowledge. The tree
line over here. The railroad in this area here, which also creates some constraints that Kevin
and a few others will go into later on. Of course this bluff area here. Again to the best of
our knowledge that we've been able identify so far and again we haven't been out in the field
to actually stake and determine precisely where that bluff is but to the best of our knowledge,
the bluff area here. And very steep slopes over in this area here. 16%, 20%, 16%, 25% and
again the power line running through this area here. Flood plain. Again serving both as an
amenity and as a constraint. One of the interesting things about the property is that nearly a
third of it is undevelopable just because of flood plain and wetlands and because of how this
area in here needs to be treated. Also with the wetland over in this area here. Major county
road here, county road here. The industrial again over here. And the residential single family
over in this area here. Again, we believe it's very much of a transitional piece and a very
difficult piece that does take sensitivity. That will take sensitivity to develop. Should this
affect the site, and again Kevin and a few others are going to go into a little more detail
about that shortly. I'd like to take a minute now and just shift a little bit to address a couple
of the issues that were raised in the staff report relative to industrial development, and the
issue of how much industrial land the city should have. What would be appropriate. What's
good for cities and take a minute and talk about what's on page 4 of the staff report,
specifically referred to as the PAS memo that's been published by the American Planning
Association. As part of this, as I indicated earlier, we've actually completed the survey of 15
cities here in the Twin Cities metropolitan area in terms of finding a sense of how much
industrial or land in those respective cities, that they plan for industrial in each of those cities.
I wish I could come here tonight and tell you that we found some great consistency. That we
found some great relationship between residential development and commercial development
and industrial development. I don't have the overhead for it and I can't tell you that, because
in our survey of those 15 cities here in this metropolitan area, there was no consistency.
They ranged all the way from 0.6% to 12%. And there wasn't any relationship that we could
see in terms of residential development, commercial development, or anything like that. Our
observation was that it appeared to be specifically related to the characteristics of other cities,
and let me take one that I can speak to with some knowledge. The City of Eagan where I
used to be employed, they had 12% of their land dedicated for industrial purposes. That's a
lot of land. Again we need to take into consideration the unique characteristics of Eagan.
They've got phenomenal access, roadway access with 35E, 494, Cedar Avenue, and a number
of county roads. They also have the corridors for the airport that go right over the northern
part of the city. And it's part of the agreement with the metropolitan agencies, the vast
majority of the northern part of the city has been dedicated for industrial purposes. The
reason being because that's the type of use that's most compatible with the type of noise
generated by the airport. Again, no great relationship between residential and commercial.
19
Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996
Just the unique characteristics related to the city. So back then to the PAS report and the
study that was done by the EAPA relative to the amount of land that would be appropriate for
industrial or residential or commercial uses. This was a study that was done by the APA as a
way to take a look at the type of land uses, the composition of land uses in the cities of
varying sizes throughout the United States. The staff report goes into a little more detail
about that and I won't discuss it too much more. In your packet are two data pages from that
report however. I'd just call your attention to that. I wouldn't necessarily expect you to
spend a lot of time on it right here and now but those two pages are in the booklet I handed
out and again, just to call your attention to it and at your convenience for you to take a look
at it because I think it's one of those pages, it's one of those things that you'll see that again
there is no relationship. There's no consistency in terms of the amount of industrial land that
a particular city has related to any other type of land use that's related in the city. We would
argue or suggest tonight that that relationship again, as it's related specifically to the unique
characteristics of each of those cities that are identified that will serve as part of that report,
and unique characteristics related to the land in that city. I think what I'd like to do is now
take a minute and read the last paragraph of that PAS report that in fact we think says the
very same thing. It's on the screen up here and again it's in the packet and I'll just take a
minute here to read it. It says it is not recommended that these ratios, these ratios being the
ones that are surveys as part of the report, be used as urban land use models. Any city
predicting it's future land use requirements solely on the ratios of other cities could be
seriously misguided. Every city has different factors affecting it's land use designation.
Instead of considering these numbers as rules of thumb, consider them examples of land use
ratios that exist in the cities today. Look closely how factors affect your city's land use
before comparing your ratios to these data. We go into just a little bit of a warning as to how
the data should be reviewed and then how it should be interpreted. With that I'm going to
ask Kevin and Chuck Poppler to come up and talk a little bit about the site specifically and
it's use for industrial purposes.
Kevin VonRiedel: Good evening. Bob did a pretty good job going over the characteristics of
the site and...this site, here is roughly 978. It drops down...50 to 60 feet of relief on the site,
which makes it difficult to develop virtually anything...that is land use intensive. ...we had a
neighborhood meeting last week and although it was lightly attended...Betty O'Shaughnessy
and all of you are fairly familiar with Betty and her work in the city and she... We had large
boxes down here for industrial and we had a similar situation office, warehouse building
there...industrial and office and typically what we're finding are smaller boxes. Not large
ones...We came up with approximately 500,000 square feet of office industrial space. Right
now you see...you have large areas of flat land that require industrial development...same
location to illustrate our section line and as Steve had mentioned earlier...site plan review
process but generally speaking that's how we... Chuck, do you want to address the rest of this
issue... As you're looking at this, when I told you...
20
Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996
Chuck Poppler: What we've developed here is a plan that shows the impact on the contours
or the grades of the site as it relates to an industrial park or a commercial site and as it relates
to a multi-family site. The black line is the existing contours of the hill depicted on the
topographic map. And you can see it drops off and the roadway comes down and climbs up
rather quickly to the top of that knob that we're showing. ...develop the commercial plan that
we're showing you, that dark red line that was shown as the center line, is this line as it's
depicted by the blue line right there, the blue line. And that would be the street grade of that
road coming. And we...we tried to set the large commercial pads and parking lots in there to
make them work. Typically how you'd have to do it on a commercial site, and you start
seeing the impact that we're having to the hillsides,just to move that amount of dirt. It's very
costly to move that amount of dirt to balance the site in there. As opposed to a multi-family
use with smaller pads. We decided another road grade which is the light red line and
designed in the multi-family pads that were shown on the conceptual plan that we did. And
you can see, you can start to fit a development like that into the existing terrain with a lot
less disruption to the natural amenities of the site, and maintain a lot more of the natural
aesthetics. That tends to work if you're already through the site with utilities, wetland
alterations and everything that you might run into on the site... Any questions on that?
Mancino: Any questions commissioners? No.
Chuck Poppler: Okay. I'm going to introduce Roger Christensen to talk a little bit more.
Roger Christensen: My name is Roger Christensen. I'm with Tobin Real Estate Company.
We are a commercial real estate consulting firm. We work with end users. With
corporations and organizations and their real estate needs relative to the Twin Cities as well
as across the country. As part of that we do a good amount of work... We take the user's
requirements...strategic planning process. We do the planning and acquisition process of land
and development management process. One of the things that we always emphasize is that
each project needs to be something that is feasible economically for any industrial or
commercial use. And let's go to the first line and just take a quick look at, what an industrial
user looks for as they're looking at different alternatives. And I'll give you some examples as
we just walk through these. The first one is an industrial user loves flat land. They also love
dry land but that's not always possible and we end up having to go...but the flat land is very
important on the economics of the deal. You may be familiar with FSI International that just
finished their first building down on Highway 41. That was one of our clients. They took a
piece of property that was quite hilly. Not as severe as slopes as this one, and we removed
so far approximately 250,000 cubic yards of dirt. Taking that off the area just to make it flat.
It's a very expensive process and you only want to do it when it's absolutely necessary. For
FSI International it made sense because of the economic incentives that the City of Chaska
provided. But otherwise, that is a severe constraint for any end user for the industrial land.
21
Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996
The next one is easy access. Very important, especially for trucking that access can be easily
had so you can get on and off roads immediately as well as get on and off the highway
system. The third spot is that good transportation routes. Besides the access, is just getting
onto it. There needs to be good roads that can handle both the weigh of these roads.
Unlimited vehicles. That is something that, especially during the springtime is most
important because there's a lot of times you have the restrictions on those and you want to
have good routes to the highway system again. The fourth one is compatibility with the
existing uses. No one likes to have neighbors that don't use the land in the same way that
you do, and the reason for that is that everyone sees that as just, it's uncomfortable. There
are uses that will have friction. That will become a problem. Safety, possibly for industrial
as well as the noise problems. They don't want to be a bad neighbor to someone, and they
prefer always to have users that are of like minds. And then the last one is there developable
quality land. You're always looking for land that again is neither wet nor unsuitable soil.
You want to have land that you can immediately start working on. You don't have to take
out a lot of land and put good soil back in. So those are some of the different aspects that a
typical industrial user will be looking at. Let's go onto the next slide and take those factors
and look at our targeted land characteristics. The first one is, this land has hilly terrain as
you've seen a couple times on some of the different overheads and charts. There's going to
be significant excavation and grading for this property. Especially for industrial use where
you have grade changes...on the type of use instead of distribution. Type of buildings.
You're forced to go with more either maybe...or corporate office type of area. This location
may not have the same benefits for a corporate user because it's just, how far out it is from
the main freeway system. As well as the cost of that hilly terrain. Getting in and out. The
next slide is, there's no optimum access for this particular site. It's approximately 2 miles
from Highway 5, if you're driving by car or little truck. If you have a full truck, you're over
3 miles from Highway 5 because of axle weight restrictions on the roads in and around that
area. So you do have to go quite a ways from this site to get back to Highway 5. The
second aspect is there's congestion problems currently in that area. Currently the intersection
of County Road 17 and County Road 18, this area here. There's a stop sign here, but other
than that there's no other traffic flow...dealing with traffic flow. This area has changed
dramatically within the past two years in terms of the number of cars and trucks that pass
through there. Especially during the peak hours. Besides this intersection, you also have
Lake Hazeltine Drive that comes out onto County Road 18 that also has significant number of
vehicles that... The problems aren't very significant but you're looking, if you're going
northbound on County Road 17, looking to turn left and go westbound on County Road 18,
you're faced with the peak hours with a minimum 15 minute wait. Just because the traffic is
flowing back and forth between those two roads. Same thing with Crosby Park. On there, an
example is if you're looking to take a right, going out of Crosby Park and going eastbound on
County Road 18, just taking a right, you're looking at about a 5 minute wait at the stop sign.
Very significant. The land that we're looking at here is right adjacent to that and so, and
22
Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996
industrial development you'd be adding 1 or 2 different curb cuts here, increasing dramatically
the amount of traffic in and around this area. That's slow traffic. There's always going to be
a hazard that's going to necessitate upgrade of the two road systems there for both turning
lanes as well as signals, which I don't think too many people would have thought that that
area just a few years ago would necessitate that type of structure but looking at industrial
development, and you would assume I think the same numbers as what the staff had of
500,000 to 600,000 square feet of industrial development. Pretty significant. A traffic
estimate is done as to how many cars are actually going to be produce by developing the site
as residential as well as industrial. For multi-family residential, I'm assuming the 500 units
that are currently just being proposed right here. During the weekday total traffic stands at
2,930 trips, and during the peak hours in the morning, approximately 220 trips and during the
peak hours in the afternoon, 275. Now to give you a contrast, because that is just numbers.
An industrial park, assuming 600,000 square feet of industrial space, that would generate a
total volume of 4,182 trips and that's compared to the multi-family residential of 2,930 so
significant increase. What's more important for industrial is the peak hours. The peak hours
for a.m. is 522 and in the afternoon is 546. Those compare to again the a.m. peak for
residential 220 and p.m. peak as 275 so you're looking at double the amount of vehicles that
would be passing through and generating traffic in this area if you go industrial. Very
significant issue that the County and the City will be dealing with here. Let's then move on
to, just quickly touching back on the overhead. The indirect transportation route that we
talked to and then I'll move on to the next slide. Go back to compatibility of uses. Currently
this site has both residential and industrial uses. From an industrial perspective, the visual
buffers are very acceptable here. To the north of this site where it meets up with the railroad,
as well as single family residential, you have both a tree line and the railroad, and that's
considered quite acceptable there from a visual standpoint, and obviously if it gets developed,
we'd be developing other buffers there as well to enhance that. And then to the east you're
significantly away from the other residential development so even with the substantial change
in the topography, you'll still have plenty of buffers on that side. Not so much from the tree
line perspective because simply you're too high to make the trees a real effective for quite a
long time, but it's... On the other hand, the safety buffer is quite a bit different. The safety
buffer is especially important in manufacturing where you may have chemicals that are being
used, both high tech as well as lower tech type of manufacturers are very concerned that they
have proper buffers, and usually the city is too so if there's any kind of spill or any kind of
exposure, that there's time to get residential areas cleared out. That's not the case on this site.
The safety buffer is more of a concern here right to the north because of the closeness to the
residential area here and then off to the east, we usually have northern and western type of
winds so very quickly that's going to be quite a bit of an issue for that. So that's one of the
things that this particular land has to deal with. The other area of significant cost necessary
to make this land developable, I mentioned the amount of dirt that's going to have to be
moved and removed from this site, as well as putting in the sewer system, water system back
23
Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996
to this type of...quite a bit of time, it's costly and industrial users don't like to work with those
type of costs. One way that cities usually work with that is by developing tax increment
finance districts. Things have changed with tax increment financing districts in terms of the
ability to create those on different plots of land. The State legislature saw fit to reduce, or at
least make that process more difficult for cities. Even now if a TIF district was created,
you're penalized on your LGA rate, which is local government assistance and HAKA
assistance. The City of Chanhassen does not get LGA funds but they do get HAKA funds
and so that's an area that you have to look at seriously before creating a tax increment
financing district. Let's move on then to the next slide. With these things in mind, we look
at this site as being land that really could be used for either residential or industrial. The land
does not meet ideal industrial characteristics. It does have industrial to the west of it, but it's
not physically linked. Visually linked with that and with the other characteristics that we
mentioned here, it could work for residential just as...as industrial. In fact we think it would
be easier to develop this as residential. Industrial development also does not make use of the
vistas and future walking trails that are planned for. Inbetween this property and the other
residential areas, you're probably most familiar with the plan to have parkland and walking
trails in and around that...area. And that would be a very nice amenity that residential areas
can use. Industrials don't tend to use those to the'same extent as residential areas do. Then
we'll go to the next slide. Estimated development timing for this particular land. If you were
to use this plat as industrial, what are the factors of how long it will take before this gets
developed? You know very well that various different pieces of land that you have that are
looking to be developed over here and to the west for industrial use in the city of
Chanhassen. Some very nice plots of land that have very good access to Highway 5. That
don't have the same topography as this site does and meets some of the characteristics that
we're looking at as the ideal characteristics. Because of that, that land most likely will be
developed prior to this targeted piece that we're talking about tonight. That Highway 5 land
is at a higher price than this targeted land, but with the development costs that this one has,
the Highway 5 land probably will be comparable in an overall development cost price.
Because of that, let's go to the last slide. We estimate that the targeted land, if it is continued
to be slated for industrial development, would look at an 8 to 10 year development time
period. When you start to take a look at that type of timing, it starts impacting your tax base.
Eventually this will get developed, one way or the other but it's a matter of how does that
affect your tax base. If it's 8 to 10 years out, it's fairly significant if it's developed industrial,
the amount of taxes that you won't be gaining during that period of time. And that's my part
of the presentation. Do you have some questions?
Mancino: Any questions from commissioners at this time? No we don't. Thank you.
Steve Schwanke: Madam Chair, I'd like to just acknowledge that this will probably take a
little longer than we anticipated. We acknowledge that we'll make every effort to summarize
24
Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996
fairly quickly and move on. We're going to move this now to the residential component.
Again, we've attempted to create a case that what we've done with the property is appropriate
for industrial and we're open to questions from the commission relative to that. We do
believe that there are a number of unique features that does make it a residential piece...
Kevin VonRiedel is actually going to address the issue about the availability of multi-family
housing space units...number of spots. Again, for people who need to work in the private
marketplace to eventually option those pieces and purchase those pieces. Kevin's going to go
through really the reality of those pieces are and we'll conclude with... The reason we think,
again a number of reasons exist for why we think the property is very appropriate for
residential purposes. Roger mentioned the amenities. We think that actually is a very
compelling reason as to why this property will be a very good residential piece. It's not often
that a city is able to develop a trail and park system that then can be used by residential
people right next to it. I don't think it takes much to say that industrial people don't have a
lot of use for industrial and park facilities. It's not that they don't have use for it but we'll
compare it to residential residents, citizens of your community have a much better use for that
property than industrial users. We also believe that, again if there's a slide in your packet, if
we would put up the overhead there. It appears from the data that we've been able to compile
that the city of Chanhassen does have a need for a variety type of housing units here. I don't
know if there's actually one that shows the types of housing units. It's also in your packet.
While Keith is looking for that, it provides a breakdown. The type of housing units in the
city. The diversity of housing units. The availability of housing units. The density. I trust
Madam Chair the commission members have seen this data before. It came from the Met
Council relative to the Livable Communities Act. Because of that I'll just point out a couple
of components that we think are rather significant. That being in the affordability category
there under ownership. City index being 37% benchmark. That being what to shoot for so to
speak as a goal as well. The benchmark being 60% to 69%. The goal being 50%. We think
there's a rather large gap in that area there. The only one I'd like to take a moment...as well
as in the life cycle housing. Type being non single family. Again, the city index being 19%.
Benchmark 35% to 37% and the comprehensive plan has indicated the goal section of 34%.
We do believe that there is a need for, in this community, for a diversity of housing. And not
just because that's a nice planning term...related to that. One of them is, housing in particular,
affordable housing is, Mr. Hagen I think is going to address here in a couple of minutes from
a very practical perspective, is just as important as any other infrastructure issue for industrial
users as a road is. As water is. As sanitary sewer is. Industrial users need a labor market
that is close and for the people who provide employment for a variety of people, those who
are at the high income level as well as those who are at the low income level, those people
need all types of housing and Mr. Hagen is going to go into a little bit of detail as to the
difficulty of providing and finding a labor supply in this area...one of the reasons of course
being the lack of affordable housing. So there's some very practical aspects to it as well.
We're also going to go into a little bit of detail here momentarily. Because of the difficulty
25
Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996
of developing this site, it's our belief, as Mr. Christensen indicated, that industrial
development's going to be some time before you see industrial development on this property
so that has an affect on the tax revenue that's generated by the property and that goes to the
city and other jurisdictions. Consequently, and we'll go into a little more detail here, multi-
family development actually ends up generating more taxes. More tax revenue than
industrial property does. With that, I'm going to step down and Kevin's going to actually
address some of the supply of multi-family housing...
Kevin VonRiedel: ...put up a slide on the overhead showing some locations that multi-family
land is available and this one differs slightly from Bob's. I think Bob's may in fact show a
few more sites...but if you take a look at this picture down here...212 proposes to go through.
North of that would be parkland. Rottlund's proposing a detached townhome...This is
proposed or guided for high density residential. We believe that it's...it's not available for
purchase to do that. It's being held for development by the current owner. ...between these
parcels, if you take the lots out of the picture, this one's currently under consideration for
development. None of these are proposed to be in the range of affordable housing. They're
all in the $140,000.00 on up range... run through the site plan. I don't want to, I'm just going
to...again. This is conceptual, as we said earlier, and we again...wetlands, although it should
be noted that the developer...
Steve Schwanke: Again, we're going to summarizing quickly Madam Chair. If we can...a
couple of comments regarding fiscal issues... It's this one in your packet. The commission
members may recall we actually had a discussion regarding this property I believe it was in
September or October of last year. One of the issues that was brought up was the fiscal
impact that this property were reguided industrial to a residential use, the commission
members at that time may recall one of the things I said, I was actually against doing that
because fiscal issues are so very difficult, particularly here in the State of Minnesota to
actually gauge and estimate because of the supports and money that comes from the State as
well as just our taxing system here for property taxes. It's very difficult to estimate this type
of stuff. And secondly, very candidly, you can play with the numbers any which way you
want. So at that time I suggested that we not take a look at fiscal issues and yet there's an
item raised in the report. It is an important item. I used to be a fiscal consultant. This is
one of the things that we did do. I put a very simplistic spread sheet up and it's in your
packet. I am the first to admit that this spread sheet is totally predicated on a number of
assumptions that we have made, and I'm going to go through a couple of those to share...and
then just make one other comment. If you take a look at the residential and commercial
components, that is on the left hand side there, we show the project being staged over a
period of 5 years. That's probably very realistic. It may be conservative. Mr. Seagraves
indicated that it could even go faster than that. 5 years...so we put 5 years in there. The
commercial part of this project... And as we saw, if you see the tax generated, or the tax
26
Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996
revenue that's generated from that. Reduce the numbers that were in the staff report...take a
little bit of exception to those numbers but they're close. They're ballpark so the numbers that
I've used as part of this are from the staff report. Specifically I guess the generic tax
revenue... If you go over to the industrial side, again based on Roger's comments that the
property would not probably be developed until, for 8 to 10 years, again it's anyone's guess.
We don't know for sure. Roger works in this business so we figure he's probably one of the
better people to get numbers from. What we did here for simplicity sake is show all 600,000
square feet of industrial use coming on the tax rolls in year 11. Now...1 or 2 are going to
come on in year 7 or 8 or 9, yeah probably. Again for simplicity sake, we show all 600,000
square feet coming on in the year 11. You'll see that at the bottom, the difference is rather
dramatic...A cumulative amount of residential and commercial is in that range of $172
million. Cumulative for industrial is 72 million. A difference of about $100 million. Again,
this is very quick...attest to it's complete accuracy. One of the things that I do want to show
is that if you look at the top of the page, on a project by project basis, that indeed industrial
does generate a little more tax than residential, commercial development does. The major
difference here is the amount of time, again based on Roger's estimate...and that's in effect
what you're seeing here. The only other caveat that I'd like to offer is...these industrial
numbers do not reflect the affect of fiscal disparities...part of staff right now, the city of
Chanhassen does not contribute to the fiscal disparities pool. We've done a little bit of
research into that. It is our guess that at some point in time the city will contribute to the
fiscal disparities pool. We did not make an attempt to...It is fair to say though that it would
reduce the amount of tax revenue generated by the industrial development because it would
go into the fiscal disparities pool. One other comment before I introduce Mr. Hagen. We
could have, probably should have made an attempt to estimate the cost...multi-family
development and for industrial development. And again for the reasons that I stated earlier,
we simply didn't want to touch that. To a large extent because estimated service cost is more
difficult...than tax revenue basis and it just didn't appear to be...Again Madam Chair, I'd like
to introduce Mr. Russ Hagen, President of Data Recognition Corporation.
Russ Hagen: Good evening. My name is Russ Hagen. I own a company by the name of
Data Recognition Corporation. We're headquartered in the Minnetonka area and the reason
I've been asked to join you this evening is, I have spent the last roughly 15 months on a
property search looking to consolidate 5 locations that I occupy right now and have been
asked to consider by my real estate person who is helping me do the search, to consider the
Chanhassen area. Eden Prairie area and just generally the southwest corner. And my
response has been unequivocally no. The reason being is the labor pool out here is too tight.
I have friends who own corporations or manage corporations in the Hazeltine, out in the park
area out here by Hazeltine, and they're having a difficult time finding labor, and I elected as a
result and with the concurrence of my management team, to limit our search area to the
northwestern quadrant of the Twin Cities, primarily because of the issue of labor. We
27
Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996
currently employ about 135 people full time, and as many 450 part time and the...part time
people we primarily get out of the south, well about 50% of them come from the zip codes
immediately adjacent to the downtown Minneapolis area so for us to stay in closer to the city
where there's access to bus routes and a little easier transportation, is of concern to us. But
over and above that, some of the people that we're trying to reach are people who work in the
warehouses. Who work on the in service. We do work very similar to what United Mailing
does but certainly not on the same scale. And we would be competing with that same
company for a common labor pool. Moving out to this area for us just wouldn't make sense
so we're electing to go probably, I'm going to say Plymouth or Maple Grove or something
like that. We're also considering Eagan but I'm not, at this point I am not willing to say that
we're going to go out that direction, primarily because of where our work force lives.
Mancino: Have you had a chance to talk with Jerome Carlson at all about where he gets?
Russ Hagen: No. No. The guy that I hired to run my operations here used to work for
United Mailing as an Operations Manager and is intimately, as a matter of fact he lives out in
this neck of the woods and is quite familiar with the labor pool that's out here. And like I
say, I'm also good friends with the CEO's of a couple of companies that are located out here
in the Jonathan Industrial Park and well aware of the labor issues that they are facing and
given the fact that I'm having trouble finding both the skilled people and unskilled people at
the present moment, I see no reason for me to try and find 15 acres of land so I can build a
campus out here when I'm having a tough enough time as it is so I need to go somewhere
else.
Mancino: Okay, thank you.
Russ Hagen: Any questions I, okay thank you.
Steve Schwanke: Finally Madam Chair in summary. Luke, would you put up the last
overhead there. It's...in the back of your packet...again, I said it in the beginning. We truly
do believe this is a transitional piece. The reasons that we've listed that we do believe that
it's best used as a multi-family use and...through multi-family use. It's certainly not an
industrial use. This multi-family use land to the south...We also believe that because of the
existing proposed amenities, particularly the park and trail system being considered for the
area, that the residential use is the best use for that area. The buffering issue that was raised
by Roger, particularly for safety...We appreciate Madam Chair the commission's patience this
evening. Again, our desire is of course to...have the opportunity to come up and say that
we're in full concurrence with staffs...available for questions. We thought we did need to
provide a full presentation tonight. As always we're available for questions now...
28
Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996
Mancino: Thank you Steve. When we are deliberating and talking after the public hearing, if
we have questions, we'll ask you and you alone to answer those.
Steve Schwanke: Please. And if it please the commission, if it's possible if I need to draw...
Mancino: Sure.
Steve Schwanke: Sure, thank you.
Mancino: Thank you. May I have a motion to open this for a public hearing please.
Fannakes moved, Skubic seconded to open the public healing. The public hearing was
opened.
Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning
Commission at this time, please do. Please come up to the podium. State your name, your
address...your comments.
Allyson Brooks: My name is Allyson Brooks. I'm at 1831 Sunridge Court and I'd like to
ask some questions.
Mancino: Okay. And would you direct those to me please.
Allyson Brooks: Okay.
Mancino: Thank you.
Allyson Brooks: I guess I'm not really sure about the wetlands issue. The industrial versus
residential and... Maybe I could call the staff at some point and get more information...
Mancino: Sure you can.
Allyson Brooks: Is there going to be an environmental assessment done? It had been
mentioned. That was something, I wasn't clear if there will be an environmental assessment
or not.
Mancino: Yes. If this goes further, there will be an environmental assessment done.
Allyson Brooks: A full environmental assessment. Okay, because I know there's also some
historic structures down there that don't look in great condition but. Then the, since I just
29
Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996
moved here I'm not sure, are all the...on septic systems or is this going to be a sewer system
that's put in with this division?
Mancino: Dave, do you want to?
Hempel: Again, municipal sewer and water services.
Allyson Brooks: Okay. And as far as the traffic on Lyman Boulevard, I know this sounds
smart but the difference between 2,000 cars and 4,000 cars at this point, there's so much
traffic on that boulevard. There was a huge accident tonight. I think the Planning
Commission, if this goes through, you need to consider what you're going to do it with that
street. Either widen it or something. It's just, it's a mess.
Mancino: Okay.
Allyson Brooks: And there's accidents all the time so you know, housing or industrial.
Mancino: Whichever way it goes.
Allyson Brooks: ...cars.
Mancino: Okay, thank you.
Allyson Brooks: And the other thing I wanted to say, ask them. They said they had a
neighborhood meeting and I was kind of curious...I never even heard about it.
Mancino: Steve, when was the neighborhood meeting?
Steve Schwanke: Madam Chair, we held the neighborhood meeting last Wednesday. It was
last week at this time last week. We used the mailing list, of course we need to...within
certain distance of the site. We used that same list for the notification of our meeting.
Mancino: So Allyson how far, when did you move in?
Allyson Brooks: Pardon?
Mancino: When did you move in?
Allyson Brooks: In November...
30
Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996
Mancino: And how often are those updated?
Allyson Brooks: The town, we get the information from the county. I'm not sure.
Mancino: So you should have been sent one. A notification of the meeting.
Allyson Brooks: When I came here I was actually for it, but after your hour presentation, it
actually made me more uncomfortable... So it will actually be April 22nd? Is that when?
Mancino: This will go in front of the City Council, yes.
Allyson Brooks: Okay, thank you.
Mancino: If you have any comments that you'd like to make either for or against. Why you
are for it or why you are against it.
Allyson Brooks: Part of it, to be honest, if they tell me it's like 8 years before an industrial
park goes in...have a field for 8 years... Also and no offense to the guy that's not going to
build his little mailing facility here. I don't think that like a few townhouses on a hill is
going to help him with his business and his labor force. I found that a little condescending.
I guess I'm not, I didn't realize that the townhouses versus houses. I'm not much with the
wetlands issue and I guess the reason I changed my mind is that...work it out in my head in a
little bit.
Mancino: Okay.
Allyson Brooks: So I'll probably think about it some more maybe and make some comments
later.
Mancino: Great. Appreciate your comments.
Dennis Dirlem: My name's Dennis Dirlem, 15241 Creekside Court in Eden Prairie. I am a
partner with Stan Hemerski and Betty O'Shaughnessy. We own the piece of property to the
north of this parcel. An 8 acre parcel that I...working our way out of our development said
would be serviced from this side of the development so our piece would be serviced... With
the parkland that's been sold to the city adjacent to the east of this piece, we're basically
landlocked. This development does not address an access to our site so we have an 8 acre
site that's landlocked.
Mancino: Okay, thank you. Anyone else?
31
Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996
Bill Sandberg: I'm Bill Sandberg. I live at 8757 Valley View Place, which is on the other
side of the valley from the proposed development. My comments is, even though I'd like to
take a chance on the 8 years of an open field, it'd be better for me...for leaving it residential
just because it is becoming kind of landlocked. That Bluff Creek Estates with industrial to
the north and now it's talking about this. And the point they said, with that road coming
between, across the park and the new one, there's no strategic reason, they don't connect. So
I'm just making a point that we would also agree...
Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public
hearing and a second please?
Skubic moved, Mehl seconded to close the public heating. The public hearing was closed.
Mancino: Comments, questions from commissioners. Craig, do you want to start off?
Peterson: I guess I've got a lot of questions and one of the things I'd like to maybe offer
back to you, if you would maybe have the staff comment first. If they have any reactions to
the presentation. Whether that's appropriate or not, I guess I ask for your opinion on that.
Mancino: I'm assuming staff, this is the first time you've heard the presentation... Dave in
general, can you talk a little bit about transportation and access in and out of this site.
Hempel: The environmental impact statement, one of the things that will be done is a traffic
analysis of the area. Lyman Boulevard is classified in the city's comprehensive plan as a
minor arterial street. It is a County road and the County does have plans in their capital
improvement program in the next 5 years I believe, 5 to 7 years, to widen Lyman Boulevard.
It will be a 4 lane road in the future. They're requesting additional right-of-way be dedicated
with any type of development on the property to facilitate the upgrading. Right now the
County/City is upgrading Powers Boulevard to a 4 lane urban section. They're also upgrading
Galpin Boulevard north of Lyman between Highway 5 and Lyman to 4 lane to help ease
traffic congestion on some of the collector streets through the city. Transportation, I guess I
heard some numbers tonight. I'm not a traffic engineer but off the cuff I guess I don't totally
agree with their numbers in residential trips. I think it'd be higher than that. So the long
range plans I do believe that traffic will be addressed with the upgrading of future roads.
You also have the potential Trunk Highway 212. Whether it's using the existing 212 through
Chaska right now is a major, Lyman Boulevard, Audubon Road is a major truck traffic
corridor with all the industrial, commercial sites in Chaska and growing in Chanhassen so it
will continue to be used as a traffic, truck traffic route.
32
Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996
Aanenson: If I could just comment on that. When we did the environmental study for the
Chan Business Center, it was also determined at that time when 212 opens up, that a
significant amount of traffic will be diverted that way so as Dave indicated. Again, if it
doesn't happen for a number of years, it ties into the timing of 212 but we believe that a lot
of traffic will probably go to the south as opposed to going towards Highway 5. It has a
different orientation but as Dave indicated, we did have foresight when we did the zoning of
this property and tying it in with the Eastern Carver County Transportation Plan. Working
with the County. When we guided this industrial, looking at transportation, obviously the two
go together and the foresight was given as to how this would be handled and we believe that,
as Dave indicated, that roads in the future will be sufficient to handle the traffic generated.
And I did Dave, I think there were some numbers that we would like a chance to look at. I
don't agree with some of the traffic generation numbers.
Mancino: Other comments on affordable housing. And that was one of the big issues that
was brought up that certainly we as a community understand the need for a diversity and the
need for affordable housing. And I think we as a community would like to plan that
ourselves and where we would like it and how we would like it to grow. And what are we
doing about that right now?
Aanenson: I'd be happy to comment on that. The numbers that were given to you were
based on the Met Council numbers that they gave. A lot of those numbers are 1990 data.
Just for your information, and we reviewed this recently with the Planning Commission. Last
year the city approved more multi-family permits than they did single family permits. Again,
development as Bob indicated, is cyclicle. Predominantly we were a large lot community.
We didn't have a lot of commercial base. Things are changing. Last year we did have more
multi-family. We predict this year we'll probably have another couple hundred in that same
range. We are working with a couple other developments. The numbers you're looking at are
pretty stagnant in time. Again going back to 1990. We believe that we've got appropriate
land uses. We're working with developments. Again, we have the luxury of knowing all the
things that are happening in the city. Not looking at this piece in a vacuum as the applicants
are. But we believe that we are working and managing, considering the land uses that we
have to meet those goals based on the land uses that are in place right now.
Mancino: Okay. Dave, another issue that was brought up was about grading. Would you be
grading more for having this big industrial site. Industrial office versus the 504 townhomes
that we're seeing now plus the 5 acres of commercial.
Hempel: Given the significant grade differences on the site, there would involve quite a bit
of site grading for the industrial site. It's probably better fit for residential use because lot
bench the home sites in here better. You're probably a little more flexible with street grades
33
Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996
from a residential use versus the truck traffic. We do have Chan Business Center to the east
that had somewhat of a rolling terrain and that site did undergo quite a bit of site grading.
They also had poor soils though to contend with on the site. We have another piece of
industrial land on the corner of Trunk Highway 41 and Trunk Highway 5 that is similar
terrain. Preliminary sketches showed industrial sites benched in on the terrain. Rolling,
meandering street through there to service those sites so, no doubt there would be significant
grading on the site for an industrial site. But also there's going to be a lot of grading for a
townhouse as well.
Mancino: Staff, could you also speak to the concern about industrial and chemicals and toxic
use.
Aanenson: The types of uses that we have in the city I don't think, I don't want to be flippant
but we've have some, Redmond Hair Products kind of smell complaints but normally the
types of businesses we have in this community, we haven't had too much of that sort of
problem to my knowledge. Certainly the zoning that we do have in place, as I indicated
earlier, we do have a lot of mix of office, industrial use. We have some assembly with an
office component with it but the mix we have right now isn't what I would consider kind of
the hazardous sort. It's really light industrial. Not what we would call the heavy
manufacturing type. I just wanted to comment a little bit on the recreational component too,
to the industrial parks. I'm a little bit surprised hearing about the recreational component
because that tells me that somebody doesn't know Chanhassen very well because I think we're
kind of on the cutting edge of some of that. If you look at our Lake Susan Park, which is in
the middle of an industrial park. There's a wonderful opportunity to put a park in an
industrial area. That makes good use with the lighted ballfields. And also what we've done
with the Chan Business Center. When the City bought a piece of property along the Bluff
Creek with the trees and it has a trail going towards it so I think there is a wonderful
opportunity to provide people in neighborhoods to get in and use some of these other trails
so, I think it's a good mix and I think Chanhassen's done a good job of providing that
opportunity through industrial parks.
Mancino: Thank you.
Peterson: Thank you Madam Chair. I appreciate that. Generally, as far as the rezoning
issue, I have a number of comments to make but first I guess is the comprehensive plan itself.
I think we, as a commission, do have an obligation to follow that as often as we can in an
effort to, when we decide to move away from that, I think there does have to be that
compelling reason. Whether that be a unique development. Something that is very atypical
and bring some extra to our city in a PUD. And I'm concerned that, I believe that office
industrial zoning is being used up faster than what was presented tonight. We've seen that
34
Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996
trend even over the last 9 months. I think that's an issue that we have to consider. On the
opposite side about bringing additional bedrooms per se into Chanhassen. I think we also
have to be concerned about bringing additional jobs into the city. That really wasn't
discussed tonight. I think we should also consider that. I think the fact that was brought up
that 8 to 10 years is when the site may be developed. I think if we use that as rationale for
change, I think that is rather short minded of us. We've got to think in the long term when
an issue is before us to consider. So that would be my general comments as it relates to
rezoning. I think the space, the PUD itself, my many reactions are that I think the open space
seems very limited. I'm concerned that it is very tight and condensed. The number of units
in there seems rather overwhelming as you first look at it. I don't find it extremely unique to
Chanhassen at all. I see a very typical townhouse development. I guess I would concur with
Dave in everything that we've done before with the traffic, it doesn't seem, the figures were
almost double for commercial and office industrial versus residential and I guess I'm a little
confused with that number. I'd like to have that looked at a little bit more. I think lastly I
would be concerned about the access with the property to the north. That the access would
go through, what would seem to be a very high density residential area with winding roads,
and I would have some concern with that too. First overview, I think those are my
comments.
Mancino: Thank you. Ladd.
Conrad: I agree with much of what Craig has said. I think it's a good proposal, or
presentation. Appreciate that. Joe Miller, or Horton, they're good folks. They're good to be
around. They do good work. We also had similar discussions with Rottlund. They're out
here looking at sites so this is sort of like an instant replay to other things and we're getting
kind of used to that. Maybe we're getting a little bit more savvy what we want. I think
proposals make us think about things that maybe in the past we haven't. Just, I'll make my
comments real brief because I think Craig touched on them. I still think the zoning, or the
way we have it guided is a reasonable use of the land. It's not perfect but it is reasonable. I
think we still need the tax base. Nothing says we're wrong. Our 8% or whatever says we're
right in the ballpark. Cutting it down would make me real nervous. I don't think it would be
good planning right now. I think we are doing appropriate planning. Didn't hear a whole lot
of concerns from the neighborhood in terms of one way or another, which is another issue
that we could look at. See if the neighbors are violently concerned, even though we're still
looking at the whole community in general. What's good for the community, I think that's
more important but again the residential, the neighboring folks were not really here in force
and that kind of says we did some planning. They knew this was going in. We're doing our
job. The city's doing the appropriate thing. Some of the real key things is, I think if we saw
something really innovative, really innovative, you might start pushing a button or two on our
part. If it was really innovative. I don't know if you call them zipper homes or whatever you
35
Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996
do but something that might say, that's what we should be doing. But that's not what I'm
seeing. It's still, what I'm seeing is pretty typical and you gave us a rough concept plan so I
don't want to pin you down but even in that concept it was contradictory to some of the
philosophies that we have here and that's taking a look at nature and see how we fit in. We
do preserve the nature and then we go from there so even in a concept plan. I don't think
you're real sensitive to that. Your words might have said that but the plan didn't. Regardless,
so you obviously can tell that I'm not really in favor of doing any change in guide plan or
zoning. Yet on the other hand, these folks brought up some good points and I really don't
even want to ask staff. You know we did ask staff to respond. I think because it's such a big
project Madam Chair, I just really want to make sure, like we did on the Opus site on TH 5
and TH 41, that this is not something that's just unreasonable to expect it couldn't be
developed that way. So I guess my direction would be, and I'd sure, whenever I table
something it imposes work on these individuals...we know that. But again, I would like
written response to review the applicant's proposal in terms of grading impact, in terms of the
traffic impact. In terms of access. In terms of financial review and in terms of affordable
housing. Those are five key things. If I were to take a look at this site and see should I
rezone it. So again, my direction right now is I wouldn't close it down. I think they brought
up some good points. I think we owe it to them to say hey, our staff has looked at it and
they're not shooting from the hip right now. They've given us their best shot and give us an
analysis.
Mancino: So you'd like to see it back again.
Conrad: I really would. Yeah, I'd table this just to give staff time to give us a review so we
don't have to do this again. I just want to know that this is, I really think it's an appropriate
use the way we've guided it. I just want them to take a little bit of an additional look and
then review the applicant's numbers and tell us what they think.
Mancino: Okay. Kevin.
Joyce: First off I do appreciate the work you put into this presentation. It was obviously
well organized and well prepared, and I don't want to be repetitive at all, so I'll be real brief.
I have a number of problems with this particular project. I agree with Craig, I think it's
extremely high density. I just, I don't see the purpose. I think it's an unnecessary high
density for that particular location. I think the repercussions would be severe on that area of
Chanhassen. It was mentioned that the optimum access for trucks, similar question about the
optimum access for trucks and I'm just curious, what about cars. We've got congestion
problems now. I don't think this project's going to solve those congestion problems. 500
units with 200 car garages, I still count 1,000 cars any way you look at it so I just think
there's a lot of congestion problems. I briefly heard about some environmental problems. I
36
Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996
agree with Ladd that, I'd hate to see you take away that portion of the IOP that's available to
us. It's a limited availability. And we have a comprehensive plan that we're obviously trying
to follow here and we'd be changing that and I just don't see the purpose of it. They can
certainly push the affordable housing button. That's kind of, or lack of affordable housing.
That seems to be a popular thing to do, but I think the staff is right. There's no compelling
reason to have this project. I think it's fust a development for development sako type of
situation and I think ii'd be short sighted on our, as a Planning Commission, to go forward
with it. So I'd have to agree with staff and oppose this plan.
Mancino: Jeff.
Farmakes: I don't disagree with what's been said here. Over and over again I see sort of
short term planning on the part of some of the applicants. As to what we should do with the
city and it's a good thing that we see other points of view on how we can develop the city
differently than.._come up with over the years. One of the things though that I always caution
when I listen to that is that...to develop this to create profit for your business and when you're
done developing, you move on to the next different project. After a while you start seeing
how that process works. There's nothing wrong with that. Development makes the world
better but the good thing about the long term plan is that when the machinery is all up and
running, it works and is it because of a cynical kind of, if it's good for business between 1996
and 1997, therefore that's what we did. Now it's not so good 5 years from now. We have
had cases where, in the past, we have changed that plan and we have looked at doing
different things and those things have come back to haunt us. It's also driven development
around where if we had to do it over again, we may have changed that and we may not have
placed that development there. I would stay...that we stay with the long term thinking and
that we look at how that area would develop overall and I think the decision that was made,
and you said this before, I think the comprehensive plan is the correct one. I have nothing
further to add to the comments that have already been made but I agree with them.
Mancino: Thank you. Bob.
Skubic: The applicant reviewed the status of some of the other high density residential areas
in the city. Could staff review the current status of the other industrial office park areas? I
think there was a land use map displayed at one time here. What is currently available and
what are our plans for it?
Generous: I'll preface this, they might be right that the other lands aren't available under, are
currently held by the current property owner.
Aanenson: Are you talking about just the industrial lots?
37
Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996
Skubic: Office industrial, yes.
Generous: Chanhassen Business Center, the industrial park. Immediately to the northeast of
this site I believe there's something like 5 or 6 lots left within that development. We just
received a new site plan application. The post office annex is also supposed to go into that
but we haven't seen any design plan on that. We have on the eastern end of the city, the
DataSery site. There were site plan approvals for that and subdivision approval. The
preliminary plats that were approved. That process is on hold at the moment I believe
because of DataServ.
Aanenson: Part of that property will be developed. We're working with the Gateway West
Properties to develop that piece, which is the 140 acres on TH 5 and TH 41. We're seeing
the development plan for that piece. The remaining piece, the large piece adjacent to
Highway 5 going over. We'll be talking about some of that later tonight. But we are
working with the property adjacent to the school site as potential development. We have met
with people on the larger Redmond property, and that's ready to develop so industrial's hot
right now. As Bob indicated, we believe we'll see a lot more industrial permits this year. A
lot of it is predicated on infrastructure. What was=holding up some of this development along
Highway 5 was getting sewer to the property. The city's completing the frontage road,
Coulter Drive between McGlynn's and the school site. That's precipitating a lot of
development in that industrial area right now. So a lot of this is timing of services. That's
why things were held up in certain areas. The same with the large property on TH 5 and TH
41. It's getting sewer to that property, which is now going to cross from Galpin over so a lot
of it is based on when we can provide service to the property. So we are meeting with all
those developers and projects are being developed. Plans are being developed.
Skubic: Thank you. It sounds like there is a demand for office industrial land within the city
and you can make the argument whether 8.2% is adequate or if we can give up some of that
if we develop this parcel here and it gets reduced to something like 7.5% and you can argue
about the tax base but there is competition for industrial and I think some of these other sites,
there are also attempts to rezone them for some residential purposes so we have to, we're
trying to stand by the comprehensive plan here and despite some pressures to do otherwise.
One thing in particular about rezoning is a hot button at this time I think is the expenditure
side. The infrastructure. Particularly the schools and one of the points raised in staffs report
here was, this development would add substantial demand on our schools and I think the
residents of the community would not be serving the residents well to place further demand
on them. I think that the industrial office park would serve a better purpose.
Mancino: You mean there wasn't a school as part of this plan? Don.
38
Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996
Mehl: Yeah, I really can't add a whole lot to it. I think the comments here have been made,
I pretty much support them. I think one big thing that's been mentioned here before, I think
it's too densely populated. You've got 500 and some units and only a couple of different
styles. That's just one unit right after another, closely spaced, 504 units and no mention was
made of color or how things could be made interesting or. I'm also concerned about the
bluffs and slope areas. I think that would need to be addressed. I'm very concerned about
the traffic. guess at this point I did not see any compelling reasons to support the project
and I'd support the staff report recommendation.
Mancino: Thank you. Any other last comments or questions after listening to commissioners?
I really don't have anything new to add either. I do think it's good to evaluate our
comprehensive plan and what we've done in the last 5 or 6 years and how we've grown. And
I would like to see this developer work in other areas of Chanhassen. I'm not sure that this, I
would rezone this but I would certainly like to have open arms. It was a good presentation.
You certainly have evaluated our city and so I hope you look at other areas. But I also
would be in favor of not changing the comprehensive plan from office industrial. I would
leave it as it is. I think we've done good planning. I think it shows. I think we have a great
city. I think we're in good financial status right now. I want to keep it that way. So with
that, may I have a motion? Please.
Farmakes: I'll make a motion. A motion that the Commission recommend to the Council
denial of the Land Use Map Amendment #95-2 and PUD #96-1 based on the following
findings.
Mancino: Is there a second to that motion?
Farmakes: That was 1 through 3.
Joyce: I'll second that motion.
Mancino: There's a second. Any discussion?
Conrad: Sure. Would it be staffs intent before this got to the City Council to analyze the
proposal as we saw tonight?
Aanenson: You just want to look closely at the traffic numbers.
Generous: You mean those 5 points that we had, sure.
Aanenson: Sure.
39
Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996
Hempel: If I could make one point I guess with regards to site grading. It's very difficult
from a conceptual stage to try and predict, depending on what type of unit you're going to put
in here. If you're going to lessen the density of the units. All these are factors in planning
for the grading.
Mancino: Which both sides have, yes I understand that.
Conrad: But Dave I would expect you could tell us whether industrial grading of this site is
unreasonable.
Hempel: We can certainly look into that, sure.
Conrad: Yeah, I understand what you're saying. It's hard to guess but you know, what I'm
interested in, and like we found on the Opus site, we had some access problems to turn, it's
going to be tough and I don't know where it is now but that's what I'm looking for right here.
Is to say, do we have a site that's guided for something that really is going to be extremely
harmful. Grading wise or environmentally or traffic wise. That's really what I'm looking for
staffs wisdom on.
Aanenson: Well I hope, we wouldn't have made the recommendation if we would have felt
that way. I hope you're confident that we.
Conrad: Well I'm supporting your recommendation.
Aanenson: Right, I'm just saying, but what Dave's saying is it gets very difficult to get a real
close comparison. What you said on the other project is, until you've exhausted the industrial,
you didn't want to consider anything else so that's kind of where that one got left. So they're
pursuing that. It's kind of hard to track two at the same time. You have to try to exhaust one
before you pursue the other. And we're saying it's sometimes a timing issue. So we believe
that it could be, that's why we...the recommendation. We certainly would be willing to look
at those issues more closely before it goes to Council, sure.
Mancino: Ladd, is that a friendly amendment you would like to the conditions?
Conrad: No. I don't need that as an amendment.
Mancino: Okay. Any other discussion?
40
Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996
Faimakes moved, Joyce seconded that the Planning Commission recommend that the City
Council deny Land Use Map Amendment #95-2 and PUD #96-1 based on the following
findings:
1. The property is currently zoned Agricultural Estate, A2.
2. The legal description of the property is not available.
3. The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider six (6) possible
adverse affects of the proposed amendment. The six (6) affects and our findings
regarding them are:
a. The proposal has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions
of and has been found to be inconsistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan.
b. The proposed use could be compatible with the present and future land uses of the
area. However, the existing land use designation could also be compatible with the
surrounding uses, and in the case of office uses, may be more compatible with the
surrounding uses.
c. The proposed use does not conform with all performance standards contained in the
Zoning Ordinance, specifically bluff protection, wetland protection, and excessive
site grading.
d. The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is
proposed.
e. The proposed use may be accommodated with existing public services and will not
overburden the city's service capacity. The EAW would be required to determine if
additional services would be required due to the proposal. Additional school
capacity would be required to meet the residential development's demand.
f. Traffic generated by the proposed use may require the expansion of capabilities of
streets serving the property. An EAW would address the exact requirements for the
development.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
41
Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996
ELECT CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR AND ADOPTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION BY-
LAWS.
Mancino: Do I hear any nominations for election of a Chair, or any volunteers for being the
Chair.
Farmakes: I would nominate you again.
Peterson: Second.
Mancino: How about somebody else? Are there any nominations for Chair? Any other
nominations for Chair?
Farmakes: All in favor say aye.
Mancino: Come on. Any volunteers for being Chair?
Peterson: Are you inferring that you no longer wish to be chair? Or are you just being nice?
Mancino: No, I would be chair. I've learned a lot and so I would like to make sure that
somebody else would like to, I mean I really learned a lot being Chair this year so I'd like to
pass that on for someone else who would like to.
Joyce: How long have you been Chair Nancy?
Mancino: A year.
Joyce: One year. For another year...
Mancino: ...no, I really put that out there. I have learned so much so that. Okay.
Faimakes moved, Joyce seconded to appoint Nancy Mancino as Chairman of the Planning
Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mancino: Okay, Vice Chair. Nominations for Vice Chair.
Farmakes: I nominate Craig over there.
Peterson: I thought we just did you about 3 meetings ago.
42
Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996
Mancino: Craig is a nomination for Vice Chair. Any other nominations for Vice Chair?
Conrad: I'd nominate Jeff.
Mancino: Two nominations for Vice Chair. Any other? Okay, two wonderful people up for
Vice Chair.
Conrad: Can I ask a couple, Jeff. How long's your term?
Farmakes: I don't have a clue.
Conrad: You're not coming up to a, I don't remember the last time you got reappointed.
Farmakes: I'm not sure either. I'm having so much fun, you lose track of time. You've been
here about 100 years, haven't you?
Conrad: Really. That's why I don't run for any of this.
Joyce: And Craig, your term is?
Mancino: He just started.
Peterson: Started a brand new one.
Mancino: So Craig and I and Kevin are just on for another, what is it 3 years? How long is
it? Is it a 3 year term?
Aanenson: You just got reappointed.
Peterson: I'm 3 and I think...what was Mike's?
Aanenson: It should be 3 years so...
Mancino: I think you're filling for Mike.
Aanenson: Oh, that's correct. So you'd have 2 years left, correct.
Mancino: So we have 2 nominations for Vice Chair. We have Craig and Jeff.
Craig Peterson was appointed Vice Chair of the Planning Commission by a show of hands.
43
Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996
Mancino: Now we have an adoption of the Planning Commission By-laws. Any discussion
on the By-laws? Kate, I have a question and that is under composition. 7 members shall be
appointed by the Council and be removed by the Council. It doesn't have under what
conditions a Planning Commissioner would be removed. I don't, I mean this doesn't quite
seem to have enough checks and balances here.
Aanenson: I'd have to check on that.
Mancino: Okay, could you? I don't know if anyone else is concerned with that. But I
would hate to see that number used wrongly. Do we need to adopt these tonight or?
Aanenson: Yes because at any time you can amend the By-laws as long as they're published
so if I can get a clarification, and bring some clarity to that issue, I can put it back on the
agenda and you can amend it.
Mancino: Okay, thank you. Moving onto the approval of Minutes.
Aanenson: Excuse me, you do need to adopt them though but...you should adopt them as
they are.
Mancino: May I have a motion to adopt the Planning Commission by-laws please.
Farmakes: I make a motion to adopt the Planning Commission by-laws.
Conrad: Second.
Farmakes moved, Conrad seconded to adopt the Planning Commission By-laws as presented
All voted in favor and the motion canied.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Conrad moved, Farmakes seconded to note the Minutes of the
Planning Commission meeting dated March 6, 1996 as presented.
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE:
Aanenson: Actually there wasn't a lot of items. We only had 3 people so anything that
needed a 4/5 vote wasn't heard. They did approve the Woods, the Longacres 2nd Addition.
They approved the Market Square 3rd Addition, which was the one that you took two
meetings to review. Again there was some discussion on architecture. And they approved
the first reading of amendments to the sign ordinance and the shoreland regs. They also
44
Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996
asked for some clarification on that, which we have provided and they were on for second
reading this next one.
Peterson: What about the signage on the building for Market III?
Aanenson: They went with the two.
Mancino: Oh, so they did resolve that?
Aanenson: Yeah, they're just going to have two signs.
Generous: Until they come back for a variance.
Mancino: Oh, I was going to say, okay. Were there any other significant architectural
changes made on that they requested?
Aanenson: No. There was a lot of discussion about whether or not it architecturally was
different enough. You know the gray tones. Some of the same issues that you addressed.
But they did approve it pretty much the way the Planning Commission.
Mancino: Okay, thank you. Any ongoing items?
ONGOING ITEMS:
Aanenson: Just to let you know again, the next Bluff Creek meeting, if anybody's interested
in that. And hopefully you've had a chance to meet Kevin. New Planning Commissioner. I
did let Kevin know the next Bluff Creek meeting, which would be June 24th. Excuse me,
April 24th. And then the Park Task Force was the 25th. Is that your next one for April?
Park Task Force.
Mancino: Next Thursday, which I don't even know what the date is. The 11th?
Aanenson: Correct.
Mancino: April 11th is the next Park Referendum Task Force.
Joyce: So there's not one on the 25th?
Aanenson: Either one. They usually meet twice a month.
45
Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996
Mancino: Yeah, every other Thursday. Any other open discussion, or ongoing discussion.
Farmakes: Something I could bring up just quickly. I thought we were going to touch this
issue on presenting presentation materials in an open meeting without having a chance for
staff to respond. I thought we weren't going to accept these.
Aanenson: You could have cut them off.
Farmakes: Well can we do something more formally? I mean I'll throw that out that we can
either limit these presentations so they don't go beyond an hour. Certainly that's pushing it
considerably. I'm not saying the entire discussion but put a time limit on. The presentation
certainly shouldn't take 60 minutes.
Aanenson: Well you have to realize this was a complex issue. It was one once before and
after they, let's go back and re-trace the whole history. If there were compelling arguments
for us to change the zone. We consistently said no. We said okay, you go to the Planning
Commission. They came under an open discussion. You said no. They came back and
submitted a formal application. We said, no. They got the report and said, I guess you guys
meant no, we need some more time to respond so if you recall, it was on your last agenda
before the work session and they asked for more time in order to respond. The problem is we
didn't have time to articulate the responses that they built up.
Farmakes: ...also comes forward with these long dissertations and we have to go through
them in a public forum while we go through page 1 and we get to page 20 and I was just
wondering, because I'm thinking of the people that are coming after these people, as to what's
a reasonable amount of time to make your presentation.
Aanenson: Well I think, in all fairness, I think there was some interesting, as you all
indicated, there were some interesting points brought out. Whether you agree with them or
not and it's up to you at that point.
Mancino: Well, are we for limiting presentations?
Aanenson: That's your call.
Farmakes: Is the City Council looking at the presentation?
Mancino: I don't think anybody does at this point, do they?
Aanenson: It depends.
46
Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996
Farmakes: Well when you have a debate, you limit the amount so you can proceed to the
next step. That's why I bring it up.
Aanenson: Sure, that's up to you.
Conrad: I think the Chairperson can do it. If you feel it's going to be a 2 hour deal, you can
at the onset, you know just say it's an hour. You've got an hour. Tonight we didn't have a
full agenda, or we weren't that packed so I thought it was probably appropriate tonight but I
think, I'd prefer to have it in the Chairperson's hands to really manage it. Because we, I think
it's sometimes those issues, I don't think we can come up with an arbitrary, you can only have
an hour. Some issues take 2. Oh a lot of issues take 2 hours. What bothers me is you didn't
see what they were presenting, and that's why, you know I want to close the deal. I want
staff to say that's not right. These are our opinions and you know, I don't want to do the
hearsay, well what do you think? That's wasting everybody's time. How quick are we on our
feet? I think staff should see what they're presenting so then they can put the counter points
and we should be able to review it. Now whether that can all happen, or as I see it, we table
it and they...
Farmakes: Well how do you define that? How do you tell Terry that if you take this forward
and place it in front of the commissioners in the forum, that it is tabled automatically.
Mancino: No, but staff should have our support that prior to the Planning Commission
meeting, if someone is going to give a presentation, that you haven't seen it...
Conrad: Again, I think we can put it on your shoulders Madam Chair.
Mancino: Thank you.
Conrad: You can say, this is new stuff and I think we should table it, seriously. We never
do that, and I'm not pointing at you. When I was Chair, I never did it. I very seldom did it
but I think, just say this is new stuff. I want the staff to review it. Let's not talk about this
anymore. Let's just get it off the table right now. After 10 minutes take it out and go back,
and that might happen. I think you should feel that strongly that you can guide the meeting.
We do that quite a bit. We go, we'll follow our format because we're used to it. Go around
the table and then we'll table something.
Aanenson: And we've already spent 2 hours, yeah.
47
Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996
Conrad: And we've spent, that's right. We've spent 2 hours and I'll guarantee you, we'll
spend another 2 the next time it comes back. It's just so predictable. Whereas we should
table it right away, if we can think about it.
Mancino: Well that's happened twice now. That's happened at the last, the Market Square.
Aanenson: Yeah. Can I talk about that same issue, because we saw this coming on the
Villages, which we believe is moving a really exciting direction. Bob and I had a good
meeting. We're excited about the way that project. Again, you're talking about an 80 acre
project. Mixed use. Very complex so what we've asked them to do is have a series of 2 or 3
meetings where we break down several of the components. Architecture, grading and
wetlands so we're going to do it in a work session so when you have the public hearing,
you're up to speed on all the issues because there's no way, even in a 3 hour meeting, that we
can cover all the issues so we're going to try and do it in the series of work sessions over the
next couple of meetings before we have the public hearing. And hopefully that way, by the
time the public hearing comes and we have neighborhood issues, you'll be able to address
those in a reasonable manner. So we hope that method works.
Mancino: And you will have reviewed everything before it does come in front of us?
Aanenson: Absolutely. And give you a report.
Farmakes: Before we finish though, let me ask you one point. In this forum, if the
presentation, and I'm not talking about the overall discussion. I'm talking about the
presentation. If it goes beyond 60 minutes, how much of the first 20 minutes do you
remember?
Mancino: Well you'd like to have an executive summary and that's it.
Conrad: And that's what we do. Unfortunately the City Council does it too, but you know,
literally that's our job is to listen.
Farmakes: It's not listen, I'm just saying do we have ways so that, does it encourage long
winded presentations?
Mancino: Well, how many long winded ones have we had recently?
Farmakes: It's usually the same kind. It's usually a controversial, sort of change of use or
changing of the rules and then they have 9 experts to come forward and give their 10 cents. I
48
Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996
think there were a couple of people there on this one that I was scratching my head and why,
everything but the kitchen sink here. I couldn't figure it out.
Peterson: I've got two points. I agree with Jeff. I think ifs important that, not important but I
think it'd be beneficial to set some time frames but I think it's also important that the
developer knows that they may have time constraints of approximately an hour. That the
Chairperson may ask them to, for closure. So I think they should know that before they come
in, at least an operating frame.
Farmakes: As a guide or staff knows that and can relay that to.
Mancino: That would be a good guide so that they can gear their presentation.
Aanenson: Well we also have to judge on what the length of the agenda is and believe me,
we try to structure the agenda based on, we believe which is going to have the most people
there. Which one's going to go the longest. You can see tonight we put the ones we believe
are the least complex to try and get them in and out so we're not keeping people waiting. So
we do try to structure that. We can't always gauge what's going to end up being more
complex but we try to gauge a little bit. And fill the time you've got so.
Farmakes: Of course the other thing is that, obviously somebody's coming forward with, who
owns an acre and wants to split it or something and they're out passing out pictures or
something. That's obviously not appropriate but it can be a real play to pass this forward
without review and, particularly if you have a sophisticated presentation to try and get your
point across...advantage. There's an encouragement.
Peterson: One last point as far as tabling the presentation. I think that what about the option
of, prior to us tabling for staff review, that we ask, do you feel it appropriate that we table
this.
Aanenson: That's fine.
Peterson: I don't want to table something that you don't even feel necessary to.
Aanenson: I think that's appropriate too. I think we've asked you that before. Do we feel
there's enough information that we haven't seen, that we're uncomfortable with.
Mancino: You did on Market Square.
Aanenson: Yes.
49
Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996
Mancino: Because we asked that, and I knew prior to the meeting that you hadn't so.
Aanenson: Right.
Mancino: Okay. Any other discussion?
The public portion of the Planning Commission meeting was closed at 9:43 p.m. and the
Planning Commission held an open discussion to consider amending the IOP, Industrial
Office Park District to include auto sales at this point.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
50
5,
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
k
r . . 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resources Coordinator
DATE: April 10, 1996
SUBJ: Environmental Update
A number of environmental projects that have been completed since January or are in progress
currently. The following is a brief outline and update of the projects:
• MnReLeaf Project- Tree Planting for Energy Conservation: This year Chanhassen received
a grant from the MNDNR to promote planting trees for energy conservation. On April 3 and
4, residents were invited to workshops to learn about the basic principles of planting for
energy conservation, species characteristics, and planting and care techniques for young
trees. Tree coupons worth $100 were given away at the workshops.
• Tree City USA - Chanhassen was recently accepted by the National Arbor Day Foundation
as a Tree City USA. The city received a plaque, flag, and entrance signs. The plaque will be
displayed at City Hall, the flag will be flown during the month of May to celebrate Arbor
Month, and the sign will be attached to the highway city entrance sign also on Highway 5.
To retain our status, the city must reapply for the award each year.
• Arbor Day-For Arbor Day this year, three girl scout troops will be planting trees at the
following parks: Meadow Green,Power Hill,and Chanhassen Pond. Downtown,the Senior
Men's Club will hand out 2,000 seedlings to people visiting Festival Foods and Byerly's. At
noon near the clock tower, the Mayor will acknowledge Arbor Day,Arbor Month, and the
city's accomplishment of becoming a Tree City USA.
• Compost Day-To distribute compost bins this year,the city will be sponsoring Compost
Day on May 11. During the distribution period,Master Gardeners will be on hand to
demonstrate how to compost, display different bin styles, share compost recipes, and answer
questions.
• Compost Site-The site opens for the season on Saturday, April 13. A weekday evening will
be added to the schedule this year to make the site more convenient for residents and to help
facilitate increased use. Starting this year, compostable garbage bags will be for sale at the
site. The bags will be promoted for use at the site because they can be deposited directly
Planning Commission
April 10, 1996
Pagt:
into the roll-off and composted along with the organic materials. We've had a problem in the
past with plastic garbage bags being left at the site and creating a mess. Hopefully,the use of
the compostable bags and tighter control of what is left on site will reduce the excess trash.
• Environmental Commission - Interviews by the City Council were conducted for 3 of the
applicants on April 1. The rest of the candidates will be interviewed on Monday,April 29.
A mission statement was created for the commission and accepted by the council.
• MnGreen -Chanhassen Garden Club - I am attempting to organize a garden club to help
decorate for the Centennial as well as help enhance some of the public areas in general. The
city is able to receive free seed and plants from the Minnesota State Horticultural Society's
MnGreen program if they are planted in public areas. I would like to take advantage of this
program and promote more public gardens in the city. Currently, Charlie Eiler from the
Parks Dept. and I are spearheading the effort.
• Office of Environmental Assistance Waste Education Grant- On April 15, the city will
be applying for a Waste Education Grant in the amount of$3,600. The monies received from
this matching grant will be used to develop a comprehensive recycling brochure, commission
a play about waste education to tour the local elementary schools, create a compost
demonstration site at elementary schools, and purchase waste education learning kits to be
distributed to the schools.
• Home Radon Test Program - Carver County has received a grant to distribute information
about radon throughout the county. In Chanhassen, I will be distributing information
booklets for home buyers and sellers as well as residents. Radon tests are also on sale for$4
through the county. The county is also applying for a grant that would be used to buy radon
abatement materials which would be supplied to builders free of charge with the condition
that the builders offer the option in the future.
• Oil Tank Storage Program - I have been talking with Carver County about setting up an oil
tank storage program within the city. The state offers grant money to communities to
purchase the tank and secondary protection materials. The county will provide the
maintenance and any clean-up funds needed. The state grants have been put on hold until
fall, so the program is in a holding pattern until then. The county and I would be
approaching businesses in Chanhassen to request locating the tank on their premises in
addition to exploring public property options.
. . ,....
-- . • 4, 0 eh 0- • • • • , • _
IP. . .
. . . ,
. • • ' -
,-- '
....... .--x----. V .
I
.-
' • • • •
4.-,-:-'• . •• ••••_:7.-,.k.v•y.:- •
...5.......r.-.1!„: 4r, ,._. o'-'"••-' 1..1"--_•:•• .5 e-".-
•
a 0
- 1 -4,411110i
...
....-- _
,_ _ .
,,,_. ,,..__ ,
- ' -_,- -,. .
„. 17 .141L:i
..-
- ', ' ' . .V: ... :.•:_$:":..:' • . •l ' -'447°Ivr-; AO . i 1 • -^•.., 4
if
,-
---- P . . I' -.-...L.• / ,, C.'. 4 r
. I . umiv• .- 1 r ,-.--
. . .1
. *''5.:+.4%.a.r..4.• i. i i 1 . ... is Ili. *,
. s
,,._• , ,
iMIF ' "'.
' , I '.,.--, ' Aiiimi,„__... it-_.!..t • __ 1 .. • .t
1: 1 1; • 1 , -CM' / .. , ---•-•.•---7.-I!",..-..."1/4"7 tr-N4';'‘..1. 1
. I
rt
t - i .i ' • . ' 1 t,4...p:..Z.,.:Trit :v...:•••• ,-- f
-.. ..‘4....7175.4,t ,,•.'L-4?ItZ, A •
0 11/ ., ;...'*'',...'W;.1!:2 ii..7.-?:24.'' V ,y: ..
°N • '.
.. 14'If .i I C ' 4'' 11';:' '
'4Z,” -*. .."t'-•
• _
, .
. '.-
- Al..? • 4NP ' 'L....IA:1'"i:-_,-.- ,... -' Om
• I 1 i - ar.
I
• ' Si -'? e. razt • %MN t.- , ",v i.-:
.
• • .. . 4 ;4-1".4, .,-• "-I's, - - --- -
VVV
..,. . - . • - . . .... , )
..- •
.,,-. 'swat' . '-- - limiti,
•._.. .1%-,,,,...,- . - - • .--- - -- ( • ....- - I
* 1 tat-- - . -• .
• ' - eiad
10-,. . - „..... . ._ . •
...-ti
, . . ........
•......._
,---...
f Arsimih, .... .--".•.. -. _ ....lel---'ow- -4.---4•••:-.N.,•-••- •4-
e -zii .7. . . . • • _.- • _ .--...-.1.-.7.-_-!:- -.,.,z,-,...,•-:-, -,:-...,:-?,..-:-...;.•.;.•;-. -
-- ;21.-...--,:•- ...,,.•4.. ---.:. • • i•-. 0,-..--:..,,_,.. y..,--.-r.
-') - - • - -,. -- 4-+-,,,, , -
3a .' - -:' . ' •
• - •
*• 0". . _ .. ,; .•,' -.•.-.*' • ... 47.*,;:_''.'-.:-_'7,-:,..41,e.'y. _ --I41 '--%..' ''. ,4,-
... -
• . .. • ,-..!..-' ...-------- . -;-:.1. •-itc.::? -.1-- ,`‘... x.,--.*:..--.. -• .' -''..-..`,-,......: *%_"."-*-.-4,-; , 4'1•-,.1-..-±.;-:k_•-2,./..f-,,:-:--;;+. ..4 4.-.
,,,,,...;,,....--- ,-'-- ..... ' '. -• •!--t•-...'-" .• -- ...1/2. , , '‘,.',•.-,_ --'-s-•..-AA-4, ,111.-4-.44-.:•41 t i•-•.',. 0•- , ;
.111.1e...• Illi ' I'' IV:(19:' - ---::.r...--'11`"Y. . .... . .--- 0.-I, ---:-:'i„,,.:;4'.t-`' '-',•'-' 4.44,. .- ''..•-•.-.-. ,S.•- .I, .4'.. '-'-'''''._ ,-.-‘4-7:; -0,•.„..-- ,.,..
.-
.,,,.....2-,20.1 -.401 .„,....k. •••1 .....W1,411,-44 4:-.--. .•• '11,-,-... , 4 '-. •. i'...1,,.. 'N,.., •-474.2,`•.. . .,:•".•-• : ,.....--__•i;-, :.!.,-- --
a ' ,
0 .....,,,,,_--..- --. ..,..,,,,....,....n.. :1,--, ,- : ,..---,,.-.....-. ..,......-.4_, ,..- -45. - r4.4•••4'.''...;k:4 ''•......'- ','•..
--,`-.-L"..."`..:7eiiis-r. ' 4,..t,11?ti.e.'A . -Vc.',N,;,34 •-•,-,-.,--.'-s--. -,-'frg?!,,-. ,---.-._ • -..: . "v•,..;.:-__V.'4-..:,C•• ,___-.,
rfp,--- ----.:,J.-,-:,--....-:4-,-- ,-.,-. - - --i---,--T.—.44., . t---,,%•.,•-r-,-,4,..?-,•,-,. • -•,-, t,-..:,----._ .t-f,... -'.•-•,•,-•-•.,-,•• ‘, •-••,'.---•:
- -,.,,r,-...,-,,-- --.,.,.,..-,,---,,--- •-•-•.....-.,-..i. . - .1-`;$-,,-, -.:, . . .....4:..'---;-.1- ,1--... - • ....1..-- - ....-....-; ,..
-...:71,7' .--- ' -''.... --- - 01/4";,...- i• - . ...-...",-- - -- , ..• . ... _„.:-,
-..-. ''7.:14:t1s.1.-1,-sViik'k'c-'-;_1,-‘, . ' '•• *
e
.7._ ,...._ . . -
7- '-,,i: _,,'-.-- ',.,,z,t;V.':..4-.,•.:.,:::;. Roads
•1141/ ii:- - . " . d
/.,.. 274, .. .. • •
,'.
-'1.4 -..- 4a.'',f",,--.''t44irkt-.".;-,4z..44.i..4?',,•;.-t4-1/41-1,,-41:-"_. •- - a'
-ore r av
e ..-
e
. , /% , x .
Business leaders expect downtown Minneapolis to experience a growth spurt ...,.•",.
„I' .4-'.4.••••= , •, t.l.-- .• '- *-1'" ....04'41-Era.;-:.-4 '..
4-71.-"-* ....' 0•• ,.e' -7';'-' 0;'V in the next 15 years,with several new office towers and thousands of more •
workers and residents on its streets.But so far,few seem concerned whether „.'•', ,..
the re ion's highways and transit system will deliver.
g
. "RP, •=. • ' . -4: , ,r-:4- -
. .Looking 1...-1 years dow n the road. business and ClVIC leacier.s for:see
.-. .
val4. _
-,,, a rosy future for ,i ',...it_o\\n Minneapolis. They see as maii,> as I()
.
,........ .
-
--..
- 411PA' 7. shiny new-office tov,-ers springing, up. adding, 9 nnllion square feet
%. •,"
W ..
I - .- • •
of co:Tunercial office space and.40.000 new jobs. The antici-
*
0 pate the construction of 5,000 new housing units, boosting
- .t'k,w iikt r • -
the downtown population by 8,000 or -11.x)ut 2_7-, percent. ...,
PNeft,vii.,....,..77' . .-.-7,-'.!---'"%ifir:•-:--'-ii-,. ----- _ . , _ •-.1:
' # '.-4-:---t'i'liii-L:.1';;F:,,, ''''-";'': • By Steven Mairrrfewiti _„..r.
Atolt mar 14 - t. • --,,,,-;;-.cs-,1;.,,-: „...,.... .t:V;t...', " . ---`,." - f.-,' .' -':: -.',-; . • c:,-;' 1-- - '----:, '-'_ - '
-Iierilt, IIP f
• .i.x.4. .. .„.46.,;1,,,...::, z.: .., ..---,...--:,....;:.,,i1WSW11044Y 64.9Y IINSEtttlift.
' - • .te •,,-.•.... 7.,-,..,-.-e_.; ,..". ,...,.. ,.-v.4.`,,_-..,_-_7&;..‘,...,,..:,.-:, 7- ._it-,-,-. -•t i:-.....- .-•t•-Y, ..s.,.• t..- ,..‘.'.,-•.ti':.•e.
- ' - -• - -- - ' '
I
.1. .:.l0.` _*y.�K��
They see the expansion of the Minneapolis 'Downtown can grow,' but our transportation `7.-IW
? , ';
Convention Center, the updating of the infrastructure is saying, 'We're not going to al- - • —�""°° >;;i� .
Metrodome for football, the construction of a low you to grow,—he says. . h0-:7.
new outdoor baseball stadium,and the addition The five freeway arteries into and out of down- '
of other cultural amenities. town Minneapolis already are filled to capacity % •
I It is an exciting vision, to be sure, one in for an hour or longer during the peak commuting
which downtown Minneapolis would be trans- periods,and there is little likelihood that these
formed into a 24-hour city and the collective highways will be expanded anytime soon. .
gathering place for our community. "In the past, we have always been willing to -
So what's wrong with this picture? Although expand road capacity to keep up with our .
-i ' '
a few of these projections might be somewhat growth," says Curtis Johnson, chairman of the - � `
, ._,jj -
optimistic,they all raise the question of how the Metropolitan Council, the region's premier
highway and transit systems will accommodate planning agency. "No one has a funded plan to fjf significant growth—particularly a 29 percent in- do that in the future.By and large,the roads we '+:er:° `
crease in downtown employment" see out there right now are the roads we are go-
John Labosky, president of the Minneapolis ing to have for a very long time." bus riders are traveling to and from work.
Downtown Council and an architect of the Similarly,ambitious plans to build a nine-line During last fall's 18-day bus strike, Labosky
Metro 2010-plan developed for downtown, light-rail transit(LRT)system—starting with an says he heard from employers who were having
readily acknowledges this dark cloud that looms 11-mile, $700 million link between downtown "a terrible time getting their people to work."
ahead. "We're afraid the market is saying, Minneapolis and downtown St. Paul—have Many of these people were employed in the
i been placed on hold.Even the most vocal LRT low-wage retail or service sectors,he says,and
advocates acknowledge that the massive federal did not have friends or coworkers with cars who
and state aid needed to build such a system ap- could drive them to their jobs.
Lessons from pears out of reach. Still,the importance of transit to the future of
the Bus StrikeMeanwhile, the region's bus system—the the region is not well understood by the busi-
Metropolitan Council Transit Operations—has ness community or the public at large. Indeed,
Dick Allendorf,senior vice president of the Eber- its own funding problems. It has resorted to the seemingly minor inconveniences caused by
hardt Company and chairman of the Downtown making a series of debilitating fare increases, the bus strike caused many to ask why taxpay-
Minneapolis Transportation Management Organi-
zation,says last fall's bus strike provided"a staffing cuts,and service reductions to compen- ers have been shelling out$75 million a year to
unique lab experiment"on the impact of transit on sate for its budget shortfall,but such measures subsidize a bus system when—without it for a
the downtown transportation system and suggests make it difficult for the MCTO to continue few weeks—most people managed to get to
how it might be improved. meeting current transit needs, much less re- work on time.
A survey by the transportation management or-
anization found that 59 spond to the increased demands that might lie "The general perception out there is that we
g percent of bus users par-
ticipated in car pools during the strike.Nearly two- ahead. In the past year alone, the average ser- don't need a transit system—the strike was very
thirds of the respondents said their employers lm- vice miles per week were reduced by 14 per- damaging to transit,"says state Rep. Dee Long
plemented flextime or staggered work hours cent—and more cuts are planned this year. (DFL-Minneapolis),chairwoman of the Local
during the strike but that most reverted to their
previous,fixed work hours afterward. If the system is allowed to seriously deterio- Government and Metropolitan Affairs Committee.
Allendorf says three lessons can be drawn from rate, the consequences could be severe—not Labosky agrees that the strike hurt the transit
the strike: -. only for the downtowns of Minneapolis and St. cause, "because we did such a good job with
$ Lesson No.1:Employers are the key to maxi- Paul,but for the entire seven-county metropoli- employers"to minimize the effects through car-
$ mizing existing highway capacity through stag-
gered work hours and car-pooling.Allendorf says tan area. pooling and staggered work hours. But, he
the Metropolitan Council should use highway "Congestion will be worse.Air quality will be adds,"we couldn't have sustained that effort for
funds to provide financial incentives for employers worse. It will be harder for the elderly to get very much longer"—commuters would have re-
to continue such efforts. around,"says Al Lovejoy, a St. Paul city plan- verted to their old habits and the congestion
Lesson No.2:Under the right circumstances, ner. "But worst of all, thepoor and disadvan- problems would have grown.
commuters are willing to consider car-pooling,flex-
time,and other options for avoiding the rush-hour taged will be increasingly isolated. Many of
crunch.But many seniors,part-time workers,and them will be cut out of the work force." The American
lower-income workers have no viable alternative to A 1995 customer survey by the MCTO found
the bus. the
orfran says the enc, should target bus that 34 percent of the bus system's 100,000 dailyExpress threat
service at the transit-dependent,many of whom liveY
within three or four miles of the urban core. riders don't have a car and another 6 percent Many downtown business leaders cling to the
Lesson No.3:Downtown traffic flow Improves _ don't have access to a car(presumably because hope that light-rail transit might come to the re-
when big buses are taken off the streets.Allendorf another family member is usir:g:t).Of all riders, gion some day.For many,it has joined the con-
says the legislature should fund the proposed
downtown shuttle to reduce the number of large nearly one-third earn less than $20,000 a year, vention centers, domed stadiums, and upscale
buses traveling through the heart of downtown. two-thirds are women,and 16 percent are peo- shopping complexes as the latest urban status
pie of color.And bus trips are rarely social out- symbol. But Labosky and leaders of the Down-
ings.The survey showed that three out of four town Council see the more immediate need to
40 APRIL 1996 TWIN CITIES BUSINESS MONTHLY
"By and large, the roads we see out there right now
are the roads we are going to have for a very long time."
improve the bus system—before it's too late. elsewhere. only freeway lanes,such as those on Interstate
About 40 percent of the 140,000 downtown American Express, downtown's largest em- 35W(buses are allowed to drive on the shoul-
workers rely on the bus system to get to work. ployer with 5,000 workers, now leases space in der during rush hour),the construction of addi-
The Metro 2010 plan anticipates that the system six buildings in downtown Minneapolis,includ- tional park-and-ride lots,and other service im-
will increase its share of the load to 50 percent ing 17 floors of the IDS Tower. All of those provements intended to make the bus more
to help accommodate the growth of downtown. leases expire in the year 2002,and the company competitive with the automobile.
But that will require infusing new resources into must decide by the end of 1997 whether to ex- The plan also includes implementing a down-
the bus system,not bleeding it to death. tend these leases,build one or more new office town shuttle. According to the proposed sys-
In 1995,the MCTO emerged from the legisla- towers downtown,or move to the suburbs: tem, large buses would drop off passengers at
tive session with$10 million less than it needed to The adequacy of downtown bus service "is a climate-controlled terminals on the periphery of
maintain existing bus service, forcing the largest very big concern," says Lynn Closway, a downtown. From there, smaller, cleaner and
service cuts in 15 years.This funding shortfall also spokeswoman for American Express. "We quieter vehicles running throughout the core of
figured in the bus strike, when management think that more than 50 percent of our employ- downtown would transport people closer to
pressed for union work-rule changes in an effort ees rely on the bus." their destinations.
to make the system more efficient. Labosky, for one, fears that American Ex-
Even before last year's service cuts, officials press is"at risk"for leaving downtown and sees
at American Express Financial Advisors (for- it as a symbol of the transportation challenge Something innovative
merly IDS Financial Services)said publicly that that confronts city leaders. will happen
they were worried about the region's deterio- To improve transit and make downtown According to the 2010 plan, "The challenge
rating bus system and that this factor—among more appealing to employers, the Metro 2010 over the next 15 years will be to move beyond
others--could influence the firm's decision plan calls for the addition of 200 to 230 buses by the debate and implement a superior trans-
about whether to remain downtown or move the year 2010, the establishment of more bus- portation system that is on a par with other
The Trend May 10FFICE_SPACE .
Be Toward BigBanks... . a -•
wt
but we've never been that trendy 1 ..� .
'�i i1'1»� .
0 _. »���7
You may have noticed a lot of bank-merging �_ _, ::•11.11.E
going on recently. Not with Midway. i
We're still the same bank where your business is ; . .
our main business. Midway still provides the same k '
personal service with the attention to detail and
- �s�+..ti
commitment that you want and need. urr .. - �
You won't be reading about Midway hooking up t
with some mega-bank. We know where the foundation
for our business is. It's in staying where we are, and -7.--1.-, . • '-
who we are. We're here to meet your business, .�^
personal, and trust and investment management 1
needs,personally j
With cabinetry and components developed and manufactured by the renowned design firm,
Please give us a call.You'll reach a banker,not a 3 Marshall Erdman & Associates.techline•can create or redesign a custom office 1
recording.And it's a local call. I -or home office—to maximize your work and storage space. i
"Your Financial Partner" 1 EFFICIENT • AFFORDABLE • ATTRACTIVE • DURABLE • GUARANTEED
midwaynational bank i So call us 612. 927.7373 and a gl e happy or to stop in for' free y owntconsultation and
N./
u estimate.No hype.No pressure.Just a great spate program that's really down to earth.
�7 i
a J
14295 Cedar Avenue 35W&Cty.Rd.42 1578 University Ave.W. € (;;IF F ICE a e e h 1 i n e" S Y S T E M S ;
Apple Valley Burnsville Saint Paul 1 4412 excelsior boulevard • sl. louis park • minnesota
431-4700 892-5585 628-2661 -- _ __—
Member FDIC
TWIN CITIES BUSINESS MONTHLY APRIL 1996 41
S 1 .
_ The importance of transit
: : p� to the future of the region is
' :-` ;` 11VI
not well understood by the business
. 71.7.:'7 6:t7 '11
�- communityor the public at large.
p
? ikyt.`.. fined as light-rail transit, employer whose view might be typical of his
t. As the political warfare has further escalated, peers.But,he adds,"I think bus service is ade-
., the bus system has paid the price.In an effort to quate, and I have a lot of confidence in the
_ ` , -•'t force urban lawmakers to go along with a gasoline- city's ability to accommodate the growth as it
v' tax hike,rural lawmakers repeatedly have short- happens.If it gets bad enough,something inno-
' -'. changed the MCTO.A 1992 plan for improved vative will happen—because it always does."
-'01' • - bus service,organized around the two downtowns Bob Gilbert,president and owner of a real
and 18 regional retail-employment hubs,has never estate services firm and a former American Ex-
•
cities around the country." even received serious consideration. press executive,says one problem is that buses
But to finance such improvements,transit ad- "If we don't wake up soon,we aren't going to are just "not as sexy" as LRT and adequate
vocates must find a way to break the 6-year-old have a decent transit system," says Rep. Long. funding of the bus system"hasn't been a priori-
stalemate between urban and rural legislators Last fall, Long held a series of public hearings ty" for the business community. "But it will
over highway-transit funding. Rural legislators, in an attempt to build support for increased have to become one,"he says.
who control the House and Senate transporta- transit and highway funding and to break the If the transit funding problem remains unre-
tion committees,want an increase in the state's stalemate. But apart from Labosky and a few solved, the Minneapolis of 2010 could be one
gasoline tax—which is earmarked by the state others,the issue did not appear to capture the large, Los Angeles-style parking lot—from
constitution for"highway purposes."But urban imagination of the business community. downtown to the beltway. •
lawmakers have opposed any increase in high- "Transit obviously is a concern of ours....The
way funding unless the legislature approves ad- vast majority of the employees travel to work Steven Domfeld is associate editorial-page editor
equate funding for transit,which some have de- by bus,'says an executive of a major downtown of the St.Paul Pioneer Press.
1v t
OFFIC STEAM: WE'RE — Q ,ll
.a 1.1.1a1111[D
1 r SPECIALIS'T'S IN
AIUI1UO! ADMINISTRATIVE s G ue Luo4
OfficeTeam is the expert when it comes to matching the perfect . ` jb ^ :administrative personnel with your staffing needs. Our capable, ll m
proven administrative professionals are adept In the software vital
to the management of today's office,and excel in any administra- City-County Federal Credit Union offers all the same
Live position,from executive secretary to word processor to office services as the big banks—checking savings,ATM-cards,
manager. When you want excellence,you can count on auto loans, credit cards, debit cards, mortgage loans,
OfficeTeam. retirement planning 24 hour touch-tone service—we just
do it at lower costs to our members. And credit unions are
For your temporary and permanent ��
• staffing needs call OtGceTeam. �\ a benefit you can offer your employees at no cost to you!If
Minneapolis 338-3081
Oi you're not already associated with a credit union and
Bloomington 893-1312 0•1 would like more information on the great services we can
St.Paul 223-5988 offer,call Judy Flug at(612)560-951L
J,/} Plymouth 545-2082 OFFicEr •
(/ .muil.t i c .,bred AAdmminn stratite Staffing."t� .iim CITY-COUNTY /q
/`00„,
%�j �R� ttt",�" FEDERAL CREDIT UNION If N\.VA
42 APRIL 1996 TWIN CITIES BUSINESS MONTHLY