The URL can be used to link to this page

09-2-92 Agenda and Packet FILE AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 1992, 7:30 P.M. CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Metes and Bounds Subdivision of a 1.5 acre parcel into two lots of 29,172 and 20,000 square feet on property zoned RSF, Residential Single Family and located at 8412 Great Plains Boulevard, Eugene Klein. 2. Site Plan Review of a 10,600 square foot addition on property zoned CBD, Central Business District and located at 480 West 78th Street, (Phase H) of the Chanhassen Professional Building. 3. Non-conforming Use Permit for a Recreational Beachlot for Minnewashta Shores Homeowners Association. NEW BUSINESS OLD BUSINESS 4. Non-conforming Use Permit for a Recreational Beachlot for Lakeview Hills Apartments Homeowners Association. 5. Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regarding Fence Requirements. APPROVAL OF MINUTES CITY COUNCIL UPDATE ONGOING ITEMS ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS OPEN DISCUSSION 6. Jeff Farmakes - Entry Monument and Pauly, Pony, Przymus Corner Design Concepts, Review and Discussion. 7. Fred Hoisington - Concepts for Downtown,Hotel Expansion, Restaurant, Convention and Athletic Center on the old Instant Web/Bowling Center site, Review and Discussion. 8. Tree Conservation Easements. ADJOURNMENT PC DATE: Sept. 2, 1992 ! • CITY OF T � cuANHAssEN CC DATE: Sept. 28,1992 vy • CASE #: 92-10 SUB B : Al-Jaff STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Metes and Bounds Subdivision of a 1.5 Acre Parcel into Two Single Family Lots of 29,172 Square Feet and 20,000 Square Feet z LOCATION: 8412 Great Plains Boulevard Z - Q APPLICANT: Eugene Klein V8412 Great Plains Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 — o 0 — a PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family ACREAGE: 1.5 acres DENSITY: 1.3 units per acre ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - Lake Susan S - Great Plains Boulevard, Hwy. 101 E - RSF; Residential Single Family Q W - RSF; Residential Single Family I- OWATER AND SEWER: Sewer is available to the site. W PHYSICAL CHARACTER. The site is a riparian lot to Lake Susan. An existing single family residence and garage occupy the site. Mature trees occupy the northwesterly edge of the site. Steep slops are located along the (n shore of Lake Susan. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential Klein Subdivision #92-10 September 2, 1992 Page 2 — PROPOSAL/SUMMARY — The applicant is requesting approval to subdivide a 1.5 acre site into 2 single family lots. One of the lots will be occupied by an existing home (Parcel B). The second parcel (Parcel A) — contains a concrete block metal garage. This garage must be removed prior to recording this subdivision with Carver County. Parcel A will be available for future construction. The site is located south of Lake Susan and north of Great Plains Boulevard. The site will be accessed via — Great Plains Boulevard. The proposed lots meet the minimum requirement of the Zoning Ordinance with one exception. — Proposed Parcel A is occupied by the existing garage. City ordinances prohibits accessory structures to be erected or constructed prior to erection or construction of the principal or main building. This subdivision will create a nonconforming situation. Staff is recommending the — applicant tear down the garage prior to recording this subdivision with the county. Municipal sanitary sewer is available to the site. However, municipal water is not. A watermain — is currently being extended to just south of the property with the city's trunk improvement project No. 92-10. Municipal water service will most likely be available within the next five years. It may be prudent to petition the city to have the watermain extended to provide service to these two lots in lieu of drilling a new well for the additional lot being created. The site generally slopes to the north towards Lake Susan. Mature trees occupy the north edge of the site. Staff is recommending no alteration or removal of vegetation be permitted within the 75 foot setback from the ordinary water mark of Lake Susan. The Park and Recreation Commission is recommending that park fees be paid in lieu of park land. Staff believes that this plat request is a reasonable one and consistent with guidelines established by the city Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. We find it to be well designed. We are — recommending that it be approved with conditions outlined in the report. SUBDIVISION — The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 1.5 acre site into 2 single family lots. The density of the proposed subdivision is 1.33 units per acre. Both lots meet or exceed the minimum 20,000 — square feet of area. Staff notes that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and generally consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. Klein Subdivision #92-10 September 2, 1992 Page 3 Streets/Access Currently, there is one driveway access to the lot. If an additional driveway access is desired, an access permit will need to be applied for from MnDOT. Should the existing driveway be utilized by both residents, then a cross-access or driveway easement should be granted in favor of both parties. The ultimate plans for the southerly leg of Highway 101 is to be replaced by a new alignment which will be located approximately 200 feet east of its present location. The existing Highway 101 will most probably be deeded to the city and will become a city street. MnDOT has an easement in its favor over existing Highway 101. The applicant has fee ownership to the public right-of-way. Staff is recommending the applicant deed fee ownership to the city. Landscaping and Tree Preservation Mature trees occupy the northwestern edge of the site along Lake Susan. Staff is recommending that no alteration or tree removal be permitted within the 75 foot setback from the ordinary water _ mark of Lake Susan. Trees designated for preservation shall be protected by snow fence or other means acceptable to the city. Protective measures must be located at or beyond the ground foot print of the tree's crown. No fill material or construction activity shall occur within these areas. These measures must be in place and inspected prior to the start of grading activity. Utilities Municipal sanitary sewer is available from an existing sewer line adjacent to Lake Susan. The sanitary sewer line is currently located within a 10 foot wide sanitary sewer easement. For access reasons, the city recommends that a 20 foot wide drainage and utility easement be granted over the existing sanitary sewer line. In the past, the city has had problems gaining access along the sewer line due to poor soil conditions and topography. Since the new lot will be within 150 feet of the existing sanitary sewer, the lot will be required to connect and pay the appropriate connection fees. Municipal watermain is currently being extended to just south of the property with the city's trunk improvement project No. 92-10. The applicant should be aware that municipal water service will most likely be available within the next five years. Therefore, it may be prudent to petition the city to provide service to these two lots in lieu of drilling a new well for the additional lot being created. Easements The applicant shall dedicate the following easements and right-of-way: 1. Dedication of fee ownership of Highway 101 right-of-way. Klein Subdivision #92-10 September 2, 1992 Page 4 — 2. A 20 foot wide utility and drainage easements centered over the existing sanitary sewer through both lots. — 3. Standard drainage and utility easements along each lot line. Park and Recreation The Park and Recreation Commission recommended full park fees be paid as a condition of — approval of this subdivision. Fees are to 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. COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT Lot Lot Home Home Area Width Depth Setback Ordinance 20,000 90' 125' 30'/15' front/rear 10' sides Parcel A 20,000 148.23' 170 * Parcel B 29,172 125.04' 214 _ * Proposed Parcel A meets the minimum requirement of the Zoning Ordinance with one — exception. Parcel A is occupied by an existing garage. City ordinances prohibits accessory structures to be erected or constructed prior to erection or construction of the principal or main building. This subdivision will create a nonconforming situation. Staff is recommending the — applicant tear down the garage prior to recording this subdivision with the county. RECOMMENDATION — Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Subdivision #92-10 as shown on the plans dated July 31, 1992, subject to the following conditions: 1. It is preferred to have a single access to service both Parcels A and B; however, should the applicant wish to provide a second driveway access, a permit will be required from _ MnDOT. If the existing driveway is utilized to service both lots, then a cross access or driveway easement in favor of both properties will need to be recorded at the County. Klein Subdivision #92-10 — September 2, 1992 Page 5 — 2. The following easements and right-of-way shall be provided: a. Dedication of fee ownership of Highway 101 right-of-way. b. A 20 foot wide utility and drainage easements centered over the existing sanitary sewer through both lots. c. Standard drainage and utility easements along each lot line. 3. The applicant may want to consider petitioning the city for extension of trunk watermain facilities at this time in lieu of drilling a well. 4. The newly created lot will be required to connect to municipal sanitary sewer and pay the appropriate connection fees. 5. No alteration or tree removal shall be permitted within the 75 foot setback from the ordinary water mark of Lake Susan. Trees designated for preservation shall be protected — by snow fence or other means acceptable to the city. 6. The existing garage on proposed Parcel A shall be demolished prior to recording this — subdivision with Carver County." ATTACHMENTS 1. Memo from Minnegasco dated August 14, 1992. 2. Memo from Dave Hempel dated August 25, 1992. — 3. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated August 5, 1992. 4. Plat dated July 31, 1992. mrnnegasco' A Division of Arkla,Inc. August 14, 1992 1 F Ff kirt ai.; i992 T` ry . - .-..\lam!•. Ms. Sharmin Al-Jaff Planner I City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Re: 92-1 SUB Gene Klein Highway 101 Dear Ms. Al-Jaff: Enclosed are the prints for this project with our gas mains in the area shown in red. Individual services are not shown. Natural gas service is available to this property from the — main shown subject to the rules and regulations in force at the time of application. No addition gas main installations are anticipated at this time. Minnegasco has no objections to this proposal. Should you have any questions please contact me or the Sales Department. Sincerely, 6)626n, Richard J. Pilon, P.E. Senior Administration Engineer Engineering Services — 612-342-5426 pc: Mary Palkovich Tom Halek Jim Kwak 700 West Linden Avenue P.O.Box 1165 Minneapolis, MN 55440 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 I FROM: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician Of DATE: August 25, 1992 SUBJ: Review of Metes and Bounds Subdivision 8412 Great Plains Boulevard, Eugene Klein File No. 92-14 LUR Upon review of the proposed lot subdivision, I offer the following comments and recommendations: ACCESS There currently exists one driveway access to the lot. If an additional driveway access is desired, an access permit will need to be applied for from MnDOT. Should the existing driveway be utilized by both residents, then a cross-access or driveway easement should be granted in favor of both parties. UTILITIES Municipal sanitary sewer is available from an existing sewer line adjacent to Lake Susan. The sanitary sewer line is currently located within a 10-foot wide sanitary sewer easement. For access reasons, the City recommends that a 20-foot wide drainage and utility easement be granted over the existing sanitary sewer line. In the past, the City has had problems gaining access along the sewer line due to poor soil conditions and topography. Since the new lot will be within 150 feet of the existing sanitary sewer, the lot will be required to connect and pay the appropriate connection fees. Municipal watermain currently is being extended to just south of the property with the City's trunk improvement project No. 92-10. The applicant should be aware that municipal water service will most likely be available within the next five years. Therefore, it may be prudent to petition the es t 4i. PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Sharmin Al-Jaff August 25, 1992 Page 2 — City to have the watermain extended to provide service to these two lots in lieu of drilling — a new well for the additional lot being created. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — 1. It is preferred to have a single access to service both of these lots; however, should the applicant wish to provide a second driveway access, a permit will be required — from MnDOT. If the existing driveway is utilized to service both lots, then a cross- access or driveway easement in favor of both properties will need to be recorded at the County. 2. The applicant should grant the City a 20-foot wide drainage and utility easement centered over the existing sanitary sewer through both lots. — 3. The applicant may want to consider petitioning the City for extension of trunk _ watermain facilities at this time in lieu of drilling a well. 4. The newly created lot will be required to connect to municipal sanitary sewer and _ pay the appropriate connection fees. ktm c: Charles Folch, City Engineer CITYOF CHANIIASSEN' - i 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official DATE: 08/05/92 —SUBJECT: 92-10 SUB (Klein) Condition of approval should require demolition of accessory building on -Parcel A after approval of subdivision, but before recording if possible. Immediate demolition would preclude the possibility of the nonconforming structure remaining indefinitely. A demolition permit is required. to PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER MAMA LIKES \ �f -- NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING .' •' Ly E _ ' ` AK ; , �. L -/ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ..... Wednesday, September 2, 1992 -4. :_ -.4 .11 7:30 P.M. • ; _ City Hall Council Chambers USAN `:� i 690 Coulter Drive Project: Metes and Bounds .. Subdivision . " . \\,.C` •-•.-N- -.. , „... %,:....\t-- i -. Developer: Eugune Klein .-.-� " iir. 4,_ IN . ••' Location: 8412 Great Plains Boulevard o �'` , . h\I A' ,\ _ Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in _ your area. The developer is proposing a metes and bounds subdivision of a 1.5 acre parcel into two single family lots of 29,172 and 20,000 square feet on property zoned RSF, Residential Single Family and located at 8412 Great Plains Boulevard. _ 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 Planning 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.Shamnin at 937-1900. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the Planning Department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. _ Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on August 20, 1992. — - MILTON R A BATHKE WILLIS & ANITA KLEIN GEORGE JR & MARG SHORBA 8404 GREAT PLAINS BLVD 8405 GREAT PLAINS BLVD 304 CHAN VIEW CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DONALD & DOROTHY GALE ROGER & N CASEY JAMES & G MURPHY 8402 GREAT PLAINS BLVD 8506 GREAT PLAINS BLVD 8500 GREAT PLAINS BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SHIRLEY ROBINSON NORMAN JR & K GRANT DONALD SLATHAR -8502 GREAT PLAINS BLVD 9021 LAKE RILEY BLVD 8251 195TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JORDAN MN 55352 -A & M J KLINGELHUTZ TRUST C/O ALOYSIUS & M J JOSEPH P & P A EICKHOLT MARK & L JESBERG KLINGELHUTZ 15400 PIONEER TRAIL 8407 GREAT PLAINS BLVD 8600 GREAT PLAINS BLVD EDEN PRAIRIE MN 5344 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 - ANDREW FRESETH KEITH & CAROL BARTZ LYNDA WILLIAMSON 2209 ACORN CT 8411 GREAT PLAINS BLVD -LEXINGTON KY 40516 CHANAHSSEN MN 55317 CARVER COUNTY ABSTRACT AND TITLE CO., INC. 6+ CARVER COUNTY (612)448-5570 201 Chestnut St.N. FAX(612)448-5155 ABSTRACT&TITLF. P.O.Box 106 Dale B. Kutter Chaska,MN 55318 David E. Moonen — July 30, 1992 Gene Klein — 8412 Great Plains Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 According to the 1992 Tax Books in the Carver County Treasurers Office the — following persons are listed as owners of the property within Carver County, Minnesota, which lies within 500 feet of the following described property: See Exhibit "A" Attached. 1. Milton R. A. Bathke 8. Norman C. Jr. & Kimberly Grant 8404 Great Plains Blvd. 9021 Lake Riley Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 2. Willis & Anita Klein 9. Donald Slathar 8405 Great Plains Blvd. 8251 195th St. W. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Jordan, MN 55352 3. George Jr. & Marg Shorba 10. A. & M. J. Klingelhutz Trust 304 Chan View C/O Aloysius & M. J. Klingelhutz — Chanhassen, MN 55317 8600 Great Plains Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 4. Donald L. & Dorothy Gale 8402 Great Plains Blvd. 11. Joseph P. & Patricia A. Eickholt Chanhassen, MN 55317 15400 Pioneer Trl. Eden Prairie, MN 55344 5. Roger & N. Casey — 8506 Great Plains Blvd. 12. Mark & L. Jesberg Chanhassen, MN 55317 8407 Great Plains Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 6. James D. & G. Murphy 8500 Great Plains Blvd. 13. Keith D. & Carol M. Bartz Chanhassen, MN 55317 2209 Acorn Ct. Lexington, KY 40516 7. Shirley M. Robinson 8502 Great Plains Blvd. 14. Andrew A. Freseth & Lynda W. Williamson Chanhassen, MN 55317 8411 Great Plains Blvd. — Chanhassen, MN 55317 Contract for Deed: Keith D. & / n Carol M. Bartz Carver County bstract �& Title Co. , Inc. This company does not assume any liability for the accuracy of this report. , b?.! -:•;1 I I) / 1 (--. / 1.... .. .x. . IR, , . -.. 'lir——----r--i------ 111-• !I 1 -MCC Rio- 11..1.1.4111c1 I lai.rt* IL gamic. / / Ali!! CIL 0...... W 1.•0. / / Pal / 1....CL" iri....7 / / aaa.4.la i /1 / uNI::414- 1 i ,( 8 'IA I Go, -,.. Li ra. ,/ ,, / -70% i & l I it .1 ..: . ‘ , 1 I: \ 1 . S I I • , C k 1 X I 1 • .....nt..,=,,,.0. CA \ 1 Syl i \ ..,41 1 ...• . - • .... 00,;°*„.- t....• e -, 'Z. I i r.. -(.,?... NI) ILI 6- - . 5,,0-....,;,,, , A • %I I 1 _ .,- •t , ..::::V '' r .• ,,,, 4 ,....:31:10.# '\ %i V, \..: V ........)... .. I I I • 4," or .0.. i. /1 _ - 1 1 I i —‘, , , T , , , . le ... "' 04. \ \ I / ..... 4f ... I / I/ 'it- ,•`; .. 11 "I \ / , , . ..' ii. ,„:•,,t, . 1.-. ..,_ ..; . , .4...-. • ..._ ...- .... .... . ,.... ..... ,,. _ ......-----------. , , 1 if,ok .1..7„... ‘1, r . --,--. .--. : ---- . , , . ! i.„ .., ,.. • 1 ,, , , 7: ....."- e- ..-, i.1 a ., ' • ..... . t.t • / :: ' t..*.„Z. '-..t.. • t!- ,. 1 ,-•• gut! •-i i,e ..._ . ..:- r 0k' / . .• . , 2 •-. IA! ! 1_,.."•:::.-..t . ,..,..... ...;_.. 'i,' I... i .- -, C., j - - d-,-- *.;' • >4.: • /1..: ' e ....„., ,., , ,.' , ... (-. ..: • 3 ; . 1 - .,.. 1 . . II A 11400,1101.0 • .41444, 13 , 1 i lat a as a • CAI C•N a ,/414 ' a cr‘ ti, t $ 0 a (._,,i G a • Wa .1, ..0 .. A 1 _ . 04.4, t.......... . I h. • N Tel :a • %•44,6 Ia Tct . 3- 4.8•44,4 Cr) 1 -1 r- -I, -7. cn , \ - 8 s pi , , -; „ - c ....-. — f _N ilAilia .. , •'. !C--- , __.,.< /it', . (.. • t kt ..74.-' ..% s• -2. r . --1 V ....., ,,,/i N, . 7 I L I\ N.--. — AIM u, PARCCL I: That part of the Southwest } of the Southwest } also known as Government Lot 3, of Section 13, Township 116, Range 23, described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest corner of said Section 13; thence East along the South -� line of said Section 13, a distance of 582.6 feet to the center line of County Road Number 101 , as now laid out and traveled; thence Northeasterly along said center line on a deflection angle to the left of 40°23' a distance of 193.6 feet; thence continuing Northeasterly along said center line on a deflection angle to the left of 4°58' a distance of 616.8 feet, to the actual point of beginning of the tract to be described; thence Northeasterly along said center line on a deflection angle to the left of 0° 25' a distance cf 210.8 feet, more or less to a point in the East line of the Southwest of Southwest } (also known as Government Lot 3), said point being 715 feet North of the Southeast corner thereof; thence North along said East line a distance of 239.1 feet; thence Southwesterly on a deflection angle to the left of 114° 43' a distance of 368.7 feet; thence Southeasterly 298 feet, more or less to the actual point of beginning, and including that portion between the Northwesterly line of the tract herein described and the Southerly shore line of Lake Susan, EXCEPTING therefrom the two following described tracts of land: TRACT A: That part of the South } of the Southwest } of Section 13, Township 116, Range 23, described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast corner of the Southeast } of the Southwest } of said Section 13; thence West along the North line thereof 803.8 feet to a point in the center line of State Trunk Highway No. 101 as now traveled; thence running South 28°41' West along said Centerline a distance of 21.32 feet; thence running South 33°59' West along said center line a distance of 605.9 feet; thence North 43°41' West a distance of 87.55 feet to a point on the West line of the Southeast } of Southwest } of said Section 13 and the place of beginning for tract hereby conveyed; thence continuing North 43°41' West 89 feet more or less co shore of Lake Susan; thence Northeasterly along the shore of Lake Susan 72.2 feet more or less to point on West line of said Southeast } of Southwest } said Section 13; thence South on said West line 105.4 feet more or less to the place of beginning. TRACT B: That part of the Southwest } of Section 13, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest corner of Section 13; thence East along the South line of said Section 13, 582.6 feet to the centerline of County Road Number 101; thence Northeasterly along said centerline on a deflection angle to the left of 40°23' a distance of 193.6 feet; thence continuing Northeasterly along said centerline on a deflection angle to the left of 4°58' a distance of 485.3 feet to the actual point of beginning of the tract of land to be described; thence continuing Northeasterly along the centerline of County Road Number 101 , 153.65 feet; thence running Northwesterly on a deflection angle to the left of 80° a distance of 279.9 feet; thence running Southwesterly on a deflection angle to the left of 73°50' a distance of 119.8 feet; thence running Southeasterly on a deflection angle to the left of 95°17' a distance of 202.6 feet; thence running Southeasterly on a deflection angle to the left of 12°05' a distance of 141.2 feet to the actual point of beginning including that portion of land lying between the Northwesterly line of the above described tract and the Southerly shore line of Lake Susan and between the Northeasterly and South- westerly lines of said above described tract extended to the Southerly line of Lake Susan, subject to public street in that portion lying within the limits of County Road No. 101. PARCEL II: • That part of the Southeast } of the Southwest } of Section 13, Township 116, Range 23, described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast corner of the Southeast } of Southwest } of said Section 13; thence West along the North line thereof 803.8 feet to a point in the centerline of State Trunk Highway No. 101 as now traveled; thence running South 28°41' West along said centerline a distance of 21.32 feet; thence running South 33°59' West along said centerline a distance of 605.9 feet to the place of beginning of the tract hereby conveyed; thence running North 43°41' West 87.55 feet to a point on the West line of the Southeast } of Southwest } of said Section 13; thence South along said West line of Southeast } of Southwest } said Section 13 a distance of 133.7 feet to the centerline of said Trunk Highway No. 101; thence Northerly along said centerline to place of beginning. EXHIBIT "A" C I TY 0 F PC DATE: Sept. 2, 1992 s H A N H A s sEN CC DATE: Sept. 28, 1992 CASE #:88-17 Site Plan STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: 1. Site Plan Review for Phase II, a 10,600 Square Feet of the Chanhassen Professional Building 2. Sign Plan Review — Z Q LOCATION: Northwest Corner of Great Plains and West 78th Street Intersection, 480 West 78th Street J - a. APPLICANT: Copeland-Mithun, Inc. _ Q 7625 Metro Boulevard, Suite 145 Edina, MN 55439 PRESENT ZONING: CBD, Central Business District ACREAGE: DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - PUD; Heritage Apartments S - CBD; commercial E - CBD; commercial W - CBD; commercial - r-,, WATER AND SEWER: Available PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: Property is level and developed. W — 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial Medical Arts Facility Phase II September 2, 1992 Page 2 PROPOSAL /SUMMARY This request is for the construction of phase II, a 10,600 square foot addition to the Chanhassen Professional Building. The Phase II addition will be located on Lot 2, Block 1, Medical Arts Addition. This parcel is currently owned by the Chanhassen Housing and Redevelopment Authority. The applicant has negotiated with the HRA to purchase the property. As part of the agreement, the city replatted the subject property and will be performing all public improvements needed for the second phase. Phase II of the construction program was envisioned when the Medical Arts Building was originally approved in 1989. The site plan lacks some of the detail we usually require, however, this plan is an exception as the city will be constructing all of the site improvements except for the building itself. The architecture of the building reflects the first phase. Building materials consist of cedar shingles, cedar lap siding, asphalt shingles, and metal grille work which will compliment Phase I. Unlike the Phase I building, Phase H is a single story structure. However, it is architecturally consistent with the existing building in terms of roof line and construction details. One feature of the site that is left up to the discretion of the city, is a canopy that will cover the area between the two phases. The main entrance to the project could be a covered access which ties phase I and II together. This cover will just be a shell and not intended for occupancy. This canopy will allow cars to pass under it to get to the parking lot located north of the building. Allowing the canopy to be built will provide the connection between the two buildings which will cost approximately $80,000-$90,000. Eliminating the canopy will allow some breaks in the facade which is approximately two city blocks in length. After reviewing the plan, staff believes that the covered entrance should be omitted. We believe that connecting the two structures would create a monolithic structure along the north side of West 78th Street. A right-in/out driveway access is proposed between the two buildings which is consistent with the agreement with the HRA. The city has consulted Strgar-Roscoe-Fausch, the City's transportation consulting engineers, to determine if a right turn lane will be needed into the site. It was determined that this right turn lane would only improve traffic flow entering the site from West 78th Street. The applicant is requesting a median cut on West 78th Street. Staff contacted the applicant and informed him that this request can not be accommodated due to traffic safety concerns such as the close proximity to the intersection of West 78th Street and the driveway access to the Riviera. Site access can be achieved via two'access points on West 78th Street with a third proposed with phase II, and one on Great Plains Boulevard. A sign covenant accompanies this site plan. This plan is generally consistent with the Sign Ordinance, however, staff is proposing some changes to the request which will be discussed in detail later in the report. Medical Arts Facility Phase II September 2, 1992 Page 3 Based upon the foregoing, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve the site plan and sign plan requests for this proposal without variances and subject to appropriate conditions. BACKGROUND On May 22, 1989, the City Council approved the preliminary plat and site plan application for the Medical Arts Building (Attachment # 5). The site plan review was approved with two buildings to be built in two phases. Phase I building was completed in the fall of 1990. As a part of phase I, the applicant negotiated with the HRA and the two parties came to an agreement that the city perform all public improvements on the site as well as replat the property. The city has performed most of the work such as building a parking lot, sidewalks, installing lights, landscaping, etc. The city is to complete the public improvements at the time phase II is constructed. SITE PLAN REVIEW General Site Plan/Architecture The building is proposed to be located 72 feet west of Phase I of the Professional Building, east of the Riviera restaurant, and north of West 78th Street. Site access is proposed from both West 78th Street and Great Plains Boulevard. The parking is located to the north, east, and west of the two phases. The architecture of phase II building reflects Phase I Cedar shingles, cedar lap siding, asphalt shingles, and metal grille work. One difference between the two phases is phase Ii is a one story building verses Phase I is a two story. This will help break the mass of the buildings. A second difference is Phase II has six public access doors to the north and six on the south elevation. Phase I has two main public access doors on the north and south elevations. The applicant does not intend to have any rooftop HVAC equipment. All equipment will be placed on the ground. This equipment must be screened with landscaping. One feature that require some clarification is the roof line of Phase I building. The plans reflect one massive roof line with no breaks. If the ridge lines extend from the top of the dormers to the roof line, it will break the massiveness of the roof line. One of the conditions of agreement between the HRA and the applicant was that in phase II, there would be no public access door on the west face of the building nor on the north or south faces of the building within 20 feet of the west end of the structure. The reason for this condition was to insure that the public would be discouraged from using the Riviera Restaurant's — parking area. The applicant is showing two access doors to the north and south of the building within 20 feet of the west end of the structure. Staff is recommending the applicant revise the plans to eliminate the north access point. We believe that the south door could remain as proposed, as there are not any parking stalls on that side of the building. Approval of allowing Medical Arts Facility Phase II September 2, 1992 Page 4 a public access door on the south elevation within 20 feet of the west end will require amending the Development Contract between the HRA and Chanhassen Medical Arts Limited Partnership. One feature of the site that is left up to the discretion of the city, is a canopy that will cover the area between the two phases. The main entrance to the project could be a covered access which ties phase I and II together. This cover will just be a shell and not intended for occupancy. This — canopy will allow cars to pass under it to get to the parking lot located north of the building. Allowing the canopy to be built will provide the connection between the two buildings which will cost approximately $80,000-$90,000. Eliminating the canopy will allow some breaks in the facade which is approximately two city blocks in length. After reviewing the plan, staff believes that the covered entrance should be omitted. We believe that connecting the two structures would create a monolithic structure along the north side of West 78th Street. The architect's intent to combine the style of the two phases, along with other downtown buildings such as the Heritage Park apartments, is a sound one. Parking/Interior Circulation The overall parking for the project was completed with Phase I which amounts to 299 stalls. An additional 18 stalls will be built with Phase II. The main entrance to the project is proposed between Phase I and II. The second access is located in front of the Riviera parking lot, the third access is located between Phase I and Colonial Shopping Center, and the forth access is gained of off Great Plains Boulevard into the Colonial Shopping Center, to the Professional Building area. The Phase II building has six access doors to the north and six to the south. Facing the access doors, on the north side, are side walks that are projecting into parking stalls. These sidewalks will cause the loss of 3 parking spaces. Staff is recommending the design be revised to eliminate the sidewalks. In general, the interior circulation and entrances are reasonable in our view. Access There are three existing driveway access points (curb cuts) to the site. Two along West 78th Street and one along Great Plains Boulevard. The applicant is proposing to relocate one of the access points on West 78th Street, between the Phase I and II buildings. This concept was approved by the city with Phase I. The city has consulted Strgar-Roscoe-Fausch, the City's transportation consulting engineers, to determine if a right turn lane will be warranted into the site. It was determined that a right turn lane would improve traffic flow along West 78th Street entering the site from West 78th Street. Medical Arts Facility Phase II September 2, 1992 Page 5 The applicant is requesting to cut the center median on West 78th Street to provide a full access point on to West 78th Street. Staff contacted the applicant and informed him that his request can not be accommodated due to traffic safety concerns such as the close distance between the proposed median cut and the intersection of West 78th Street and the driveway access to the Riviera Restaurant. Landscaping/Lighting All landscaping and lighting was placed by the city with Phase I. Grading/Drainage/Utilities To be performed by the city as part of a public improvement project Park and Trail Dedication The Park and Recreation Commission acted to recommend that the city accept full park and trail dedication fees as part of this development. Fees are paid at the time the building permits are requested. Signage The applicant has submitted a signage plan. One monument identification sign is proposed at the southwest edge of the site. The area of the monument sign is 28 square feet, not to exceed 4 feet in height. The ordinance permits up to 80 square feet. This is a building identification sign, (not tenant identification). The applicant is also showing a 2.2 foot wide band that wraps around the building on all four sides including the projections over entries. Wall mounted signs are proposed to be limited to this band. The letters are proposed to be a mixture of illuminated and non-illuminated. We believe that limiting the signage within a 2.2 foot wide band is a sound idea, however, the ordinance allows signage on each building elevation with a street frontage. The south, east and west elevations do not face any streets. To be consistent with phase I, staff is recommending signage be permitted on the north and south elevation only. Furthermore, no illuminated sign should be permitted on the north elevation of the building as it will shine directly into the Heritage Park Apartments facing south. All signage on the north elevation shall be illuminated. We find the sign package to be reasonable and consistent with the ordinance. Sign permits are required prior to sign installation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Site Plan Review Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motions: Medical Arts Facility Phase II — September 2, 1992 Page 6 "The City Council approves Site Plan Review #88-17 as shown on the site plan dated August 3, 1992, subject to the following conditions: 1. No restaurant may be located in the western one-half of the Phase II building. 2. Revise architectural plans as follows: — • Eliminate Sidewalks intruding into parking stalls. • Eliminate the public access door on the north face of the building within the 20 feet of the west end of the structure. Provide more detail on the roof line. 3. No unpainted aluminum shall be allowed on the exterior. 4. Type I erosion control fence shall be installed along West 78th Street. _ 5. The City must decide whether or not a canopy should be built between the two phases of the Medical Arts Building. _ 6. Meet all conditions outlined in the Fire Marshal memo dated August 6, 1992. 7. Amend the Development Contract between the HRA and Chanhassen Medical Arts Limited Partnership to allow a public access door on the south face of the building within the 20 feet of the west end of the structure. — 8. All HVAC equipment placed on the ground must be screened with landscaping. Sign Covenant 9. Sign Covenant shall meet the following criteria: — a. Wall Mounted Signs: 1. Signs are only allowed within a continuous 2'2" high band near the roof line on the north and south sides of the building, including the projections over entries. Signs shall be attached directly to the building siding and not — project above or below the designated sign area. 2. All signs shall be comprised of individual letters and/or logos. Letters shall not exceed 12" in height and logos shall not exceed 24" in height. Medical Arts Facility Phase II September 2, 1992 Page 7 3. A tenant may have no more than one sign. Copy is restricted to the tenant's proper name or service offered. 4. Signs on the north elevation shall be non-illuminated. Signs on the south elevation shall be illuminated. b. Free Standing Signs: 1. Monument Sign: One Single Sided monument sign for building identification (not tenant identification) may be placed in the southwest yard between the building and the sidewalk. The top of the sign may not exceed 4 feet in height. The dimensions of the sign may not exceed 2 feet high by 14 feet wide. The copy shall have a maximum height of one foot and be internally illuminated. c. General: 1. One non-illuminated temporary real estate sign which advertise sale of the building or space for lease within the building. The area of the sign shall not exceed 12 square feet nor exceed 5 feet in height nor be located less than 10 feet from the property line. The sign shall be removed within seven days following sale, lease, or rental of the property. 2. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site. 3. Stop sign shall be installed at the exit point proposed on West 78th Street." ATTACHMENTS 1. Sketch/Site Plan showing location of Phase II in relation to Phase I of the Professional Building. 2. Sign Covenant submitted by applicant dated August 3, 1992. 3. Memo from Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal dated August 6, 1992. 4. Memo from Steve Kirchman, Building Official dated August 5, 1992. 5. Staff report dated April 19, 1989. 6. Contract for private development between the HRA and Chanhassen Medical Arts Limited Partnership. 7. Memo from Minnegasco dated August 14, 1992. 8. Site Plan dated August 3, 1992. AUG 27 '92 08:54 BRW INC° J L `P �'1 3 ,ri I,ZDoiO _ :, .J .... rtss Z0.9• Qc'' ':' V1 a..- "''"' a 5 3 Ji L00 S076 1.. V.J • t V tis a or.. `a• 00'[6 H1(JOS V ` e. 0011 Lam- V3 N.• ^ 1(j al c 4 1 '--- c• b-- ii c'fa,11 C NJ C3t l'si CL (1)..0. 1. r 71- • 2 '- --..0-0:.;:.-m7-;s- 0V 2� I Hl b01A 1 hll bion g 00'09 4i 1.. tt 11: .lir � w 8� .-• u r---,-=-NOiyh).i�+rn off slwruo y 01 1+ w ; CN•L' ?caG f+� SI, 1mss : 1 '1 0000----- - -4', he 3 „f 1,9G000 S .00 S 1 1 N 001-r s °-i-,; _ • Q g � _ ;, + h cv Ny...symov4'04 pomace r)7G•ds T IV V j07!0 3" 11 i - • !r! v • 1� • r w .i B w _ ••\ 7. r.---- Via. N " l ^ . 4:: r "r 5•11f • . w w,1 }�M 7 3 , �'_ SIGN COVENANT for Retail/Office Center 480 West 78th Street (also known as Phase II Building) Chanhassen , Minnesota August 3 , 1992 Exterior signage shall be allowed as follows : A. On the Building 1 . Signs are only allowed within a continuous 2 '2" high area near the roof line on each of the four sides cf the building including the projections over entries . Signs shall be attached directly to the building siding and not project above or below the designated sign area. 2 . All sign shall be comprised of individual letters and/ or logos. Letters shall not exceed 12" in height and logos shall not exceed 24" in height. 3 . A tenant may have no more than two signs. Copy is restricted to the tenant's proper name or service _ offered. 4 . Signs may be illuminated or non-illuminated. B. Free Standing Signs : 1 . Monument Sign: A single sided monument sign for building identification (not tenant identification) may be placed in the south yard between the building and the sidewalk. The top of the sign may not exceed 4 ' in height. The dimensions of the sign may not exceed 2' high by 14 ' wide. The copy shall have a maximum height of 12" and be internally illuminated. Page 1 of 2 C . General 1 . Temporary real estate signs which advertise sale of the building or space for lease within the building are permitted in accordance with city codes . Wall mounted temporary tenant identification signs located where the permanent tenant identification sign will be are permitted in accordance with city codes . Permanent traf4ic- slips are permitted in accordance with city cods. 2 . A permit from the. citymust be obtained for all signs . , _ .'z a . DO Page 2 of 2 CITY OF 00,4041, CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 ' l MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: August 6, 1992 SUBJ: Site Plan Review Phase II , 480 West 78th Street 88-17 Site Plan Review Comments and/or recommendations from the Chanhassen Fire Department: 1 . Submit utility plan showing fire hydrant locations. 2 . Minimum vertical clearance of building connection 13 feet, 6 inches - 1988 Chanhassen Fire Code Sec. 10. 207 (d) . 3 . Maintain 10 foot clear space around fire hydrants - Chanhassen City Ordinance. 4 . The following Fire Department policies must also be met: a . Policy #04-1991, copy enclosed. b. Policy #06-1991, copy enclosed. Note: Fire lanes will be marked by Fire Marshal on approved final site plan. c. Policy #07-1991, copy enclosed. d. Policy #29-1992 , copy enclosed. 5. Radius turns must be approved by the Chanhassen Engineering Department with a letter on file. 6. Fire lane curbs must be painted yellow. to, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER .. CITYOF , , _ ,-....,, , J,, , ,...,,„,., 11 ...4 I.'4tV e,tr.!.-e7 *„. CHANHASSEN ...„....: ,_,„,,, _ (l' Y 4-- r 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT NOTES TO BE INCLUDED ON ALL SITE PLANS All the following required inspections shall be scheduled 24 hours in advance with the Fire Marshal: 1 . Witnessing the flushing of underground sprinkler service line, per NFPA 13-8-2 . 1. 2 . Hydrostatic test of sprinkler system and 24 hour air test for dry systems. 3 . Testing of all smoke detection, manual pull stations, and fire suppression systems. 4 . Installation of fire extinguishers 2A-40BC rated minimum. Install one by each exit door and as designated by Fire Inspector. 5 . Extinguishers shall be provided before final approval . 6 . A final inspection by a Fire Inspector before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. 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 . Onsite fire hydrants shall be provided and in operating condition during all phases of construction. 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. All fire detection and fire suppression systems shall be monitored by ar. approved UL central station with a UL 71 Certificate issued on these systems before final occupancy:is issued. Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #04-1991 Date: 11/22/91 Revised: Page 1 of 2 n it.,;" PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER An 81/2" x 11" mylar As Built shall be provided to the Fire Department. The As Built shall be reproducible and acceptable to the Fire Marshal . 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. The domestic supply from a combination domestic and fire protection line shall not exceed one fourth (1/4 ) the total pipe size at the line. 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. Fire lane signage shall be provided as required by the Fire Marshal . (see policy #06-1991) . 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) . • Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #04-1991 Date: 11/22 /91 Revised: Approved - Fublic Safety DLrector Page 2 of 2 CITY OF 1 CHANHASSE N' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY REQUIREMENTS FOR FIRE LANE SIGNAGE 1 . Signs to be a minimum of 12" x 18" . NO 2 . Red on white is preferred. PARKING FIRE 3 . 3M or equal engineer ' s grade LANE reflective sheeting on aluminum is preferred. 4 . Wording shall be: NO PARKING FIRE LANE 5 . Signs shall be posted at each end of the fire lane and at least at 7 ' 0" 75 foot intervals along the fire lane. 6. All signs shall be double sided facing the direction of travel. 7 . Post shall be set back a minimum of 12" but not more than 36" from the curb. - 8 . A fire lane shall be required in (NOT TO GRADE front of fire dept. connections SCALE) extending 5 feet on each side and along all areas designated by the Fire Chief. ANY DEVIATION FROM THE ABOVE PROCEDURES SHALL BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING, WITH A SITE PLAN, FOR APPROVAL BY THE FIRE CHIEF. IT IS THE INTENTION OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO ENSURE CONTINUITY THROUGHOUT THE CITY BY PROVIDING THESE -PROCEDURES FOR MARKING OF FIRE LANES . Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #06-1991 ( Date: 1/15/91 1 .v77 Revised: Approved - Public Safety Director Page 1 of 1 n ami. PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER C I TY OF .4") CHANHASSEN 14ti , — ► 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 deadend 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 Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #07-1991 Date: 01/16/91 -Revised: Approved - Public Safety Director Page 1 of 1 n t0• PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY Of . -., _ir! 1.�j t � /� /:.'�J� ClIANBASSEN _ :). AA.,t),Ii„„Aipv-- , ,.,-.., . *_',3 -,)1;1 :44r 1�'� • 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. Resldentlal Requirements(2 or less dwelling u 1. Minimum height shall be 5 1/4". 2. Building permits will not be flnaled unless numbers are posted and approved by the Building Department Commercial Requtremente, 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 � , T / Date: 06/15/92 -- Revised: Approved - Public Safty Director Page 1 of 1 t0, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY OF CHANIIASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I 4( 1 FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official (� ) DATE: 08/05/92 _ ` SUBJECT: 88-17 Site Plan Review (Chanhassen Retail/Office Center) Anticipated occupancy classification for the building is B-2 , which will require a class B roof covering. • Is �0, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER C IT Y O F P.C. DATE: April 19, 1989 4.7 C.C. DATE: May 8, 1989 SSS� CASE NO: 8 9 Prepared by: Hanson/v — i STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: A) Preliminary Plat Approval B) Site Plan Review of Final Facia Signage and Exterior Building Lighting and Revised Sidewalk and Parking :2: Layout Configuration V LOCATION: North of West 78th Street and East of 480 Street West 78th -I! APPLICANT: Lotus Realty 4 P.G. Box 100 Chanhassen, MN 55317 j 1 PRESENT ZONING: CBD, Central Business District ACREAGE: 1 DENSITY: IADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- R-12; proposed Heritage Park Apartments I.S- CBD; commercial use Q E- CBD; commercial use 1 wq. Q W- CBD; commercial use I- LIIL WATER AND SEWER: Municipal services are available PHYSICAL CHARAC. : Site is level 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial North Side Parking Lot April 19 , 1939 Page 2 The site plan for this area , which is the location of the Chanhassen Professional Building was approved by the City Council — at the February 27 , 1989 , meeting. That approval was subject to the following conditions : 1 . Platting the area . 2 . Submittal of final facia , signage and exterior building lighting for Planning Commission approval prior to issuance of building permits . 3 . Traffic engineering should review sidewalk location on the east portion of the parking lot for safety, with the possibi- lity of realigning the sidewalk and adding stop signs or speed bumps to maximize accessibility. 4 . Direct staff to have the consultants review the intersection to see if there is any possible alternatives and if possible have a modified alternative by March 13th. Since that time the plat has been prepared for the property. The plat creates two building sites around West 78th Street and — outlots generally to the rear of those two buildable lots for the parking areas that will serve these buildings . The site plan has been amended to modify the location on the pro- perty on the west end near the Riviera . These amendments were done in order to improve the parking situation for the Riviera Restaurant . In addition, the sidewalk locations were evaluated — on the east end of the proposed Chanhassen Professional Building . It was felt the best alternative was to align the sidewalk from the apartment building in a generally direct alignment with the clock tower . Then also a pedestrian link was made from that area over to Colonial Center . In evaluating means for making the pedestrian crossings through the parking area visible, it was _ determined the best solution was to put in large cross walk painted areas lined up with landscaped features between parking stalls . It was felt that the use of speed bumps in the parking lot would not improve the situation for these cross access ways and that stop signs would be inappropriate in these locations . Pedestrian signs could be added to emphasize where the cross walks are . The City Council asked staff to evaluate the access at the inter- section of West 78th Street and Great Plains Boulevard . In looking at this , no other alternatives were identified other than eliminating this particular access . This access was a negotiated item with the property owners in the area as part of the overall redevelopment of this entire area. The Engineering Department — has indicated this access , while not the most ideal situation , is acceptable from an operational standpoint. North Side Parking Lot April 19 , 1989 — Page 3 The applicants have sumitted facia, signage and exterior building lighting for Planning Commission review. The applicants arepro- posing one free standing identification sign of 20 square feet to be located at the southwest corner of the building in Phase I . This sign will be 3 ' 6" in height. On the back side a free standing directory sign is proposed to be 4 ' 6" high and 3 ' 6" across . On the face of the building back lit sign bands are pro- posed over three of the entrances these are 36 square feet in size. On the south elevation another sign band of the same size is shown in the middle of the building. The signage proposed — complies with the zoning requirements, provided that no occupant may have more than one wall sign. The plans note only one light to be located in the patio area. No other exterior lighting is proposed on the exterior of the building . The other site lighting is part of the parking lot improvements being done by the city. — The proposed facia of the building is to be woodlap and shaxertown siding, with ornamental grille work and railings on teh entrance features . The roof is to be asphalt shingles. — Previously the entrance features were goint to be brick. No colors have been listed on the plans. The door and window materials are not noted. These should not be aluminum finish. — RECOMMENDATION Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for the North Side Parking Lot subject to the plans stamped "Received April 14, 1989" . The Planning Commission recommends approval of the revised site plan and final facia, signage and exterior lighting based on plans stamped "Received April 14 , 1989" subject to the following conditions : 1. No business may have more than one wall sign. 2 . No unpainted aluminum shall be allowed on the exterior . 3 . Pedestrian signs be added to cross walks in parking lot. ATTACHMENTS 1 . Preliminary plat. — 2 . Site plan for north side parking lot. 3 . Site plan for Phase I Chan Professional Building. 4 . Elevations for Phase I Chan Professional Building. — • i I • . . . • Kt .... :..- I 4 i Id 11 RI - - - s.: • ..11:-, -ii r -.I:,• -• *s.;,....,_, ., r" , ',... 'Zd••=.;—.',, . 1: * ^;.-. -..,,a,—,-------.---------r----1 -... : - — IF 7' M 5 -•-.7 1 r,.,-._1"..-. -C . z - ' • .: r..' '.-) . .( ..;• • .. .., • b .7, RE- STAURANT 0 ® I P. r,,—.:..., 1 .— ..... i 6 — E n_Lr..1,_\:._.t._._..•'-, _ :-"..::'....---2 ----1---3(M. ? 1 'LII i : I II 1 r .• 4 .9. Z _ .. , 4_ Vi !. ! : (11 , — • • _ • . 1.1 ...... — = N _ •• . ._ i' -II. • AIL - .--- -- r• r Ns g. _ _ : _ . ._ _ . , _ i • , .. 11" • — -- WIL CD _ , 1 / --I _ i 1., —1-- . ,4. 1 • Li........„ _ , -I y. -i- • —1 , CD ...- E g243 I lt t i • I_T-- ___I__ s ..- ___j-L- I 1 1 __ __I__ I, IL I IN= I • , -; . 61 ' f I , . t t 1 .. . I . itli ii 0 -01r. n i ; e•,•li,t /.-.-- ZI---—L- Wr 1 ! 1111••• 0 6 EII s , .. .--i NV . , . -... _ ..- .. --....... , I I • / • .... . I _ _ _ _ ._ 111 ill! • , ,, _. ., ym. , r-;--1 .. --. I i : .---- i --- --- -.....- -.... I . ' .. .. --.._ .--....... : .. ------ if/ _ _ > f f VI 11— Ella JUL 74 -.-. ---. . 1 : ..... 11. op , . _. - • II ; _ • . ' l'•' P = ._—. - z _ — It I I ' 1 = L/ ill . __ fc= —11 t.7G- • ..._ .. R !I I .,-- ,... — 4. 'z r- ' GREAT PLANS BLVD im 2g U , 2 • (---- • c, ( F: • ..— SIGN COVENANT for Retail/Office Center 480 West 78th Street (also known as Phase II Building) Chanhassen, Minnesota August 3 , 1992 Exterior signage shall be allowed as follows : A. On the Building 1 . Signs are only allowed within a continuous 2 '2" high area near the roof line on each of the four sides of the building including the projections over entries . Signs shall be attached directly to the building siding and not project above or below the designated sign area . 2 . All sign shall be comprised of individual letters and/ or logos . Letters shall not exceed 12" in height and logos shall not exceed 24" in height. 3 . A tenant may have no more than two signs. Copy is restricted to the tenant's proper name or service offered. 4 . Signs may be illuminated or non-illuminated. B. Free Standing Signs : 1 . Monument Sign: A single sided monument sign for building identification (not tenant identification) may be placed in the south yard between the building and the sidewalk. The top of the sign may not exceed 4' in height. The dimensions of the sign may not exceed 2 ' high by 14 ' wide. The copy shall have a maximum height of 12" and be internally illuminated. Page 1 of 2 C. General 1 . Temporary real estate signs which advertise sale of the building or space for lease within the building are permitted in accordance with city codes. Wall mounted temporary tenant identification signs located where the permanent tenant identification sign will be are permitted in accordance with city codes . Permanent traffic signs are permitted in accordance with city codes. 2 . A permit from the city must be obtained for all signs . • Page 2 of 2 CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT By and Between THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA — and CHANHASSEN MEDICAL ARTS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP This Document Drafted by: Holmes & Graven, Chartered 470 Pillsbury Center Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 337-3900 CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of this day of , 1989, by and between the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Chanhassen, a public body corporate and politic (HRA), having its principal office at 690 Coulter Drive, Chanhassen, Minnesota and Chanhassen Medical Arts Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership (Developer), having its principal office at 7101 York Avenue South, Edina, Minnesota. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the HRA was created pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 through 469.047 and was authorized to transact business and exercise its powers by a resolution adopted by the Chanhassen city council on March 25, 1973; and WHEREAS, the HRA has undertaken a program for the clearance and reconstruction or rehabilitation of blighted, deteriorated, vacant, underused or inappropriately used structures and land and, in this regard, is carrying out a redevelopment project known as the Chanhassen Downtown Redevelopment Project (Project) in the downtown area (Project Area) of the City; and WHEREAS, the HRA has adopted a redevelopment plan for the Project (Redevelopment Plan) which it has amended most recently in October, 1988; and WHEREAS, in order to achieve the objectives of the Redevelopment Plan and particularly to make land in the Project Area available for development by private enterprise in accordance with the Redevelopment Plan, the HRA has determined to provide substantial aid and assistance to the Developer; and _ WHEREAS, the Developer has proposed a development as hereinafter defined within the Project Area which the HRA has determined will promote and carry out the objectives for which development in the Project Area has been _ undertaken, will assist in carrying out the objectives of the Redevelopment Plan, will be in the vital best interests of the City, and is in accord with the public purposes and provisions of the applicable state and local laws and requirements under which development in the Project Area has been undertaken and is being assisted. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and obligations contained herein, the parties do hereby represent, covenant and agree as follows: ARTICLE I Definitions Section 1.1 Definitions. In this Agreement, the following shall be the meanings given unless a different meaning clearly appears from the context: "Act" means the Housing and Redevelopment Authorities Act, Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047. "Agreement" means this Contract for Private Development, as the same may be from time to time modified, amended, or supplemented. "Certificate of Completion" means the certification provided to the — Developer pursuant to Section 4.3 of this Agreement in the general form attached hereto as Exhibit B. "City" means the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota. "County" means Carver County, Minnesota. "Developer" means Chanhassen Medical Arts Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership consisting of Thies & Talle Enterprises, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, Robert R. Copeland and Raymond 0. Mithun, Jr., as general — partners. "HRA" means the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Chanhassen. "Improvements" means the Phase I Improvements and, if constructed, the Phase II Improvements. — "Minnesota Environmental Policy Act" means Minnesota Statutes, Sections 116D.01 et seq., as amended. "Minnesota Environmental Rights Act" means Minnesota Statutes, Sections 116B.01 etsem., as amended. "National Environmental Policy Act" means 42 U.S.C. SS 4331 et sem., as amended. "Phase I Improvements" means those improvements detailed on the Project Plans referenced in Exhibit Al attached hereto. "Phase II Improvements" means those improvements detailed on the Project Plans referenced in Exhibit A2 attached hereto. "Project" means the Chanhassen Downtown Redevelopment Project. — "Project Area" means the property located within the boundaries of the Project. — 2 "Project Plans" means the plans, specifications, drawings and related documents on the construction work to be performed by the Developer to construct the Phase I Improvements which (a) shall be as detailed as the plans, specifications, drawings and related documents which are submitted to the building official of the City, and (b) shall include at least the following for the building: (1) site plan; (2) foundation plan; (3) floor plan for each floor; (4) cross sections of each (length and width); and (5) elevations (all sides). "Project Plans" shall also include such preliminary plans, drawings and sketches as are available regarding the Phase II Improvements. "Property" means the real property which is comprised of the Phase I Property and the Phase II Property and which is legally described in Exhibits Cl and C2, respectively. Unless the context clearly indicates the contrary, any reference to the Property shall mean both the Phase I and Phase II Property. "Public Improvement Agreement" means the agreement between the City and the Developer relating to the construction of the parking lot and other public improvements. "Redevelopment Plan" means the Chanhassen Downtown Redevelopment Project Plan, as amended as of the date of this Agreement. "Tax Increment" means that portion of the real property taxes which is paid with respect to the Property and which is remitted to the HRA as tax increment pursuant to the Tax Increment Financing Act. "Tax Increment Financing Act" or "TIF Act" means Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.179. "Unavoidable Delays" means delays which are the direct result of strikes, other labor troubles, fire or other casualty to the Improvements; litigation commenced by third parties which, by injunction or other similar judicial action, directly results in delays; acts of any federal, state or local governmental unit except those contemplated by this Agreement or the Public Improvement Agreement; or any other cause beyond the control of the Developer which directly results in delays. Section 1.2. Exhibits. The following Exhibits are attached to and by reference made a part of this Agreement. Al. Phase I Improvements A2. Phase II Improvements B. Certificate of Completion Cl. Phase I Property Description C2. Phase II Property Description D. Form of Deed • El. Parking Lot Plan E2. Extent of 1989 Parking Lot Construction F. Special Assessment Agreement G. Plat H. Assessment Agreement I. Covenants 3 Section 1.3. Rules of Interpretation. (a) This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with and governed by the laws of the state of Minnesota. (b) The words "herein" and "hereof" and words of similar import, without reference to any particular section or subdivision refer to this Agreement as a whole rather than any particular section or subdivision hereof. (c) References herein to any particular section or subdivision hereof are to the section or subdivision of this Agreement as originally executed. (d) Any titles of the several parts, articles and sections of this Agreement are inserted for convenience and reference only and shall be disregarded in construing or interpreting any of its provisions. ARTICLE II Representations and Warranties Section 2.1. By the Developer. The Developer makes the following representations: (a) The Developer is a Minnesota limited partnership, consisting of Thies & Talle Enterprises, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, Robert R. Copeland and Raymond 0. Mithun, Jr., as general partners, has the legal authority and power to enter into this Agreement, and has duly authorized the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement. (b) The Developer has the capability of obtaining the necessary equity capital financing for construction of the Improvements; (c) In the event the Property is conveyed to the Developer, the Developer will construct, operate and maintain the Improvements in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, and all local, state and federal laws and regulations; (d) At such time or times as may be required by law, the Developer will have complied with all local, state and federal environmental laws and regulations, — will have obtained any and all necessary environmental reviews, licenses or clearances under, and will be in compliance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act, and the Critical Area Act of 1973. The Developer has not received notice or communication from any local, state or federal official indicating that the activities of the Developer may be or will be in violation of any environmental law or regulation. The Developer is not aware of any facts the existence of which would cause the Developer to be in violation of any local, state or federal environmental law, regulation or review procedure or which would give any person a valid claim under the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act; (e) The Developer will obtain, in a timely manner, all required permits, licenses and approvals, and will meet, in a timely manner, all requirements of all local, state and federal laws and regulations which must be obtained or met before the Improvements may be constructed; and 4 (f) Neither the execution and delivery of this Agreement, the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby, nor the fulfillment of or compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement is prevented, limited by or conflicts with or results in a breach of the terms, conditions or provisions of any partnership restriction or any evidences of indebtedness, agreement or instrument of whatever nature to which the Developer is now a party or by which it is bound, nor constitutes a default under any of the foregoing. Section 2.2. By the HRA. The HRA makes the following representations: (a) The HRA is a housing and redevelopment authority duly organized and existing under the laws of Minnesota and is authorized by law to enter into this Agreement and to carry out its obligations hereunder; (b) The HRA will cooperate with the efforts of Developer to secure the granting of any permit, license, or other approval required to allow the construction of the Improvements; (c) The Project is a redevelopment project within the meaning of the Act and is located in a tax increment financing district within the meaning of the TIF Act; and (d) The HRA has taken all steps necessary to authorize execution of this Agreement. ARTICLE III Acquisition and Conveyance of Property Section 3.1. Acouisition of the Property. The HRA shall acquire and sell _ the Phase I Property to the Developer for $63,177. Closing on the sale of the Phase I Property to the Developer shall occur on or before December 1, 1989. The Developer shall have an option to purchase the Phase II Property for $100,250, less the cost of construction of the first row of parking spaces and other improvements — located on Lot 2. The Developer may exercise its option by written notification to the HRA on or before December 31, 1990. If the Developer exercises its option to purchase the Phase II Property, closing on the Phase II Property shall occur no later than December 31, 1991. Section 3.2. Conditions Precedent to Closing. Not later than 10 days prior to the date of closing on any portion of the Property, the Developer shall provide the HRA with evidence reasonably acceptable to the HRA of financial commitments and contracts for construction of the phase of the Improvements to be constructed on the Property to be conveyed. If the HRA finds, in the reasonable exercise of its discretion, that the financing is sufficiently consistent with real estate development industry standards and adequate in amount to provide for the construction of the Improvements, and that the conditions imposed by the financial commitments on the Developer or on the HRA are reasonable, and in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, the HRA shall notify the Developer in writing of its approval. Failure by the HRA to notify the Developer within such 10-day period shall constitute approval of the adequacy of the Developer's 5 financing. If the HRA rejects the evidence of financial commitments or _ construction contracts provided by the Developer, closing shall be delayed for such reasonable period as may be necessary in order for the Developer to submit additional evidence to the HRA. Section 3.3. Closing Documents. At closing, the HRA shall deliver to the Developer (a) a seller's form judgment and lien affidavit covering all judgments, tax liens, bankruptcies, pending actions in any court, mechanics liens and unrecorded contracts, leases, easements or other agreements relating to the Property; (b) an affidavit stating that the HRA is not a "foreign person" for purposes of the Foreign Investment in Real Property Tax Act and stating the HRA's United States Taxpayer Identification Number; and (c) a quit claim deed in substantially the form of Exhibit D attached hereto. The Developer shall be responsible for complying with any reporting requirements mandated by federal law. Section 3.4. Title. (a) Prior to and as a condition to the Developer's obligation to acquire the Property, the HRA shall obtain and furnish to the _ Developer a commitment for the issuance of a policy of title insurance for the Property. It is anticipated that title insurance shall be provided by Chicago Title Insurance Company. The Developer shall have twenty (20) days from the date of its receipt of the title commitment to review the state of title to such parcel and to provide the HRA with a list of written objections to such title. No objection may be made by the Developer to any defect or encumbrance on the title to the Property unless and to the extent that such defect or encumbrance would, if uncured, have the effect of precluding the construction or financing of the Improvements. Upon receipt of the Developer's written list of objections, the HRA shall proceed in good faith and with all due diligence to attempt to cure the objections and closing shall be delayed during such period of time as is reasonably necessary to cure the objections. Within ten (10) days after the date that all such objections have been cured, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Developer, the Developer shall proceed with its acquisition of the Property. — Section 3.5. Real Estate Taxes and Special Assessments; Special Assesment Reduction Program. Real estate taxes due and payable in the year of closing and — installments on special assessments payable therewith for each phase shall be pro- rated as of the date of closing. The Developer has the right to participate in the HRA's special assessment reduction program and the HRA and Developer shall execute Special Assessment Agreement in the form attached hereto as Exhibit F. ARTICLE IV Construction of Improvements and Parking Lot Section 4.1. Construction of Improvements. 'The Developer agrees that after closing on the Phase I Property it will construct the Phase I Improvements thereon, which shall consist of approximately 21,200 square feet of medical clinic, and occupational health and office space. If the Developer exercises its option and acquires the Phase II Property, it shall construct the Phase II Improvements indicated on the Project Plans on the Phase II Property. No building permit shall be issued for the Improvements unless the plans therefore are in general 6 conformity with the Project Plans, this Agreement and all local, state and federal regulations. Section 4.2. Schedule of Construction. Subject to Unavoidable Delays, construction of the Improvements on the Phase I Property shall begin no later than January 1, 1990, and be completed prior to December 31, 1990. Subject to Unavoidable Delays, and if the Developer exercises its option regarding the Phase II Property, the Developer shall begin construction of the Phase II Improvements on or before April 1,1992, and shall complete construction of the Phase II Improvements on or before April 1, 1993. Section 4.3. Certificate of Completion. Promptly after notification by the Developer of completion of construction of each phase of the Improvements, the HRA shall inspect the construction to determine whether it has been completed in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, including the date for the completion thereof. If all conditions have been satisfied, the HRA shall furnish the Developer with a Certificate of Completion in the form attached hereto as Exhibit B. Such certification by the HRA shall be a conclusive determination of satisfaction and termination of the agreements and covenants in this Agreement with respect to the obligations of the Developer to construct the respective Improvements. The certifications provided for in this Section 4.3 shall be in recordable form. If the HRA shall refuse or fail to provide certification in accordance with the provisions of this Section 4.3, the HRA shall within 15 days of such notification provide the Developer with a written statement, indicating in adequate detail in what respects the Developer has failed to complete the Improvements in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, or is otherwise in default, and what measures or acts will be necessary, in the opinion of the HRA, for the Developer to take or perform in order to obtain such certification. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Completion, no occupancy of the Improvements shall be permitted, except for such portion or portions of the building for which a certificate of occupancy has been issued. Section 4.4. Failure to Construct. In the event construction of the Improvements is not commenced and completed as provided in Section 4.2 of this Agreement, the HRA may give written notice of such failure and, subject to Unavoidable Delays, if within 90 days after the giving of such notice the Developer has not cured such failure or failures the HRA may exercise its rights under Article VII of this Agreement, including the right to revert any portion of the Property for which no Certificate of Completion has been issued in the HRA. If the Developer fails to exercise its option regarding the Phase II Property on or before December 31, 1990, the HRA shall have the right but not the obligation to proceed with the — completion of the Improvements on the Phase II Property by substituting another developer or by taking whatever actions it deems reasonably necessary to complete construction. The HRA's rights under this Section 4.4 shall be subordinate to the — rights of any mortgagee approved by the HRA. Section 4.5. Special Construction by HRA. According to the Project Plans and Parking Lot Plan, the buildings to be constructed on Lot 1 and Lot 2 shall be separated from one another by an area used to provide access from W. 78th Street to the parking lot to be constructed by the City on Outlots D and C. If the building 7 on Lot 2 is constructed, the HRA reserves the right to construct and maintain at its expense and without special assessment, a canopy covering the area between the buildings. If the HRA chooses to construct the canopy, the Developer shall grant to the HRA the necessary easements to permit the attachment of such a structure to the Improvements. Nothing herein shall obligate the HRA to construct the canopy nor prevent the Developer from constructing the canopy at its expense, following review and approval of plans by the HRA and City. Section 4.6. Future Expansion of Phase I Improvements. Subject to the availability of parking, the Developer shall have the right to construct an addition to the Phase I Improvements not to exceed 3,000 square feet in size. If the Developer chooses to construct an addition, the plans for the addition shall be submitted to the HRA and City for approval prior to commencement of construction. The addition shall comply with all city codes and be compatible with the public improvements made by the City on W. 78th Street. The compatibility of the addition shall be determined at the sole discretion of the HRA, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. The HRA shall also have the right to refuse approval of the full addition or to require that it be reduced in size if it determines that, according to the City's zoning ordinance, the number of parking spaces required for the addition plus the number of spaces required for the uses occupying the Phase I Improvements would exceed the number of parking spaces available for the Phase I Improvements according to the Parking Lot Plan. Section 4.7. Architectural and Tenancy Limitations. In the Phase I and, if _ constructed, Phase II Improvements, there shall be no unpainted aluminum on the exterior of the buildings nor may any tenant have more than one exterior wall sign, unless permitted by ordinance. In the Phase II Improvements, there shall be no public access door on the west face of the building nor on the north or south faces of the building within 20 feet of the west end of the structure. No restaurant may be located in the western one-half of the Phase II Improvements. ARTICLE V Assessment Agreement Section 5.1. Tax Increment. For five years following the issuance of a Certificate of Completion for the Phase I Improvements, the Developer agrees not to take any of the following actions: (1) seek administrative review or judicial review of the applicability of any tax statute determined by any tax official to be applicable to the Phase I Property or raise the inapplicability of any such tax statute as a defense in any proceedings, including delinquent tax proceedings; (2) seek administrative review or judicial review of the constitutionality of any tax statute determined by any tax official to be applicable to the Phase I Property or raise the unconstitutionality of any such tax statute as a defense in any proceedings, including delinquent tax proceedings; .(3) request the assessor to reduce the market value of the Phase I Property below the amount stated in the Assessment Agreement; (4) petition the board of equalization of the City or the board of equalization of Carver County to reduce the market value of the Phase I Property below the amount stated in Section 5.2 of this Agreement and in the Assessment Agreement for the Phase I Property; (5) petition the board of equalization of the state or the commissioner of revenue of the state to reduce the 8 market value of the Phase I Property below the amount stated in the Assessment Agreement for the Phase I Property; (6) initiate an action in a district court of the state or the tax court of the state pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 278, seeking a reduction in the market value of the Phase I Property below the amount — stated in the Assessment Agreement for the Phase I Property; or (7) apply to the commissioner of revenue of the state requesting an abatement of real property taxes pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 270. Section 5.2. Assessment Agreement. Prior to closing on the Phase I Property, the Developer and the HRA shall enter into an Assessment Agreement in the form attached hereto as Exhibit H. The Assessment Agreement shall provide that the minimum market value of the Phase I Improvements shall be equal to $1,450,000. ARTICLE VI — Financing Section 6.1. Limitation Upon Encumbrance of Property. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Completion, neither the Developer nor any successor in interest to the Property or any part thereof shall engage in any financing or any other transaction creating any mortgage or other encumbrance or lien upon the Property, whether by express agreement or operation of law, or — suffer any encumbrance or lien to be made on or attached to the Property other than the liens or encumbrances attached for the purposes of obtaining funds to the extent necessary for making and financing the Improvements and such additional — funds. if any, in an amount not to exceed the costs of developing the project. including land acquisition, without the prior written approval of the HRA. The HRA shall not approve any Mortgage which does not contain terms which conform to the terms of this Article VI and Section 7.2 of this Agreement. Section 6.2. Copy of Notice of Default to Lender. Whenever the HRA shall deliver any notice or demand to the Developer with respect to any breach or — default by the Developer in its obligations or covenants under this Agreement, the HRA shall at the same time forward a copy of such notice or demand to each Holder of any Mortgage authorized by the Agreement at the last address of such Holder shown in the records of the HRA. Section 6.3. Lender's Option to Cure Defaults. After any breach or default referred to in Section 7.1 of this Agreement, each such Holder, insofar as the rights of the HRA are concerned, shall have the right, at its option, to cure or remedy such breach or default, or such breach or default to the extent that it relates to the part of the Property covered by its mortgage, and to add the cost thereof to the Mortgage debt and the lien of its Mortgage; provided that if the breach or default is with respect to construction of the Improvements, nothing contained in this Section 6.3 or any other section of this Agreement shall be deemed to permit or authorize with Holder, either before or after foreclosure or — action in lieu thereof, to undertake or continue the construction of the Improvements or completion of the Development beyond the extent necessary to conserve or protect Improvements or construction already made without first having expressly assumed the obligation to the HRA, by written agreement, to 9 complete, in the manner provided in this Agreement, the Development or the part thereof to which the lien or title of such Holder relates. Any such Holder who shall promptly complete the Development or applicable part thereof shall be entitled, upon written request made to the HRA, to certification by the HRA to such effect in the manner provided in Section 4.3 of this Agreement, and any such certification shall, if so requested by such Holder, mean and provide that any remedies or rights that the HRA shall have or be entitled to because of failure of the Developer or any successor in interest to the Property, or any part thereof, to cure or remedy any default with respect to the construction of the Improvements on other parts or parcels of the Property, or because of any other default in or breach of the Agreement by the Developer or such successor, shall not apply to the part or parcel of the Property to which such certification relates. Section 6.4. Subordination. In order to facilitate obtaining financing for the construction of the Improvements by the Developer, the HRA shall agree to modify this Agreement and subordinate its interest in the manner and to the extent it deems reasonable, upon request by the financial institution and the Developer. ARTICLE VII Events of Default — Section 7.1. Events of Default Defined. The following shall be deemed Events of Default under this Agreement and the term shall mean, whenever it is _ used in this Agreement, unless the context otherwise provides, any one or more of the following events: (a) Failure by the Developer to pay when due the payments required to be paid or secured under any provision of this Agreement; (b) Failure by the Developer to observe and substantially perform any covenant, condition, obligation or agreement on its part to be observed or performed hereunder, after written notice to the Developer as provided in this Agreement; (c) If the Developer shall admit in writing its inability to pay its debts generally as they become due, or shall file a petition in bankruptcy, or shall make an assignment for the benefit of its creditors, or shall consent to the appointment of a receiver of itself or of the whole or any substantial part of the Property; (d) If the Developer shall file a petition under the federal bankruptcy laws; (e) If the Developer, on a petition in bankruptcy filed against it, be adjudicated a bankrupt, or a court of competent jurisdiction shall enter an order of decree appointing, without the consent of the Developer, a receiver of the Developer or of the whole or substantially all of its Property, or approve a petition filed against the Developer seeking reorganization or arrangement of the - Developer under the federal bankruptcy laws, and such adjudication, order or 10 decree shall not be vacated or set aside or stayed within 60 days from the date of entry thereof; or (f) If the Developer is in default under any Mortgage regarding the Property and has not entered into a work-out agreement with the Mortgagee within the period of time permitted by the Mortgagee. Section 7.2. Remedies on Default. Whenever any Event of Default occurs, the HRA may, in addition to any other remedies or rights given the HRA under this Agreement but only after the Developer's failure to cure within 30 days of written notice of default, take any one or more of the following actions with respect to any portion of the Property for which no Certificate of Completion has been issued: (a) suspend its performance under this Agreement until it receives assurances from the Developer, deemed reasonably adequate by the HRA, that the Developer will cure its default and continue its performance under this Agreement; (b) cancel or rescind this Agreement; (c) withhold the Certificate of Completion; or (d) take whatever action at law or in equity may appear necessary or desirable to the HRA to collect any payments due under this Agreement, or to enforce performance and observance of any obligation, agreement, or covenant of the Developer under this Agreement; provided, however, that any exercise by the HRA of its rights or remedies hereunder shall always be subject to and limited by, and shall not defeat, render invalid or limit in any way (a) the lien of any Mortgage authorized by this Agreement and (b) any rights or interests provided in this Agreement for the protection of the Holders of a Mortgage. If there is an Event of Default by the Developer under the Public Improvement Agreement, the HRA may suspend its performance or cancel or = rescind this Agreement. If there is an Event of Default by the City under the Public Improvement Agreement, the Developer may suspend its performance or cancel or rescind this Agreement. Section 7.3. Revesting Interest in HRA Upon Happening of Event Subsequent to Conveyance to Developer. In the event that subsequent to any closing and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Completion: (a) The Developer shall fail to complete construction of the Improvements in conformity with this Agreement, and such failure is not due to Unavoidable Delays and such failure shall not be cured within two weeks after written notice from HRA to do so; or • (b) The Developer shall, after commencement of the construction of the Improvements, default in or violate its obligations with respect to the construction of the Improvements (including the nature and the date for the completion thereof), or shall abandon or substantially suspend construction work, such act or actions is not due to Unavoidable Delays and any such default, violation, abandonment, or suspension shall not be cured, ended, or remedied within the time period provided for in this Agreement; or 11 (c) The Developer or successor in interest shall fail to pay real estate taxes or assessments on any portion of the Phase I Property or Phase II Property owned by the Developer or any part of the taxes or assessments when due, or shall place thereon any encumbrance or lien unauthorized by the Agreement, or shall — suffer any levy or attachment to be made, or any materialmen's or mechanics' lien, or any other unauthorized encumbrance or lien to attach, and such taxes or assessments shall not have been paid, or the encumbrance or lien removed or — discharged or provision satisfactory to the HRA made for such payment, removal, or discharge, within 30 days after written demand by the HRA to do so; provided, that if the Developer shall first notify the HRA of its intention to do so, it may in _ good faith contest any mechanics' or other lien filed or established and in such event the HRA shall permit such mechanics' or other lien to remain undischarged and unsatisfied during the period of such contest and any appeal, but only if the Developer provides the HRA with a bank letter of credit or other security in the — amount of the lien, in a form satisfactory to the HRA pursuant to which the bank will pay to the HRA the amount of any lien in the event the lien is finally determined to be valid or, as an alternative to such forms of security, has made a — deposit with the district court in the manner provided in Minnesota Statutes, Section 514.10. During the course of such contest the Developer shall keep the HRA informed respecting the status of such defense; or (d) There is, in violation of the Agreement, any transfer of the Property or any part thereof, and such violation shall not be cured within 60 days after written demand by the HRA to the Developer; or — (e) The Developer fails to comply with any of its covenants under this Agreement and fails to cure any such noncompliance or breach within 30 days after — written demand to do so where such demand is required by this Agreement, then the HRA shall have the right to reenter and take possession of the Property and to terminate and revest in the HRA the interest of the Developer in the Property; provided, however, that any exercise by the HRA of its rights or remedies hereunder shall always be subject to and limited by, and shall not defeat, render invalid or limit in any way the lien of any Mortgage authorized by this Agreement or any rights or interests provided in this Agreement for the protection of the — Holders of a Mortgage; and provided that following issuance of a Certificate of Completion for the Phase I Improvements the provisions of this Section 7.3 shall not apply to the Phase I Property and following issuance of a Certificate of _ Completion for the Phase II Improvements the provisions of this Section 7.3 shall not apply to any portion of the Property. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement to the contrary, violation by the Developer of any provision in Sections 4.6 and 4.7 of this Agreement shall not allow the HRA to revest the — Property in the HRA. Section 7.4. Resale of Reacquired Property; Disposition of Proceeds. Upon — the revesting in the HRA as provided in Section 7.3, the HRA shall, pursuant to its responsibilities under law, use its best efforts to resell the Property or any part thereof in such manner as the HRA shall find feasible and consistent with the objectives of law and of the Development Plan, and in such a manner as to maximize the net proceeds of the sale. Upon such resale of the Property, the proceeds shall be used first to reimburse the City and HRA for their costs and expenses incurred in the revestiture and sale, and then to satisfy any liens or — encumbrances placed on the Property in violation of this Agreement. 12 Section 7.5. No Remedy Exclusive. No remedy herein conferred upon or reserved to the HRA is intended to be exclusive of any other available remedy or remedies, but each and every such remedy shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every other remedy given under this Agreement or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity or by statute. No delay or omission to exercise any right or power accruing upon any default shall impair any such right or power or shall be construed to be a waiver thereof, but any such right and power may be exercised from time to time and as often as may be deemed expedient. In order to entitle the HRA or the Developer to exercise any remedy reserved to it, it shall not be necessary to give notice, other than such notice as may be required in this Article VII. Section 7.6. No Additional Waiver Implied by One Waiver. In the event any agreement or covenant contained in this Agreement should be breached by any party and thereafter waived by another party, such waiver shall be limited to the particular breach so waived and shall not be deemed to waive any other concurrent, previous or subsequent breach hereunder. Section 7.7 Relationship of Phases Regarding Events of Default. If a Certificate of Completion is issued by the HRA pursuant to Section 4.3 of this Agreement regarding the Phase I Improvements, no subsequent Event of Default regarding the Phase II Improvements or Phase II Property shall be deemed to be an Event of Default regarding the Phase I Improvements or Phase I Property, nor shall any subsequent Event of Default regarding the Phase I Improvements or Phase I Property be deemed an Event of Default regarding the Phase II Improvements or Phase II Property. ARTICLE VIII Additional Provisions Section 8.1. Conflict of Interest; Representatives Not Individually Liable. No member, official or employee of the HRA shall have any personal interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement, nor shall any such member, official, or employee participate in any decision relating to this Agreement which affects his or her personal interests or the interests of any corporation, partnership, or association in which he or she is, directly or indirectly, interested. No member, official, or employee of the HRA shall be personally liable to the Developer, or any successor in interest, in the event of any default or breach by the HRA or for any amount which may become due to the Developer or successor or on any obligations under the terms of the Agreement. Section 8.2. Assignment of Rights to Phase II. It is acknowledged by the parties that a new development partnership may be• formed for the purpose of undertaking the Phase II Improvements. If a new partnership is formed for such purpose, the HRA shall be notified and shall have the right to approve any general partner who is not a partner for the Phase I Improvements, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. 13 Section 8.3. Non-Discrimination. The provisions of Minnesota Statutes, — Section 181.59, which relate to civil rights and non-discrimination, shall be considered a part of this Agreement and binding on the Developer as though fully set forth herein. Section 8.4. Provisions not Merged with Deed. None of the provisions of this Agreement are intended to be or shall be merged by reason of any deed transferring any interest in the Property and any such deed shall not be deemed to — affect or impair the provisions of this Agreement. Section 8.5. Notice of Status and Conformance. At such time as all of the — provisions of this Agreement have been fully performed by the Developer, the HRA, upon not less than ten days prior written notice by the Developer, agrees to execute, acknowledge and deliver, without change to the Developer or to any person designated by the Developer, a statement in writing in recordable form certifying the extent to which this Agreement has been fully performed and the obligations hereunder fully satisfied. Section 8.6. Notices and Demands. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, a notice, demand or other communication under this Agreement by any party to another shall be sufficiently given or delivered if it is sent by mail, — postage prepaid, return receipt requested or delivered personally: (a) As to the HRA: Executive Director 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 (b) As to the Developer: Chanhassen Medical Arts — Limited Partnership c/o Thies & Talle Enterprises, Inc. 7101 York Avenue South Edina, Minnesota 55435 or at such other address with respect to either party as that party may, from time to time, designate in writing and forward to the other as provided in this Section — 8.5. Section 8.7. Counterparts. This Agreement may be simultaneously — executed in any number of counterparts, all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. • 14 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the HRA and the City have caused this Agreement to be duly executed in their name and behalf and the Developer has caused this Agreement to be duly executed as of the day and year first above written. THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MIN► - - • By --- / s Cha' rsonc By Its Execu ' e Director CHANHASSEN MEDICAL ARTS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP By Its G•c-k.4,4,t By Its CH130-014 • 15 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF (, ,u►/ ) sThe foregoing instrument was acknowledged bef a me this .'t-+D-day of d t,. w , 1989, by CW1a{ and 9 9-sv , the Chairperson and Executive Director of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, a public body politic and corporate, under the laws of the state of Minnesota, on behalf of the HRA. Ciljotarig blic — STATE OF MINNESOTA ) T; — COUNTY OF ! ,_;_ ) _ .. . _ . . / The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this .34,k day of , ' , 1989, by,Lt-s't.-� / . ,'_ �-�� td , general partners of Chanhassen Medical Arts. Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership, on behalf of the partnership. — r I ;' ` c�._ � ' '� / - Notary Public _SUiA • 1993 ...'.Y:..!r"•'VJY�'V�111 16 EXHIBIT Al The Phase I Improvements plans consist of sheets A-1 through A-8 and S-1 through S-5 prepared by Arvid Elness Architects, Inc., dated April 24, 1989, and on file with the City. .4 1 , Ilk ii l I . i I S i 1 iii ol.k J . , ill 1 - • : miff - r Il1111 i :'.. ' 1 . I iiiii . tvn . ..., • .: ... , ! 1 • y it. e L I a rt . rt , ., _ —:+.... .mow.-, � ' f I • r A. ."--111. ia M=. I ..•4 Ell E il ' :w1"A/ ..• NMI I �� r �C ja= = d . .•il -(�i _ .- 1n ;:- i OM N , ; I i I •• .......i 7,.. 1...._ or ....,. n t 1 6 1 :441lell t7 • "1 am. ii= lrpnu, ,;--, 1 u r 1 "1 ‘i li IF 41 II I _ min me ir : • 1 . III • • IMMI -14ms i. i : 1...- i•i r "• 11 =t1 :-.1M1 r_i (4=v ii•(i=") 7-.4m 111.16.241.-al S i I Iiii.-1 " ,i ..... 4, V 1 �� ...1... .... .. . : SIMI. . --•`•-- Mill.i I !Ara... iiiii.T. 1, .. ire . ,., , . 1'T 1 �.... �. .n, (0 I wt.- ■ . .: A „,....: •an "' T5If mil t Inn MN .� It) c �° i I• If 1 —.� 4P., _• NM IND 1 In 1 I � _ a ' IFS 14 ��$ . I •i l.r 4 E ...lim , 1 1 . „ . . .. • iiI • r , I )..1 • ; II • • t - i 1 .r = 1 'F . .. •• it• 7 ..... .... . f......,‘ 11..1.....111.]:. . , ,1li `' — EXHIBIT B CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION The undersigned hereby certifies that Chanhassen Medical Arts Limited Partnership has fully and completely complied with its obligations under Article IV of that document entitled "Contract for Private Development," dated between the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Chanhassen and Chanhassen Medical Arts Limited Partnership with respect to construction of the Improvements in accordance with the approved construction plans and is released and forever discharged from its obligations to construct under such above-referenced Article. DATED: By Its Executive Director By Its Chairperson EXHIBIT Cl The lege description of the Phase i Property is se follows: Cementing at the seetheast terser of the lertlhrest Carter of settles 12. Township 114, Rade tit tie mall, Vest is the Sat, line of said Settles 12, 000 feet to a point thence berth 2 reds to a pelst, bhlch 1s the plat of beglnnlag of the land to H herela described: Thanks rwlnlag Werth is the last described lime a distance of 170 fat to a plat; thence tuning a right angle and running Hest a distance of 22.1 feet tea palet; thence t»Aing a right angle and mining South a dtatauce of 70 feet to a relate the>tca tvrslag a right angle ase ales east a distance if 7 feet to a plat; thence Writing a right angle and riming Sartb a distance of 100.00 feat to a plat; thence toratM a right mole and rinsing East 11.0 fest to the point of beginning. MrmCet f � t er loctlapofrt of the12, Tomsbhatost116 Norte, RangeNeil of the theast 23 Vest of th Ste Prlscipalter of the flltr:Etat a. described as fellows: Lamest i es at the Southeast comer of said Southeast Charter of the larthrest Quarter; thous resterlg, aloes the South Else of said Sestheast Quarter of the Southwest Charter, a distaece of 171.66 feet; thence Northerly, at a right Eagle, a distance of 132.66 feet; theme wstarly et a right maple, a distase, of 166.66 fent to the pilot of begleles of the lead to be described; thefts 'Masterly, siege the astasia' of the last described no. a dlsteoce of 66.60 feet; the'ce lather:, at a right 40414. a distaste of 132.66 hot to the Sega Ilea of said Southeast httsarter of the • lerthhest Quarter; these ::aster:', aleeg said Sm l time a dlstasu of 1N.01 feet; thence *either'', at a right Nell. a distaste of 211.66 feet, theme sa$tofly, parallel villa meld seed flee, a diatoms of 211.44, feet le tee letarsectle' vitt a Ilea drum lertherty, parallel with the last lime of meld Swthast garter of th �htltarter.MehNeta f Moll theta otnap w it retfast1 - =M plat of beSUMleg. . SnbJoct to is easement for pmol it i1 -of l pommies ever the most i Southerly 33 feet %hereof. ' a _ • ,• MICA 6 Ctneesctal at a 1/4 pest on the Swth11M of Sect's' 12. Two' 111. Rafgs lit thence rmaelal rest 21 rets es said South Ilse to a pests theme birth two (2) • rens to a pest, 0 lth is the startles petit of the vlthls described piece land; theta rraaing Wit parallel with said Sect's. 1166 Si: (6) rods sad eio- vee foot to a post, thence North at right eagles with sold last aeetissel Iles Its (6) rets to a plat. thence Last parallel with first esattosed lies Si: (6) reds and slaves (11) feet to a post; Mesa South S1: (Q) rods to plan of begtastes situate la Sl 1/4 at M 1/4 of Suttee 12 TONS 116 Rade 23 aid Csatatslag 1/4 of a' Akre more of loss. ERUPT the folior►1Rg described property: .Clmoenc1IS at the smith sorter poet . of Settles Twelve (12) Township 116, Range 23; thence resoles Vest es said South line treaty (20 rets: pence North the (2) fell; Wase Vest three reds ase • Ileums feet to a plot being the place of 1as1ao--tris twice rest parallel with said Ss line lrle (3 Aot rtal ts last lino Ili (6) refs; thence (3) rods that. >� s (6) reds to place of bsgiastag--tsatatatag 1$/160 acres. Macrlpt1M free Carver Must" Recorders 'Tut Reek 117St pegs 37. KX1{>Bm' C 2 The legal description of the Phase u Property is as follows: PARCEL A PARCEL NO. 1: beginning et 1 point in the South Line of Section 12. Township 111. Range 23, 701.2 felt West of the Southeast corner of the Southwest Quarter Of said Section. thence West along said Section line 1S0 feet thence North at right angles 283 feet sere or less to a south lime of SCNOlER'S 21C A00I1ION TO CNA►uu►SSEN, according to the recorded plat thereof; thence East at right angles along the south line of Lets $ amd 7. flocs 3 of said SCHOLER'S 2110 AOOITION TO C►iAhmASSEN 144 feet. Hera or less. to the west line of Lot 1 in said Sloct 3. SCHOLER'S AADOITICeiho TONAe orS, ess. to ASLMthence nce southerly alone sail west line of let $ 243 feet. (A8STRACT ►eOPERTY) PARCEL NO. 2: The Worth $5.00 feet of the East 2.00 feet of that part of Section 12, Township 116, Range 23. Carver County, Minnesota. described as follows: beginning at a point in the South line of said Section 856.20 feet West of the Southeast corner of the Southwest Quarter of said Section; thence west along the Section line 250.00 feet; thence Worth at right angles 263.00 feet sore or less to a south lint of SCMOLER'S 2ND ADDITION TO CMA0ASSEW, according to the recorded plat thereof; thence East at right angles along the south lint of of:`ots sn3, 4,South�t fight 3 of said SCNOLER'S 2ND ADDITION 2S0.00 angles 213.00 feet to the point of beginning. (ABSTRACT PROPERTY) PARCEL N0. 3: The North 70.00 feet of the South 273.00 feet of the West 7.00 feet of the Sectiont12.1f of the Southeast Township 116. tango Quarter rtCarver Countyc�nnest sota.er of (ABSTRACT PROPERTY) PARCEL NO. 4: The meth 10.00 feet of the most westerly 7.00 feet of that part of the East Nei! of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Sectii 12, Township 110 Nesta. Range 23 West of the Sth Principal Meridiem. described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Southeast Quarter •t the Southwest Quarter; thence Westerly. aloe the South line of Ned Southeast Quarter •f the Swthwost Quarter, a distance of 170.00 feet; thence Northerly. at a right &ogle. a distance of 132.00 felt; thence Westerly at a right awgt•, a distance of 100.00 feet to a point herein after referred to as hint 'A'i thence Westerly, along the eatMsies of the last described lime. a distance of 10.30 feet; thonce Southerly at a right Smell. a distance of 132.00 feet to the South line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence Westerly, slang said South line a distance of 1S11.10 feet; thence Northerly, at a right angle. a distance of 211.00 feet, to the point of beoinni g of the land to M described; thence centisuing northerly, eleme the utensils of the last described Use, a distance of S6. feet: thence Westerly. at a right melt, a distance of 131.11 feet to the West line of said East half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence Northerly, sling said West lime, a distance of 134.64 feet t• the Southwest Greer of NION ANO PAM, according to the -*corded plat thereef; thence Easterly and Southeasterly. epode the Southerly line of said plat, to the intersection with a line draws Northerly, parallel with the net line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, from the shove referenced Point 'A'; thence Southerly along said Parallel line, a distance •f 107.31 feet, to the latersectlen with a lime drown sisterly from the point of beginning and parallel Frith the south line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, thence westerly, along said parallel line. a distance of 211.44 feet to the point if beginning. PARCEL N0. S: tot Eight (S). Stock Three (3), Stheler's Second Addltlee of Chanhassen, according to the nep or plat thereof M file er of record le the office of the Registrar of Title, in aid for Carver Comity. Ciernerota. (101106 POOPER T 1-COT. 110. 5421) PAACv1 1 That part of the East One-Malt of the Southeast Quarter of the SentN nest Quarter of Section 12, Township 114 North. Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian described as fellers: Commencing at the southeast corner of said East Ona-Nelf of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence on an assumed baring North U degrees 04 minutes 20 seconds West, along the south line of said East One-Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 554.00 feet; thence North 1 degree S3 minutes 40 seconds East a distance of 203.00 feet. to the polst of beginning of the lapd to be described; thence North 1 degree S3 minutes a0 seconds East a distance of 15.00 feet; thence North 44 degrees 04 minutes 20 seconds West a distance of 121.72 feet. to the east line of the wast 7.00 feet of said East One-Malt of the Southeast Quarter of tate . Southwest Quarter; thence South 1 degrees S4 simstes s 1 seconds East, along said east line, a distance of 15.00 feet, to the lntersect1N with a line bearing North M dieretS 04 minutes 20 seconds rest free the point of beginning; thence South Y degrees 04 mlsutes 20 seconds East a distance of 121.44 feet to the pout 1f begiMing. EXHIBIT C2-2 . � f PARCEL C That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Seutl est Quarter of Section 12. Township 116, Range 23, described as follows: Commencing at a point M the South line of said Dectie 12, 673.1 feet Most of the South Quarter corner of Section 12; thence North 133.0 foot to the actual point of bogineing; thence East parallel with the South line of Section 12, 100.0 felt; thence North at - right eagles 70.0 feet; thence Vest parallel mith the South line of Section 12, 100.1 feet; thence South at rit angles, 71.0 feet to the point of beginning. Containing 0.11 acre, erre or loss. Description from Carver County Recorder's Office; Oscument No. 7747$. PARCEL 0 That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 12, Township 116. Range 23, described as follows: Commmencing at point on the South lino of said Section 12, 673.1 feet West of the South Quarter corner of Section 12; thence North 33 feet to the actual point of beginning; thence East parallel with the South tine of Section 12, 107.00 Rest; thence North at right angles 100 foot; thence West parallel with the South line of Section 12, 107.00 feet; thence South to the point of beginning. Description from Carver County Recorder's Office; Document No. 11641. PARCEL N That part of the East Waif of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 12. Township 116 North. Range 23 rest of the Ste Principal Meridian, Carver County. Minnesota. described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, thence westerly, along the South tine of said Southwest Quarter a distance of 110.00 feet to a point. said point being the point of beginning of the tract of land to be described; thence Northerly, at a right angle. a distance of 273.00 feet; thence westerly, at a right angle. a distance of 131.11 feet, more or less. to the west line of said East Waif of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence Southerly along the west line of said East Wolf of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter to the South line of said Southwest Quarter; thence East aloes said South line td the point of beginning. EXCEPTING T1sEREF1011 the following: EXHIBIT C2-3 0 U,..'a...•.en.rw• 1 — w'""""' EXHIBIT D No delinquent taxes and transfer entered;Certificate of Real Estate Value ( )filed ( )not required . C,atificata of Real Estate Value No. .11 County Auditor b7 Deputy ISTATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON: $ ;09,55 i , i Date: 1989 (r•serTsd for recording data) FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND Ft'a THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA, a public body corDarate and =lit Wnder the laws of Minnesota ,Grantor,hereby conveys and Quitclaims to CHANHASSEN MEDICAL ARTS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP Grantee. a limited oartnership under the laws of Minnesota ,real property in - Carver County,Minnesota,described as follows: See Exhibit A attached hereto Id wars spews A Arab.es wrists se test) , . together with all hereditaments and appurtenances belong thereto. i THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORII MAND FOR THE CTTY OF CHANHASSEN. INNESOTA Affix Deeti Tax Stamp Here By Its ' Its STATE OF MINNESOTA i I w COUNTY OF The foregoing was acknowledged before fns this day of .1989 , b9 sod the essd of THE HOUSING AN1 ' XBRFDEVFLOPMFNT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA, a public body rorpprate and _poli is under the laws gf Minnesota. on behalf of , X�aRIA1 KAMP OR wt MIL oaTsi?ITU 01-i-A—AID the public body. 110XATV%x or F11iO1‘?Aaale aeaaowljDos Y Tee MN w SWM�1 wad=oaf��k this r�f�W� TY ITL1lX 11L7 WAS DtAFTSD MA=eT AMA=AXD ADDtLY— I p - .— ' Dorsey & Whitney (JSC) 2200 First Bank Place East Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 w - �� www 1 1 ........._ _r{.. : ...4. __, ._ I a �. - - �I - r ,' �` : 1• 1t. ':' / 4- . E I. 1 iiri I d ...- .. 11 1 • � - • 1: • a • 1 itfr ;I I : . cfpii— � ili 1� • / .=. r J .1:.1 ,i: / •••. alr . � � i.• ; • II 4.: l liti- I .. ` + 1 Ilii iii — • � , i °I n' I • • IF-II : 11 . , • fir-' • I .- 1. • 1 •=• i -• . . . i�, rt1 , [•,'.•: --• = ;r .r-. ; i • .ii. . i 7 .I •• n , :. _. k ., I — I. t _ NI I .• 1 . - — ml mei /i r '; - 'r' i • ir..1 -: • . a ft !,i_.� ' II ' _ .Ti1It .fr. Iii 0 / i _ 1 I sia•p .• . i..! ... .j. at I• . - I' 01 ' !I - i :; i, ....„...„,, f i ...?„: r' 1 r I. • F__._ , , , . ,-.T.4 .i!:.4 i t / e !j- . ' 1 • ' i I pct i ' . • - • • • ',i .Maui= , ' 1 / . :I . : ! .. I . . • •k , ,, i • ._ ,,, : , . • - EXHIBIT F ASSESSMENT PAYMENT AGREEMENT CHANHASSEN HRA SPECIAL ASSESSMENT REDUCTION PROGRAM THIS AGREEMENT, made on or as of the day of , 1989, by and between The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Chanhassen, a public body corporate and politic (the "HRA"), and Chanhassen Medical Arts Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership (the "Redeveloper"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the HRA was created pursuant to the Housing and Redevelopment Authorities Act, Minn. Stat. Sections 469.001 through 469.047 (the "Act"), and was authorized to transact business and exercise its powers by a resolution of the City Council of the City of Chanhassen (the "City"); and WHEREAS, in furtherance of the objectives of the Act, the HRA has undertaken a program for the clearance and reconstruction or rehabilitation of blighted, deteriorated, deteriorating, vacant, unused, underused, or inappropriately used areas of the City, and in this connection is engaged in carrying out a redevelopment project known as the Chanhassen Downtown Redevelopment Project (the "Project"), in an area (the "Project Area"), located in the City; and WHEREAS, as of the date of this Agreement there has been prepared and approved by the HRA and the City a redevelopment plan (the "Redevelopment Plan") for the Project; and WHEREAS, the Project Area has been established by the HRA and certified by Carver county as a tax increment financing district pursuant to the Tax Increment Financing Act, Minn. Stat. Sections 469.174 through 469.179 (the "TIF Act"); and WHEREAS, the major objectives of the Redevelopment Plan are to acquire for rehabilitation economically or functionally obsolete or underutilized buildings and land; provide a redevelopment site of a character that will encourage future development of the area and improve sources of public revenue; eliminate blighting influences which impede potential development within the aforementioned redevelopment project; provide maximum opportunity for redevelopment by private enterprise, consistent with the needs of the City as a whole; and encourage private rehabilitation of structures within the redevelopment project; and WHEREAS, in order to achieve the objectives of the Redevelopment Plan and particularly to make the land in the Project Area available for redevelopment by private enterprise for and in accordance with the uses specified in the Redevelopment Plan, the HRA has determined to provide substantial aid and assistance to the Project; and WHEREAS, the HRA believes that the redevelopment of a portion of the Project Area pursuant to this Agreement is in the vital and best interests of the City and the health, safety, morals, and welfare of its residents, and in accordance with the public purposes and provisions of the applicable state and local laws and requirements under which the Project has been undertaken and is being assisted; and WHEREAS, the HRA has concluded agreements for the redevelopment of the various properties within the Project, including an agreement with the Redeveloper for redevelopment of the Property (the "Contract for Private Development); and WHEREAS, said agreements provide recourse for the HRA should such redevelopment not be completed; and 2 WHEREAS, Section 469.177, subd. 8 of the TIF Act empowers the HRA to enter into written assessment agreements with redevelopers of properties within the Project Area; and WHEREAS, the Redeveloper will construct certain improvements upon the Property in accordance with the Contract for Private Development; and WHEREAS, the HRA and the Redeveloper have pursuant to the Contract for Private Development established a minimum market value for the Property and the Improvements to be constructed thereon pursuant to Section 469.177, subd. 8 of the TIF Act; and WHEREAS, the HRA and the Carver county assessor have reviewed the Construction Plans for the Improvements; and WHEREAS, the Assessor, acting pursuant to Section 469.177, subd. 8, of the TIP Act, has executed a Certification By Assessor as to the Property and the Improvements to be constructed thereon. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual obligations of the parties hereto, each of them does hereby covenant and agree with the other as follows: ARTICLE I. DEFINITIONS. Section 1.1 Definitions. In this Agreement, the following shall have the meanings given unless a different meaning clearly appears from the contert: "Act" means the Housing and Redevelopment Authorities Act, Minnesota Statutes Sections 469.001 through 469.047. "HRA" means the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Chanhassen. "Agreement" means this Agreement, as the same may be from time to time modified, amended, or supplemented. 3 "Assessment Agreement" means the agreement among the Redeveloper, the HRA and the Carver county assessor relating to the minimum market value of the Property and the Improvements. "Assessment Reduction Payments" means payments made by the HRA to either the City or to the county auditor, as a credit against eligible assessments, pursuant to Article III of this Agreement. "Certification By Assessor" means the assessor's certification pursuant to Section 469.177, subd. 8 of the TIF Act, and Section 3.3 of this Agreement that he or she has reviewed the Construction Plans for the Improvements and the Market Value previously assigned to the Property, and that upon completion of said Improvements the market value assigned to the Property shall not be less than a specified dollar amount stated therein, and that the Market Value of the Property as of the date of execution of such certification is a specified dollar amount stated therein. "City" means the City of Chanhassen. "Construction Plans" means project plans as defined in the Contract for Private Development between the HRA and the Redeveloper. — "County" means the County of Carver. "Date of Execution" means the date on which the Redeveloper signs this Agreement or the date on which the HRA signs this Agreement, whichever is later. "Eligible Assessments" means those special assessments pending, levied, or otherwise for Chanhassen public improvement projects 86-11 and 87-17. "Event of Default" means an action by the Redeveloper listed in Article IV of this Agreement. "Improvements" means the building to be constructed by the Redeveloper on the Property and defined in the Contract for Private Development. "Market Value" or "Market Valuation" means the estimated fair market value of the Property as determined by the assessor in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Section 273.11, or as finally adjusted by any assessor, board of equalization, commissioner of revenue, or any court. "Minimum Market Value" means Market Value established pursuant to the Assessment Agreement. "Plan" means the Chanhassen Downtown Redevelopment Plan as most recently amended. "Project" means the Chanhassen Downtown Redevelopment Project as described in the "Chanhassen Downtown Redevelopment Plan. "Project Area" means the real property located within the boundaries of the entire redevelopment district as described in the Chanhassen Downtown Redevelopment Plan, as most recently amended. 4 "Property" means the real property which is more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof. "Real Estate Taxes" means ad valorem taxes on real property pursuant to Chapter 273 of Minnesota Statutes and not including any special assessments levied pursuant to Chapter 429 of Minnesota Statutes. "Redeveloper" means Chanhassen Medical Arts Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership consisting of Thies & Talle Enterprises, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, Robert R. Copeland and Raymond O. Mithum, Jr., as general partners, or its successors and assigns. "State" means the State of Minnesota. "Substantial Completion" means sufficiently complete, in accordance with the Construction Plans for the Improvements, so that the Redeveloper (or its successors and assigns) may occupy the work for the use for which the Improvements are intended. If the Improvements are to be occupied by one or more tenants rather than the Redeveloper and no leases have been entered into with any tenants that would serve as the basis for constructing and installing interior improvements in the Improvements, then "Substantial Completion" shall mean that the structure, common building systems and utilities are substantially complete so that a Certificate of Occupancy may be obtained by Redeveloper upon completion of the construction and installation of normal and customary interior improvements for the benefit of tenants occupying space in the Improvements. "Tax Capacity" means the value of real property as determined by the _ assessor in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Section 273.13 (or as finally adjusted by any assessor, board of equalization, commissioner of revenue, or any court) against which the real property tax is imposed. "Tax Official" means any City or county assessor, county auditor, City, county, or state board of equalization, the commissioner of revenue of the state, or any state or federal district court, the tax court of the State, or the state supreme court. "TIF Act" means the Tax Increment Financing Act, Minnesota Statutes Sections 469.174 through 469.179. ARTICLE II. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES. Section 2.1 Representation by the HRA. The HRA makes the following representations as the basis for the undertaking on its part herein contained: (a) The HRA is a housing and redevelopment authority duly organized and existing pursuant to the Act. • (b) The Project is a "redevelopment project" within the meaning of the Act and was created, adopted and approved in accordance with the terms of the Act. 5 (c) The Project is a tax increment district created and approved pursuant to the TIF Act. (d) The activities of the HRA are undertaken for the purpose of removing, preventing or reducing blight, blighting factors, or the causes of blight, and for the purposes of eliminating or preventing the development or spread of deteriorated or deteriorating areas. Section 2.2 Representation and Warranties by the Redeveloper. The Redeveloper represents and warrants that: (a) The Redeveloper is a limited partnership duly organized and in good standing under the laws of the state of Minnesota, is not in violation of any provisions of its partnership agreement, has power to enter into this Agreement and has duly authorized the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement by proper action. (b) The Redeveloper will construct the Improvements in accordance with the terms of the Contract for Private Development, the Plan and all local, state and federal laws and regulations, as such laws and regulations are enacted and enforced during the period the Improvements are being constructed, and substantially in accordance with the Construction Plans which have been approved by the HRA. (c) The Improvements constitute a permitted use under the zoning ordinance of the City. (d) That at such time or times as may be required by law, the Redeveloper will have complied with all known applicable local, state and federal environmental laws and regulations, will have obtained any and all known applicable environmental reviews, licenses or clearances as to the Property, and that Redeveloper has, at the date hereof, received no notice or communication from any local, state or federal official that the activities of the Redeveloper are in violation of the law or regulation. The Redeveloper is aware of no facts, the existence of which could cause it to be in violation of any local, state or federal environmental law, regulation or review procedure or which would give any person a valid claim under state environmental rights statutes. (e) The Redeveloper will use all reasonable efforts to construct the Improvements in accordance with all existing local, state or federal energy- conservation laws or regulations. The Improvements shall be completed on or before December 31, 1990. (f) The Redeveloper will seek to obtain, in a timely manner, all required permits, licenses and approvals, and will seek to meet, in a timely manner, all requirements of all local, state and federal laws and regulations which must be obtained or met before the Improvements may be lawfully constructed. 6 (g) The real estate taxes and any installments of special assessments levied against the Redevelopment Property are not in default and future real estate taxes will be paid when due. ARTICLE III. ASSESSMENT REDUCTION PAYMENTS. Section 3.1 Obligation of HRA to Make Assessment Reduction Payments. Upon completion of the Improvements by the Redeveloper, the HRA, from the tax increment generated by the Project, shall make payments in the manner and in the amount provided hereinafter in reduction of the Eligible Assessments which have been or will be imposed on the Property. The HRA, at its option, may satisfy its obligations to make assessment reduction payments under this Agreement by either making one lump sum payment or by making a series of semi-annual payments as individual installments of Eligible Assessments become due and owing to the City. In the event that the HRA elects to make said assessment reduction payments in the form of a series of semi-annual payments as individual installments of Eligible Assessments become due and owing to the City, the HRA shall also pay the interest imposed thereon by the City, but only that portion of such interest which is attributable to that portion of any such installment which the HRA is obligated to pay under this Agreement. Any such payments of interest shall not be a credit against the amount of any assessment reduction payment which the HRA is obligated to make under this Agreement. In the case of Eligible Assessments which have then already been certified to the county auditor for collection with real estate taxes, said assessment reduction payments, together with any interest which the HRA is obligated to pay under this Section 3.1, shall be made directly to the auditor in full or partial satisfaction, as the case may be, of said Eligible Assessments. In the case of Eligible Assessments which have not then been certified to the county auditor for collection with real estate taxes, said assessment reduction payments, together with any interest which the HRA is obligated to pay under this Section 3.1, shall be made to the City treasurer in full or partial satisfaction, as the case may be, of said Eligible Assessments. In the case of Eligible Assessments which have been paid by the Redeveloper subsequent to the date of execution of this Agreement, said assessment reduction payments, together with any interest which the HRA is obligated to pay under this Section 3.1, shall be made directly to the Redeveloper or its designated successors and assigns. Section 3.2 Amount of Assessment Reduction Payment. The amount of any assessment reduction payment made pursuant to this Agreement shall not exceed $250,000 dollars and shall be computed as the lesser of the following amounts: (a) the sum of the unpaid principal balance of the Eligible Assessments imposed on the Property, together with accrued interest thereon; or 7 (b) the amount equalling three full years of captured increment based upon full valuation as a completed structure generated as a result of the issuance of a building permit which can rationally be shown as the impetus which generated the captured increment. Captured increment shall only apply to the parcel which generated such increment, except, if for assessment purposes, the county assessor has treated the complex overlaying a group of parcels as a single unit. In such cases, the captured value for the complex as a whole may be applied to, and only to, the parcels overlayed in the complex. Section 3.3 Construction and Value of Minimum Improvements. The Redeveloper agrees to construct or cause to be constructed upon the Property the Improvements described in the attached Exhibit "B", in accordance with the Contract for Private Development. ARTICLE IV. EVENTS OF DEFAULT. Section 4.1. Events of Default Defined. The following shall be Events of Default under this Agreement and the term Event of Default shall mean, whenever it is used in this Agreement (unless the context otherwise provides), any one or more of the following events (and the term "default" shall mean any event which would with the passage of time or giving of notice, or both, be an Event of Default hereunder): (a) Failure of Redeveloper to pay when due any real estate taxes on the Property. (b) Failure of the Redeveloper to complete the Improvements on or before the date stated in the Contract for Private Development. (c) Failure by the Redeveloper to observe and perform any covenant, condition, or obligation on its part to be observed or performed hereunder, within thirty (30) days after written notice to the Redeveloper specifying such failure and requesting that it be remedied (or with such other period as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement); or if the failure is by its nature incurable within such thirty (30) days, failure by the Redeveloper to furnish to the HRA satisfactory assurances that the Redeveloper can and will cure such failure or failures within a reasonable time. (d) If the Redeveloper shall admit in writing its inability to pay its debts generally as they become due, or shall file a petition in bankruptcy or shall make an assignment for the benefit of its creditors, or shall consent to the appointment of a receiver of itself or of the whole or any substantial part of the Redevelopment Property. (e) If the Redevelopment shall file a petition or answer seeking reorganization or arrangement under the federal bankruptcy laws. 8 (f) If the Redeveloper, on a petition in bankruptcy filed against it, be adjudicated a bankrupt, or a court of competent jurisdiction shall enter an order or decree appointing, without the consent of the Redeveloper, a receiver of the Redeveloper or of the whole or substantially all of its property, or approve a petition filed against the Redeveloper seeking reorganization or arrangement of the Redeveloper under the federal bankruptcy laws, and such adjudication, order or decree shall not be vacated or set aside or stayed within sixth (60) days from the date of entry thereof. Section 4.2 Remedies on Default. Whenever any Event of Default referred to in Section 4.1 of this Agreement occurs, the HRA may make any one or more of the following actions: (a) Cancel and rescind this Agreement; (b) Cancel any pending Assessment Reduction Payments due under the terms of this Agreement, causing a forfeiture of such payments in favor of the HRA; or (c) Take whatever action at law or in equity may appear necessary or desirable to the HRA to collect from the Redeveloper full reimbursement for any Assessment Reduction Payments previously made pursuant to this Agree ment. Notwithstanding the prior provisions of this Section 4.2, it is agreed that the HRA shall not be entitled to withhold a Certificate of Occupancy in the event that _ the HRA elects to cancel and rescind this Agreement under clause (a), or Redeveloper reimburses the HRA for any Assessment Reduction Payments made by the HRA prior to the occurrence of such Event of Default, together with any reasonable expenses incurred by the HRA in enforcing the provisions of this Agreement, or Redeveloper cures any Event of Default to the satisfaction of the HRA and the parties are restored to their former positions under the provisions of this Agreement. Section 4.3 No Remedy Exclusive. No remedy herein conferred upon or reserved to the HRA is intended to be exclusive of any other available remedy or remedies, but each and every such remedy shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every other remedy given under this Agreement or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity or by - statutes. No delay or omission to exercise any right or power accruing upon any default shall impair any such right or power or shall be construed to be a waiver thereof, but any such right and power may be exercised from time to time and as often as may be deemed expedient. In order to entitle the HRA to exercise any remedy reserved to it, it shall not be necessary to give notice. Section 4.4 No Additional Waiver Implied by One Waiver. In the event any agreement contained in this Agreement should be breached by either party and thereafter waived by the other party, such waiver shall be limited to the particular breach so waived and shall not be deemed to waive any other concurrent, previous or subsequent breach hereunder. 9 ARTICLE V. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS. Section 5.1 Conflict of Interest; HRA Representatives Not Individually Liable. No member, official or employee of the HRA shall have any personal interest, direct or indirect, in the Agreement, nor shall any such member, official, or employee participate in any decision relating to this Agreement which affects his personal interests or the interests of any corporation, partnership, or association in which he or she is directly or indirectly interested. No member, official, or employee of the HRA shall be personally liable to the Redeveloper or any successor in interest, in the event of any default or breach by the HRA or for any Assessment Reduction Payment which may become due under the terms of this Agreement. Section 5.2 Duty of HRA to Act Reasonably. Wherever this Agreement requires the HRA to approve any action of the Redeveloper, it is understood and agreed that the HRA will not unreasonably withhold or delay such approval. Section 5.3 Titles of Articles and Sections Any titles of the several parts, articles, and sections of this Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference only and shall be disregarded in construing or interpreting any of its provisions. Section 5.4 Notices and Demands. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, a notice, demand, or other communication under this Agreement by either party to the other shall be sufficiently given or delivered if it is dispatched by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or delivered personally and (a) as to the HRA Executive Director 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 (b) as to the Redeveloper Chanhassen Medical Arts Limited Partnership c/o Thies & Talle Enterprises, Inc. 7101 York Ave., S. Edina, MN 55437 or at such other address with respect to either such party as that party may, from time to time, designate in writing and forward to the other as provided in this section. Section 5.5 Counterparts. This Agreement is executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. 10 Section 5.6 Covenants Running With Land. The recording or filing of this Agreement with the county recorder or county registrar of titles shall constitute notice of this Agreement to any subsequent purchaser or encumbrancer of the Property, or any part thereof, whether voluntary or involuntary, and shall be binding upon them. The Redeveloper agrees to supply the applicable owner's duplicate certificate of title, if any, so as to permit the recording of a copy of this Agreement in the office of the Carver county recorder. It is intended and agreed that the covenants and agreements set forth in Section 3.3 of this Agreement shall be covenants running with the land and that they shall, in any event, and without regard to technical classification or designation, legal or otherwise, be binding to the fullest extent permitted by law and equity, for the benefit and in favor of, and enforceable by the HRA, its successors and assigns. In the event that any transferee or assignee of the Redeveloper (including without limitation any mortgagee taking possession of or title to the Property as a result of any default in the terms of any mortgage to which the Property is now subject or may be subject in the future) breaches any one of the covenants and agreements set forth in said Section 3.3, the HRA may treat such breach as an Event of Default as provided in Article IV of this Agreement and may exercise any one or more of the remedies set forth in Section 4.2 of this Agreement. Section 5.7 Limitation of Liability. The Redeveloper and its successors in fee title ownership of the Property shall be responsible for performing and observing the covenants and agreements set forth in this Agreement only during the time that the Redeveloper or a successor is _ the fee title owner of the Property. In the event fee title to the Property is conveyed to a successor in interest, the grantee shall be automatically responsible for performing and observing the covenants and agreements herein contained and then the grantor shall be automatically freed and relieved from and after the date of such conveyance of all obligation and liability in connection with the performance and observance of such covenants and agreements. — Section 5.8 Discharge from Land Records. The HRA agrees promptly upon request by Redeveloper or its successors and assigns, after the expiration or termination of this Agreement and the satisfaction of the covenants and agreements contained herein required to be performed by Redeveloper, to execute a termination agreement or other similar document in recordable form that shall serve to release and discharge the provisions of the Agreement as a lien or encumbrance of the Property from the records of the office of the county recorder or registrar of titles of Carver county, Minnesota. 11 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the HRA has caused this Agreement to be duly executed in its name and behalf and its seal to be hereunto duly affixed, and the Redeveloper has caused this Agreement to be duly executed in its name and behalf and its corporate seal to be hereunto duly affixed, on or as of the date first above written. THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN By: Clifford Whitehill, Chairman By: Don Ashworth, Executive Director CHANHASSEN MEDICAL ARTS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP By: Its By: Its 12 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 198_, by Clifford Whitehill, Chairman, and by Don Ashworth, Executive Director of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF — The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 19 , by the of Thies be Talle Enterprises, Inc., general partner of Chanhassen Medical Arts Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership, on behalf of the partnership. Notary Public CH130-014 13 EXHIBIT G The plat is the prellminary plat of Medical Arts Addition prepared by SEW and most recently revised on September 8, 1989. EMHBIT H ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT AND CERTIFICATION OF ASSESSOR THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of 1989, by and between the HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA, a Minnesota public body corporate and politic (HRA) and CHANHASSEN MEDICAL ARTS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Minnesota limited partnership (Developer); WITNESSETH; WHEREAS, the parties have entered into a Contract for Private Development (Development Contract), dated , 1989, regarding the Development of certain real property located in the City of Chanhassen, legally described in Exhibit A hereto; and WHEREAS, it is contemplated that pursuant to said Development Contract the Developer will construct certain Improvements as described in such Development Contract; and WHEREAS, the HRA and the Developer desire to establish minimum market values for the Improvements to be constructed thereon, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 469.177, Subdivision 8, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, the HRA and the Carver County Assessor for the City of Chanhassen have reviewed the preliminary plans and specifications for the Improvements which it is contemplated will be erected. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties do hereby agree as follows: 1. On January 2, 1991, and thereafter during the entire term of this Agreement, the minimum market value which shall be assessed for the land described in Exhibit A and the Improvements constructed thereon shall be $1,450,000. 2. Nothing in this Agreement shall limit the discretion of the County Assessor or any other public official or body having the duty to determine the market value of the Property for ad valorem tax purposes, to assign to the land described in Exhibit A and the Improvements to be built thereon, market value in excess of the minimum market value specified in this Agreement. 3. Neither the preambles nor the provisions of this Agreement are intended nor shall they be construed as modifying the terms of the Development Contract. 4. This Agreement shall remain in effect and inure to the benefit and be binding upon the successors and assigns of the parties until December 31, 1996. 5. As provided in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subdivision 8, nothing contained herein shall be deemed to limit the right of the Developer to challenge that part of any valuation on the market value which is in excess of the stipulated minimum market value contained in this Agreement. HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA By Its Executive Director By Its Chairperson CHANHASSEN MEDICAL ARTS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP By Its By Its CH130-014 2 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) $s COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1989, by and , the Chairperson and Executive Director of The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Chanhassen, a public body politic and corporate, under the laws of the state of Minnesota, on behalf of the HRA. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1989, by and , general partners of Chanhassen Medical Arts Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership, on behalf of the partnership. Notary Public 3 CERTIFICATION BY ASSESSOR The undersigned assessor, being legally responsible for the assessment of the above-described property upon completion of the improvements to be constructed thereon, hereby certifies that the market value assigned to the land and improvements upon completion shall not be less than $1,450,000. Assessor Carver County, Minnesota STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1989, by , the Assessor for Carver County, Minnesota. Notary Public EXHIBIT A to Assessment Agreement PROPERTY DESCRIPTION FARCE. Ceacesencing at the Southeast terser of the Southwest Quarter of Section 12. ToonShMP 111, Ranee 231 thenCe running wit se the South line of said . Section 12, 110 feet to a point thence North 2 rows to a point, which is the pint of beginning of the land to he hereto described: Thence running north en the last described line a distance of 170 feet to a point; thence turning a right angle and running West a distance of 23.1 feet to a Plot; thence tuning a right angle and running South a distance of 70 foot to a point; thence turning a right angle and running east a distance of 7 feet to a plat; thence turain0 a right angle and rinsing South a distance of 100.00 feet to a pint; thence turning a right angle and running East 11.1 feet to the point of beginning. That Querte Stiectionrt of the 12. Towrnshipll 61f of the MrtA Rangelheast 23 Wstwoflthe gee rrincI alr of the to rl lea, at described as follows: Ceeeeenc10I at the Southeast corder of said Seethesst Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence Westerly. along the Seeth line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 176.66 feet; thence Northerly, at a right angle, a distance of 131.61 feet: thence Westerly at a right eagle, a fistula of 100.60 feet to the paint of beglanleg of the land to be described; thence Westerly, along the satesetee of the lest described Ilse. a distance of 66.10 feet; thence Southerly at a right angle. a distame of 172.66 fret to the South 1144 of said Seethoast Quarter of the • Southeast Quarter; theme Westerly, along said Sesta lino a distance of 110.61 feet; tenants lerthherll, at a right mei,. a Eistascs of 216.06 feet. theca easterly, parallel with Mid south 1104. a distance of 216.44. feet he 665 istersectles with a limo dram Verteerly, parallel eith the Last line f Aw Soet east tarter tar rof the n etrt . freetoitof �le- - flM; theses Sethe ! aloes said /isdistanceofnO2 feet to Use helot of begtasive. • Subject to en easement for public-tight-rf.ve7 prroesss ewer the west Southe'riy 33 feet thereof. • PARCEL 6 Camenctng eta 1/4 pest M the Seuthllns of Settles 12. Torn 116. lenge 23; thence remoteg West 20 roes es Mid South flee to a post; thence Mortis two (2) . reds to a pest. ws+lch is the startleg point of the Within described place of. land; thence running Hest parallel vita said Seat/es 1166 Sia (6) reds sad ole- ves feet to a pest, thence North at right angles with 1514 lest erntisrned flee Sia (a) reds to a Mint. thence East parallel With first motioned 11oe Ste (6) reds and eleven (11) feet to a post; theme Smyth Sit (0) reds to place of hegieelag situate la St 1/4 >f SV 1/4 of fatten 12 Twin 111 Range 23 eon Containing 1/1 of as Acro stere of less. l EXCEPT the fellevieg described erepertl: •Cewencing at the south warter pest . of Victims Twelve (12) TernshiP 110. Range 23; thence risnsing Hest ee said South line Met' (211 rads; thence Porth M (2) rods!; thence West three reds and 'levee feet to a point being the place of inning--frmy thence West parallel vixen rSmith line ed thence Eastethree(3);rods t�rehat Southlale t (6)fes Msetolast pled of Six (0) beginaleg--cesUiaiel 11/100 acres. hescriptise from Carver County tecerdsrs Offlce; leo! 111= Page 11. EXHIBIT B to Assessment Agreement MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTION 469. 177, SUBDIVISION 8 Subd. 8. Assessment agreements. An authority may, upon entering into a development or redevelopment agreement pursuant to section 469. 176, subdivision 5, enter into a written assessment agreement in recordable form with the developer or redeveloper of property within the tax increment financing district which establishes a minimum market value of the land and completed improvements to be constructed thereon until a specified termination date, which date shall be not later than the date upon which tax increment will no longer be remitted to the authority pursuant to section 469. 176, subdivision 1. The assessment agreement shall be presented to the county assessor, or city assessor having the powers of the county assessor, of the jurisdiction in which the tax increment financing district is located. The assessor shall review the plans and specifications for the improvements to be constructed, review the market value previously assigned to the land upon which the improvements are to be constructed and, so long as the minimum market value contained in the assessment agreement appears, in the judgment of the assessor, to be a reasonable estimate, shall execute the following certification upon the agreement: The undersigned assessor, being legally responsible for the assessment of the above described property upon completion of the improvements to be constructed thereon, hereby certifies that the market value assigned to the land and improvements upon completion shall not be less than $ Upon transfer of title of the land to be developed or redeveloped from the authority to the developer or redeveloper, the assessment agreement, together with a copy of this subdivision, shall be filed for record and recorded in the office of the county recorder or filed in the office of the registrar of titles of the county where the real estate or any part thereof is situated. Upon completion of the improvements by the developer or redeveloper, the assessor shall value the property pursuant to section 273. 11. except that the market value assigned thereto shall not be less than the minimum market value contained in the assessment agreement. Nothing herein shall limit the discretion of the assessor to assign a market value to the property in excess of the minimum market value contained in the assessment agreement nor prohibit the developer or redeveloper from seeking. through the exercise of administrative and legal remedies, a reduction in market value for property tax purposes; provided, however, that the developer or redeveloper shall not seek, nor shall the city assessor, the county assessor, the county auditor. any board of review. any board of equalization. the commissioner of revenue, or any court of this state grant a reduction of the market value below the ■inimu■ market value contained in the assessment agreement during the term of the agreement filed of record regardless of actual market values which may result from incomplete construction of improvements, destruction, or diminution by any cause, insured or uninsured, except in the case of acquisition or reacquisition of the property by • public entity. Recording or filing of an assess.ent agreement complying with the terms of this subdivision shall constitute notice of the agreement to any subsequent purchaser or encumbrances of the land or any part thereof, whether voluntary or involuntary, and shall be binding upon thea. EXHIBIT I Reference is made to that certain Declaration of Easements , Covenants and Restrictions dated October 3 , 1989, executed by the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota and the Housing and - Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, and filed and recorded on , 1989 as Document Nos . (Torrens ) and (Abstract ) . Minnegasco A Division of Arkla,Inc. August 14, 1992 RECE1V::F' AL _ ' 19.92 CITY Ms. Sharmin Al-Jaff Planner I City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Re: 88-17 Site Plan Review Phase 11, Chanhassen Retail/Office Center West 78th Street Dear Ms. Al-Jaff: Enclosed are the prints for this project. Also enclosed are prints of portions our section maps showing our gas mains in the area shown. Individual services are also shown. Natural gas service is available to this property from the main shown subject to the rules and regulations in force at the time of application. No addition gas main installations are anticipated at this time. Minnegasco has no objections to this proposal. Should you have any questions please contact me or the Sales Department. Sincerely, (41 Richard J. Pilon, P.E. Senior Administration Engineer Engineering Services 612-342-5426 pc: Mary Palkovich Al Swintek 700 West Linden Avenue P.O. Box 1165 Minneapolis.M\55440 IV/1161173 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ; 'I _11_ • _! PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING sr 1 Wednesday, September 2, 1992 W 2 •' -0 ; ', 7:30 P.M. cuL, riTEET City Hall Council Chambers - GH�� ,, �,� 690 Coulter Drive " ' � T"' ' Prirtiklb Project: Chanhassen Professional Mal p �j%' Building - Phase II "L: __- .ir � - Developer: Copeland-Mithun, Inc. \ s•�,�s. -a.. Location: 480 West 78th Street , � • ,! µW0 AKE " .• � _ Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The developer is proposing Phase II, a 10,600 square foot addition to the Chanhassen Professional Building. The property is zoned CBD, Central Business District. 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 Planning 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. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the Planning Department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on August 20, 1992. DUANE GOETZE PAUL ROJINA HERITAGE PARK 7615 IROQUOIS 220 WEST 77TH STREET APARTMENTS CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 425 CHAN VIEW CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ST HUBERTS CHURCH ALTON KLEMEK JR MICHAEL WALSH 7707 GREAT PLAINS BLVD 7604 KIOWA 512 W 76TH ST CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ELAIN BJORNSON DENIS SCHMIEG JAMES GUNVILLE 7603 LAREDO 7610 KIOWA 7608 KIOWA -CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 - JOHN KREGER GEORGE HASSMAN ANTHONY & P PIERI 7606 KIOWA 7615 LAREDO 7607 LAREDO _CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -CHARLES LITTFIN KENNETH THYSSE FRANK KOHNMAN 7609 LAREDO 7613 LAREDO 7615 KIOWA CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RALPH FUHRMAN IVAN PAYNE • MARK LITTFIN SR -7614 KIOWA 7612 KIOWA 7609 KIOWA CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BETTY MANTEUFFEL DALE SUITER STEPHEN TERSTEEG _7611 KIOWA 7613 KIOWA 7603 KIOWA CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RAYMOND PEITZ KEN HALL JOHN HARDEL 7607 KIOWA 501 W 76TH STREET 7607 IROQUOIS -CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CEN LINDEMANN MARTIN RICKER ADELINE SKLUZUCEK 7608 IROQUOIS 7608 HURON 410 W 76TH ST CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 _:rEORGE BENIEK JEFF SLATER RONALD ENRIGHT 412 W 76TH STREET 7613 HURON 7610 GREAT PLAINS BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT WELLIVER DONALD SCHMIEG THOMAS SHEAR 7611 HURON 7703 ERIE AVE 7721 FRONTIER TR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 - ARNE IVERSON RON ENRIGHT COUNTRY CLEAN 223 CHAN VIEW 410 CHAN VIEW 7720 GREAT PLAINS BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DONALD SCHMIEG THOMAS PAULEY NORBERT JACQUES 200 W 77TH STREET 7604 ERIE AVE 308 CHAN VIEW CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 • 4:r te - CITY OF i i ,,,, ,, CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner r\-' DATE: August 24, 1992 SUBJ: Minnewashta Shores Non-Conforming Recreational Beachlot BACKGROUND — The Minnewashta Shores Subdivision was platted in 1957. There are 22 homeowners in the association. The beachlot is 2 acres in size and has approximately 450 feet of shoreline. When this subdivision was created, the lot with the beachlot had a different configuration. The shoreline originally was consistent with Lots I and G. In 1977 the beachlot was dredged to create a cove. The beachlot is now a cove with multiple piers as opposed to a common dock. These piers are 24 to 32 feet in length depending on the depth of the water. This beachlot does — meet the square footage requirements of 30,000 square feet, but not the 200 feet of frontage for each dock. There is a structure on the shore that stores 7 boats. There is not a canoe rack or a boat launch at this beachlot. There are 4 parking spaces available. A survey of this beachlot was done by staff in 1981. The inventory noted that there were 12 boats at the dock, although there appeared to be room for 20. This inventory also noted that 10 docks (piers) were located at the site. The inventory done by staff did not identify whether or not the boats located on land were motorized or non-motorized. There is not a swimming beach at this beachlot. The association is requesting approval of the 9 docks (piers) with the use of 18 boats to be _ moored and 7 boats to be stored on land. Staff is concerned that the total number of boats at this beachlot is 25. This would be the largest number of boats at any recreational beachlot in the city. Staff would recommend that the Planning Commission make a determination as to whether _ or not the boats on land should be motorized or non-motorized, or limited horse power on the engines. _ Is t41, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Planning Commission y August 24, 1992 Page 2 The Association has provided staff with documentation as to the number of boats approved in the summer of 1981. They have provided documentation showing who paid for the dock rights. In addition, they have provided staff with letters from those residents who had paid for dock space but did not have their boats in the water. Staff noted that there were 12 boats at the _ beachlot, and the letters from the residents account for 6 more boats, for a total of 18 boats. SUMMARY _ The Association is requesting approval of nine (9) docks (piers) with docking for 18 boats and approval for 7 boats on land. _ ATTACHMENTS 1. Subdivision Map 2. Non-Conforming Beachlot Application 3. 1981 Beachlot Inventory — 4. Associations Documentation 4. Notice of Hearing with Mailing Names NON-CONFORMING RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT PERMIT ASSOCIATION P.C. CITY COUNCIL REQUEST RECOMMEND ACTION Association Minnewashta Estates Shores Lake Minnewashta — Number of Homes 22 Size, square feet 87,120 sq. ft. Shoreline 450 feet — Motor Vehicle Access yes Off-Street Parking 4 — Boat Launch no Buildings not requested Picnic Tables not requested Grills/Campfires not requested — Seasonal Dock 9 piers Diagram Canoe Racks not requested — Boats on Land 7 Boats at Dock 18 Boats Moored not requested — Swimming Beach no Marker Buoys Swimming Raft yes — Miscellaneous — * Items requested by the Association for determination. ,5c;/e / = 200' y�,`,� vsf /957 - a#6 eel M; n nevvas h-�- �'rkr�t� t• /• /e•/ I hereby certify that i a. , 5h �1er��,ti I�he(.•7111 sions of Chapter 508, Minn sc , ores ,:� 0 e� �1" amended, I have surveyed t„e Movie%se a/See.5—rms P7! i n/Q 7,.+"00^6�. of land in the County of Cary G�wA ket� r " X244,0n'-.0 nr towit :I t : — T' 27” ,— �, That part of Secti n �' Range 23 West of the Fifth Pr -- rss1 �+ . , - z A as follows : Beginning at % . M w L X N«M „ , ?z „ _- North line of said Section 5, links west of the NortheasT c r %C. M ! = ti said ooint of beginning beinc o �� of Section 32, Township 11 1 1W _Z� west along the North line f S of 135 feet to a Judicial Lar �� angle South 1645.75 feet tr- ✓- ... �' s =_�'' ;`' continuing South along sai r t V i 4-4 '� - ordinary high water mark of 1 an easterly and northerly clic W' - 4 r zj high water mark of said la, e -:.4-0. line bearing South 25° Eas. 41Vr 4, ,a a thence North 25° West to a Jt :�, ' +- �.':�N ,• 621 .72 feet South 25°-East —Fr 1----- -„ _ "• J ��,_ E said last named Judicial L lc / C yr ,,.e; ,.�s6`' of the center I ine of Lake St o ;, Lake Lots; thence continuing \ �� y,, E �� co -./ .- to the point of beginning. h •� S ► 1.10t.‘ ..n , f6y' � •,. 1./ The East 250 feet �r �. :�.,....3 , Y tract of land, lying south of /"/\ *s "•:' _ i line of State Trunk H i ghwe f . <= "' s 5, Township 116 ° -:_ North, Rant :.. <.J:;'' <;;' '..: ::::::: : :::: : :. / cipal a I Meridian r .r * _ p , described as ° Judicial Landmark in the Ne--I ,� . •_' >---. {; --=-_ Sub eG�distant 807.54 feet west o, t " ;\,.., 410 "44 - fill; Section 5, said point of begi .5,044s. t 6,, .,1west of the Southeast corner Range 23; thence west alon t ection 5 to a Judicial Lir.Jrr " ' f 112• / South # corner of above menti +�� Z i1: / y( h South along a line hereinare " ,� l It .: and which line forms a Soul �e '~ I, the North line of said Sectic P �� .°r v V feet to a Judicial lendmarl— i k . County Road known as State i '. ' _ 7 easterly along the Southerly — , -_-2 ,.f• s„. " / to a Judicial landmark 30 fee 7...--, o, ' 0 said "Line A"; thence Soutr p H j• 40,,i, and the extension thereof a d ..\ \N„ Judicial landmark; thence eas A :s if �Sline of said Section 5 a di—t v.s• --.\ Judicial landmark; thence s u D -s. ;-� s i on of said "Line A" 408 fee 1. I N M �\ thence continuing South par.Al *1 L , said "Line A" to the ordina y I /S�Syr ) Minnewashta; thence east al„n JN1 " mark of said lake to its ante �, �'fte: soy,. .3 s0 ' / southerly from the point of—b• - arcs, i-a- - ;s�• ft , . .--_-- , / to the North line of said S c - Si / said right angle line to a Ju South from the point of begIn L feet to the point of beginn ..4/7,. . That the survey shown hereon (- ..."' a v••• • -. -Y**I -• - ... ... , 0 ' . 't . Wit •.4:-- %• ....r----. , ,:, _ . .. . A , .-A t' .\i„.„ r. i \...:„. . \ _. ...c.7..i\r"" • ‘ ,,,,,,-".,,*,., .....:..•_970,..,...5.c_-72, ,.... : >,(... ,,,,'....: ‘4..‘7:7)t. .`1! ,..l..* :: , a . • ,.'0,-- - - •0 -\.._-. '',:k. ,,-," - .• N. i 4 „11; .:.:11\'‘,......._ . '.."‘• 41111A !,....-...- C ' _.‘„,...,././V. . .• --) -Pr-- 10," . .i'4:11\-. ,--1 C,.. .„,----.--- - _..- * .. App,..'• -, - - 1.1),$‘a 3 j• -----_ ... .44. • ,, iiii_ • ---:: 4 ^ .,..... --4+ —ilia r , -7 ....._ 4:. -- .. � �-�,-�` -dam—411111.( I `' y - , µ. t4, :, 4 41 01,.. . `a � ' it r L.w1 �\ tette aA : c •r yam v''w :� • `. �..'� Q r'k f • .,.", - : ' . _ 41.'',:o...::46r.... i7:7...*:\'''.--- '' '..7:1.-44..''.:.',.- .1 . . X '4;'14.% 1.11 • -"Itrk.. '- '. ::-.',Irr-2. . • _./.. . p . �,� `' -fir� :;4,- 'L:.+ ,' ,'s• r \ • • i• sr ., . ' . 1A• a _ _ it 4pi .4,4. i;,3 4' ._ .. ` ,Cl y.�<� ``,•� •� ,e .I. ,,� t' {~ 1 }�t�.-,..16,,, . ... - f . ‘.; 14 1 4 .:., ' -47 •Nri\--, _ - - ‘ pi ..% „ft" ,-4, . ,„-- ` - f �R - h� • .4 :.„ • •P -'' . fr.,.. '-'.' •••• I 1 .--- : "...;:.... .vlir -3--%. ./ ..... it,, . I/ 4: ,_ . .g!4. ....e_ tr,-. _,,,,_ _..../ 7 I, -.... 1 Ilk 4,6 .. . .., i,„ . rit e ' 4i - .., • Aviii . " itt, . t . .-.,)-,, , , , , 1 i/hAR . ' .. - ' liff . : • t•i ? '''."'" . - - - ii ii . . :s--:\ " .11 4.1' ''' 9$0 . � •1I `� ,.' r ill , .j ....... • #1111 _ . 4 i.3--,-', . . /.ii ) .. .., . io , r • P r r _ •-� -,.fes - - a-J_ . , • I� • -)1 C 't - L I CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 1 NON-CONFORMING RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT APPLICATION HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION: ''r CONTACT PERSON: ADDRESS: (z71)Y ( CY14�-CS C)/2 L�� C � � �� /� EJB ; 3/ 1 TELEPHONE (Day time) e4 -7t-1 - /(4-/-7 TELEPHONE (Evening) : f 7u - I(r+ f J _ Please provide all requested data consistent with what existed in the summer of 1981. 1 . Number of homes in the Homeowners Association • 2 . Length of shoreland (feet) 3 . Total area of Beachlot (in square feet) . / �( • 4 . Number of docks /C 6. Length of dock(s) 1 ' c� iii)-rryee , 1„` t ( 0)4 - 7 . Number of boats docked �, - 8 . Number of Canoe racks ' 9 . Number of boats stored on canoe racks 10. Number of boats moored, i.e. canoes, paddle boats, sailboats. 11. Number of boats on land O-1 7Ski uc k u f( f r\ (1!R 12 . Swimming beach Yes No ) Buoys Yes No >( - 13 . Swimming Raft Yes ) No 14 . Boat Launch Yes No - 15. Motor vehicle access Yes X No Number of parking spaces - 16. Structures, including portable chemical toilets: RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT INVENTORY 1981 1986 1991 Minnewashta Estates Shores 22 homes Lake Minnewashta 3 acres 450 ' of shoreline Motor Vehicle Access yes yes yes Off-Street Parking yes 4 yes 4 yes 4 car car car Boat Launch no no no Permanent Buildings no no no Setbacks Temporary Buildings no no no Portable Restroom no no no Picnic Tables no no no Grills/Campfires no no no Seasonal Docks 10 10 8 Approximate Length Canoe Racks no no no Boats on Land 7 3 0 Boats Moored no no no Boats Docked 12 11 10 Swimming Beach no no no Marker Bouys no no no Swimming Raft yes yes no Comments: 2 RECREATIONAL BEACH LOT SURVEY EXISTING CONDITIONS Date : 6WA9 4- Name of Home Owners Association: M • a �' Number of Dwelling Units : Lake : 1' 1iMAALLIM4 Approximate Size of Beach Lot: 2-V2_ - 3 QAQL,' Width of Lot at Shoreline: -NDtit-. Motor Vehicle Access : Yes: V/ No: Off-Street Parking Area : Yes : / No: Approx. Size of Parking Area : A-- CAA Boat Launch: Yes : No: " Permanent Buildings : Approx. Setback from Lake : --- Temporary Buildings: MM / Portable Restrooms: Yes : No: Picnic Tables: Msq Grills/Campfire Sites: AAW- Permanent Docks: Approximate Length: 25 (0.3,6k,A4t,-) Seasonal Docks: Approximate Length: 40 - 50 Canoe Racks: MW (# of spaces) # of Boats Stored on Land: # of Boats Moored at Buoys: M6 St # of Boats Moored at Docks: Wket.'1/4 ka4N 2-0 It4 Swimming Beach: Yes: No: jr Marker Buoys: Yes: No: Swimming Raft: Yes : ✓ No: Approximate Size: WY. at Comments: VA- Vt Vvit dtexadvInAtt 15‘A armi k asrA x6rio qkccA.nt Minnewashta Shores, Inc. — 6341 Cypress Drive Excelsior, MN 55331 _ August 27, 1992 Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner Chanhassen City Hall 690 Coulter Drive _ Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Kate: — Enclosed is documentation supporting the association's request for 18 boat slips on nine docks. The association's secretary/treasurer researched our papers and produced these _ materials. She explains their contents in a 2-page memo marked "Memo" and has marked the pertinent parts in yellow marker. In the payment structure, 1-boat and 2-boat users are dock users. We assess no additional charge for boats placed on the land boat/canoe storage _ structure. Also enclosed are signed statements from current and past homeowners in the association — who had a boat(s) docked at our marina but whose boat(s) were not present for the June 4, 1981 count. All of these people still live at the addresses used in the statements or documented in the payment records, except the one marked with a non-Chanhassen address. — Again, all of the boats mentioned were tied to docks, not kept on the land boat/canoe storage structure. The statements bring to 18 the boats that should have been included in the census on June 4, 1981. We are unable to account for the remaining two boats on the second temporary dock noted in the city's survey, and do not include them in our non-conforming use permit — request. in erely _ — ean K. Wood — resident )21‘271/C - / ATTACHMENTS: Minnewashta Shores Corp - Special Meeting Minutes February 27, 1977 and March 1, 1977 Minutes of Minnewashta Shores, Inc. Meeting June 26, 1977 The above attachments are submitted as evidence of the original plans that all members of the association who did not have direct lake frontage properties (off-shore owners) be entitled to a dock and boatslip at the common park lot. Plans were made and approved for dredging the lake area, adding fill to the park lot and the installation of eight permanent dock structures. The eight docks provided space for the sixteen off-shore owners to moor boats. As evidenced by these minutes, each off-shore owner was assessed $493.75 for the cost of the marina development. Further, the property deed for each off-shore owner was amended to include a covenant for the dock space and marina. A diagram of the boat slip locations is included as an attachment to the March 1, 1977, minutes. This boat slip assignment is still in effect today. ATTACHMENT: Undated letter to MEMBERS OF MINNEWASHTA SHORES ASSOCIATION from Doug Johnson, then President of the Association. Although this letter is undated, its references throughout to the 1981 budget and the Lake Study Commission's first draft of the lakeshore ordinance, puts the date of this letter somewhere between March 1981 and July 1981. This letter addresses the equity of charges for the maintenance of the park and marina. There are numerous financial charts which lists "16 boat users" and the respective additional costs per boat user. However, of the 16 boat users, two of these users had 2 boats each, making a total of 18 boats. These two extra boats were moored at a ninth dock which was approved by the members during the 1981 meeting of the association. We have been unable to locate the minutes of this 1981 meeting, however, the following attachment provides evidence of the existance of this ninth dock. ATTACHMENT: Minutes of Minnewashta Shores Annual Meeting held on April 18, 192. This document is submitted as evidence of the ninth dock which was installed by off-shore owners Oppegaard and Johnson. The minutes state that this dock was approved "as was done in 1981" for a one- year term to be voted on annually. ATTACHMENT: DUES PAYMENT LOG FOR THE YEARS 1980 THROUGH 1992: This document is submitted to show the payments made by the members of Minnewashta Shores. As evidenced, the off-shore owners paid extra dues for the marina and boat slips. 1981 dues were: 4 Active on-shore members $30 General Fund — (Lots F,G,I & L, and M) 14 Off-Shore (1 boat) $34 General Fund (Lots A,B,C,D,E,K,P,Q, $27 Marina Fund S,T,U,V,W, and X) 2 Off-Shore (2 boats each) $34 General Fund (Lots J and R) $54 Marina Fund — August 25, 1992 In 1981 my family resided at 6340 Cypress Drive and we were members of the Minnewashta Shores Homeowners Association. We kept a boat at the association's marina that year. On June 4 of 1981 our boat was still in our yard and not place at the marina until after June 4. — i / August 25, 1992 Jean Wood President, Minnewashta Shores Association — Dear Jean, I understand that on June 4, 1981 , a count was taken of the boats tied to docks at the Minnewashta Shores Marina, and that the count taken at that time affects the number of — boats allowed under current negotiations . I would like the June 4, 1981 report to make note of the — fact that our two boats were not yet in the water at that early date , because that summer our family' s priority was with my mother ' s recovery from surgery. It should be noted that our boats were in use by late June . Thank you for taking our circumstance into account . 7/)-1-4-4-17 6/272-4-7 Mary Oppegaard August 25, 1992 In 1981 my family resided at 6300 Cypress Drive and we were members of the Minnewashta Shores Homeowners Association. We kept a boat at the association's marina that year. On June 4 of 1981 our boat was still in our yard as it is my custom not to launch the boat at the Minnewashta marina until the end of June. -' Zc- 1 � August 24, 1992 In 1981 my family resided at 6331 Cypress Drive and were members of the Minnewashta Shores Homeowners Association. We maintained two boats at the association's marina that — year. On June 4 of 1981, one boat was in the water, but the other was not launched until after that date. --/ti,c; . (32 A 7 L/ i' "7 oZ__ sr- - - ( f O :� - 0 A) h , err, ,. — d t l: i z 1. I ,-tt , ., i--)...i.-c.. .‹....,0_4___4_6e,t____ ,..4/„..5.„.c..4_,„/) /94.4.....t_c. j,L.,e r c1-c.K_. — -t i'}-L- i's . GCC et -4--4---- d-,d_-c am' . '�—�, :tip .c-L—�-c�c �..r , ,, �--s-.-- — _ _ ✓ O 7 • • �` `� � �� ' M/NNEWASHTA HEIGHTS PARK 80 8 S 0 0 e 8 I tn In In In _ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING i S ST I / ii►� solool1`. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FIPPIPPw-d ■ yr/ 50.\-1-0040\opi Wednesday, September 2, 1992 i , l w *I, � ,N;�� 7.30 P.M. �7• t- • int� r� —- City Hall Council Chambers - �1 L �`� / 690 Coulter Drive _ g a/ �Project: Non-Conforming Use Permit11 illitiFor Recreational Beachlot ��= -- ^ -- f _ Applicant: Minnewashta Shores r- Homeowners Association t '`- — rm.Location: North Shore of Lake , Minnewashta �r 1 • LAKE , i'' l' Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in — your area. The Minnewashta Shores Homeowners Association is applying for a non- conforming use permit for their recreational beachlot. 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 Planning 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 Kate at 937-1900. If you choose to — submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the Planning Department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on August 20, 1992. _ "ESTATE OF AHRENS MINNEWASHTA HOA HERBERT PFEFFER RT 1 BOX 284 C/O LOIS GOEDE 2850 TANAGERS BROWERVILLE MN 56438 2851 TANAGERS EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 _PER & E JACOBSON GENE FURY STEPHEN ORTLIP 2840 TANAGERS 2821 WASHTA BAY ROAD 14880 30TH ST SW EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 WATERTOWN MN 55388 HARRY NIEMELA DONALD ANDERSON WAYNE HOLZER -2841 WASHTA BAY ROAD 2851 WASHTA BAY ROAD 2911 WASHTA BAY ROAD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 NORMAN CASPERSON ALLAN TOLLEFSON GLENN COPPERSMITH 2921 WASHTA BAY ROAD 2931 WASHTA BAY ROAD 2941 WASHTA BAY ROAD -EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JOSEPH BOYER CURRENT RESIDENT SUSAN FIEDLER 3630 VIRGINIA AVE 3111 DARTMOUTH DR 3121 DARTMOUTH DR -WAYZATA MN 55391 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 -THOMAS MERZ JAMES GINTHER STEPHEN MARTIN 3201 DARTMOUTH DR 3131 DARTMOUTH DR 3211 DARTMOUTH DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 2AYMOND ROETTGER M MOORE/K HALL WARREN HANSON "3221 DARTMOUTH DR 3231 DARTMOUTH DR 3241 DARTMOUTH DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 2URRENT RESIDENT WILLIAM NAEGELE CURRENT RESIDENT _5341 CYPRESS DR 4300 BAKER ROAD 3311 SHORE DRIVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MINNETONKA MN 55343 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 BARBARA WINTHEISER FLORENCE BISCHOFF WILLIAM MCDANIEL 3321 SHORE DRIVE 3331 SHORE DRIVE 3341 SHORE DRIVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 F DENTON WHITE HENRY ARNESON LAWRENCE SHINNICK 3351 SHORE DRIVE 3401 SHORE DRIVE 3411 SHORE DRIVE - XCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 M POSTHUMUS & E TUSSEY JOHN MCKELLIP CURRENT RESIDENT 3421 SHORE DRIVE 3431 SHORE DIVE 3441 SHORE DRIVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 t_ MORRIS MULLIN RED CEDAR COVE INC WENDELL SCHOTT 3451 SHORE DRIVE C/O D C PRILLMAN 7034 RED CEDAR COVE _ EXCELSIOR MN 55331 7064 RED CEDAR COVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 AURETHA SMITH CURRENT RESIDENT RALPH KARCZEWSKI 7044 RED CEDAR COVE 7048 RED CEDAR COVE 7054 RED CEDAR COVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 - WARREN RIETZ DAVID PRILLAMAN CURRENT RESIDENT - 7058 RED CEDAR COVE 7064 RED CEDAR COVE 7068 RED CEDAR COVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT STEVEN EMMINGS _ 7074 RED CEDAR COVE 7078 RED CEDAR COVE 6350 GREENBRIAR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 RICHARD HANSON ROBERT HEBEISEN RICHARD ZWEIG 6400 GREENBRIAR 3607 IRONWOOD ROAD 3601 IRONWOOD ROAD - EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT FRANCIS FABER RICHARD WING 6331 CYPRESS DRIVE 3471 SHORE DRIVE 3481 SHORE DRIVE - EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 - WILLIAM TURNER DAVE HOELKE THOMAS WRIGHT 3501 SHORE DRIVE 3621 IRONWOOD ROAD 3611 IRONWOOD ROAD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 - MICHAEL MORGAN L 0 PARSONS CURRENT RESIDENT - 3734 HICKORY 3732 HICKORY 3724 HICKORY EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MARVIN YORK ALFRED SMITH GREGORY BOHER _ 3716 HICKORY 3714 HICKORY 3706 HICKORY EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 r.. GARY PETERSON JAMES MOORE SAMUEL POTTS 1769 20TH AVE NW 3630 HICKORY 3628 HICKORY NEW BRIGHTON MN 55112 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ERIC BAUER STEVEN KEUSEMAN KATHLEEN LOCKHART 3624 RED CEDAR POINT 3622 RED CEDAR POINT 8549 IRWIN ROAD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55437 EDWIN SEIM RICHARD SCHLENER THADDEUS SCHWABA -292 CHARLES DRIVE 200 COMMERCE CIR S 3603 RED CEDAR POINT SAN LUIS OBISPO CA MINNEAPOLIS MN 55432 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 93401 J D KNIGHT WYNN BINGER PAUL LARSON -485 PILLSBURY BLDG 2950 DEAN PKWY #1503 3609 RED CEDAR POINT 608 2ND AVE S MINNEAPOLIS MN 55416 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55402 LUMIR PROSHEK EMIL SOUBA BIRATA DUNDURS 5704 DEWEY HILL DR 14025 VALE COURT 3627 RED CEDAR POINT -EDINA MN 55435 EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 LINDA JOHNSON CHARLES ANDING HELEN ANDING 3629 RED CEDAR POINT 3631 SOUTH CEDAR 1708 E 57TH STREET EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55417 -CHESTER LOBITZ LARRY VANDERLINDE ANDREW JENSEN 3637 SOUTH CEDAR 211 CHESTNUT BOX 277 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHASKA MN 55318 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DAVID HEMPLE FRANK BOYCE CLIFFORD PEDERSEN -3707 SOUTH CEDAR 3711 SOUTH CEDAR 3713 SOUTH CEDAR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 RICHARD ANDING BASIL BASTAIN CURRENT RESIDENT _3715 SOUTH CEDAR 3719 SOUTH CEDAR 3725 SOUTH CEDAR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 KENNETH SMITH ROBERT C OSBORNE WALTER SCHWATZ 3837 RED CEDAR POINT 3815 RED CEDAR POINT 3888 FOREST RIDGE CIR -EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHAKSA MN 55318 JEROME AHLMAN JOEL ANDERSON JOHN PETERJOHN 3896 LONE CEDAR 3894 LONE CEDAR 3892 LONE CEDAR CHAKSA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318 CURRENT RESIDENT TERRANCE JOHNSON EDWARD OATHOUT 3890 LONE CEDAR 3898 LONE CEDAR 3940 HAWTHORNE CIR _ CHASKA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 GEOFFREY SCHIEFELBEIN STATE/MINNESOTA IN TRUST JOHN MERZ/DAVID TESTER 3920 HAWTHORNE CIR C/O CARVER CO AUDITOR 3897 LONE CEDAR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 600 EAST 4TH STREET CHASKA MN 55318 - CHASKA MN 55318 CITY 0 F CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 — MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner ^` DATE: August 27, 1992 SUBJ: Lake View Apartments Non-Conforming Recreational Beachlot UPDATE At the August 5th meeting of the Planning Commission, the non-conforming Recreational Beachlot permit for Lake View Hills Apartments was considered. After the public hearing and _ review by the Planning Commission, staff was asked to seek counsel from the City Attorney to see if any additional conditions can be placed upon this beachlot. This same question has come up during some of the other beachlot reviews. Roger Knutson, the City Attorney, said then, and continues to say, that the purpose of this hearing is to establish the level of use during the summer of 1981. The other issues being discussed are more of a policing matter. The main area of concern appears to be the open access to the beachlot. Staff has spoken to the property manager of the apartments, Donna Bohn from Ames Management, and relayed the concerns raised during the Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Bohn stated that there is a manager and assistant property manager that live on site. There is also a maintenance and caretaker that live at Lake View Hills. Ms. Bohn also stated that they do not allow their tenants to have alcohol parties at the beachlot, and have on occasion called the police when they have been informed of parties at the beachlot. SUMMARY Lake View Hills Apartments has requested continued use of the boat launch, a 30-foot dock, 7 boats to be stored on land, and parking for 10 vehicles. n t0, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITYOF ............... ___ 041 0 , ts. . . CHANHASSEN _ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 — (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM — TO: Planning Commission — FROM: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner DATE: July 29, 1992 SUBJ: Lake View Hills Apartments Non-Conforming Recreational Beachlot — BACKGROUND The Lake View Hills Apartments were built in the mid-1960's. There are 170 apartments on —. approximately 170 acres. There is 120 feet of shoreline which has an area of approximately 3,000 square feet. Staff did not inventory this beachlot in 1981 when other pre-existing beachlots _ were surveyed. Thus we can only confirm what was present in 1991. The applicants have supplied documentation as to the level of use they state existed in 1981. Staff has also recalculated the size and area of this beachlot. The beachlot does not meet the size (30,000 square feet) or the frontage requirements (200 feet) of City Code. The Association is requesting the continued use of one dock that is 30 feet in length. The association is also — requesting approval of 7 boats, parking for 10 vehicles, and continued use of the boat launch. Staff has some concerns with the boat launch because it is basically unrestricted. The launch has — limited parking, and when those spaces are full, people park on the street in front of this association's beachlot. Public Safety has received complaints regarding parking along Lake Riley Boulevard in this area. Staff would recommend that this beachlot have better control measures — for a couple of reasons. The beachlot is unsecured, and with the distance from the apartments, anyone could launch a boat without being observed. There has also been numerous complaints about noise and parties at the beachlot. There should be a milfoil sign posted. — Because the site was not inventoried in 1981, staff has limited information as to the level of use in 1981. The association is not requesting that any boats be moored or docked. — to, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Lake View Hills Apartments Beachlot July 29, 1992 Page 2 SUMMARY The Association is requesting the use of the boat launch, a 30-foot dock, 7 boats to be stored on land, and parking for 10 vehicles. Staff would recommend that a milfoil sign be installed on the beach lot and at the boat launch, and buoys be placed around the swimming beach. NON-CONFORMING RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT PERMIT ASSOCIATION P.C. CITY COUNCIL — REQUEST RECOMMEND ACTION Association Lake View Apartments Lake Riley Number of Homes 170 Apartments _ Size, square feet 3,000 sq. ft. Shoreline 120 feet Motor Vehicle Access yes _ Off-Street Parking 10 Boat Launch yes Buildings not requested — Picnic Tables not requested Grills/Campfires not requested Seasonal Dock 1 — Diagram 30 feet Canoe Racks not requested — Boats on Land 7 Boats at Dock not requested Boats Moored not requested • Swimming Beach yes _ Marker Buoys Swimming Raft not requested Miscellaneous — * Items requested by the Association for determination. — RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT INVENTORY 1981 1986 1991 Lake View Apartments 170 apartments Lake Riley 1. 8 acres 80 ' of shoreline Motor Vehicle Access yes Off-Street Parking yes Boat Launch no Permanent Buildings no Setbacks no Temporary Buildings no Portable Restroom no Picnic Tables no Grills/Campfires 1 campfire Seasonal Docks 1 Approximate Length 30 ' Canoe Racks no Boats on Land 6 canoes 2 sailboats 1 fishing boat Boats Moored no Boats Docked no Swimming Beach no Marker Bouys no Swimming Raft no Comments: iii CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 NON-CONFORMING RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT APPLICATION HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION: moi /�ex., (_2,s �_y;veGr CONTACT PERSON: , i‹:.--) ADDRESS: iG �� ,46 7 ,,, TELEPHONE (Day time) 9Q� S"-/3 TELEPHONE (Evening) : /.-- 4-Vg-S----3 Please provide all requested data consistent with what existed in the summer of 1981. 1 . Number of homes in the Homeowners Association /7 �.. 2 . Length of shoreland (feet) > 2 j /- 3 . Total area of Beachlot (in squareJfeet) • 4 . Number of docks X 6. Length of dock(s) z_.--:-50 7 . Number of boats docked-0 8 . Number of canoe racks % ---"11---e- 9 . ! 't<_9 . Number of boats stored on canoe racks -- O -- 10. 10. Number of boats moored, i.e. canoes, paddle boats, sailboats. - 0. 11. Number of boats on land 7 12 . Swimming beach Yes /( No Buoys Yes No 13 . Swimming Raft Yes 1No Y / 14 . Boat Launch Yes 1� No 15. Motor vehicle access Yes X No Number of parking spaces i� 16. Structures, including portable chemical toilets: --/7-. ,-..... - _----Z. ,__:..: -7_1_----; ,_, , ,/e.„-,r___-,,,___<____ i , I I 1111111 rwji/Rip -.P-PP. Pi 1, ., in `r.:s 11*- 111: 16:%0. IlistiarIVI!..1)::( BR 1 r' HANHASS N �_ STAT fY =C �•. RENNEESTATES DRIVE HIGHWA o _ r l�� j M/N/ PAR/�C > ,1 ��` ■n gyral!rFt Wii; ' - WI e. nin 2 till, co co , .aR IWO gt.: ,,,,. ,,, .. - , SG'S • . 1 -- , ,��041%s- ..1 AV a f,`�ii,‘ 810 0 PARE' \ Q:r ��,�� .t�� ' a �yr_F-...._-...._.. Z I) _- -illa - 7►�•'FR/CE . z 8200 -f- ��_`"'� `'" MCiiti MARSH o_( - - LAK w SINNEN E } Q i CIRCLE PARK 83 W LAKE SUSAN 11 _I \� � 1 I , -. -! \' \I i 4 0 0 0 _: cY : i !i i. . Li l� O O j 41L5 s -I , r`— .i, ,411111111111 g.% %c- ♦ -- 4',- Ikt:um mama IMMiP _ 870 .111P,ii‘ willeit _ IV 1Laisevi en'P.`� \. I - - PON• " 880 •.;<7. *Is . ti __ �J ,�-s , �`'�,./4a i i : . qO 890 T _J Lcsi I __ j i1- ?w - .E VA R D -- 4 J (CSR-18 J_ " f34 A / \\. . a 900( Ci / ii",/ QC • I ' rte, 910�� BAND/MEREs' HEIGHTSI PARK BAND/MERE iii �r s"" 7 920C WIZ COMMON/TY , ��`` �- A KE �� ,:_ -_-,--7 ..;.46 � 9300 PARK 9 RILEY5,,,, las . ,, ,,,, ... , ��- __- Z Z 940 \ / \ U O 3-27-92 I have lived at Lakeview Hills for over 16 years. There was a dock in 1981 and there has been a dock there since the — day I moved in. Included is a photo of the dock in 1977. gleacp send Photo back. Sincereltssto Qoy��, amAticA)14 _ Leo Ganglehoff , ••• .„..,. ttd!: - . ., _. . . lat . _ — JUL-16-92 THU 9 :48 CARVER COUNTY SHERIFF 3681538 P. 02 I i1{ ` ' I 1 • • L I 1 Lt ,.I • 9 ., I d Ili . .. , , ..,,,:,./..., ,..41........., • A. i O Y . 1 wa et4 •'7r':'. w a u s w et rN+ d d • O Oee r l I z 0 _I d O1 W 0 O 1 .. at d 1 C] I I LLI 0 0 K 1- Y < Y 1 4y S 1Q -i. I L.)0 ( I ur .a 4 .+ 1 aW ' I I lA2 aF of " „ XF WNJZ W d d SZ 4 m.• M Q m 4 O u "' x d }d W WY X i rW•C •0 U• 4. Ino I Na< `,` I st y3W wr. W 1.. Y.. 42 - > Ia. - r,WY i41- 4 wd W~ W 0 a0 \W 11w1 N Z N �J IA 4 J0. „ �Z� C4 0 ! V Q . ..” w I Z P.Z w W 2 eC "•r1 reC �+W Cr i/J XH O 20 ' 1TICv 0cL 4N 20 hN 3H MN W0 .ON N N W Y 1 N 57 4o•o] a � T r.W er PI 17 Ul.t0. N O' m'5 �` W W m` m a .0 O W a..r N O W IAV 00' Y1- OM Ci oN Wl'Ja°6.�o on+ wa 000 ww oo 0 oow- o on o\ wt�\u)NO 0%. X� O\ YW O\ OCC O\ Yet Q . r 44 id 0 N1f+ a 5 N.a ate N.O 04 N.Ow^ 44 N•O O N.GM'<4 I 1nC52 -I CO I zJif I O'O# JI- as =J O'OOJa. Cr CD • 2a OOGJJ II 1 ..... I 1 I 1 � L] O O OO O O � W W W '1- 1- 1! d riec net 1 tic 0e0C 00 00 I 0. .. 1-d S-G. ted . .. 04ss .. "62 W N 1 2WW N 2W N 2 W N 2W VI 211140 N WeC Y d.n Y W a Y I Wig IC lC WCC 1.4h 4 We[ IC WPC Y [4 r a o � d 0 d o * d 0 Ig O 2 d O ec .....u,,W .. a Na U) .. a 144W 4 NWWW .. a MW . 4 M�,/WU .• 4 .,W o < II I! 11W- LL V z kJ i.—� VL V*- V k-1 O' Vf ( UH ..12 ac L- W Za O W I Z41). OW . Z a OW ' ,Za OW 1 2-4MOW Za OW _ .••10 Jd 1 I .-.co f1 -1 IX .rp C5.JeY ,...p Jd WI Jd .-a0 -J at M c3 el_J cc �__ I --:7 '---n j.--;-- 1n - 'n'8 K� a-x 1.I,. rE !9 L Gia SIF, : �,^_^ ;23.._.�^,IS .v . _: 3 7.L1 . .`)i .• ,;moi„_ aaiaA�ad iWMCS.I•011IA449 M giN.1.-11 kvINI:110 11(1 RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT INVENTORY 1981 1986 1991 Lake View Apartments 170 apartments Lake Riley 1. 8 acres 80 ' of shoreline Motor Vehicle Access �/,P,S yes Off-Street Parking ye-s yes Boat Launch 4%c no Permanent Buildings 72-1i no Setbacks no Temporary Buildings `72U no Portable Restroom no Picnic Tables ] no Grills/Campfires 1 campfire Seasonal Docks / 1 Approximate Length 30 / 30 ' Canoe Racks *-o no Boats on Land 4/2,Q44 6 canoes 2 sailboats 1 fishing boat Boats Moored 724 no Boats Docked fr no Swimming Beach �, � no 4" � Marker Bouys 7'Lp no Swimming Raft %26 no Comments : CITYOF 00041 CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I DATE: August 12, 1992 SUBJ: Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Amend Section 20-1023, Height of Fences and Section 20-1019, Location of Fences. Fences are common structures in the City of Chanhassen, often used for screening proposes. Regulating fences would allow the city to determine the type of fences used, the distance from a property line, and the height. Sec. 20-1023. dealing with the height of fences currently read as follows: Any fence over six and one-half (61/2) feet must receive a conditional use permit. The fence height is measured from ground elevation to the highest point on the fence. This section does not deal with the location of fences within a front yard. This matter need some clarification. Staff has recently received applications for fences to be installed within a front yard setback of a home. As the ordinance reads now, a home owner could put a 61/2 foot high fence within a front yard setback. There is also a safety issue that has not been addressed. Many residents request the placement of fences or hedges within the front yard setback of corner lots. Locating structures within a front yard setback creates blind intersections and blocks sight distances. The proposed ordinance amendment will remedy this situation and shall read as follows: Sec. 20-1023. Any fence over six and one-half(6/) feet must receive a conditional use permit. -' The fence height is measured from ground elevation to the highest point on the fence. All other residential fences shall meet the following standards: (1) Side Yards and Rear Yards. In any required side or rear yard on lots, the height of fences shall not exceed 61/2 feet in height. (See Illustration #1). ot PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Planning Commission August 12, 1992 Page 2 — (2) Front Yards. Fences in required front yards shall be allowed provided that solid type fences shall not exceed 3 feet in height, and open mesh type fences (for _ example, chain link fences), shall not exceed 4 feet in height. (3) Corner Lots. In addition to the other provisions contained in this section, fences _ located on corner lots shall be subject to the following provisions: A. Any fence, wall and/or hedge on the front yard setback shall not exceed — 3 feet in height if opaque construction, or 4 feet in height if open construction. B. In the side yard setback which fronts on a street, height up to 61/ feet shall be allowed beyond 60 feet from the intersection measured from the intersection of extended curb lines. Height within the 60 foot area shall --- conform to the requirements of a front yard setback. (See Illustration#2). C. Heights on the interior side yard setback shall not exceed 61/2 feet. — The Fence Ordinance also fails to address the location of fences in relation to wetlands. Section 20-1019. Location reads as follows: `- All fences shall be located entirely upon the property of the fence owner unless the owner _ of the adjoining property agrees, in writing, that said fence may be erected on the property line of the respective properties. Such an agreement shall be submitted at the time of building permit application. _ Staff is proposing to add the following regulation to regulate fences near wetlands: Wetlands. No fences shall be permitted below the Ordinary High Water Mark of a wetland. RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section 20.1023, Height of Fences and Section 20-1019, Location of Fences, as noted above. — ILLUSTRATIONS I JO. FENCE REGULATIONS !1!11111M — "*4141%.:9-!•1 i:":-'. ..i''':{fiq rt.,., 0% .:,. '- :.:••,: Iii.'. '': •'"``�."'• .• '= Side Yards ds and Rear Yards._;; Front Yards. t —.0411111111111,......M11111111m. . *'‘.011311:111, 1IF. , N ;Y:'.: : ��`,'S:;,:.fir:t:▪.:; .' .'� '.•'•••" ./`•.. :, • •--. .1":• J'. NititiL - ::.:::..,.., --.?.: f.::::7-:,::::.---.1.-.... ..x00". ,:...Fi4,. .it',::::-.--.-..,.. ":':-..r..-t.,:e,J:::ie• e. ..:7::-. X2:.::•1•r-Zd;:" "��-•. vQ::%S:V:.. i yid `V»�:% -.7gM-::Y`:':.,•`,t `4.:A ";:`::-:' ,\-; - .4 ;.. .ti%: �...- '=:;%";•:•,-, •.':�:.:yk•,.. - •. :'�•ice: •tit... '~ ' qq";�w' .11Ki .'. Ki• :Vii'.. .,y Corner Lots. -I NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CITY OF CHANHASSEN NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, August 19, 1992, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in — Chanhassen City Hall, 690 Coulter Drive. The purpose of this hearing is to consider an amendment to the City Code concerning fence requirements. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I Phone: 937-1900 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on August 13, 1992) CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING _. AUGUST 19 , 1992 Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7 :40 p .m . . MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart , Ladd Conrad , Steve Emmings , Brian Batzli , Jeff Farmakes , and Joan Ahrens MEMBERS ABSENT: Matt Ledvina STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss , Planning Director ; JoAnn Olsen , Senior Planner ; Kate Aanenson , Planner II ; Dave Hempel , Sr . Engineering Technician; and Todd Gerhardt , Asst . City Manager - PUBLIC HEARING: SUBDIVISION OF A 5 ACRE PARCEL FROM A 19+ ACRE SITE ON PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE AND LOCATED AT 10151 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD, DAVID - TEICH . Kate Aanenson presented the staff report . Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order . David Teich: I 'm David Teich and I ' ll be subdividing the property that I 'm selling . I 'm selling 5 acres off of the 19 . It 's as simple as that . I ' ll be moving off the property and the home on the 5 acres . One question about the easement . Now the map is in error . To my knowledge , the survey I provided does allow for a 66 1/2 , at least that access right off of TH 101 to the north portion . That would be the access to the 14 acres that I think you need . The line , if I could use the map for just a moment does not go where it meets TH 101 on the northwest corner there . There is 66 . Aanenson: Right here? David Teich: That 's right . The line will fall 66 1/2 feet , at least that - to the south of that point . I 'm sorry Kate but I didn 't see that until on the way up here this evening , on your staff report . The easement you 're requiring I think is already there . — Aanenson: We can verify that . It 's a lengthy legal description . . .but we 'd also still be concerned because that would only serve possibly this portion . It is in the bluff overlay zone and these lots would still meet . They wouldn 't want anything to cross over that ravine there so we still may want to secure , make sure there 's access to that northern portion because of the bluff overlay zone . Emmings: I thought you were requiring an easement on the north portion . Aanenson : Exactly . He 's saying he 's got access through here . Emmings: Oh . Is that what you 're saying? Aanenson : The land itself is not landlocked . It wouldn 't be because I do have access onto TH 101 . Emmings : From the 5 acre parcel? Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 2 David Teich: From the 14 acre parcel . With an established access there . Aanenson : He 's saying it would follow along right through here . This is what we 're showing as the property line . He 's saying it 's right in here . Emmings : I thought that was a deep ravine there? Aanenson: That 's what I 'm saying , yeah . David Teich : In the middle there , yeah . That 's right . Emmings: How do you do that? I 'm not understanding this . You 're saying - there 's an easement that goes across the ravine? David Teich: No . I have an access onto TH 101 from the 14 acres that will _ be left . Emmings : Where is it? Would you go up there and point to it . David Teich : This line here will actually go , there is 66 1/2 feet here with an access already established there . That would be the access to the 14 acres . Aanenson: But you 'd still have to cross a ravine to get to that northern portion which I 'm saying you still would need an easement . David Teich: Okay . This 30 foot road , this down here and this is part of the 14 acres . It is a mess and I was handed that by my father . . . I do own this 30 feet and this here is an easement , not recorded , with Mr . Graffunder and I have access there . I 've talked to Paul about that . My understanding is thatwe were just going to leave it as it is . I could use it as my own . That road because anything else ever happens , as you well - know , the road will angle up so we discussed that it may not be worth getting an easement for that road because if anything else did happen back there , the road would then go public anyway . And as far as the question of the land becoming landlocked , it 's not . There is access with the exception - of having to build a bridge across that ravine . Emmings : Well I think that 's obviously what they 're concerned about . They - want access to the part on the other side of it . David Teich: There is access . I have access to that part . _ Ahrens : Through an unrecorded easement . David Teich: That 's right . Batzli : Okay , thank you . This is a public hearing . Is there anyone else would like to comment on this? Erhart moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Batzli : Joan , do you have comments? Questions . - Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 3 Ahrens : Kate , you said that , eventually there 's going to be a trail easement on either side of this road? Aanenson: Correct . Ahrens: Of TH 101? Aanenson: Yes . Ahrens: Would they only need to secure a trail easement now? Aanenson: That was a recommendation from the Parks Commission and I guess . Krauss: If I could . There were some decisions that we made in house about that . The future of TH 101 is completely unknown to us . It clearly needs to be upgraded . It clearly is a State highway and the State clearly won 't - do anything about it . They want to give it to the County . The County doesn 't , or the City , nobody wants to take it until it 's fixed . The alignment that Kate has up on the board there is one that we developed in conjunction with Mr . Halla 's plat 2 or 3 years ago because it 's very clear that we have that very tight curve through Mr . Halla 's property that even a minor upgrading of the road is going to want to make that change . But long term , we don 't know what alignment this road 's going to take and it pretty significantly impacts Mr . Teich 's property . I mean it basically almost takes it if you go with this alignment , and this alignment has no legal standing . It 's just again , it 's an inner office design that we came up - with and we didn 't feel that that was strong enough basis to require dedication which may in fact be a taking of the property . When MnDot or the County actually figure out the proper alignment in the future , that 's when they ' ll have to get the right-of-way . Ahrens : Now when you say that this property is going to be unbuildable , are you implying that once the MUSA line moves out , it will be buildable? Aanenson : Well yeah , it 's the 1 unit per 10 because you 're outside the Urban Service Area . So once sewer 's available . Ahrens : You 're not implying to the applicant that this is buildable land right? Aanenson: No . It 's in the bluff overlay zone and that 's been zoned , correct . As far as what he can get for density , we have no idea at this point . What we 're saying is that he couldn 't pull , even though he couldn 't - pull another building permit for the rest of the remaining portion even though he 's got 14 acres because he has less than 20 at this time . He 's got one home so he 'd need exactly 20 to get two lots . Ahrens : You might want to say it 's not , instead of saying or identifying it as unbuildable land , just say it can 't be developed . Just so they don 't think that when the line goes out there , it 's going to automatically be buildable property and it may not . I mean this may not be , right? Krauss : We were looking to put a deed restriction there that says it can 't be developed until municipal services are provided . Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 4 Ahrens: I 'm just questioning the wording of buildable . Have you seen this easement he 's talking about that he has with Graffunder? - Aanenson: No . Ahrens : The unrecorded easement . Aanenson: No . Ahrens: Any idea if that would be , this is the first you 've heard of it? Aanenson : Yes . I guess I would just check with the Attorney 's office and see if they were comfortable with accepting it that way . Olsen : We 've got a copy of that easement . We went through that when Gerrish went through with the subdivision so we do have that in the file and it has been verified and we can get a copy of that for you . Ahrens: I suggest that , to record it too . Aanenson : Well , that 's what we 're stating . That 's what we want to make sure that that 's a recorded easement . Ahrens : I have no other questions on this . Farmakes: I ' ll just echo the comments there for staff recommendations . I guess I 'd have the same question about the buildable language in 1 . And on 2 , the issue of the access . . .That 's it . Emmings : I don 't have anything additional . I support the staff recommendations . Conrad: Nothing more . Erhart : Yeah , I don 't mean to , the easement lines to Dave 's house but I 'm not quite ready to give up our easement yet and since a lot of us use this TH 101 and hope someday it will be upgraded , so I want to work that issue a little bit more . Every other thing that 's come in here along TH 101 we 've taken the other argument that gee whiz you know , what is it . Minor - arterial , we want 120 feet and therefore , how it came in with their subdivision , we got the extra 27 feet or so from them when we did this . And while I want to pursue how close this house is , we 're saying two things . I don 't think we want to lightly give up an opportunity to get a wider road here . This isn 't going to move . I mean TH 101 's going to , I don 't care who owns it or who argues about who owns it , it 's going to be where approximately it is for a hundred years . And forever . So with that , - in the first place I would say , if Dave says that there 's 66 feet on the parcel that he 's keeping , certainly we ought to get the extra 27 feet on that and then deal with how close his house is , which is , what is that? _ Like 25 feet from the edge of the road Dave? David Teich : 33 and an inch . - Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 5 Erhart : So you know , to come up , I don 't know . I don 't know what the answer is but I think we 've got to be a little more consistent . Even if we just take 3 feet or something . Maybe there 's some reasonable solution but - just to say we 're not going to take any , try to expand the right-of-way here when we have an opportunity because we don 't know where TH 101 just doesn 't sit right with me . And I don 't know what the solution is . Other - than that , you know everything else is pretty straight forward . Batzli : So are you proposing that we amend the conditions to take that footage? Erhart : Well certainly on the , if there 's 66 feet of frontage on the property that doesn 't have a house , certainly we should amend it to take - the same width that we took in the Halla subdivision . I mean that 's 66 feet . And to give some consideration of where you would get the full 120 width in the future . Maybe if we leave out some portion around the house - or maybe some wisdom says that we take some of it further to the north or further to the south . I mean obviously we have to give consideration to the existing house . I don 't know if I have an answer . Any ideas? Krauss : No , we got to this point because we had the same dilemma . We do , most of the time , recommend that you take the right-of-way . You take it when the getting 's good and you can take it during a subdivision process . - On Mr . Halla 's property , it 's clear that any kind of improvement is going to take that kink out of the road . What is left there is as you move to the south , how do you traverse the bluff? Is it going to maintain that existing alignment down there or is it going to swing wide? When we looked at where the easement fell out on Mr . Teich 's property , it was virtually into his front door . - Erhart : But we took 27 feet all the way up to Pioneer Trail . It wasn 't just a matter of dealing with that lot . - Krauss : Right . Or the major subdivision . Erhart : Consistent approach we 've taken . Krauss : And we improve the intersection at Pioneer . And it was a part of , I forget how many acre subdivision Mr . Halla was coming through with and platting his property . It also traversed vacant land and I get - somewhat uncomfortable with the idea of us being in the position of risking a taking of property for a project that MnDot won 't confess that they will ever do . I 'd rather they took the hit on that one . Emmings: Why is it a taking here and not in any other case? _ Krauss: Well Mr . Halla clearly is getting benefit from a major subdivision that he 's ultimately going to have on his property . It cuts across vacant , I mean it 's a tree lot . In this case it cuts into or virtually into a single family residence . Conrad: So the future is dependent on MnDot and what are we prohibited from doing then? Will we never have a trail? Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 6 Krauss: I 'd have to look back to what we are doing . What the City is doing on TH 101 north of 212 where you 've seen the official mapping for — that . The City actually is taking a proactive role in that and saying that we 're not going to wait for MnDot or the County . We 're going to be building it and we 've already begun to build it in steps and it does have a trail corridor in it . And it also involves some major condemnation hearings to get it to so far , to get the road down to where it is now . Erhart : Let me ask you this . Let 's say the purchaser of this land in 5 - years decided to tear down the house and build a new one . If we left the right-of-way the way it is today , then he could build it within 30 feet of the existing right-of-way even though it 's the old design . Whereas if we — decided to take an additional let 's say 15 feet , then you 'd have to cut it back 15 more feet . So the effect of taking an additional easement today really has no effect as long as that house is occupied . There really is no taking . Krauss: That 's a possibility . If your recommendation would be to include a condition to that effect , I don 't have a problem with that but I 'd like , - before we get to the Council , have the City Attorney review it . There 's been a lot of rulings in the State and . . .would know better than I about that issue . Erhart : Can we ask the applicant if he had any reaction to that . Batzli : Yeah , go ahead and ask . Erhart : What do you think of the discussion regarding this? You 're selling it so . . .you 've driven TH 101 all your life . — David Teich : Born and raised . Erhart : Yeah . What 's your reaction to whether or not we ought to take the opportunity to try to get easements to get it ultimately improved or not? David Teich: I think it 's futile . Erhart : Pardon . David Teich: I think it 'd be futile to take easements . . . Erhart : I 'm generally looking for your reaction being a long time _ resident . David Teich: I don 't foresee the road really widening . . . Al Klingelhutz : I know the public hearing 's over with but , I think I 'm going to have to disagree with Tim . I don 't disagree very often with Tim . The house is very close to the road . It 's an old Chaska brick house and _ our company happens to be the one that sold the property for Dave . People that are buying it bought a similar house in the city of Shakopee and they 've completely redone it and it 's a beautiful place . This is probably one of the oldest Chaska brick houses in Chanhassen and to put an easement — through the house I think is something that if you want to have any — Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 7 historical preservation in Chanhassen , it would be against my grain . The house is structurally sound . It is that bad of home . It needs a lot of work inside and I 'm sure these people are going to do it . If I could take — you over to Shakopee and show the house that they 've redone , you 'd say they 've just did one beautiful job . We 've got about three Chaska brick homes in Chanhassen . Carver County Historical Society has taken a hard look at them and they really would like to see those Chaska brick homes preserved . And if you took another 20 feet on Dave 's side of the road , it would cut about 15 feet off the house . Thank you . Emmings : Is it likely that , if the road , I know we don 't know what the path of the road will be or what would be done if it were to be upgraded but is it less likely that any widening would occur in that direction - because of the way that the ravine comes up to the road? That it will more likely be to the other side . Krauss : Well yeah , Dave and I talked about that . Dave Hempel and I . Dave I believe was the originator of this alignment and when we looked at it , we thought that simply from an engineering standpoint there 'd be some desire to push it to the west . But the critical factor here and one that we never looked at is how does that merge with whatever route is selected to go down the bluff . I mean if you 're going to make safety related improvements , and the one through Don Halla 's property was frankly regarded - as one that we may be able to persuade MnDot to do just as a safety related improvement , the same way we got the 4 way intersection at Pioneer and TH 101 . We 're not sure which way you 've got to skew the road up here to match with the route going down underneath the railway tracks down the hill . Emmings: But are you really likely to move it to the east? Are you really likely to move this portion to the east? Krauss : From an environmental standpoint , no but we don 't know if you pushed all the way to the west you wind up taking out 4 or 5 homes . We honestly don 't know . Emmings: It seems to me going east appears to be an unreasonable alternative . It isn 't a reasonable possibility . That 's why I wouldn 't be in favor of doing anything with an easement on this property now . And I think the preservation , if that home is going to be restored and preserved , I think that 's a worthwhile thing to do , especially on that isolated piece of land that fits on it . Batzli : Do you have anything else Tim? Erhart : Nope . Batzli : I don 't have any additional comments other than , I have two quick ones . One , the driveway easement . I echo Joan . I think I 'd like to see that recorded . Make that a condition . And do we not have an obligation to preserve historical buidings and site within the city , Paul? Krauss : There 's no statutory obligation to do that . Batzli : But as part of our plan . Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 8 Krauss: We have spoken about it in the comprehensive plan . Batzli : That 's one of our guiding beacons so I would prefer not to put an easement through the house or within an inch of it personally . Is there a motion? Emmings: I 'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #92-9 to create one 5 acre parcel from a 19 acre parcel subject to the conditions in the staff report but I 'm going to modify number 2 so — it will read as follows: A driveway easement is secured and recorded allowing for access to the remaining 14 acre parcel . More particularly , to that portion which lies north and east of the ravine . _ Batzli : Is there a second? Ahrens: Second . — Batzli : Is there any discussion? Conrad: Yeah , just real quickly . We 're not precluded from carrying out the trail . Does it still validate the easement that we put on the Halla property? By doing what this is , does that invalidate that easement? — Krauss: No . Conrad: It 's still something that could be done? Krauss : Well yeah . I mean the easement that we took on the Halla property is a recorded easement and we have that . — Conrad: And why do we need it? Krauss: Long term they have a goal of getting a trail down to the bottom of the river . Conrad: And the Halla easement is on the east side? — Krauss: I don 't , JoAnn , would you recall which side the trail easement is on on the Halla property? — Olsen: I don 't think we have one . . .I think that was on the east side I believe . Conrad: So , we took that because we wanted that . We want to get a trail down there but now we 're saying maybe we can 't . Emmings: Already , they have to cross the road . Because of the ravine you may be in a situation where you have to cross the road with the trail , right? Conrad: Yeah . Emmings: Which wouldn 't be good but it might be necessary . — Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 9 Conrad: I guess my only point is , if we 're not really going to have a trail , we really should take the easement off of Nalla . Krauss : But there 's also possibilities too , and the city has talked from time to time about investigating Bluff Creek Golf Course and securing the ravine system that comes through there . It may well prove to be a better _ option to bring the trail over through the golf course and down that way than try to snake it down with a very restricted highway that 's very difficult and expensive to go down that bluff . Ahrens : I have one more comment . Steve , on number one . Emmings : On unbuildable? Ahrens: Right . Emmings : What do you want to say? Ahrens : May not be developed . Cross out . Emmings : That 'd be fine . Why don 't you propose an amendment . Erhart : Can I comment? I think you ought to be a little bit careful here . It 's possible that somebody else with another , what do you have , 14 acres? Somebody with 6 acres could buy that and combine the two , have 20 acres and it could be developable as a replatting . So in the use of your words , consider that . Ahrens : What do you mean? Out that I thought it can 't be developed until the MUSA line was done . Erhart : No , if somebody bought . Let 's say somebody , somebody adjacent had 6 acres . They combine the two and then you 'd have 20 acres . Ahrens: Oh , I see what you 're saying . Erhart : Now you can split that again into two home sites so really , it 's not unbuildable . Ahrens: Well you could say , until such time that this area 's inside the Urban Service Area and water and sewer are available or upon city approval . Krauss: Well yeah , you might want to put in , or addition of sufficient land to meet the 10 acre rule . Aaneneson: You could keep saying or , or , or you know . Krauss : But city approval 's kind of an open ended thing . It would imply that anybody could come back at any time and just ask the Council to change their mind . Ahrens: Well , what do you feel comfortable with? Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 10 Krauss: I 'd prefer to have , if you want to allow that option , to say that unless additional acreage is acquired to meet the 1 per 10 acre density . — Batzli : Do you want to propose an amendment Joan? Ahrens: I 'd propose that number 1 read as follows: The City Attorney 's Office shall prepare a development contract stating that the remaining 14 acre parcel may not be developed until such time that this area is inside the Urban Service Area and water and sewer are available , or until such — time additional land is acquired to meet the 10 acre density as required by ordinance . Do you want that? Krauss: Yeah . Ahrens: As required by City ordinance . Batzli : Is there a second? Conrad: Second . — Ahrens moved, Conrad seconded to approve an amendment to the motion to modify condition number 1 to read as follows: 1 . The City Attorney 's Office shall prepare a development contract stating that the remaining 14 acre parcel may not be developed until such time that this area is inside the Urban Service Area and water and sewer are-- available , reavailable , or until such time additional land is acquired to meet the 10 acre density as required by ordinance . All voted in favor of the amendment and the motion carried. Batzli : Is there any other discussion on the other motion? Conrad: Well , just one other point . We 're convinced that they 're going tc restore? Ahrens: If they don 't , we 'll send them to jail . Conrad: Al , they are going to do that? — Al Klingelhutz : The main reason they bought the house is this is what they do . They buy these brick houses . Fix them up and plan on living there . They 've lived in Shakopee for about 5 years now. They get the value out of— it . fit . They probably will sell it after they fix it up but it will be completely restored . Conrad: And it is structurally sound? Al Klingelhutz : It is structurally sound . . . Batzli : Kate , was there a . . .? Aanenson: . . .map showing the 5 acre split with a legal description and — then the original lot , metes and bounds legal description . - Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 11 Batzli : You 're comfortable with that? That that 's included? Aanenson: Yes . And I 've checked with the Carver County Recorder 's Office - and they are willing to accept it this way . Ahrens: Did you read through this legal description? Aanenson : Yes . Batzli : If there 's no more discussion , I ' ll call the question . Emmings moved , Ahrens seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #92-9 to create one 5 acre parcel from a 19 acre parcel , subject to the following conditions: 1 . The City Attorney 's Office shall prepare a development contract stating that the remaining 14 acre parcel may not be developed until such time that this area is inside the Urban Service Area and water and sewer are available , or until such time additional land is acquired to meet the 10 acre density as required by ordinance . 2 . A driveway easement is secured and recorded allowing for access to the remaining 14 acre parcel . More particularly , to that portion which lies north and east of the ravine . All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: CONCEPTUAL PUD ON 18+ ACRES FOR A COMMERCIAL/RETAIL CENTER LOCATED AT THE - SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WEST 78TH STREET AND POWERS BOULEVARD , TARGET DEVELOPMENT . Public Present: Name Address Judy Landkammer 6901 Utica Lane B .C . "Jim" Burdick Excelsior Bill McHale 12237 Chadwick Lane - Rick Whitaker 9225 Rhode Island Margaret D . Fleck 4426 Haven Avenue Fran Hagen , II 8683 Shayview Court _ John Dietrich 2721 Colfax Avenue So . Tom Legierski , James Co . 6640 Shady Oak Road Charlie James 6640 Shady Oak Road Doug Kunin Eckankar - Brad Johnson 7425 Frontier Trail Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item . Batzli : Thanks Kate . Anyone on the Commission , would anyone like to ask Kate any questions before we ask the applicant to make the presentation? Okay , would the applicant like to give their presentation . Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 12 Bill McHale : Good evening . I 'm Bill McHale with Ryan Construction . I will mostly be addressing our concept , as we 're talking about it Outlot 8 . - I 've got with me Margaret Fleck who is the architect for Target and I think it 's probably most appropriate that she go through that site , the building , etc . which is obviously the driving force behind the development and once any questions have been answered there , then I 'd just like to make some comments about the concept on the outlots . Margaret . Margaret Fleck : I 'm going to begin by just showing you what our standard - new P193 prototype is and this is the new prototype . It 's slightly different than what you 've been seeing . Earlier renditions where we had a red truss system and it was also exposed . It 's a fairly simple building . _ Two tone and it has an asymmetrical . Batzli : Excuse me , can you maybe move the stand a little bit forward so it 's larger on the monitors and we can see it . Margaret Fleck : This is just for you to get an overview of what our prototype was . Or is . This is what we are proposing to put on the site . It 's varied quite a bit . We 're putting a pier element in that projects out from the wall surface and breaks up the wall surface . We 've added what we call our Greatland colors . The blue and the green . It 's normally in only _ our Greatlands but we feel that it 's appropriate here to break up the surface of the wall again . We 've put the gateway that 's very similar to our Greatland stores in here and have stayed with our prototypical colors . It is a masonry building . It 's what we call rockface . I believe the term - that was used in the staff proposal or narrative was , weathered . And that is very similar to this element right here . It looks like a piece of rock rather than just a flat surface element and I will just set that down if - somebody wants to grab it and feel it . The colors are very specifically chosen by our people to try to keep a certain image . It is a coated surface which is a sealant that coats the block or the masonry . The lower portion of the masonry is an 8 x 16 block . The upper colors , the lighter color is an 8 x 8 block . The massing changes along in here also so that we have some variation . We 've completed and followed this through on all the other sides . The line here that I 'm showing , we had a conceptual difficulty here . When I was first having this developed by my architect , he misinterpretted the grades and this is the true grade here . This area here will be changing to look a little , a bit more like this massing rather_ than the piers . There is a standing seam roof on the front entry area that does return and go back and show it 's face , just a side face on 78th Street . Does anybody have any particular questions on this? In general , that 's the basic building . We are 375 feet in front and approximately 400 feet front to back . Aanenson: If I could make just one comment . One suggestion we had to was - that they put tree wells between those columns so we put that in the staff report to soften the building . Ahrens : Put what? Aanenson : Trees in wells or something along that sidewalk between the columns . - Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 13 Margaret Fleck: In the sidewalk area we could leave , put leave outs and add . We would like to stay with an oranmental tree . A smaller , maybe blossoming tree and keep it away from the actual building foundation that we could place then right along in here . And it already begins to be a landscape area up here so you already see them being reflected . I could even bring them to this distance . I would prefer not to bring anything within the gateway area . Emmings: . . . is the south facing , west side of the building? And the side that faces 78th Street is which one? Margaret Fleck: This one . - Emmings : Okay . Margaret Fleck: This is , again the rear of the building . This would be the one going to . Batzli : The loading dock area is the lower corner on the right? Margaret Fleck : Yeah , this would be the highway side and that would be the direction they 're running into and this is actually , excuse me . Along here would also be the dock area . Batzli : Okay . _ Margaret Fleck: There was also another comment in the staff report about rooftop units not showing and we did go ahead and do a sight line study which I have copies of . I apologize for not getting these here earlier . The study was done from two points on TH 5 . A high point that would be looking from up here across and none of the rooftop , well the rooftop units shows by .01 foot which is about a 1/16 of an inch . And that 's with a 4 foot additional parapet from what we do on prototypes . There is one - element that does show currently . It 's a satellite dish which would be positioned right here . It 's mounted from the rooftop , it mounts and goes to 9 feet above the rooftop . You would see 3 feet of it . It 's _ approximately an 8 foot round satellite dish . You 're going to be seeing that the upper half of the sphere of it for 3 feet . So your top element would be 3 feet and you 're only going to see about 6 feet across and that would hit right about here . And that would be seen from really TH 5 only . - It 's for communication to our district offices of our sales data , etc . and it 's a very important element to our operation of our buildings . And part of it is also transmitting orders . That type of thing . Farmakes : Is it necessary that it be placed on the roof? Margaret Fleck: Our normal effort is to do it up on the rooftop . I don 't know where we 'd put it down on the ground and really have transmissions that we need . - Farmakes : The total height there is? Margaret Fleck : The total height of the building here is 28 foot 8 . And that 's at the high point here . It does go . . . You 're seeing , that 's the 28 Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 14 foot 8 . 26 foot 8 is right here . Batzli : Does anyone else have any questions on the Commission? Erhart : The pitched part of the roof is only over the opening? Over the _ entranceway . Margaret Fleck: Yes it is . That 's , we worked a great deal on that and that is one thing that I went back to my people and we just feel very — strongly that it 's an entrance element that really is , reads entrance to it . Especially on a commercial building of this type . And I made an effort , I can honestly say , for some depth . — Aanenson : We also asked that the element be carried , instead of just the front facing Powers Boulevard but that element be wrapped around West 78th . Margaret Fleck : When I came in to the staff , it was actually narrower thar this and I have widened it to 12 feet from the 8 feet I previously did , which isn 't a great deal but I went back and tried to get more than that . In fact , when I first originally designed this , I had a larger pitch . I can honestly say that it 's going to be a big question . I could go back and tell them that it 's being asked for . It 's a cost . It 's a great deal of cost . Ahrens: It 's a cost and not a . . .design . . . .people won 't find the entrance to Target . Margaret Fleck : No . They 're not really concerned about that but it is architecturally an element that should be read for an entrance . If we — bring it along this side , it reads that something should be there that is not truly there . Ahrens: According to them . Margaret Fleck : According to all of us , yeah for a pier . And then there 's the cost of it . It doesn 't do anything for our building whereas using it - for an entrance identification , it does do something for our building and 7 can rationalize that cost . You 're talking another $100 ,000 .00 when you start turning around the corner . And a maintenance problem . Krauss : If I could touch on that for a bit . Well first of all we 're not asking you to look at cost projections and decide what 's reasonable . Our _ concern here , as Kate indicated earlier , we took the very unusual step of laying out a proposed or potential site plan since we knew Target was in the market for the site ahead of receiving their ideas on this property . And we factored in a list of items that we felt were important for the — City . We being members of the planning staff , engineering staff , the HRA , Planning Commission , and City Council had a meeting . One of the things that came across very clearly is that a Target store or anything else on _ that block should not turn it 's back on downtown . Therefore we felt it wa: important that since we knew that the primary entrance would be oriented tc the west , but visually , architecturally the importance of the 78th Street frontage needs to be expressed and needs to be carried around on that side — and that was our concern with that . Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 15 Margaret Fleck: And if I can interject on that . We really felt like we did that without having to add a rooftop element where anybody that 's in a car or even walking in the area is going to have to look up 30 feet to see in comparison to piers that we put in and massing that we put in as it 's brought down into a human scale . A walking and residential scale and that 's really where we felt the money was appropriate . Not up at the 30 foot height level . One of the things I possibly could look into is going on the 78th Street side with an element on the piers that gave you a little bit of a , very similar to what you have . Just a framework like you have at your , I believe it 's the fire station across the street . That type of thing . Aanenson: This all will be . . .during the site plan review too . These are some of the issues that we 've raised and we 're moving in that direction . Batzli : Kate , let me ask one question about the report . You have staff recommends the pitch element be carried around the West 78th Street side of the building . You have in the next sentence , you 're recommending that the design be further refined to offer roofline elements consistent with _ downtown Chanhassen . Are these two separate issues or are we talking about the same thing? Aanenson: Are you on the last page of the recommendations? Batzli : Page 3 . New page 3 . First full paragraph . Is this one and the same issue or are there two different issues here on our roofline? Aanenson : Same issue . Carrying that pitch around and trying to reflect the other elements we 've got with Market Square and the visibility from West 78th . They 've oriented toward Powers but we 're also saying that that 's a long segment of wall too on West 78th that should also have a front door look . Batzli : Yeah , okay . Go ahead . Margaret Fleck : Do you have any more questions for me? Batzli : I don 't think we do right now . Farmakes : I have one further question . You show trees on the bottom two views and then as you work your way up to the top the trees become much more scarce . Is there a line of thinking that it was important to see the building and that that interferes with the sight line for identification - or , even when there 's no signage on the one side? Margaret Fleck : At this point in the development of the site plan , this is _ a landscaped area behind . We do not have a roadway back there so there is landscaping shown . That 's the same along the sides and along the sides here and all the way around the far side . This is quite a large area of trees . That 's that lot that 's being saved . It was just one , we don 't - normally care for maintenance reasons for leaves being on our sidewalk where our customers roll their carts and that type of thing . To put trees in if we can help it . We do do it and we will be happy to do it in this - condition . It 's just something that we don 't normally do automatically . Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 16 And then there is , the main concern is to have some visual clearance for the sign at the building because it is another identifying element . Farmakes: So it 's not the building itself . It 's just the logo and the entrance? Margaret Fleck : Yeah , that I would need to maintain the clearance for . That and just a general area in here and sidewalk area . Our sidewalks are meantfor our customers to be able to traverse into our building and not have to walk a great deal in the driveway . Erhart : Jeff , you 're talking about trees adjacent to the building? _ Farmakes : I 'm talking about there 's four views there and . . . if you look at the bottom two , there 's several trees running along the plane of the building . On the upper two , there are very few . I 'm just wondering , marketing wise , the intent . Erhart : Yeah , and your suggestions is . . .you 're suggesting that you might - want to have trees next to the building to further screen , is that correct Farmakes: I guess that would be somewhat consistent with what we 've been _ requiring on other things . However , I wanted to know what their thinking was as far as marketing the site . Margaret Fleck : On the West 78th Street , I 'm not sure we 're showing all - the trees that would be there . Next to the building , exactly next to the building there 's only a 3 foot sidewalk which has an overhang of 2 feet for your . . . _ Bill McHale : The landscape plan will . The depiction is , there 's actually trees along the boulevard but they 're not right next to the building so _ from the roadway you don 't have any problems . That 's all trees and the elevations she 's showing you doesn 't step back to the street to see the trees . One of the reasons that we don 't have much room in there is because the building , pursuant to staff , was pushed further north to save the big - grouping of trees adjacent to the freeway and that limited the area . That elevation , it really isn 't representative . . . Margaret Fleck : . . .the architecture , not the trees . Aanenson: If I could make a clarification on that too . Actually at this point . . . - Erhart : We 're ultimately waiting for the developer to do some drawings of trees . - Margaret Fleck : We 'll be happy to . Farmakes : No , but if you 're talking about adding elements to the side of the building to improve the look of the building . If we cover it up by trees , there are ornamental trees , it is kind of dubious whether or not we 're gaining anything . - Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 17 Margaret Fleck: They could be shurbs , if you want some greenery or they could be flowered plants . You know I mean we can work with that . — Batzli : Thank you . Bill McHale : I don 't have any pictures to look at so this is going to be dry . All I 'd like to do is give you I guess our reasons for why we 're going through kind of an awkward process with one site that 's so refined and one that we 're getting arms around everybody getting comfortable with . Obviously Target is what 's leading the direction and the outlots and the compatibility to develop them I think is something that 's desired by the City and Target and that 's what we 're trying to effect right now . One of the things that I feel strongly about is we need the flexibility to develop this site and that 's why we 're looking for something . If we 're to commit going here , we need to know what our possibilities are . A couple comments . We 're real comfortable with the materials that the staff has recommended and that the buildings on Outlot 8 are compatible . We don 't want them to look the same but we do think similar materials and the materials you use in downtown would be certainly acceptable . That 's no problem for us at all . There 's questions in the staff report regarding setbacks . One of the problems we 're having and we feel that the PUD should allow us a flexibility to some of those setbacks is , in addition to setting back from the roadway , there are some utility lines that exist in the existing 78th that can 't be moved . That we can 't build on top of . Target has concerns about sight lines and we 're trying to preserve ones to the main intersections which should be to everybody 's advantage . If you take all that into consideration and then you set back everything , the projected 50 feet , in some cases there aren 't building pads available . If we can 't build on it , we can 't buy it and then we 're left with the question with , who 's going to pay for the open space . So we think that if you look at the entire Outlot B and have some flexibility , we think we can work that out . We are not sure where the two fast food restrictions came from . In talking to Kate earlier , I 'm not sure that she knows for sure . I sent a letter to Don Ashworth after several of our meetings a long time ago and told him that we felt that that was somewhat problematic . We would like the market to determine the appropriate uses . We think we can work within the _ landscape requirements . The City 's parking requirements but we feel strongly that anything that 's zoned for that area should be allowed . We have no problem working with staff and approving one building at a time . In fact , that 's the way we 'd prefer to do it . That 's why we agreed with staff — to come up with just Outlot 8 rather than platting it into separate lots which would give you less control . I think we understand where staff is coming with with pitched roofs . We would like at least the flexibility , depending on the exact building sign when we come in . In some cases , maybe an increased parapet another element would be satisfactory . I think one of our major concerns here and yours are architectural and screening the rooftop units . We think we can accomplish that . One other thing that came up is the seeding of Outlot B . I don 't put grass where I don 't irrigate because it doesn 't grow . The only thing that grows is the weeds . We also will probably be , we 're not positive at this point because of title . Title — issues and ownership issues , we 're not positive we can grade the Target site and Outlot B at the same time . So that may cause some problems . I think what we are comfortable with is where we 've graded it , I think we can take erosion precautions and we normally would throw down someting that Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 18 would prohibit growth until we brought in sod and irrigation . We have not had good luck at all with seeding areas , hydro seeding . Doubling the seed — load . If we 're not going to irrigate , we don't seem to get grass . I thinl those are my only concerns with the staff report . I think otherwise we think it was fairly , very well represented and we think we 're on the same _ page . And I 'd be glad to answer any questions if you 've got any . Batzli : Does anyone have any questions of the applicant before we open it up to the public? Okay , thank you . This is a public hearing . Due to the — probably number of comments and people commenting and offering their testimony if you will today , I 'd like to ask that you approach the microphone and give your and address for the record . Try to be brief . If - you can keep your comments to a couple of minutes , that would be much appreciated . Would anyone like to address the Commission? Okay , I ' ll ask for a motion to close the public hearing unless anyone would like to address the Commission at this time . Conrad moved , Ahrens seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Batzli : Tim , I 'm going to start at your end . Erhart : Well let 's start out where Jeff left off there and maybe add some good ideas . What 's the use for that vehicle? That parking there north of the building along West 78th . Bill McHale : Employee parking . Erhart : Oh , that 's employee parking . Other than trees along West 78th , is— there a berm there or anything else? Aanenson: Right in here? — Erhart : Yeah . Aanenson: They 're showing a . . .adding to the PUD zone because we think — these are the only two lots that are left between Market Square that are unbuildable and it makes sense to tie those in architecturally in what we 're trying to do with the PUD zone . We 're not sure that this connection — is based on grades . . . We may recommend that it be more of a landscape element up in here but there is a change in grade . Erhart : What about along West 78th . . .row of trees and then it 's flat grass . Fran Hagen: If I may make a comment . The building itself . . . — Batzli : I 'm sorry , who are you for the record? Fran Hagen: My name is Fran Hagen with RLK . What I was stating , do you have a grading plan by chance? I don 't know if you 've had a chance to see the site . It is falling away from West 78th Street quite , I think a total of 30 to almost 40 feet to the low point down where the pond will be constructed . What we have is coming into the site , 2% and 5% grade until - Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 19 we get to the front entrance of the building . We 're proposing a grade at the street connection in front of Target of 63 .5 . Elevation 963 and the building will be set at 58 so that 's about 5 1/2 feet lower there . But as you progress further to the east , the east property line there , the elevation of the roadway is about at 72 so that 's about 12 feet . — Erhart : It slopes down toward the building? Fran Hagen : Right . There will be , there was I think a plaza area up there wasn 't there? Aanenson: That 's what we talked about if the connection didn 't go between this parcel . Between the two parcels . That there 'd be a plaza . Fran Hagen : I believe on the landscape though , even with that parcel we were showing a retaining wall and a plaza area up in that corner . Proposed , not necessarily . Up in the northeast corner of the site . As far as berming , I guess that 's what I heard you addressing . Erhart : I was just wondering if . Fran Hagen : It 's pretty physically . - Erha-t : Trying to understand what was there . Fran Hagen : That 's where we hope the tree massings and we do have quite a bunch , what is it? 1 1/2 times the normal requirement . So we 're trying the best we can to mass some trees in there . Erhart : It appears that you 're doing more to the west of that with shurbs . Fran Hagen : Again , the grade difference over in there is much less because by the time you come to the second entrance , you 've dropped down 10 more feet . That second entrance closer to , or further to the west is down at a 53 elevation . Proposed . In fact I think it 's been graded . Rough graded there if you were to see the site . It 's intending to drop down to a low point right around that westerly entrance to the Target site . Erhart : May I ask Chuck Dimler , we don 't see his stand on here . Where does that go when we 're all done? Aanenson : The corn stand? - Erhart : Yeah . Fran Hagen : Probably right where the entrance is . Aanenson : Talk to Todd . Erhart : Okay , and what , nobody 's objecting to the idea of adding the — Burdick Park Addition , Block 3 , Lots 1 and 2 . Is there a problem? Aanenson: We haven 't noticed that . We 're saying when it comes back for a - preliminary , as we 've gone through this , we realize those are the only two Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 20 lots and what we 're recommending , when it comes back for a preliminary , we noticed that and put that in as a part of the PUD . — Erhart: . . .be done? Krauss: There 's a lot of , I mean this isn't the only action occurring on this . There 's a lot of negotiation between the city and the property owners and the HRA so yeah , that should all be resolved by that time . Erhart : Well , I guess it 's obvious from everything that 's been supplied , somebody 's put a lot of work into this already . Quite frankly , I was you know , like everybody else , you don 't want Chanhassen to change too much too_ fast and I 'm kind of nervous about Target coming to our little Chanhassen but after seeing the plan , I 'm just a lot more comfortable with it . Particularly pleased that we could save those trees next to TH 5 so it isn 't shocking when you , it doesn 't end up looking like Eden Prairie Center.- when enterwhen you drive there on 212 . Regarding the , let 's see , at this point when would we expect the entire area , including Lot B to be developed? Assuming the economy doesn 't get any worse . — Krauss: Well yeah , it 's really hard to know . It 's contingent upon market conditions but I think in the very brief period of the last 2 or 3 years , you 've seen the Chanhassen market just accelerate extraordinarily rapidly . Having Market Square opening up in October is going to add to that . Having Target , Target wanted to break ground this fall yet . I can 't believe it 's going to be too many years before Outlot B is built out . — Erhart : Your reaction to the statement about not sodding Outlot B . Aanenson: That 's erosion control . Hempel : I 'm sure Watershed would have some concern over that also . Erhart : Well yeah but yet we 've left the Charlie James property sit over there with weeds for how many years now? How do you differeniate our position? How do you justify our position? — Hempel : Well our main concern is to control the erosion obviously and what we try to get is some fast growing cover . Not necessarily grass but we do — get a clover , an oat , rye , barley type growth . Just to mitigate erosion . Erhart: Would we be doing something to the Charlie James property as well? Hempel : That 's exactly it . It 's left in it 's natural state and eventually weeds do overcome it or prairie like atmosphere . Erhart : of course that 's all going to be redone now . On the other hand , I do think people do plant grass and it does grow . The Highway Department is proof of that . Batzli : My front lawn isn 't . Erhart: Anyway again , I 'm a lot more comfortable with it . Other than that . that 's about the only comments I had. Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 21 Batzli : Tim , speak to us philosophically for just a second about , by making this a PUD , what do we do with the areas around it? Does this change anything about the lots directly behind it between the building and the Monterey there and the property to the north? Do you see a problem with redoing this as a PUD? - Erhart : The last time we had this in here , I stated that I 'd like to see us do something to bring the whole Monterey Drive into the plan . But at that time , I thought the entrance was going to be to the north . Maybe that 's why , and this way , looking at it today and going out and looking at the site , and actually the back of the building faces Monterey , I don 't feel , I guess I didn 't feel that that was a problem . Your question regarding making this a PUD relative to the Monterey Drive area , I guess I don 't follow you . Batzli : Well this whole development . We 're looking at this as a conceptual deal . Do we want to rezone? Is this the kind of development we 're going to want here? I guess I 'm asking for your impression on what do we end up doing on Monterey between this and the back of a huge building? What do we do to the north? Do we want to realign the road that way? We 're doing a lot of things here conceptual rather than you know , what 's the slope of the roof . I think . Krauss : If I can touch on something you said Mr . Chairman . The alignment of the road is something that the City 's been planning on doing for a large number of years . That 's not contingent upon Target or anybody else . That 's something that we need to do to have a safe intersection with 78th Street and the boulevard . We also intend to carry 78th Street to the west as a , I forget what we 're calling them now on the Highway 5 study . I see some of my task force members here . Batzli : Frontage . Krauss: Well sort of a parkway design and it 's going to have an entrance into the park and continue on down . That road needs to be back far enough from the TH 5 intersection to be safe and that 's why we 'd always planned to do that . Batzli : So you 're comfortable? Erhart : Assuming the area on Monterey would become , right now it 's zoned what? Aanenson: General business . Erhart : Yeah , so now we have an industrial . Essentially an industrial site there . I would assume that with Market Square and this being here , any future development would be more likely retail or office , would it not? _ Krauss: Well there 's no question that what occurs on the lots north of Pica Drive would fit into the commercial/retail context of downtown . Early on , the Assistant City Manager 's and was participating in some of these discussions . We looked at the building down on Monterey . The industrial building that 's back in there and they adviseability about including that Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 22 and it 's really innocuous . It 's really concealed from most off site views _ and it 's going to become even more so as it would develop and there really didn 't seem to be any need from a design standpoint to incorporate it into the project . Erhart: Yeah , that was the other thing when I made that statement that time was again I assumed that a lot of those trees would be , I thought all would be gone and you 'd essentially start with a clean sheet of paper on — all parcels . Thankfully which is not going to be that way and you 're right , it 's low and they 're actually screened quite a bit by those trees . Batzli : What do you think about tying this in? Does this , according to the plans as they stand , do they tie in with the rest of downtown so that you get a feeling that this isn 't isolating this and the adjacent retail to the west from the remainder of downtown? Do you think they 've done an - adequate job along the side of the building to West 78th to make it pedestrian friendly or don 't you care? Erhart : Well again , I would hoped that the entrance would have faced West 78th Street and I guess I always viewed it that way . Although I know , well anyway . The way it 's configured to the west , I guess it acts as a wall between the downtown and where everything here is going to be . In that respect , that 's where I was picking up on Jeff 's idea there . The importance of how this looks from West 78th Street along with the pitched roof . I guess I 'm not quite satisfied that we have an adequate appearance from West 78th . What we don 't want to do is to have it look like the side of Target like you do when you go to the Eden Prairie Center parking lot . I 'm not sure we 're that much different than that from what I 've seen so _ far . Batzli : I don 't know if we 're different at all really . Erhart : I hate to think that we 're going to go down West 78th Street and see a side of a building . Batzli : Big side of a building . Erhart : If your question is whether we want Target at all? Quite frankly , Eden Prairie with the traffic 's getting too far to go for diapers . Batzli : I 'm not asking that . I 'm asking philosophically , you know have we done the best job we can on that site to tie this into the downtown so it - makes sense to do it this way . Because we 're , and this is the conceptual approval stage . I mean do we kind of like what we see here? I 'd rather talk about whether they did a good job on the entrance treatment when we see the real plan . I don 't want to say yeah , that 's good tonight . I 'd like to see them work on it some more and I don 't really want to say you have to do this and you have to do that and we ' ll approve it . I don 't think that 's our function tonight . I 'm looking more for some suggestions or guidance on whether this fits in with what we want our downtown to look like and whether this is something we 'll be able to look at when it does come in and not suddenly say , what have you done . Ladd , go ahead . Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 23 Conrad: I ' ll make my comments fairly brief . It 's good , I like Target coming to town . They 're a great retailer . I think some nice things have _ been done to date . I have some general directions that I feel real convinced about . That we 're not even close in terms of what the building should look like on West 78th . Not even close . I would like to see , and I don 't know how that . You know we have to go back to the architect to make it kind of friendly . It 's 330 some feet and I don 't think we 've tried yet . I would like to see something that 's kind of friendly to Chanhassen residents on that side . I don 't care if it 's roofline or a grassy area . I need something on the street itself . We 've got a sidewalk there and I know we have some vegetation plantings but it just seems real unfriendly . Real cold and not what the rest of Chanhassen looks like right now . Other comments , I don 't know how big the parking lot is . It 's hard for me to tell but I 'm sure we don 't have a parking lot this big in Chanhassen yet . Other directions . I 'd sure like to see , it is kind of broken up with some , it 's kind of broken up . I guess my preference , and this is a costly recommendation , but I 'd sure like to see a grassy area that divides that parking lot in two . Going from east to west . From the front door going to the west property line and I don 't know what I 'm talking about literally but I 'm kind of concerned that it is a huge parking lot and visually from the road , I 'd like to break that up a little bit . And then my last comment is , Outlot B . It just is hard for me to visualize it . It doesn 't _ seem to be a PUD type of drawing . I don 't care if it 's any one of the three it doesn 't , I 'm not real comfortable with . It 's building , parking lot , building , parking lot and driveways going through and it just , I 'm kind of uncomfortable with that . Of all those comments that I 've made , the critical one is how we look on West 78th . There 's just no doubt . In my mind we 're not even , Target hasn 't tried yet . Batzli : Steve . Emmings : My comments are going to sound almost identical to Ladd 's . I wrote them down so I could repeat them . The 78th Street side of the building was number one on my list . The parking lot is number two and we 've had some discussions here about parking lots being able to be designed so they don 't look like parking lots . We haven 't gotten into that in any real depth yet . I don 't know what it means but I like the sound of it and that 's something I 'm going to be looking at real hard . Outlot B , the idea of that . It is hard to get an idea of what 's going on . They 're even looking at three plans and I agree with Ladd , right now it doesn 't feel like it 's integrated either with this project or even with itself . The idea that that could be all fast food restaurants would be abhorent to me . I would prefer there be none but setting a maximum on it seems like a real reasonable thing to do to me . I don 't have any idea what the implications are . All the truck traffic to the back of this building is going down Monterey and then over on Pica Drive . I don 't know what the implications are for the lots that are there or for the roads that are designed to handle that kind of truck traffic . But that must be a significant amount of traffic with some pretty big vehicles . I don 't know . _ Is that something we 've looked at or if it might be nothing to be concerned about? Krauss: Yeah , I don 't think it really is a major concern . Monterey 's been accepting the truck traffic for the industrial building for quite a while . Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 24 It 's also the main access to the service area of Market Square . When the _ possibility arose of getting the service bays for Target back there where it 's really totally concealed from off site views , we frankly jumped at that chance . I think it should work rather well . Emmings: Okay . Well , that 's good to hear so I guess it 's the , I don 't mind the entrance . It would be nice to have the entrance on 78th Street but I don 't think it 's terrible where it is . I think I can sure live with — that _ I don 't think there 's anyway we 're ever going to think that this , we 're ever going to integrate this gully into the rest of Chanhassen just because of the scale . It 's so far off from anything else that we have , _ there 's just no hope of it feeling like it fits . I don 't think . But that just means that a lot has to be done to that 78th Street side to do the best we can . I think that 's about all I 've got . Right now anyway . Batzli : Okay . Thanks Steve . Jeff . Farmakes : I 'm just going to make a few general comments . You were talking about philosophy and I 've always been confused by what Chanhassen is philosophically . The city , because there really wasn 't a city here , sort of built up from the 70 's and basically were primarily in the commercial _ section here , the small strip mall . We sort of have evolved to a little larger strip mall from there and we have the possibilities of bringing in what is called some anchor to the retail section here to get people to drive to Chanhassen , and I know a lot of people are a little nervous about - that . I 'm not really familiar with the marketing strategy behind Target putting a store here . It seems to me that it does not follow typically what they do in some of the surrounding areas here . Typically they position a store adjacent to another large commercial development . I thinI the nearest one here is Eden Prairie . Typically they don 't have residential across the street from there and typically they don 't make up half of the commercial area in a downtown . And so I think certainly , I understand some of the concerns of the people who have voiced their concerr to me anyway about this , as to how that 's going to change what they perceive to be as Chanhassen . From what I see on the buildings here , — you 're obviously trying to tackle that and I 'm sure that the staff is pursuing a PUD to try and achieve that and give the City some control over this thing . I 'm a little concerend about where these people are going to _ be coming into Chanhassen from . I know from what I 've heard , at least initially on this traffic report , is that it 's not going to impact the city but I can 't help but believe that we 're going to get a lot of people coming in here from Minnetonka . Or the Minnetonka area which is going to mean TH - 101 H -101 or CR 17 or TH 41 , to access this area -from the north . We certainly don 't have a lot of people to the south here . We have a lot of forest and open farmland between here and Shakopee . But I 'm sure possibly your marketing reports tell you exactly where these people are , where you believe these people are going to be coming from . And I 'm a little concerned that once that traffic gets here , as to how it 's going to impact some of these problems that we have had . The island situation and visual clear sight lines coming in off of Market and looking down 78th . I 'm not traffic engineer but I know when I come out into those islands , it 's hard to see and I have to commit to going out into the street before I can — really see down the street to see what cars are coming up . And I 'm wondering until we work out some of those problems , I 'm a little concerned Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 25 about bringing in this much traffic into town . Again , that 's a non- professional opinion . I am concerned about the sight line from 78th Street for some of the reasons that I brought up earlier . Residential across the street . I think we have to be sensitive to integrating the commercial next to the residential . It 's going to overlook an awfully big parking lot which brings me to another issue . I thought in the earlier drawings we were going to try and minimize a very large expanse of impervious surface which we 've already got locked up . We really don 't have a main street . We just sort of have a lot of parking lots and commercial areas off of what we call main street . It certainly wouldn 't hurt to try and work in a few more trees into that parking lot . I know it may create a problem with the sight lines for the entryway and probably not something that you 're going to get a dollar back on but I think it would go a long way to try and break that impervious surface up and come in from the west . That brings me to my last comments . The Outlot B , I 'm a little worried as to what type of restaurant and what type of developments would be going on there . My hope is that we would try and balance out what type of development we 're going to get there . Hopefully Chanhassen , we 're not going to wind up with the west section of commercial being a discount area . Totally . And like an Arby 's and something like that there where we get a lot of back . . .plexiglass or something of that nature . But all and all , I think that the architect in this particular building , this is certainly a big improvement over Eden Prairie . That 's it . Batzli : Joan . Ahrens : I 'm going to start with Outlot B . You 're recommending that there be no more than two fast food restaurants in there but it looks like on the plan that there are other restaurants that are expected to locate there or — are possible . Aanenson : Correct . Ahrens: What kind of restaurants do you think are going to locate next to , like Perkins? — Fran Hagen : An Applebee 's . . . We don 't know at this time but that 's the kind of things that could be in those . . . An Applebee 's or Bakers Square . Don 't know for sure . Farmakes : That 's in addition to the fast food? _ Ahrens : Right . I can 't tell by the plan either what this is ever going to look like and I picture in my mind that this is going to look like one of those areas around Eden Prairie Center you know where the McDonald 's is and there 's a little shopping center and you have to drive . There 's lots of parking lots and it 's hard to get around and it 's just kind of , like somebody just dropped this commercial , little commercial area with lots of a couple fast food restaurants and a couple of other restaurants and it doesn 't look , it 's not a real welcoming place or real comfortable looking place from either a retail standpoint . A restaurant standpoint . . . The only thing I can think that this is going to look like by looking at the plan . Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 26 - Batzli : Are you thinking of the west end? Ahrens: Kind of west . It 's on that southwest corner of like 212 and Prairie Center Drive . That area in there . Batzli : Yeah . Kind of a jigsaw puzzle . Ahrens : Yeah . Yeah . So I think there needs to be a lot of thinking on - what 's going to go on in this area because I can 't tell and it doesn 't loo good from what I can tell . I thought we talked about a long time ago putting islands in the parking lot . The impervious surface for this _ parking lot , impervious area is , almost 80% right . What happened to that idea? Or was I dreaming that up? I heard putting islands in and you know making it , giving it a better appearance . Aanenson : Like I say , we ' ll be looking at the site plan more specifically At this time we 're really focusing on the zoning and the PUD itself . We raised some of the issues we had . I 'm pointing them in that direction but_ if that 's the direction you want us to go with the . Ahrens: I know you keep pointing us over here and we want to talk about these things over here . - Aanenson: No , I 'm not saying , that 's what we 're asking for is direction . If you want us to look at the landscaping , that 's what we 're asking you fo— is direction . Ahrens : Okay , I think we should look at that . And I don 't see why we can 't_ incorporate or why Target can 't incorporate some type of an island . I knot it 's not what they usually do . I know it 's more difficult planning wise . _ know it will cause some maintenance , but who cares . The store itself , I don 't know . To tell you the truth , the Chicago type store or the - Minneapolis type store , they all look pretty much alike to me . It 's just that there 's a stripe here and there and maybe an entrance monument . Batzli : I think she just committed architectural sacreligion . I 'm not sure . Ahrens: Well they 're gray . Long gray buildings . That 's why they put trees up . We do have to , I would like to see some , there 's got to be a loi more effort into how this looks from 78th Street . I agree with Ladd . I 'm not going to repeat everything and I wrote it down too but Steve already - restated everything that Ladd said . I like the PUD concept . I think it has to be developed this way . I don 't understand what would ever go in to that lot that 's located between the Target store and Monterey Drive . Is _ that retail? Is that what we envision or what? Krauss: It would likely be retail or office that 's already into 78th Street , and frankly that 's , it 's a big element of tying the Target into thE- downtown streetscape because whatever 's there is going to conceal the back part of Target and kind of bring you around that corner which is now an open corner . - Ahrens: But we would have control over what goes in there? Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 27 Aanenson : That 's why we 're recommending the PUD for that piece too . Ahrens : The store itself , it does need a lot more work . I mean I agree with Ladd . I don 't see a big improvement over anything we 've seen in the past . We want something different I guess . We just and I think we 've said that all along from the very first meeting at the fire station through today . I mean we want something that 's very different from what Target normally develops and I don 't think it has to cost Target a lot more money . It may cost them more money but they also want to be in our community and I think that we have the right to tell them what we want too . On the landscape plan , the plantings that they 're proposing to put in here are pretty small types of trees and bushes which doesn 't seem to me that it 's going to make a real big impact on how this building looks to people coming into town and I think that needs to be redone and put some bigger trees on the plan and something besides the crab trees and that type of thing . Are all three of these exits going to be , are there going to be stop lights? Aanenson : No . Ahrens : Which one? I forgot . Aanenson : This is where we 're recommending it be right turn in , right turn out only . This one will have a stop light at the entrance to the Target store and this will be , it may or may not be signalized . It will be a full intersection though . Ahrens: I 'd like to look at removing this parking lot too from the 78th Street side of the building . Margaret Fleck : Moving it this way? Batzli : That 's the employee parking? Margaret Fleck : Oh this portion? Ahrens : Yeah . That 's all I have right now . Batzli : Thanks Joan . Erhart : Brian? Batzli : Yeah . • T Erhart : Do you want more , I have some more issues here . Batzli : Okay , let me run down a couple and we ' ll come back to you . I think there 's been a lot of good effort that 's gone into this plan . A lot of work . I think the applicant is working with staff . It sounds like they 're being sensitive to a lot of things that we like . I think the plan needs refining . I think whatever we do along West 78th Street needs , careful attention needs to be paid to that . The Outlot B , Kate help me out here . Unless I miss something . Whatever happened to our Outlot B that was sort of a food court? What happened to that? Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 28 - Aanenson : Well I think that their concern with the design and the views of_ Target and the spacing of the buildings . They 've basically thrown that plan out . That was one of the options that Barton-Aschman put together . Fran Hagen : And the parking . Batzli : Parking? Fran Hagen : The parking was insufficient . . . Aanenson : They 're trying to maximize the views from Powers and so they have the outlots spaced so you can see the front of the Target store . Batzli : Because I think one fo the things we really liked about that plan probably unfortunately , given what I 've just heard , was that we could do a - lot with the backs of those buildings we felt and put up some trees and do some things where there wouldn 't be a sight line at all from Powers into the front of the building . I guess in looking at these plans , I was - disappointed in Outlot 8 from the standpoint that it seemed like a maze or a jigsaw puzzle to traverse within the retail stores in that section . It didn 't seem particularly , there didn 't seem to be a logic to it then and _ I 'm sure I have an untrained eye and there is a logic to it but it did , when Joan brought up that part of Eden Prairie Center , by the west entrancE I think it is . I don 't even go to those stores because of , it 's just maze like in there . To me . I don 't go in there . It 's unfriendly . I don 't think that , the logic of how they have it arranged in any one of those three could be explained to me but if what I hear is that the logic is that they can see the entrance to their store , that doesn 't carry great weight - with me particularly because I don 't want to see a poorly developed end to Chanhassen so that somebody can get a glimpse of the Target store as they zoom up Powers . There isn 't going to be an entrance there . If people are going to Target , they 're going to know that Target is there . I don 't quitE understand that . So I would like to see , at least rationale presented whet this does come back to us as to why it has to be arranged the way it does or certainly Outlot 8 needs a lot of redesign in my opinion . Is there any - effect Paul , based on what we do tonight? Are we somehow limiting ourselves to one of these three choices that they 've presented for the Outlot by us approving this tonight? Or giving this the okey dokey on the _ conceptual stage . Krauss: I don 't think so Mr . Chairman . At this point , the level of design concept that is used in looking at is limited because they haven 't really - had an opportunity to explore it fully . We 've raised a lot of the same questions you have . We 're convinced that under the PUD we can coordinate the development on this . I mean the worse case scenario from a visual traffic standpoint is if we go with the additional lotting that 's along 78th Street . You quite frankly have the potential of having 8 fast food restaurants and a Goodyear store or something like that . Each having _ separate driveways . Each loading onto 78th Street . Each looking completely different and despite our best attempts , probably having a blue building here and an orange building there and that kind of a thing . This opportunity under the PUD is that we are going to coordinate the architectural styles around it and frankly Bill Morrish 's opinion on that at that meeting was that unified building or individual buildings having a Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 29 similar architectural theme , you can probably achieve most these same goals . So we are certainly asking them to refine that more and we ' ll bring — back more definition but it 's still an open question . They haven 't really laid one concept on the table and this is it . So we 've taken the proactive step of saying okay , here 's our concerns so when you do bring one back in , here 's the guidelines we 're going to live by . Batzli : Well my concern stems from condition 4 which says the three proposals for Outlot B may be acceptable . Is that saying to the applicant — that the Planning Commission and subsequently the Council is saying yes . One of these three is fine as long as you go through proper channels to get each building approved . Aanenson : No , we go back through the preliminary process , we want to see those refined . Batzli : Well I know but we 're somehow giving guidance to the applicant that we find one of these three , one of these three may be acceptable . Aanenson: Right . What we don 't know , and it 's hard because of the mix of use . They each have different parking standards so you really can 't tie that down too much because if it 's fast food versus sitdown versus retail , we have different parking standards . Basically we know there 's only so much square footage and we 've given you the range based on the different versions . 25 ,000 to almost 30 ,000 square feet of additional buildings and there can only be so much square footage on there . That parcel 's only so big . Yes , we agree that it needs to be refined . The maze look and some of those sort of issues but there can only be so much useage of that and we 're saying , based on that , we feel that the comparable range , that much square footage and it needs to be developed further . Krauss : At the very least , you 're going to have a concept that lays out _ the internal road system there that defines the architectural theme that they 're going to have that mandates a signage package . That limits the number of free standing pylon signs . Mandates a landscaping package . That limits the more obnoxious uses that are potential on that . And also it sets aside an appropriately sized piece of property . I think about a half acre for the HRA to work with developing entrance monumentations . We envision there being a prominently designed landscape structural feature similar to what we 're looking at doing on Market and other entrances into downtown . So there 's a lot of framework to hang anything they come in with in the future on . Batzli : Okay , let me ask my question one more time . By us saying the three proposals may be acceptable , not in terms of square footage or number of buildings but just in terms of the layout that we see on our plans today , does that mean that when we see this back as a plan , that we 're actually acting on , it 's more than likely we 're going to get one of these three plans? Aanenson: I don 't think so . Krauss : I think you 're going to see a refined version of one of them , yeah . Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 30 Batzli : Because if it was up to me , I 'd say the three proposals for Outlot B are probably unacceptable and please redo them . I mean I 'd rather say that . I don 't know that any of us is enamored with it . I know the applicant hasn 't come up here and spoken with us and explained the rationale for why they 're doing things a certain way and as you indicated , - they 're still working on it themselves . But you know , I don 't really want to say that these plans may be acceptable knowing what I know right now . So I 'm just trying to discern whether we should be a little bit more careful with this language . Krauss: It 's certainly appropriate to make these concerns known . The _ major part of this process at this point is to give them direction to come back in and resolve these issues . Batzli : That 's what I 'm doing right now . Is the sight line study that you- passed out or Target gave you today , have you had a chance to look at it? And what does it say to you and why? In 2 minutes or less . Aanenson : Can 't figure it out . Krauss : We really need some time to go through it with them . I mean this is the kind of analysis we need to have done . When we opened it up , one o•- the pages didn 't seem to jibe with what we recall the elevations to be . Batzli : Generally . Sight lines from up on TH 5 . Given the elevation of - the building and your understanding of the elevation of the road , are they doing a good job hiding the H back and the Satellite dish and whatever else they 've got on the roof? Krauss : It appears that either , yeah . That it 's going to achieve the goal . What they 're going to demonstrate to us here is the wall and does the wall need to be 2 feet higher to achieve it or that . But yes , you wil '- not be looking down on a maze of pipes and air conditioners as has often happened in the corridor . Batzli : And I know that you said to Steve that there 's not a concern about the truck traffic going back on Monterey to the loading dock area . Is the outlot where the trees will be located , is that ever going to be some sort _ of , or is that going to be just kind of a nature area? Is the City going to have title to that? Krauss : The City would acquire title to that , yes . Batzli : That will not be maintained as a park or otherwise as an enticement to small children or anything else? _ Krauss: No . The idea is to preserve the trees in perpetuity . Batzli : And where do we envision the truck traffic coming into this area from? Krauss : Maybe that 's a question we can refer to our traffic consultants - who are here tonight . There were several questions that were raised regarding approaches to the site . Not only from commercial traffic but Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 31 also from customer traffic . There has been a lot of study done on the downtown street system . The questions that Commissioner Farmakes is raising about the downtown street system are frankly , I mean we 've got the design solutions for all of them and it was going to have been under construction this fall but after we started working with Target , we put off the project a little bit to make sure that we 'd accommodate those concerns . But I 'd like to have Tim Feeno from Strgar-Roscoe-Fausch , who is the City 's traffic consultant possibly address some of those questions on approach directions . Jeff Bedenaur from Strgar-Roscoe is also here tonight . Batzli : Okay , why don 't they do that real briefly . Tim Feeno: Jeff Bedenaur is our . . .specialist and he did most of the traffic analysis that was done earlier on and I ' ll let him try . . . Jeff Bedenaur : Based on the region location of Chanhassen and the site in particular , most of the truck traffic that we anticipate will be trying to ingress or egress the site would be coming from the east on TH 5 . Both for the commercial/retail/wholesale outlets . Batzli : Excuse me just one moment . Can everyone hear or maybe you can go to the microphone to make sure . Jeff Bedenaur : Based on our previous traffic study for downtown Chanhassen , the major direction of approach , because of the regional _ location of Chanhassen and the site in particular , is going to be from the east on TH 5 . There 's also a great number of trips who will come south on TH 101 and enter the downtown Chanhassen area from the east but they would be clients and patrons of the retail and commercial uses that are being proposed here . The truck traffic primarily would be coming in on TH 5 and I would expect that there will be a desire for most of the truckers to come in probably at Market , once they know the site and how to get in and out , they ' ll probably come off TH 5 at Market . Come up to West 78th and then travel west to Monterey and into the site from that direction . There might be some who continue on TH 5 to Powers and come around but it 's kind of a reverse movement and I wouldn 't expect there 'd be a great deal of that . Batzli : Wouldn 't they be making a left hand turn across traffic with islands right there for the stop light? Jeff Bedenaur : Right . There would be a traffic signal at the intersection of Market and West 78th that would facilitate that turn for them . We anticipate that over time West 78th Street ' will convert from a 2 lane divided section to a 4 lane divided section as far east as Laredo and possibly Great Plains . Batzli : Do truckers like making left hand turns as opposed to right hand turns because they 're going to be making several left hand turns if they come in the way they propose on Market? Jeff Bedenaur : Right . Well as I indicated , they ' ll have a traffic signal at Market to facilitate that left . And then the left at Monterey shouldn 't be that difficult depending on the time of the day they make that turn . Typically I 'm sure that there are trucks that are going to coming in and Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 32 - out at all times of the day but I would expect it would be during the off _ peak periods that most of the truck traffic would be entering the site . Batzli : Is that true? That people from Target , is anybody here from Target , is that when the trucks normally enter? Bill McHale : They try not to mix truck traffic with their . . . Jeff Bedenaur : And as Paul had indicated , that ultimately there would be also a traffic signal at Monterey and Kerber to help facilitate that left turn as well . Farmakes : Excuse me for a minute . Are your traffic comments directly related to the Target or retail in general in Chanhassen? Jeff Bedenaur : The direction of approach percentages , and if I can find them I can detail those percentages , are to the downtown in general . Farmakes : So the access that you 're talking about when you 're talking about accessing into town off of TH 5 from the east , is retail in general and not directed specifically to Target? Jeff Bedenaur : That 's correct . We anticipate that 30% of the traffic intc and out of downtown Chanhassen would be coming into or leaving on TH 5 to the east . 25% would be coming in or going out to the north on TH 101 . 10%- would be coming into downtown or going out of downtown to the north on Powers . 15% would be coming into or going out of the downtown area on TH 5 to the west . And additionally , 10% would be coming in from the south on _ TH 101 . That 's the generalized directional distribution that we used in our downtown traffic forecast . The truck traffic in particular would be much heavier on TH 5 to the east . Farmakes : Doesn 't discount retail have a broader draw than normal retail though? Jeff Bedenaur : . . .didn 't have an opportunity to look at a great many or a large spectrum of directional distributions based on the land use that we were looking at for the downtown Chanhassen forecasting work . This is a generalized distribution and it 's one that represents a mix of types of land use . Office , retail , commercial , entertainment and so forth so it 's real mix . It 's a real generalization . Farmakes: As I said in my comments earlier , what worries me though is that I believe the nearest Target to the north is Ridgedale . Is that correct? Jeff Bedenaur : That 's right . Farmakes : Okay , and then to the east is Eden Prairie , correct? And we have comparatively to our size , Minnetonka is 60 how many thousand is Minnetonka? Krauss: About 50-52 ,000 . Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 33 Farmakes: Okay . And they 're directly to our north . They 're a much larger population base than we are and on the far north corner of that is a retail market . I would assume that a lot of density along TH 7 will consider making the trip to Chanhassen from the north . Jeff Bedenaur : That 's right and that 's one of the reasons we have 25% of the traffic coming into the downtown area on TH 101 and 30% coming into the downtown area on TH 5 . Farmakes: But I know a lot of people also would cut across because of the limited amount of retail directly to the north . The communities of Shorewood , Excelsior , Mound , all over to the west because there is a limited amount of retail shopping there . How much traffic do you envision on Powers or even TH 41 or Galpin Road? Jeff Bedenaur : Well we have estimated that there 'd be about 10% of the total traffic to the downtown area would come in from the north on Powers . I 'm not sure what the land use densities or intensities are for those areas along Powers north of Chanhassen but we felt that based on the regional model that we used to help us develop these directional distributions , that that was reasonable . Batzli : What percent did you have leaving the site going north on TH 101? Jeff Bedenaur : 25% . Batzli : Is there going to be a traffic light at the intersection at the bend of West 78th where it turns into Great Plains and continues straight? Is there going to be a stop light there? Jeff Bedenaur : That will probably be the first traffic light that will go in on West 78th Street . Farmakes: Is there an existing market study that Target has in regards to where you think your customers are coming from? Margaret Fleck : I 'm sure there is one . . . Farmakes : Have you seen anything to that or where they think the customer base is or where they 're drawing from? Krauss: No . I have no idea . • Batzli : Thank you . Jeff Bedenaur : You bet , thanks . Batzli : Dave . You had I think a fairly lengthy memo as to things that should be looked at . Do you feel comfortable with the resources that this building is going to take as far as water and sewer and what have you in terms of city? In terms of runoff into the drainage areas . Are you comfortable with the way this is going? Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 34 — Hempel : To be honest Mr . Chairman , Charles Folch the City Engineer was the_ one who actually reviewed this one and based on his memo to the Planning Department on it , I believe he does feel confident that we do have enough infrastructure to accommodate the site and the proposed use . Storm drainage calculations of course were preliminary he looked at and there is an existing storm sewer line that could accommodate part of the site drainage already . On top of that , the required on site retention pond would handle the remaining runoff . — Batzli : Do we know Paul if a building like this is going to require any additional fire equipment or things like that? — Krauss: No we don 't and we don't actually do a calculation of that . In terms of scale , if it puts it into perspective at all , this building is approximately 10 ,000 square feet larger than Market Square . And in terms — of what you 're going to see ultimately in downtown , it 's really kind of hard to project that far forward . But on the north of this site we have the Charlie James ' piece which is equally able to accommodate significant — retail and which is appropriately zoned so in terms of what percentage thi: will be of the total development in downtown , I did a guesstimate the other day and probably about a fifth of the total . The ultimate . Batzli : That 's all I had . Tim , did you have something else? Erhart: Yeah , a couple of things . The size of the Target in Eden Prairie— Bill McHale: It 's about the same . Erhart: About the same . And does the parking lot meet the new standards that we put in in our PUD? In terms of the islands and things . We wrote into the PUD standards . If it falls into that . I mean it 's regulated by the new PUD . — Krauss: It 's under the new PUD ordinance but it doesn 't have specific . I mean there 's density . Hard surface coverage requirements . — Erhart : There 's requirements in there for trees? Krauss: No . Well our parking ordinance does require a certain amount of parking lot landscaping . It always has . Erhart : Maybe that 's the one I 'm referring to . Does it meet this one? . . . — Aanenson: Yes , it does . Erhart : Okay , and then what , we were going to use pots to put these trees in? Is that what I read in there? Aanenson: The ones in the front along the building? Erhart: No , the ones in the parking lot . The islands are planted in the ground , not in the pots correct? — Aanenson: Right . Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 35 Erhart: What is the , in the CBD in this area if on a standard development , what would be the impervious coverage allowed? And this is 70% . What are we looking at here? Aanenson: Well the average we gave you in the report , it talks about 60 something . Emmings: 68 and 67 . Erhart: Including Outlot B? Aanenson: Yes . We didn 't include this or we took out the tree preservation area and we took out the area for the monument too . We didn 't count those as part of it . Emmings: If you just look at the Target site itself , it 's real high . Aanenson : Right . But we did let them count the trees and it 's close to 80 . Krauss: But again , this is a very conservative projection . I mean if you draw the line around the entirety of the PUD , the average lot coverage comes out quite a bit lower . Erhart : Yeah but I 'm talking about just the Target site is well above 70% . Regarding that West 78th side here I 'm still , it kind of , I wonder when you take the most valuable street we have in town in terms of facing in terms of retail , is that we would put a side of a building there . I wonder if you couldn 't look at it in terms of reconfigure the building to make it more east/west and move the entrance to the corner so the entrance would face both north and west and then making the employee parking lot part of the parking lot . That would reduce the size of the west parking lot and break it up . Or why can 't you have two entrances? Both an north and a west entrance . Maybe you 've looked at all of this . Krauss: Well I 'd let Target answer why they have to have one entrance . That 's an internal configuration but when we were trying to lay out the site configurations here , we 're not dealing with a site that 's terribly deep . The deepest spot is where the Target building is proposed right now . When we knock out the area we want to preserve for the tree preservation area , there 's a limited footprint left . You don 't have enough , I mean people will only walk several hundred feet from their cars to a front door of a store . And if the entrances veered to the north side , the perponderance of the parking is moved away . Erhart: But they 're there now . Krauss: It 's not that , it 's toward the north end of the building but it 's still fairly centrally located . Batzli : And that would be like going to the Knox store in Hopkins . I mean you talk about a weird entrance . Erhart: Is that the entrance on that drawing? Is it on the north end? Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 36 — Bill McHale : Just about centrally located towards the parking lot . The _ parking lot veers north towards . . . Erhart : Well , I won 't spend any more time on it but it 's just that there seems to be , there 's something that can be done to make that north side better and I think we 've all said that and we 're just trying to . I 'm not the guy that ought to be trying to solve it for you but it seems to me there ought to be something more sensible . — Krauss : Oh I think there 's a lot . There 's a lot of things that can be done there . Batzli : The only other comment that I 'd have is , I would like to at least see a discussion when we take a look at this , if the City Council approves it and we proceed , some sort of discussion about a sidewalk or something . - Maybe not just along West 78th but to the other retail areas . If there will be any movement back and forth , if you park your car once and walk from Target over to the other retail centers , I would prefer to see some sort of sidewalk treatment there . Is there anymore? Farmakes : I don 't think we talked at all about lighting at all and I don 't know if technically we need to get into that but I know it 's been a discussion of some of the other things that we 've talked about . The inten of trying to minimize the indirect light that escapes . I know there 's a lot of indirect lighting for a commercial development . Where you get a concentration of cars and street lights so is that , the lighting was kind of , weren 't really addressed . Are we doing everything we can with the lighting to make sure that we minimize that impact? Because basically _ there 's a fair amount of single family homes just to the north of here and our park is to the northwest . Krauss : City ordinance requires that light spillage be limited to a maximum half a foot candle at the property line . Which is fairly tight . And they 're going to have to demonstrate to us that it achieves that . Now more than that , we get into , when we get to that level of design , what do the fixtures look like? They 're all downward oriented fixtures and arguably you can even get into what kind of fixtures should they be . That all comes out during the site plan aspect of it . We just want to make them_ aware that there is a concern with that and they ' ll have to deal with it . Batzli : Is there a motion? Oh , yes sir . B .C . "Jim" Burdick : My name is B .C . "Jim" ' Burdick from Excelsior . I . . . negotiated out this arrangement to sell this to the city and then to Ryan Construction . And first of all , I appreciate your concern about those two — lots on Monterey . I 've own those for a number of years and am very concerned about their position relative to this . Now in negotiations with Target , at one time that building was going to be katty corner and faced _ northwest . Another time it was going to be a bit farther south . And I gave on these points but it 's very essential for us that there be a drive from the Target parking lot into the two lots we have between Target and Monterey . There 's a racetrack style circle up there to identify them in — the northeast corner and I negotiated this with Ryan and Target . Having this drive through there and I just wanted to bring up that this is very Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 37 essential and important to us . And of course I do appreciate the concern that every one of you has shown about these two lots on Monterey . . .what 's going to happen to them . And I would like to bring up one other thing for your consideration and that is about moving the Target building a bit farther south and partly into this area of trees . I don 't like to see those trees , anything happen to them either but they 're oak trees . The larger ones are very old . Almost any development , the oak trees die . There 's no more sensitive tree than an oak tree . You can drive on maples and many other trees . Elm , if they don 't get a disease and even around birch , more than you can around oak . So intentions are good on saving those oak trees but believe me , it 's a job to save an oak tree if you 've ever built a house near one . If you 've got a house 50-100 feet from an oak tree and those will die . Not only 9 times out of 10 but probably 98 out of 100 . So if you 'd consider moving Target a bit to the south , it would most certainly help us develop those two lots and I think be more attractive _ taking the picture as a whole because as things now stand , we ' ll be so to speak behind the Target building . I believe that 's all I have unless you have some questions . Batzli : Thank you very much . B .C . "Jim" Burdick : Thank you . Batzli : Is there a motion? Conrad: I 'm not sure what the motion is intended to do . There 's a lot of detail . I guess I 'm kind of uncomfortable with what 's here . There 's some details in here that I didn 't know were part of the conceptual review . Basically this is our time to tell the applicant what we think and kind of give some direction . So I 'm not sure what this , there are details in here that gee , I would have to reword the whole motion to tell you the truth . But maybe staff is looking for us to somehow come up with some consensus or _ Paul , what are you looking for? Are you looking for , you know you 're going to go through the same steps with City Council so the applicant can hear their concerns and provide the applicant with their direction . What 's the point of the motion? Krauss: Well , to the extent that we haven 't articulated your concerns or if you think we 've misstated something . It would be appropriate to throw some language in saying that you have these additional concerns of da da da da da and we ' ll carry those forward to the City Council and the developer will go back and start working on it . You know of course conceptual _ approval is by nature of the beast non-binding on all parties so you can have some latitude to say your piece . Batzli : You would prefer to see a motion which includes your points plus any additional concerns which we have? Krauss : I think so , yeah . Aanenson: If we could do like we did on the Oaks . We just said based on all the input . Just pass that report on and what we did is we took the Minutes and summarized those and made a laundry list of concerns and passed those onto the Council . Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 38 Batzli : You 're uncomfortable with that? — Conrad: No , not at all . I 'm not going to make a motion . Because there 's just a lot of debate in my mind on some of these things . I don 't know if there 's . — Erhart: What happens if we want them to come back with something , just to come back with three treatments of the West 78th Street . What would — happen? Conrad: That 's the point of why we 're doing this . — Erhart : Well I 'm not sure we 're ready to make a motion . We don 't want to have it come back and look at it differently . I haven 't seen any motions yet . I thought I heard a universal feeling from the Commissioners that th West 78th side is not acceptable . That 's what I heard . Krauss : Right . Erhart : So what 's the point in a motion? Aanenson: You tell them to do that . Krauss: Yeah , I mean you refer the item on . Erhart : Refer it onto Council? Emmings: My feeling about what we 're doing here is we 're saying , yeah. We.. think this whole area ought to be a PUD . We 're not opposed to something along the lines of what 's being proposed for the Target store in any way and I think that 's about it . And then there 's a bunch of particulars including some more reasonable or some better design of the West 78th — Street side but they 've heard all that . But I think the main thing is tha we 're in tune with developing the site as a PUD. Erhart : Okay , so we wouldn 't be surprised if it came back then after tonight with a building that was reshaped? We aren 't locking in on this shape? Emmings: I don 't think we 've locked into any particular details have we? It 's a general concept . Krauss : Yeah , I think you should not expect , I mean unless you 're stating something specific , you shouldn 't expect radical deviations . A U shaped building would be pretty radical . _ Erhart : That 's what I would have gone for because I think the building shape isn 't right to optimize the use of the property . The use of the property and to solve a problem . Batzli : I think a lot of effort has gone into that particular point to date . Looking at all the conceptual things they 've done and given the — slope of the lot , I wouldn 't expect that they would come back with a reconfigured shape of the building at this point . Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 39 Emmings : Ladd 's point is well taken . Why these conditions and we say we 're doing kind of a conceptual approval and yet we 're making these very specific recommendations here and really could make a lot more . Krauss : Kate and I had this discussion while we were writing this thing . _ Should we be more specific or less? We came down in the middle . Aanenson : I don 't know if that 's true Paul . Batzli : You came down on Paul 's side . Aanenson: I said we should put as many conditions in here but , we had the same concern with Oaks . Remember the residents got up and we spoke and a lot of time and you 're going to see a different design . They 've taken in . We forwarded it on , like I said , we made a laundry list of all the concerns . The residents concerns and I think you 're going to see a redesign . As you stated , I don 't think Target 's going to be completely reconfigured . I think we ' ll see the outlot reconfigured but if you want to throw this list out , I 'm comfortable with that . Emmings : I think what we did on that one was we said , with all of the conditions in the staff report plus all of the concerns raised by everyone who spoke , either from the public or on the Commission . Ahrens: I don 't get the feeling we want to do that with this one . For instance , what Brian brought up earlier about the three proposals for Outlot B . I don 't think any of us are sold on those . . .and see one of those come back to us . Batzli : Well I might like one of them if it was properly explained too . I mean I tried to say that but . Ahrens: Right but are we limiting ourselves? Emmings : You can change may to may or may not . Ahrens : Well that makes it meaningful . Emmings : Yeah , I think it does . I think if you want to avoid being trapped into them saying hey , you led us to believe that one of these would be , you haven 't done that . They can 't say that . That 's the only thing that helps . The point of that being is that regardless of what they do there , each building 's going to have to come through a site plan review . Batzli : I personally would be comfortable with the motion that talked in terms of we need work in these areas . The conditions set forth in the staff report and then I would hit the highlights of what we discussed tonight . I don 't think it 's necessarily fair to the developer to say , plus everything that was said . Well , go for it then . Do you want to make a motion Jeff? Farmakes : With all these lawyers here? Planning Commission Meeting _ August 19 , 1992 - Page 40 Erhart: Okay , let 's list the issues and then one of us will make the motion . One is the north , West 78th Street view . Emmings: Parking lot . — Erhart: Parking lot , two . What else? Aanenson: Design of Outlot B . — Farmakes: Particularly in relationship to the park . Erhart: Anything else? Conrad: Jeff 's concern was traffic . Ahrens: I think we should say the size and type of landscaping as it relates to the parking lot on West 78th Street and wherever else people have a concern . — Farmakes: 78th Street view , do you have? Aanenson: Internal access into the walking? Farmakes: And it would be interesting to know that 20% that they 're _ talking about from TH 101 , it 'd be interesting to know how that relates to our Target . . .customers . Erhart: Okay , going once . I 'll move that the Planning Commission . Emmings: Okay , one other thing . On Outlot 8 , no one else really commented on what they felt like with regard to fast food restaurants . — Ahrens : The number or? Emmings: Yeah . — Ahrens: Well I 'd like to see none . Emmings: Yeah , so would I . Erhart : I would agree . Without getting into it but the thing , I agree with Brian entirely is the place at Eden Prairie , it 's awesome and I avoid it like the plague because you don 't know what 's in there and even if you see the building in there , you can 't figure out visually how you get to it . You don 't go in at all . Ahrens: I went in once and it was a big mistake . Erhart : It 's goofy . On the other hand , I didn 't comment on it tonight because I somehow I feel we could spend another hour on that and you know when we actually saw reality , it wouldn 't be anything like we thought tonight anyway so I kind of feel it 's a waste of time . But I think the comments are good for whoever develops that area is that Eden Prairie area where they have the fast food restaurants in there is just goofy . It 's got Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 41 to hurt the potential business for the people there . Anything else Steve? Emmings: No . Erhart : Well let me take a shot here . I 'll move that the Planning Commission recommend the conceptual approval of PUD #92-5 as shown on the plans dated August 7 , 1992 with the conditions set forth in the staff report , 1 thru 11 with additional . And that the Planning Commission expressed additional concerns that we 'd like to have staff review further the subjects of the view of the building from West 78th Street . The view of the site from West 78th Street . The parking lot . What it 's view from all sides and the feasibility for either the size and type of landscaping , — particularly as it relates to the West 78th Street and in the parking lot . Four , the design of Outlot B . Specific concerns so that it 's useful and friendly . And five , the pedestrian . Whether or not they expect to have any pedestrian traffic and how they would get from Target to those buildings on Outlot B and possibly through to other areas that pedestrians might use such as the bus depot and so forth or whatever . And item number 6 , concerns with look further into concerns of traffic . Batzli : Is there a second? Emmings : I ' ll second it . Conrad: So what does that position us in in the staff 's 11 points? It means we all endorse bringing the Burdick parcel in . Endorse a 6 foot sidewalk . That 's what bothers me . That 's too detailed but anyway , I just don 't like that . I think that 's not a big deal though . Erhart : Your concern is with the 11 issues are too specific? Conrad: They 're very detailed . I don 't want to tell the developer exactly what to do . I want to give them our feelings and it 's his duty to work with staff to see if they can resolve them . But I don 't want to delete or change your motion Tim , that 's fine . — Erhart : Good , because I 'm not planning on it . Erhart moved , Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of PUD #92-5 as shown on the plans dated August 7 , 1992, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Burdick Park Addition , Block 3 , Lots land 2 be added to the PUD at the time of preliminary PUD . 2 . Submittal of PUD plans consistent with the recommendations of the staff report and Engineer 's memo . 3 . The most westerly access on West 78th Street shall be a right turn-in and right turn-out only , full access be limited to the other two locations shown on the site plan . 4 . The three proposals for Outlot 8 may be acceptable but each building must proceed through site plan review . This site plan review shall Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 42 consider the remainder of the balance of the site . This includes — landscaping impervious surface , parking , etc . . Any major changes woul constitute a rezoning . 5 . Vacation of the existing West 78th Street . 6 . Acceptance of full park and trail dedication fees . 7 . Six foot sidewalk along West 78th Street and Powers Boulevard . 8 . Architectural compatibility with all buildings in the development . Compatibility with all signage , lighting , and landscaping . 9 . Pitched roof lines are required on all building in Outlot B . Target shall have a parapet wall that screens all HVAC equipment . Pitched roof elements shall be introduced on the entry portion and the West 78th side of Target . 10 . Submittal of all required site utility improvements including storm sewer , water and sanitary sewer . 11 . Uses are limited to those outlined in the report including the limitation of two fast food restaurants . Further that staff review the following subjects: 1 . The view of the site from West 78th Street . 2 . The parking lot . 3 . The view from all sides and the feasibility for either the size and type of landscaping , particularly as it relates to the West 78th Stree and in the parking lot . 4 . The design of Outlot B . Specific concerns so that it 's useful and - friendly . 5 . Addressing pedestrian traffic and how they would get from Target to those buildings on Outlot B and possibly through to other areas that pedestrians might use such as the bus depot and so forth . 6 . Look further into concerns of traffic . All voted in favor and the motion carried. Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 43 PUBLIC HEARING: CONCEPTUAL PUD FOR 113 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON 63 ( NET ) ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF HIGHWAY 41 , ADJACENT TO BMT AUTOMOTIVE ( 7305 HAZELTINE BOULEVARD ) , LUNDGREN BROS . DEVELOPMENT ON JOHNSON/DOLEJSI/TURNER PROPERTY . Public Present: Name Address Tim Oas 7305 Hazeltine Blvd . Tim Keane 7900 Xerxes So . , Bloomington Dean Simpson 7185 Hazeltine Blvd . Don Roy 7205 Hazeltine Blvd . David Weathers 7235 Hazeltine Blvd . Paul Youngquist 7105 Hazeltine Blvd . Jay Dolejsi 6961 Chaparal Lane Linda Carlson Galpin Blvd . Terry Forbord Lundgren Bros . Development Company John Uban Dahlgren , Shardlow & Urban Ron Peterson Summit Envirosolutions Ken Adolf Schoell and Madsen Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item . Batzli : Jo Ann , you 're recommending that we approve the concept? Thank you and welcome back . Does anyone have any questions before we hear from the applicant? Farmakes : Has the type of tree cover , has the city evaluated the tree cover that 's proposing in your recommendations that they not build through? That they eliminate some of these lots . Has the types of woods been evaluated? Olsen: Right , the applicant has provided on some of the plans . I think it 's on the grading plan you can see where there 's detailed trees that have been shown and yes , we have looked at some of those areas . Farmakes : I couldn 't discern what exactly was on there . Olsen: We did request a cleaner copy which we got today which shows without all the grading and everything on it , which shows specific to what _ the trees are . I have not had a chance to- look at that closely . We just received it today . Emmings : Have you looked at connecting the cul-de-sac at the end of Street B? Whether it makes any sense to preserve the option of connecting that to the east? Olsen : Which one was that? Emmings: Whether the cul-de-sac that 's at the end of Street B , whether it makes any sense to look at preserving options for connecting that to the east or the one at the end of the Street J or connecting it to the south . Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 44 Olsen : Right . We looked at all of those to see whether there should be _ future connections and we found that due to topography and to existing wetlands , that we should not be . The topography going east of the B cul-de-sac was fairly extreme and the connections would not have been possible . And Dave looked at that closely . Emmings : And south out of that cul-de-sac on J , is that wetlands down there? Olsen: Again that 's wetlands . That large wetlands . Emmings : So if they develop the property to the south of that that 's in the 1995 study area , that will have it 's entrance off of the new road? Okay . Batzli : I guess Terry , if you have a slide show and a presentation for us Please proceed . Terry Forbord: Mr . Chair , members of the Planning Commission , my name is Terry Forbord . I 'm Vice President of Land Development with Lundgren Brothers in Wayzata . 935 East Wayzata Boulevard . Thank you for the _ opportunity to appear before you this evening on this proposal . At this time I think I need to say that we 're a little confused because I believe our application was for a concept plan , a preliminary plan and I think our application shows that and certainly our fees do and this was the first that I realized that this was just a concept approval because I believe ou application was otherwise , to the best of my knowledge anyway . With us this evening I have a development team that I 'd like to introduce to you . _ To my immediate left is Mr . John Uban of Dahlgren , Shardlow and Uban . To his left is Mr . Ron Peterson of Summit Envirosolutions . And to his left Mr . Ken Adolf of Schoell and Madsen . He is our civil engineer . Ron will has done all of the wetland delineation on this property and he can addres!- all those issues . Our land use attorney Mr . Bruce Mulkerson has a conflic this evening and he may be here shortly . I thought that prior to me turning the presentation over to Mr . Uban , I should give you just a little - bit of background . Most of you know who we are . Some of you may not but we 've been in the community already for approximately 12 years and Lundgren Bros . has developed over 23 years , approximately 2 ,200 single family detached dwellings in the metropolitan area . Primarily in the western suburbs . Also there has been hundreds of multi-family and commercial projects developed by the company . Approximately 75% I 'm guessing of those have been planned unit developments . The planned unit development within - your community that you may be most familiar with is the Near Mountain planned unit development , half of which is in the city of Chanhassen . The other half , the northerly half being in the city of Shorewood . And like - I said , that approval was obtained here I believe somewhat around 12 years ago and we are just finishing the final phases of that . John , would you be so kind to run the slide machine for me . I 'm just going to talk very briefly just about our planned unit developments , and Near Mountain in particular because it 's easier for me to refer to that being that you may be most familiar with it . It 's approximately 300 and some acres . 360 acres . Approximately 450 dwelling units and there 's a number of reasons o c- why we did that as a planned unit development . Primarily because it allow! flexibility and design and for us to achieve an objective while being at Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 45 the same time sensitive to the existing land features . Typically , as you all know , we provide a great deal of detail in our entrance monumentation . It 's point of arrival to our neighborhoods . And as you know , the PUD oftentimes allows you to have some open space where you can provide other amenities that you may not see typical in other standard subdivisions . These particular slides are going to be of homes in the Near Mountain neighborhood . These lot sizes that you are going to see range in size from 8 ,500 square feet to about 11 ,000 square feet . Lot width at the setback of 55 feet to 75 feet . And these are homes in an established neighborhood . They 've been tucked into the trees . A great deal of care was given , even 12 years ago before most people were attempting to do that . And these slides represent examples of that . Now you ' ll see in this particular slide in Chestnut Ridae , even though there are 9 foot setbacks on the house side and 6 foot on the garage side , you will see that this is probably about a 30 foot amount of space between these two dwellings and that is because _ it 's on a curvalinear street or it may be on a cul-de-sac . This is another home with a 20 foot front yard setback . 9 foot on the house side . 6 foot on the garage side . This home was featured on the front page of Better Homes and Gardens . This is another example of the type of homes that we 'd be producing within a neighborhood community that we have before you this evening . Again , it 's the same setbacks . This particular lot is a 55 foot wide lot and is 8 ,500 square feet . That 's another example of a home where this one is more in an open area . This particular street where you 've seen most of these homes has been featured in three national publications . Many of you may not know this but the reason it was featured was because of the _ environmental sensitivity that was used in the design of this neighborhood on a small lot product in a wooded area . And again this is 12 years old and the city of Chanhassen , even 12 years ago was on the cutting edge of developing planned unit developments in the United States . This is an example of how you have a steep topography , terrain . Significant wooded area where you nestle a home into that area with the least impact on the environment as possible . You can see , if you look closely in the shaded area under the trees on the left side , that that is a boulder wall . A retaining wall that enabled to limit the amount of grading on this particular building pad . This is another example of something . There 's not a lot of grading here but just right in the front of that sidewalk we were able to put in some retainage and maintain the least impact possible to thatsignificant tree . This is a home that 's typical of an open area in Chestnut Ridge and it 's not unlike the homes that we would be proposing in this planned unit development . And likewise with this . We showed you earlier one of the entrance monuments to Chestnut Ridge . This is an entrance monument to Churchill Farms which is in Plymouth . Now one of the _ things we try to do is a little bit better- job every year in the way we identify our neighborhood communities . The reason that we 're showing you this , as the next slide will show , is that this isn 't a very good shot of it but it has the split entrance . There 's a median in the middle that 's vegetated or plantings and flowers . Petunias . All of our entrances are irrigated so they stay green during the growing season . And you can see , if you look closely , that it 's a very grand entrance and this is very similar to the type of entrance that we would be proposing for this neighborhood community . This gives you a little closer shot of the median . Now the medians are , most of you are familiar with them . They 're all over _ the Twin Cities . It 's not , if you ask any public works department or any engineering department in any city , anywhere in the United States , they Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 46 — will tell you they prefer not to have them . The reason that we put them ia, is because we don 't design them primarily just for engineering purposes . We design them for people . It softens the entrance . It gives you a very , very nice point of arrival . The neighborhood community that we are proposing this evening has a private park . This is something new for us i the city of Chanhassen , although we 've been doing it for years in other communities . We haven 't had a new development here that was large enough in order for us to provide a facility like that . But what we do is we go — in at the very beginning . Before all the homes are built , we put in totlots similar to this . This is a $30 ,000 .00 structure that was installea in Churchhill Farms in Plymouth . We put in tennis courts , basketball — hoops , volleyball courts and we do those things at the very front end . Ani it provides our homeowners with something that they can 't get anyplace else . It certainly increases the appreciation value of their homes and insures that their investment will be well protected and then when they go to resale their home , they stand a very , very chance of competing very wel with all the other homes on the market . I won 't get into elaborating in detail about Lundgren Bros . because most of you know who we are . We try ta, do a good job in the city . Every project that we do we go back . We asses it . Try to determine what we could have done better . It 's very interesting if you look at Near Mountain and the newer neighborhood _ communities we 've developed since then . There 's a significant difference . There 's more open space . We 're trying to do a better job . This is not a departure from that . The proposal before you this evening is very , very low density . Has a lot of open space . A lot of things that we wouldn 't b— required to do . We 're trying to provide a neighborhood community that is different than what the buying public can buy someplace else . At this time I think it 's , I should just tell you , in case you may have forgotten ,_ that we 've been working with the city on this proposal for 2 to 3 years . was going to look up the date before I came and I just didn 't have time . J. was trying to prepare a presentation but it took place when all of you were adopting the comprehensive plan . You may recall at the last minute you included this property into the comprehensive plan for reasons that you already know and so it 's been a long process and now the feasibility studies are being done for the sewer and water . We have had numerous — meetings with staff over the last 2-3 years on this proposal and now we finally have the opportunity to present it to you . With that , I will turn the meeting over to Mr . John Uban of Dahlgren , Shardlow and Uban . He will_ be presenting and conducting the presentation for Lundgren Bros . and we will be then also utilizing the other two consultants to talk about engineering and wetlands . Thank you . John Uban: Thank you Terry . What I would' like to start with is give you an overview of the site so you can see it from the air . Get some feeling about the natural features because that is really what 's driving the — uniqueness and the difficulty on the site and the flexibility that we 're requesting in the PUD . How to get around trees . Work with the rolling terrain . The wetlands . All these things come to play and at the same _ time , take these things that are difficulties and make amenities . Make actually very positive open spaces that enhance the neighborhood that we 'r creating . This aerial shows generally , if you were over TH 5 looking across toward the land , on the far right corner is CR 17 I believe and the— you can see the lakes and so forth in the background . And just below what looks like a cultivated field , that is the northern boundary of the Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 47 property and the property then comes all the way to the south on down to the wetland . This is looking from the north . Looking back toward TH 5 which is right at the top of the picture . We see TH 41 as the large highway running through and once again that cultivated field that forms the northern edge of the property . Along TH 41 we have just one opportunity for access and we have trees . We 're working inbetween trees . There 's an industrial site there that we will be removing . Taking out a non- conforming use . Parts of the areas you can see are wooded . It 's mixed . Very rolling and through all of this we 're trying to locate a collector road as sensitively as possible , which has to go from TH 41 and through the adjacent property . Once again we 're looking at the site from the south , approximately over TH 5 and in the center of the picture you can see the property and then there 's a line that separates the property from the adjacent property which is a power line . And this forms the eastern edge of the property . And forms a sort of barrier that we have to incorporate into our platting . Terry Forbord: John , maybe we could pause there for a minute and just show where the collector goes . John Uban: Yeah , if you could trace generally where the collector road will go . We 're going through and there are wetlands and rolling hills and lakes and we have to follow really a very specific course and then we miss wetlands . Come down through the property and back out to TH 41 . And as we go specifically into the plan you 'll see how this has to snake through the terrain . Batzli : On this picture , where is the proposed PUD in the future , can you point where that is on that page? Terry Forbord: You mean the outlot? Batzli : Yeah . Terry Forbord: To the south . That property . . . ( There was a tape change at this point in the presentation . ) John Uban: . . .we have a power line and then we have a wetland and this is the area where the collector road is going to come through and link what is called the Song property directly to the east with this parcel . And you can start seeing some of the wetlands and so forth that are in that area where we 're trying to meander our road . Just another general photograph from looking at the site . Another one from the north looking back onto it . Terry Forbord: . . .the Johnson property . MEM John Uban: That gives you an overview and I will now use the overhead projector and go through the various drawings . The subject property , approximately 95 acres . This shows the surrounding property and it also shows the general location of the proposed collector and this is located really to meander through the property and miss all the wetlands and so forth in that area . The comprehensive plan places this area just north of the study area , as brought out before and we 're at 113 lots and if you Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 48 — looked at the net density and translated that into maximum , it 'd be about — twice that amount , so we 're really at a fairly low level to begin with . Thi kind of density that we 're anticipating on the property . Existing conditions on the property and if you recall the photographs that we look , we saw that here were the wooded areas in green . Along in here . Down on — the southern edge . Here 's the wetland that forms the southern edge . We have inside of this various different kinds of wetlands . There 's a variety of qualities and these are the ones that we 're trying to get through , miss— mitigate where we have to fill and at this point I 'd like to , here 's our line , power line that goes through the western edge and in orange , here 's the industrial use and here 's the existing house . And you can see some other trees that are just single lines which was also incorporated which were planted with the homestead . And all of this is folded into our approach to the property . The wetland conditions , we 'd like to have Ron tell you now how that mitigation and which wetlands are being treated in — different fashion . Ron Peterson: Thank you John . The wetland resources on this site were — looked at in some detail , almost from the outset and delineated or staked in the field and surveyed in so these are pretty precise boundaries . Them is approximately 10 wetland basins on the site . The reason I say approximately is that some of these basins are remnants of larger basins — where you have two remmants of what formerly was one basin . The reason fo• that is that this entire site has been very heavily tiled for agricultural use . And virtually every wetland on this site has tile graded to some — pipe . For that reason , some of these wetlands have been greatly benefitteu by the tile drainage . Other ones have been virtually eliminated . What we have tried to do in the process of laying out the plans for the site , we — tried to , besides from just avoiding and minimizing wetland impacts in general , we 've attempted where we can avoid impacts , to orient those impacts towards the most degraded basins . So that the more pristine or natural basins on the site are the ones that we had the most emphasis on — preserving . There 's approximately 24 acres of wetland on the site so out of 95 acres , that 's roughly a quarter of the property . The impacts that are associated with the proposed layout are 2 .81 acres . The . . . — approximately 60% of that , involves this wetland in the center of the property . I think that in your packet it labels it as basins 9 and 10 . That area is probably the most graded wetland on the site and in fact when we looked at it , we spent a lot of time scratching our heads deciding whether or not it really met the prairie wetland criteria in the first place . The reason for that is because it 's extensively tiled . Tile drainage flowing to the south and into this larger wetland complex of the — development . I think the City 's wetland consultant has also looked at thi: area and he had similar reaction . . .difficult to make a determination . . . of upland versus wetland on that development . But as you can see , we 've tried_ to limit our impacts as much as possible to the most degraded basins on thu site . The one on the far left , we 're attacking the uphill of that basin . Again , part of that basin was formed mainly by tile drainage from upwards to the north . The third . . . is man made drainage swale that carries drainage from the face of the three . The next one over is a small seepage flooded basin and then the last one on your far right is the remnant of a drained wetland that once existed at the edge of the property . The only reason — there 's any wetland vegetation there at all is , does that help? The only reason there 's any wetland vegetation in that area at all is because there Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 49 is this drainage coming in from off site to the east . That 's still flowing into that area and because of the extensive tile drainage underneath that area , water flows onto the site and essentially disappears . Percolates into the ground and enters this tile system . Comes out through a ditch down into the wetlands to the south . The blue areas , which Ken can address in more detail , are proposed storm water ponding locations . In developing our wetland mitigation areas , we have kept those separate from the storm water ponding needs of the site so as to avoid routing speed runoff into our mitigation areas . We 've shown a series of locations along the south end of the site trying to keep our mitigation areas somewhat isolated from human activities as much as we can and tie them in with the existing wetlands on the site to insure that they 're viable . Those areas , we have done a preliminary grading analysis to make sure that they fit in with the grading that 's needed for the other storm water ponds in the lots . However , we will be refining that as we get into the detailed design process and there may be some refinements to those areas as we move forward if we find that we can actually reduce impacts further as we get into more detail . Then we may modify some of those . The mitigation that we 've shown is at a 1 to 1 acreage ratio to what 's being effected . I would say that the quality of what we 're going to end up with in the form of mitigation areas and the number of cases on the site , far outweighs the value of the wetland remnants that we 're replacing . Each wetland will have a conservation easement around it . Both the portions of the existing wetlands that are being preserved as well as the mitigation of wetlands that we 're creating . I think that 's all the comments I have . Any questions? Batzli : I think we 'll probably have some a little later . Thank you . John Uban : What I 'd like to do now is really go through the attributes of. the PUD . Why we 're doing it this way . What we 're trying to create from a design point of view and how we see a neighborhood being created here and the sort of uniqueness and the flexibility that we hope will meet with your approval . This is important to us . How this all works together is part of the creative nature of planning but it 's real important because what we do is really create neighborhoods and it 's this process that 's very important to us . This is the general layout and you can see that what we 're trying to do , as you recall the slides , that we 're trying to adhere to the topography of the area the best we can . Yet at the same time , incorporating a collector road through the site . Using cul-de-sacs to reach up into the areas that do not have access from other directions . We 're also reaching down into the areas along the wetlands for really the _ nice homesites . So we look at it , where db homes really want to be . Where would they naturally want to set and then build a road system to serve those homesites . And we 're also preserving woods . Of course staying out of wetlands and through this process , we have an existing home we 're saving . We 're building on the front edge entrance . Boulevard conditions . We 're bringing people in on a bridge that comes across this connection to the wetland . This bridge system really starts to make this neighborhood a special place and where all these things have to work together to make a nice design . This collector road , as talked about earlier , as it goes through our property . Here we 've shown how it has to miss the wetlands and _ we have some high points and steep grades in the north so we actually go through here missing all the significant features and placing it in the Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 50 — best place possible . This is how we 've organized this area and pre-studied- then the future connection . The overall impact , and I think some good points were brought up in the staff report and we are endeavoring to do better as we start our grading . But what we have seen and what we can do by some adjustments . Some of them were pointed out . Making sure our home:— or ome:or design of each individual home meets the site by grading our road systei but trying to leave as much of the wooded sites ungraded so we actually fit a home to that site . Doing that kind of approach , really a tailor made — connection between each lot and each home because there are 15 homesites that we can show you tonight if you we have time , and how they fit on each one of these sites . So what we 've done is we 've calculated with our most _ sensitive siting and so forth , that out of all the treed areas , we will be preserving about 2/3 of it . And that 's really a , from looking at this difficult a site , is doing very well . And this is what we 're striving for and we think we can accommodate that . We have very good preservation — techniques for actual construction . And we will preserve a fair amount of these trees . The important thing is to understand that we also , even though these are trees that are in the backs of lots and so forth . That — you saw on the photograph that when we just grade the roads and leave the lot , when we match the home , we can save trees up in the front yard too . It 's hard for us to predict at this point exactly what that 's going to be _ like but that is how we 've developed in the past . The open space that we 've provided is in a system . We have a large wetlands to the south of course but along the collector road , we 've also located other things . And you can see the private park . The front entrance . At the bridge we have — this view in towards the wetland . This is part of our entrance feature . We have a wetland that we 're exposing to the traffic as you drive by . It is , we don 't want to hide all these in people 's back yards . We want to — bring them out onto the street as much as possible so that your feeling of what the neighborhood is really like . Sharing all the amenities as people drive in . And this is important because we have to build roads then because no one has a lot up and we have 1 ,090 feet of frontage on roads that are being built that don 't have a home on it . And that is a lot of frontage and this is frontage we could otherwise consume as lots and be more efficient . But this is what we think creates a very special — neighborhood . And this is part of the flexibility . This is what we 're giving is all this amenity exposed to the public street . Over 1 ,000 feet and we 're looking for in return the flexibility on how we design our lots _ and make it fit to the site . Part of that , when we look at the different lot sizes . This is just a quick graphic that shows the different sizing . The green being the smaller lots and the blue being the large lots . Over 3/4 of an acre . The largest lots get up to an acre and a half or so . And what we 've done is those are the ones close to the wetlands or in the heav woods on this side . This is up next to the power line but here 's next to the amenity in the northeast corner . All of these work within the system — of creating a variety of lots . This creates a variety of homes . Variety of prices . All of which are the goals or attributes you look for in a PUD . So it 's this variety that 's very important and trying to adhere to just for instance a 90 foot width on a lot . It 's very important for us to be able _ to fluctuate from that and that 's what a PUD ought to do . You should make sure that it works well and that you can locate lots . For instance , 2/3 of the lots are under 90 feet . Or 1/3 rather , but 2/3 are above that . But — one half of the product can sit on those lots that are under 90 feet . And so we have a great variety . A great opportunity to put a lot of different Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 51 product on these variety of lots . If we went ahead and put in 90 foot lots and figured it also that all the lots had a 20 foot setback because this is designed on a 30 foot setback to begin with and then see where we need the flexibility and so what we looked at is where we have lots around a cul-de-sac for instance . It 's a pie shape and if you move the setback in to 20 feet , which we don 't really anticipate doing , the width actually narrows up considerably but yet the lot is very large . And so this is the flexibility . This is where you have a large lot and sensitive area but you 're really narrowing it up on the front side but you need to match the product to that lot . And so we might lose up to 7 lots if we just tried to make them all 90 feet for instance . And this , on a product around a design that already is very low density and already contributing 1 ,000 feet of frontage of road that exposes amenities , it becomes a burden and an edge to the PUD that is saying , are we really getting the flexibility that allows us to make this kind of design work . And this is just one consideration . Batzli : Is this discussion in response to the staff 's request that you move the front yard setback to 20 feet? John Uban : It 's on all lots . We don 't need it on all lots , especially on cul-de-sacs we don 't need that . We need the flexibility on just certain lots around wetlands . Terry Forbord: We would prefer to have a reduced front yard setback . It makes a lot of sense from an environmental standpoint . It makes a lot of sense from quality of life standpoint for the people who live in these homes . However , there are certain areas where it just doesn 't work . There 's a few number of lots that it doesn 't , and that 's not uncommon to have some degree of flexibility on those difficult lots to adjust . . . John Uban: It 's that flexibility we 're really looking for in the PUD . The flexibility on the side yard setbacks . This shows generally how it really works . Still keeping the separation of 20 feet between buildings . Where we would have a 6 foot setback to a garage , perhaps there is a tree that happened to fit just off the property line and if we were 10 feet from it , we 'd rather be 14 feet away . You know it 's that kind of adjustment to get away from trees or on curvalinear streets where all the lots are just a little bit different and the home wants to sit straight but it 's not straight to the one next to it . Corners of buildings may come a little bit closer and then we can move the buildings around and this works very well when you have a developer that develops the lots as well as builds all the buildings . And this gives that adjustment and yet when it 's all done , you _ don 't notice that it 's any different than a normal development . The separation is still there but there 's the flexibility to move it back and forth a little bit with each siting of each home . ions Terry Forbord: It 's important to note that those are minimums . It 's a minimum of 6 foot on the garage side and a minimum of 9 feet on the house side . If you go to up Near Mountain and took a tape measurer , I would guarantee that you would find very few instances where they are actually that long . But what it does give you is the flexibility as an example that John gave . If there are trees there , a steep slope , you can move that a little bit and that certainly is in step with what the staff and the city have been suggesting as far as preservation . . . Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 52 — Olsen: But you 're also saying that you will maintain at least 20 feet at _ all times . Terry Forbord: Correct . And the staff , the PUD ordinance apparently as written is 10 and 10 and the idea probably behind that is that you want to maintain a minimum of 20 feet between homes and we 're assuring you that yol would have that . John Uban: Specifically on the entrance , I just want to share with you some of the design and how it works . There 's a single spot on TH 41 that we 've worked out with MnDot where access is appropriate . We 're curving _ that road in . It comes in and curves around and at that same time you get a view that comes right across into the wetlands and this is part of our entrance . A way to make a dynamic entrance . A special place to live . It 's looking at it just beyond trying to fit a certain number of lots on a— piece of property . And right in this area there 's a very large oak tree that we 're going to key on and create this bridge with a large oak and then we ' ll have the pond and the wetland and it will be a very nice setting and_ nice entrance . We are planting along the highway through here where we have lots that back up to the highway . The problem here is the highway 's higher than the property . We can 't berm for it . I mean it would create another highway next to a highway practically . So all we can really do is— do some planting along the back sides of the property , and that 's what we plan to do . Terry Forbord: John , would you please note the outlots at the entrance . Typically we do not believe that it is good practice to put homesites right at the entrance to a neighborhood community . If at all possible , we prefeL not to . And so this neighborhood community is depicted on the landscape plans . Those are outlots that will be vegetated and are planted heavily and so we 've deleted the homesites from those areas . John Uban: It helps , as people come in . Get a focus towards where we wan them to look and see a nice area . It also shows the median that we 're proposing to help separate traffic but at the same time make a very nice — entrance . The park area , we 're proposing the skating pond , tennis court , and as you come across this bridge , here 's a big row of evergreen material that we 're saving to help edge this entryway . Coming in and then focusing_ once again on open space which is the park area . The double cul-de-sacs that we 've talked about . This design , here are two wetlands you see in a little lighter green . This is an upper cul-de-sac and a lower cul-de-sac and they look out over these wetlands . So we were creating these lookout — conditions . Really nice sites . Once again looking for where the nicest sites would be and then creating the road system to work with that . We have explored , as suggested by staff , a method of combining these two . I — don 't know if I 'll get it to line up perfectly here . In that fashion generally . Connecting those two cul-de-sacs . This is something we will strongly consider . We think the cul-de-sac system gives us really nice home sites but if there 's a strong need to connect and the City really — wants us to , we will look at this and see what adjustments we can make . W would prefer of course to keep the cul-de-sacs . Terry Forbord: Now we do concur with the city engineering department that moving the water and we would not be opposed to running the sewer through Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 53 those cul-de-sacs down that ravine . Actually that would be beneficial to us . . . However , the main purpose for the cul-de-sacs is that 99 .99 people out of 100 would prefer to live on a cul-de-sac is you gave them that opportunity . And that 's why we 're showing it like that . We actually gain a homesite by connecting the road but it 's not a deal breaker by any means for Lundgren Bros . if you demand that we connect those . We just think it would make a nicer neighborhood . John Uban: . Also , part of our system of cul-de-sacs . There 's another element that 's important to us and that is the development of the landscape island . This island really breaks up that large expanse of asphalt that often ends up there and that 's usually the most negative part of a cul-de-sac system . People love to be on cul-de-sacs . They like the privacy and so forth but that expanse of asphalt is usually the part that people don 't like and we have worked in other communities . We 've worked in Burnsville for instance since they became a city . We 've been their consulting planner and we 're making a list of all the cul-de-sacs and we found that it 's several pages long which have islands and it really enhanced the city as a whole and it 's a very nice way of breaking up these cul-de-sacs . We have some slides to show you . In addition , we just want to point out that we 've studied this in detail working with the standards of a city . Making some adjustments . Working within the right-of-way that this will accommodate most trucks and firetrucks and so forth . The turning radius while maintaining an island in the center . And I think this detail will be able to work out with city engineering . Oftentimes it 's the people who plow snow , do maintenance and so forth that wish they didn 't have to go around something . It slows them down . But in reality is , they aren 't that much more difficult to plow . That really an island absorbs the snow . You don 't have to plow the snow off the island and it actually provides a place , when properly constructed , to place snow . And we 'll show you some slides on how that works , and all of these are maintained by the homeowners association . All the open space . All the recreational facilities . All the medians . All the entryway features . All the landscaping that is common to everyone , which includes these islands . And it is there . They pay fees and it works very well . If I could just turn this off , I don 't think we 'll conflict without moving . These are just medians and roads . This would be similar to the median we proposed at our entrance but you can see how it really would break up and help create and define views as you enter first into the subdivision . But designed in such a fashion that it allows good sight .distances out to the highway . Those two things must work together . Here 's an island in the center of a cul-de-sac . You can see this particular one is elevated . You pile snow around the edges of it . It is not , it doesn 't have to be grass . Gravel works out very well so you don 't have to mow it . The snow doesn 't kill it . Maintenance is much lower and then you plant trees and so forth and what it does then , is here 's a planted island from the ground and you can see , instead of driving down a cul-de-sac and seeing many garages , that will be broken up . You ' ll see the plantings in the center . And this really does a great job of creating a nice setting for the cul-de-sac system . Terry Forbord: I think it 's appropriate to point out that the myth that people have or misperception that they have that vehicles cannot turn around when there are islands . If you take for instance a semi-trailer . Semi-truck trailer , even without an island in a cul-de-sac they can 't turn Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 54 — around . That 's a fact . If you 've ever been in a semi-trailer or if you _ know anybody , watch them . They cannot turn around in an existing cul-de-sac right now. The island does not become a factor for a moving va.. so to speak . Some of the large fire trucks cannot turn around in a cul-de-sac without an island . So they have to back up anyway . So often — times you may have heard the argument that well if there 's an island there that means they can 't turn around or can 't drive through it , can't anything so I think it 's very important to recognize that . — John Uban: The last thing I want to show you and then I 'll have Ken Adolf go through some of the engineering elements , is just what we 've done to _ further show that we 're adhering to all the setbacks . The setback from wetlands . The buffer edge . Adhering to the useable back yard plus accommodating a deck on a 40 x 60 pad . And each one of these lots we 've exhibited the wetland in gray , a line around the wetland shows the — combination of buffer area and the useable rear yard or setback which is 3 feet , and then we 've shown each one of the homes and a deck that would happen on each one of those lots . And this shows how we 'd . . .regulations and buffer ourselves and separate ourselves from the wetlands . Ron Adolf : I 'm going to briefly discuss the site engineering issues . The site is within the MUSA expansion area that was described . The developer or Lundgren Bros . has petitioned the City for the extension of trunk sanitary sewer and water service to the site . The sewer service would come from the extension of a gravity trunk main from the Lake Ann Interceptor — which is east of Galpin Boulevard . That gravity sewer would be expanded a some point east of the site and then a lift station would be constructed . In discussions with Bonestroo , that would be constructed someplace over in_ this area . When that lift station would then service the . . .elevation properties both on the site and also east of the site . Property of the site and that lift station would pump the flow into the gravity sewer . Lateral gravity lines would then extend from that lift station along the — streets to serve both lots . The trunk sewer , as well as the trunk water , as I said , that feasibility study is in the process and the current time table on that is that will be available in 1993 . Water service to the sit- would be provided by a 16 inch diameter trunk watermain which really follows the collector street and continues east through the Song property and then connects to the water system at the pump house on Galpin — Boulevard . Again the lateral lines would be extended from that trunk main The trunk main would also provide the lateral benefits along the collector street . The storm water management plan would consist of accepting the surface runoff in the streets and gutters . Conveying that to some storm — sewer . All the storm sewers would discharge into some storm water management ponds which are shown in blue . The number of ponds is really dictated by the amount of relief on the site . It is very difficult to try_ to consolidate the runoff into a central location so each one of these provides treatment of surface runoff prior to discharging into the existing wetlands . The storm water management would comply with the City 's current draft ordinance on the storm water management . On the site grading , the — first phase of the development would be on the west side obtaining access from TH 41 . TH 41 does have a controlled access and really the location shows where this collector road connection is the only location that is — available for access . The site would be graded in phases . Probably a total of five phases over a period of 4 to 5 years . Initially we 'd just Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 55 grade the first phase plus the street alignments that would contain the necessary sewer and water lines to provide service to the first phase . For instance this collector street would need to be graded to allow the watermain construction and some sanitary sewer would be required down to the lift station . The details of the grading plan will be refined . Staff has come up with some good comments in their review and we 're reviewing those comments and trying to really achieve the goals of minimizing the loss of trees and the total grading on the site . I 'd be happy to address any questions later . Batzli : Thank you . Is this a wrap up? Terry Forbord: Mr . Chair , members of the Planning Commission . We actually edited our presentation to you this evening because of the lengthy presentation to you earlier so we 've skipped over a number of things that _ may be of relevancy to you . We have a number of concerns about the recommendations . More importantly I 'm concerned about that we were applying for a preliminary plat and I 'm not exactly sure how to handle that at this time . But we are available for questions and I 'm assuming that you have a lot of them and we ' ll do the best that we can to answer those . Batzli : This is a public hearing . People in the audience that would like to address the Commission , please step forward to the microphone . Give us your name and address and we would appreciate brevity . Linda Carlson: My name 's Linda Carlson , I live on Galpin Boulevard . I heard them say that the roads that go through there are public roads . I don 't know if that 's normal or not for a PUD but my feeling is that the parks ought to be public as well . There are no parks in that area for the people in that area . So that was my comment . Paul Youngquist : My name is Paul Youngquist . I 'm at 7105 Hazeltine Blvd . . I 'm the cultivated area on the north side that you saw in the pictures . Boy it 's late and I would not want to be on the Planning Commission . Thanks for doing your job . This might sound like a paid endorsement of this project but unfortunately it 's not paid . But I 'm assuming that this in general is in compliance with the comprehensive plan and I feel pretty lucky that Lundgren Bros . has laid it out the way they have and I 'm pretty well sold on everything that 's been talked about . I like that east/west road . I know the earlier plan called for a much larger road and this is a smaller road in size and it meanders through and respects the contours and the trees and everything . I like the amount of open space . I like the way _ they 've left existing trees and so forth and I personally appreciate that the larger lots seem to be on the north side and the smaller lots on the south side , although the smaller lots are smaller than I thought they really would be . But having said that , we have a couple of concerns . One is assessments . We were hit for the Lake Ann thing here this last year and I 'm worried about are we going to be hit for something else? I was real pleased to see , I didn 't learn until tonight that things are coming in from the east rather than like coming from the north or something . I 'd encourage you to take a good look at the density and lot size and then I 'd trust you to enforce the wetland regulations . Thank you . IN. Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 56 Batzli : Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Dave Weathers: My name is Dave Weathers . I live at 7235 Hazeltine Boulevard and that 's the square block which 's marked out as exception on the north side part of it . And I pretty much echo the comments that Paul — had just made . That we are fortunate that the developer that came along has laid it out the way he has . My concerns are the same thing . The density . The amount of what I consider a high density in that area . I 'd prefer to see it less possible so I hope you study that as closely as you — can . And also I am concerned about the assessments that will come with it And with that I will make it as brief as possible so I 'll stop there . Thank you . — Batzli : Thank you . Don Roy: I 'm Don Roy , 7205 Hazeltine Boulevard . I 'm on the northwest corner of that property . The only concern I have is the , we all have well. that are up there at this present time and I wonder what the plans are for hooking up when this comes through and how soon and when will the sewer be— available to us if this projects goes in? You will have a little bit of a problem I think as far as drainage from these properties . Batzli : Thank you . Is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission? Erhart moved, Ahrens seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in — favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Batzli : Joan . — Ahrens: I 'm sure my fellow commissioners will be greatly disappointed but I 'm going to have to abstain on this project from discussion because of a — conflict of interest . If you want me to talk about something else I will . It 's only 11 :30 . Batzli : She was the epitome of brief . Okay , Jeff . — Farmakes : Did the staff on their recommendations that I read in here in regards to shortening J , eliminating H, connecting G and I . Did you do a — calculation of the 120 lots , what you envisioned that would reduce them? I mean I did a guesstimate of 8 maybe . Did you calculate that out at all? Olsen: No , we did not . Farmakes: So I 'm assuming that some of those comments that you made that you , I believe the time here that you want to discuss that further . I — think that the recommendations are right on . Exactly where they should be It seems to me that the purpose of the PUD , as far as the City goes , is to achieve some of the objectives that were pointed out here tonight . 37% of— those trees it would seem to me would be greatly reduced , that figure anyway if the city 's recommendations were followed . It seems to me percentage wise , lot wise , that would impact on the total amount pretty slight . I 'm not sure on your bottom line where that falls but from the City 's position I think the comments have been a good recommendation from Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 57 the staff . As far as the cul-de-sac and connecting I and G , I think that that cul-de-sac is too long as it is without a connection there or a loop . I 'm sure obviously Lundgren is market driven . They 're a successful developer and a good one in this part of town and it helps sell . We certainly know here anyway that it helps sell homes and that 's what people want . The problem of course is that they don 't provide bus transportation . Someone else has to do that for them and pick up their kids and take them to school . They don 't drive an ambulance and some of the other problems that are involved with long , single access cul-de-sacs . I think the City 's recommendation on a connection is a good one . Was there a price range at all mentioned in that report? I couldn 't find one . I was wondering , do you have any information in regards to the pricings since the lot sizes is so different from the bottom to the top? John Uban : We do have a general range . We have the products in a general range . We didn 't show you all of that because of time . Farmakes : So from the bottom to the top in the price range would be? Terry Forbord: In today 's dollars? Farmakes: Yeah . — Terry Forbord: And this is subject to change at all times . Farmakes : I won 't hold you to it . We won 't close the deal tonight . Terry Forbord: The intent here is , if you study the market in Chanhassen , there is very little housing stock in , it is usually at the extreme . All the way . . . low end and at the high end . And we believe that what Chanhassen — probably needs the most of . . .housing objectives , is probably to be , have some housing stock in that $150 ,000 .00 to $250 ,000 .00 range , including lot and that 's our intention . Now we are working on additional assembly of parcels in this area and if that occurs , and it may , then that would be a broader price . There would be some homes in the higher price range and hopefully some homes below that . Although it 's getty very difficult in Chanhassen to do that because of development costs . Farmakes : The other point I wanted to make , is we spent a lot of time discussing the issues of minimum square footage on a single family lot . It seems to me that the ratio here , I guesstimated here that under 15 ,000 , they had about 24 , somewhere in there , of under 15 ,000 square feet . Olsen : I haven 't done that calculation yet until the preliminary plat . Farmakes : Percentage wise , it seems to me that that would be reasonable . _ It doesn 't seem to me that they 're taking advantage of that situation . The private park . You said that the Park and Rec had went through that and I 'm not sure that they inquired about the park needs in that area and I 'm not really familiar with park service on that end of town so I guess I have no way to comment on that . Olsen: The way they would have looked at it is that the neighborhood would have been resulting in the need for a neighborhood park and they feel that Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 58 the developer is still providing that . Farmakes: The final comment that I have here , on that lower section that you develop , I hope that by that time anyway , is that frontage road would come through in that section correct for TH 5? Was that our vision? It _ wouldn 't meander because on the preliminary section it kind of meandered u a bit . Krauss: Yeah , we 're not exactly sure where it 's going to go . You have — that Bluff Creek system coming in through there . It needs to be defined whether it 's going to come north or south of that creek . Batzli : Let me ask the question before we move on , on this private park . How private is a private park? John Uban : It 's a private park in the sense that the homeowners use it . They maintain it . They own it . They pay taxes on it but it 's pretty obvious that children know no bounds and friends of friends and so forth . . . So in a way , there 's no way to stretch any significant . . .but it is — something that is part of that neighborhood . It 's designed to be an amenity that they control . If they want to add another tennis court , it 's up to themselves . They 're in control of their own destiny in that respect Batzli : But there 's no parking there correct? John Uban : That is correct . Batzli : So it would be limited to on street if you will . For example I ride my bike from Lotus Lake . I go to the park . Can they kick me out? — John Uban: I suppose if you 're drinking beer and being rowdy . Terry Forbord : For most of you who have traveled around the country and this is certainly something that is not uncommon all over the United States . You don 't see a lot of it in the Midwest . You have to get to Chicago probably to see a lot more of this . We 've been doing it for — probably oh 3 to 5 years but we have not done it in Chanhassen because we have not had a new neighborhood community in Chanhassen . As I eluded to earlier , we 've gone to great lengths to try to be better at everything that- we do everytime we do a new project . You can 't do something like this either unless you 've got a significant , enough size of a site . We were before you not more than a year ago on what is now called Willow Ridge , or you may recall it as Ortenblat/Ersbo on Lake Lucy Road . And that particular property was not large enough for any type of a park and had an type of economic feasibility in it . But more importantly , what we are trying to do as a company is we really don 't have any desire to try to — develop real estate and have neighborhood communities that are just like everybody else 's . We can , all of us can get in our cars and drive all over the metro area and see plenty of that already . What we try to do and what_ we 've always tried to do , we 're more a nitch developer . A nitch builder . We 're trying to have something that is a little more upscale I guess or something . A little more special than what everybody else is doing and our buyer profile , if you look at them or interview them , or even the census — data , will show you because it 's that localized now . The data 's so — Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 59 specific , the buyer profile that typically comes into our neighborhoods is willing to pay a little bit more money to have something that 's not just like all of our competition . And we also have found through exit interviews of our homebuyers and we also have found out just by market analyst data that when people sell their homes , they have a much easier time selling it if they have some special amenities in the neighborhood — where they live . And so really what we 're trying to do is have a competitive edge over our competition . Create a better neighborhood community . There 's absolutely no doubt that it takes stress off the city 's park system . When we do this , we go in and we build it right away . Now those of you who have worked on the parks commission in the city know that they usually wait until all the people are there and then when there 's enough money , maybe then they build the park . And every city has that — problem because there 's just simply not enough money . So what we are doing is we are putting it in immediately so people know that it 's part of the package . The homeowners association controls it and owns it and it 's a real benefit to those people who live there . And it also benefits the city because it takes some of the financial burden off of them . — Batzli : So the operative word there though was the homeowners own it and control it . Terry Forbord: That 's correct . Emmings: I don 't think I have much to add . I guess my observation would be that I think that the staff , the conditions that have been attached here or put down by the staff are a good list of issues . I 'm not sure that I necessarily agree with, when it says reduce front yard setbacks for all lots on local streets to 20 feet . I don 't know if you want to do that but I think the conditions do a good job of identifying the issues and maybe — that 's enough since we 're , this is really a concept plan . Why does he think we 're doing a preliminary plat and the rest of us think we 're doing a concept? Krauss: We 're really not sure . We were under the impression we were in sync on that but it is a PUD . — Emmings: We always do a concept review , right? Krauss: Yeah . It 's optional actually . Emmings: Oh really . — Krauss: Yeah , it 's optional to do . By typically what we do is we come back in and the same thing with Hans Hagen . You come back in after the concept with the preliminary and plat concurrently at the next round of meetings . And then that would be the last time you see it . — Emmings: But as far as , just so we 're clear on what we 're doing, we 're looking at it as a concept? Krauss: It 's set up as a concept . Batzli : It was published as a concept . Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 60 Emmings : Okay . Terry Forbord: Mr . Chair? Batzli : Yeah . Terry Forbord: I would like to point out that the ordinance allows an applicant to go through both processes at the same time and we 've done that before with the city and our application I believe it clearly shows that 's— what we applied for and the fee structure that we paid for . . . And if it was an error , then so be it but I want to make sure the record 's straight . Emmings: And I guess if we were going to look at this as a preliminary plat at this point , we had an awful lot of conditions and we 've got an awful lot of things that are unresolved and I don 't think I 'd be willing to do that , but . Batzli : No . But clearly if they 've paid the fee for the preliminary plat . Olsen: It 's just one fee for the PUD . Krauss : We went with the unitary fee structure . It 's not broken out . _ Batzli : So they will not have to pay another fee to go through the preliminary plat? Krauss: Well , we 're always willing to take a developer 's money . Batzli : Ladd . — Conrad: A gentleman had a comment about sewer and connecting . Krauss: I think we can try that one . We 've got the feasibility study being done now and the honest answer is we won 't know the answer until the feasibility study is completed . Now knowing what we know about how this project is being laid out , there 's not , I won 't say there won 't be any — assessments off site to the north but I don 't think there will be . The utilities are being brought in from the east . If there 's any benefit accruing directly to lots , it comes through the east side . So as it goes — out to Galpin and Lake Ann Interceptor . That information will be availabl when the feasibility study is completed and there 's a public hearing held at the City Council . When that happens , all benefitting properties , all _ the properties that stand to get an assessment are notified and invited to come to that public hearing . And the Council makes the final determinatio as to who 's going to be assessed and what will be deferred , if anything . The other question in terms of extending utilities to adjoining lots , — that 's something we regularly look at when we get the final engineering done . We look at where it 's appropriate to extend it . I don 't know specifically if it will reach some of your properties . Some of them are — considerably uphill from the site which makes for difficulty . We usually terminate these things at property lines and don 't extend it . If you want to give Dave Hempel in engineering a call in the next couple of days , he can tell you specifically how close he thinks we 're going to get with the — utilities . Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 61 Hempel : If I just may add to that . I believe the acceptance or consideration of acceptance of the feasibility study is scheduled for September 14th City Council meeting . Conrad: Parks . The Park and Rec has identified , is there a neighborhood park in the area? Krauss: No . Conrad : Will there be? Olsen: Well it wouldn 't be a neighborhood park . What they 're providing is essentially a neighborhood park . What you 're probably thinking about is more of a community area and I don 't know that they have identified a larger park in that area . Aanenson : I think you also should look at the fact that Minnewashta Regional Park is close . Olsen: Kitty corner , yeah . Krauss : This is the first private park if you will that the Park Board has looked at and we didn 't know how to react to it but they were comfortable with it . Keep in mind too that they 're not getting any credit on park dedication so the developer , for the right to do this , is essentially getting hit twice . Conrad: That 's recognizable . There was a comment that said maybe we need parks in the area and I just wanted to follow that up . That somebody lived outside this area . Krauss: The other property in this area that could theoretically benefit from a park is the Song property . Now Lundgren Bros . may or may not work on a coordinated project with that . In the future I know that it 's been discussed . If there is , and if it coordinates with it too , I suppose they would have . . .to this park or another similar one would be built there . If — somebody else develops that , I think the Park Board 's going to have to look at having a separate neighborhood park and resolving some of those recreational issues on that site . Conrad: Generally I really like the plan . I think it 's neat . Recommendations from the staff , 5 , 6 , 7 and 8 are pretty absolute and I guess , you know it 's sort of the PUD . We can slip those . I don 't want to — slip them in all cases but I think , I 'm not sure I 'm as absolute as maybe the staff is on that and I think there was some things that Terry talked about and other presenters that I think we should listen to . Again , I _ think we just want to be sensitive to that . My only other two comments , and I ' ll probably be all by myself on these . 16 and 17 in the staff report , connecting I and G . I really like how it looks . I just like the cul-de-sacs that way . I think it 's terrific design . If we take a look at what City Council approved at Kurver 's Point and the cul-de-sacs there , we 're not consistent as to how we implement this . I really like this . I like how it makes the neighborhood and I know there 's concerns about that but that 's just my point . I like the center islands . I always have . Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 62 I think it makes it attractive and I know there 's no engineering group or maintenance that will say they like it in the world but I like them . — Batzli : You like the little islands? Conrad: I sure do . Batzli : And cul-de-sacs too? Conrad: Yeah . I think they look neat and they can be an asset . So those are my two off the wall comments . . . Erhart: Okay , well other than the late hour , I 'd like to say that Lundgre Bros . , and thank them for really , they 've spent an enormous amount of time on this in the last , I didn 't realize it was 3 years but they volunteered — to come to our wetlands ordinance group and speak to us about this and the brought in practically their whole staff on another evening to describe ho.. the new ordinance would effect this development . So that 's appreciated guys . And I think the development 's really neat . The difficulties that — you have here combined with , in light of the fact that actually it 's a beautiful piece of property and this particular piece I think represents a lot of the property that remains to be developed in Chanhassen . I think wa. really use this as a prototype of what we do with the rest of the city because what it is is essentially wooded areas that have been , where the trees have been removed from small fields that are high ground surrounded _ by wetlands and it 's just a lot of , as you walk around Chanhassen , that 's really what all remains in the whole city . So I think we 're learning a lo on how to do this and how to do it right and I 'm pretty confident it 's going to look really neat when it gets done . So just quickly , I 'll just g— through my list . On page 4 that you talked about this exception to the property being designed so that it can be ultimately access from Street G but it 's just not clear on the plans to me how that would happen . I 'm not_ asking for an explanation now . . . Also , again when we go through these PUD lists of things that we 're looking for , it implies there that we 're actually expecting the developer to react on each one of them and I didn 't think that was our intention of a PUD . That they had to give us something— on all of them . . . .ask them now to respond with more and I 'm not sure that 's needed . I agree with Ladd . I see no point in connecting I and G . People want cul-de-sacs . It 's safer . It is safer and these are not long .— So I 'd like to see it the way it is , although I guess I 'd like engineering again to review the possibility of extending Street B to the end of the property so if it 's possible to hook up later on in what I think is the — Song property . Krauss: We looked at that in a lot of depth . Over a period of about a year . Erhart : Well I 'm getting used to be disagreed with tonight . One more isn 't going to hurt . Removal of 8 in lieu of private streets . I think we— ought to look at doing more of that . I think private streets , when you ge in this kind of area with the slopes and the wetlands and stuff , can do a lot to fit things in without destroying things and what you 're giving up _ there sometimes though is a sharing of some of the things . The nice thing about the streets and cul-de-sacs , it 's sort of a nice , even sharing of th_ Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 63 wetlands over a large number of houses so I think agree that looking at private streets is a good idea , and they do work and they 're used a lot really outside of Minnesota . But when you travel around you see a lot of private streets . I think our ordinance allows what , 3 houses? 4 houses? Krauss: Four . Erhart: The lot widths , we tie that into the 20 foot . Terry , you tried to tie in the 20 foot setback and correct me if I 'm wrong but I thought what you said is , if you measure the lot width at 20 feet , then it becomes smaller . That 's one of the reasons why you have so many sub-standard narrow lots . I guess my feeling is that I sort of agree with staff that we ought to maintain the 90 foot , although they ought to be measured at the 30 foot setback . So when you get on those lots where you have 20 foot setbacks , it could be less than 90 feet . Then going back to the recommendations where we say reduced front yards on all those streets at 20 feet . You know if we just want to make a carte blanche statement like that , then you 've got to question is our ordinance right . I don 't think our ordinance is wrong . Olsen: I intended it more for . Erhart : I think we ought to do it lot by lot . Olsen: Yes , that 's what we . . . Erhart : Let 's see . I think I 'm now convinced that the idea of just requiring 20 feet between buildings has some merit and would agree with that . I notice I don 't see woodland easement or what do we call it , tree easements so I 'm pleased with that so far . And hopefully on a later meeting we 'll have time to discuss trees before this one comes back in . I 'm not suggesting we do it tonight anymore . This foundation plantings and your rear yard trees is an interesting thing Terry . I don 't know , you must have read the Minutes of the meeting where we discussed in our new PUD . I voted against the PUD because of particularly those two requirements . I didn 't think it made any sense and in discussing with Paul earlier , I think now I understand where we weren 't communicating on this . I viewed the PUD as it is applied against a subdivision where the lots are sold and the people get their own developer and make their own builder and build their own house and I could not visualize how you made the connection between the guy developing the lot and the guy who builds the house were two entirely different people . Apparently you were not thinking that way at all . Your idea was , or most of the Commissioners idea was in this PUD is that the developer also is the builder . Now maybe I 'm wrong . Is the builder always as a developer? See , I didn 't think so . So I think we 've got this first case of a problem , this foundation plantings and your rear yard trees are problematic . I don 't see how we can , it doesn 't seem to make sense to us to have a PUD where we require foundation plantings and rear yard trees because it is unconnected to the subdivision . It 's something that relates to the building itself so I don 't know . I think it 's a good point and maybe we can . Krauss: We 've spoken to Terry tonight about some options for resolving that particular point that I think you ' ll wind up agreeing with . You also Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 64 are trying to cover with the ordinance , you 're covering cornfield development too where there isn 't anything and it may be sold off to — individuals . But I think we 've got a positive way to work out that issue . Erhart : Okay . My question here in , we talk a lot about saving trees . I — was a little surprised that someone stated here that we were going to lose approximately 1/3 of the trees . How do you know this far in advance exactly where the building pad 's going to be to determine how many trees are going to be lost? Can you do that? Do you know where the building — pads are going to be? John Uban: Generally yes . — Terry Forbord: Terry Forbord from Lundgren Bros . . Even though we are in the conceptual stage of this , staff usually likes to know so they have an _ idea of what impact the development may have on the site . And so we take the time . It 's not specific because we haven 't been out and surveyed each lot and surveyed the building pad . But by utilizing the technology that we have , you can get a fairly clear idea , plus or minus there 's obviously som room for error . But a fairly good idea of what you 're going to be taking out and the grading plan , you 're trying to balance the dirt on the site and so you know what you have to do and so you come fairly close but you rea11 . don 't have a real concise idea until you 're in the final design phase . Erhart : But this 1/3 does include the building sites? Terry Forbord: I 'm sorry , I can 't hear . Erhart : Losing 1/3 of the trees , that includes the trees lost for buildin sites? Terry Forbord: That 's from development . I don 't believe that was — calculated into actual pads , was it? Farmakes: Total loss to development is 37% . John Uban: That 's based on grading the whole site and in some cases putting in different homes like ramblers . Not ramblers but not having walk outs in some cases . So we 've adjusted the grading plan to reach that — number . And also we may be able to save more but we don 't know until you actually match a specific house for a specific owner . Terry Forbord: It 's probably fairly close. because we recognize that most of the building pads in this neighborhood community will have corrections . In other words , you 'll be doing soil corrections on almost all the pads so that 's probably fairly close . Erhart : Of the 33% , what does it do to house pads versus streets and utilities? Okay , 33% of the trees are going to be lost . Of those 33% , — say now that 's 100% . Of the 100% trees lost , what percent is due to streets and utilities versus the housepad? John Uban: About a third for a street system . Actual street and then the rest . Eden Prairie for instance . They are very aggressive when it comes Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 65 to fitting development into existing woods . Aggressive in the sense that they have very strict rules and very . . .method of figuring things out . So they just automatically assume that you 're going to lose probably around 40% of the trees . And that 's just what you have to accept in development . You know doing a road with lots and you get the lots and the homes . . . Erhart : Alright , well that just gives me an idea here . I 'm trying to figure out where this tree thing for notes later . The islands . Maybe once and for all we can get an action here where we can have islands in our city . Because everytime islands have been proposed by a developer , it 's always okay Dave . We 're going at you here . It 's always the street maintenance don 't like it and by the time you get all done and we all up here kind of go along and it gets thrown out . And I 've always liked islands . They 're all over the place . Eden Prairie 's got them . Maybe we have more snow than them . Do we get more snow than Eden Prairie that we can 't have islands here or something? I guess I 'd really like to see the Commission take a stand and maybe a poll here to see if we can get rid of this mentality that we shouldn 't have , of not having islands because I think they 're , as Terry said , I think there 's a lot of advantages . I think we ought to allow islands . I know Ladd said we ought to allow islands . Batzli : I don 't know if we 're going to allow rebuttal . Do you have real rebuttal or just it 's going to save us money and stuff like that? Hempel : No , just a couple comments I guess towards the islands that we have problems with . One of them is our public works maintenance . Snow plowing and so forth . Damage to the curbs on the island and so forth takes repairs . Again , the street function in itself is for vehicles . Manuevering and so forth and with those islands and that , they do look aesthetically pleasing and they break up the neighborhood asphalt surface but again there may be safety issues with children playing on them . Cars coming around and so forth . These are all issues to be looked at . There may be some liability risks of having an island such as what is proposed . Those are some of the things we consider . Batzli : Thank you . You don 't get rebuttal . Next point . Erhart : Can we get what the other Planning Commissioners . Some direction . Batzli : Oh , I like islands . Emmings: I like islands . Erhart : Jeff? Farmakes : I think they look just fine . Personally I don 't like cul-de-sacs . I think that they 're private streets and a lot of them are are paid for by the public . But they 're in demand . Consumers want them and that 's why they 're there . It obviously looks nice . — Ahrens : It hasn 't been a real big issue for me Tim but you know , I guess they 're okay . I agree with Jeff 's statement about cul-de-sacs in general . I think it does create too many private streets but they 're okay . Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 66 Erhart: Okay , then to go through your recommendations . I think most of them look reasonable . 5 maybe add lot widths so each lot has a minimum of— 90 feet at the normal 30 foot building setback . Jo Ann, maybe that 's . . . We talked about the 20 foot . 16 . I would not connect I and G . On 17 , delete islands , we talked about that . So that 's it . Thank you . This guy_ extracts uy— extracts all this stuff out of me from Target when I had little to say , an. now I have something to say and you guys laugh . Batzli : Thank you Tim . I just have a couple of quick comments or — questions . One is , there was talk of a lot of tiling on the site . What i the effect going to be when we start grading it? Are we going to take out the draintile and how is that going to effect the wetlands? Is this going— to effect which wetlands still exist or is that being calculated into the runoff through the NURP ponds or whatever we 're putting in? Olsen: We haven 't looked at that in detail yet . Batzli : Okay . Have you guys looked at that in detail? Ken Adolf: I 'm Ken Adolf . I 'll address it from the engineering point of view . As far as the drain tile , I think it would be best when the drain tile are found , to try to maintain them , especially they can be routed into- some storm sewer and then go into ponds . The drain tile is providing a function in kind of draining the on site soils and if you just arbitrarily block that , it could cause water table to rise in some area that we don 't know about . So I think we take some care to try to maintain those and — connect them into the new storm sewer and drain it into ponds . As far as the impact on the volume requirements for the NURP ponds and so forth , the drain tile typically drains at a very slow rate over a period of time so a— compared to the runoff you get from a rainfall , it 's very low volume so it really wouldn 't impact the storage requirements for the NURP ponds . Batzli : Okay . Are we going to require or are we going to need to require some sort of easement over these drain tiles if we 're going to try to maintain them? Have we ever done that before? Hempel : Mr . Chairman , I don 't believe we have . We have numerous drain tile systems within the city and we constantly are uncovering them . We do have problems in the future once the development is in and the home — building starts and these drain tiles are uncovered in building sites . An the homeowners are subject then to a drain tile system and sump pump that pumps 24 hours a day , 365 days a year . Their only recourse is to pump it — usually out into the city street and the City then has ramifications of repairing that . Connecting them to a storm sewer system or something . In fact we are considering in some of these areas to look at requiring a drain tile system behind the curb just for these situations that come up where — they 're excavating large amounts of fill along the sides of hills that may expose a seam where there 's ground water problems or drain tile problems . So it 's starting to be a problem for us I guess from a city maintenance — standpoint and we are having some injuries from pedestrians and bicyclist with these drain tile systems draining out into the city streets . Batzli : Have we looked at , I know we 've spoken about this at the City Council/Planning goal session or what have you , to have everyone 's sump Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 67 pump drain into the storm water , storm sewer system . Has that been looked at all for this particular area? Krauss : Actually there 's some changes in the Building Code that they 're looking at . It 's now mandatory for every new house that you pipe a sump pump to the outdoors . Batzli : Understood . Krauss: Which it didn 't used to be . You used to get a sump pot and then it was up to you and most people just dumped it in the laundry tub which causes problems . Batzli : Right . Krauss: What Dave is referring to is situations that run all winter long . We 've had icing situations . Batzli : That 's why I 'm asking . Can we require them to put it into the storm sewer directly and not into the street? Krauss: If it becomes an issue , I suppose we could . We haven't tried that yet . Hempel : I believe that 's something the City Engineer is trying to get on the books . Batzli : Thought I 'd ask . The private park I 'm sure is an interesting concept . I 'm not quite sure how it works . I 'm not sure how it ties into _ the development to the east or to the south . I don 't necessarily like the idea that this is private to the exclusion of someone bicycling in from the neighborhood next door . Although it may not be very likely to happen , but the possibility would exist for in essence the neighbors to say , get out of here . This is private . That kind of troubles me . I think I like the price range that 's going in here . I like the development in general . I think a lot of work 's been put into it . I like the treatment of the wetlands . The one thing that did concern me regarding the streets , I actually like the cul-de-sacs . I like the islands . One thing that concerned me about the street was the way that this , I don 't know what we 're calling it a collector , or what are we calling it , the one Street A? Olsen : Collector . Batzli : What kind of traffic are we expecting on that street? Krauss: It really should not generate significant thru trips . You 're talking about serving this neighborhood and the adjacent neighborhoods . Now emergency vehicles will be able to transit through there if they need to . Delivery vehicles . But there 's really no reason for , especially when the new frontage road is built , there 's really no reason for anybody else to use it . Batzli : Okay . So this bridge is going to have to be built for pretty heavy duty stuff if it has to , firetrucks and what have you anyway . Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 68 Krauss: Right , there 's no question of that . Batzli : The location of the roadway into the Song property . Has that bee looked at by that landowner and they 're comfortable with where that 's going in there? Krauss: Well yeah , I don 't want to speak for the Song 's . I believe they 're out of the country right now but we did have a meeting . We being myself , engineering staff , Terry Forbord and the Songs were both present . — And we did look at options for getting the road through there and I understood that they were comfortable with it . Frankly it 's really the only place to put it . It 's a very tough route to take to get through . — Anything else causes significant damage . Batzli : Regarding conditions 5 , 6 , 7 and 8 , I think those should be looked at individually . I think probably the City and the developer are thinkinc of the same things here as far as how to combine those conditions so that they treat the wetlands sensitively and maintain some space inbetween the houses . So I guess I 've already said I like the center islands . Has ther— been , the trail system through this neck of the woods . That is just running along TH 41 now? Olsen: That 's correct . Batzli : There wouldn 't be a trail system coming along Street A at all? Olsen: There will be a sidewalk . Not a park trail system . Batzli : Is that one of the things that you had a problem with Terry? The— sidewalk along Street A . Terry Forbord: Typically we do not like to have trails or sidewalks in ou.. developments because the people who live there don 't want them . Usually people who use trails enjoy them but they prefer they 're in somebody else '._ neighborhood . However , we believe that this particular sidewalk probably makes some sense because it 's . . .I think there is some merit to having a — sidewalk along . . .to go from one side to the other without having to be on the street . John Uban: We think it should be on the north side . Terry Forbord: . . .because the park 's on that side . Batzli : Those are my comments . Does anyone else have anything? Anyone have a motion? Erhart : Again , it goes back to just a question of , why do we want to adop a motion? Batzli : Because you 're going to love Steve 's wording that you 're just about to hear . Erhart: Great , let 's hear it . Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 69 Emmings: I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Planned Unit Development Concept Plan for 113 single family lots with the understanding that the applicant will continue to work with staff on the conditions presented in the staff report in accordance with the comments that have been made . Erhart: You took the words right out of my mouth . I 'll second it . Emmings moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Planned Unit Development Concept Plan for 113 single family lots with the understanding that the applicant will continue to work with staff on the conditions presented in the staff report in accordance with the comments that have been made . 1 . Reduce the amount of tree removal currently proposed through reduction of grading , use of retaining walls , removal and shortening of cul-de-sacs , different housing styles , lowering of street grades , and reconfiguration of lot sizes and locations . 2 . Provide a detailed tree removal plan illustrating types , number and caliper of trees over 6" caliper being removed . 3 . Revise lot areas by removing wetland area from the calculations . 4 . Demonstrate that each lot is able to accommodate a 60 ' x 40 ' building pad and a 12 ' x 12 ' deck without intruding into any required setback area or protective easement . 5 . Revise lot widths so that each lot has a minimum of 90 ' at the building setback . 6 . Demonstrate that each lot provides a 30 ' rear yard setback and that there is a 30 ' exterior setback . 7 . Reduce the front yard setback for all lots on local streets to 20 ' . 8 . Maintain a minimum 10 ' side yard setback for all lots and that all accessory buildings and structures will maintain a 10 ' setback . 9 . Revise the landscaping plan so that it provides the landscaping required for a residential PUD ( boulevard plantings , exterior landscaping foundation and yard plantings , tree preservation ) and provide a proposal for a budget for foundation plantings . 10 . Provide architectural covenants . 11 . Locate the extension for watermain service along the east side of Trunk Highway 41 . 12 . Extend the watermain beyond "I " street to "G" street to loop the two water systems together . 13 . Locate fire hydrants approximately 300 ' apart and in accordance with any location recommendations by the Fire Marshal . Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 70 14 . Provide storm drainage and ponding calculations to verify pipe sizing and pond volumes and extend storm sewer lines to the detention ponds t— minimize erosion along the slopes . 15 . Provide a 5 ' wide concrete sidewalk along one side of Street A . — 16 . Review the connection I and G street to provide a 3% or less grade for the first 50 ' at intersections . 17 . Delete the center median islands on A street and all cul-de-sacs . 18 . Submit details on proposed wetland alterations , mitigation , buffer — strips and protection of wetland . 19 . Provide as built locations and dimensions of all corrected house pads 20 . Respond to issues raised by the City Engineering and Park Department . All voted in favor except Ahrens who abstained and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS: — ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO DEFINE DOCK SETBACK ZONE, AND; ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING FENCE REQUIREMENTS. Batzli : The other two , they 're public hearings so I just want to make sur _ that there 's no one in the audience that has come to discuss either the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to define dock setbacks or fence requirements . — No? Okay . Seeing no one in the crowd , is there a motion to table those two items until our next meeting? Emmings : Yeah . I 'll make that motion but , I want to just say that it seems to me that the way that dock setback zoning ordinance amendment is written , is very , very confusing . I think it really needs some serious work . Olsen: Yeah , we 've gotten a lot of comments on it . Aanenson: We would have recommended that it be tabled anyway . Emmings: Yeah , there 's at least , the 100 feet makes no sense . It doesn 't_ you know , I don 't know if there 's anything, that needs to be said here abou situations where you have shared docks . Aanenson: Yep , that 's what we 're going to put in . An exception or exclusion in for a common dock . . . Emmings: Also , look very carefully and decide whether you mean , if these — are the extended lot lines and you go in 10 feet , from the definition it sounds like it 's the area in here that 's the dock setback zone but it 's not . The 10 feet on each side , so I think it really needs a lot of work . — Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 71 Emmings moved , Conrad seconded to table action on the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to define dock setback zones and fence requirements until the next Planning Commission meeting . All voted in favor and the motion carried . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated August 5 , 1992 as presented . OPEN DISCUSSION: TREE CONSERVATION EASEMENTS . Conrad moved , Emmings seconded to table the tree conservation easements discussion until the next Planning Commission meeting . All voted in favor except Erhart who opposed and the motion carried . Conrad moved , Erhart seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in favor and the motion carried . The meeting was adjourned at 12: 18 a .m . . Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CITY OF C HANBASSENti 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director DATE: August 28, 1992 SUBJ: Report from Director At the August 24, 1992, City Council meeting, the following actions were taken: — 1. Wetland Alteration Permit for alteration within 200 feet of a wetland, 7201 Juniper Avenue, Greg Dattilo, was approved on the consent agenda. = 2. Wetland Alteration permit for a right turn lane adjacent to a wetland, Cheyenne Trail and Hwy. 101, City of Chanhassen, was approved on the consent agenda. At the Planning Commission's request, staff investigated the potential of incorporating additional measures of improving wetland and water quality. The site was discussed with our consultants from Bonestroo Engineering and Frank Svoboda. It was concluded that additional measures would produce modest results for significant cost. These measures did not appear to be cost effective and staff did not recommend they be proceeded with. 3. Bluff Creek Estates/Keyland Homes, located on Audubon Road south and the railroad tracks, final plat approval, was approved on the consent agenda. 4. Interim Use Permit for earth work/mining of clay, Tom Zwiers, Moon Valley Aggregates. The Planning Commission reviewed this item in July and recommended its approval subject to appropriate conditions. This is the second time the City Council has reviewed this request. It was continued after its first hearing to allow for an opportunity to respond to additional questions that were raised. The City Council continues to have concerns regarding this proposal and its associated impacts. Questions were raised regarding the area of trees that would be cut to allow the southern most retention basin. Other questions concerned the duration of the operation and a request for soils information. The Council again continued the request. is tio4, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Planning Commission August 28, 1992 Page 2 5. Conditional Use Permit to locate portable toilet on Minnewashta Heights Recreational Beachlot was approved by the Council subject to conditions recommended by the _ Planning Commission. 6. Discussion of grading permit for Halla Nursery (materials attached). From time to time, staff has made the Planning Commission aware of issues concerning the operator of Halla Nursery and their desire to continue filling a ravine located on their property. The operator requested that this item be placed before the City Council and requested the City Council overrule the Planning Director's decision not to issue a second fill permit for 1,000 yards or allow unrestricted filling as requested by the applicant. In the attached materials, it is clear that staff does not support the applicant's proposal as outlined and also has concerns in the way which operations have been conducted on this property in the past. After having requested the hearing, the operator was not present at the Council meeting. The City Council did review the item and determined that no approvals would be forthcoming directly from them. Staff was directed to inform the operator that if any additional fill is to be requested, it must track through the Planning Commission in accordance with normal practices and city ordinances. CITY OF ti:4414CHANIIASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director Charles Folch, City Engineer DATE: August 17, 1992 SUBJ: Request for Additional Fill for the Halla Property - City Council Update At the last Council meeting, Mark and Don Halla appeared before the City Council on Visitor Presentation regarding their request to place additional fill material on their property. The City Council requested that staff schedule a formal presentation on this matter at an upcoming meeting. There is significant documentation attached to this memo regarding the history of this application. Therefore, staff will only summarize the facts here. Briefly, Mr. Halla apparently has been maintaining a dam structure and impoundment basin on his property for some twenty years. The city involvement in recent years began in 1989. Mr. Halla was given administrative approval to deposit 1,000 yards of material on the property to stabilize the dam. The dam was significantly eroded and appeared to be in danger of collapse. The 1,000 yards that was authorized administratively was done in accordance with the then new city Grading, Mining, and Excavation Ordinance. In 1990, Mr. Halla requested approval of an Interim Use Permit to significantly expand filling activities on the site. He requested approval to dump 100,000 cubic yards of material on the property; however, he indicated that this number was an approximation. He was also proposing to dump significant amounts of organic nursery material into this area. There was no defined deadline for the activity to be completed. Staff raised concerns regarding the scope of the request since we believed that significantly less material was required to adequately stabilize the dam structure. We wanted to ensure that impact on tree cover in the surrounding ravine as well as downstream water quality was minimized. Additionally, we requested that there be engineered plans so that we could be assured that the dam was properly constructed since it was obviously failing. Conditions normal for similar applications were attached to this approval and the request was scheduled to be taken before Is PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Don Ashworth August 17, 1992 Page 2 the Planning Commission with a recommendation from staff that it be approved subject to these conditions. Mr. Halla withdrew his request before action could be taken based upon his objections to the conditions that were being applied. Last year staff received a request from Mark Halla to dump another 1,000 yards of material on the site. The Planning Director refused to issue the administrative permit since previous concerns regarding grading on this site were not dealt with. The ordinance gives authority to the Planning Director to approve or deny such requests subject to City Council appeal. No further action was taken July of this year whereupon city staff became aware that large scale movement of earth was going on the property. After considerable difficulty, this operation was halted by the city and Mr. Halla appeared before the City Council under the Visitor Presentation to complain about staff action. Mr. Halla made a number of assertions before the City Council regarding this situation. He _ indicated a belief that the city was preventing him from being "environmentally responsible." Staff takes significant exception to these assertions. Brief comments follow: 1. We are charged with implementing city ordinances and policies in a manner that protects surrounding residents, property values, safety, and the best interests of the community. Mr. Halla is fully aware of all of these regulatory requirements and has intentionally ignored them on several occasions. 2. There is no evidence that has been presented that could lead us to conclude that the activity Mr. Halla wants to engage in will permanently resolve the structural problems of the dam or eliminate the significant erosion that has been occurring in this area. In fact, the type of organic material he has been using along with uncompacted fill is highly unlikely to result in a sound dam structure. 3. Mr. Halla's most recent fill operation apparently involved pushing raw material and debris over the side of the ravine. Staff has photographic evidence of this activity wherein we found appliances as well as tree waste being dumped along with the fill. The photo's are available for Council review. While we would support Mr. Halla's goal of protecting the dam and responsibly managing erosion from his site, we cannot agree that the use of old appliances or tree debris will accomplish this goal. 4. While staff does not wish to take the time to review all of the assertions that were made by Mr. Halla, two of them stand out and could easily be addressed. Mr. Halla indicated that one of the reasons he did not follow up on his 1990 permit request was that the city was requiring the construction of a "road" and "fencing." He indicated that he felt that this required fencing of the entire parcel. A copy of the 1990 staff report is included for your review. Condition #22, which we believe to be the road he was referring to, states that we are looking to get a gravel construction entrance 200 Don Ashworth August 17, 1992 Page 3 referring to is outlined in Condition #4 which simply states that the entrance onto Pioneer Trail should be equipped with a gate and a lock to prevent illegal dumping on the site. Similar conditions are typically required on other grading operations in the city. City Council Options Staff believes that we have operated in a responsible manner with regard to Mr. Halla and his filling operation. There is an unusually long paper trail associated with this activity extending over the past two to three years. Mr. Halla is requesting that the City Council respond to his appeal and allow filling to occur in accordance with some as yet unknown plan. The City Council certainly has within its authority the ability to direct staff to authorize the placement of another 1,000 yards of material on the property. Conceivably, this could even be done on an annual basis. Staff has reservations regarding this action as outlined throughout these documents: however, we would act as directed by the Council. The City Council is in a position to authorize this activity without first returning it to the Planning Commission for the normally required public hearing. Area residents could properly be notified and staff would in all likelihood make recommendations consistent with our 1990 report. Given recent resident involvement on the Moon Valley mining request which is located a very short distance to the east, staff would be hesitant to have the city in a position to allowing Mr. Halla to proceed without appropriate notification of these residents. We note that unlike the Moon Valley request where all the truck traffic would run to the east away from Chanhassen, that there is no way to access the Halla site without coming through our community and in front of many of these homes. We are therefore recommending that if Mr. Halla does want to proceed with his interim use permit request, that it be referred back to the Planning Commission and be reviewed in the normal manner. ATTACHMENTS 1. City Council minutes dated August 10, 1992. 2. Letter from Paul Krauss and Charles Folch dated July 31, 1992. 3. Memo from Paul Krauss to Interim Use Permit File #90-3. 4. Letter from Jo Ann Olsen dated September 25, 1990. 5. Letter from Don Halla dated September 28, 1990. 6. Letter from Jo Ann Olsen dated October 11, 1990. 7. Letter from U. S. Department of Agriculture dated August 25, 1970. 8. Planning Commission minutes dated August 15, 1990. 9. Staff report dated August 15, 1990. b. 1. Resolution #92-86: Approve Plans and Specifications for West 86th Street Watermain Improvements; Authorize Advertising for Bids, Project 90-10. 2. Resolution #92-87: Authorize Easement Acquisition and/or Condemnation Processing for West 86th Street Watermain, Project 90-10. c. Resolution #92-88: Approve Plans and Specifications for Phase 1 of Upper Bluff Creek Trunk Utilities; Authorize Advertising for Bids, Project 91-17. d. Eckankar Condemnation, Authorize Stipulation Agreement . e. Resolution #92-89: Approve Change Order, Chanhassen Senior Center. f. Street Sweeper, Reinstate Original Contract . g. Approval of Bills. h. City Council Minutes dated July 27, 1992 as amended by the City Manager Planning Commission Minutes dated July 15, 1992 i. Resolution #92-90: 1992 Park Acquisition and Development Capital Improvement Program Budget Amendment , Athletic Field Irrigation, Lake Ann Park. j. Resolution #92-91: Approval of Election Judges k. Resolution #92-92: Resolution Authorizing Execution of Year XVIII CDBG Subrecipient Agreement . 1. Extension of Final Plat Approval, Ches Mar Trails. m. Approve Purchase Agreement for Taco Shop Property, 195 West 78th Street . All voted in favor and the motion carried. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: EROSION CONTROL STRUCTURE, DON HALLA. Don Halla: Thank you Mr. Mayor. City Manager. Ladies and gentlemen of the Council for the opportunity to come here tonight . I do not know whether you received in your folder a copy of my letter. Do you know if you did or not? You did? Mayor Chmiel: Yes we did. Don Halla: We have what I consider a serious problem with our erosion control structure. It is a structure that we have maintained since approximately 1972 up until 1990. I did do a videotape of it which I would like to present just so you can see what the problem is, if I may please. And the structure which could fail and cause a lot of erosion and other problems which it is controlling at this point . Before I go anymore thoroughly into it , if it 's okay, I'd like to show the tape. 2 ��r wuiicli neeLing Hugest (Don Halla showed a video presentation of the erosion control structure on his property at this point . ) Don Halla: What we have is an erosion control structure which I'm concerned environmentally that it could break and crack at any time. Up until 1990 we were allowed to maintain it as we had through those roughly 18 years and never had a problem with the structure. You enacted an ordinance which in effect _ prevented us from doing the maintenance on it and that being that you're required to have permits to move soil of any volume over 50 yards within the city, for almost any purpose. There is no economic gain to me or to Halla Nursery to maintain this structure. The structure was done for the purpose of erosion control and to prevent the continuing of this valley from moving up and continuing all the way over to TH 101. All we had requested and wanted to do was to maintain that structure by at times we have had excavators who have had vast quantities of soil that could go into that structure to reinforce it once and for all. To solve the problem so that it wouldn't even possibly ever need to be repaired again. A year ago I was, I made a request to repair and at that time I was asked to put up a $10,000.00 cash deposit along with building a road and many other things that are called for in your ordinance. For something that has no economic gain to me and is really just a benefit to, as I call it , the earth or erosion control and so forth. I don't choose to spend or to tie up my cash which I need to operate my company in such a manner. I guess I'm leaving it to your concerns and your method as to what happens to that structure. If it 's not repaired, it will break. It will fail and the erosion will continue as it did prior to the building of it. Since there's no economic gain for me, I can't see spending $4,000.00 for an engineer's report , which has been asked this last time, to do something that I know would solve it because I've maintained it for 18 years. Nor am I willing to build a road in order to bring the trucks in, _ which really would not cause any problem driving on our gravel roads. So I'm in a dilemma between your ordinance, being a good citizen, being in the business that I am, as to what to do. I guess from there I leave it to your discretion. What I requested and would hope that it would be, is to kind of leave us alone. Let us be a good citizen. Let us take care of this problem on our own as we have in the past . That 's really what I'm asking for. Other than that, the City has funds that they're generating for water projects. Erosion control projects and so on that we pay for each quarter in our taxes. If you don't want me to do it , please take it over and maintain it yourselves. Whatever way that it works. If you don't want to do that , then I guess we have to all agree to let it fail. That 's where I'm coming from. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Whatever you'd like. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I guess I have a couple questions Don. You indicated that you had been able to get some people coming in with truckloads of whatever. What type of soils or debris was going to be put within that area? Don Halla: Heavy clay soil, which is what it needs. It needs heavy clay. No sand. Nothing like that . That wouldn't do any good. Mayor Chmiel: That was one of my concerns because sand's not going to do it . It 's just going to wash away just automatically. Don Halla: It takes real heavy clay which of course we have construction projects from every so often. They don't come up very often. We had 7,000 3 City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992 yards this spring that they were willing to take in and fill behind there at no cost to us. They were going to backfill it , compact it , haul it in, grade it , everything. All we had to do was to, they were even going to extend the culvert down an extra 70 feet or whatever culvert we wanted to buy just to make sure the right slope could be on it . The City stopped us doing that . I'm at a dilemma. —] Mayor Chmiel : Let me ask just another one. You wrote a control structure as you said and you're concerned environmentally. What total capacity of water is contained within what 's existing that 's been shown now? How deep is that , do you know? Don Halla: The structure runs, at least when it was originally installed. I don't know, it doesn't show there but the City has plans. It 's about a 50 foot drop from the top of that structure down to the bottom. At one time that was all 50 feet was there. I'm sure there's 20 foot of silt in it at this point . It does pick up all the silt that comes off of the nursery and deposit it in there. Whatever doesn't slow down ahead of time. I'm guessing it 's about 30 feet deep at this time and then it builds up and of course it goes down and then it overflows in a heavy rain but most of the time, it stores that water within it 's structure and it doesn't overflow. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I noticed here in reading the information that was provided to us in a letter that had been written as well to you, as you said the Planning Commission recommended approval for doing what was to be done for the erosion control. And it appears that you did withdraw your application prior to it coming to the City Council . And because of your disagreements what you said was one, the road. Two, the bonding. Don Halla: No, it 's not bonding. I have to put up cash. Mayor Chmiel: $10,000.00 cash up front , right . And what was, you had three different ones. A cash deposit , the road. Was there one more? Don Halla: Well today now, they're asking for a $4,000.00 engineering. Mayor Chmiel: That was the other one. Don Halla: Oh, fencing. Gates. I mean I've got 50 acres of farmland or 60 acres on that side and the closest road is 800 feet away and still I've got to fence and gate the whole project . Mayor Chmiel: Is accessibility to that any other way than going through your property? Don Halla: No. Mayor Chmiel : Anyone else have any questions? • Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I'd like to hear staff's side of it . Paul Krauss: Maybe if I could start and Charles can add his two cents. We started working with Mr. Halla on this 3 years ago. Three years ago administratively I authorized 1,000 yards of material be placed on the dam to 4 City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992 stabilize it . Exact same situation. 1,000 yards is 100 truckloads. That was done. The dam was stabilized. --I! Councilman wing: I don't mean to interrupt but when you say stabilized, you're dumping dirt on what? Paul Krauss: We really don't know and there's never been an engineered plan for this. We don't think there's ever been compacted fill. There's a lot of questions that have always been raised in our minds as to, you know Mr. Halla and I accept what he says in good faith, he's been saying that he's been maintaining this thing for years. Well if by maintaining it means throwing dirt on every year, and the next year it's not there, it 's going someplace and where it 's going is probably the Minnesota River. This is not a stable structure. Stable structures don't need to be refilled every year. Councilwoman Dimler: Was it clay that was dumped? Paul Krauss: I don't recall. We had our inspector out at the site checking to see but it was, you know it stabilized the situation at least for the time being. Councilman Wing: The surface? Paul Krauss: Yes. A subsurface, we have no idea. We also contacted the Soil Conservation Service and again, I mean I've only talked to one individual over there and I haven't talked to him recently. Charles' staff has. Paul Newman over there indicates that to the best of his knowledge there's been no contact since 1972 and that they don't have a design. They gave some suggestions for how this thing was supposed to be designed but they're not sure if it was. The following year, Mr. Halla came in and asked for I think it was 60,000 yards of fill in there. As I recall. Something on that nature. We recommended approval of a modified version of that plan. We didn't think it would take as much fill as had been requested. That would substantially fill up a portion of the ravine. We did ask for engineer plans to make sure that the problem was fixed once and for all. The road that 's being referred to is not a road. It 's a construction entrance as we normally require on hauling projects so that we don't track mud out onto the county road. It 's, depending on how you build it , it 's either asphalt or rock a short distance to make sure the stuff comes off the wheels. We did ask for a letter of credit to make sure that it was done correctly. That 's kind of standard procedure for us. Mr. Halla, as I recall, did receive approval from the Planning Commission but then decided not to pursue it and withdrew it . Last year I received a call from the Halla's. They wanted another 1,000 yards authorized to be put on the property. I said I could not do that . That I had already authorized 1,000 yards. I couldn't in good conscience — authorize more. And then we found, I was on vacation but we had a report of trucks coming in and our staff went down there and found out that there was a fill operation going on. Certainly Mr. Halla knows how these things are handled by the city by this time. The reception that the inspection and engineering staff got when they appeared on the site was not particularly great . And again, Mr. Halla has brought this to you on a visitor presentation. We have more information here in terms of the files that we had at the Planning Commission but in terms of design details on the dam itself, that 's information that we've never had. Charles, did I miss anything? 5 City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992 Charles Folch: I think that pretty well covers it . It 's a real serious problem there. I think the video shows it . It does a real good job of showing the size _ of that ravine down there. The types of problems that are being experienced. It 's not just your ordinary run of the mill grading permit that you'd be approving here. This is a very serious problem. There's a lot of aspects involved that staff feels requires a trained professional in that particular field to be able to design and recommend and inspect the solution that would take care of the problem permanently. As the Halla's would like to see also and that 's why we've recommended that a soils or geotechnical engineer prepare the plans and inspect the project. We have also a letter of concurrence from Paul Newman, a Soil Conservation District Officer who also recommend that a registered professional prepare those plans. We don't disagree. This problem should be taken care of but in good faith can be approve something that has not , doesn't necessarily have any specific plans or guidelines for how it's going to be constructed and maintained. Mayor Chmiel: Let me just ask a question of Paul. Ply interpretation of what the ordinance reads. On the 1,000 yards. Does the ordinance indicate 1,000 yards per year? Does it indicate 1,000 yards forever? Paul Krauss: It says per year but I believe there's a modifier on it that says, multiple applications are at the discretion or at least that 's the way we've interpretted it . I'll find it exactly. Mayor Chmiel: Just while Paul's looking that up, I just want to clarify. There isn't any action we can take on this today because it is under Visitor Presentation. I just wanted to clarify that . I'd like to get just a little bit more information. Don Halla: Okay. What it needs to be built out at is approximately an 18 foot wide top ridge and then it needs to be sloped on a 3:1 slope. 1,000 yards didn't give us anywhere the ability to do that which the City knows. It 's a drop in the bucket to solve the problem. And so you know, I'm going to make this presentation. I'll leave it to your discretion. I'm not going to do anymore. I'm not going to ask for anymore. I just want to present it to you folks and let you do what you want with it . That 's where I'm coming from at this point . Mayor Chmiel : Good. I would like to probably see this brought up on our next agenda. Next Council agenda so this can be clarified one way or the other. Either yes or no. And I think that 's where I'd be coming from. Did you find anything? Paul Krauss: Yeah. The ordinance says that , between 50 and 1,000 yards in a 12 month period may be approved by the city staff. The city staff may impose such conditions as necessary to protect the public interest . Any applicant aggrieved by a decision may appeal to the determiniation of the City Council. I construed that to believe that in good conscience we gave the 1,000 yards to stabilized the structure. We still have a continuing ongoing problem. From the advice that I had given him and my own professional judgment , I did not feel that I was in a position to authorize continued filling without the information that had been requested. I!! 6 — - J"41116 ,J.Ly council fleeting August 10, 1992 Mark Halla: I just had a little bit more information. We did ask again. Mayor Chmiel: Could you just state your name for the record? Mark Halla: Yeah, it 's Mark Halla from Halla Nursery. We did ask Paul for administrative approval for another 1,000 yards this year. He did deny that . He denied that in writing. I went to the point of saying, I believe you are allowed to do that . It 's been a full year since the last time. It 's kind of felt like it 's been a little shoving match here between what we think is best and their rules and regulations. And we've just gotten to the point now where it doesn't make sense for us to spend any money on it . It 's not something that we're going to get any gain from. It 's simply good stewardship to the land and if we're going to be forced to expend a lot of money in order to do that , I don't think anyone in their right mind would expect us to do that . There's no gain from it either way. If we let it wash out and erode our field, then it will get to a point eventually where we'll come to you and say, gee our field is being eroded. Federal law allows us as an agricultural entity to repair that damage and we'll end up filling it without your permission anyway under Federal law. At this point , we stopped the erosion of the field and we're simply trying to keep the erosion down into the valley from continuing. When this structure goes out , you'll have 30-35 acres of drainage coming right through the field. In the 4 inch rains, that runs almost 3 foot deep. If that retention structure isn't there, you're going to have that whole area eroding. Then you will have a serious erosion problem probably all the way down to the Minnesota River. At this point you saw on the film, it did seed. We seeded it . We put the erosion control matting down in one year's time. We had weed growth 3 to 4 foot tall. It is something that even on a slope that we had there, we were able to maintain it through the standard I guess environmental situations that you run up agai^st . When you get the extraordinary rains and that kind of thing, certainly it 's best to have the 3:1. We can't do that with 1,000 yards. We probably can't do that with 10,000 yards. We've got so much room to work with there that if you can get the right kind of heavy soil fill and you can get someone to fill it at the proper slope, it will never be a problem again other than the simple maintenance that you must do which is any, you know you see it in residential areas. Anytime you get a heavy rain like that , you're bound to have some erosion. You fill in the rivulets. You seed again. It heals itself up in a couple weeks and if the root growth gets established well enough before the next rain, it 's solved. We've asked for the administrative approval. That was denied us. I guess at the least I guess we're requesting that you at least allow another 1,000 yards. The soil is on site. We simple aren't allowed to push it in at this point . That would, at least while this is under contention, stabilize it to the point that we don't have to worry about it washing out in the next heavy rain. We've been, I guess the request has been made to us to provide an engineered drawing of how this is going to be taken care of to plan on tamping this to the proper densities on the way up. That just really isn't practical in this situation. I don't have $4,000.00 that I want to spend to have this drawn up. The City has requested that we have a geotechnical engineer draw this up. I wish to point out there really isn't a geotechnical engineer. There is a private engineer or licensed engineers and they have an area of study in geotechnical types of things but it 's an expertise within the engineering. There is no geotechnical engineer so to speak. So that 's not even something that we can meet the conditions. A normal standard engineer has as much grading knowledge without taking the separate two courses that are offered in the 7 City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992 geotechnical area. In addition, we've offered to have a landscape architect do the drawings for them. Essentially what they've requested from us is that we have someone draw it that 's licensed and can put their seal on it so there's no liability question. That the liability is on us or that person that did the drawing. We've offered to do that . We have an architect on staff. They said that they don't think they'll approve that even though the grading knowledge of a landscape architect is the same types of courses and many of the same courses as an engineer. So we've just really felt that throughout this, they've had their ordinance and we've wanted to do what we felt was right . They agree that it 's right but they want us to follow the ordinance. We're asking for you to — either amend the ordinance or just simple allow it in this situation in order to help better the environment . There's no question we're not going to spend the money to put up a fence, build the road, get an engineer to draw a plan and spend the money to tamp it and have the big equipment in there to do that . That just isn't practical so it 's really up to you and as my father said, we want you to make the right decision. And if you believe that 's to follow the ordinance to the t , then that 's the way it will have to be and we won't continue with filling it . If you believe that it's something that should be overlooked, after all the ordinance is there to protect the environment . That 's why it 's there is so that people don't go in and do grading that hurts the environment . We're trying to follow that ordinance and I guess the context that it was meant to be as opposed to the actual written word. And we're just hoping that you'll support us on that because we want to do what 's right . These people believe that it 's right . I personally feel that they're trying to meet their obligation and get out of the liability question. They're supposed to follow their ordinances, so they're trying to do that and it 's really up to you 100% to decide whether or not you can allow this or not . Mayor Chmiel: Good, thanks Mark. Any other questions? Councilman Wing: I'll just add a couple comments Paul. My limited knowledge of dams, and I just happened to come from an emergency out in Montana where a large government project was drained on an emergency basis. On a dirt dam and it seems to me the failures don't come from the top, except through erosion. The failures come at the bottom on an earthen dam normally. That would be my concern. That 's where the washout problem occurs. That 's where the weakness of the structure is. We've got a concern for a $4,000.00 engineering cost here but — on the second or third page of your packet , it says that in 1990 they wanted a permit to place 100,000 cubic yards of dirt in there. Paul Krauss: Yeah, I didn't recall the exact amount . Councilman Wing: It just says 100,000 cubic yards and interim use permit . How many truckloads is that? 1,000? Paul Krauss: A tandem truck holds 10. By way of perspective, the item that you have on later tonight for Moon Valley is 250,000 yards. Councilman Wing: It seems to spend $4,000.00, even if we have to do it to come up with a paper that will clarify what 's there. To find what 's there, maybe offer a solution and maybe offer a permanent fix is almost a drop in the bucket . 100,000 yards of dirt to fill a ravine that may not solve any problems. Am I off track or am I reading this wrong? 8 City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992 Paul Krauss: Well you're raising some of the concerns that we had. I mean if in fact that , you know, if that was the engineered solution. Everybody agreed that was the way to do it . The Soil Conservation Service agreed. You know we checked with the DNR on these things and they agreed that that was going to fix it , great . I mean fix it and have done with it . But the fact that this is a continuing situation, that after 20 years is still failing, worries us. And we are not experts in it and I rely on Charles for the engineering expertise that we have but we acknowledge that we're not experts in building dirt dam structures. Councilman Wing: And you haven't answered too, I guess we've been putting in 1,000 cubic yards a year and fixing this for 18 years and it 's in a bad state and that 's dirt downhill someplace. So if we're talking about erosion and environmental controls. Mayor Chmiel : That was a question I asked with that soils they put there. Clay, of course would remain. But any dirt would just automatically wash away after a period of time. Thomas, do you have any questions? Councilman Workman: I guess the one thing that struck me was, was the combination of the Halla's saying they've been maintaining it for 20 years and Paul saying, well where's all that going. Or where has it gone so it kind of lends itself. We're talking about huge piles of this stuff. Where's the Corps of Engineers and where's everybody on this type of a project? I don't want to be too quick to suggest that the City's going to pay 4 grand for enforcing our own ordinance. Paul Krauss: Well I don't know. I mean we haven't checked with all the agencies. SCS did have some involvement . We've tried to get the Soil Conservation Service to work with us on a few other erosion problems around town and it 's had frankly some mixed success. They don't have a lot of funding to spare. Dor Halla: Paul Newman suggested that it be made 12 foot wide at the top, 3:1 slope. . .50% over what the Soil Conservation Service is recommending. There has not been any substantial erosion. . .just prior to that 10 inch rain. That wasn't happening even after where we had not had soil washing down the hill and weaken the structure that was caused by that heavy overflow in that 10 inch rain and it weakened the structure. But we haven't washed all that soil back down to the river. It hasn't gone anyplace. It 's been caught by the trees and the debris that was dumped in there from the nursery and then held. . . So it isn't something that 's flowing out . Something that , we've got a structure with cracks in it . It was weakened. Those cracks are allowing water to go through. It 's eroding. . . All we have to have is another heavy 10 inch rain and it will go down that time because of the cracks that were developed by that last 10 inch rain. The 5 inch and the 2 inch that we had recently, it held the structure but those cracks are there. . .than they were before. Safety is what my concern is. But we aren't getting soil eroding down to the river. That 's not happening. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions? If not , thanks for coming in. We'll put this onto our next agenda and hopefully have some answers by that particular time. If Council has any concerns, good idea to probably talk with staff as well. 9 City Council Meeting - Auguct 10, 1992 Councilman Workman: .I was unable to get out there today but are the Halla's around? Are you guys around there mornings? Mark Halla: Come in. Please call me. Councilman Workman: Call first? Mark Halla: You can stop by. . . Councilman Workman: Big boots? Mayor Chmiel: They have boots. Okay, we'll move right along. PUBLIC HEARING: ON-SALE BEER AND WINE LICENSE REQUEST. GUY'S RESTAURANT. MARKET SQUARE BUILDING. Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to open the public hearing at this particular time. Oon, do you? Don Ashworth: The City Council modified the ordinance approximately a year ago to ensure that all property owners within 300 feet , and I think we're using 500 feet of a particular development are notified that someone is applying for a liquor license. In this case simply it is an on-sale beer and wine license. All of the required documents have been filed with the City Clerk. Approval is recommended. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. As I mentioned, this is a public hearing. Anyone can step forward who has any objections or for the proposal. Is there anyone at this time? Is Guy here? Anyone representing Guy? Yes. Do you agree with the proposal as to what has been stated? Thank you. If no other discussion is 111 desired, can I have a motion to close the public hearing? Councilwoman Disler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion? Is there a recommendation? Tom. Councilman Workman: Well Mr . Mayor, we're going to, as we grow, again we just visited this issue with the Public Safety Department about licenses, etc. . The only questions I have is tacos and beer. Mayor Chmiel: And you have that all the time right? Councilman Workman: But I think the Peterson's are responsible people. I don't have a problem with this proposal but we're going to have a lot more of these coming in and do we ever, or do we have an idea about what that means, etc. . That 's my only comment . I would make a motion to. Mayor Chmiel: A lot of that has been discussed by Public Safety in regards to that with total numbers. That hasn't been determined but there will be at some time. I!! 10 .-. CITY of CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 July 31, 1992 Mr. Mark Halla Halla Nursery 10000 Great Plains Boulevard Chaska. MN 55318 Dear Mark: You recently requested administrative approval to allow additional fill to be placed on your property in the vicinity of the dam. The City Engineer and I discussed this matter at length and determined that we could not authorize approval of the request which was verbally _ related to us. We have several reasons for this refusal. City ordinances allow staff to issue up to 1,000 cubic yards administratively. As you are aware, we have already authorized you to place material on this site and you completed this work in 1990. According to my files, you contacted me last summer asking for another 1,000 yards and I rejected the request at that time, noting that we already approved this once and that a grading permit reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council was required. I am attaching a copy of an update memo that I sent to the Planning Commission on our conversation dated August 21, 1991. As you are also aware, you applied for an interim use permit to place 100,000 cubic yards of fill on the property in 1990. This request went to the Planning Commission and was recommended for approval by them with conditions proposed by staff. You withdrew your application prior to its being heard by the City Council due to your apparent disagreement with the conditions of approval. Lastly, we note that although you are obviously familiar with the city's position on grading for this site, you illegally authorized additional fill material to be hauled in. This activity was uncovered by Engineering Department staff. When they stopped the front end loader operator and discussed ongoing fill activity with him, he indicated that he was instructed to tell city staff "to go to hell." I am enclosing a copy of a letter that was forward to Roger Knutson, City' Attorney, on this matter. In short, you have had full knowledge of the city's procedures with regard to filling for a number of years and have chosen to violate them. The city's position on this is that we would recommend approval of fill designed to stop erosion and i a PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Mr. Mark Halla July 31, 1992 Page 2 maintain the darn structure as outlined in the 1990 staff report. We have bent over backwards in the past to work with you on this matter. We will, however, require that plans to fill this area be designed by a professional engineer so that a stable dam structure can be made and that plans be designed to minimize environmental damage. City ordinances require that such plans be approved by the Planning commission and City Council. We are available at your convenience to work with you on gaining approval of such plans such you decide to move forward. Sincerely, Paul Krauss, AICP Charles Folch Planning Director City Engineer Enclosures pc: Roger Knutson Planning Commission Cit Council P #90-3 . • t44 Gra dt ,t, CHANHASSEN _,- CITY a la--� , _ - -,.t.:. i., ._ .. ,.. , ,. . _, , „ . V 1irio, 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 • July 20, 1992 Roger Knutson Campbell, Knutson, Scott & Fuchs 1380 Corporate Center Curve . Eagandale Office Center, Suite 317 Eagan, MN 55121 Re: Illegal dumping on Halla property Dear Roger: The following is an account of the events leading to the Stop — Work Order issued for Outlot B, Great Plains Golf Estates. t Dave Hempel observed dump truck traffic entering the site on Pioneer Trail at 9: 30 Friday, morning, 7/17, and requested the Inspections Division to observe the site during the day. Charles Folch called Halla $lursery and left a message for a return call which he did not receive 'on Friday. Steve Nelson observed loaded dump trucks entering the site at 3 : 00 the same day and requested an inspection by Dave Hempel. — Steve and Dave both ,entered the property after observing a number of loaded trucks entering and leaving empty. A loader operator was advised to discontinue pushing fill since no permit existed for filling. _le refused, -stating "I was told to tell you if you showed up to go to hell" . Steve requested me and a Deputy to the scene: Steve also indicated -to the equipment operator that he would be issued a citation if he continued working:�_ . , _ I was riding with Steve Torell and arrived at about 3 :20 and advised The equipment operator that he would be issued a citation if he continued working. At that time he shut down the loader. The deputy arrived, and we turned back two trucks without permitting them to dump. I left for City Hall with Steve Nelson to get the camera, leaving Dave and the deputy, Tim Robbins at the entrance to the site. They reported turning back a few more loaded trucks. es t PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER C_ d U y _ =Y •; fp E W • G N C I d.9 r Q o cu 6 0 F • G n W Q 2 Y c d (`Z F N o .> O t1/4. Z ��w2o O o¢w0 z`r)a.' P in_1n 7.. . ., •4-L.czy. W CC p O a Ii V � C.1 In ( EcnV D > > r — Z ¢ VI . '�0 W {^ p o ,� e 0 . _P c u 1 C 4 . i 6 C V r , W aI }' i9 c w S N O • • rOO ��./ in 4 - o}' Z Z -4/ I I iV II CZIQ 2 W OC C t- Fv 1fl ! O , r` Q r3r. • _ • - S • • • - _ TO P •� b £' .e-}ter.. 'Y:_ijrx - - s. - .. - - Reason- r ,,L, o r ,� ,�`� ee!"- �. �-e � 64,4_ Date \--1 \c) 2 Inspector DO NOT REMOVE THIS TAG City of Chanhassen 9 3 7-19 0 0 % Halla Nursery August 21 , 1991 Page 2 with the ordinance over 10 months ago had he proceeded with the application he initially made. - While the grading ordinance allows me to issue permits of up to 1, 000 cubic yards in a calendar year, it does not require me to do so. In this instance, I clearly feel that I would be remiss in my responsibilities if I allowed filling to occur on a continuing basis whenever the property owner so desired. i believe it is clearly in the best interest of the city as well as the Hallas to develop a professionally engineered grading plan that stabilizes the structure with the minimum environmental damage. Earlier today, I also received a call from Paul Neumann from Carver Soil Conservation Service. He has worked with the Hallas from time to time on this matter. The Hallas contacted him and he called me to indicate that he also had a concern with unregulated fill on this property. It was his recommendation that no filling be allowed to occur until a professionally engineered plan was submitted and approved. pc: City Council Planning Commission • • M ciLe - 4 CITYOF - CHANHASSEN690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 % MEMORANDUM TO: Halla Grading/Interim Use Permit #90-3 FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director DATE: August 21, 1991 SUBJ: Update This memo outlines a series of telephone calls that occurred on or about this date between staff members, Mark Halla, of Halla Nursery and myself. After speaking to several staff members who had been contacted by the Hallas, I put in a call to Mark Halla myself. His request to other staff had been for the City to allow the placement of an unknown amount of fill material on their property. The site where the fill would be placed is a dam that was constructed by the Hallas in one of the reaches of Bluff Creek. The dam has been in place for a number of years. It was damaged by the 1987 super storm and last year I administratively authorized the placement of the maximum of 1, 000 cubic yards allowed under the ordinance for administrative approvals to stabilize the structure and improve drainage. This was basically done on an emergency basis and it was clearly indicated at that time to Don Halla that no further grading would be allowed without an interim use permit. In responding to Mark Halla's request, I_ indicated that I was not in a position to authorize the depositing of any more fill on this property. I indicated that Don Halla had-rade an application for an interim use permit-to deposit additional fill on the site but had pulled his request _.prior. to 'Planning- mi -co ssion and City Council action after he read the conditions of the staff approval. Staff has long been concerned that the Hallas are using this area as a dump site and that "unregulated fill oould,create a hazard from an unstable dam, causing environmeItal-.damage due to tree loss and would result in extensive eroslon'damaging downstream waters. • Mark Halla indicated that Shafer Contracting, the Highway 5 Contractor, has indicated a willingness to deposit fill material on the property. I indicated to Mark that I was not in a position to act favorably on this request and that it would take approximately 2 to 3 months to gain approval. I further indicated that Don Halla could have had approval to modify this site in a manner consistent es- a PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER • Halla Nursery August 21, 1991 Page 2 with the ordinance over 10 months ago had he proceeded with the application he initially made. While the grading ordinance allows me to issue permits of up to 1, 000 cubic yards in a calendar year, it does not require me to do so. In this instance, I clearly feel that I would be remiss in my responsibilities if I allowed filling to occur on a continuing basis whenever the property owner so desired. I believe it is clearly in the best interest of the city as well as the Hallas to develop a professionally engineered grading plan that stabilizes the structure with the minimum environmental damage. Earlier today, I also received a call from Paul Neumann from Carver Soil Conservation Service. He has worked with the Hallas from time to time on this matter. The Hallas contacted him and he called me to indicate that he also had a concern with unregulated fill on this property. It was his recommendation that no filling be allowed to occur until a professionally engineered plan was submitted and approved. pc: City Council • Planning Commission REVISED SEPTEMBER 2, 1992 ONGOING ISSUES STATUS Comprehensive Plan Issues 1.* 1995 Study Area (North) Public Information meeting on Issues and and Hwy. 5 Corridor Study Opportunities scheduled for September 10. 2. 1995 Study Area (South) Assigned to Planning Commission staff. Work to be initiated as time commitments allow. OTHER ITEMS 1. Rezoning BF Dist. to A2 Staff preparing updated information for Planning Commission direction. 2. Sign Ordinance Work is continuing to progress with task force. Program expected to be completed shortly. 3. Tree Protection Ordinance Inventory is completed. Over view of Mapping of significant existing tree protection regulations requested vegetative areas by Commisser Erhart. 4.* Wetland Ordinance/Surface Main group establishing public information Water Management Program and erosion control program along with Task Force established. other work. Special wetlands subcommittee completed work on August 3, 1992. SWMP reviewed in full committee on August 13. Revisions requested to PC by October. 5. Shoreland Ordinance Staff is currently working on a draft of the ordinance. Initial comments delivered to MnDNR. Will place on upcoming PC agenda. 6. Group home ordinance PC reviewed on 3/4/92. Currently preparing draft ordinance. 7.* PUD Ordinance PC approved on 7/1/92. Scheduled for CC review on 9/14/92. 8.* PC input in Downtown Ongoing - Review of items scheduled for Planning and Traffic Study September 2, 1992 meeting. — 9. Review of Architectural 1992/may be combined in part with Hwy. 5 Standards to Promote High work. — Quality Design 10. Bluff Creek Corridor With adoption of Bluff Line Preservation — Greenway ordinance, CC referred item to Park and Recreation Commission. Staff working with Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed — District to develop joint Bluff Creek corridor program. Meeting held on conceptual Bluff Creek park design prepared by Lance Neckar of U of M. 11. Ordinance amendment to Non- PC approved. City Attorney to redraft. conforming use section to clarify ordinance. 12. Temporary uses, sales - Guidelines memo reviewed by PC — new ordinance. and scheduled for CC. Ordinance revisions to follow. Public Safety Director proposing changes to ordinance. _ 13. Truck and trailer rental standards. Requested by PC. 14. Sexually oriented businesses PC reviewed on 3/4/92. Sent to Public Safety Commission. Reviewed on July 8, 1992. To be forwarded to CC. — 15.* Tree conservation easements. To be reviewed by PC in September. 16.* Fence Requirements. To be reviewed by PC in September. 17.* Open Space Zoning. Requested by PC. — * Change in status since last report 2 1 1 ------ CITY OF ...), 1 i 1 ‘ CHANIIII, SSEN , , _ i , \ , 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 �T (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 I1 'v..gib MEMORANDUM / 1 TO: Planning Commission 1 FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning director 1 DATE: June 25, 1992 SCBJ: Tree Conservation Easements il1 At past meetings, staff has been asked to elaborate on tree conservation easements which have been utilized on several recent plats. The City Attorney has developed the easement format 1 that is attached to this memo. What it essentially does is permanently identify an area that is _ to be protected for tree conservation purposes and bind all present and future property owners to maintain the forested area in its natural state. The only activities allowed in this area are $1 removing diseased or storm damaged trees. Some of the commissioners have expressed potential concerns over permanently binding a I i home owner from doing anything relative to trees. I would point out that these tree conservation easements are used sparingly. They are used only when a specific concentration of trees worthy of preservation can be identified. Staff has taken pains to ensure that they do 11 not hinder normal use of a lot to either build a home or accommodate normal household functions. I would also point out that these tree conservation easements are developed as a It-1 fundamental tool for addressing the impact of development. That is the preservation of these trees may often be the key to gaining approval of the plat and designing a development that is acceptable to the city and neighbors. Therefore, we believe it is reasonable to provide tipermanent protection for these areas. Arguably, some of the City Attorney's language is rather strict and some modifications may 1111 be appropriate. For example, while we would not want any permanent structures built in a tree conservation area, the construction of walkways, placement of playground equipment, or some other normal activities associated with single family lots may be appropriate. ilStaff looks forward to getting your guidance on this matter. Ii ti A IIIto PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER mir - - ---- LHMr c.LL + NINU I JUIV . JLU I 1 0 r Ul,P1J , r .n 110 I CONSERVATION EASEMENT 1 INSTRUMENT made this day of _ , 19 , by and between , 1 ("Grantors") , and the CITY QF , a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City") . The Grantors, in consideration of good and valuable consider- 1 ation paid by the City, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, grant the City a permanent conservation easement as that 1 term is defined in this instrument over, under, and across the premises described in the attached Exhibit "A" ("subject property") . 1. Grantors for themselves, their heirs, successors and —' assigns, agree that the following are prohibited in perpetuity on the subject property: ' A. Constructing, installing, or maintaining anything made by man, including but not limited to buildings, structures, walkways, clothes line poles, and playground equipment. —' B. Cutting, removing, or altering trees or other vegeta- tion, except those diseased or storm damaged. ' C. Excavation or filling. D. Application of fertilizers, whether natural or chemical. E. Application of chemicals for the destruction or retard- _' ation of vegetation. F. The deposit of waste or debris. G. The application of herbicides, pesticides, and insecti- cides. ( H. Outside storage of any kind. _ I CHAN:FORM — , .�nr ,• r Inn CAMPBELL , KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS , P .A May 15 ,92 10 :26 No .007 P.03 I. Activity detrimental to the preservation of the scenic beauty, vegetation, and wildlife. 2. Grantors for themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, further grant the City the affirmative right, but not the obli- - gation, to enter upon the subject property at any time to enforce compliance with the terms of this instrument. GRANTORS: GRANTEE: — CITY OF BY: Its Mayor BY: Its Clerk/Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF ) — The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this I day of _ , 19 , by NOTARY PUBLIC -2- - r r LHMhbLLL , KNUISUN , SLUM 6 hULHS, I .H May 15 ,92 10:26 No .007 P .04 III _ I STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. IIICOUNTY OF ) — The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 19 , by . IIINOTARY PUBLIC — STATE OF MINNESOTA ) I ( ss. — COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this IIIday of , 19 , by , Mayor, and by , Clerk/Manager, of the City of , a Minnesota municipal corporation, in behalf of the corporation and IIIpursuant to the authority of its City Council. _ IIINOTARY PUBLIC — IIIDRAFTED BY: — Campbell , Knutson, Scott III & Fuchs, P.A. 317 Eagandale Office Center — 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, Minnesota 55121 III (612) 452-5000 - -3- • Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 65 I Ledvina : If I understood the criteria by which this proposal was being evaluated , I would try to make some determination but I 'm so confused as to Ar what we 're looking at . Farmakes : We were too . IConrad: But we voted . lir APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated June 3 , 1992 as presented . OPEN DISCUSSION: DISCUSSION OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT FORM . 1 Krauss : That one I think we ought to maybe lay over because there 's some questions . Erhart : Also I think , I haven 't talked to Steve about this but I know in the history . . .he has strong feelings about people 's rights to do things in their own yards and if somebody wanted to hold this over , I think it 'd be just fine . Farmakes: I 'd be curious as to how this fit in with this thing on Monday where they talk about the city compensating landowner 's for trees on their property . Krauss : Oh , you mean the Lucas Decision? Farmakes : The Supreme Court . Krauss: I don 't think anybody really knows yet what the implications are but I had a conversation with Roger about that decision this morning and I used to get all worked up about these Supreme Court decisions thinking the sky is falling and generally you find it 's because somebody screwed up or did something . . . I 'm not sure they 're nearly as pervasive as you might think at first blush . Batzli : Where 's that thing about this article? One Planner 's Reflection of the Edge City . You write that? Krauss : Yeah . Batzli : And it 's going in which issue? Krauss: It should be this coming on. Batzli : Congratulations . You downplayed your work . I liked it . Should we table this easement? Okay. If nobody 's opposed, we 'll table that over to the next meeting . Erhart : The next meeting is what , the 15th? Krauss : The 15th , yes . IErhart : Why does Council want to meet. Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 66 1 Krauss: The Council , I 've got to double check if that timing works but the Council wants , on an annual basis they sit down with all the Commissions —� and keep the communications open . Ask what your issues are but hopefully they ' ll tell you what their issues are . I 'm not sure if we 'll have frankly enough time to do it on the 15th. Erhart : Is this an annual meeting? Krauss: I think we 've gotten them once or twice before . 1 Farmakes : Can I ask you a question since we spent so much time on this PUD and we just sort of skipped over the City Council update . Do they really believe you when you tell them that that 's just sort of a variance 11 guideline , the PUD situation? What 's your opinion on that? Krauss : What do you mean a variance? Farmakes : The Councilmen that I 've talked to on this PUD thing , it seems to be mistrust that what they 're doing is making an ordinance people can -� build on and that the City 's committed to . But the way it 's been explaine to me over and over again is that it 's really a variance . That the City can refuse if they don't feel that it 's appropriate to approve it . So why then do I continue to hear this almost a reluctance that we 're approving this type of thing? Is there a trust factor there? Krauss : I don 't think it 's a matter of trust because staff 's relationship -' with the Council is a pretty good one . But I think , I don 't want to characterize it unfairly either but you 've got the Council , the people I 'm most familiar with on the Council are people who have moved to this ' community 15-20 years ago and they did it for some very explicit reasons i terms of what kind of liftstyle was offered . I don 't know , maybe there 's something of a mind set that that 's exactly what everybody wants as the _1 standard mode of living . There 's also , I mean they 're very comfortable with the lifestyle they have . They have good lives here and they think that that is something worthy to pass on . I guess I don 't dispute that but I think there 's other ways of getting at it and I 'm not all clear if the 1 Council 's going to go through with it or not . Farmakes: When they come in here , should there be more discussion with us in regards to those issues? Those issues and the second coming of America • city . A lot of stuff that we 're doing is the exact opposite of what they 're . 11 Krauss: See that 's the thing . I mean you. talk to people like Councilman Wing and he 's got very strong feelings of support for the neo-traditionalist movement and the kind of stuff we hear from Bill Morrish . This PUD is fully consistent with achieving those goals , yet they 've got a lot of trouble digesting that . I don't know how to rationalize that , except to maybe ask Bill to talk to him about it because 1 they have some type of . . . hich ve n Farmakes : Well a lot of traditionalsuburban IZbuobar atpleastnthewpast 25,Yeabsenis into here for , since after not really based on diversity . It 's highly suspicious of it and I get a Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 67 lot of feedback from that and I 'm sure maybe you do too . That that 's why the 10 ,000 square foot and so on . A buzzer goes off whether it 's relevant or not . There seems to be a lot of walls that we smack into there when we start to discuss some of this stuff even in the HRA and the downtown development . We continue to build these large parking lots facing access streets and we place the building farther back when a lot of current design information has been coming out the past 10 years saying no , that 's not the right thing to do . It used to be the right thing to do back in the 70 's but now we 've discovered that we should be doing it differently . We continue on . And basically the developer is framing that down into reality . We say yeah . It 's sort of a philosophical thing . I 'm not sure if we caught up with that and I 'm not sure , they're sort of accountable to their voters . What kind of information they 're getting there and whether or not they really believe it . From a professional level . Krauss: There 's a real philosophical change I suppose that needs to come but you know , it 's one thing to see and read all this stuff and be lb: interested and want to try some of this stuff but on the other side , there 's a reason that all of us , myself included , moved to the suburbs . And there 's a million and a half people in the Twin Cities did it . It clearly offered them something they were seeking so I 'm not as willing as the neo-traditionalist are to throw it all on the , and say everybody 's wrong . All the decisions you made were erroneous and you 're foul people and you messed up the world and let 's remake it . On the other hand , I think Chanhassen 's in a really unique position to do some very nifty , irl innovative stuff that will make this a community that 's different than most of the suburban communities . And I think we 're well on the way to achieving that and it 's stuff that I 'm pretty convinced , maybe conceitedly r that most people , once it 's here , most people are going to be real proud of it . And real comfortable with the changes it has . With the ability to have a real downtown . With the ability to walk to places or bike to places . with the ability not to go on a highway to go everyplace you have r to go . Those are things that we can offer here that most people can 't . Most towns can 't . rBatzli : So , do we talk to the City Council about these things? Krauss : I think it 'd be an interesting discussion . Frankly it 's probably irl a whole lot more interesting than . what do you want us to do next year . Don 't rock the boat . Batzli : One question before I want to adjourn and that is these irl provisional population estimates by the Met Council . Are these meaningful to us? Krauss : Very . Ir7 Batzli : Why? That 's what I didn't get . rKrauss : Did I give those to you? Batzli : Yeah . They 're on the back of your article . Administrative rsection . r Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 68 -11 Krauss: Oh . When you go to the Metro Council with a comp plan amendment , or to justify , rationalize building a road or to rationalize getting I funding for a county park or a trail system , or build a sewage treatment plant like in Chaska . The first thing they do . They make projections okay and you think projections are innocuous . If it doesn 't turn out to be correct , we ' ll change the projections . They don't . They change reality t7-, fit the projections . You 're way ahead of the game to have projections tha are real and reasonable . For the first time I , I think it was the first time I 've ever heard of it . ' The Metro Council 's population projections ar-'1 actually larger than we projected when we did the comp plan . Now that doesn 't necessarily mean that people are going to come and knock on the door at Chanhassen tomorrow and say the Metro Council told me to move here_' so I 'm going to come . But it 's indicative of the fact that the Metro Council agrees with us that this city is in a real , it 's in the driver 's seat . Batzli : And everything else is moving along? Target 's moving? Task force 's are moving? Krauss : First task force meeting for the corridor study is on the 15th U before the Planning Commission meeting . Batzli : When does the City Council talk to us? I Krauss : It should be on the same evening . Batzli : Okay , so everybody will be here for that . Krauss : We 're starting to get a lot on that agenda . I 'm a little bit —� leery of it . Erhart : The 15th? Conrad: I won 't be here . Batzli : I don 't know if I 'll be here or not . Okay , as far as HRA , have — you been getting the HRA packet now? Krauss: No . We talked about that this morning. ,1 Batzli : Here we 've got a guy who actually is going to go to HRA meetings for us . We 've got to start getting him the packet . Because they 're going a lot of stuff right now . They 're doing the bowling alley thing . `' Krauss: That 's why I included, in fact Ashworth asked me to make sure that you got all those reports because we thought you 'd find it interesting . -1 Batzli : On the Target and the bowling alley and all that stuff? Yeah . Conrad moved, Farmakes seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in favor ' and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 p.m . . Submitted by Paul Krauss —� Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim